User talk:Testem

Ketamine

Hi, I am obviously a new wiki user, but not new to ketamine infusions as a treatment modality. I started one of the first clinics in the country after researching the treatment for over a year. We are one of dozens of independent clinics who have successfully treated thousands of patients. Our average remission time after stabilization is 2 months between treatments. I have already made several fortunes in my life, and I could care less whether this effort results in any reward other than seeing that my adult children do not suffer from the illnesses they were unlucky enough to inherit from me. This is about them and the 120 or more people who commit suicide every day in this country. Every one of those deaths is now preventable.

There is a large gap right now between what is known in practice at commercial clinics and what is published - the reason for that gap is that there is no profit in ketamine research since the patent is long expired, so there is no real ketamine research. All, and I do mean all, of the research on ketamine is investigational only for the sole purpose of developing a patented alternative. The tragedy is that the industry has been trying to develop an analog drug for 50 years without success.

I understand and support the general reasoning behind needing second-party sources for medical information. My question is at what point does the weight of anecdotal and single-sourced data outweigh the lack of formal second-party research? Frankly, if I don't pay for it personally, there is not going to be any research anytime soon. I have done that with regard to medical marijuana, but there is only so much one person can do, and a lot of time involved in that approach.

So, do you have any suggestions for a middle ground - for instance, using press reports as sources? Also, I personally have been designing experiments for 40 years as a research scientist and entrepreneur. I am pretty good at it. We have bullet proof data regarding the efficacy of ketamine. Would sharing the data be a violation of wiki rules?

Thanks,

Gerald Gaines Geraldwgaines (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Geraldwgaines:

Hi there :) First thing to note is that on talk pages new sections always go at the bottom. I understand your situation, it is one I face often on wikipedia and it can be frustrating. I am a keen editor of articles on novel psychoactive substances and there is a huge lack of published knowledge about these. The result is that I cannot use wikipedia as a repository for cutting edge information. It is annoying, but to guarantee quality it is somewhat understandable. You will be in the same situation, but press releases are acceptable and it sounds like some of your other claims might be verifiable too. Anecdotal data from a trusted source, while not really data, may be acceptable in some cases.

Don't be put off, wikipedia really needs quality editors and although I have had to revert some of your edits, I appreciate all the effort and some of the edits are very valuable too. Testem (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about stepping on your digital front lawn, but if I actually knew where my section was going or how to move it (which I am sure is explained in some nice FAQ somewhere), then I would never have transgressed. Will come back better prepared :/ While I'm moonwalking away... this https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140719161834-95206157-ketamine-information-network-kin-treatment-advisory-1?published=t is the kind of information I think is critical to have out there - I would hate to count the number of doctors who are starting offering Ketamine treatment and their major source of information is one published study and Wiki - but I bet you the number is in the hundreds now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldwgaines (talk • contribs) 16:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Geraldwgaines: Your userpage is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Geraldwgaines. Do you have a non-publicly available site, a website ideally? Testem (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Working on a new site that will include a private portal for professionals, target mid september. Until then, stuck with linked in and www.depressionrecoverycenters.com. Don't bother telling me site sucks, its a market test decoy. This is not my first rodeo. My first job out of undergrad in 1978 was running a test market in Phoenix - perfect sandbox. GG Geraldwgaines (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Structures

Hi, I see you are interested in drawing structure - could I please ask you to have a read of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry/Structure drawing, some important items to note are that we would prefer if you could only upload to commons, it's taken us 12 months to clear out several thousand structures from en-Wiki - they can be better categorised at commons, but sadly no easy search. Also if possible could you use png or (even better) svg format. We won't be moving the jpg and gif to commons, they are all being re-drawn by volunteers in svg format first. Ways of getting svgs files are in the page I quoted. Thanks for your attention, and your contribution to Wikipedia. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. License for structures is always {{PD-chem}} as there is no originality. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MXE article

I think the MXE article deserves a QSAR pharmacology section explaining how it's inception was based on known molecules. I think simply deleting what I did was not constructive. If you feel you would be able to improve on what I have done then that is fair enough but simply deleting what I did I find not helpful. If you read the VICE article where the man who lost a hand who is said to have invented MXE actually believes that the compound is opioidergic. I feel it was necessary to draw on the example of 3-OH-pcp. I gave a reference that stated that 3-OH-pcp is an opioid antagonist. Therefore I did give a reference to 3-OH-pcp which is relevent to the discssion of what the pharmacology of MXE might be expected to be like.--Aschwole (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and the edit has a lot of potential, but the tenses were still off and the information needed citations. If you want to put it into the talk there and give it some sources I'll be happy to help format and fix the syntax but as it is, it isn't quite ready to be added to the main article. Testem (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should probably take place at Talk:Methoxetamine, so others can weigh in. Pmillerrhodes ^Talk_Contrib 17:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting drugs: MPEP link

Just a heads up: The link for MPEP on your user page redirects to Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, not 2-Methyl-6-(phenylethynyl)pyridine. Pmillerrhodes ^Talk_Contrib 17:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks Testem (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrogen narcosis

You placed a {{citation needed}} tag in the lead (opening paragraphs) of Nitrogen narcosis. You may not be aware, but the lead of a developed article summarises the body of text that follows it, and it is not normally a requirement to source summary statements in the lead when they are already directly sourced in the main text. You will find that most Featured Articles have no citations in the lead for this reason.

In this case, the statement "Although divers can learn to cope with some of these effects, it is not possible to develop a tolerance" is a direct summary of the last sentence of the third paragraph in the Prevention section: "Scientific evidence does not show that a diver can train to overcome any measure of narcosis at a given depth or become tolerant of it." which is clearly sourced to:

Hamilton, K; Laliberté, MF; Heslegrave, R (1992). "Subjective and behavioral effects associated with repeated exposure to narcosis". Aviation, space, and environmental medicine. 63 (10): 865–9. PMID 1417647.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

If you insist on challenging the sentence in the lead, I will repeat the citation, although I do not feel this is necessary and is bound to be reversed when the article goes to Featured article candidature. I would much prefer it if you were to revert your tagging, but that's up to you. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that and am grateful to you for pointing this out to me. I'll revert the tag. Testem (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I'm always happy to share whatever I've learned here, so please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you think there's anything I can help you with. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid

Hi Testem, I changed your inline notes to gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid, as {{Unreliable sources}} displays as

If you want the inline text version, please use {{Verify credibility}}, which displays as

^{[unreliable source?]}

If I made a mistake, or you have any questions, please ask me at my talk page. Regards, HMman (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, thank you very much Testem (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks so much for creating and developing testing reagent pages. That's the kind of topic that's really important and often overlooked. Wikipedia is usually the first place people come for information on things like that! Exercisephys (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re. red text in signature

Thanks for feedback, I had not thought of this before, although red usernames are not unheard of, e.g. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄. Lesion (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Desiccator may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[File:Desiccator.jpg|thumb|right|A '''vacuum desiccator''' (left - note the stopcock which allows a

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen scavenger

Hi. I've sorted out your speedy request. It was coming up at CSD, but there was no template visible on the page. I've moved your request to above the redirect instruction, and it displays now. Looks like things below the redir are ignored for display, but things above take precedence and cancel out the redir. Something new I've learned there... Peridon (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superb, thanks. I didn't know that either. Testem (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About your edits of the "Sour gas" article

Testem, I am questioning why you felt that the "Sour gas" article needed the section you added on "Solution based acid gas removal". The previous paragraph to your section has a link to the "Amine gas treating" article which essentially covers the same material as you added into to the "Sour gas" article. If you believe that the "Amine gas treating" article needs improving, then feel free to improve it ... but why add a new section to the "Sour gas" article covering the same ground? ... Regards, mbeychok (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I just wasn't thinking. I'll revert it. Just because it had info about methods for treating but didn't include amine techniques. Selexol is also not an amine.Testem (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Testem. ... Regards, mbeychok (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced content

hi, as per this dif, actually deleting unsourced content is just fine as per WP:V. it is a style thing. I also note that as per WP:PROVEIT, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source." (emphasis added) I have zero desire to edit war over this. To avoid trouble over this chunk of content, since we are both watching the ketamine article, would you please let me know how long, in your mind, content has to be tagged before it can be deleted? thx! Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I replaced it because the information seemed sensible and quite possibly legitimate, but was an edit from a new user. I would like to see it remain indefinitely but if not then perhaps ask the original editor to find a citation of some sort. If not then a month seems sensible? Testem (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a month will do, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Comma

My comma is necessary. Can you explain yourself? Marc Bago (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Marc Bago: I just think it sounded better without it. I would certainly not pause after saying 2000 in that sentence. Testem (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for the kind words sent to my IP address! As per your suggestion, I signed up as a member and hope to help the community as much as yourself :) Ihatemeatman (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic routes

Thanks for your interest and help. U-47700 is the first page I built and I'm a bit lost moving it into the main Wiki page. I think it's useful for 3DQSAR studies. If you look at the talk page on Viminol, I point out several patents. A QSAR of that class would be great. Amazing that they found an analogue x312 morphine but in real life, often potency of these super-potent compounds is vastly less. Look at etonitazene. Most people STILL seem to think it's x1500 morphine. In Russian studies, it turns out it's 60x morphine. Still very potent & dangerous but not the crazy figures people cite.

Best wishes, Delia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvwynn (talk • contribs) 18:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dvwynn: Sorry, I'm not quite following you. What page are you trying to move where? In any case, thanks for you contributions :) Testem (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question about my 3d models

1) Wikipedia is driven by user input. Each of the substances I've modeled so far were lacking 3d models, but other similar substances have them. So you could say, if nothing else, I'm trying to add consistency by creating 3d models of these substances where there are none.

2) Background color is subjective. I am unaware of any Wikipedia rule or regulation requiring submitted images in the commons to have a certain background color. Please reference any rules/regulations that would apply.

Thanks for your OPINION on my postings. If you wish to hold my input up to your own personal standards that's cool.. just keep it to yourself or off my page because I don't care. I'm only interested in complying with published regulations. If you can provide easily followed, direct links to any Wikipedia regulations i'm in violation of please feel free to post them either here or on my page.

lazord00d (talk)

Hi @Lazord00d:, thanks for replying so promptly. Sorry as I didn't mean to upset you, I just wanted to discuss the idea. I think you're right about there not being any regulations (though I haven't looked) but I just thought that background might be something you overlooked. No worries if you don't want to change it - I am all for consistency. :) Testem (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Testem: Not overlooked as much as that I don't consider it to be a problem, the black background is default in jmol which is what was used to render the images. I've run into the phenomenon of a user "owning" a topic here, and taking everyone to task that posts besides them or everyone that posts outside of their opinion of how the article(s) should appear or contain. Not really into that so I'm pretty clear on my position any time I suspect it may be happening... which would be the vast majority of the time I see corrections based on opinion. lazord00d (talk)

@Lazord00d: Yes I know what you mean, and it is somewhat understandable when they may have spent a lot of time working on something. I am a firm believer in working together hence why I posted to your talk page to discuss it :) It takes a lot of give and take to contribute here and to be honest I was a bit upset by your response. Testem (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Testem: I have nothing but love for all contributors here, and unless I'm way off in my understanding of this site it is open for public editing to anyone, regardless of how much work and effort they may have put in already. There may be some sort of unspoken hierarchy but if so it's not official and I've already gone over my affinity for official rules and regs vs. the alternatives. I'm sure a lot of contributors do feel that their level of contribution entitles them to oversee topics, but unless that entitlement is given by Wikipedia explicitly and officially, it doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. I took the tone I did because you questioned otherwise valid input based on your opinion of how it should be as opposed to questions of fact or validity, which are what we should focus on.

Elsevier access

Hello, Testem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6-APB 3d model

The rotating 3d model used here specifically leaves artifacts as it rotates, at least in firefox. I've tested across several systems. Also, the models I've created blend the features of a space-filling model and the 2d formulaic model which I've found is helpful when translating the 2d model into actual molecular structure. Fully space-filling models naturally cover up some of the bonds and their types, and the 2d models aren't always clear unless one has Chemistry training. That was the reasoning behind my choice to change models here. I definitely disagree with the idea that a blended type of 3d model simply duplicates the function of the 2d formulaic models, for the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazord00d (talk • contribs) 01:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Err I already tried discussing.. that's not what you're after or you'd have replied. Lazord00d (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazord00d:I've not had time to properly reply and you have already re-reverted the edit within a day? I question your claim that you "don't want an edit war". When I have a moment we will be able to discuss this properly. Testem (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not working on anyone's time schedule but my own. My reasons for any changes I've made are legit to the best of my knowledge and have been stated clearly. I'm not here to show off or outdo other people's efforts. My focus is entirely on working to make wikipedia as useful as possible for the broadest range of minds possible. The blended type of 3d model translates directly from the formulaic model with minimal differences, except that they show atoms that are omitted in the 2d models, therefore they help the broadest range of minds grasp the concept. It's as simple as that.

laterz

Lazord00d (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elsevier

Hi. I wanted to update you on the status of your Elsevier account. I sent the first list to Elsevier on 12 January. Elsevier reports that they will be e-mailing applicants next week with an access code, which will start your use of the resource. I appreciate your patience with this process. Feel free to contact me with any feedback or questions you have about Elsevier access. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for organising this. Testem (talk)

LSD

Listed in table 1 Acquired causes of rhabdomyolysis https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11870710 Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Apologies, ctrl+f did not locate the phrase "LSD" in that for me.

A page you started (Zimmerman reagent) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Zimmerman reagent, Testem!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've added a few more references. Hope that's OK.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

cite doi should not be used

{{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}} should not be used anymore AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AManWithNoPlan: Didn't know that, thanks Testem (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 2 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Acetylfentanyl page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks so much for your work on test kit articles! That's super useful stuff, and I'm really happy to see that there's someone personally committed to making the whole category strong. Exercisephys (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Exercisephys: Thank you! There is a lot of information available online and people come to wikipedia when they want information, so I've been making an effort to make sure it's easy to find when they do, rather than needing to search multiple sources. Testem (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know that, thanks. Testem (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MDA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: If an article on a drug which is used in the majority of cases to increase the rate of tanning and has been used in this way for 10 years, but the fact that it could be used in this way is not mentioned on wikipedia then wikipedia's bureaucracy has made it irrelevant. You decimated that article, you have an obligation to ensure it remains informative. Unfortunately I no longer have the time to make thousands of edits a year as I once did but my hope is that by adding such a comment, the spirit of wikipedia will see it being sourced quickly instead of just being wiped when we both know it is true.Testem (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pasted here, from comment left at my talk page in this diff Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are going through my recent edits to revert useful information that I have added. Are you surprised that nobody wants to contribute to wikipedia any more? Testem (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The pages where I reverted you have been on my watchlist for a long while now. The edits all had the same problem - unsourced or sourced to primary sources. Please do follow WP:V and WP:MEDRS.

This is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" but it is not a wild west - along with the privilege that everyone has to edit, comes the responsibility to follow the policies and guidelines. MEDRS is an important guideline and V of course is policy. Contributing to articles about health and medicine is not easy. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Justify it however you want, you have discouraged another open knowledge enthusiast. The admins themselves are wikipedia's biggest threat. Now the article is reverted to using "secondary" sources which are essentially tabloid news articles that got their information from wikipedia when MEDRS was more sensibly enforced, but the primary sources are now nowhere to be seen. It's a positive feedback loop that is decaying the quality of this site. Tell me you think it's appropriate that a page of information about a drug used for tanning doesn't mention tanning on it once. How are non experts supposed to learn from that? 16:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses the marketing of the chemical. Calling it a "drug used for tanning" is really... something. Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:If you were able to read the article instead of just focusing on the bureaucratic minutiae then you would be able to see that the article clearly discusses what would be defined as a drug (oh sorry, can you not find a systematic review for what defines a drug?) by any medical professional, and likewise that the primary reason for its administration to humans was to expedite production of melanin in response to UV light (colloquially described as "tanning"). I don't know if your primary language is english and apologies if not, but we have an phrase "can't see the wood for the trees" which I feel applies well here. Great thanks to you for your dedication but I think it is a great shame that many of the admins get lost in rule enforcement and forget the spirit of the project. Testem (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get it that you are unhappy. I am sorry about that. My goal is to provide readers with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, giving WEIGHT as reliable sources do. That is the mission of WP per WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

You keep mentioning "admins" in this discussion. I am not an admin, and even if I were, that would not be relevant here. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking for WP:EVERYTHING, I feel that the major use of melanotan is something that is extremely relevant to the article considering that is the only reason for its relevance in society. Apologies for mistaking you for an admin, you are correct that it is not relevant because your actions are indeed independently toxic to the spirit of wikipedia. You know as well as I do that information belongs in that article. Testem (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am sorry you are unhappy. Dealing with illegal marketing and strange things people put in their bodies is always a bit difficult. With regard to the safety and efficacy of melanotan II for tanning, i will be interested to see the MEDRS sources for that. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello guys, haven't been editing much lately either, but kinda randomly stumbled upon this discussion. I found a few sources that I think Jytdog might appreciate. Sadly it appears that citoid is down, this will look a bit ugly.

"Identification and characterization by LC‐UV‐MS/MS of melanotan II skin‐tanning products sold illegally on the Internet". Drug Testing and Analysis.

"Melanotan II injection resulting in systemic toxicity and rhabdomyolysis". Clinical Toxicology.

"Operation resistance: A snapshot of falsified antibiotics and biopharmaceutical injectables in Europe". Drug Testing and Analysis.

"Human Enhancement Drugs – The Emerging Challenges to Public Health | Public Health Institute". cph.org.uk.

Hope it helps! Aethyta (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with Kirill2485

Mephedrone citation invalid

Based on Citation 9 for the claim that mephedrone is based on khat, I was not able to find this claim anywhere in the citation. However, I found a counter-claim saying that it is not related to amphetamines on page 6.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirill2485 (talk • contribs)

@Kirill2485:Well done for finding that, unfortunately amphetamine is not the same as cathinone and the claim in the article makes no mention of the relation between mephedrone and amphetamine. You must remember to sign every comment you make in each section of a talk page using the tilde symbol ~. See WP:SIG for more information. Testem (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dopamine is a PEA

3,4-dihydroxyphenethylamine is actually a phenythylamine. If you want to claim otherwise, remove both the claim that "Dopamine (DA, contracted from 3,4-dihydroxyphenethylamine) is an organic chemical of the catecholamine and phenethylamine families" AND remove the "Catagory:phenythylamine", but removing just my category addition without removing the claim that dopamine is a PEA doesn't make sense— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirill2485 (talk • contribs)

@Kirill2485:Agreed, and my apologies as this was done in error. Please note that you must sign changes in each section of a talk page using the tilde symbols. Testem (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted PEA

Please read up on what Substituted phenethylamines are. Diflubenzuron is a PEA based on the explanation of a structural PEA on Wikipedia. It meets the requirements to be so.

Specifically, take a look at the structure requirement picture— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirill2485 (talk • contribs)

It looks like you might be confused about what a phenethylamine is. This doesn't contain a phenyl ring that is joined to an amino (NH) group via an ethyl (−CH2–CH2−) sidechain, it contains an ami**do** group.

Please also note that new sections on talk pages should be added to the end of the page (clicking "new section" does this automatically) and please always sign your comments using the tilde symbol. Testem (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reviewing your image, you seem specifically confused about the structural requirements. A compound must have the amine linked to the phenyl with an ethyl (two carbons). It cannot be classified as a phenethylamine if one of those carbons is replaced with a nitrogen. Only the hydrogen atoms can be replaced when discussing a "substituted" strucutre.Testem (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical similarity

Hello Testem, Please refer to http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/minf.201400024/full and http://infochim.u-strasbg.fr/CS3_2014/Slides/CS3_2014_Willett.pdf for chemical similarity properties.

DEET and mephedrone are more closely related to each other then Cathine is to mephedrone based on the tanimoto and tversky chemical structuring algorithm. Please use the ChemSpider Structure Search to test the similarity of two different drugs.

Thank you for your cooperation. Kirill2485 (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence you have "corrected" refers to cathinone compounds in the khat plant, not cathine compounds. Additionally, wikipedia does not permit original research wp:nor.

It is also worth noting that the comparison is being made from a pharmacological point of view using structure-activity relationship to compare functionality, rather than a purely chemical basis. Testem (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not engage in original research. I cited a source (ChemSpider Structure Search), where I obtained my information from. But getting to your first point, for cathinone specifically it does seem to have a closer tanimoto index to mephedrone then to DEET

Mephedrone<->Cathinone
AP TANIMOTO Similarity:0.385417
MCS Size:11
MCS MIN Similarity:0.9167
MCS MAX Similarity:0.8462
MCS TANIMOTO Similarity:0.7857

Mephedrone<->DEET
AP TANIMOTO Similarity:0.310078
MCS Size:9
MCS MIN Similarity:0.6923
MCS MAX Similarity:0.6429
MCS TANIMOTO Similarity:0.5000

Colour results on Mecke reagent

I removed the entire list of colour responses on the Mecke Reagent list as some where wrong and that can be a real danger to life. At a glance I could only see the PMA and PMMA being wrong which was your last edit. I plan to go over them when I have time but I did not want to risk leaving wrong colours in there. Morphriz (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were cited with secondary sources per wikipedia guidelines. Section blanking is against wikipedia rules. When do you plan to replace the information you deleted, if you claim it is incorrect? Testem (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poppyseed oil

Dear Testem, Are you responsible for the wiki-entry "poppyseed oil" or do you know who is responsible for it? We are a group of students in agricultural science at ETH in Zurich and we wanted to add some information to the existing poppyseed oil entry. It will be a short section about consumer preference and another section about cold and hot pressed oil. We kindly wanted to inform the responsible person of the page about our intention. Thank you for your answer and kind regards, Mirjams (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The great thing about Wikipedia is that nobody is responsible for any article on their own. I want to ensure that information on that page is accurate and inside the rules of wikipedia, so I will help review your edits :) Testem (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

welcome to crypto, here's your accordion

Heads-up - we have harsh general sanctions on anything cryptocurrency and blockchain-related. I've cut'n'pasted the official notice below - David Gerard (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David, I am aware of your work and grateful for it. I understand what you're trying to achieve. My goal with edits to the Monero page are to make sure that the information is not misleading on technical aspects, as it was this morning. I dare say that nothing I've changed is controversial in any way, nor does it include any subjective statements. Wikipedia's reference standards are set for static, mainstream topics and niche technical topics which are not interesting enough for mainstream news publication unsurprisingly struggle to get coverage in "reliable sources" by conventional standards. Much like a self published "personal blog" by a celebrity saying that they were born in [country] would not be a reliable source by wikipedia standards but would be in context, it is valuable to use the unreliable source tag rather than making destructive edits to remove information from wikipedia altogether. Testem (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A good way around this, btw, is to use peer-reviewed academic sources - there are a surprising amount of these, particularly for interesting new crypto tricks - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, though the publishing cycle time can mean that wikipedia is wrong for 6 months while the gears of academia turn to get something written, reviewed and published and after all that is done the end result is still ^{[non-primary source needed]}! There should be something on bulletproofs by now so I will have a review of google scholar to find something more suitable to stand the test of time and swap out the existing unreliable sources. Thanks for your vigilance and not being a destructive fact-checker.Testem (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect harshness as the general rule, however - if there isn't a good firm RS for something in a crypto article, it's likely to go - the harsh rules went into place because these articles were encrufted with a firehose of non-RS spam and bad sourcing. tl;dr spammers mean we can't have nice things - David Gerard (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notice carefully.

You are receiving this notice because you recently edited one or more pages relating to blockchain or cryptocurrencies topics. You have not done anything wrong. We just want to alert you that "general" sanctions are authorized for certain types of edits to those pages.

A community decision has authorized the use of general sanctions for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after the editor has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

April 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Castor oil, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. This edit included primary research, and you used Healthline, which is not an expert source, and is unreliable. Use WP:MEDRS sources for human health content. Zefr (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: Apologies, I didn't realise Healthline was unacceptable, I was just trying to improve the article. I've made a more limited edit now using a secondary source. that's compliant with WP:MEDRS. Any other feedback is welcome, I haven't done much editing for a few years. Testem (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: Is there any way that information can be included? It's the accepted consensus, not controversial at all but also not really worthy of medical reviews because use of castor oil has fallen out of favour.Testem (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added this paragraph and source for context. I checked the PubMed review literature, here, but see no useful sources. Zefr (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: OK thanks, the final version that it's on now is fantastic, thanks for making the improvements. Testem (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]