User talk:JaguDorje

Welcome!

Hello, JaguDorje, 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
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk 20:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gabapentin

I have temporarily removed your changes to gabapentin, because I don't believe you are following Wikipedia's core policy to keep articles neutral. Even if you are factually correct, you should avoid words like "unfortunately" that imply a value judgement.

You might prefer discussing the issues under discussion on talk:Gabapentin, the associated discussion page. Here, you can interact with other editors in finding the most appropriate choice of words. JFW | T@lk 20:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regional political issues such as FDA approval / non approval and national court issues do not belong in a section on medical uses. This information can be added to the section on society and culture. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you take some time to figure out how Wikipedia works. A good article to read for starters is WP:MEDRS. Everything I have added is based on review articles. This is required for medical information. This is not ready for arbitration (which does not deal with content issues BTW). Would be happy to hear discuss based on appropriate references though. "Off label" is a local issue related to the USA's FDA. This is a global encyclopedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are required to discuss the changes you propose as they are not supported by current guidelines on formatting or referencing.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to discuss the legal issues under that section of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just cut and past the FDA stuff. Fixed now.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple problems with your edit

Some of the refs such as this one are not appropriate [1]
Some of the refs are not properly formatted such as this bit <ref name=AHFS>{{cite web|title=Gabapentin|url=http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/Safety-RelatedDrugLabelingChanges/ucm154552.htm}}</ref>
Useing a review that looks at neuropathy in HIV patients and generalizing to all neuropathy is not appropriate "however, at least one review found no benefit for neuropathic pain.^[1]"
Did remove the Pfisor site.

Thus reverted. We can discuss one change at a time.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed these concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to referencing please read WP:MEDRS. This article [2] is not published in a journal and is not a review. I am happy to address each issue one by one. The Talk:Gabapentin page is probably the best place to begin if you are interested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continued work

Thank you for your updates and corrections. I have addressed the issues you raised above. Thank you for your input; I especially appreciate the new section on the hypothetical mechanism of action. Very intriguing!

I think our efforts are helping to produce a more balanced article that reflects the extant data, some of which unfortunately only came to light upon discovery in the legal actions cited herein. I am happy to further discuss specific changes on Talk:Gabapentin. JaguDorje (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your mediation request

It appears that the dispute you were having at Gabapentin has been resolved. If you are still interested in pursuing the mediation request, please so indicate on the mediation page. If no one says they want to continue by 20:00 UTC September 2, 2011, we will close the mediation as unneeded. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your still not using review articles exclusively. This is a huge problem... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it a huge problem? I think there are larger issues around pressing that the drug is useful for off-label indications, given the track record of Pfizer in suppressing negative or unsupportive data. This underscores that review articles, even the Cochrane reviews, are potentially more positive than warranted. It bears directly upon our ability to assess the merit of review articles when there may be more suppressed data about which we remain unaware. I believe therefore one should exercise extreme caution and prudence in asserting claims for the drug that remain unproven or for which the evidence is weak. Also, please specify which citations are of concern to you and I shall review your citations as well. Thanks for the efforts to date. I think the article is much improved over the original version. JaguDorje (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are preferred as they look at the sum of the evidence. Good ones look at the unpublished literature as well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Phillips, TJC (2010). [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014433 "Pharmacological Treatment of Painful HIV-Associated Sensory Neuropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials"]. PLoS ONE (5(12)): e14433. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[1] Phillips, TJC (2010). [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014433 "Pharmacological Treatment of Painful HIV-Associated Sensory Neuropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials"]. PLoS ONE (5(12)): e14433. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[1]