User talk:WMSwiki

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!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Nice work
Nice work on the Galileo Galilei article. Thanks. Icemuon 20:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about Feyerabend?
In response to the above query from the note on one of your Galileo revisions, the answer is surely: philosophers of science. Quite aside from scientific results, scientific methodology is an important issue in its own right, and, regardless of what one might think of his conclusions, Feyerabend was certainly a very major figure in this field. And his analysis of Galileo was a major part of his research. But I should add that the only reason why I added the material on Feyerabend (for it was I who did) was to provide a rejoinder to the material that was already there on Koestler—someone who, as far as I can make out, neither scientists nor philosophers care about. Those two paragraphs should, it seems to me, stand or fall together as one. My own view is that both should be allowed to stand, but that they should together be moved to the Scientific Method section. I'll do that. Hce1132 12:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sertraline
Please stop revert warring at once. Your additions (which go against WP:V, WP:HOWTO, and WP:MEDRS) are quite rightly not being well-accepted; go to the article Talk page and discuss it over there. If this continues, I will fully protect the article.

In case you are editing while logged out or deliberately trying to circumvent the three-revert rule in any way, that's not a good idea either. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the behavioral evidence may be sufficient to support the suspicions in WP:EDITWAR with the use of IP WP:sockpuppets such as Special:Contributions/165.91.181.78 and Special:Contributions/74.196.224.204.  The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no intentional attempt to use a sockpuppet, just laziness. It's just that many people will go to wikipedia to learn about sertaline, and the information I added is based on a lot of google-ing. There is nothing controversial about it, and no one has argued that it is controversial or untrue or unverifiable (depends on how you verify). Until recently I did not know about oral syringes; that is useful information. (My daughter will be using one to help taper off sertraline, which she has tried to get off for a year or so, without success. Surely other people will find this information useful.)  Stating that tapering off does not always work is useful information. Stating that sometimes people switch to another SSRI and then taper from that is useful information. There is a phrase attributed to Emerson that goes "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines," and I cannot help but wonder (not seriously, but wonder nevertheless) if here we have either a case of small minds or of people in the pharmaceutical industry. Let me also mention a point about liquid sertraline, which I can only give from my own experience. The label or the insert says to not premix with water and some other water-based fluids. It doesn't say why. The answer is that it degrades in solution with them, as my daughter learned to her great loss (she was miserable for nearly a week) when she tried to implement a titration schedule based upon pre-mixing. Her psychiatrist was useless in tapering, and when given the information about the pre-mixing schedule for tapering, did not warn my daughter that pre-mixing would cause degradation. I have not even tried to find a citation about pre-mixing and degradation. In her late 30's, my daughter would like to have a child, and there are some serious counterindications to pregnancy while using sertraline -- despite assurance from my OBGYN cousin.) I presented this information only for the benefit of readers. So I place a question to you folks: where do I get the (in my opinion petty) citations in the medical or psychiatric literature?  I have tried in one case, and found that my university does not subscribe to the journal.  And this is just fishing around for what appears to be a relevant article.  More important, what good are the citations if it costs hundreds of dollars to access them?  Does the statement about use of pill-cutting or an oral syringe really require a citation?  Note that wikipedia standards are not always this (in my opinion unreasonably) high.  Moreover, not all sentences in this article have citations.  I would appreciate a responsive reply. WMSwiki (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Such a level of detail is unnecessary, WP is not a manual. My guess is that cases of prolonged withdrawal troubles with sertraline are much less frequent than with paroxetine or venlafaxine, so it would be hard to find a citation supporting it. The information on pill-cutting and liquid forms is generic to the SSRI discontinuation syndrome and should go there. Sertraline article already provides a link to that article, so whoever needs to should be able to obtain useful information. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Kelvin
I don't like the changes you made, let's discuss them on the talk page for Kelvin. I'll start that section now. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 03:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

WMSwiki says: I have no idea how this page works. But Tarl, please explain why you don't like it. I went to the wikipedia page on Kelvin to see if it would help me in determining when Kelvin obtained his temperature scale. I am currently writing a paper on the history of thermodynamics, aimed at physicists, and am reading and rereading Carnot 1824, Clapeyron 1834, Kelvin 1848, Kelvin 1849, Clausius 1850, Kelvin 1851, Clausius 1854, and a few others. I can state with confidence that the date 1848 for the Kelvin scale, as in the article before I edited it, was incorrect. He knew enough by 1851 to do it, but his 1851 papers don't come out and say it. WMSwiki (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see the comments I posted at Talk:Kelvin. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 04:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)