User talk:Aspro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome to the Wikipedia community, Aspro! And thanks for weighing in on the MMR page...

Here are some of the perfunctory useful tips (mostly borrowed from ClockworkSoul), to speed your indoctrination into the Wikipedia experience:

And some odds and ends:

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Since you attended to the perspective offered by Andrew Wakefield, perhaps you would be interested in contributing to the resolution of the editing conflicts there?

Best of luck, Aspro, and have fun! Ombudsman 18:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] No faux pas

A google search reveals that triple jab seems to exist as a phrase only in the UK. Which would make sense, since you seem to be from there. I did do a google search before I deleted it and because the first page was mostly anti-vaccination sites like whale.to, felt that it was most likely NPOV like much of the vaccination articles, unfortunately. If it goes back in, it should mention that it is only called that in Britain. As for what I say to a poor, unintelligent housewife (?) - "this shot is three vaccinations in one." Simple as that - I always opt for straightforward descriptions instead of confusing (at least to me) jargon. InvictaHOG 00:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

It is only to do with allopaths suppressing anything critical to allopathy, any other reason is just a cover story, which is why they want to delete the main anti-vaccinator, Viera Scheibner, and Vaccination critics. There is some specious reason on that one. Lily Loat, the main anti-vax person a few years back, got wiped out and directed to National Anti-Vaccination League. I suppose it will be only a matter of time before that gets deleted, although as it is in the past they may ignore it. john 22:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] refs and so on

Thanks. You mentioned scientific support for I think the statement that the various drugs named are "first line". I'd look in teh manufacturers' summary of product characteristics; in the British National Formulary, but overwhelmingly (apart from knowing it from a medical coruse and later experience) the question of what is first line in a particualry milieu is answered by looking at local prescribing policies, and at accounts of what doctors treating the conditions actually use. Which the TMAP seems to be a very mundane example of. In the UK try NICE, whcih is trying to do something similar on a wider front. First line doesn't mean that there is only one drug to use first and it must be used first, it distinguishes some which are only used after failure of others, and in fact it probably would be better for the article to say something less specific, such as "routinely used" to avoid arguments over whether Vnelafaxine is first line or second (second now) and whether Lithium is (first line by specialists for bipolar; third line for depression). Helpful? Midgley 01:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Even NICE gets influenced by pharmaceutical stake holders siting on the board.
Psychiatric drugs are 'palliatives', no more no less. They either mitigate, and thus bring some respite or they don't.
The poor understanding about the aetiology of mental distress and thought disorder means these conditions are still beyond rational treatment... So it is a case of suck it and see.
Psychiatrists don't ( not the ones I have talked to) believe a word that is written by the manufactures.
Think back to 'negative feed back systems'. Anything one proscribes, the body will start to immediately compensate!
Tell you this: when something appears to work, its only because it coincides 'by chance' with spontaneous improvement that would have happened anyway. Also, I have come to believe in the 20% rule. Only one in five will benefit from any treatment. Definition of First line: it is sales and marketing Jingoism. [ Mania is something else! In the old days they used laudanum ( and some times barbiturates) because it seemed to help. Today - nothing seems to help.]--Aspro 02:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolleybuses for West London

I deleted all the links you added to Trolleybuses for West London. The site in itself is not particularly notable, nor is it directly related to the articles you added it to (eg The general article about Uxbridge should have links to general sites about Uxbridge). See also item 3 here. --Dtcdthingy 01:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rework of articles critical of psychiatry

Hi Aspro,

I left a message in Talk Antipsychiatry page: you can convert references now if you wish. There’re other related articles that need rework and/or merging. Have you seen the tagged Psychiatric imprisonment article? —Cesar Tort 21:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I already merged this article. —Cesar Tort 17:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Kava

No worries! Sorry about that. Cheers Donama 00:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] See Also

Hi Aspro. You are absolutely correct according to policy, i apologise. The odd thing is i don't think i have ever seen commentary added to see also lists before, therefore i was boldly attempting to maintain a consistant style as i understood it. Even Wikipedia's best work appears to refrain from commenting on lists, see recent featured articles, Wayne Gretzky, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, F-35 Lightning II. However, if not already done so by someone else, i'll revert. Rockpocket 18:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Merging Proposal

A merger of Speech therapy, Speech-Language Pathology, Speech pathology, and Phoniatrics into one article has been proposed and a name suggested for the new page. I note that you have contributed to one page or the other in the last while. If you have any comments please make them on the talk page of Speech therapy. --Slp1 00:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Lucas

Thank you for experimenting with the page Joseph Lucas on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Xdamrtalk 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to enlarge a little: article pages are not the place to communicate with other editors. If you want to discuss a particular aspect of an article as it stands then you can use the article's talk page.
Xdamrtalk 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/s/p/User_talk%7EAspro_518d.html"