User talk:KonradG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Thanks from Charles Gaudette

Thanks for your edits to dextroamphetamine — and further welcome to Wikipedia! If you are up to it, dopamine and norepinephrine (in dex's lead paragraph) need more attention than I was expecting for such basic topics, but they are just too far outside my expertise. --Charles Gaudette 01:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Same here. They're important topics, but mostly outside my circle of competence. KonradG 13:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glad you could make it to the party

SBHarris SBHarris

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)

I've had a go at reformatting the style guideline (at a temporary page) and would appreciate your comments. I've tried to include your recent edits to the existing proposal. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) for details. Colin°Talk 23:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KonradG

Thanks for a reasoned and reasonable response re: the Munger article. I understand your general point, and will try to heed it. I generally try to ensure that links have forward and backward connectivity...but do understand that over-linking is not desirable. Again, thanks.Wolvve85 17:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

  1. Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Methamphetamine. If you continue to do so, it may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Benjiwolf 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

im getting out of the meth page...i see its going to be aggressively defended by pro-meth people...yet im dropping a tag on u for possible vandalism and removing a thoroughly referenced paragraph with a dozen links to mainstream scientific thoughts on the issue...it was the first time it was acknowledged that there is a link between meth and increased aids neurotoxicity...it acknowledged the fact that the labs are toxic waste zones that need to be cleaned by special teams with protective clothes...that paragraph gave a brief summary of its toxicities...before the intro was just "its used medically" and "its addictive"...no one had even acknowledged it is just used in very small quantities medically and recommended for at most short 6 week durations...it was a pathetic intro to the drug regarded as the most dangerous of all by many...i put some of the few links on that page to medical articles and scientific studies into its toxicity...i didnt put in any claims that werent stated by mainstream sources and backed up with scientific studies...i avoided linking to dozens of government pages that might be biased...and i didnt link to any other hardcore anti-meth pages...yet u removed factual content and valid links...and anecdotally ive seen people with lives absolutely wrecked from that stuff...anyways...that was vandalism...yet as i say im returning to other topics...im too disgusted with what goes on with the meth page to continue editing it...i see u just basically edit the amphetamine pages and also some concern with warren buffett...i dont know what to make of that...yet anyways...good day...Benjiwolf 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop your personal attacks

Konrad, desist with your continued personal attacks in discussion. Action will be taken. --scuro 10:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You're free to do so. However, I don't think it's a personal attack to tell you that you're unfamiliar with the material you're deleting. Apparently you didn't think so either, since you were quite happy to respond to my "attack" by telling me, "nor do you have anything more then the most limited knowledge about my capabilities or background. Continue with such abuse and I will report you." Is that a personal attack as well? KonradG 17:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Having just read Talk:Dextroamphetamine, I doubt if you would be surprised at this mediation cabal involving a particular editor.--Aspro 13:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know much about the conflict itself, but the pattern of behaviour that was described in the initial complaint sounds awfully familiar. KonradG 02:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] don't be a dick

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick

You are getting remarkably rude while adding nothing to the discussion page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dextroamphetamine#a_definition_of_sensitization.2Freverse_tolerance --scuro 04:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for telling me about the stub, it was something I didn't realize, thanks again :) Edward Bower 02:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heinlein and privacy

Have you had a chance to read For Us, The Living? You recent posts about the BLP policy have been channeling RAH's ghost. KonradG 03:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I often channel RAH, but rarely intentionally. I actually read FUTL when it was published a few years ago, but remember it only as a fairly uninteresting economics rant (with also some dated stuff about prudery and sexual freedom). I don't remember a thing about privacy discussions. So you'll have to connect me...SBHarris 23:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, saw your response but haven't had a chance to track down the passages I was referring to. I don't remember the particulars too clearly myself, but I have the book so I can refresh my memory. KonradG 12:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Violation

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Amphetamine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. <! Konrad....do you notice that this warning states that one should use the discussion page? That would be most welcome and appreciated. It also is wiki policy. --scuro 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damph

I'm going to reread threw the debate when I get back from DC. But I was thinking, what if as a temporary (or permanent) 'solution'(although this might not get us further but heres hoping...), we just have a "controversy about dextroamphetamine tolerence" section (or whatever name it should have), and in it there are two different views, and one view might be strongly supported and another view might be exposed as not using logic, or perhaps(and hopefully) they both will add somethign to the article. Thanks for asking me KonradEdward Bower 05:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that, as far as I can tell, there is no controversy on this subject except right here on Wikipedia. I have not seen Scuro's view supported anywhere in the literature. KonradG 18:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)