User talk:The Sceptical Chymist

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Skinwalker (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * Pardon the nerdy welcome template. Your further contributions to anti-depressant articles would be appreciated.  Skinwalker (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hei I'm the guy with the last Edit at Risperdals Site ( The sentence with a Plus in it) - > Vinciantifa was the Name, I think. Now, my Name is Managethespace💌

You had the critique, that my sentence Was Vandalism.

I thought about it. But all I done was describing the Triangel at the risperidone molecule graphic under the kinm scale mathematically. Wether IT was good described is the other question😂😂

But Vandalismus... I guess that was fairly considered Not my first intense.

Well, good evening

Greetimgs

Vincent heske — Preceding unsigned comment added by Managethespace (talk • contribs) 20:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Paroxetine
I noticed you made some contributions to some of the SSRI pages. Perhaps you would like to take a stab at Paroxetine. For some reason, that page has more warnings about "suicide ideation". It is my understanding that these drugs tend to reduce the incidence of suicide and that the increase in suicide ideation amongst teenagers was not statistically significant. Here is an article you may find useful. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/54606 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.150.2.55 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant to ask you earlier about this comment:. Just to clarify, when you wrote "let's be civil," had there been anything specific that you thought uncivil?TVC 15 (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, your phrase "you falsely accuse me of soapboxing" gives the right impression about how charged the dispute became. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. The quote in context referred to WP's definition of, and prohibition against, soapboxing.  In my opinion at least, the soapboxing was by mwalla, biasing the article even beyond what would be allowed in advertising.  I also thought some of Skinwalker's edits biased, although not necessarily to the level of soapboxing.  (For example, replacing every occurrence of the commonly understood term "withdrawal" with the manufacturer's preferred term "discontinuation" was not neutral, but was not exactly advertising either.)  How would you have suggested answering Skinwalker's accusation?TVC 15 (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, he should have not called you "soapboaxing" because attaching a negative label to somebody usually interrupts productive discussion. Second, you should have not taken the bait. You could answer -- I think you are incorrect saying that "quote" because "insert your reasoning". That is really basics ;). Why do not we move on and look at the bright side. Your dispute was resolved, and the wording satisfactory for both of your was reached, was not it? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. Mwalla's block will expire soon, so I anticipate another round of that experience, and wanted to understand first what you had meant.  As for the article currently, I think it improved by adding more information and sources, but I still wonder about the emphasis.  It starts out innocuously, e.g. comparable efficacy with lower toxicity (in short-term studies that may have excluded serious problems as discussed earlier), and only later addresses (a) the widespread misinformation about withdrawal and (b) the remarkably serious problems (black-box warning, contraindications, side effects).  In contrast, while I acknowledge there are some accounts of the September 11 attacks that start with the nice weather early that morning, for example, it would not be encyclopedic and the WP article starts with what happened later.  Likewise I have not yet figured out how to address the issue of net efficacy (i.e. vs. placebo) being below 20%, but that seems notable especially in a drug that was so heavily advertised DTC.  Since Skinwalker deleted FDA-required admissions as "puffery," and dismissed the manufacturer's prescribing information and an award-winning investigative journalist as "crap sources," I anticipate the discussion may heat up again after mwalla's return.TVC 15 (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The efficacy problem is the same for all antidepressants and it would be unfair to single out paroxetine. But it can be singled out for its particularly nasty withdrawal syndrome, weight gain and teratogenicity. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the way to address net efficacy is a concise paragraph that can be adapted to each article, e.g. "Clinical studies of the approved indications state patients taking ignorital([) were x-y% more likely, compared to placebo, to report improvement: major depression (_%), moderate depression (_%), anxiety (_%). The same studies state patients were x-y% more likely, compared to placebo, to experience the following notable side effects: nausea (_%), sexual side effects (_%), suicidal ideation (_%), withdrawal syndrome (_%)."  That could balance the DTC ad campaigns for the SSRIs that have been advertised by name on TV (of which Paxil was the first and remains one of the biggest ever).  I am not trying to treat paroxetine unfairly, but rather to address the massive misinformation campaign that surrounded it.  I cannot recall any drug being touted so falsely on such a large scale; [[Purdue Pharma]]'s campaign for Oxycontin was similarly dishonest but not as big.TVC 15 (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't already seen, Ddave2425 has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of Mwalla, and both have been blocked indefinitely.,,

I don't intend to respond to the outbursts from ThuranX, whose talk page shows a history of similar incivility, but I wonder if you would have phrased anything differently in what I wrote? On AN/I, ThuranX had defended Mwalla's sock puppetry, so maybe my calling it indefensible set him off? What seems "basic" to you (above) seems less so to me, so any thoughts would be appreciated.TVC 15 (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You did everything correctly. Except that I would not mention the extraordinary history of dishonesty. First, that gave Thuran an opening to say that you have a POV. Second, there is nothing extraordinary in the dishonesty paroxetine was promoted with. See Merck and Vioxx, for example. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Perhaps I react more strongly to dishonesty than is normal or at least productive.  You are right that Thuran used it as an opening to say I had a POV against "the evil corporations," but in fact his assertion was incorrect.  To the contrary, I think identifying and prosecuting misconduct is essential to providing a level playing field for honest competitors.  There are many drug companies and thousands of drugs; the DTC ads I've seen are typical Madison Avenue: often optimistic and oversimplified, but not usually dishonest in the way the Paxil and Oxycontin campaigns were.


 * Merck's Vioxx campaign was more complicated. Vioxx was marketed too widely and too zealously, omitting the risk of serious cardiovascular events, but that risk "seems similar to the increased risk associated with most NSAIDs" and other common drugs like erythromcycin.  To be as dishonest as GSK, Merck would have had to advertise Vioxx as cardioprotective, or at least as having no CV risk.  Instead, Merck emphasized gastrointestinal safety; prior to Vioxx, bleeding ulcers killed 30,000 Americans annually, and Vioxx was the only NSAID proven not to cause GI problems.  DTC ads showed arthritic customers living active lifestyles (which might actually reduce their CV risk, if they were sold on the exercise in addition to the pill).  The Vioxx ads that I saw were not outright falsehoods like the Paxil and Oxycontin campaigns, and after Merck withdrew Vioxx, regulatory advisory panels in both Canada and the US voted to encourage its return.,


 * One of the things I like about Wikipedia is the opportunity to counter misinformation with accurate information, and to fill in the missing pieces where commercial media tend to tell only part of the story. There is a tendency to avoid calling a lie by its name; words like "incorrect" sound more neutral, but often are simply less precise.  Evidence-based decision making requires analysis and differentiating; deliberate falsehoods are much worse than ordinary optimism and mistakes.TVC 15 (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

re TCA abuse potential
I have looked at your refs before reverting. Please see discussion and respond there. We have revert/discuss. Case studies (a single case) are not sppropriate material. All but one unclear are mixed use by alcoholic/junkies on methadone. Reviews and med consensus says they have no abuse potential, thats what the last ref (with the Indian woman) says itself. It also says that the case is not clear cut.(Is a depressive patient taking more pills than prescribed just desperate or an abuser?) 70.137.151.133 (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDMOS, for the guideline to base claims on reviews and other secured material. Letters to the editor and concerns of some MD are not encyclopedic material. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides, this is also what I find disturbing in many other articles: Claims based on a single patient who abused pills and had braindamage as indication, that the pills cause braindamage etc. Claimed causality based on this. TCAs have no abuse potential. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

re generally, TCA
To be precise the gov source notes that it is "moderately" abusable, comparable/same category as OTC diphenhydramine, when used as a sleep aid, in AIDS infected intravenous abusers. Other remarks: inserted "very few cases" from your book source for antidepressants in general, inserted fact tags where no abstract available. Looks better now, what? 70.137.151.133 (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed your book ref says pp213 "However the number of cases reported over the past 30 years is very small", about antidepressant abuse in general. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It also says there it is controversial, "given the tiny risk of abuse", if the patient should be made aware of this, because of a resulting risk of non-compliance and suicide. ibd. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

TCA, discontinuation, withdrawal
Reverted your edit. This is backed by a valid reference, which says discontinuation and withdrawal are not the same. So will you not revert that without discussion. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

See my talkpage. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

See my talkpage again. beta-blockers and other blood pressure meds produce a dangerous rebound syndrome (blood pressure crisis) on rapid withdrawal. That why I mentioned them as a counterexample of "withdrawal symptoms". It is rebound and has nothing to do with chemical dependency. Are you really older than me? 70.137.151.133 (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page again. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page again. 70.137.151.133 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Mayalld (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Bupropion
Hi there

I saw your recent edit, and have posed a question at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles). Perhaps you can take a look? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Major depressive disorder
Please review WP:MEDMOS. Medical editors work hard to keep a consistent layout to medical articles, and I needed to revert your combining Prognosis and Prevention sections. Thanks. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 03:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So I read MEDMOS and it says: "Some sections will necessarily be absent or may be better merged...". MEDMOS is a guideline not a law set in stone. If a change improves readability, the WP:IAR policy overrides any guideline. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * MDD is a featured article and, as such, convention is that major changes require discussion. This qualifies as a major change, and moreover, it's a change that doesn't make the article better, so why do it.  Like all Wikipedia guidelines, none are set in stone, but in medical articles there are reasons to keep consistency. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 11:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The prevention paragraph did not pass the FAC scrutiny. My point is that merging a stubby, one-paragraph chapter with the other that already contains similar information improves readability. If you think that it does not - argue in Talk. Do not offer MEDMOS as an argument though because MEDMOS actually recommends merging some chapters when necessary. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Failed verification
Hi, how did the ref fail verification? Are you using the abstract or the full text to fail the verification?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Abstract of . It seems to discuss bromazepam only. While the statement is true, this is not the best citation to confirm it. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to read the full text to verify that statement. I personally think that removal of that ref and sentence would make the article worse. It is not a controverisial statement so therefore I don't think that we need to hunt out meta-analysis's or review articles for it. The article is already probably 95% secondary sources which is well within the threshold to reach featured article status. The remaining 5% is mostly non-controversial data. I still need to sort out the patient UK and other ref. They do need replacing after discussing with you. I will find better sources.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, WP:V policy in the WP:Burden chapter states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article... When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference." So it is incumbent upon you to provide direct quotation. I can do that for that particular citation but please keep WP:V policy in mind for the future. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok fair enough Sceptical. I see that you have found a better source which is great. I just didn't want it deleted as it was very important information for the reader. Thank you for the work that you have done on the benzodiazepine article. It has been improved greatly and really think that it will become a featured article soon. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bond ref
Hi Sceptical. I was wondering if you can fix this ref. It's title is messed up and there are lots of missing fields. It is impossible to tell what paper or source is cited.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh goodness. I apologize. Fixed now. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding LEF and Resveratrol
Dear contributor, please refer to Resveratrol Talk page where I have asked a few questions about your decision to revert some changes I had made earlier about Resveratrol Supplementation. Regards, Thiagodoherty (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are you doing this?
Why have you turned on me and are being so malicious in trying to sabotage the featured article review?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

One day you are working hard really helping the article the next day you turn on me and start using tactics to ruin the review? What is up with that?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok listen, you win, I could not be bothered with your games, I don't wanna play them. I think that it is nuts (because I cannot understand your motives) and wish that you would quit. I know you are doing this on purpose (for whatever bizarre reason) as I know that you do not normally edit like this.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  05:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Take it easy. Please note that I never said that I outright oppose your article. If Sandy or whoever decides that my questions are spurious she can close the nomination right away and declare it FA.


 * I think that you got the FAC process a bit wrong. It goes not have to be adversarial, and one of its main purposes is to clean up bugs from otherwise good articles. It should be a collaborative process. Why make it hard for everybody?


 * If I point to a style deficiency you either correct it, or ask me what I mean, or say why you think it is not a style deficiency. If I point out to a weakly referenced spot you either delete it or find a better reference (as you did with Ashton). There is no need to take this as a personal affront (as you did with style corrections) and try to defend indefensible (as you did with headaches, stomach irritation etc side effects), especially if you do not feel strongly about it.


 * I could return to making these corrections myself if you agree not to revert me without first discussing on the article Talk page. Respectfully, The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not my article. It is everyone's article. I have made a list of my problems with you. Do you think that you can read them and see why this is frustrating? User:Literaturegeek/Sceptical Chymist evidence Who says it was me who was making it hard for everyone. Everything was going smoothly until you started quoting me, refs etc out of context. I understand and admit that I lost my temper and admit that I am not without fault. Everything was going fine infact great when you were editing the article intially. The issues are listed in my evidence thing which I initially drew up for the reviewing admins. I guess you can consider this as an attempt at dispute resolution. I do not enjoy getting into disputes.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  11:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that you can address the concerns that I have listed above? If so I think that I can address my attitude and we can get on a lot better.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I say your concerns are not valid. I am not the only one who noticed the style problems with the article. Look at the recent postings by Garrondo. Calm down. Everybody is trying to help you. You are only hurting yourself. People would not want to support you if you continue to be so emotional. Arguing with Sandy does not help you, either. By the way, Giano's guide she recommended is great, read it. I think, Giano had something like 17 of his articles promoted to FA so he knows what he is talking about. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You ignored my concerns and have tried to imply I am complaining about tweaking the article's style and layout. I said no such thing. My concerns are you misrepresenting what I say repeatedly, misrepresenting refs etc. As you are avoiding addressing my concerns thus making addressing and resolving this dispute impossible. I feel that I will have to seek outside help. Today you did the same, you used a single primary source study and then tried to use it to debunk a review article and claimed using the primary source that it was "well known". Initially you asked if you could help with the review article to get it to featured article and helped with the editing and on the talk page. Only when we fell out on the article talk page did you then move to the FA review page, announced that you were now a reviewer and started making the review process a lot more difficult. I have no complaints with Giano and have found him easy to get along with. I know I lost my temper with Sandie which was why I stepped back for a while to cool off.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  16:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am going to make one last attempt to resolve this dispute to avoid this escalating. I am sorry for losing my cool during the editing process and becoming personal on the featured article review and benzo talk page. I felt you were being unreasonable but responded excessively. It is a stressful editing environment FA reviews. I hope that we can discuss our differences now, how things deteriorated and what steps we can take to resolve this. I would appreiate if you could address things that I have complaints with. I am making the first move now by admiting losing my cool so hope now you will reciprocate and start talking out our differences and probelms with each others conduct.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is OK to lose your cool once in a while. This is a normal FAC process. I started with checking references for the claims that seemed a bit off for me and found that they did not check out. So now I am going through the article with a fine comb and checking every one of them. I am finding that many of the claims are not supported. I am not editing the article directly exactly because I do not want do editwar with you. You could make this process much easier if you accept that I want to improve the article and agree not to revert me without first discussing on the article Talk page. Yes or no? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sceptical. Yea, agreed about losing cool. I don't think I was reverting to any large degree your edits. You made hundreds of edits. We actually fell out during a process of discussion on the talk page not over reverting edits. I can agree to discussing reversions first on talk page but I don't recall this being a problem with you and I where we too any great degree reverted each other's edits? I am sure there was a couple of reverts but you made hundreds of edits. I think that the crux of the fall out was me losing my cool which then resulted in you taking things I said out of context. I think that really we have both made accusations against each other and it is simply time to move on and hopefully get back to productive editing. I do honestly think that overall your edits to the benzo article have been very productive and have greatly helped the benzo article. Of course there are a few things we disagree on but that is what talk pages are for and is to be expected on wikipedia. Anyway I am tired but wanted to answer your post before retiring for the night.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

E-mail
Can you enable your email through the "my preferences" tab? Would be appreciated. Skinwalker (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not have a throwaway e-mail address, and I prefer to keep my privacy. Is it important? - I'll get one if you say so. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that important. I may be posting some evidence in the ADHD arbitration that I would like your opinion on once it's live.  I'll let you know when and if it's up.  Skinwalker (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Although IMHO, getting involved with ArbCom is a waste of time. Its mechanism is slow and unwieldy and its decisions are mostly inane. Their main effect is to provide the fodder and a few laughs for the folks at Wikipedia Review. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sceptical. I am somewhat concerned here that there may be a tag team effort going on here to arrange some sort of hidden attack on me. I would rather this was done in the open rather than behind the scenes. I noticed Sceptical that today the editing environment was much more pleasant, relaxed and productive, which I am delighted that we seem to be both editing along fine today. However, reading this section and you not replying to my message in the above section makes me think that this change in behaviour may be due to a behind the scenes preparation for some sort of attack on me. Such as act calmly and productively, put yourself in a good light and then "we will attack literaturegeek and demonise him" type of arrangement. Am I wrong in my concerns? If I am I will sincerely appologise if you are not involved in some sort of a conspiracy against me. As you probably know I have tried to address this with Skinwalker on his talk page.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope that I am wrong and that we have turned the corner and are on the road back to productively editing the wikipedia project.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea. If there is any kind of behind-the-scenes effort, I am not participating in it because the ArbCom is a waste (see above). Read Wikipediareview.com regarding ArbCom process and decisions. If I were you, I would limit my involvement with Scuro's business to a bare minimum and concentrate on writing articles. Nobody will remember Arbcom decisions two-three years from now. Your good works on WP will still stand and enlighten people, especially if that is a Featured Article. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear. Very interesting link. Well to be honest, I have finished pretty much with scuro and arbcom as in I have finished gathering evidence. I just spent a couple of hours digging out evidence, added it and left it at that. Other editors have known him much longer, for years and thus are better continuing with this with scuro as for them it is more personal and they have been through a lot more trouble than I have. I will just comment on any proposals which is a sentence or 2 here and there.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You are of course right about developing articles is being the most important thing but I think I will be stepping back after benzo featured review article is done. My developing article days are coming to an end. Thank you for your kind compliments and likewise same to you your contributions will be of great value to readers of the articles.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard
Hello The Sceptical Chymist, due to my concerns about the point of view of the articles Paroxetine and Duloxetine, I've decided to make a posting at the NPOV Noticeboard, located here. I welcome your views and opinions at the discussion. Kind Regards, blurredpeace ☮ 04:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to add any relevant information consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:COI. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You can relax
You won my friend. The FA is being opposed due to your edit war and deletion of systematic reviews and inserting original research and only allowing non-systematic reviews which back you up. Well done. Hope you are proud.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  12:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are you not willing to discuss these changes? The reason content disputes escalate is because you will not address my points. There is no way it will acheive FA status when you keep doing the type of edits you are doing as they are original research, misrepresenting refs. That is why I am reverting you. Some of your edits are valid and we both would achieve much more if we actually addressed each other's points on the article talk page but you won't address my points. Please discuss on talk page.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If the issue is not about content then just be a man and say that your intentions are to piss me off. I would rather know the true intentions. You are bound to know that you were making the promotion to FA impossible and you are bound to know that some of your edits were misusing refs, using weaker refs to debunk or even outright delete systematic reviews and so forth. Let me know.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * AGF The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I will assume good faith if you would sit down at the table and discuss and acknowledge my points and respond to them otherwise I will have no choice but to assume bad faith. It is how wikipedia works.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. '''I have given myself a warning on my page to be fair. We both need to chill out and stop edit warring or we are both going to end up getting blocked. I tried to get page protection but they say edit warring is resolved by blocks so up to you, if you want to edit war it will result in a block. I say that we stop now for our own good and come up with a compromise over the next few days. I can compromise if you discuss.' Literature geek  |  T@1k?''  14:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection and edit-warring
I've protected benzodiazepine for 24 hours to stem the edit-war. That's letting you off the hook, because your behavior - aggressive edit-warring coupled with an avoidance of entreaties to use the talk page - is entirely unimpressive and, in fact, blockworthy. I think that protection is more likely to move things forward, but please don't construe that as an implicit acceptance of your editing behavior there over the last 24 hours or so. If it resumes, then a block would be the next step. Please use the talk page to discuss the content issue. MastCell Talk 18:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Mastcell. I think your criticism is misplaced. I tried to discuss the disputed issues with LG at length here, here , here . In response I got accusations in faking references, being troll, etc etc. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the issue is clearly not resolved. You can either try again to convince him, or solicit outside opinions as detailed in our dispute resolution pathway. You can't just fall back on edit-warring without any attempt to discuss or reach consensus. MastCell Talk 06:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I was not edit warring. I was just trying to finish a paragraph. Please check these diffs, not just skim over them:, , . The paragraph would describe the controversy in detail, and LG was reverting me after each sentence. He reverted all my changes wholesale, including some simple copyedits—a sure sign of an editwarrior. He even reverted me after the sentence that described his POV. You also forget that this thing goes both ways. LG has to convince me and Matisse that the POV he tries to present at the exclusion of other views is indeed the dominant one. He has to apologize for the abusive behavior as well. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * LG is responsible for his own conduct, and you for yours. Pointing the finger at him is not going to excuse you if you continue to edit-war and ignore the talk page and dispute resolution. MastCell Talk 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This does not explain you not stopping LG when he was abusive and not posting a similar message on his Talk page. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not going to get into a "he hit me first!" discussion. I am fairly confident that LG understands that his part in the edit-war was disruptive, which makes me optimistic that he will not repeat that disruptive behavior. In your case, I'd like to be as optimistic. MastCell Talk 19:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He does? Hmm... I think you are too optimistic about LG, and that makes you unfair. And "being fairly optimistic" that abuser is on his way to recovery does not justify not stopping him. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that he has stopped. If I'm wrong, and the edit-warring begins again, then it'll be dealt with. MastCell Talk 23:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello
We seem to be in total opposition to each other's beliefs. Your edit history shows that you are a single purpose account who demonises antidepressants, with just about 100% of your edits on antidepressant articles being about the harm of antidepressants. The evidence-base says the benefits outweigh the risks. You want to demonise antidepressants as best you can and promote benzos as some sort of an effective alternative I suspect. Your edits in both cases go totally against mainstream consensus evidence based peer reviewed literature and are harmful to wikipedia and the general readers of wikipedia. Whilst I acknowledge the risks of ADs, I also believe that they do more good than harm. We are totally opposed in views. Perhaps we should come to some agreement to agree to differ and maybe part company? Or perhaps come to some compromise or work something out. This cannot go on. I'd rather get back to the days we were on good terms. :) I could maybe stop editing antidepressant articles and you could leave the benzo article alone to get up to FA. :-)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  02:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "you are a single purpose account who demonises antidepressants" -- Not true. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "I'd rather get back to the days we were on good terms. :)" -- Agree. I would ask for an apology from you for calling me names and doubting my good faith. I would also ask you to refrain from further offenses. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "We are totally opposed in views." -- No we are not. Your radical position on the risk-benefit balance of benzodiazepines and exaggeration of their side effects forced me to be the devil's advocate. I can understand that your work at a withdrawal clinic shows you the worst cases of abuse/dependence, but you have to understand the the sample you are seeing is not representative. Withdrawal clinic is not the whole world. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "I could maybe stop editing antidepressant articles and you could leave the benzo article alone to get up to FA." -- I do not understand that. You recent edits to several antidepressant articles were good. Please continue doing it. I have been imploring the editors who insisted that paroxetine and duloxetine have a positive risk-benefit balance to present the citations supporting their view instead of deleting citations suggesting that such a balance is negative. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are your own worst enemy. Your reaction to my edits was inadequate and out of proportion. You imploded over relatively minor corrections, and at the point where FA promotion was within reach. It was as frustrating to me as to other people who worked hard to remake the unholy mess that was the original nomination into an excellent article. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is true that you have never added anything positive about antidepressants annd have sought to demonise them. Show me diffs then. I have lots of diffs where you deleted refed material which said positive things about duloxetine. You are calling my bluff. Your own sources, psychiatric text books say it is a minority view that benzos are effective long-term, they say they may or may not cause brain damage and with long-term use cause increasing mental and physical health problems and you can get a protracted withdrawal. You haven't shown me anything that the evidence based clinical guidelines are a minority viewpoint or "extremist" or "radical". I have given the therapeutic benefits section prominance in the benzo article. Your edit history shows you have edit warred anything positive out of the lead of antidepressant articles or deleted it outright and then sought to minmise benefits and maximise harms. I apologise for calling you negative discriptive names based on your behaviour. I maintain that you have been disruptive on the article and continue to be so. We can resolve this dispute by following what the sources say, where you admit that your actions have not been helpful either and then work t his out, otherwise the both of us are going to waste our lives on these talk pages.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that 10 minutes before starting this thread you posted another offensive remark - accusing me of "playing dirty to smear" you . Please come back only if you seriously decide to start a productive collaboration. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It was a true statement, you were playing dirty and lying. It is justifiable to tell the truth in response to lies. You are well aware that I have tried multiple times to resolve disputes, just scroll up your talk page for examples. I will not keep holding out the olive branch when all I get is lies, games and manipulation. The above is an example of another problem, you keep changing the topic when confronted with questions or comments that you do not like or cannot answer, which is an example of playing dirty again. See WP:DISRUPT as well.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  12:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are not welcome on this page until you apologize and are sincere about it. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Confusion
You are wrong, W.


 * I find your response confusing. Are you saying that my belief that you and LG managed to talk primarily about content for a day or so is wrong?  Or do you dispute my conclusion that after that brief time, it became necessary for other editors (beginning with Meodipt) to drag the conversation back to commenting on content, instead of complaining about editors?  Or perhaps you mean to say that I'm wrong in deciding that your comment, "Thank you for stepping in when the supposed many experienced editors who supposedly closely watch this dispute do nothing" (i.e., the comment I replied immediately under) is a statement entirely bereft of comments on the article's content?
 * If there was content about benzodiazepines in that sentence, feel free to point it out to me. Otherwise, please re-double your efforts to focus on content instead of complaining about other editors.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First, from the beginning you should have specifically pointed out which of my comments you did not like. Second, you contention that only direct discussion of the content is allowed is ridiculous and contradicts your own actions. The wheels of the discussion have to be greased. For example, I said "thank you" to Colin, Meodipt and FV. You and Meodipt asked me and LG to keep focused on the content. If you are to follow your own logic, you should have done that on my Talk page or at AN/I. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I could have provided exact quotations and diffs, but I still think you're smart enough to figure out which of your comments constitute an obviously impermissible focus on the contributor instead of the content. If you disagree with my belief, then please let me know.
 * A reminder to focus on content is a generally permitted piece of housekeeping, on par with archiving old discussions and placing talkheader on pages, but you may have noticed that I have limited all but occasional, brief reminders to user talk pages. I have done this specifically to prevent distraction of the on-task editors at the article's talk page with conversations like this one.  Speaking of which:  If you feel a need to continue this discussion, then let's have this conversation on one user talk page or the other.  Whether it's yours or mine doesn't matter, but let's try to keep it all together.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not feel any need to continue this discussion. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Benzo article
Hi Sceptical Chymist. Yeah it would be nice to get the benzo article up to FA as it really was so close, and now everyone's had a chance to cool off a bit perhaps you guys could work together without fighting! I fear that progress on these last few sticking points will be difficult though, as LG seems very unwilling to compromise. What I found most telling was their statement

"Perhaps there are similarities between duloxetine and benzos in that they come down on the drug negatively but I still maintain that we are comparing apples and oranges. One article reflects the literature and opinion of experts, the other one is a biased distortion."

as I felt this shows that LG conceeds that the benzo article is at least somewhat anti-benzo POV, but feels that this is ok because it matches the view of the medical establishment, whereas its not ok for the SSRI articles to be anti-SSRI as SSRIs are still currently in favour. The thing is, LG is correct on this, the "medical establishment", i.e. prescribing guidelines, medical schools etc, (as opposed to individual doctors) do now tend to have an increasingly anti-benzo POV and so the article reflects that accurately. Why this is goes well beyond anything that could be covered in the benzo article, and has as much to do with politics and pharmaceutical company profit margins as it does with medical issues, and this is where the problem really arises. Wikipedia is based on the premise that reliable sources can be relied upon, but when research is funded by NIDA with the aim of assessing the harms of long term benzo use, the author is hardly likely to focus on patients who didn't suffer those harms, or else they won't get their research grant next year. I just don't see how that kind of systematic bias can be dealt with (and hence prefer working on more obscure and less contentious articles!) Meodipt (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * : I see both you and LG have been making constructive additions to the benzodiazepine article - without reverting each other or fighting!! Good work people, lets keep this up. I'm cautiously optimistic we may be able to get to FA yet. :-) Meodipt (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am all for continuing work, with FAC as the eventual goal. Please note that my view on BDs in anxiety disorders is squarely within the consensus of American psychiatry, so I disagree a bit with your previous message here that "establishment" is against BDs. Thanks a lot for your help, and I hope that you will continue helping us out with the article. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sertraline
"Tendentious," excellent word choice sir. I have attempted to avoid tendentiousness, as I realize that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, but when the facts make SSRIs look bad, it's difficult. I browsed the Benzo section above; Meodipt's discussion of Benzo's and SSRI's is spot on. AmiLynch (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Escitalopram#Removing_sourced_information
Please respond to Talk:Escitalopram. Fred Talk 21:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

PhRMA
Stories like these, are proliferating and suggest a systemic problem may worsen. So far, my edits related to PhRMA have tended to focus on GSK & Paxil (paroxetine) because I saw the opportunistic DTC TV campaign after 9/11 (described here ); the dishonesty of that campaign has produced a notable backlash. However, I wonder if it might make more sense, and be more fair, to approach all the PhRMA-related articles instead of just one. Beginning next month, the Mental Health Parity Act will drive even more funding into the sector. The pitch for parity is dressed in the language of equity and patients' need, but ignores radical differences in efficacy; drugs that mostly make people worse off will now be funded equally with life-saving treatments and procedures, and the money drives a gold rush of DTC ads and probable over-medication. After S-CHIP expanded insurance to poor children in the 1990s, the number of American children taking psychiatric drugs increased dramatically; many are forced to take 2-4 different drugs at the same time, with dubious and untested consequences. Alas on WP, factual statements that might discourage someone from taking a pill are called "biased" (perhaps especially by those who sell or have been sold on the pill); too many have forgotten Sir William Osler's credo, "One of the first duties of the physician is to educate the masses not to take medicine." If you have any suggestions, e.g. how to go about addressing these product articles even-handedly, please let me know?TVC 15 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For such a broad question, the answer should also be broad: writing about contentions topics avoid emotionally charged words and closely stick to the literature. I have all SSRI/SNRI articles on my watchlist, if you are going to add anything to them. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

van Gogh
Regarding your edit summary ("No, the consensus is he had epilepsia complicated with absynth addiction"). You may be interested in this and this. I'm not sure there is any consensus on his underlying illnesses. I'm siding with Hughes that the case for epilepsy is not proven. Colin°Talk 10:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You, certainly, have a point that my edit summary was rushed and there is no outright consensus on Van Gogh having epilepsy. However, the relative majority of physicians favors the epilepsy explanation (see overview below). If you wish, we can put it this way -- there is even less support for Van Gogh having MDD than for him having epilepsy.


 * Reviewing the pertinent literature:

The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * cycloid psychosis
 * borderline between psychosis and epilepsy
 * temporal lobe epilepsy with manic depressive mood swings aggravated by absinthe
 * borderline disorder and an organic psychosyndrome with psychotic and epileptic elements
 * temporal lobe epilepsy precipitated by the use of absinthe, two distinct episodes of reactive depression
 * acute intermittent porphyria
 * porphyric symptoms were caused by absinthe
 * Organic Mental Disorder and Organic Character Disorder due to lead poisoning
 * Geschwind syndrome, at times associated with temporal lobe epilepsy, but this fact does not establish such an epilepsy
 * neurotoxicity, encephalopathy and other consequences of lead
 * lead poisoning diagnosis is problematic
 * most persuasive explanation involves epileptic underpinnings
 * Meniere's disease
 * Meniére's disease (same authors)
 * borderline personality
 * manic depression
 * congenital psychosis, addiction to absinthe exacerbated his illness

Thanks. Your list is probably just the tip of the iceberg. According to the first paper I linked, 150 physician's have "diagnosed" van Gogh and produced 30 different diagnoses! One reasons epilepsy is mentioned frequently compared to alternatives is because he was actually diagnosed with epilepsy by his doctor. However, that was a time when epilepsy was considered to be one of the mental illnesses along with hysteria, melancholy, etc. They wouldn't have had the concepts of "seizures without provocation" or know the difference between epileptic and non-epileptic seizures. Henri Gastaut's posthumous diagnosis (Gastaut H: La maladie de Vincent van Gogh envisagée a la lumière des conceptions nouvelles sur l épilepsie psychomotrice. Ann Méd Psychol (Paris) 1956; 114:196-238)--which I haven't read--carries a lot of weight. It is all speculation, and all historical diagnoses of epilepsy must be treated with a great deal of suspicion. He may well have had a "limbic lesion" which predisposed him to seizures once he started drinking the green stuff. We will never know. Colin°Talk 12:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Paroxetine revert
Just a question: you stated in your revert of Paroxetine that "Links do not offer sufficient support". What exactly did the links lack that you were expecting to make it reliable? I'm not asking because I object to your revert (I was think about doing it myself), but because I find articles relating to chemistry, medicine, and specifically pharmacology are difficult to edit because so many references look legit when in fact other (far more knowledgeable) people end up reverting them. If it's an intuition thing, I understand; otherwise it'd be great to know what you found objectionable. DKqwerty (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That edit was likely made by Mwalla sockpuppet. See his previous edits in the Sept 18 History. They were discussed and refuted even earlier, probably in archive now. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternate accounts
Hi. Does belong to you? If not, you've got an impostor. If so, you have some 'splainin to do. MastCell Talk 22:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that is Mwalla, a known sock-puppeteer whom I outed. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Got it. Sorry to bother you, and happy editing. MastCell Talk 20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey there
Is this an alternate account of yours or an impersonator? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Mwalla. See above. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice sources
Thank you for digging. Now I'll just have to expand the rest of the article to match the "History" section... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Question
Was it the use of the word "mild" that bothered you? I didn't notice anything else that could possibly be objectionable here and I hate seeing this sort of back and forth reversion, so I'm just asking... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Partially that. Plus it seems to me that the attempted revision made the article worse. The stable version proceeds logically: it begins with main action (SRI) and illustrates that by in vivo human SRI experiments. The less important actions are mentioned later. The attempted revision mixes everything up. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems there's already a rough consensus against the edit, and I'd like to have it established at the Talk page before we unprotect and rewrite. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please ignore that, meant to post it elsewhere. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Long term depression.jpeg
 Thanks for uploading File:Long term depression.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  05:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey there
If you have more suggestions for the Chemistry section of metformin, I'd love to hear them. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And now, for FV's traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greeting!
I see your Talk page was not on my Watchlist, and you were therefore not treated to one of my famed generic holiday greetings (now in their fourth year of offending no sensibilities). The wishes are sincere, though. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

And a Happy New Year to you
Hey Sceptical Chymist, I wanted to take the time to wish you and your loved ones a happy new year. Last year we had our entrenched differences but I have no ill will to you and wish you all the best in this New Year. So Happy New Year!-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Resveratrol Lozenges
Dear Sceptical Chymist, I think you made a good point. I'll modify the article and make it clear that no clinical data is available. I think the article should still be included, although we are not 100% sure whether resveratrol lozenge really works. Many things we are not sure, but we still put them in Wikipedia. For example, "resveratrol" is in Wikipedia, but everythong about it has not been clinically proven. What's important here is whether it is misleading. If everything is said as it is, we have to believe that readers will be able to make their own judgement. We shouldn't make any decision for them. Otherwise it becomes online censorship as in a few countries in the world.Pushroll (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While your arguments may have some merit, they are against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Please follow my advice and read WP:V. It begins with this:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for butting in: I have no opinion on the efficacy of this stuff (I like my current brand of snake oil well enough), but the article on the lozenge was not a good idea (it's a content fork, and it's not even notable as a topic), and I have redirected it to the main substance. Chymist, if you disagree with this, let me know. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree, of course, including snake oil. And I was the one who asked for its speedy deletion. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sceptical Chymist and Drmies: We all may have bad experiences in our life. It's important not to let the experience change ourselves and look everything in a skeptical viewpoint. Yes, there are snake oils. But to say everything is snake oil is an over reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushroll (talk • contribs) 14:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chymist. Pushroll, to deal with my bad experiences (if you say I had them, I must have) I use a variety of household medications. Bacon is first. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this reminds me: Chymist, you know this stuff better than I do--I trust you'll have a look at the content I merged and apply your editorial pen wherever appropriate. Good luck, and thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sceptical Chymist, since you are the one who first questioned “resveratrol lozenges” and subsequently removed everything about it from Wikipedia, we need to have a discussion about the topic.

First, I can see your point. It is true that we can’t be sure whether or not resveratrol lozenges will deliver all the potential benefits. But wouldn’t you think that there is such a possibility? Wouldn’t you think the public (at least those who take resveratrol supplements) should know that the bioavailability of oral resveratrol pills is extremely low? Wouldn’t you think they should know that resveratrol lozenges may have higher bioavailability and therefore better benefits? You know most consumers are taking oral resveratrol pills that have extremely low bioavailability. You know most likely they are wasting much of what they have spent money on. You know you can’t do anything about it. You know that by taking resveratrol lozenges consumers may have a much better chance getting the benefits. But you don’t want consumers to know the information and you want to keep them in the dark. Are you really protecting consumers or actually doing harm to them? If you really think you are protecting the public and doing a noble thing, think about it again!

Second, while you may want to wait 10 or 20 years for the benefits of resveratrol to be clinically proven, there are people including myself who don’t want to wait that long. Why, because by then it might be too late to take resveratrol pills and get any benefit at all. Our biological clock is always ticking and doesn’t wait for us to prove everything. Can you see that?

Third, I can see that you are a responsible person and you want to make sure everything is right. But if it becomes that everything has to be determined by you and everything has to be your way in Wikipedia, you need to examine the way you work. I'm trying to see and can see what you see. Likewise you should also try to see what others see. You shouldn’t see the public as your own baby and it’s up to you to decide what they should or shouldn’t see. Authoritarian governments censor information and you know it is wrong. We have to trust the public and make all information available to them. Let the public see everything and make up their own minds. I’m sure whatever they see in Wikipedia or anywhere, they are not going to take it as it is without thinking about it.

Lastly, the only factor that determines whether or not an article should be in Wikipedia is the article itself. The article about resveratrol lozenges does not mention any company or brand name. And everything in the article is from reliably sourced references. If you disagree with anything of the article, you can always edit it to make it better, and I (and the public) would appreciate it very much.

BTW, I just read the Business Week report you cited. I would say it is an extremely biased report. It is true there are a couple of bad apples in the basket. But the report made it appear that all apples are terrible. It’s not the whole picture.

If you still disagree with me, we can keep the conversation going. Thank you! --Pushroll (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Sceptical Chymist, please delete "Resveratrol Lozenges". (Mabidex (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

Sources at Sertraline
Wikipedia health-related content should be supported by sources that conform to this guideline: Identifying reliable sources (medicine). As explained in my edit summaries, the content I deleted was supported by primary sources, which together made a case for efficacy. Bundling selected primary sources and drawing conclusions about efficacy and safety from that selection is called "synthesis" and is disallowed by our policy No original research. Feel free to restore any of the content I removed if it is supported by reliable secondary sources - and, of course, conforms to our other policies and guidelines. Please don't hesitate to discuss this on the article's talk page, contact me on my talk page or, if you would like wider input, raise any questions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine or Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hydrocodone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CNS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Lyme Disease Article
Hello, I saw your note on my page. I do not know what 'email' means in the context of WP. Are you asking me to write comments here? I like discussions that are public, but just wanted to make sure that I understood your request before continuing. Perhaps we can I should respond to you on my talk page? Also, you are welcome to look at the Talk:International Lyme And Associated Diseases Society if you want to see the objection to using Wikipedia to COATHANG anything to do with chronic Lyme. Bob Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lyme "wars"


The article Lyme "wars" has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not sufficiently notable for a standalone article; any salvageable content to be merged into Lyme disease

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Alexbrn talk 13:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, Someone proposed the Lyme wars article for deletion. I have been working on a pro and con section. Plus I was looking over some more research and will be adding a couple more citations in a day or 2. Let's get some stuff ready to add in and reorganized, Please let know what you are thinking. Please be sure to get bob the Goodwin too. I am getting ready to get on a flight in Atlanta to go back home to Seattle...I have my lappie and iPad. I will try to get this new section finished and get it up by Tuesday afternoon PST.

ciao! Carriearchdale (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amitriptyline, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Roche and David Healy. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice
Alexbrn (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That is what I am trying to do. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are edit-warring disputed text by repeatedly trying to force it into the article. Anyway, you are now aware of the more than usually stringent requirements on COVID topics. Alexbrn (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You still have not responded to my points on the Fluvoxamine page. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have, twice. Alexbrn (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, well, I tried. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bupropion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortality.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I had a nice time
I read about your edit war with Mwalla and it was fun as you acted like detective and captured sockpuppetry. Nice job Machinexa (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC) Machinexa (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)