| Revision as of 21:06, 20 April 2016 editDiscrete (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users525 edits →Disappointed← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:12, 20 April 2016 edit undoJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →Disappointed: last replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
| ::None of us gave a "reflexive reply", Wpegden. We all gave policy-based responses based on long experience and no less than three administrators with long experience editing medical/health commented there, and no one agreed with you. You are just not listening nor learning. That is your choice, of course, but doing that will not lead you to a productive or happy time here in Misplaced Pages. The problem you encountered at the SIDS article was due to your actions; not others. Please read ] (really!) and reflect on it. ] (]) 20:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC) | ::None of us gave a "reflexive reply", Wpegden. We all gave policy-based responses based on long experience and no less than three administrators with long experience editing medical/health commented there, and no one agreed with you. You are just not listening nor learning. That is your choice, of course, but doing that will not lead you to a productive or happy time here in Misplaced Pages. The problem you encountered at the SIDS article was due to your actions; not others. Please read ] (really!) and reflect on it. ] (]) 20:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :::::As was typical for this whole debate, you are misrepresenting things when you say that "no one agreed" with me. Although he/she had less time to participate than some of us, ] also agreed that research on fans and ventilation should be given more weight in the article. I realize now that you probably already know this, and are intentionally misrepresenting the debate. ] (]) 21:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC) | :::::As was typical for this whole debate, you are misrepresenting things when you say that "no one agreed" with me. Although he/she had less time to participate than some of us, ] also agreed that research on fans and ventilation should be given more weight in the article. I realize now that you probably already know this, and are intentionally misrepresenting the debate. ] (]) 21:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::This is my last response to you until you show some different behavior. The only person arguing your perspective is you. No one supports what you want. You are violating the foundational principle of Misplaced Pages by pushing and ''pushing'' and '''pushing''' and not listening to anyone else. You will end up leaving here very frustrated, or you will get indefinitely blocked. that is the path you are on. You can choose to keep going that direction, or you can change. It depends entirely, and only, on you. ] (]) 21:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| I created a new section titled ], in which I ] the community consensus, and proposed making an edit that ] had ]. His "NO" was ]. ] (]) 20:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC) | I created a new section titled ], in which I ] the community consensus, and proposed making an edit that ] had ]. His "NO" was ]. ] (]) 20:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:12, 20 April 2016
 | Doc James is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries. |  |
| Translation Main page | Those Involved (sign up) | Newsletter |
The Signpost: 14 April 2016
Decontamination or Detoxification or Detoxication?/Or or of?Hi, Doc James. I am translating the article "Calcium channel blocker toxicity" and I think it would be better that section Decontamination be called Detoxification or Detoxication. What do you think? Also, I think there is a small error in the section Other, namely, I think where it says "or the benefit of lipid emulsion in ..." should read "of the benefit of lipid emulsion in ..." If you agree I could correct it. Thanks and regards--1mssg (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if my edit summary was intentionally inflammatory :)But I did smile while writing it.. --DHeyward (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
About small changes ...Okay, Doc James. Then I will make those small corrections. Thanks and regards.--1mssg (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Deuterium-depleted waterDo you mind taking a look at the medical claims in Deuterium-depleted water? Msnicki (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
"Feed intolerance""Feed intolerance" is not the same as "food intolerance", we need something for coverage of the neonatal disorder. What do you think Dr James? Attn: Talk:Food intolerance 1.129.97.99 (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
When is a blog page not a blog?Hello Doc James, I added in the revision: Charlotte's web Hemp Extract is a high cannabidiol (CBD), low tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) Cannabis extract marketed as a dietary supplement under federal law of the United States and medical cannabis under state laws. It is produced by the Stanley brothers in Colorado. Because it's was initially brought to public attention as being infused in oil, it was initially referred to as Charlotte's Web Hemp Oil. It does not induce the psychoactive "high" typically associated with recreational marijuana strains that are high In THC. In September 2014, the Stanleys announced that they would ensure that the product consistently contained less than 0.3% THC. Charlotte’s Web is grown under the Amendment 64 in Colorado that allows for the industrial production of hemp and has been independently verified by the Colorado Department of Agriculture as hemp. You said, "We don't use blogs." Reference link #7 is a page from CW Botanicals web site. It's not a blog. Maybe their site is a Word Press template, and so it "calls" the page a blog. If I just omitted that #7 reference, would the rest of what I wrote pass muster?" I'm new at this and I appreciate any coaching. This article is outdated. If anything, Charlotte's Web (cannabis) should be a separate page about the strain of cannabis by that name. The actual product is Charlotte's Web Hemp Extract. There should be a separate page that doesn't confuse the reader by discussing cannabis when Charlotte’s Web is grown under the Amendment 64 in Colorado that allows for the industrial production of hemp and has been independently verified by the Colorado Department of Agriculture as hemp. Thank you! Listenforgood (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
References
References redirects to "Misplaced Pages:Template messages" and I don't see any reference to putting Evidence before Name. Doc James I know you must be very very busy. Can you help me a little? Where is the rule that I can't put Name in front of Evidence? Everyday people are interested in CW because they hear good things about it. Shouldn't the remarkable everyday story be elaborated on before discussing the complicated science? Listenforgood (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Wpegden (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
PTSDSir, This is the second time you have changed my terminology on the PTSD page without researching my stated reason. You initially changed "psychotherapy" (an umbrella term including virtually all non-pharmacological mental health treatment) to "counseling" (a specific type of treatment which is not evidence-based for PTSD and certainly not the gold standard). You also removed examples of gold standard psychotherapies (CPT, PE). I understand not wanting too much in the lead for the second point, but the the first point is inaccurate. I am a psychiatrist and while I understand people often erroneously use the terms synonymously, they really shouldn't and I worry patients reading this might delay getting gold standard treatments if they start off looking for counseling. Such delays can be detrimental with this disorder -- which brings me to the first time you changed "mental disorder" (an internationally recognized and medically appropriate term) to "mental illness" (an antiquated and stigmatizing term rarely used by mental health professionals). I undid your change for fear it would turn off PTSD patients reading the article, but you repeatedly changed it back without understanding the reasons. In mental health (as in most life), words are very important. Since you make thousands of edits to various topics (while I tend to stick to a few just in my field), I respectfully request you do more research in the future before haphazardly changing them. You claimed I made "good faith" changes, but it was you. If your goal is truly Misplaced Pages accuracy, I'll hope you consider my words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg16540 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Ibogaine wikiThanks for the reminder about the citations and style rules. I will go back and add citations regarding the 5-ht2a and nmda binding affinity. I have added medical citations before (specifically re some additional side effects on the baclofen page). I suppose I was incorrect or possibly incomplete by just referencing the table which was already presented in the article. It shouldn't be hard to find the supporting documents and add them. So i don't mind that at all. Also, perhaps the mention of kappa effects could stay if it is clear that any effect which is contributed through kappa receptors is speculative? I did not add this, nor the reference to salvia, but was only trying to make the connection more relevant with my edit. At least that was my intention. Perhaps the salvia reference is not needed, or perhaps it belongs elsewhere? What is your opinion on that? Maybe a reference to general analgesic, hallucinogenic, and dissociative effects from kappa agonists would be better than a reference to a specific kappa ligand? I apologize for being hasty and incomplete. At the same time I will try to be more concise as well. Sometimes my ADD/ADHD meds tend to make me overwrite and/or ramble. This message is probably a good example of that. Haha! Cheers! Dogtoy (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Ibogaine wiki againNevermind about any speculation. I can see that it is best to just report the facts, however, my opinion is that it should be stated within the pharmacokinetics section that the pharmacokinetics of Ibogaine is very unique and complex. I also think it would be best to state that the full mechanism of action is not completely understood. While also stating that the complex effects of Ibogaine are likely a result of its combined action upon receptors a, b, c, d, and e. (Full citation here). Then a statement that these may not be the full cause of effect and other currently unknown or not yet fully researched mechanisms may also come into play. Of course not worded exactly in this manner. What is your opinion on this? Is it redundant due to previous presentation of the binding affinities in the table? To the majority of people the raw binding data will not mean very much, but then again the majority of people will have not ever even heard of Ibogaine. Those who find the page will have found it through researching Ibogaine or a similar topic already and will have some sort of prior knowledge. The way the pharmacokinetics section stands currently feels incomplete to me. Cheers! Dogtoy (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
DisappointedFor most of the debate on SIDS, I thought you might be engaged in a good faith discussion over a principled disagreement (and I should say, not all users were giving me that impression). Your lastest reflexive no (disagreeing with your own proposal!) makes it hard to think that you're one of the good guys. Wpegden (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I created a new section titled Moving On, in which I accepted the community consensus, and proposed making an edit that Doc James had proposed earlier himself. His "NO" was 7 words long. Wpegden (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC) |
