User talk:Drgitlow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Drgitlow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Ronabop 05:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Alcoholism

Just an FYI, my days of being sarcastic, antagonistic and generally Mr Smarty Britches with you are over. My views on the alcoholism article remain the same, but I'm going to avoid using sarcasm and other antagonistc interactions with you on the talk pages. You and I will still not see eye to eye on many subjects, but I will avoid using sarcasm in those disputes from here out. Seriously. I can use Google as well as the next guy and I recognize you are a prominant person in the field of alcoholism and I think you can make an exceptional contribution to that article. I hope we can learn to constructively work together in our attempts to improve it. We'll see if that can be accomplished, but regardless, my days of being sarcastic with you and such are done. Mr Christopher 18:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw this message and hope that it will be a big step toward you all working together to write a high quality article on alcoholism.
Looking at one of the section on the article talk page, I noticed that it was mostly negative remarks towards each other. In my experience, removing section like that can be helpful. I removed it, if someone disagrees, then put part or all of it back. Take care, FloNight talk 20:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
FloNight talk, I trust your judgement and thanks Mr Christopher 20:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where do we begin

Drgitlow, the biggest thing we lack right now, at least in my opinion, is editorial consensus and experienced Wiki editors (those deeply versed in Wiki policy) and handling of disputes. That alone is killing us. Recently one guy chimed in on the talk page and I hope he plans to roll up his sleeves and grab a pencil because he has a significant amount of experience on the subject of Scientology which means he's familiar with touchy subjects and competing view points. He also seems well versed in Wiki policy and so far the alcoholism article lacks that on a wholesale level.

I plan to present anything significant I bring to the article to the talk page first to get consensus. I think a level of trust will get a foot hold as soon as we get a track record for establishing editorial consensus. I am currently writing a significant addition to the "con" section within the disease model header. It addresses some of the valid concerns you have brought up regarding that criticism and those who criticize it. I plan to put it first on the talk page so we can get a editorial consensus.

I'll post what I am writing on the talk page sometime today. I'll also add some of my justifications for it as well. I will look forward to your comments. Mr Christopher 21:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we lack editorial consensus; yes, we lack experienced Wiki editors. Unfortunately, we also lack, for whatever reason, a significant number of people. I suppose I represent one perspective, you represent another. But it's not as if we have a dozen long time AA participants, a dozen RR participants, a dozen addiction specialist MDs, and a dozen social workers. I'm not sure what it would mean if the four of us build a consensus. Like I said, I'm very willing to try, and think we can come up with a great article in time, but I don't know that it would truly represent a consensus statement if indeed we got a broad group of folks in here to discuss the topic in greater depth.
Given the importance of the topic, I'm surprised at the lack of real interest; perhaps it means Wiki is generally still under the radar for most folks. That will change, though. By the way, it would help to know something about you just to have an understanding of your perspective as we go forward. You've got some of my background from Google (as long as you're not confusing it with other Gitlows <chuckle>) but I'm happy to fill in any blanks if you'd like. Drgitlow 21:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rush and Jellinek

So how do you explain away the lying, dishonest Jellinek, the towering figure of the modern disease hypothesis????Medical Man 21:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


I don't know. I'm not an historian. Those were interesting times. If he was lying about his educational background, does that invalidate his accomplishments? And if his accomplishments weren't important, why would others be so eager to attempt to discredit him? It seems to me that some are trying awfully hard to make others look at the unimportant rather than the important, but they are accomplishing little except calling attention to their own pleas for recognition. Drgitlow 21:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't embarrass yourself with such lame reasoning and defense of the indefensible. You wouldn't want your employer to find out how you're sullying its good name.Medical Man 22:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Medical Man Please be civil. Reminding you to focus on the article content not the editor. It is Wikipedia policy. WP:CIVIL FloNight talk 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. No offense to drgitlow intended. Am trying to protect him.Medical Man 00:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, FloNight. I stand behind what I've written, Medical Man. This is a public forum. You are welcome to share my words with my employer.Drgitlow 00:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep smiling

Hi, I really enjoyed your last addition to Mr Christopher's Talkpage and I responded to it there. I hope we can have as much fun working on alcoholism together. I really think that it could become a Featured Article with enough cooperative effort :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 06:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc. I'm afraid I offended a few folks somewhere in the midst of working on the alcoholism entry, but am glad things are going more smoothly now. I agree with you...I think with a team effort, we'll end up with a great article. Drgitlow 14:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll drink to that! --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You think not?

I'm sending this directly to you because I don't want to distract the group chasing rabbits and slowing our progress, but why can't we say that alcoholism is the repeated consumption of alcohol despite one's best interest?Medical Man 01:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We could actually say that. It's a very terse way of saying exactly what the condition is. I thought perhaps that it was too brief, and also that it might offend those who feel that it doesn't adequately describe those individuals who are 20 years sober but still feel appropriately designated as an alcoholic. In some ways, if we said "Alcoholism is the repeated consumption of alcohol despite one's best interest," we might have to follow with, "Alcoholics are individuals who suffer from or have ever suffered from alcoholism." I'm not opposed to it at all and maybe am overcompensating a little for feeling that I've offended everyone else working on this entry. :) Drgitlow 01:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I assumed tht you were wisely trying to avoid the controversial "non-drinking alcoholic" issue in the definition. That can be one of the many issues addressed elsewhere in the article.Medical Man 02:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I've spent the last 15 years in the addiction field. There are many controversies and I'm in the midst of an editorial that questions a good deal of recent peer-reviewed publication on the basis of bias and conflict of interest. Many of the recent articles that conclude certain pharmaceutical agents as being effective appear on close examination to be incorrect. What I find intriguing about our discussion (as well as my interaction with the others on the page) is that the items that are the most controversial amongst ourselves are not the significant controversies that I encounter on a day-to-day basis in the field. So you're right...I suppose I'm not certain anymore as to what I might say that would stir up the pot a little too much. Is it controversial that "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic"? I know many of my patients would hope that to be wrong. But it certainly makes the definition of the term more difficult, doesn't it? Drgitlow 04:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
As you know, one of the frustrations of this subject is that practically everything about it is controversial. After decades of pouring a great deal of time, money and effort into studying it, we really know so little. That relative lack of knowledge itself contributes to a situation rife with controversy. In addition, we're constantly on the edge of "breakthroughs" which never materialize. This isn't unique to alcoholism, but that's certainly no consolation.
I do believe the "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" belief is a very controversial one. Think of the "some alcoholics can learn to drink in moderation" controversy that's continued for decades with apparently no real resolution. My guess is that it's often a source of controversy beteen client and therapist as well.
Some of the controversies surrounding the subject are of little consequence but others, such as the one you are addressing in your editorial, have life and death implications. Good luck on it.Medical Man 14:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, there's no question that my patients would LOVE to learn to drink in moderation. If I knew of a way that they consistently could without harming themselves eventually, I'd shout it from the mountaintops. But I've never seen anyone who truly was an alcoholic eventually learn to drink in moderation and successfully remain free of morbidity secondary to their alcohol intake on a long-term basis. Not yet anyway. :) Drgitlow 23:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jellinek

Thanks for your comment Dr. Gitlow. I have no objection to the premise of your argument, however I have one strong objection. As per the information presented by Medical Man, it seems that the medical community has not reached a unanimous consensus on the issue. Now there may be a strong tendency among experts to lean toward your veiwpoint, but we have demonstrated sufficient uncertainty on the part of medical experts to warrant a fair delineation of both viewpoints, and to claim that there is no controversy among medical experts, and to minimize either point of view would be a deception to the reader. While I respect the AMA and consider it one of the more authoritative sources for medical information, it is far from the be-all and end-all of debates such as this. Perhaps in a few years, when the tide of the medical community consensus changes, we can alter the article accordingly. But for now, we'll have to simply write about the question, and not the answer. Regards, AdamBiswanger1 14:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are the references to which I was referring #'s 7-9: Alcoholism#Notes AdamBiswanger1 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Progress?

I wanted to thank you for your kind words, your support, and definitely for your sense of humor. What's happening on the Talkpage now looks a whole lot like progress :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 15:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for RR to "sign off" on the first part of the intro, but I added a very rough idea on the Talkpage for the second half. It turns out that the current version clashes pretty badly with the WP:MOS suggestions for an intro and I'm trying to address that. If you haven't yet followed Flonight's link to the MOS from the alcoholism Talkpage you'll find it leads to a brief but clear description of what we should accomplish in the opening paragraph. I hate to close a comment here without a little joke, but I just spent an hour trudging through abstracts and they sucked the humor right out of me. Can you say "Dry"? :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Trudging through alcoholism article abstracts? Or working in some other field? I implore you to keep separate medical articles (written by MD's whose expertise is in the field) from sociologic articles and non-MD/DO articles. Each group has a different perspective by virtue of the work they do. Each probably is "correct" based upon the needs of their field. Drgitlow 23:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I stuck to the medical abstracts, mostly trying to sort out the things that a layman might reasonably understand. I really liked your suggestion for the second half of our paragraph. I actually lopped off the third sentence though (as it should appear in the main body), and tweaked a couple of words. Unfortunately, in a technical article "tweaking a couple words" might have turned the whole thing into nonsense so I'm anxious about the responses. I'm happy with our recent progress and I'm looking forward to more :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medical and other models

Once again I'm sending you something directly so as not to unduly distract people and derail progress in the main discussion page. We've been using the term disease model, although it seems that there are actually a number of different and conflicting medical models just as there are different and conflicting biochemical, biological, psychological, religious/spiritual, and other models, most or all of which have changed over time. This doesn't appear to be a problem. I see it as simply extending the length of the article and making our job of keeping it from being unnecessarily complicated a more interesting challenge.Medical Man 16:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A "medical" model is almost by definition a "disease" model, at least from a physician's perspective. In part, that's what makes the alcoholism argument at least partially circular. If a physician is treating it, it must be a disease - well, OK, that's probably not true 100% of the time, but it's pretty close. The ethic of being a physician is one in which you take into consideration the biologic, the psychologic, and the sociologic - their combination is what can make a disease. But if you have a medical model that isn't a disease model, I don't see why it shouldn't be in the article. FloNight said all the major arguments and significant minor ones should be there. I suppose we don't want the article to ramble on forever, though, so we'll have to stop someplace. Drgitlow 23:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting observation -- I didn't intend to distinuguish between medical and disease models, which I see as synonymous. I meant to suggest that just as there may be, for example, more than one biological theory, there must be different disease theories about alcoholism. And, as you observe, we have to use good judgment to prevent the piece from getting too long.Medical Man 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. The disease model simply says that this is a biologic entity and that the phenotypic presentation is consistent enough to allow for a formulation of disease course and a study of treatment methods and modalities. That's the disease model for the practice of medicine. It hasn't been changed to apply to addictive disorders, but rather just believed to apply to these as it does to other disease states. What it doesn't say here is what it doesn't say elsewhere - why. Because the Why answers are all the other theories. So, for example, let's say that there's a theory that a specific gene is THE cause of alcoholism. That would definitely fall under the disease model. Let's say there's a theory that genes are relevant but not precisely tied to it, and that environment is relevant but not precisely tied to it; that too would fall under the disease model. But let's say that there's a theory saying these folks are just making a decision, that people don't always make the best decisions, and that doing something by choice doesn't mean necessarily that you have anything wrong with you - that theory would not fall under the disease model.
This is why the disease model isn't the disease theory. It's just a model that is used across the board for human organism related difficulties within which certain theories need to be tested. As you've pointed out, we may eventually find that the correct theory for this doesn't fall into a disease model. I believe that to be exceedingly unlikely given the research evidence to date, but it's not impossible.
I'll do some more reading on this specific area in the next few days and will let you know if my response here is misguided, but these are my first thoughts on the matter. Hope you had a nice weekend. Drgitlow 02:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fillmore study

I'm sory but I haven't seen or read a copy. Perhaps if you re-try, you'll have success. Good luck on getting it.Medical Man 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Botanic Gardens pic

Very nice picture of old Botanic Garden station. I assume it's your own picture, but you need to put a copyright status on it. Please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the appropriate tag. If you don't place a tag on it, the picture will be deleted sooner or later. BTW, do you have a date (at least a year)? It's obviously way earlier than 1999. Cheers, Cecropia 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:BotanicGarden.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BotanicGarden.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woonsocket

I noticed you're a Rhode Islander. I was looking over the Woonsocket article, and I put it on my FA queue. I probably won't get to expanding the prose for another couple of months (at least until Autumnfest, so I can get a couple of good pics). — Deckiller 05:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great. I'm pretty new in Woonsocket -- about four years now -- and don't understand why this isn't a tremendously popular part of the state. The houses are beautiful and reasonably priced compared to our southern neighbors. There's minimal hurricane danger, and we're up a couple of hundred feet so flooding is unlikely unless you're right on the river. Easy commute to Boston and Providence and a restorable downtown. It should be enormously popular!Drgitlow 17:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
When someone uses a phrase like "restorable downtown" my investment-sense (like Spiderman's spider-sense, but more profitable) starts tingling. Is that the smell of commercial real estate hovering in the air over downtown Woonsocket? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Nah, Woonsocket ain't THAT great :-) — Deckiller 19:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not, but it's got to be better than it's name would suggest. Woonsocket? Oh my. :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Woonsocket was an enormously rich community in the early part of the 20th century. It was a tourist destination, with picture postcards documenting the period. Mills abounded along a river that provided a path for transportation and for merchandise from Worcester to Providence. As a result, the 3 blocks of Main Street include some beautiful old banks, a large and now fully restored theater, and much of the Street was poised over a waterway that was set up specifically to provide hydraulic power to the buildings! As it stands, the raw appearance of Main Street is very much as it was 75 years ago. The banks are all being used for other purposes now, but their old and attractive safety vaults are there, as are many of the original decorative items. The Street is practically a museum if you ignore the low-end tatoo shops, used Gameboy shops, and similar type of first floor current use. In the nearby North End are many blocks of 1900-1930 houses, many fully restored and some in good condition and ready for restoration. The entire area is 19 minutes from downtown Providence and 45 minutes from downtown Boston. The town has developed a poor reputation due to some changes in usage and housing on the outskirts during the 60s and early 70s, and we've seen housing prices double in the past 3 years, but current commercial space prices are only a fraction of what they are elsewhere in the state and are far below what they could be if the downtown were truly restored. Drgitlow 01:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Generally, the bad areas are Fairmount and the neighborhood just west of Main Street. I lived there for about 11 years, and yes, the crime rate ain't as bad as people say it is. — Deckiller 02:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You piqued my interest enough to look up Woonsocket using Google and an MLS search for commercial properties. The town is actually very attractive and Main Street seems to offer some interesting opportunities. Nice town, want to do an article on it? :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I already have it on my queue for featured article status probably next month :) Pretty please don't rob it! Unless you want to work on it together ^_^ — Deckiller 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL, I should have checked...I had no idea that there was already an article on it. I'm interested, so I'll reply further on your page. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Dr. G, thanks for your recent contributions to both alcoholism and its talkpage. I appreciate the current focus on cleaning up the article. I really think we've got a good candidtate for WP:GAC or WP:FAC here :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, and definitely the same to you for all your help. After the startup difficulties, I think we've accomplished an enormous amount. Drgitlow 01:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alcohol-related morbidity in Europe

Hello Drgitlow,

I left a remark about a statement you made in the article on binge drinking on the talk page over there.

With kind regards, --zeno 08:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for re-arrangement on Alcoholism

Hi, Doc. I'm still plugging away at the Alcoholism page. I wanted to check with you about merging the Epidemiology section with the Societal Impact section. As you know, I've been gearing the article towards a reader who has to deal with themselves, a friend, or relative who has alcoholism, and not those who have expertise in the field and probably have much better resources and strong opinions. As such, I'm thinking that the broader topic of how alcoholism effects society is secondary to that of how it effects individuals, and would like to move the epidemiology content in with the societal impact content, which exists after the treatment options. I know you had strong feelings about the placement of the epidemiology section, so I thought I'd check with you before doing that. Robert Rapplean 22:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York City Subway

Hello Drgitlow,

You have uploaded several very nice pictures showing the New York City Subways during the 1970s. As I'm writing on a new version of the German article about this subject (somewhat hidden: de:Benutzer:Johnny_S./New_York_City_Subway), I am still looking for images depicting the deteriorating lines and the trains full of graffiti during that period.

I have you in mind because I found some further photos with your name on David Pirmann's nycsubway.org page.

Regards, Johnny S.. --91.64.94.124 12:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Johnny. I'm happy to help. I've uploaded nearly all my photos of the Subway of the 1970s to nycsubway.org and I believe they're all openly published there. If you want a higher quality version of any of the images, feel free to email me. I had an official MTA Photographers Pass through the 70s and 80s so took pictures without restriction throughout those decades. I still have all the original negatives, mostly taken with Tri-X, and slides (Kodachromes) and can scan in whatever you'd like at any given resolution. Drgitlow 03:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
I've found 14 out of totally 106 images listed on nycsubway.org (numbered 43001 through 43078 and 43117 through 43144) that would be interesting in my opinion.
First of all, these three pictures would be most important because I want to place them within my article.
  • #43012 BMT Jamaica Line before abandonement
  • #43029 BMT Standard outside the all-dark museum cave
  • #43047 a regular train full of graffiti
Next, there are a few pictures that would be useful or "nice to have":
  • #43011 front of an R38 before general overhaul
  • #43021 view of old Coney Island station
  • #43033 Bumper block of Fulton Street line
  • #43040 somewhat "chaotic" elevated structure at Broadway Junction
  • #43048 R21/22 series interior
  • #43076 general view of the IRT Dyre Avenue Line
  • #43126 BMT Standard interior
  • #43129 remnants of the Fulton Street Line at Franklin Avenue
Moreover a higher resolution of the following images would be desirable:
  • #43120 R14 car exterior (to cut off "environment" around it)
  • #43117 207th Street Yard, higher resolution in general
  • #43137 207th Street Yard (alternatively; higher resolution needed in order to correct the slope)
I don't know how much time you have, but it would be best if you uploaded the pictures. Otherwise there might be legal problems, because administrators will complain about "wild" uploads. Moreover I don't know under which license you would like to publish your images.
Alternatively, you could place a kind of "legal statement" here that allows usage of these pictures under a free license.
Johnny S.. --91.64.94.124 22:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Game addiction

Hi Dr. G, I haven't been in touch with you for a long while. About two weeks ago there was an article in the paper about Game Addiction being considered for inclusion as an "official" addiction. When I read it I had to smile and wonder what my old friends from the Alcoholism article would think about it. Then, the next week, there was a follow-up article and it included a quote from you! Yes, I laughed out loud; you responded exactly how I thought you would. I'm glad they found someone sensible to interview : ) When I came to your talkpage to leave a note, I checked your Contrib History to make sure you were still active here and noticed that your last several edits were to Talk:Game addiction. Now I have to go check out the article. Happy editing! Doc Tropics 17:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)