User talk:Aspro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

[edit] Wharncliffe Viaduct

Updated DYK query On 22 June 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wharncliffe Viaduct, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 23:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dextroamphetamine

You seem to be familiar with pharmacology, and an outside opinion would be welcome at Talk:Dextroamphetamine#keep_your_eye_on_the_ball. KonradG 01:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 UK Foot and Mouth

Arrghh! Spoke too soon! Grr. Thanks for reverting so quickly ;) TheIslander 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas Adams talk page

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Douglas Adams are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biopsychiatry controversy / PTSD

Hi Aspro. I noticed that you removed my revision to biopsychiatry controversy. You may not have noticed that I posted a rationale for the revision on the article's talk page. Could you please respond to my objections if you don't agree with my edit? Thanks. 152.130.6.130 (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, by the way, for your reply to my question at Talk:Electroporation, which I just noticed. 152.130.6.130 (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Havidol

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Havidol, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Some thing 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Havidol

An article that you have been involved in editing, Havidol, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Havidol. Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updates to Havidol

I have made some significant updates to the Havidol article that I believe addresses the concerns about notability. Please review the current article to see whether you believe this will be sufficient to save the article from deletion.--Dan Dassow (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 19:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Un-do

Reverted that sorry. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I see the article is up for deletion. I do not think this should be deleted, going to vote "Keep". Thanks, and sorry. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 21:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD/Direct metal deposition

I think that you and Wikipedia would be best served if, at AfD/Direct metal deposition, you inserted a “vote” of “Redirect to X”, where you replace “X” with a specific article to which you think users should be redirected. —SlamDiego←T 02:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acupuncture - Mannheimer

When I asked Mannheimer why he included poor quality studies in his metastudy, and I asked for the raw data to plug into my own analysis, he refused. Happy to provide correspondence. Mccready (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There was some discussion of this topic on Mccready's talk page... as I said then, Mannheimer's position that he will share the dataset with other academics, but not necessarily anyone who asks, is well within accepted boundaries. regards, Jim Butler (t) 06:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The world is changing AcuJim and many researchers don't take this view. There is now tiny overhead in emailing a file. In fact in the time Mannheimer spent denying the request he could have met it. The correspondence shows he clammed up as soon as I asked about why the lousy studies were included. Mccready (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cochrane

The report I had in mind asked two of the most outspoken advocates for a particular intervention to summarise the field; their review was dominated by their own work, included known errors in that work, and ignored all evidence conflicting with their pre-existing opinion. Meanwhile, that intervention had been tried in several real populations and the measured effect was, instead of the 70-80% they predicted, actually zero. So: my opinion of Cochrane is somewhat tainted :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 21:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There are altmeders in Cochrane. The email correspondence on my page shows the top level of Cochrane is unwilling to act. Of course they have a right to be there, but not a right to pervert science to their own ends. Unfortunately Cochrane is allowing some appallingly lousy research to go out under its name. Pity, I had high hopes for the project when it started.Mccready (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)