User:Fuzzform/Archive2005-2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Regarding "Project: Benzo"

I am interested in benzodiazepines (especially after hearing that some of them appear to occur naturally in edible plants such as wheat and potatoes, but I don't know if I always have time or the ability to express an idea stated by someone else using something other than cut and paste. That really screwed me in writing isocarboxazid. I also couldn't decide which section to write first, and wound up just writing the drugbox, opening and a "Brand Names" section. Guggh. I hope I can be of some help this time.

Would there be any deadlines, by the way?--Rmky87 02:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Which English?

Hi Fuzzform, there isn't just one standard form of English used at Wikipedia. Take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). The basic rule of thumb is: if you're editing an article that's about a particular English-speaking country or someone or something associated with a particular English-speaking country, use the spelling appropriate to that country. If the topic of the article isn't related to any particular country, then follow the spelling of the first major contributor (i.e. go into the history, click "Earliest" if there's a long history, and then browse the earliest edits to see if you find a spelling that's distinctively British or American). Angr/talk 20:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diazepam

Hi Fuzzform,

I've noticed your recent edits to Diazepam. I haven't had time yet to read what you've written but can I request two things:

  1. Don't use "This is a minor edit" for what is clearly open-heart surgery on the article. Minor edits are for typos.
  2. Please can you always add an edit summary, e.g. "Completely rewrote" or "Replaced Side Effects section with non-plagiarized text", etc.

Your comment on the edit page was helpful. I believe there is a "work in progress" template/banner somewhere that I think you stick on the talk page. You might find that useful if you are making lots of edits over an hour or so. Otherwise someone might read your half-finished work and try "fixing" what you were already improving yourself.

Anyway, thanks for contributing. I agree with you that some articles contain too much copied text. They can read like the patient info leaflet, or are written purely from a physician's point of view (ie. everyone is a patient).

Cheers, --Colin 17:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've started reading this now, but just the first few paragraphs! You've certainly moved away most of the clutter that had built up over time. However, I think the introduction section is still too long. Most of it is historical stuff so I created a History and moved this into it. For big important drugs like diazepam, this History should be quite extensive and probably at the top - this is the stuff the general reader wants to read before getting bogged down in pharmacology, etc. For lesser known drugs, the History may be just when it was licensed, etc and is probably less interesting so could go near the end. After my edit, the introduction is perhaps a little short. Another sentence or two would be just right... --Colin 19:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzform, can I plead with you again to take care with the "This is a minor edit" check box. Of all the edits you have made recently, the only minor one is at 20:35 (Trivia), which you classed as a major edit! Please read Wikipedia:Minor edit. If you could see me, I'd be wagging my finger at you ;-) --Colin 20:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. The point of the minor edit flag is that when looking over your many edits, I should be able to ignore the minor ones. The Wikipedia:Minor edit page does say: "Marking a real change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior". I think the "personal preference" aspect is whether you bother to tick it. In other words, it is relatively harmless to not tick it. I'm not perfect in this regard either but I think it will be useful to get it right if several people are editing and reviewing these drug pages. --Colin 22:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I love your new version of diazepam. I added a link to the Russian version. I'd never heard of anyone calling it, "Sibazonum," before. You wouldn't believe how many drug pages have a Russian version with no interwikification whatsoever.

Regarding nordazepam, I have found that ever since primidone, I have had a problem with forgetting that I have started pages or, before I realized that yes, there was a formal format, having no idea what to do with a page except make more detailed somehow. I would cease to know how to restate facts in my own words, because the latter just wasn't there; the isocarboxazid article is where it got so obvious that even I could see it. I didn't stop starting articles because I couldn't finish them; I just got too apathetic to do so.

I had completely forgotten this project existed. It certainly explains a lot.--Rmky87 05:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stiff person / man

Obviously it doesn't only affect men; hence modern textbooks are calling it 'stiff person' syndrome. My old chairman used to advocate avoiding the whole issue by calling it 'Moersch-Woltman syndrome', but no one seemed to have followed him in this, which he lamented in the introductory note to the neurology textbook he edits. Ikkyu2 22:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standardization of drug pages

(This section has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs/General/Main sections of drug page.)

There's quite a lot of useful opinion and comment here. Can I suggest that the discussion re: Diazepam move to the Talk:Diazepam page and the discussion re: Standardization of drug pages move to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Drugs/General/Main sections of drug page. This is just so that others are aware of this discussion and can join in. You might want to copy/rehash what you've written already on MattKingston's talk page. --Colin 22:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzform,

I'll try to add some comments to the drug standardisation discussion later. In the mean time, I would thoroughly recommend that you have a go at editing/creating a much lesser-known drug article than diazepam. This would serve as a good contrast. I think there is enough interest and information for diazepam to eventually become a featured article. For other drugs, they are destined to be short articles. On my User:Colin page, you can see some of the articles I've created/edited for some of these lesser-known drugs. Some of these are just one paragraph long at present; others have a few sections; some are more complete. There are lots of red-link benzo's on the ATC code N05 page: pick one at random! My point is that I don't think a short article benefits from lots of boilerplate standard headings. For example, I really don't see the purpose of an Indications heading that only says "This drug is indicated for the treatment of anxiety" when you have already said it is an anxiolytic in the introduction. For older drugs, Google Books is your friend, unless you have a medical library to hand. Amazon have a similar service but I haven't had much luck with that since they won't let me read the pages unless I've bought a book from Amazon.com (I'm in the UK). --Colin 14:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Just a polite comment... I noticed this edit in which you added the {{prod}} deletion template to an article and marked the edit "minor" with no edit summary. This would perhaps put people off noticing the change on their watchlist, where as a major edit with summary "adding prod template" would make them look and object to the deletion. In the interests of fairness, please try and provide an appropriate edit summary when adding this template in future. Thanks └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC) (and for the record, I don't object to the deletion of that article).

[edit] Methylamine

Thanks for the heads up. I put up a new high-res structure last night. Let me know if you happen to catch any other articles in a similar situation, since I don't actively look for them. Happy editing! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 23:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

I've fiddled with the anticonvulsant template now. I've also alphabetised the benzodiazepine template. You've been very buzy. Great work --Colin 23:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midazolam

I see you've altered the oral bioavailability that I entered from 40% to 97%. My sources range between 40-50% and certainly oral dosages given clinically are 2-3 times as much as i.v. doses, as the drug is subject to significant first pass metabolism. bignoter 09:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a general problem with the DrugBox. The bioavailability, half-life and even the metabolism and excretion will vary with the administration route and precise formulation. In addition to i.v, midazolam may be swallowed as a syrup, held in the mouth to be absorbed via the buccal mucosa (largely avoiding digestion – though some may get swallowed) and even sprayed intranasally (PMID 11802661). For other drugs there are creams, suppositories, patches, soluble powders, tablets, enteric-coated capsules, etc, etc. I think that where there is a risk of confusion, the drug box should state e.g. "xx% (oral syrup)". If there is room for more than one entry in the table cell, then that would be good. Otherwise it could be moved out to be discussed in the article and the DrugBox left with "varies", or some such phrase --Colin 11:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that is a problem, one which I hadn't thought of. Bioavailability is by definition 100% when injected intravenously. I suppose I'll have to go through all the articles and differentiate. Fuzzform 01:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
As with all these pharmacokinetic parameters, they all have strict definitions, and the further you go into it, the more complex it becomes. In fact the bioavailability is defined as the percentage fraction of the drug that reaches the systemic circulation, incontrast to the absorption, which is the percentage reaching the portal circulation. I would suggest that bioavailability in the table should be taken to imply oral, since that is common usage and implicitly obvious where a drug is taken orally or iv (the iv is of course 100%), but where drugs are given by several routes, then that extra detail should be added. After all, i.m. BA is invariably taken to be equal to 100%, and there are few drugs given transdermally as well as oral (hyoscine, GTN, sex hormones spring to mind). So I would suggest that the table cell simply list the one value, with a comment if it has other routes. See the entry for Tramadol, which has the curious property that BA varies for repeated dosing - you could leave it to be discussed in the main article, but for quick reference, a few words in the table clarifies the detail without upsetting the conciseness of a quick reference table. bignoter
I've copied this discussion to Template talk:Drugbox --Colin 09:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tofisopam...

...is neither a sedative, hypnotic (how is that different from a sedative, again?) or a skeletal muscle relaxant and the only thing it has in the way of anticonvulsant properties is making the classic 1,4-benzos work that much better at preventing bicuculline-induced seizures in laboratory animals and perhaps in that rare individual human who has the notion of taking the two together. Go look at the citations on the article if you don't believe me.--Rmky87 06:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC) ETA: And I'm not so sure about the schedule IV part, either, given that it is not yet approved in the United States for any purpose. Also:

PMID 10446419: [J.E. Horvath, J. Hudak, M. Palkovits, Zs. Lenkei, M.I.K. Fekete, P. Aranyi, A novel specific binding site for homophthalazines (formerly 2, 3-benzodiazepines) in the rat brain, Eur. J. Pharmacol., 236 (1993) 151-153.] That's not the title of the abstract, it's the title of an article cited within the abstract.

PMID 10670703: Agents affecting emotional responses evoked by endogenous opioids without danger of tolerance and dependence may represent a new therapeutic tool in the treatment of addiction and affective disorders. The bolding was mine, as was the italicization.

Of course, it could wind up there, when it is approved (see the VelaPharm link on the tofisopam page for details) in the United States, by virtue of being classified as some sort of benzo at one time in human history.--Rmky87 06:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a reminder

Remember to finish your work on Biological psychiatry. Right now it is in limbo.

[edit] Template:Antibiotics

Great work on collating so many antibiotics, it should serve as a very useful nav box.

I hope you don't mind me making a few (hopefully constructive) comments.

I have been standardising the series of medical and anatomical navboxes and have been advised of the current use of '|' as a seperator. The current standard, as you can see on most of the boxes on this list use '|' as a separator, and allow the links to become bold when self-referential. It might be worth considering a change for the sake of continuity.

Currently you have transcluded the whole of this template into a few antibiotic artcles. I might suggest it would be best to avoid having such a large template in an article. Perhaps a list of classes would be best for the Template:Antibiotics?

Thanks, |→ Spaully°τ 21:51, 6 March 2006 (GMT)

Sorry, deleted most of my comment having realised you have created sub-templates. |→ Spaully°τ 22:01, 6 March 2006 (GMT)

I see what you mean about the antibiotics page, definitely needs some work, although I don't know enough about templates to tackle that.
I think using the sub-templated, with the header either as you say with 'Aminoglycoside antibiotics' or 'Antibiotics - Aminoglycosides' would be much neater and easier to handle.
The 'other' category seems a bit of a dumping ground at the moment for whatever reason. Just from noticing that rifampin is in there on it's own, not linked to rifamycins. I'll contribute what I can to the antibiotics, although it wont be for the next few weeks.
I'll take a look at the project, although I don't envisage getting too bogged down in any one subject, especially right at the moment.
Thanks for the reply, |→ Spaully°τ 00:02, 7 March 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Merger of Acting out

I noticed you added a merge tag to Acting out proposing a merge to Twelve-step program. This is to let you know I've put a mergefro tag on Twelve-step program and asked for comments on that talk page, as that page seems more active and so some consensus may be generated. Perhaps you could leave your reasons for the proposal there? Kcordina 09:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Well done for all the work you've done on the benzos. I notice that you mention Diazepam and Alprazolam as possibly ready for peer review. I don't think these drug articles are close to that due to the almost complete lack of references. I guess that some of the "External links" (e.g. RxList and Inchem) were actually used as references and should be moved to a "References" section. However, I doubt very much that all the info in this article came from just those two sources. Could you name the textbooks and other online sources you have used.

Ideally, as each page is worked on, any unreferenced stuff could be removed. For example, the Recreational use in Alprazolam contains a lot of stuff added by anons that is likely to be guff. But we can hardly remove it with a comment saying "Unreferenced" since nothing else is.

There should be a mixture of "global references" such as Inchem and RxList and also inline citations as used in Clobazam. (I have problems with Clobazam in that it doesn't interpret the data so contains a lot of detailed facts but not enough information - if you know what I mean).

I noticed some of the benzo's had "See Diazepam#something" (e.g. Nitrazepam). I appreciate this might be a temporary stub. If, however, you intend not to repeat common side effects, interactions, etc, then I think it would be better to put this into Benzodiazepine rather than just one drug. Later editors of Diazepine may add something that is unique to that drug and so end up corrupting all the other drug infos.

Cheers --Colin°Talk 18:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

References vs External Links. The latter are totally optional and not strongly encouraged. The question of whether they should be in one section or another depends on whether you (or another editor) used them as references or if they are just interesting extras. I've edited Alprazolam a bit here but you might want to demote a couple of the references I added to just External links. I was pretty unhappy about including the Xanax.com web sites since they are very commercial. However, they do contain some valuable info. The other sites were either very low grade info sites or else psychiatrists home sites, which Wikipedia doesn't encourage links to - so I removed them.

The problem with having External links at all is that it encourages links to online pharmacies, blogs, etc. Colin°Talk 20:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzform. I strongly recommend you use the new cite method of inline-citations rather than the old ref/note method. The numbers on Diazepam don't match up - largley because you've ref'd the same note more than once. This is much easier to do with the new cite method and pretty impossible with the old. See the example on Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style. More examples on List of people with epilepsy where I use the various citation templates. It is neatest when you put references at the end of the line, and use plenty newlines to keep the edit code readable. Have a look at the edit code behind List of people with epilepsy. Cheers Colin°Talk 18:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you've read that inline citations aren't encouraged. I know the inline HTML links are discouraged (the ones that also put little [2] numbers in the text that go direct to the web page) - because there is no text with them if the link goes dead and they also break the other numbering schemes). In fact, the lack of inline citations is a very common reason for failing FAC. Look at Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article, point 2c. I'd hate to see you put lots of effort into ref/note when it is on its way out. In terms of inventing your own style: be careful. The Saffron article has a combination of cite footnotes and Harvard references. But the Harvard style only really works for sources with an author name and date. I'm not sure that for short articles (as most of the drugs will be) you need a complex system. The cite method allows you to have more than one reference to eg. Drugs.com as your source material. I think it handles this quite nicely. Another reason for not inventing your own style is that other folk will be editing these articles long after you've moved on to other things. I suggest you keep to the simple standard styles unless there is a very strong reason to deviate. And then you should perhaps propose your style (in Diazepam) for peer review before using it on dozens of other articles. Cheers Colin°Talk 19:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Just noticed your 19:06 edit to Diazepam. That's not how you do it. Look at Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style and put the line with "< references />" at the bottom. This gets expanded with all the actual references material. I'd be happy to do this for you, but you'd need to give me 1/2 hour alone with Diazepam. Colin°Talk 19:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
No, there is no way to avoid having the reference text in with the body of your text. However, if you repeat a reference then you just need to give its name the second/third/fourth time - you don't need to repeat the text. I think that provided you put the references at the end of a sentence/line and you use lots of newlines, it can be quite readable. It also means you can genuinely edit just a section without also having to edit the references at the bottom. As I said, if you are still having problems getting the syntax right, I can do a couple of references for you, or all of them. Colin°Talk 19:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Remember that the beauty of the edit code is a lower priority. Think of the reader. Colin°Talk 19:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

More examples of usage at Meta Cite. You don't have to use the citation templates with the cite method, but I really like them as they make it easy for you to supply all the info and for all the formatting to be consistent and somebody-else's-problem. Colin°Talk 19:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You have two ref tags at the start of Diazepam. The first immediately followed by the second, and it is not ended with a /ref. This is causing problems.

The List of people with epilepsy never repeats any references so the names (which are optional) aren't required. See the other examples I've given above. In the Meta Cite definition, anything in square brackets means "optional". Colin°Talk

Nearly there. You've still got a rogue ref tag inside the end of your first citation. This is causing the little [1] at the end of the first reference. I've looked at your Drugbank citation. I'd suggest making "title=Diazepam" and "work=Drugbank". Whilst David Wishart appears to be the "main man", I'd be surprised if he was the only author. So I wonder if you should include author at all? Colin°Talk 20:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the three rogue refs. Appologies if you get an edit conflict. This was getting too painful to watch. Colin°Talk 20:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Think you are getting the hang of it now. You might like to use Show Preview rather than make lots of edits. Cheers, Colin°Talk 20:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diazepam

Note to self (regarding diazepam): clarify the introduction; make it understandable to the layman. It should be very clear what the drug is used for, as this is the main piece of information sought by the average reader. - Fuzzform (not logged in)

I saw the comment and it is true - the article is largely only comprehensible to someone with a pharmacy or medical degree. I don't have either but have read enough to have picked up the lingo. I'm don't have the time at the moment to help with editing but have a few suggestions:

  • Move the Indications and Dosage higher up as per your WikiProject Drugs/General/Main sections of drug page guidelines.
  • The Pharmacology and Pharmacokinetics are probably the least interesting and least understandable to the lay person. So perhaps the guidelines should move them futher down the article.
  • Diazepam has relatively unusual problems in that it may well be the benzo with the most uses and best studied. Other drugs could be less frightening to the lay user simply because their articles are shorter.
  • The Physical properties section is not mentioned in the guidelines and I doubt you will find as much info for other drugs. It is technical trivia with a limited lay appeal. So perhaps this should be moved lower down too.
  • The sections that appear on a typical patient info leaflet, e.g. Indications, Interactions and Side effects, should have a lay introduction using language typically found on such a leaflet. This intro should list only the few most common indications, side effects, etc. For example, perhaps the most important interaction is with alcohol.
  • You could ask for help either on WikiProject Drugs or even go for a Peer review to get general advice for improvement.
  • Some photos would be good.

Colin°Talk 12:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation in carvone

Hi,

I noticed you requested a citation for production figures for spearmint oil. The reference is ref. 2, which is cited two sentences earlier with regard to production figures for caraway seed oil. In chemistry articles we normally don't keep repeating the same citation, and I had thought that the context made it clear that the same reference would work for both. Do you really think we need to repeat the citation? Since that article (ref 2) is essentially a 2006 review article about carvone, I used it perhaps twenty times in the article, but clearly I don't want to cite it twenty times! Thanks, Walkerma 02:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-written Biological psychiatry article

Just wanted to let you know I totally re-wrote the article on Biological psychiatry. It was a big job. Take a look when you get time. Joema 00:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at Talk:Biological psychiatry? Thanks. Joema 03:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Arbitration on Biological psychiatry

Fuzzform, I asked Cesar Tort and Ombudsman for mediation or arbitration. They didn't respond so regretfully we must proceed. Without mediation, we go straight to arbitration. If you're willing to support this, please read the below. I'll file the request later today, unless you suggest otherwise. Joema 19:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzform, you did a lot of work on this article which might be in jeopardy if a hard-line anti-psychiatry dominates the pending arbitration. Your removal of the Elliott Valenstein anti-psychiatry link has already been reverted. It might help if you add a statement here: WP:RFAR. If you don't think extensive anti-psychiatry content belongs in this article, summarize that and why. Just create another "Statement by Party x" heading beneath where Rockpocket made his. Thanks. Joema 19:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzform, please read this section closely and make any comments you think appropriate under the "comment by parties" headings: RFA Cesar Tort, Ombudsman proposed findings of fact. Joema 17:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lethal Injection?

When you inserted the heading "Use as a Lethal Injection" in secobarbital, you were linking to an album called Lethal Injection, by a rock band. Lethal injection, with a lower-case rather than capital initial "i", is a differenent article, apparently about the topic you intended. Wikipedia's conventions calling for lower case initial letters in section headings in cases like this, i.e. "Use as a lethal injection" serve a number of purposes, one of which is to avoid such confusions. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Michael Hardy 20:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others

This arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

Delivered for the arbitration committee as a clerk (I don't take part in making these decisions). --Tony Sidaway

[edit] Psychology Wiki

The Logo for the Psychology Wiki.
The Logo for the Psychology Wiki.

Hi Fuzzform,

I noticed that you are interested in biological sciences and psychiatry, and thought you might be interested in this project which I am involved in, The Psychology Wiki.

I won't say too much, as I'd like you to judge it for yourself, but you should find that it is different from Wikipedia, because approximately 90% of our contributors so far are psychologists, academics, or students and trainees.

Its hosted by a company called Wikia, which was founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley. There are Google Ads on the site, but we dont make money from the project, they're just to pay for the bandwidth, storage and technical support that Wikia give us.

Have a look and see what you think

Mostly Zen 01:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fuzzform,

I'm not sure who added the idea of real names as a cultural norm, as I didnt write that page on our wiki. One thing we are trying to do with our project is attract more academics, and people who might not have used Wiki's before. We have decided, to try and raise the credibility of our project as an academic site, to use real names whenever possible, although people are still allowed to use nicknames or contribute without registering if they want.

I'll change that section later on to reflect what we are trying to do.

Tom Michael - Mostly Zen Image:Baby_tao.jpg (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: Yes, you're right, most of the comments are by us. This is unavoidable at present, because the Wiki is so young (6 months) and we've only just got to the point where its organised enough to begin marketing it. Any help you give would be greatly appreciated, thanks :)

[edit] Estazolam is Pregnancy Category X??

Says who? The closest thing I found to an adverse effect there was this study that says it will ripen the cervix when made into a suppository and placed there. There after, the abortion did not "perform itself" so to speak. And it's only in Books mode that you can even see that word—the abstract text says they used diazepam. And there's not much evidence that benzos rate anywhere near a category X. I hope you have a subscription to Medscape.--Rmky87 22:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, DrugBank is based in Canada, so when Canada says that something is contraindicated in pregnancy, that doesn't always mean that it meets United States criteria for Category X the way that, say, thalidomide does.--Rmky87 23:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benzodiazepine equivalence

A recent edit war between two users over the values in this table has turned nasty. I have asked these users to stop editing this table for now, and hope that perhaps you can decide which of their sources (or neither) is best. Then I think it would be good for this table to contain consistent figures from one source. If you want another opinion, then User:Rmky87 seems to be knowledgeable in this area too. Regards, Colin°Talk 21:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)