User talk:Fredweis
Welcome to Wikipedia
[edit]Welcome! Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: *The five pillars of Wikipedia *How to edit a page *Help pages *Tutorial *How to write a great article *Manual of Style I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 75.41.71.106 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Borrelia_burgdorferi. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits.
You claimed in your edit summary that Borrelia_burgdorferi was replaced with Lyme_disease_microbiology (which in fact was written separately), but you merged only selective content into the Lyme_disease_microbiology page.
Curiously, you merged your own contributions but not other content. Eg. the life cycle concept and reference from MacDonald was deleted and not moved to the other page, which seems rather sneaky. Hopefully this was not your intent.
I will add the rest of the content to Lyme_disease_microbiology myself. In the future, please do not delete content from any Wikipedia article without a valid explanation. 75.41.71.106 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Help with dermatology-related content
[edit]I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our Bolognia push!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Copyright problems: Eli Lilly controversies
[edit]This article may be a problem under our copyright policies, since the text seems very closely paraphrased from a number of sources. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are. For an example of close paraphrasing, consider the following:
| Source | Article | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| According to a New York Times article published on December 17, 2006,[1] Eli Lilly has engaged in a decade-long effort to play down the health risks of Zyprexa, its best-selling medication for schizophrenia, according to hundreds of internal Lilly documents and e-mail messages among top company managers. | The drug maker Eli Lilly has engaged in a decade-long effort to play down the health risks of Zyprexa, its best-selling medication for schizophrenia, according to hundreds of internal Lilly documents and e-mail messages among top company managers. | [1] |
| Lilly’s own published data, which it told its sales representatives to play down in conversations with physicians, has shown that 30 percent of patients taking Zyprexa gain 22 pounds or more after a year on the drug, and some patients have reported gaining 100 pounds or more. But Lilly was concerned that Zyprexa’s sales would be hurt if the company was more forthright about the fact that the drug might cause unmanageable weight gain or diabetes, according to the documents, which cover the period 1995 to 2004. In 2006, Lilly paid $700 million to settle 8,000 lawsuits from people who said they had developed diabetes or other diseases after taking Zyprexa. But thousands of additional lawsuits are still pending. | Lilly’s own published data, which it told its sales representatives to play down in conversations with doctors, has shown that 30 percent of patients taking Zyprexa gain 22 pounds or more after a year on the drug, and some patients have reported gaining 100 pounds or more. But Lilly was concerned that Zyprexa’s sales would be hurt if the company was more forthright about the fact that the drug might cause unmanageable weight gain or diabetes, according to the documents, which cover the period 1995 to 2004. | [2] |
| Eli Lilly agreed on January 4, 2007 to pay up to $500 million to settle 18,000 lawsuits from people who claimed they developed diabetes or other diseases after taking Zyprexa. Including earlier settlements over Zyprexa, Lilly has now agreed to pay at least $1.2 billion to 28,500 people who claim they were injured by the drug. At least 1,200 suits are still pending, the company said. About 20 million people worldwide have taken Zyprexa since its introduction in 1996. | Eli Lilly agreed yesterday to pay up to $500 million to settle 18,000 lawsuits from people who claimed they had developed diabetes or other diseases after taking Zyprexa, Lilly's drug for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Including earlier settlements over Zyprexa, Lilly has now agreed to pay at least $1.2 billion to 28,500 people who said they were injured by the drug. At least 1,200 suits are still pending, the company said. About 20 million people worldwide have taken Zyprexa since its introduction in 1996. | [3] |
| The research, conducted over three years at 12 medical centers, was funded and coordinated by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) at a cost of $17 million.[8] A total of 439 adolescents aged 12–17 were given Prozac, Prozac plus cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), placebo plus CBT, or placebo alone. After 12 weeks, 71% of those treated with Prozac and CBT showed improvement (defined by the therapists and the subjects' responses to questionnaires). Improvement was reported by 60% of those taking Prozac without CBT, 43% getting CBT alone, and 35% taking placebo alone. | The research, conducted over three years at 12 medical centers, was funded and coordinated by the National Institute of Mental Health at a cost to US taxpayers of $17 million. A total of 439 adolescents aged 12-17 were given Prozac, Prozac plus cognitive behavior therapy, placebo plus CBT, or placebo alone. After 12 weeks, 71% of those treated with Prozac and CBT showed improvement (defined by the therapists and the subjects’ responses to questionnaires). Improvement was reported by 60% of those taking Prozac without CBT, 43% getting CBT alone, and 35% taking placebo alone. | [4] |
| In 2005, an internal document purportedly from Eli Lilly, and originally published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) showed that the drug maker had data more than 15 years old showing that patients on its antidepressant Prozac were far more likely to attempt suicide and show hostility than were patients on other antidepressants and that the company attempted to minimize public awareness of the side effects.[citation needed] The 1988 document indicated that 3.7 percent of patients attempted suicide while on the blockbuster drug, a rate more than 12 times that cited for any of four other commonly used antidepressants. The document, which cited clinical trials of 14,198 patients on fluoxetine also stated that 2.3 percent of users suffered psychotic depression while on the drug, more than double the next-highest rate of patients using another antidepressant. | An internal document purportedly from Eli Lilly and Co. made public Monday appears to show that the drug maker had data more than 15 years ago showing that patients on its antidepressant Prozac were far more likely to attempt suicide and show hostility than were patients on other antidepressants and that the company attempted to minimize public awareness of the side effects....The 1988 document indicated that 3.7 percent of patients attempted suicide while on the blockbuster drug, a rate more than 12 times that cited for any of four other commonly used antidepressants. The document, which cited clinical trials of 14,198 patients on fluoxetine -- the generic name for Prozac -- also stated that 2.3 percent of users suffered psychotic depression while on the drug, more than double the next-highest rate of patients using another antidepressant. | [5] |
These are just examples; there are more examples of copying in some of these as well as other sources.
As a website that is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously to protect the interests of the holders of copyright as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers. Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch.
The article has been replaced with a notice of these copyright concerns that includes directions for resolving them. If the material can be verified to be compatibly licensed or public domain or if permission is provided, we can use the original text with proper attribution. If you can resolve it that way, please let me know if you need assistance with those directions. Otherwise, so that we can be sure it does not constitute a derivative work, this article should be rewritten; there is a link to a temporary space for that purpose in the instructions which now appear in place of the article. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".
Please let me know if you have questions about this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)