User talk:Fvasconcellos/Archive 16

edit count · edit summary usage · blocks · deletions · moves · protections

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Chlorpheniramine and phenylpropanolamine

What do you think of this article? Keep, Delete, Merge into other article(s)? Are there any kind of guidelines for articles about drug combinations?

Personally, I feel that articles dealing with drug combinations shouldn't exist, except in very unusual circumstances (e.g. vicodin - which is, by the way, a very messy article). Butalbital is a good example of a centralized grouping of drug combinations; this should probably be the standard way of dealing with drug combos. Though in the case of Chlorpheniramine and phenylpropanolamine, it's unclear which drug would take priority (i.e. which article should have the information about the combo; perhaps both, or neither?).

To me, the issue is that there are many thousands of drug combos, and most of them are so obscure that they're never mentioned on Wikipedia (and many can never be adequately referenced). For example, brompheniramine and pseudoephedrine are combined in a form trademarked as "Bromfenex PD" - which is pharmacologically nearly identical to the Chlorpheniramine and phenylpropanolamine mixture - but it's not listed in any large consumer drug database, such as rxlist. Also, the Paracetamol article doesn't even come close to listing all the drug combinations it appears in (it's arguably the most common compound in drug combos). Let me know what you think.

Cheers, Fuzzform (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK

It's not my fault that the update is 3 hours late! I only just got here. I am now putting the update together, if you are an admin who was thinking of posting it, please don't, I will let User:Bedford know when I have finished and he will do it. Thanks for your interest. Gatoclass (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. That edit summary was not supposed to be in caps, by the way—sorry! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Drugs on trial

I enjoy making images of molecules, so I have been happily following User:Carlo Banez's trail. But I wonder if all those drug stubs are really desirable. As in, other than being on trial for xxx disease, so what? Without anything interesting to add (synthesis [yes! I'm a chemist!], mode of action, etc.), could they just be rolled into penicillin drugs? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say hai

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 11:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Have a great day yourself :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about moving pages

When exactly is a move/rename considered "controversial"? I'm not sure what to do in the following situation: Hopewell culture should be named "Hopewell tradition", since it isn't a monoculture, but a network of distinct local cultures connected by common trade routes (sometimes called the "Hopewell Interaction Sphere"). There's no discussion whatsoever on the article's talk page, on any topic. I've provided a citation to back up my proposed rename, but it could be months before anyone looks at the talk page and provides feedback one way or another, so that a consensus might be reached. I don't need an admin to move the page for me, so the rename request template isn't appropriate here. However, I'd like to allow a week or two for other editors to provide feedback on the proposed rename. Is there a different template for this purpose? Or in this case, should I just go ahead and move the page? It doesn't seem at all controversial, especially in light of the empty talk page, and the very explicitly worded citation I've provided saying that this isn't a single culture at all. How should I proceed?

Thanks, Fuzzform (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to our ranks ;) If I can be of assistance in any way, let me know. Very appropriate image, BTW. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and glad you liked the image. I figured that if I was going to be "spamming" over 160 user pages, I might as well contribute something of some interest. :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Referencing sections

Hi, not quite sure what the issue Arcadian and yourself are reverting over at Anti-diabetic drug referencing, but surely either single section of "References and notes" (with bulleted reference sources and then the reflist-tag numbered list) which I intensely dislike, or two equal top level headings of "References" and "Notes" (aka "Footnotes"). But why the multi-level "References" top-level with then "Notes" and "Sources" as sub-sections? Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions suggests (emphasis is mine):

'See also, Notes (or Footnotes), References, Further reading (or Books) and External links
These should all be "==" headings.'

and this is mirrored by WP:MEDMOS#Sections... or am I missing something :-) David Ruben ^Talk 18:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Tiludronate

Hello. Could you please move tiludronate to tiludronic acid? :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcoming

Thanks for the welcome, and I'll see you around :) Adolon au (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cystatin C

Thanks for the image! I downloaded PyMol but couldn't be bothered with finding out how it works. Thank you, cheers --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a steep learning curve, but worthwhile once you get the hang of it :) Nice to see you around! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Irofulven

I have an IP on my talk pavge claiming that the ref in this article is not relevant. One of the other authors (User:Mjkelner) seems to disagree. Can you have a quick look? Rich Farmbrough, 09:38 23 May 2008 (GMT).

Committed identity

Fvasconcellos

I note you have moved your 'committed identity' to a separate page and locked it.

Seems like a wise idea. I've also moved mine to a separate page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quantockgoblin/committed_identity

I don't think I have the ability to lock this page - can you do this for me!

Thanks

QG

Thanks -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

DOI bot

Super, glad my work is paying off! Thanks for your feedback. All the best, Smith609 Talk 14:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Chemical structure needed

Hello. Could you please draw a chemical structure for difloxacin? I have already added the IUPAC name for it. :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Image

Great! Tim Vickers (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

TS protection

Thanks; gosh, I get on a plane, and the IPs go nuts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Anytime :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Epiboxidine

Hi there. Would you mind taking a look at this page? Someone slapped a clean-up tag on it (1 minute after I created the page!) and told me off for removing it, so I guess it could do with rewording or something, but I'm not really sure what needs doing to it so thought I should seek a second opinion...Meodipt (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for that, looks heaps better. Yeah I tend to use the drug box as standard, as most of the compounds I make pages for are used in humans (or at least in vivo) to some extent, but you're right that with this compound its only really used in vitro and a chem box is more appropriate. That will do nicely for now at any rate :-) Meodipt (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

About Friendly Warning

Actually, if you look at the source to the image, you will see that it clearly constitutes copyright infringement. That is an official cd single cover. That user did not make it. Also, if you look at the history of his talk page, the user has done this more than once. It wasn't about the fair use, it was about the user claiming the image to be self-made when it clearly is not. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

image

Hi Fv. For a moment there, I thought I saw "Archived every 30 seconds", and wondered how fast I'd have to type. My mistake was to copy the category/justification for a previous WP image we used in a Dispatch article. This one, then, can be our model for the future. Thanks for your help.

Things are fine, even in the aftermath of my spectacular tumble down a long flight of stairs at the gym a few hours ago. Hobbling, and sore left hand. Will survive. TONY (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Here's hoping copy editing and FAC will not suffer long while you recover. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again

I sure appreciated the time and effort you put into giving post-concussion syndrome that very thorough review. I'll keep working on the article as you suggest, definitely let me know if you have any more comments. I didn't think you were too harsh at all (as you mentioned you thought you might come across), everything was very reasonable. I've seen your work around other areas as well, and always thought the same thing—the project is lucky to have someone so dedicated, hard working, and committed to quality as you. delldot talk 12:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sertraline lead

Come on, FV. What if some idiot starts challenging every word of the lead, even though everything has already been discussed in detals in the article? We have a choice not to accomodate him. WP:LEAD does not mandate references to everything. And fluxetine vs sertraline comparison is completely uncontroversial, it was just some lazy bum who did not want to bother with clicking on the link to the comparison section. Paul Gene (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

We write for the reader, Paul—whether a layperson or a pharmacologist, and the average Joe who knows nothing about the drugs he takes has just as much right to read the very best. Fluoxetine vs sertraline may be completely uncontroversial to you or to others familiar with the topic, but it clearly isn't to all—otherwise, why mention it anyway if it's common knowledge? :) No, WP:LEAD does not mandate references to everything, but it does for statements likely to be challenged. That one was more than likely to be challenged; it was challenged, and there is absolutely no harm in including a reference (sorry if I added the wrong one, though.) As for the "lazy bum" part, I'm sure I don't need to remind you of WP:AGF now, do I? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the average Joe would say - What an interesting fact!, and would not think to doubt it. The person who inserted the fact tag clearly thinks that he knows something. As for the "lazy bum" part, he is a lazy bum in good faith, I do not say that there was any bad intent in his part, only negligence. WP:LEAD requires consensus for putting the references in the lead. I could revert it, and I agree to it only out of respect for you. Paul Gene (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I just read your discussion at User talk:Life.temp. Now you see... Paul Gene (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was mistaken. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

...and I've been thinking. WP:V trumps WP:LEAD, and if some editors are unhappy with referencing in the lead... we should accommodate such requests, as long as they're reasonable (e.g. nothing along the lines of "Sertraline is an antidepressant". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

All WP:V says is that the citations should exist in the article and that they should be easy to find. So there is no contradiction with the WP:LEAD. In the case of Sertraline, the citations exist and all the reader have to do to find them is to click on the link to the corresponding chapter. Would you want to ask that question at WP:LEAD? It would be interesting to see the resulting discussion. By the way "Sertraline is an antidepressant" may be considered controversial by some people. David Healy for example notes that the effects of SSRIs on depression are non-specific, unlike those of tricyclic antidepressants, so it may not be a "true" antidepressant.Paul Gene (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Anthracycline

Fvasconcellos, don't you think that the introduction to Anthracycline would be difficult for a non-specialist reader? Discuss in Talk:Anthracycline Nbauman (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Cetirizine hydrochloride

Hey there, i'm really sorry about the move I should probably stay away from WikiProjects I don't know much about! Haha. Sorry again, hope it didn't cause you too much of a problem. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 14:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ohh it's you! :D Hope to see you around some more! Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 16:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

RXCOTW

I was so disappointed with RxCOTW when they moved on without finishing with aspirin, and would not listen to me. And just recently Crazychemguy working on his own moved it into GA category singlehandedly. Then my and Casliber suggestions for the collaboration to be monthly were ignored (it is monthly now). So I am not at all enthusiastic. To work within RxCOTW - nope, but to help you - anytime.Paul Gene (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear the first part, and glad to hear the second. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

seizures

Fvasconcellos, thanks for getting involved. But the page move you did didn't help IMO. About 700 articles that previously linked to the epileptic seizure article now link to a dab page, and a fair number of articles that linked to convulsion (and hence to the epileptic seizure article) now link to "seizure (medicine)". Look at the previous version seizure types. Do we need to bring in other MED editors such as JFW? Colin°^Talk 16:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fvasconcellos, thanks for your help. I think I've fixed everything. Colin°^Talk 20:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Temazepam

I did a series of 34 edits on Temazepam, each time explaining what I was doing. I removed references sourced in the evening news, newspaper articles, a BBC film report, a leaflet for school children, some bestseller books which are investigational journalism but not scientific literature. Also I removed a large amount of references which were misrepresented, not saying what the article says. Also I removed several references, which were misrepresented in that they reported about different benzodiazepines. But in the reference list the titles have been CHANGED, to include temazepam. However if you open the reference, it is e.g. about flurazepam and doesn't mention temazepam at all. All my 34 edits have been reverted without any comment or discussion. When I reverted back, the admin was called on VANDALISM charges and blocked me and the article. My edits are now lost. I put a list of my changes on the discussion page, for discussion of the changes one by one. This list of changes was deleted from the discussion page, as it were "unconstructive". I am fed up. Is this a Kindergarten? Are the admins idiots and don't see what happens? I can not even post the proposed changes to the talk page, without being reverted? What is this? Where can I complain? We had this before, it seems to be a std defense of the regulars involved, to just revert without discussion, and then yell any discussion and criticism down and call the admins on vandalism, to have the opponent and article locked. Please take a look, also follow the links to the references and open them to find the misrepresentations. Besides, now they claim I work for the pharm industry and try to block on conflict of interest. Kindergarten, really. 70.137.137.130 (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here a list:

Edits by 70.137. to temazepam

• 1. 17:35, 18 June 2008 70.137.159.55 (Talk) (70,066 bytes) (deleted depersonalization. The title is "depersonalization after nitrazepam withdrawal" and misrepresented as "after nitrazepam AND TEMAZEPAM withdrawal. FORGERY(!) the 3rd time.)
• 2. (cur) (last) 17:27, 18 June 2008 70.137.159.55 (Talk) (70,418 bytes) (deleted reference. it is not about temazepam but lorazepam,lormetazepam, nitrazepam.)
• 3. (cur) (last) 17:23, 18 June 2008 70.137.159.55 (Talk) (70,890 bytes) (deleted reference, it is not about temazepam at all but misrepresented(!) It is about flurazepam. Title forged(!))
• 4. (cur) (last) 17:19, 18 June 2008 70.137.159.55 (Talk) (71,394 bytes) (deleted reference. It doesn't mention temazepam at all.)
• 5. (cur) (last) 17:08, 18 June 2008 70.137.159.55 (Talk) (71,899 bytes) (deleted unsourced statements. The reference doesn't talk about that, it is the UK law, not about US, Singapore, etc.)
• 1. (cur) (last) 03:50, 18 June 2008 Thegoodson (Talk | contribs) (96,679 bytes) (Delete work again, and you will no longer be editing after I am done with you...)
• 1. (cur) (last) 02:56, 18 June 2008 70.137.153.251 (Talk) (73,128 bytes) (deleted tolerance in mice. the study is about nitrazepam, no word about temazepam. erroneous citation!)
• 2. (cur) (last) 02:48, 18 June 2008 70.137.153.251 (Talk) (73,657 bytes) (added detail from reference)
• 3. (cur) (last) 02:27, 18 June 2008 70.137.153.251 (Talk) (73,601 bytes) (corrected: after 6 days tolerance to temazepam did NOT occur, from the reference. erroneous citation!)
• 4. (cur) (last) 02:16, 18 June 2008 70.137.153.251 (Talk) (73,755 bytes) (added in Victoria)
• 5. (cur) (last) 01:46, 18 June 2008 70.137.153.251 (Talk) (74,093 bytes) (added "in Victoria" from reference. This is not a general phenomenon)
• 6. (cur) (last) 01:17, 18 June 2008 70.137.153.251 (Talk) (74,034 bytes) (deleted obscure "british study", unsourced statement)
• 7. (cur) (last) 01:08, 18 June 2008 70.137.153.251 (Talk) (75,241 bytes) (deleted permanent brain damage. The ref is about nitrazepam, not temazepam. They have not seen the patient before. Anecdotal, inconclusive. doesn't provide causality.)
• 8. (cur) (last) 01:01, 18 June 2008 70.137.153.251 (Talk) (76,158 bytes) (corrected citation from reference: brain damage)
• 9. (cur) (last) 00:48, 18 June 2008 70.137.153.251 (Talk) (76,059 bytes) (deleted "wobble rave..." ref by Parrott. please provide original reference. This is only cited by Ashton, not her result.)
• 10. (cur) (last) 00:27, 18 June 2008 70.137.153.251 (Talk) (76,776 bytes) (deleted injection into eyes. This is urban legend. Ashton cites with permission from secondary source,not her result. Please provide primary reference.)
• 11. (cur) (last) 00:23, 18 June 2008 70.137.153.251 (Talk) (76,914 bytes) (deleted insufficient references: Where published, reviewed?)
• 12. (cur) (last) 22:58, 17 June 2008 70.137.153.251 (Talk) (77,875 bytes) (corrected: incidence of euphoria=1.5% according to FDA, rarely reported, less than diarrhea and headaches)
• 13. (cur) (last) 22:39, 17 June 2008 70.137.153.251 (Talk) (77,964 bytes) (deleted reference which was a TV program)
• 14. (cur) (last) 22:31, 17 June 2008 70.137.153.251 (Talk) (79,298 bytes) (deleted references which were newspaper articles and the evening news)
• 15. (cur) (last) 22:25, 17 June 2008 70.137.153.251 (Talk) (81,682 bytes) (deleted reference, which was a newspaper article)
• 16. (cur) (last) 22:21, 17 June 2008 70.137.153.251 (Talk) (82,369 bytes) (deleted reference, which was a newspaper article)
• 17. (cur) (last) 13:59, 16 June 2008 70.137.174.90 (Talk) (83,039 bytes) (deleted full agonist. ref does not talk about temazepam, but nitrazepam vs. a partial agonist)
• 18. (cur) (last) 13:44, 16 June 2008 70.137.174.90 (Talk) (83,378 bytes) (deleted duplicate, see drugbox)
• 19. (cur) (last) 13:38, 16 June 2008 70.137.174.90 (Talk) (83,521 bytes) (deleted Utilization (in Australia only) too narrow, anecdotal. Worldwide would be maybe(!) interesting)
• 20. (cur) (last) 13:27, 16 June 2008 70.137.174.90 (Talk) (84,135 bytes) (deleted military use, unsourced statement)
• 21. (cur) (last) 13:19, 16 June 2008 70.137.174.90 (Talk) (84,713 bytes) (sumarized vasopressin/ACTH action and deleted the copy of the whole experiment abstract)
• 22. (cur) (last) 13:10, 16 June 2008 70.137.174.90 (Talk) (86,322 bytes) (deleted duplicate, see pharmacology)
• 23. (cur) (last) 13:04, 16 June 2008 70.137.174.90 (Talk) (86,661 bytes) (deleted duplicate, see pharmacokinetics)
• 24. (cur) (last) 12:51, 16 June 2008 70.137.174.90 (Talk) (86,737 bytes) (deleted KGB antics. refs are sensational bestseller books, investigational journalism, not scientific lit.)
• 25. (cur) (last) 12:43, 16 June 2008 70.137.174.90 (Talk) (89,101 bytes) (deleted ref[10], it is not about temazepam, but is a leaflet for school children about the dangers of presciption drugs)
• 26. (cur) (last) 02:33, 16 June 2008 70.137.174.90 (Talk) (90,393 bytes) (deleted cross tolerance with barbiturates. The ref states the other way around, and not with temazepam but flurazepam)
• 27. (cur) (last) 23:47, 15 June 2008 70.137.174.90 (Talk) (90,997 bytes) (deleted cognitive behavioral therapy. doesn't belong here. It is "What else can one do to improve sleep?")
• 28. (cur) (last) 23:40, 15 June 2008 70.137.174.90 (Talk) (93,575 bytes) (deleted opioid effect. direct opioid receptor binding has never been described. This is a speculation based on inhibition of endogenous opioids in rats.)
• 29. (cur) (last) 23:35, 15 June 2008 70.137.174.90 (Talk) (94,005 bytes) (deleted 3T3 cells. Only mentioned in a side note. They talk about rat thymoma interaction with peripheral benzodiazepines, not temazepam)
• 30. (cur) (last) 22:16, 15 June 2008 70.137.174.90 (Talk) (94,452 bytes) (deleted cholinesterase inhibition. in vitro, at what concentrations? has never after been shown to be pharmacologically relevant.)
• 31. (cur) (last) 22:06, 15 June 2008 70.137.174.90 (Talk) (94,842 bytes) (deleted neurosteroid interaction. chemical experiment with enzymes in vitro, at unphysiological concentrations and conditions, in a 2.5% methanol solution. ref does not claim secured pharmacological action, just conjectures.)

70.137.137.130 (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 70.137.137.130 (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam to divert attention from above conversion. Your edits were reviewed User_talk:70.137.159.55 by an admin who deemed that you are likely paid by the drug companies to edit wikipedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message over at Talk:Temazepam. This is a content dispute, and none of these edits (by yourself or by the other two editors) should have been labeled as vandalism. The only approach I can suggest, since there appears to be little (if any) room for discussion, is formal dispute resolution. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Temazepam.

Yeah, I thought about doing that this morning, but my horrid memory kicked in again. I think a two-week removal would be enough; will you do it, or I? · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, though sorry to do it. I've tried to make it very clear that this was not a punitive measure. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I accept the removal of Twinkle as a precautionary measure to avoid a repeat of breaking the 3rr. I understand that it is not a punitive measure and can see that you did it to prevent another outbreak of edit warring. I would like to point out that I have used Twinkle for some time and reverted a lot of vandalism with it for some time without problem. I did feel the anon's edits were borderline vandalism though. Admins also thought that their edits looked like vandalism User_talk:70.137.137.130 and link as did this admin link. I will be more careful in future as to what I deem vandalism as.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with vandalism or borderline vandalism. The admins may have believed that after seeing a huge difference, caused by 34 consecutive edits. I actually expect that you go through each of my edits and assess the validity of the given reasons for edit, before stirring up a vandalism hysteria in 2 unsuspecting admins and another unsuspecting editor who comes to help against the anon user troll vandal (who is also neurotic, drug addicted, coo coo, has serious problems, is psychotic etc. according to your earlier allegations on the talk page, now archived) Literaturegeek: This is classical foul play, and you and friends have done that before with other editors. I have simply removed methodically, step by step, references which I deemed erroneous or otherwise insufficient. I know how to work scientifically. No kidding. And I have not done it to satisfy my psychotic delusions, as you claimed on the talk page. I have done it because the article you have hogged became an eye sore for a scientific reader. I also don't get payed for that by some pharm company, as you claimed. 70.137.161.241 (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"and you and friends have done that before with other editors." No I have not! Show me examples. You are the one doing foul play by making things up to smear my reputation again.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is true I bought into your claims initially that you were just an old man concerned about his fellow elderly friends who might be frightened to read about withdrawal symptoms and toxicities etc and thought that you were crazy. I was running on adrenalin chasing your edits and was not thinking clearly and misinterpreted some humour as well which made me think you were crazy. They were genuine opinions I had. I now know that you are involved in research and development or were for 35 years by your own admission. I just don't know for sure which drug company you researched and developed drugs but do strongly suspect that it is Roche Pharmaceuticals.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My person is really not important, and I regret giving anything away. But it is now too late. The truth is: I am old (at least by the std of WP), concerned about an article, which became the blackbook of pharm conspiracy and KGB antics, being informative e.g. for elderly persons, and I worked in R&D for 35 yrs, however in an unrelated field. And I am not getting payed. Hope your curiosity is now satisfied. And my edits are methodical and reasonable. If you find better references for the stated facts, just reinsert them. In some cases we may also have to discuss the relevance of the stated facts. But take the effort to go through the list one by one to see what I did and why. 70.137.161.241 (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you'll be able to help with enforcing WP:Talk here (see diff, diff and diff). I think this will help sort things out more quickly - more light less heat. Tim Vickers (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I got my paper draft off to a co-author yesterday, so I've got a bit of breathing room this weekend! I'd recommend getting involved in editing the article. We can always find uninvolved editors to deal with simple civility/3RR problems, but there are only a few admins who know enough about this topic to deal with such serious sourcing issues. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you help me with Mike Rosoft? He thinks I am a vandal and has blocked me

I have reviewed the talk page of the article; I can just confirm that you have been disruptive. You have repeatedly reverted the article to your preferred version, throwing around strong language like "forged references", despite being repeatedly reverted by various users and without discussing the issue on the talk page; in at least one case, you seem to have been proven wrong. In addition, please have a look at guidelines on conflict of interest; you seem to be payed by a pharmaceutical company for your edits. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC) 70.137.161.241 (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If you were able to edit my Talk page, it means you're no longer blocked. I'll leave Mike a note asking him to review the situation. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Brasil

Olá!Hoje eu vim te falar sobre a Wikimedia Brasil.

A Wikimedia Brasil é a proposta de um capítulo nacional da Wikimedia Foundation no Brasil para dar suporte e promover os projetos Wikimedia no Brasil.

Um local chapter é uma organização sem fins lucrativos destinada a melhor divulgar e procurar por apoio aos diversos projetos de cultura livre mantidos pela Wikimedia Foundation — sendo a Wikipedia um deles. Eu localizei, através de userboxes ou outros recursos desta wiki, que você mora no Brasil, e, por isso mesmo, te convido a dar uma olhada na página do projeto no Meta (que possui vários links informativos) e, se for de seu interesse, assinar na lista de possíveis interessados.

Atenciosamente,Tosão —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.24.121.116 (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Page unprotection?

Hi there, I've raised the possibility of unprotecting the tamazepam page here. What are your thoughts? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd extend that to the Anon editor as well, they all broke 3RR. I think I'd recommend that any edit warring from anybody will result in an immediate block. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've unprotected it, please edit slowly. I'd recommend redrafting sections one at a time on the talkpage, like we're doing with the tolerance one at the moment. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Righto. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)