User talk:Stilldoggy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please stop cluttering the benzodiazepines with a collection of refs to arbitrary pubmed articles. Those are largely reports of some experiments, which have been carried out sometime, somewhere and for some reason on rats, mice and brain slices. For almost every such article you will find a match which comes to contrary conclusions. Please limit the contribution to agreed conclusions, as found in pharmacology books and the FDA profiles, avoid anecdotal reports, speculative results, could have, may be involved, has one time been observed, is suspected, is being investigated, could have a theoretical connection etc. Not everything which has sometimes been suspected, investigated, speculated or observed is relevant to pharmacology and should be included. Avoid bot-like inclusion of search results. pubmed is not a source but an Augias-Stable of unfinished research and a playground for students. Example: You conclude that chlordiazepoxide "is related" to quinazolines, by being investigated together with quinazolines in one citation. You conclude that it is a hapten, by being mentioned in an article about immuno assay tests. These are not relevant articles for pharmacology. Of course it is a hapten in an immuno assay test! That is how antibody based immuno assays work! But this has nothing to do with its pharmacology. Please limit yourself to agreed facts, like the FDA profiles. And the intention was NOT vandalism, but to arrive at something which looks more like the FDA fact sheet. Example: You claim as a peer reviewed fact the HIGH abuse liability, because it is mentioned in a drug abuse article. FDA says low-to-medium abuse liability, placement in Schedule IV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.178.160 (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome!
|
A word of advice: it's really key to use edit summaries! It's tedious, but helps out in the long run. I almost reverted all your changes on Clonazepam, and although that would definitely have been my error, they still let people like me edit Wikipedia. (Go figure.) Again, welcome. If you have any questions about anything at all please feel free to ask me here or on my talk page. --Gimme danger (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hi there
Hi there, please relax. Wikipedia's policy on alternate accounts strongly recommends that users who operate such accounts disclose that information; there are several perfectly legitimate uses for them, and I myself have an alternate account I use on public computers—but I clearly state so in its user page. Undisclosed use of an alternate account will almost invariably lead to suspicion; observant editors will notice what seems to be two or more different people making very similar edits, and "red flags" will go up, if you will—alternate accounts are very, very often used in a disruptive and damaging manner. Don't take offense at this, but is your account in anyway related to JournalJunkie (talk · contribs) and Literaturegeek (talk · contribs)? I apologize if you felt offended by the concerns raised by Colin on my Talk page (or by the fact you were not contacted), but they were legitimate.
That being said, I do take issue with recent additions to the benzodiazepine pages. Much of the content in the Pharmacology section of clonazepam, for instance, is (as I said) only marginally relevant to the actual clinical use of the drug, and might be better off in a different section, or perhaps removed from the article altogether. In vitro data from isolated studies, as well as clinical data from early-phase trials, is often removed or withheld from Wikipedia articles simply because they present a low level of evidence and are often easy to misrepresent or of little relevance. Bold edits, such as 70.137.178.160's removal of content he or she felt unnecessary/dubious, followed by talk page discussion after the edits were reverted, are an important part of editing Wikipedia. It appears you and the anonymous user above are disagreeing on several articles; as well as his concern that a group of seemingly like-minded editors may in fact be a single person, Colin probably saw the potential for an "edit war" here, as I did— and escalation to that level would be very unfortunate. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for getting back to me. I guess that I have learnt the hard way of why not to use more than 1 account without disclosing it. I assumed that it wasn't a problem and didn't give it a second thought because I assumed because my edits were not vandalism and were not link spamming etc that it wouldn't matter. I just tended to create another account when I was using a different computer. It was simple to do, register login and edit. LiteratureGeek I used on my girlfriends computer, and journal junkie at her father's house. Halffullglass I used at my cousins house. I can understand the reason to be concerned. If you like feel free to merge the accounts into this one which I am using now. I will make sure that I just log in with the same account when using other computers. You are correct and I do agree that the some of my edits are not relevant to actual clinical use of the drug. I wondered would there be any warrant to creating a page where more extensive pharmacological data on benzodiazepines could be added? There is already a wiki article on benzo withdrawal syndrome, so I wonder is one on pharmacology warranted? I do agree that the vast majority of people reading information on clonazepam would not know the relevance of say benzodiazepines being a hapten (which shows it is capable in a small group of people of eliciting an immunological response), acetylcholine (which may be of value to some more advanced readers such as clinicians because acetylcholine is important in care of the elderly because alteration can lead to delirium) or calcium antagonism (which plays a role in benzodiazepine withdrawal and also cardiac adverse or withdrawal effects, calcium medications can help or worsen some withdrawal effects). So yes I can see your point how some of the edits I have made are irrelevant and not understandable to the majority of readers (except certain individuals and professionals) looking for information on clonazepam (or benzodiazepines in general) in the wiki article but they might be very relevant to those interested in the neuroscience and more advanced pharmacological aspects of benzodiazepine use or withdrawal. So is there any point in creating a seperate page? I could then go and trim the technical data from the benzo articles and put it in a more appropriate page. I could devide the article up into different categories of pharmacology, like pharmacology (basic pharmacology), pharmacokinetics and so forth. I might just do that, unless there are any objections. The anonymous user seems to have calmed down, so I will have a sensible chat with them and avoid an edit war and maybe we can all come to an agreement on the disputes surrounding my work and deletions by the anon user. I appologise for using multiple accounts, there was nothing bad intentioned by doing so.--Stilldoggy (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for acknowledging that. We can't really merge accounts; sock puppet accounts are blocked, and inappropriately-used alternative accounts (where there was no "malicious intent" :) may be, but I really don't think that's necessary. You may simply choose one account (I would recommend Literaturegeek as it was your first), stop using the others, and create an userpage for yourself with a brief note letting people know you operate(d) alternate accounts. Let's call it a clean slate. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome and thank you for accepting my explaination and appolgy. Ok I will start using literaturegeek and open up an introduction of myself on it but I would like to reply over the next day or 2 with the anonymous user first, clear things up on this account before switching permanently to literaturegeek. Yes, clean slate. If you have any problems with me or my edits in the future feel free to contact me to discuss, suggest etc.--Stilldoggy (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Will do. By the way, there are plenty of places where you can ask for input about your suggestions, such as WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Pharmacology. I have to warn you though, separate articles specifically meant to address varying levels of complexity of a subject are very rarely successful in Wikipedia. There should ideally be a balance in the main article between information the average reader would look for and information relevant to people with a background in the field and a scientific interest, with separate articles created as needed when the main one becomes too long or unwieldy, or focuses too heavily on a particular "sub-subject". Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Stilldoggy, look at the talk pages Chlordiazepoxide. You will agree. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stilldoggy, I don't want to drive you away from WP and am sorry if you've got hurt over this. The reason I didn't come directly to you was (a) I didn't know which account to pick and (b) I wanted to ask Fv's advice on how to handle the matter. My message on the talk page of the anon account wasn't an endorsement of his/her methods but since they were also making good faith attempts to improve the articles, I wanted to encourage them to get an account so we can have a proper dialogue. I see Fv has handled the multiple-account business. I hope you understand now how they looked suspicious. We get people coming to WP to push a certain point of view, and inflate their argument by using sock accounts. As I suggested to Fv, some mentoring with an experienced Wikipedian, preferably someone with subject knowledge and access to sources, should help you to become a very productive editor. I don't know if we can find someone but certainly asking for help on the two wikiprojects Fv mentions would be a good start. In a dispute, it is always best to get other opinions. Sorry if we got off to a bad start. I'm very busy today so might not get a chance to contribute much. Let me know which account you intend to keep. Colin°Talk 07:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Colin, Thanks for your concerns. I understand why you did what you did and accept that you did so with good intentions. I am now ignoring the anon user 70.137.178.160 after a series of abuse and his/her acknowledgement of having an editing agenda on the chlordiazepoxide Talk Page. I did try the diplomatic approach and accepted many of his/her ammendments to the articles of my edits. I believe though that I can improve the quality of my edits from the points raised tonight and will use more credible and relevant data in wiki edits in future.--Stilldoggy (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Stilldoggy, Kid, I don't want to be accused of being member of a PRO-DRUG group, just because I insisted on the low to medium abuse liability of Librium, as reflected by C IV. I am not member of a PRO-DRUG group, but of a different group. We have no parents, girl friends, aunts, uncles, few living friends, many already dead, also the state is not our mother or father. We are OLD. And we don't want to have a nanny society kindergarten, just because your generation doesn't want to grow up. It is not only a cultural problem between brits and yankees, it is a generation problem too. Consequently I don't want you to bunch up Librium to the level of Heroin. 70.137.178.160 (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
70.137.178.160 on my ignor list.--Stilldoggy (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Stilldoggy, Too busy just now to get involved. However, there is no rush. Many good editors follow a "revert once" personal rule (the limit is three times in 24hrs and you shouldn't go near that). Beyond that, the best solution is discussion on article talk pages and to ask for other opinions (such as the wikiprojects). Try find some common ground with the other editor and work towards content you are both happy with. If the material you want to add is disputed, seriously consider that you might be wrong about it or its importance. The article doesn't have to be perfect right now if it takes a while to get agreement. Consider posting sample text on the talk page and asking the other editor(s) if they are happy with it or what they'd like to change. Discussing proposed text on a talk page can be more productive than edit warring on the actual article. Never get personal in your arguments. Use good quality sources to back up your argument, not personal experience or belief. If you start to get angry, that's a sign to take a break. Wikipedia will still be here tomorrow. Colin°Talk 08:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok sure colin, I understand that you are too busy. I can't reason with this anon person though lol. She is believes in shooting drug misusers in the head and goes off on tangents and rants and personal attacks. Whoever it is they are cookoo. I can talk and reason with you and other editors fine but not this nutty person who keeps personally attacking me. I tried to get into a diplomatic discussion on the clonazepam talk with this person and then the conversation continued on the chlordiazepoxide talk page. I did accept that a lot of my edits were irrelevant to the article and accepted a lot of the suggestions made to me. I even removed a significant amount of material from the clonazepam article today. I am open to and welcome further suggestions. Take care.--Stilldoggy (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I see from elsewhere you are thinking of taking a break. I hope you come back refreshed and less stressed. Perhaps you and the anon are annoying each other but there is a core to what he is saying that I agree with. You should stop sourcing your additions to just journal abstracts. It is fairly clear you don't have access to the full journals, and have even cited foreign language articles. Writing about a subject with just the abstract to go on is like writing about a movie having only seen the trailer. Without journal access or access to a good library, you are going to find it quite difficult to make useful edits to pharmacology articles. Perhaps you can get hold of good medical books at a local college or uni library? The second mistake is to use basic science, anecdotal reports (case reports) or small-scale studies on which to then state a fact as being (a) firmly established and (b) generally applicable to humans. This is why we much prefer review articles as sources, because a recognised authority and expert has already examined the literature and written about what is important and sure. As editors, we shouldn't be arguing over whether one scientist's results say X about a drug -- we should be able to cite a good review or book that independently agrees with that scientist. Finally, there's the issue of undue weight given to certain aspects of an article. As Derek.cashman said, there are lots of important things to write about wrt drug articles and we must deal with them all in balance. Colin°Talk 19:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
