User talk:Andrew73
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|---|
| 1 |
[edit] Undetected Tojo sockpuppets
Hi Andrew, two suspected Tojo sockpuppets seem to have been making edits to Parkinson's disease for almost a week now.
- Al Rasheed (talk • contribs)
- Wael El Kabbany (talk • contribs)
Wael has been banned as he outed himself at m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#viartis.net_2, but I don't have enough evidence to have Al banned quite yet. Could you please double check the validity of their edits please. -- Netsnipe (Talk) 13:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've been aware that he's been editing from a different ISP based in the Middle East. The edits have been reasonable so far, but of course, need to be vigilant. Andrew73 15:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hey
I see you added a picture under the Centerport info page.
I assume you are from Centerport, New york, as am I. Welcome to Wikipedia!
[edit] WP:MED
Hi,
the main page of WikiProject Medicine has just been redesigned, comments are welcome! Please consider listing yourself as a participant.
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| Andrew73 is always working, which is impressive. He's very dedicated to Wikipedia, and his enthusiasm for his tasks is indefatigable. |
 |
The Gold Barnstar | |
| Due to being so superduper special, Andrew73 gets a Gold Barnstar! w00T! |
 |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| For meritorious combat against the evil General Tojo |
 |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| You might only be a trainee hemotologist now, but don't worry little dude, you'll make it some day! |
 |
The Barnstar of Humour | |
| For seeing the humor in the fact that all these people are spending their time making fun of your small size, Andrew73, you get the Barnstar of Humour! |
 |
The Hip Hop Award | |
| I, General Tojo, award the Hip Hop Award to Andrew73 for being a true player! |
Here's a real one to replace all those phony ones thrown at you at by Tojo and co.
Actually none of these are from Tojo nor anyone with any connection to him (says someone who got banned for apparently being a Tojo sockpuppet)
 |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| Awarded to Andrew73 for his tireless vigilance against General Tojo's constant abuse on Parkinson's disease by Netsnipe ► on 17:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC). |
[edit] Commercial Links
Dear Mdwyer, Dirk Beestra, and others,
Thank you very much for providing Dr. Doyle (AKA DrBird or 71.245.157.18) an explanation of your intentions re commercial links on Wikipedia, which I have now reviewed.
Wikipedia is a valuable Web resource, and our firm takes very seriously the need for the Wikipedia site to objectively serve the needs of its primary audience.
I would like to offer some comments here that are intended to be constructive for all concerned.
A. Level Playing Field. I am sure you would agree that there should be a level playing field for all parties on Wikipedia. If commercial links are permitted for any firms, then such links should be permitted for all firms. If commercial links are denied to some firms, than all firms should be denied such links.
B. Factual Errors. Though I understand the concept underlying your attempts to distinguish "discoverers" and/or "manufacturers" from mere "resellers" regarding biochemical reagents such as Geldanamycin, Leptomycin B, Sirolimus and Tacrolimus, etc., please note that you have not been successful at distinguishing these correctly.
C. Regarding "discovery":
--Geldanamcyin was discovered 36 years ago by the former Upjohn Company (Kalamazoo, MI) in cultures of a fungus from a Kalamazoo soil sample: J. Antibiotics, Vol. 23, pp. 442-447 (1970)
--Leptomycin B was discovered twice, independently, by Japanese workers [J. Antibiot., Vol. 36, pp. 639-645 (1983)] and at about the same time by the former Warner-Lambert Company, as subsequently reported [U.S. Patent No. 4,771,070]. This patent was applied for in 1986, and the actual work was probably carried out several years earlier.
--Sirolimus (a.k.a Rapamycin) was discovered in 1975 by Ayerst Research Laboratories (Montreal) in a soil fungus from Easter Island: J. Antibiot., Vol. 28, pp. 721-726 (1975).
--Tacrolimus (a.k.a. FK-506) was discovered by the Fujisawa Company, as reported in Euro. Patent No. EP184162 and J. Antibiot., Vol. 40, pp. 1249ff (1987).
D. Regarding "manufacturing": there are about 75 purveyors worldwide, including our firm, LC Laboratories, that sell products of this type. Some, such as Sigma and Calbiochem, sell tens of thousands of such products, a small percentage of which they manufacture themselves. Some, such as AG Scientific, have essentially no manufacturing capability whatsoever; they are only repackagers and resellers.
Here at LC Laboratories we manufacture essentially all of our very small list of products (about 100) ourselves. Even for those very few products that we buy and resell, we take on inherent responsibility for the product by conducting substantial purity and quality testing ourselves; this is necessary and is a substantial benefit to our customers because the sources of such compounds (various Asian countries, for example) are often highly questionable regarding quality. To the best of my knowledge, AG Scientific does not carry out any quality testing itself on the products it resells. To confirm this you would need to contact Mr. A.G. "Chip" Lindgren, the founder of AG Scientific.
E. Regarding "reselling": as noted to some extent in the previous paragraph, it is not a given that "reselling" is a trivial activity. There are literally thousands of sources of biochemical reagent sources around the world -- small academic labs, scientists literally making things in their cellars or garages, small primary manufacturers like LC Laboratories, larger primary manufacturers such as Sigma's RBI division, etc.
I would like to emphasize that even the resellers are providing essential services and value to the 180,000-odd biomedical researchers around the world. By collecting many important compounds into a single catalog or Web source, even pure resellers such as AG Scientific are providing valuable efficiency to its customers, enabling them to quickly locate and obtain reagents for their studies.
F. More about "discoverers": I can assure you that exactly zero of the "small-molecule" reagents sold by the ca. 75 biochemical vendors alluded to above, reagents such as the four I have already listed, or the 100-odd in the LC Labs catalog, or the many thousands of small-molecule products in Sigma's or Calbiochem's catalog, were discovered by these vendors. Again for emphasis: NONE. Compounds of these types are discovered by drug companies and, to a very much smaller extent, by academic laboratories.
[Sooner or later LC Labs will become an exception -- we will begin selling some compounds that we have discovered ourselves. Unlike other biochemical vendors, we also do pharmaceutical discovery research. LC Labs is a division of PKC Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and we are close to releasing some of our non-clinical, proprietary compounds to the research reagent marketplace, to enable other researchers to benefit from our discoveries (US Patent Nos. 5,643,948, 5,716,968, 5,750,568, 5,886,017, 5,886,019, 5,891,870, 5,891,906, 5,955,501, 5,962,498, 6,043,270, 6,080,784, etc. & foreign equivalents)].
G. LC Labs in particular: by trying to selectively block our commercial links on Wikipedia, you are strongly dis-serving biomedical researchers. As our home page notes, we are the highest-quality, lowest-priced supplier of every product in our product list (there might be 1-3 exceptions in certain currencies). In some cases our prices get down to 1/50th or 1/100th of those charged by firms like AG Scientific or Fermentek. You can verify these claims for yourself; we provide price comparison tables for all of our products vs. our competitors: http://www.lclabs.com/PriceComparisons.php4 See sirolimus (rapamycin) in particular: http://www.lclabs.com/PrC/R-5000prcompUS.php4
H. To wrap things up here: I and our IT team are strongly committed to the level playing field concept. On Wikipedia, for us this is something of a self-appointed role, much as your role of "link-remover" based on factual errors appears to have been a self-appointed role.
We will leave it to you to decide where you think this situation ought to go. If you think commercial links should be allowed for the important biomedical research reagents in question here, then we will insist that ours be allowed and will take all necessary steps to achieve that. If you decide "no commercial links", then we will assist you by automating the removal of all of same from the relevant Wikipedia entries, because we absolutely will not accept any discrimination between firms on any basis.
In closing, let me again thank you for stepping forward with an explanation of your viewpoint; I hope my offering here in return is received in the constructive way that it is intended. My associates and I look forward to resolving this particular topic to everyone's satisfaction.
Sincerely,
Paul E. Driedger, Ph.D. General Manager of LC Laboratories; President of PKC Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
[edit] Milk fetishism
Hello "Andrew73". You made some comments/critics at the Milk fetishism page and therefore this might be interesting for You: After a longer discussion in 3 or 4 adult lactation (Yahoo) groups and some research we want to reorganize and rewrite the "Milk fetishism" article completely and to move it to the lemma Erotic Lactation. The substantiations You can find in the article discussions. For me personally it was important, to get more systematic, minor speculations and more empirism ;-) Feel free to place comments or corrections or expansions Bye, --Fritz Bollmann 08:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Orthomed & vitamin E
I'm back for interrogation ;>.--TheNautilus 09:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- discussion of BCCA appropriateness is a pull tab on "vitamin" Accutane diff--TheNautilus 10:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] First Clinical Syndrome
Please note that this is a distinct entity. The reasons for the need for a separate article has been explained in the talk pages. Please discuss in the talk pages before suggesting a merge. Doctor Bruno 17:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
A sedan is a specific type of car, in the same way that a convertible is a specific type of car. A laser printer is specific type of printer. In the same way, First Clinical Syndrome is seen ONLY in First Clinical Years. If some one else (not in first clinical) suffers, it is NOT first Clinical Syndrome. A lump in the neck, whether you in India or in the U.S., both raises the same possible hypochondria concerns. But when raises hypochondria concerns in the first clinical year, we call that as First Clinical Syndrome. When that raises hypochondria during other time, it is NOT first clinical syndrome, but Medical Student Syndrome.
To Summarise
- Medical Student Syndrome can be seen in any country
- First Clinical Syndrome is seen in India
- Medical Student Syndrome can be seen during any time
- First Clinical Syndrome is seen during First Clinical Year.
All cases of First Clinical Syndrome are cases of Medical Syndrome (all sedans are cars and all laser printers are printers), but NOT ALL cases of Medical Student Syndrome are cases of First Clinical Syndrome (not all cars are sedans and not all printers are laser printers).
So, We can merge this only when you are merging Laser Printer with Printer and Sedan with car. I am not making a point, but just trying to give you an example.
If you have further doubts, please ask Doctor Bruno 19:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've replied here [2]
No Need to push further. If we push further will will end up in saying that we don't need articles for Laser Printer as it is a subset of Printer and Sedan as it is a subset of Car. I think I have given enough examples. Any how, a Sedan is a specific type of Car, a laser printer is a specific type of printer and First Clinical Syndrome is a specific type of Hypochondriasis and hence a special article is needed. If you feel that those examples are off the mark, let me give examples from medicine itself. Since Medical Student Syndrome is a subset of hypochondria and since Cyberchondria also is a subset of hypochondria can we merge both these along with hypochondria. Why it did not occur to you that cyberchondria should be merged with hypochondria when the former is a subset of the latter. They all deserve their own article. I am sure that you will agree with me that "Medical Student Syndrome", "First Clinical Syndrome" and "Cyberchondria" need separate articles. Please take a look at Brain_fag, Fan_death, Windigo where we have articles based on such entities which are limited to one small community. Culture-Bound_Syndrome and Genital_retraction_syndrome#Southeast_Asia:_Koro provide more insights. This should be treated like that only. If you still cannot understand I think I have to improve my communication skills. Doctor Bruno 00:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think this is a matter of where you draw the line. However, if I may indulge a litte, I bet the viewpoint I propose is the more typical viewpoint. Furthermore, if I may appeal to google, there are 527 entries for "medical student syndrome." On the other hand, there's only one (or two) listings for "first clinical syndrome." The other listings do not refer to the specific entity of "first clinical syndrome." (In contrast, "cyberchondria" has over 10,000 listings.) Andrew73 00:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] David Ruben RfA
 |
[edit] Request for input on Hawthorne effect
Hello, Andrew,
I've been editing the Hawthorne effect article lately, and I'm getting to the point where I'd like to delete much of the content from Steve Draper's webpage. It looks like you're the one who added it back in November 2005. If so, would you mind looking at the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hawthorne_effect) and see if you see any reason why I shouldn't reorganize as proposed? Thanks. Dblomgren 04:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Epinephrine
Hey there, doc. I'd love to hear from you again on Talk:Epinephrine. I know it's probably frustrating, but your input would really help to build consensus. Thanks, David Iberri (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Interstitial lung disease vs. diffuse parenchymal lung disease
Hello, Andrew. Would you like to comment here? Axl 23:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Er, actually I wanted you to comment on your decision to move 'diffuse parenchymal lung disease' to 'interstitial lung disease' (as per the title of this subsection on your talk page). ;-) Axl 10:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Graves disease
Thanks, as always, for your good work and copy-editing of the rest of Graves disease. Whilst I'll accept that some areas in non-english speaking europe know the disease by Basedow’s name, you re-added that also known as "Graves-Basedow disease" - but who knows it by this joint term ? David Ruben Talk 04:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you pubmed for "Graves-Basedow disease" you actually do come up with some listings...all in journals in foreign languages. Andrew73 15:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yeah - duh, silly of me not to have looked before asking :-) Thanks David Ruben Talk 17:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DSM cautionary statement RfC
Hi. I wanted to give you my very belated thanks for your reply to the RfC for DSM cautionary statement in May 2006. I actually began a very long wikibreak right around when the debate about the cautionary statement page was taking place (and largely because of it), so I didn't see it at the time. Thanks for your attention to a complicated and trying matter. Happy editing! –Sommers (Talk) 04:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MMR Vaccine
Please see the edit history of MMR Vaccine as soon as you have time. I can't revert to my own most recent revision, and IMO the POV war has begun again. Heathhunnicutt 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure which edit you were referring to, as your last edit was nearly a month ago. Andrew73 17:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- The three most recent edits, which include adding links to the "MMR Controversy" page and adding a "Bowel Disorder association" section. To me, they seem anti-vaccinationist as we have seen hit that article before. Heathhunnicutt 23:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Question
Dear Dr. Andrew,
We're both MD's. What do you think of making contributions to something else in wikipedia (besides medical topics)? Earlier today, I made a comment about the John Edwards (running for president).
There seems to be a fight going on there about Mrs. Edwards' cancer. John Edwards said (and I paraphrase) that the cancer is "completely treatable" and likened it to diabetes (probably because both are not curable, but treatable).
Some argue that Edwards is being deceptive and putting too much of a spin. There was a mention that being misleading is potentially harmful to the public because someone else with breast cancer might misunderstand and think that her prognosis is good. They even wanted to put grim prognosis numbers. Some others thought that "original research" and "soapboxing" is not permitted in wikipedia and they wanted to put just the info from the glossy Edwards press reports.
I take a neutral stance in between.
The problem I see is that is it potentially bad to write about this type of comment? Some doctors in wikipedia stick to medicine but others do not. I don't want to get into a fight between a bunch of Democrats and Republicans. What's your experience making edits like Anna Nicole Smith and other non-medical stuff? What I wrote--is it a reasonable compromise of the waring sides?
Best regards, Frank (Doc United States) Here's the link [3] My part is near or at the bottom called "A Response from a Physician"Doc United States 22:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I pretty much agree with what you've written. I'm not sure if there's that much more to add on my end. Andrew73 12:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- FYI, the user who called himself "Doc United States" has been identified through Checkuser as merely one of numerous sock puppets of User:Dereks1x, who created a false identity as a doctor to gain advantage in the editing dispute. His account has been indefinitely blocked, and I'm striking out his comment above as it was done in evasion of Dereks1x's block and is a fraudulent identity. Tvoz |talk 19:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nice reference you added to the Phenothiazine article Andrew73
^ Whitaker R (2004). "The case against antipsychotic drugs: a 50-year record of doing more harm than good". Med. Hypotheses 62 (1): 5-13. PMID 14728997.
I look forward to reading it sometime soon. Dr CareBear 08:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Arrrr... Medical Hypotheses again... its Wikipedia-specific impact factor must exceed that of the NEJM by now. MastCell Talk 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I'm sure there's fodder for every possible hypothesis in that journal. In any event, I think for the phenothiazine article, it did provide some documentation for its historical development. Andrew73 20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redwing
Hi, please note that it is a long-standing convention on Wikipedia that bird species are capitalised, thanks, Jimfbleak 05:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Epinephrine
Changes by 90.200.228.98 and 211.21.117.45 in Epinephrine were not vandalism. They were just trying to fix display problems. Don't forget to assume good faith. Errorneous 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Images for various drugs
Hi, I've noticed that you're removed images for such articles as diazepam, fluphenazine, and trifluoperazine and subsequently flagged them for deletion. I've restored these images to the articles, since they provide some historical context. These drugs were more widely used in the 80s (though diazepam continues to be used widely today), and the images give a flavor for the time period that they were widely used. Andrew73 03:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply. It's questionable whether or not these images meet the non-free content criteria, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#Advertisements. They would seem to fail 3a, minimal use, 3b, low resolution, 8, significance, and 10, use rationale. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MCOTW
JFW | T@lk 11:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thank You!
I just wanted to thank you for the effort you put into making St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine a fair and balanced article. Lord knows it needed it. MDToBe 18:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redirect of Natural Hygiene
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Natural Hygiene, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Natural Hygiene is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Natural Hygiene, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
