User talk:Alfie66/Archive 1

Archive 1

Inspiration

You have inspired me, consider your user page an inspiration. Thanks have a great day! eximo (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

FDA links

Hey - in response to your note at WT:MED about the FDA website reorganization, I've collated a list of all of the broken links to *.fda.gov from Wikipedia article-space. The list is at User:MastCell/FDA links. There are a lot, so it will probably take a team effort to fix them, but at least we have a list to work from. Feel free to jump in - just cross out any links you check and fix, so that we don't duplicate each others' work. MastCell ^Talk 00:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, great. That helps a lot! -- Alfie^±Talk 11:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and progress report

Thanks for your help with the broken links at User:MastCell/FDA links. I don't know whether WP:MED is on your watchlist, but I've posted a progress report there that may interest you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

For sure WP:MED is on my watchlist, as are your FDA links. ;-)
I just posted a note about 301-errors. -- Alfie^±Talk 12:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Cannabis

You are invited to join WikiProject Cannabis, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to Cannabis. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to the plant. The WikiProject Cannabis group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.

Edit: Responding my post.

No worries! Just thought I would send the invitation in case you are interested. I don't get involved in edit wars either. If you happen to change your mind, you are more than welcome to join in the future. Best wishes! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

THX again. Maybe later on when we sorted things out at Medical cannabis. -- Alfie^±Talk 15:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Please keep in mind that edit wars are uncommon and this is the first I have seen relating to a cannabis article since the project started. Actually, WP Cannabis is very new, so we are still in the process of trying to recruit constructive, active members. The invitation is always on the table. Take care! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is the first one I ever experienced myself also. Quite nasty. -- Alfie^±Talk 16:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You figured it out quickly. Please don't leave ridiculous messages on my talk page anymore. This is not a playground. 72.213.23.110 (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Message above in response to this. —Alfie^±Talk 11:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

IUVIENNA

If freedom of speech is so important that you damge a universities reputation than why not freedom of speech to RESTORE the image of a university —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.168.187 (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

All (sic!) your contributions to International University Vienna were rated as vandalism by other editors. Meditate about the typographical and grammatical errors you managed to produce in the single sentence above. Not such a fine reputation. BTW, maybe you never read your own talk page; your current warning level is 4 (of 4 possible ones). If you continue vandalizing Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing without further warnings. 18:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your input is needed

Regarding the research cited by User:Cyclonenim about cannabis and chronic liver disease, and whether the risk is real or significant. Please also feel free to comment on anything else in the discussion about "medical marijuana" found here. A professional opinion about the risk of liver damage from cannabis use would be helpful. There is a link to the research in the discussion, and a free text version of the study is online here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've posted another study on the same page for your consideration. Your views are very much welcome on the subject. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks! I'll leave for a conference tomorrow (which runs until Thursday 20th) and don't have all my references in electronic form with me. Let's see what I can do. Cheers! 19:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated, look forward to it. I suspect it'll be off the reference desk by then so I'll go ahead and copy the discussion to the talk of medical cannabis as you suggested. T'ra! Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  23:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW do you know whether it's possible to move rather than copy this section? I would prefer not to loose the edit history. nugneH. 23:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

An administrator can move pages, but since it's listed at the reference desk and we can't move the whole thing, I doubt that's possible. You might want to check at the help desk in case someone has a solution. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  01:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, checked it; isn't possible for sections of pages. I copied another left-over from the reference-desk's archive - hopefully keeping the right order. Qapla' 08:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, but my knowledge isn't exhaustive :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  14:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Cannabinoids & Acetylcholine

I wonder if you would mind briefly responding to a question about how cannabinoids affect the acetylcholine system? My curiosity was prompted by these two quotations:

• "Cannabinoids inhibit the release of several neurotransmitters in the hippocampus, like acetylcholine, norepinephrine, and glutamate, resulting in a major decrease in neuronal activity in that region. This decrease in activity resembles a 'temporary hippocampal lesion.'" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis#Neurological_effects.

• "Cannabinoids, depending on the dose, inhibit the transmission of neural signals through the basal ganglia and cerebellum." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_effects_of_cannabis#Neurological_effects , which also includes the previous passage.

As you may know, my understanding of pharmacology is very limited, just that of a mildly-informed layman, but I thought cannabis acted as an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, which would tend to cause an increase in intra-synaptic availability of acetylcholine, yes? And that this higher level of acetylcholine would tend to up-regulate neuronal sensitivity and firing? Or is that a simplistic understanding; perhaps its affects differ in that way by brain region? ( The source cited to support the hippocampus statement, btw, is J.E. Joy, S. J. Watson, Jr., and J.A. Benson, Jr, (1999). Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing The Science Base. Washington D.C: National Academy of Sciences Press. ) I've tried to research this myself, via Medline, etc, but any brief comment you might have time to provide would be most helpful, I'm sure. Thanks in advance, Ohiostandard (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right, that if cannabis would act as an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, ACh–levels would increase. But this is not the case; ACh–levels are down–regulated. See the reference you quoted, Domino 1981, Gessa et al. 1998, and Grotenhermen 2004. Another source (sorry, not online): EF Domino; Cannabinoids and the cholinergic system. in: Nahas G, Sutin KM, Harvey DJ, and S Agurell (eds): Marihuana and Medicine. Totowa, NJ, Humana Press, 223–6 (1999). Therefore the statement in the article seems to be justified. 12:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

So papers ( like this and this one ) a few years back about the possible prevention of Alheimers's via cannabinoids as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors were based on unrealistically high concentrations of cannabinoids?

This dose-dependency is confusing to me, but a related puzzle seems to be offered concerning the synthetic cannabinoid WIN55,212-2. Perhaps the discrepancy arises because previous researchers were using such massive doses of WIN 55,212-2, e.g. 5 or 10 mg/kg versus 0.01 to 0.15 mg/kg, but please see Acquas et al. in "Cannabinoid CB1 receptor agonists increase rat cortical and hippocampal acetylcholine release in vivo" ( European Journal of Pharmacology 401 (2000) 179–185, free full-text, here). May I quote briefly from that paper's discussion section?

The present study shows that low, intravenous doses of cannabinoids stimulate acetylcholine release in the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus. As our conditions are more likely to mimic those of cannabinoid exposure through smoke in humans than those utilized in previous studies where high doses of cannabinoids were given i.p. (Carta et al., 1998; Gessa et al., 1998a), it is suggested that the changes in acetylcholine release observed here might reflect the changes taking place in humans smoking cannabis derivatives (marijuana and hashish). If this argument is correct, one would predict that exposure to cannabis in humans is associated to an increase rather than a decrease in brain acetylcholine release.

( Emphais mine. ) Thanks for the generosity of your reply; no demand for further assistance trying to understand this, but I'd of course be grateful. Ohiostandard (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I did address that earlier business quite badly in the first place, obviously, both with respect to venue and more emphatically with regard to AGF, and I'm truly sorry for the annoyance that must have caused you. I should have said so long ago, but the thing devolved so quickly into high drama between myself and another user, and was so exacerbated by a third user's sock-puppet involvement, that I felt the need to just let it cool down for a good long while. I would like to politely and briefly discuss the original issue with you at some point, if you'd be willing, but doing so is very low on my list of priorities. I'd certainly prefer to finish this current topic, first, for example, assuming you do want to comment further when you have the time. In any case, I was wrong, and I apologize. Ohiostandard (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

collapsing "Discussion of dose-response relationships."

I think I understand this a little better after learning a bit more about pharmacodynamics, the nature of the dose-response relationship and about the concept of the therapeutic window. As is mentioned in the dose-response article, "Endocrine disruptors have also been cited with producing one effect at high dose and a different effect at low doses." That may be true of phytocannabinoids too, as it appears to be of the synthetic, WIN 55,212-2. They might increase acetylcholine levels at the range of plasma concentrations likely to result from inhaling cannabis smoke, and ultimately decrease them with much higher doses, e.g. at (cannabinoid) concentrations hundreds to thousands of times higher and which may correspond to Gessa's findings and to those of many of the in vitro protocols and results that have been reported. Also, can you easily point me to any ref that documents the range of plasma concentrations for the more prominent cannabinoids that typically results from smoking and/or vaporizing and/or ingesting any given strain of cannabis? I suppose it's reasonable to assume that they're on the order of magnitude of those produced by Sativex and Marinol, whatever that may be? Sounds like a lazy question, I know, but 20 - 30 minutes of searching didn't bring me to anything that directly or concisely addresses even its simpler forms. I did see a paper that said THC concentrations in heavy cannabis users over a seven-day abstinence regimen range between 1 ng/mL and 5.5 ng/mL, but that wasn't exactly what I was looking for. Any other clarifications would be most welcome, too, of course. Cheers, Ohiostandard (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Hi Ohiostandard! Sorry that I didn't respond to you previous messages, but I'm drowning in work… Just a few brief comments: Earlier business: Already forgotten. I had no issues with you. ;-) Concerning the dose-response curve you are on the right track. At least for natural cannabinoids the dose-response curve is flat (= high therapeutic index); but there are cases, where the sigmoidal curve at very high doses may lead to a lower effect (so-called "hockeystick phenomenon"). Science is a cruel mistress. I made once a comment about crazy levels reported in some in vitro studies and was attacked… Was one of the reasons I lost interest in the article (and related ones as well). It's a sad story that the article still gets lengthier almost every day – whereas on the contrary a close shave would be a good idea, IMHO. Concentrations after oral administration (e.g., Marinol – or cookies, if you like) are significant lower than after pulmonary administration. Reasons are the presystemic metabolization in the gut-wall (P-Glycoprotein MDR1) and a predominant first-pass metabolization in the liver (enzymes CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP3A5, UGT1A1). Therefore the oral bioavailability is only ~10 %. Concentrations are highly variable between patients, as well as within patients. If I had to choose between routes of administration, I would definitely go for inhalation. Oral formulations were developed for political reasons, not pharmacological ones. Literature on plasma concentrations is sparse and based on analytical methods lacking sensitivity and/or selectivity (3H labelled THC with TLC,...). Recent methods (GC/MS with stable isotope internal standardization) are able to measure 9Δ-THC and the main active metabolite 11-OH-9Δ-THC to a lower limit of quantification of 50 pg/ml. The maximum concentration after 4 mg p.o. is ~1 ng/ml and after 10 mg p.o. ~4 ng/ml. I know references on smoked cannabis, but ASFAIK no data specific for a given strain of cannabis. 01:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, Alfie! Thank you for your response. But never is any rush needed, please; still less should you feel the least obligation to help me learn the basic principles of pharmacology. I do greatly appreciate your help, but it's not your obligation to act as unpaid tutor. So if you need a long delay before responding, or simply can't make time to respond at all to any post that's basically an instructional request, I will not misinterpret that as any kind of personal sleight. Nor will I do so in response to very brief replies: anything, however abbreviated, to point me in the right direction will always be most welcome. Hi Ohiostandard! I don't feel pushed. ;-) I'm running the world's largest forum on Bioavailability and Bioequivalence (you find a link at the bottom of my User page) – doing a lot of tutoring there. If some spare time is left, I'm willing to continue here in WP... If you do have some reference easily available about the plasma or blood concentration levels of cannabinoids that result from smoking cannabis, though, as I think you're saying, that would be very helpful to me. But ( LOL! ) I wasn't asking "Which strain will get someone the highest, dude!", as it may have appeared. I should have written "...from smoking and/or vaporizing and/or ingesting some standardized sample of cannabis." I was just trying to acknowledge that in any meaningful comparison among smoking, vaporizing, and oral administration, the strain would need to be held constant ( along with the quantity, too, I suppose ). That's what comes from trying to talk that official science-man talk when I don't got no book-learnin' for it. ;-) Maybe I should just explain my goal in making the request, and let you figure out what data I'm actually looking for? My ultimate goal is that I want to be able to determine when a research study has used a reasonable versus an unreasonable "dose" or "stimulus amount" of cannabinoids to obtain the dependent–variable results it reports. Reasonable or unreasonable in comparison to the affect that smoking cannabis typically has on blood or plasma concentrations, you understand. So the natural starting place, I thought, would be for me to learn what blood or plasma concentration of cannabinoids a typical person would be likely to experience after smoking, say, two average-volume "inhalations" of some average strain of cannabis, holding each "inhalation" in his lungs for an average length of time. ( You get the picture. ) Did I understand you to say that you know of a published resource that documents that, or something close to that? Such a reference would be a great help to me, most welcome, if you can easily direct me to it. I suppose the strictly-correct thing to hope for would be access to a three-dimensional graph with an axis for each of amount-smoked, plasma-concentration, and time, using a typical healthy subject, with data drawn from multiple, widely-separated smoking sessions at different dosage/intake levels for the same individual. But I can do without that "amount-smoked" dimension, and the "time" dimension also, since I just want to know the possible range that smoking can produce. In other words, I guess I'm looking for a paper about the typical and the maximum amounts of cannabinoids a person can push into his blood or plasma by smoking cannabis... Don't be disappointed, but I don't think that this is possible. It would need: A clearly defined dose-response relationship – which is wishful thinking, because the curve is very flat. Low intra-subject variability. The former does not exist (clinical studies e.g. for the treatment of neuropathic pain include a run-in period, where volunteers were uptitrated to get a reasonable response). The latter is not the case - on the contrary, concentrations after repeated administration of the same dose were highly variable. If you would draw a plot you suggested, you would end up with a cluster of datapoints in three dimensions, with no meaningful relationship. Meaningful in this context would be the ability to fit a function with some acceptable confidence to make predictions. ( Sigh; now that I think more about this, I suppose I shouldn't really be asking about blood or plasma, but about the levels of cannabinoids that occur in cerebrospinal fluid after smoking? But I'll leave that nice distinction alone until I learn a little more about pharmacodynamics. ) You don't have to worry about that. Due to the high lipophilicity a (pseudo-)equilibrium between plasma and CSF is reached within seconds... The high lipophilicity explains also the ability to cross the Blood-brain barrier and the flash experienced after inhalation. Therefore plasma concentrations are sufficient as an entry-point describing pharmacological effects. In the absence of such a paper or reference, am I safe to assume that the (plasma?) concentration range of ~1 ng/ml to ~4 ng/ml that you mention as resulting from the p.o. administration of 4 – 10 mg of 9Δ-THC at least roughly approximates the range that typically results from smoking cannabis? ( In asking that question I take note of your mention that swallowing cannabis or cannabinoids is much less efficient than using inhalation methods; thanks for that. ) Not quite. As I said above, plasma concentrations after oral administrations are much lower than after inhalation. My reference-database crashed yesterday – I don't have time right now to go through my paper references to give you numbers; for the same dose concentrations should be 5-10 times higher after inhalation. Some examples. Ohlsson A, Lindgren JE, Wahlen A, Agurell S, Hollister LE, Gillespie HK; Plasma delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations and clinical effects after oral and intravenous administration and smoking. Clin Pharmacol Ther 28(3):409-16 (1980). PubMed. Eleven volunteers, 13.0 mg smoked (average), peak concentrations 77 ng/mL (range: 33-118) three minutes after begin of smoking. 5 mg as a two-minute rapid infusion resulted in 219 ng/ml (161-316) three minutes after end of administration. 20 mg in a chocolate cookie gave 4.4-11 ng/mL; tmax at 60-90 min, but in two subjects as late as four and six hours. Barnett G, Chiang CW, Perez-Reyes M, Owens SM; Kinetic Study of Mmoking Marijuana. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 10(5), 495-506 (1982). PubMed. Six subjects, 894 mg cigarette (1% delta-9-THC), (cave: data obtained by radioimmunassay). Peak concentrations 90.4±49.6 ng/mL after 11 min. Naef M, Russmann S, Petersen-Felix S, Brenneisen R; Development and Pharmacokinetic Characterization of Pulmonal and Intravenous Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in Humans. J Pharm Sci 93(5), 1176-84 (2004) PubMed. Eight volunteers (four males, four females), dose 0.053 mg/kg body weight (average dose 3.71 mg). Mean pulmonal bioavailability (%) was 28.5±23.1. There were two volunteers with a relative bioavailability of ~60%, but also one with only 3.7% and another one with even only 0.4%. This might give you an impression on the high variability. Mean peak plasma levels were observed 20 minutes after start of inhalation and were reported with 18.9±5.0 ng/mL. Plasma levels 5 minutes after the i.v. dose were 271.5±61.1 ng/mL (range: 81.6 ng/mL to 640.6 ng/mL). Ultimately, of course, if some study reports that its researchers injected mice with some fixed amount of a standardized cannabinoid extract, I'd like to know or be able to reasonably estimate the blood or plasma concentrations that would result, and then see whether they're in or out of the range that cannabis smokers typically experience. I accept and appreciate your caveat about blood and plasma "concentrations of cannabinoids data" being sparse and often poorly-measured, btw. Still, knowing typical concentrations that result from smoking and then ( ultimately ) being able to accurately predict even the order-of-magnitude of the plasma concentrations that a given study protocol is likely to generate would be a very happy outcome for me. Of course I understand that's a tall order: I understand that it may take some investigation and additional study on my part to approach even that fairly modest goal. So I won't ( anytime soon ;-) go from asking you for a smoking/concentrations reference to asking you something like, "What plasma concentration is the paper by Schmirkenfiffer where he injected 2 mg/kg i.p. of 9Δ-THC probably reporting results for?"... I'd like to ask, of course ... but I'll do my own "homework" to try to get to that point. :-) LOL – Schmirkenfiffer: How did you manage to come up with a name giving zero google-hits? BTW, the second part of the name for a native speaker of German sounds like kiffer, which means pothead. ;-) I'm not sure whether you should even try to do some homework in this case. Intravenous administration bypasses first-pass metabolization and presystemic metabolization in the gut wall. So far so good. Concentrations therefore are closer to ones obtained after inhalation. But: elimination is not comparable between species, because enzymes are different. That's the reason why allometric scaling (the prediction of concentrations in species A from species X-Z) fails if (any) drug is excreted mainly after metabolization. That's the reason why I'm always weary in drawing conclusion from animal models. On a separate topic, you mentioned the harsh reactions you encountered last year ( around August, 2009 ) when you pointed out that some studies being cited were using in vitro "doses" that were so high as to be unreachable in vivo, at least by the usual routes of administration. ( Yes, I know that "dose" is the wrong word for use with in vitro studies, but I don't know the right word. ) I didn't arrive at the medical cannabis article until mid-November, 2009, but I do recall seeing the whole unfortunate mess you refered to when I read through the talk-page archives later. I'm sorry you met with so frustrating an experience. It was a real loss to everyone, and to the article, that the discussion became so contentious. And thanks, too - I'll say it one last time - for not responding aggressively to my subsequent blunder after you'd gone through that unpleasant experience. I wonder whether any of the users who were the principal participants in the August, 2009 exchanges have ever come back to the page under a different user-ID or IP address? In any case, I'm sorry it was so very negative. Well, maybe some users or IPs returned later on. To be honest, this article (and related ones) changed my opinion about WP. Some parts of WP contain really quite good resources, but others are still POV. If editors of (any) article have controversial opinions and are not willing to discuss open issues in the talk page, serious editors simply give up. My current project: I'm looking up all the references I can from page 53 of Marijuana and Medicine ( ed. Joy, Watson, and Benson, 1999 ) that the chapter's authors cite in their "Memory Effects" section to support their statements that acetylcholine levels in the hippocampus and elsewhere are decreased by exposure to cannabinoids. I had to suspend that effort about half-way through those refs, but all the references I have looked at so far are to studies which seem to have used "doses" that I suspect (?) might be ten, one-hundred, or even one-thousand times higher than those that can be obtained by inhalation or swallowing. If it turns out that the rest of the studies cited on page 53 also used such high "doses" then perhaps we might consider editing some of the Wikipedia pages that rely on that page of the book for information about the relationship between cannabis use and acetylcholine levels. We might want to disclose the very high "doses" used, at least. There's much to be done before such a step would be justified, though, I know. For example, I'd like to post a table of the "doses" used in each of the studies somewhere on Wikipedia, although not in mainspace, of course. 100% agree. I'd probably post that table here, by default, as a continuation of this thread if that's acceptable to you. But I know that some editors find long discussions on their talk page a bit intrusive; they like to keep their talk pages tidy. If that's a concern for you please say so, and we'll find a better "home" for this. Or you ( or I, at your request ) could also "collapse" this entire discussion into a single horizontal "bar", if you like, one that users would have to click on, to expand and view the thread. Just as you prefer. In any case, it may take as long as a week for me to have such a table ready for posting: I also have some unusual demands on my time just now. I wouldn't post it here, because old threads will be archived here. Maybe we can open a subpage here or at your talkpage. Thank you once again, and please don't feel pressured to respond quickly, at length, or even at all if you find you just cant afford the time. Best regards, Ohiostandard (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC) I don't feel pressured and appreciate your efforts getting a clearer view. Hopefully once we will be able to shift the article to a higher level. Quick addition: You mentioned "the sigmoidal curve" in your last reply, and I didn't know what that meant. But I do now! Sweet! Cheers, Ohiostandard (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Well, I will try to link more technical terms in the future. ;-) 14:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC) That is a very substantial reply, thank you! I'm slow to respond, but I thought I'd better at least tell you that I haven't forgotten about my small project to check on and report the "doses" ( or "concentrations", for in vitro? ) that were used in the studies that are cited on page 53 of Marijuana and Medicine. Lately it seems very easy for me to find a reason to put off the fun stuff; something always seems more urgent. I will finish that, though ... even if I probably won't be able to translate the study protocols into probable plasma concentrations. Hi, Ohiostandard, really appreciate you efforts! I've looked at the references you provided about plasma concentrations from smoking cannabis; thanks for including those. Those references, along with your own comments, have brought me to a much greater appreciation of the problems that arise in trying to determine whether the plasma concentrations that a given study's "dosing protocol" is likely to produce are in the range that's produced by simply smoking cannabis. I'm amazed and rather dismayed to learn that ( among other impediments ) the degree of variability between persons is so incredibly high. Do you think the results reported by Naef, et al. are reliable? ( You wrote, about those results: "There were two volunteers with a relative bioavailability of ~60%, but also one with only 3.7% and another one with even only 0.4%." ) I wonder whether any of the eight subjects might have had any other substances on-board, substances that might increase or decrease bioavailability? I'm just "thinking out loud" here, btw, because the results seem so extraordinary to me. I don't expect you to answer those questions. I would say Neaf et al.’s results are reliable indeed. The study was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, cross-over approved by the Regional Ethics Committee, the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic), and the Swiss Federal Office for Public Health. One of the exclusion criteria (amongst others) was past or existing drug abuse; a cannabis urine test was performed before each session. The subjects were not allowed to take analgesics, alcohol, and caffeinated beverages 48 h before and during the study. The lower limit of quantification of the method (gas chromatography/mass spectrometry) was 0.4 ng/ml – which is sufficient for this administration route. Theoretically it would be possible that other drugs interacting with the CYP450-system might influence the degree of metabolization (and therefore THC-levels), but: In well-controlled pharmacokinetic studies this is rarely the case. I have seen just a few cases in the 500+ studies I have performed, where volunteers took other drugs. Subjects are hospitalized and under close supervision. In the study not only THC, but also two metabolites (11-OH-THC; active and 11-COOH-THC; inactive) were measured. If co-administered drugs would have altered the activity of CYP450, it would have been noticed in individual plasma profiles (altered parent drug / metabolite ratios). This was not the case. Besides the three examples you provided above, I suppose you've also seen this 2008 study by Goullé, et al.? It reports rather similar results: "After smoking THC bioavailability averages 30%. With a 3.55% THC cigarette, a peak plasma level near 160 ng/mL occurs approximately 10 min after inhalation." I don't have the original article in my files; from the abstract it's not clear what the actual dose (in mg) was. However, results look plausible – at least the order of magnitude is OK. In contrast to that, however, I found the results from a study by Hunault, et al. interesting ... and confusing, too. If I understand their results correctly, they report serum mean maximal concentrations (Cmax) as high as 231.0 microg/L for THC when more potent cannabis was smoked. That's 231,000 nanograms/liter of serum. ( I know that you know this, of course. The conversion is for my own benefit when I read this again. ) Is it possible that so huge a difference is somehow due to the difference between serum and plasma? Since serum is plasma minus clotting proteins, I mean? I'm just speculating again; I have no expectation of a specific reply to this, truly. Here you made a minor mistake in getting the units right. ;-) In pharmacokinetics concentrations are mainly given as mass/volume (commonly the volume in millilitres, because this is the volume bioanalysts deal with) or amount of substance/volume (commonly in moles/litre]. µg/L is quite uncommon. 231 µg/L equals 231 ng/mL (just divide both units by 1000: µg→ng and L→mL or divide your 231,000 ng/L by 1000 to get also 231 ng/mL). Therefore their value is high, but given the dose of 70 mg and the variability between subjects not impossible. BTW, serum and plasma shouldn't make a difference. I certainly "came to the right shop" for general guidance in this, though: the world's largest forum on bioavailability and bioequivalence, indeed! I looked at your site, and I am impressed. Of course I didn't understand most of what I read there, but ... well, I can at least say that I really liked the Szent-Györgyi quotation about the nature of discovery! Haha; this quotation was selected by a nice random number generator from my database (you will see another one tomorrow). My favorite one is Karl Popper's: “Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.” That's the one I use in my lectures; generally in the first slide after the title. ;-) You wrote, above, "LOL – Schmirkenfiffer: How did you manage to come up with a name giving zero google-hits? BTW, the second part of the name for a native speaker of German sounds like kiffer, which means pothead." I didn't know that, but the correct name is "Schmirkenkiffer". The other was just a typing error. And since the first part of the name is an archaic form of the English word smirk, I suppose that Schmirkenkiffer must be a pothead with a stupid, offensive grin. I'm not surprised: I never liked him anyway. He never reports the cannabinoid plasma concentrations his study protocols generate! ;-) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC) THX for teaching me a new word! The etymology of smirk is fascinating. Wiktionary gives a link to the German word schmieren (which has a couple of meanings, but not a single one similar to the English one)… All the best & keep going! 19:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Edit: Another point about comparability between studies. Whilst in noncompartmental analysis (NCA) the Area Under the Curve (AUC) reflecting the extent of absorption is relatively robust to suboptimal blood sampling schemes, Cmax is not. The peak concentration is a single point metric, and it is quite improbable that a blood sample was taken at exactly the time point of Cmax (=tmax). The same sampling schedule is valid for all volunteers in a study. Therefore the measured maximum concentration is likely to underestimate the true Cmax (the sample was taken too early or too late). Now for the nasty part: THC follows a multi-compartmental model, where after both i.v. and pulmonary administration the first distribution phase is very fast (with a half-life of a couple of minutes). Different sampling schedules were used in these studies, making a comparison even more difficult. Only a few groups tried to fit a pharmacokinetic model to the data (which would allow to estimate the Cmax). 09:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks once again for your generosity in providing answers like this, and for your encouragement to continue learning the basics. I can't understand how I made so careless a mistake with units re the Hunault paper. I'd noticed that the "numerator" units had changed from nanograms to micrograms, of course, but I somehow failed to notice the "denominator" units had likewise changed, from milliliters to liters. Thanks for setting me right. It's encouraging to learn that you too can be fascinated by words and their origins. I spend more time than is quite right with the Oxford English Dictionary, pretending I'm a philologist, and Wiktionary is a great help, as well, of course. But despite my regard for those two wonderful publications, they're a poor substitute for fluency in other languages. Those of us who were raised with English as our primary language are at considerable disadvantage with respect to our European brethern, I think, both because we have less of an immediate need to learn other languages well, and because we have fewer opportunities to reinforce our learning by the daily use of the languages we may have studied in school. Our lack of ability in other languages makes us insular, and tends to support a simplistic, even naive world view, in my opinion. One begins with a natural and very deep love for one's own homeland and culture, and that's as it should be. But without the outward-facing, committed participation that (among other things) the knowledge and use of a foreign language can provide, so many of my countrymen transform their love of country into a belief in its cultural superiority that's so deeply held and unquestioned that it becomes almost unconscious. Many take it further still, and arrive eventually at that particular brand of cultural imperialism that has been terribly injurious, in so many ways, to the rest of the world. But I meant to comment, and only briefly, at that, about smirk! You're welcome for the word, of course. When I saw the link to its Wiktionary entry that you provided, I became very eager to investigate further. The etymology presented by Wiktionary brought to mind the phrase "oily smile" that I remember from a Charles Dickens novel, and also seemed to lead quite deliciously to the similar (but rare) English phrases "greasy smile", and "unctuous smile" which are, after all, reasonable definitions for the word itself, for the English word "smirk", I mean. Since you expressed an interest in the word, though, I suppose I should tell you that my investigation couldn't support the plausible and extremely appealing sequence of word associations and derivations that would be necessary to conclude that "smirk" has its origins in a combination of (1) the historical German antecedents for the English word "smile" and, (2) the German word schmieren or any of its antecedents. Perhaps some "smirks" could reasonably be described as exemplifying an "unctuous smile" but, unhappily, the etymology doesn't seem to support such a description. More particularly, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) contradicts the etymology presented in the Wiktionary entry for "smirk". I can't link to the OED's definition and etymology for "smirk" for you, since my access to the reference is behind a "paywall" subscription that requires a password, but I imagine you must have online access to it through some institution you're affiliated with? More cheerfully, though, when I was searching for current instances of the phrase "unctuous smile" I happened to find one very pleasant sentence that you might enjoy. It's from The Boy, Naeem Murr's first novel, written in 1998: "He approached Sean wearing a smile so unctuous it seemed about to slide right off his face." This quotation really makes you want to believe in that Wiktionary connection between the antecedents of the English word "smile" and schmieren, regardless of the available evidence, doesn't it? It does so for me, anyway. :-) Only rarely do I encounter anyone who appreciates words and language anything like as much as I do; please excuse my enthusiasm in writing off-topic at such length. Feel free to delete this particular post at any time, or to move the entire thread to a sub-page if your talk page is feeling overwhelmed by it. I'll probably create a user-space subpage to at least preserve an editable copy at some point myself, or will perhaps just copy everyting to a local word-processing file on my computer. To be more practical for a moment, I should mention that I'll be away for the next two weeks, and that I may be offline during some or all of that time. I don't know whether the (wireless) internet modem I use will be able to connect from the rural location where I'll be staying. I hope it will: I'd like to be able to take at least some of the time I'll be away to revisit what you've written here, to more closely examine some of the references we've discussed, and perhaps to write a concise summary of what I've learned thus far about the pharmacodynamics of cannabis, just for my own future reference. It's a fascinating area to learn about, and you know I'm grateful for the opportunity. But I'll admit that I also feel some desire to consolidate what I've learned, even though it's not very much. Each time I've gone back to review what we've discussed here more closely I keep being surprised by important things I'd forgotten, or by important facts that I barely noticed when I read them the first time, and I keep finding new information that contradicts or at least significantly modifies my understanding of what I thought I'd learned. I'm sure you're very familiar with the inward nature of the experience I'm trying to describe, since I infer that learning and discovery make up the core of your own chosen work. I'll reply on-topic to the new information you've included above at my next opportunity, of course, and to anything else you might choose to add in the interim. Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Hi Alfie! A difficulty arose for me while I was away that has proved very time-consuming. I'm sorry to have left this discussion incomplete for so long, though, and I hope to have the opportunity to review the above and respond within the next week. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Hi Ohiostandard! Nothing to worry about; I'm used to the unexpected as well. I started to gather data in the meantime to come up with some kind of a dose-resonse relationship (pharmacokinetics - not pharmacodynamics!). It didn't look that bad - with the exception of Barnett et al. (1982). As I already stated above, concentrations were measured by a radioimmunoassay - due to cross-reactivity they probably have measured not only 9∆-THC, but metabolite(s) also. Once I have finished that, I will post results here for our fun - can't go to the article, because it will be 100% original research. ;-) Well, I can't publish it also, because the only scientifically accepted method to assess dose proportionality would be a crossover study of different dose levels - all peer-reviewed journals would reject it. Different subjects (parallel study) and different bioanalytical methods give us just a hint. In the meantime have a look here. I definitely appreciate your linguistic/philosophical remarks also! 15:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks for understanding. And I appreciate your intention as well to look into this further since I'm rather out of my depth here, as you know very well, despite your very helpful hints, information, and direction. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to learn about this your area of expertise, however, and I do aspire to one day rise to the dignity of error. ;-) But I also wanted to mention that one of our old socky friends is back on the talk page, and that I think I should take the time to document that for an SPI before I jump back into our ongoing discussion here as fully as I'd like to do. ( I wish both the article and its talk page could be permanently semi-protected. ) Well semi-protection is wishful thinking – to little is 'going on' there to justify such a measure.11:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC) In the meantime, I'd like to say that I think I've come to a little better, more immediate understanding of the great frustration you must experience around this article. I allowed myself to go on a bit of a "wikiwalk" through some of the many articles on Wikipedia that concern mathematics and especially the foundations of mathematics ( often called the "philosophy of mathematics" ), an area that I do know something about. It was an extremely frustrating experience to see the very low quality of so many of those articles, and to observe the very confident assertions of ... well, to see people make bold and very muddled statements without the least evident awareness of even the correct definitions of the terms they're writing about. It was so discouraging and frustrating a process, actually, that for a few hours I seriously considered giving up on Wikipedia as a hopeless cause. I felt overwhelmed by the great volume of really poor work that was being presented as encyclopedic. And I was only reading, not even interacting with any of the editors concerned! You have my very sincere sympathy re the medical cannabis article, and the related ones that you follow. Thanks for not giving up, yourself. Yes, WP is relying on the personal interest(s) of editors. If there are controversies, generally the ones with most spare time 'win'. It might be well possible that an article is excellent because by chance it's an author's dedication to work on the topic. Others are simply awful, or even don't exist. F.i. pharmacokinetics is really poor – though one editor started in the recent past to translate parts of es:Farmacocinética, which is excellent. BTW, the article in my home-wiki de:Pharmakokinetik is only fairly better... If you are interested in mathematics, I would say articles in DE:WP generally are better than ones in EN:WP. Even if you don't speak German, just have a look at some article's versions in German. OK, to be honest I checked only a few articles in the field of mathematics, but a lot concerning statistics. 11:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC) The quotations you directed me to on your website were really delightful: I couldn't keep myself from reading them all. Several made me laugh very heartily, but overall I think they should be used as a sort of manifesto that every aspiring scientist should be required to attest to before being awarded a degree, a secular version of the Thirty-Nine Articles for scientists. ;-) Yes, quite secular. ;-) 11:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I greatly appreciated all of them, but can only comment on a few, of course: Leslie Z. Benet's words about the difference between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics prompted me (along with your own remark immediately above) to learn enough to use the words properly - sorry I hadn't previously. The Roger Staubach quotation about the proper origin of confidence was a great one, as was the Cornelius Lanczos one saying that "filling in the details" by one's own efforts is the best way to learn mathematics - I hadn't seen that before, and it's a gem. You even quoted Russell and Whitehead, two of my particular heroes. Finally, William James' caution that we mustn't confuse our abstractions with reality was especially attractive to me for a particular reason. One of the first college textbooks I loved was for organic chemistry (that's as far as I got in chemistry, alas, except for qualitative analysis and a very little physical chemistry). I recall that the authors cautioned the student, in the preface, to regard the electron-cloud model of covalent bonding as just more or less predictive rather than as an actual representation of reality. Anyway, I'd say that your students are very fortunate indeed to have a guide so enlightened as to select the particular quotations you've chosen. Thank you for sharing them with me. Back on-topic next post, I promise! Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I give Popper's quote from my talk page and Les' about applied science in all of my lectures. Les is one of the most important persons in PK; last month he was introduced at a conference by the president of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences with 'Mr. Leslie Benet, the man with more than 15,000 citations.' I remember Les at a conference a couple of years ago, where he started his presentation (quoting from my memory) with: 'In the past 35 years I have said ... [sorry, too technical to be given here] and it's quoted in all textbooks written ever since. Today I must tell you that I was wrong and I will tell you why I was wrong.' Is Les notable for an article in WP? Yes. Is there one. No. I added one quote by David Hilbert and Russel's/Whitehead's counterpart (not sure whether that's the correct term?) Kurt Gödel to my collection. 11:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Dear Ohiostandard! As promised some of my original research to satisfy our private interests. To assess dose proportionality I fitted literature data (peak concentrations) to the weighted power model Y=AxB, where Y is the pharmacokinetic response (here Cmax), x the administered dose, and A and B are the parameters of the model. If the exponent B equals 1, the model reduces to that of dose linearity (i.e., response doubles with a doubled dose). In order to deal with heteroscedasticity the model was weighted with w=1/x. Cmax is not the optimal metric to assess dose proportionality – AUC would be a much better choice. As said somewhere above values of Barnett at al. were measured by RIA and may be too high. The biggest drawback of the pooled analysis is the fact that data originate from different studies. Here is a plot of the fit. Not so bad. B is 0.6886 (coefficient of variation 14.8%; 95% confidence interval: 0.3136 – 1.0635). Within the dose range of 3.71 mg to 69.4 mg the increase is not proportional; however, since 1 is included in the confidence interval, this deviation is not statistical significant (at α 0.05). In other words, if we double the dose (+100%) the model predicts an increase of only ≈69% in Cmax. I checked also the residuals and Barnett's data do not qualify as a statistical outlier and therefore can't be removed. But since this no serious work I can do what I like, namely remove it anyhow. The fit gets better; B 0.7838 (CV 9.51%) with a tighter CI of 0.4797 – 1.0878 (plot upon request). Now let's look at Hunault at al. – which was a cross-over study (perfect design to assess dose proportionality) in 24 subjects: plot. Within the high dose range of 29.3 mg to 69.4 mg the increase in Cmax appears to be almost linear, but again B is lower than 1 with 0.6279 (CV 18.6%; 95% CI: -2.8516 – 4.1074). Since we have two parameters in the model and three data points, there is only one degree of freedom left for the calculation of the confidence interval – which does not make any sense. I included in both plots also a red line showing linear regression forced through the origin as a kind of an optical reference. Conclusion: It might well be that Cmax after pulmonal administration is lower than dose proportional, but with the given high variability (within as well as between subjects) your original question ‘Which (peak-)concentrations can I expect after an (inhaled) dose?’ remains an open one. ;-) 18:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Maturity is the capacity to endure uncertainty. – John Huston Finley 12:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Hi Alfie! Do you know I've had a "post-it" note affixed to my laptop for the last two weeks that says, "You're being rude to Alfie!", to goad myself into paying appropriate attention to this discussion with you? I'm afraid I'm far too easily distracted, and have let this conversation - the most fun I've had on Wikipedia, btw - languish in favor of other personal and on-wiki responsibilities. I'm so sorry. I have re-read the entire thread several times, including your most kind and thorough recent addition, but in all candor, my level of ease with the concepts we've been discussing, and even the relatively simple mathematics of the same, has declined since I left University, some time in the Pleistocene, I think it was. ;-) That's been frustrating to me, because I recognize the richness of this discussion, and I would not miss out on that. What I really need to do is set aside a weekend to actually study some of the concepts involved here, and to read through very carefully, making sure I understand every word and phrase. I'm sorry I haven't made time to do that yet, but it's not for want of good will, please let me assure you. I'm sure, once I do that, I'll look back on this discussion as extremely basic, and perhaps even laugh at my having thought it more complex than it actually is, but at the moment, I'm somewhat aswim in trying to understand, let alone make any sensible reply, or ask any sensible questions. Thanks very much for your patience with me in this, and for the ongoing generosity with which you've continued to contribute. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Hi Ohiostandard! Come on, you weren't rude at all; I enjoyed our conversation as much as you did. I've read the entire thread also a couple of times – the way it went is typical for a discourse in the best sense: 'tasting' pros and cons, branching, looping, etc. The discussion is the best I ever had on WP (including my home wiki). I loved your “Peccavi!” in the last edit summary; I've been told the story for the first time two years ago in the neighbouring Indian state of Gujarat... I guess you used it as a pun, and not like Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!? BTW, since you are (like me) an omnivore of books and interested in language(s) maybe you are interested in Ilija Trojanow's The Collector of Worlds about Richard Francis Burton (hopefully the translation is sensible; review of the German original). Pleistocene! That's nothing. I call myself one of the dinosaurs of bioequivalence. ;-) 13:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Hi Alfie! Thank you; I had feared that trying to explain the basic concepts might be tedious for you, and I'm very glad to learn that you've also enjoyed this dialogue! I hadn't heard the Napier story before; it's very droll, thanks for sharing it. I actually did mean "Peccavi!" in its literal sense, as an exclamation of remorse at having sinned or offended. I've never studied Latin: I've only picked up a little from reading. My knowledge of that particular word derives from my enjoyment of Patrick O'Brian's novels of the Napoleonic Wars from the perspectives of a captain and a shipboard surgeon in the (British) Royal Navy. People often compare them to other novels of the Royal Navy during that period, which is unfortunate, they being so much better, in my opinion. A shameless plug: Our New York Times and Chicago Sun-Times both said they're the best historical novels ever written. I don't know whether I'd make so strong a statement myself since there are so many historical novels I'm unfamiliar with, and I can read at an adult level only in English, but they're certainly of surpassing excellence, the best historical novels I've ever read. On the subject of books, thank you very much for your recommendation of The Collector of Worlds. ( I love how the German language makes a single compound word from discrete constituents: weltensammler, for example, and gummischuh, fussboden, and krankenhaus to say nothing of more exalted examples. I regret that I've retained almost nothing other than this appreciation from my study of the language in what we call high school - I couldn't read a children's book in the language, to my shame. But perhaps it appeals to me so much because ... well, I think (?) it was Poincaré who wrote something like, "You haven't understood a mathematical proof until you've come to see it as a single idea." The German language, with its extensive use of compound words, facilitates that kind of understanding, I imagine, at least for those fluent in it. Besides, those words are just so much fun to say; they make me smile. ) I actually had the pleasure of reading that enchanting book about Burton two or three years ago, when a friend insisted on loaning me his copy. A remarkable book about a remarkable man! Wasn't it A.N. Whitehead who classed adventure as one of the essentials of a satisfactory life? Or was that Kant? Whoever said so, I cordially agree with the statement. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Hi Ohiostandard! No it wasn't tedious at all. I'm used to tightrope walking in WP, because you (almost) never know the background of your partner. Even in my workshops I start with asking participants to give some little personal resumé – and try to adapt my level accordingly. Concerning Patrick O'Brian: I just know the movie adaption of Master and Commander. As a child I was crazy about history and geography (especially the travels of the early discoverers). In German it is really easy to invent new compound words. Weltensammler was invented by Trojanow – every native speaker would comprehend the first level immediately (trivial: one, who collects worlds) but ask himself about the deeper level almost in the same second (What the heck does it really mean? Collect worlds?!) That's art at it's best: To make us think, ask questions, and show us different perspectives. For me as a scientist it is delightful to live together with an artist... Where did you pick up Gummischuh? That's rather uncommon. The German Thesaurus maintained at the University of Leipzig doesn't give a single hit; but everybody owns a pair of Gummistiefel (rubber boots). Fußboden is definitely a funny world, because the compounding method in German generally omits the term 'of' – so it would mean 'floor of foot' (which is actually the Fußsohle: sole of foot), but here it means 'floor below the foot'. ;-) Compound words can get quite long. A well known example and tongue twister for every student of German is Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft (DDSG), the Danube Steamboat Shipping Company. You can also combine it with a chain of omitted genetive cases to end up with Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänskajütenschlüssel, meaning DDSG Captain's cabin's key. Agree with Whitehead's quote; don't think the next one is Kant's (a guy never leaving his hometown Königsberg in his entire life). But we are drifting away from the original topic. I guess we should close this thread, but would be delighted if we can start e-mail conversations if you like (the e-mail function is active at my user page). 13:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Hi, Alfie! Thanks for the suggestion of e-mail: yes, I'd like that very much as well. And it would surely be more correct re the considerable off-topic content we ( well, "I", mostly ;-) have allowed in here so far. I wonder, though: Would it be alright with you if I were to copy-paste this thread to, say, User:Ohiostandard/Dose-response, and refactor it there to remove most of the off-topic material, subject to your review and approval re the refactor? ( Or you'd be welcome to have a first-pass opportunity to refactor, if you'd rather. ) My hope would be that you might be willing to add the new page to your watchlist and that you'd allow me to continue any on-topic questions or contributions I might come up with eventually, once I've made time to educate myself a bit more on the subjects we've discussed. As I said, I recognize the richness of the discussion we've had so far, and if it wouldn't be disagreeable to you, I'd really like the chance to make better sense of it, possibly with some small level of ongoing ( but exclusively on-topic ) interaction with you there. Or perhaps it wouldn't even be necessary to ask you to keep such a page on your watchlist - I could just as easily put a sort of "talkback" announcement on your talk page, if you'd prefer ... perhaps that might be better, because I suppose I'll probably want to add after-the-fact annotations, and such, i.e. use the page as a kind of (html) lecture notes resource. But perhaps I presume too much on your good will to ask this at all? As I think I observed before, it's hardly your responsibility to act as my unpaid tutor, and I can perfectly understand that you could feel such an arrangement to be a bit of a ... millstone around your neck? An albatross? Something, at any rate, that would represent an unwanted burden. Not the least of hard feelings, whatever you decide about this. I'm extremely grateful for all you've contributed here, and am very sensible of your kindness in making those contributions, as I hope I've made clear. I'll reply further, re the non-pharmacology content in your previous, via a subsequent e-mail. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Hi Ohiostandard! Good idea. WP:BB with the sub-page: Just notify me when you have finished the refactoring (would be a lot of work to cut the twigs from an old tree). I'll include it in my watchlist. I like the phrase albatross around the neck. Albatross! Around!! ;-) 11:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Hi Alfie! No e-mail yet, as you know; just awash with work at the moment. Did want to let you know, though, that I'd created User:Ohiostandard/Dose-response and made an attempt to pare it back to mostly on-topic exchanges, so please feel free to delete or archive this thread at any time. You might not want to put the page on your watchlist just yet, since I'll probably fuss with it in small ways for awhile yet, over the next couple of weeks. But feel free to have a look, and edit it in any way that suits if you see something you dislike or anything you want to rephrase, including my own comments. ( In addition to editing both our comments at the paragraph level for length and topic-relevance, I also made minor rephrasing changes to a few sentences you wrote, to preserve continuity, mostly, but also in a few instances for clarity re my own understanding. I hope that was alright. ) I'm glad you like "albatross" (albatross!). I'm tempted to reply to your earlier question, "Where did you pick up Gummischuh?" by saying, "From der Fußboden, of course!" ;-) But it was really from my old German teacher in high school. He was born in Germany, and lived there until he was a teen, but he was 60 by then, and despite frequent visits back, perhaps he had forgotten the correct translation of the word "tennis shoe", and just made a guess? It was that word I'd asked him about when I couldn't find it in a very basic translating dictionary we had in our classroom. More to follow, via e-mail, soon. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of web browsers

see my revert comment ;) mabdul 16:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see. 16:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Mondegreen

I reverted the comment you added to Mondegreen because listing often-misunderstood lyrics has proved to open the floodgates in that article, bit I must say that I was startled to learn that the the lyrics are "Split up on a dark sad night" - I would have bet a zillion bucks it was "Split up on the docks that night"! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi David! Interesting stuff over there. ;-) But I didn't even know the article; the edit was done by Arrivisto – not me. 15:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops ... guess I clicked the wrong "Talk" label. Well, at least both your usernames start with the same letter. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Heya

Think I've fixed it, but I just finger-fumbled a rollback on Down Syndrome, and just wanted to explain that no harm was intended. Have a great day! --j⚛e decker^talk 16:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

THX for the note – you were too fast with your self-revert to surprise me. ;-) 16:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

10 points

I was wondering exactly how fast someone would fix that. Props to you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.148.153 (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Moore's law? 1 minute 21 seconds. ;-) 18:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning to IP:203.177.67.116

I saw your warning on this page: User talk:203.177.67.116 about the user's test edits on Kris Aquino. Since he's already been given two warnings before, both within today, and he is active at the moment, should we not give him/her a level 3 warning? TYelliot (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you are right. I must confess, that I could not find the correct template in Twinkle. 18:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's all right. I've fixed it. TYelliot (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

THX! 19:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Aeropolis 2001

Hello Alfie66. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Aeropolis 2001, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax. Thank you. Kimchi.sg (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Avengers references

Hello, I have cited my references in the Avengers article, after I had, someone claimed it was vandilism, what is this about, please can you explain.81.111.127.132 (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I think we have clarified that in the meantime. Please see Wayne's talk page. 03:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Response

Dear Alfie,

the reference that states that rebetiko developed in 60 etc has to be removed altogether. This is a book that is not from a native i.e. Greek author. To put it in simple terms that guy just doesn't know what he is talking about. I am Greek and rebetiko player for more than 20 years and I can tell you that rebbetiko does not exist after 50s. Then you may call it "arhontorebetiko" that mostly reflects music listened by middle classes. I would be happy to discuss with you in more detail if you wish.

For now take care and please revert my correction ;)

Cheers, billarasgr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billarasgr (talk • contribs) 13:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Billarasgr! Please try to keep discussions in one place. If someone posts on your talk page, answer there. I copypasted everything to Talk:Rebetiko#Recent_edits - please continue there, and don't forget to sign you edits. 14:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Servus

Hey, how are the Vandals doing? :)) Yangula (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The only vandalist is you.all just look at once how without reason you deleted all the information about section Skyladiko — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.247.126 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Καληνύχτα! Well, Rebetiko was semi-protected for three days; quit over there. Zeibekiko still protected (for a week),... but this / these guy(s) is / are busy all around. 23:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Καλημέρα Άλφη, schau mal hierher: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plouton2-Yangula (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Guten Morgen; schöne Transliteration! ;-) Und hier... Irgendwie mühsam. 03:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ich glaub das sind zwei-drei 14jährige die uns nur vers%$#ern wollen. Au jedem Fall sind Sie nict müde zu kriegen-Yangula (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, don't feed the troll. Ich geh' jetzt 'mal schlafen. 04:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

) Godd afternoon!I ll try to talk polite all the other users You puted as vandalisms I think are Greek and wants the best too.They dont hide as Greek.2 I d like to explain u something when we talk about Greece we d like to talk to other people with the correct points I ll show how the things gone you can think that I am vandalist too sure know hahaha,but I just want to tell the truth that is so obvious. In greece the real zeibekiko is that in 9/8 http://youtube/z1cfln_sV44 and this zeibekiko know all around the world!! including the nightclubs of USA UK! etc. LOOK KNOW the turk zeubek has no commons with zeibekiko is THAT www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQkAgyeX7fA .(in the steps of Greek island Ballos! 2/4)and it represents a small community. Its very bad by speaking good and donate in wiki with their ways to say lies in all over wiki.And someone's user's contributions,you can notice it too I wont say the name are always: laiko greek again greek again and and again giving all that vice versa informations and in real want Turk all over the Greek music in articles zebekiko and most bad in greek music. Its a same people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.53.251 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite late afternoon! See WP:REF, WP:NPOV, and don't forget to -- ~~~~ sign your posts. THX. 04:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your tools

Ah, good spot. All fixed now, I think. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 08:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

THX, Jarry – great tools! 13:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added them as "acceptable" fonts. More can be done, but could you check that they no longer generate errors for me? Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 16:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! I've tested lists of

1. two fonts; the first on meta:SVG fonts, the second one of the five generic fonts each (i.e., five tests) → OK
2. two fonts; the first on meta, the second not → Warning
3. three fonts; the first two on meta, the last generic → OK

That's it; THX! 19:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

re: Cenote

Please don't template the regulars, as you did on my talk page. I removed the unreferenced banner from the section on Cenote because the section had at least one reference, and thus the template was inapplicable. Steven Walling 21:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steven! Nice essay. I agree that the template was a quick-shot. But: Did your read the text in italics? “Only the first sentence is referenced (actually I added it myself). Everything else in this section is still not referenced. So why did you remove the template without giving an explanation in the edit line?” BTW, if I post at your talk page, I'll have it on my watchlist – try to keep discussions in one place. Regards. 21:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar!

Hi Alfie66! Thanks for the Barnstar! I'm glad to know that I'm not the only person working on Medical cannabis who is pulling for appropriate citations. Thank you for your encouragement! --Tea with toast _(talk) 22:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tea with Tost! You are welcome. I arrived at the article in August 2009 by chance and questioned "250 indications" (which were stated in the article at that time) – just to be attacked. On the other hand see a nice discussion about dose-response with Ohiostandard. He also guided me to WP:RANDY ("Experts are scum.")... Given all above I'm a little bit reluctant working on the article any more, essentially just reverting plain vandalism or nonsense. 08:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Rebetiko

Hello, about edit warning between me and user:Phso2 you may take a look at this Rebetiko thanks --CanarianIsland (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi CanarianIsland! Yes I have seen the story going on the last two days. Maybe it’s a good idea to have a nice cup of tea, relax, and discuss the issue(s) at Talk:Rebetiko instead of reverting each other immediately. All the best. Alfie↑↓© 00:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-helical nucleic acids

Hi, Alfie! I hope you're well.

THX; leaving for a conference in Budapest tomorrow…

I thought of you, the other day, while communicating with a new user who has a theory that, if I understand its main point correctly, some nucleic acids, including DNA, aren't helical in vivo but exist in what's being called a "side-by-side" structure. The chap seems very bright, an M.D., Ph.D., it seems, but he's also been very reactionary, understandably, I think, to resistance to his theory, and rather too identified in his ego with being right about it. The article in question is Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure.

I came to notice the article when a point was raised at ANI about the user, who was then operating as Notahelix (talk · contribs). Viriditas and others advised him to change his user name, because he has a website of the same name, and he switched to Voice of 5-23 (talk · contribs). The talk pages for both are, well, let's say "interesting", as is the talk page for the article itself. I don't have the qualifications to be able to evaluate his theory, myself, or even really join in its discussion in any productive way, but I have been pretty active trying to explain our policies to him, & etc. Since I know you do have the qualifications to evaluate and discuss his theory, I thought you might be interested to have a look. Do so only if you're truly interested; I'm not asking for you to help unless you just have an interest. But I find it interesting for the only part of the story I'm qualified to understand: the social aspect is fascinating, imo.

If you do join in the article, though, I'd take it as a favour if you'd try to be kind to the new editor. He's been very ... well, "outspoken" would be a polite description, but he did work on the article for 2 months, also, and I think that deserves some consideration and respect. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a fertile culture medium (pun intended!) WP is (not at last what you call the social aspect). “X-ray crystallography gestapo”. ;-) After briefly browsing through the article I'm afraid that I would put it in the fringe science drawer. I appreciate the patience you and all the other experienced editors have shown in the article's and the author's talk pages and at ANI. This one is interesting. Christian [sic] implications of a non-helical structure are beyond my intellectual reach. BTW, see my father's quote at the end of this post. I can't promise to join – especially as a non-native speaker of English. I'm skeptic to be able to reply with appropriate sensitivity & politeness – especially keeping in mind the great job you already have done trying to help at the user's talk page. All the best, Alfie↑↓© 23:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"Fertile culture medium" is wonderful. So is the quotation from your father, although I must ask your pardon for mentioning them in the same breath. So his theory is rubbish? I expected so, but didn't know; as I said, I don't have the training to be able to evaluate the article. Re the "great job" you praise me for, I'm ambivalent. I stroked his vanity a little, intentionally, since a sense of injured pride and ego-identification with his theory seemed to be half the trouble, at least, and I tried to very politely explain how Wikipedia works to him.

He is certainly an intelligent man, in one sense of the word "intelligent", but I have my doubts that I've done the encyclopaedia a service by the help I've given him. I think he would have been blocked by now if I'd kept away, and that would probably have been the best thing for the project. He'll be blocked eventually, I suppose, but now it will probably be a long, drama-filled process before that happens. Sometimes the application of kindness interferes with the upholding of more important values.

I'm afraid I often forget that, in favour of a default tendency to help the underdog, as I documented in this brief thread. I was disappointed that no one seems to have clicked on the "really bad overturn accident" video, though, as I find it quite amusing, and because it was so fitting, relative to the subject of Sunset Strip Diaries. The book seems to be about a young woman's life as a "band follower" or "groupie" in the "heavy metal" rock-and-roll scene of the 1990s. I freely admit my sense of humour is warped, however... also, if you do look at the video, perhaps the audio track might (?) be hard to follow, since the rate of speech is very fast.

I hope you have a pleasant time in Budapest. Have some borscht for me; I love it, especially with some chewy, dark bread, that's still warm from the oven, and a stout beer. Heaven! I've sent you an e-mail, by the way. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi OhioStandard! Well, I wouldn't call his theory rubbish, but outdated and of historical interest only. There's nothing bad as such – we also have an article on geocentric models. Problems would only arise if one would claim it to be an valid alternate theory to heliocentrism (or even a better one). Reminds me a little bit on the creation–evolution controversy. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) already started some chimney-sweeping and brought it to attention of WP:GEN.

The video is wonderful; the audio is exceptional in its serious tone. Speed is not my problem. My audience is always surprised listening to me saying Heteroscedasticity in a few milliseconds.

I think you are mixing somthing up. Borscht originates form the Ukraine – though most people (including myself) would place in Russia. Last week I had it in Moscow and – to my surprise – Austrian draught beer. Difficult to get in Hungary. Considering their post-communist history I would even expect to see only a few Russian restaurants in Budapest. But: Hungary = Goulash! Have to edit the article. Outside of Hungary goulash is associated with a stew-like dish, whereas in Hungary ordering gulyás you solely get a soup. If you want to get the stew, you have to order pörkölt. Confused?

Approaching the Hungarian border; mobile net access too expensive to continue. Will answer your e-mail this evening (UTC). Cheers, Alfie↑↓© 12:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You have mail. ;-) Alfie↑↓© 17:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Your revert of Dactarianou

Hello, please see my comment about your revert and warning at User talk:Dactarianou. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Top 200 US Drugs of 2011 is undergoing deletion review

Thank you for your input on the WHO Model Lists of Essential Medicines. I'm notifying everybody who has been part of that discussion about a pending Categories for Discussion review regarding the newly created Category:Top 200 US Drugs of 2011. I've also put a notice on the project talk page here. Thanks again. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!

If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Alfie66. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Alfie66. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology User Activity Update

Hi there! I've noticed that you haven't been active on WikiProject Pharmacology. Per our policies, your status has been moved from Active to Inactive, which you can view here. Don't be discouraged, though--we'd love to see you come back and contribute to the project! Let me know if you need any help! ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 18:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Alfie66. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Alfie66. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:183.87.72.190

User talk:183.87.72.190, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:183.87.72.190 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:183.87.72.190 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kent2121 (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Rollback at Slot canyon

Hi Alfie66! I noticed that you reverted my edits at Slot canyon adding two references without an edit summary; could you please explain your reasoning? Thanks! EpicPupper (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Eric,
sorry, I was too fast. However, the references you added don’t support the sentence in the article “Australia's Blue Mountains in particular have claimed the lives of several often due to flash flooding.” Honestly, I’m tempted to delete the sentence sooner or later… The article is about Slot canyons, not the Blue Mountains. Alfie↑↓© 22:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)