Literaturegeek (talk | contribs) |
Literaturegeek (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==compromise== |
==compromise== |
||
The first compromise would be where discussion should take place. I do not want it on my talk page, those orange new message boxes are annoying. Do you want discussion on your talk page, or should we ask for another venue?--[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 19:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC) |
{{discussiontop|The first compromise would be where discussion should take place. I do not want it on my talk page, those orange new message boxes are annoying. Do you want discussion on your talk page, or should we ask for another venue?--[[User:Scuro|scuro]] ([[User talk:Scuro|talk]]) 19:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
:On my talk page is fine.--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literature</span><span style="color:red">geek</span>]] | [[User_talk:Literaturegeek |<span style="color:orange">''T@1k?''</span>]] 19:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC) |
:On my talk page is fine.--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literature</span><span style="color:red">geek</span>]] | [[User_talk:Literaturegeek |<span style="color:orange">''T@1k?''</span>]] 19:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
:::::Scuro I have typed the equivalent of an article, agreed with every measure that you have suggested (apart from exchanging email addresses). I have said that I will not be editing the ADHD article for a very long time. Scuro, I need a long break. As I will not be editing the ADHD articles for a very long time, I suggest we take a break from talking for say 6 months at least. Then come back, work out a plan and stick to it.--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literature</span><span style="color:red">geek</span>]] | [[User_talk:Literaturegeek |<span style="color:orange">''T@1k?''</span>]] 21:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
:::::Scuro I have typed the equivalent of an article, agreed with every measure that you have suggested (apart from exchanging email addresses). I have said that I will not be editing the ADHD article for a very long time. Scuro, I need a long break. As I will not be editing the ADHD articles for a very long time, I suggest we take a break from talking for say 6 months at least. Then come back, work out a plan and stick to it.--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literature</span><span style="color:red">geek</span>]] | [[User_talk:Literaturegeek |<span style="color:orange">''T@1k?''</span>]] 21:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
Goodbye scuro, I will be removing any further comments regarding ADHD or anything remotely to do with it from my talk page over the next 6 months. Time for me to move on.--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literature</span><span style="color:red">geek</span>]] | [[User_talk:Literaturegeek |<span style="color:orange">''T@1k?''</span>]] 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapsebottom}} |
|||
{{discussionbottom}} |
|||
==Proposed deletion of Ecinofloxacin== |
==Proposed deletion of Ecinofloxacin== |
Revision as of 21:16, 7 November 2009
PLEASE DON'T USE MY TALK PAGE TO ARGUE ORIGINAL RESEARCH/PERSONAL OPINIONS. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH SOMETHING IN AN ARTICLE THEN PLEASE USE REFERENCES FOR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ARTICLES ON MY TALK PAGE. MY TALK PAGE IS NOT AN INTERNET FORUM BATTLEGROUND FOR ORIGINAL RESEARCH.--Literaturegeek
compromise
{{discussiontop|The first compromise would be where discussion should take place. I do not want it on my talk page, those orange new message boxes are annoying. Do you want discussion on your talk page, or should we ask for another venue?--scuro (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- On my talk page is fine.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds ok to me, if you are happy enough to do that. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I could do that today. I could sign on and let them know that the article should be nominated as soon as the amendment request is closed. Sound okay?
- I'm a lot more comfortable talking one on one. This sort of conversation is very agreeable to me. Could we keep the conversation closed to others for the time being? You could certainly talk to others on their talk page and I would have no issue with you taking ideas from others. If we make very good progress, then certainly I would see the need for bringing other parties in to try to achieve broad consensus.--scuro (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- I see that you haven't posted today, hope all is well with you. I'll hold off with signing on until I hear from you, and I know we are on the same page. Nothing would look sillier, and illustrate continued animosity, then for me to post something which displeases you.
- I don't think we are that apart on content. I could see us discussing things like undue weight and generally being on the same page. There might be some things that we disagree upon, and there will be no obvious answer or specific policy to follow. We could pass on those things and simply nail as much down as we can. The bigger issue from my perspective is behaviour. We can tackle content first if that is what you wish.--scuro (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds ok to me, if you are happy enough to do that. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- I did post about half an hour ago on ofloxacin article, fixing refs. Was about to reply to talk page. It sounds good to me about voting on Med Collab. I am not sure what you mean by keep the conversation closed? I am not intending on dragging people into this conversation if that is what you are concerned about. All is well with me thank you scuro, I hope all is well with you to. I think that we can make progress on content issues for sure but like you say there will probably be some parts where we can't agree on but at least we can start making progress.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I am well also, thanks for asking. I'll give you some context, I've had about 8 sanction processes initiated against me in the last half year. All of them were public with a 1/2 dozen to over a dozen people involved. For me this is a very refreshing to talk about change with one person and I am hopeful. It is unusual for me to have someone listen and consider what I have said, and then respond accordingly to seek the same goal. I'm kindly requesting that we keep it like this and spur anyone who tries to jump in. There has been a cast of characters who seem to be following me around. ;) (later edit - See, look who just popped onto my talk page! [1] ). Perhaps I'm bit jumpy but your reassurance would put me at ease. The focus would be much better and trust would build quicker. It doesn't have to be a binding thing, but would show good faith, much as my voting for Med collab will. Your word is good enough for me. As for voting, should I make it a conditional vote: a yes vote...but asking to wait until the Arb amendment request has been closed? I did say that I could do that today but I really want a direct answer before I vote. Is the conditional language above okay? Finally I like your attitude. I want progress as much as you. Scientology, and those who believe the disorder is not real/overblown, have a place on the main page. Undue weight is the issue, and placement. There can always be internal links so that readers can learn more. I'd even go so far as to help you create new articles if you felt viewpoints are being squelched out, I've written for this viewpoint before.--scuro (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't see it as following you around scuro, people probably have your talk page on their watch list if they have been involved in the ADHD drama and arbcom. I added most of the arbcom people to my watch list but removed some of them after it. I would imagine you and others have checked my contribs from time to time as well especially during ADHD drama or arbcom. I don't think that it is following around. Yes internal links can be useful to resolve undue weight and see also links can be good as well. Ok, sounds good to me, we can resolve the undue weight issues and tone and other issues.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am happy to and agree to talk to you one on one. However, I have no right nor powers to stop other editors from engaging in discussions regarding the article and also it would lead to charges of WP:OWN if I or you were to try and block other editors from discussions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have already said yes that that is ok with me.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll do that now then. I'm sorry I must of missed your approval that this would be a conditional sign on. Lets word the other point differently. If we are not to use a mediator as I suggested, I would like that we not consider the input of other editors in solving our differences. Does that work for you? Onto business. Can we both agree to the basic tenants of undue weight? Is there anything that needs to be discussed with regards to undue weight?--scuro (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think that it is always better if we can work out problems first before resorting to mediation or arbcom etc. Those options should be second line option or last resort options I think. I can agree to tenants of undue weight. At this present time there is nothing that needs to be discussed about undue weight. Thanks for signing on to Med Collaboration project scuro.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem with signing on. I agree with you about talking about things personally first, it could have solved many problems. It's always better to communicate 1 on 1. I would truly appreciate it if you committed, to solving our current differences alone on your talk page. I won't pester you further about this but I would appreciate that commitment.
Things seem to be moving along without any real roadblocks so far. Lets keep it moving. You wanted to "cut right to the point". One potential roadblock I see is fringe viewpoint. There is majority viewpoint, minority viewpoint, and fringe viewpoint. Fringe viewpoint does not have to be included on an article unless it is noteworthy. Do we agree on the basic tenants of viewpoint? After we have agreement on that we get into sources, where I think there will be some debate.--scuro (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have given the arbcom my opinion that I feel the issues regarding filing the arbcom request from my point of view have been resolved. So basically I am saying to them I think it should be closed and no action taken with regard to allegations of you blocking Wiki Med intervention. Oh on my talk page is fine to talk one on one, I thought that you meant on article talk pages. It is unusual for editors to jump into conversations anyway unless there is some sort of major drama anyway. I am happy with one on one talking to resolve differences on my talk page. Yes I can agree to the fringe view point, at least I am willing to try and hopefully you are to. I think that if it is possible debates should not be very long and drawn out and as stated before we should first focus on what we can agree on before focusing on what we have difficulty agreeing on. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am totally willing to try and I want to keep on trying!!! There are some minor content issues still to talk about but what I would really like to talk about is behaviour. I feel wronged by this arb amendment request and I'll give you my opinion on why I feel this way. The issues presented were done so with false accusations, and bad faith assumptions that painted me in a bad light. As before, this sidetracked us from the real issues and led to animosity. This never had to go arb. and other venues could have been chosen instead. Do you agree with any of these observations?--scuro (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- No I do not agree per evidence submitted to arbcom. People tried to talk to you about Med Collab but you ignored questions or changed subject etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm wondering why this attempt at compromise looks to currently be a low priority? Initially we were making 4 or five entries a day. Now the entries are coming every two or three days. I would prefer to give the arbitrators a solution to these long standing issues, and I would kindly request that a far reaching compromise becomes a top priority.--scuro (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think arbcom was the only option given the circumstances. I have been busy the past couple of days. I am known for sometimes taking a couple of days to reply to messages. I will reply to your messages but I like to try and avoid my talk page or even article talk pages turning into almost instant message boards.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Another option then would be meditation. It appears that we are both earnest in our goal for compromise. Mediation has it's own separate page. From what I hear, it's pretty hands off. While the goal of mediation is compromise, it can be ended at anytime without consequence. Vassyana had originally encouraged us to seek this route.
- Back to the idea if you had to do it all over again. So if another issue were to pop up now you would still first consider another amendment request? Do you not find that these sanction processes have never been conductive in finding common ground between us? Do they not create great animosity?--scuro (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Mediation is only meant to be used to resolve serious disputes. I am happy to use it for serious disputes. There is no justification at the present time for mediation. I would prefer to resolve things diplomatically before going to arbcom.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I meant a med cab. That would suit our purposes. Take a look.[2]. And lets also keep the discussion going, "Back to the idea if you had to do it all over again. So if another issue were to pop up now you would still first consider another amendment request? Do you not find that these sanction processes have never been conductive in finding common ground between us? Do they not create great animosity"? What is your opinion here?--scuro (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Scuro you reported Doc james and had him blocked for reverting twice in a week so I really don't view your stance here as fair. It works both ways. I only went to arbcom after talking to you about Wiki Med collab failed, so after diplomacy failed it was time to go to arbcom. You did not give Doc james a chance and requested he was blocked after his first slip up and then tried again to get him blocked again via filing arbcom enforcement request. So your questions that you are directing at me should equally be answered by yourself if not moreso by yourself. This would be my opinion on the situation. I have never used arbcom as a first resort.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would do it differently under the right circumstances. Consider that you folks never bargained or would allow any mediation throughout the topic ban proposal or arbitration. In fact you and others shafted me with a bunch of bogus accusations and assumptions of bad faith, and you are still doing it in the AAR. Having experienced a blanket shunning and unfair castigation, no, at that time I wasn't willing to let a violation of remedy go unnoticed.
- I would let a violation slide under the right circumstances. Are you willing state the things that shouldn't have been done, and make amends if necessary? Do you want to seek true consensus and do things in a collaborative way? When I talk to you one on one there is a personable side to you that I haven't seen on the talk pages. I see no reason why communication can't always be like that. If our goal was the mutual betterment of the article, and we formed a positive relationship...sure I could see doing anything that I did in the past differently. What's your opinion on this?--scuro (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Scuro, this hypocrasy and playing the victim role is not doing you any favours. We reported the truth that you were evading direct questions of why you would not sign up to med collaboration and that you were making comments on med collaboration that ADHD should not be nominated or nomination should be delayed etc etc. We told the truth and provided diffs. It is hypocritical to accuse editors of being bad faithed (for telling the truth with diffs) whilst then accusing us of "lying" and making "false accusations". You know that they are not false accusations as they were backed up with diffs. It is you here who is personalising this discussion, not I. It is you who is accusing people of lying not I or other editors. You have been character assassinating editors to your mentor and even envoking Jesus Christ to convince your mentor that you are the "righteous one", at least that is how it looked to me. I recommend for the good of your relationship with the wikipedia community that you change your behaviour. Your mentor will eventually see through these games I feel. Pleaase stop these games and lets get back to productive discussions and consensus building.
- I am personable scuro and I can compromise and I can be diplomatic but if you keep accusing I and others of being liars and playing the victim role then people's patience will run out. I have to be honest and you may not like what I am saying now but if I don't raise these problems with you now and try to resolve them then this will just fester on.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Scuro you reported Doc james and had him blocked for reverting twice in a week so I really don't view your stance here as fair. It works both ways. I only went to arbcom after talking to you about Wiki Med collab failed, so after diplomacy failed it was time to go to arbcom. You did not give Doc james a chance and requested he was blocked after his first slip up and then tried again to get him blocked again via filing arbcom enforcement request. So your questions that you are directing at me should equally be answered by yourself if not moreso by yourself. This would be my opinion on the situation. I have never used arbcom as a first resort.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I meant a med cab. That would suit our purposes. Take a look.[2]. And lets also keep the discussion going, "Back to the idea if you had to do it all over again. So if another issue were to pop up now you would still first consider another amendment request? Do you not find that these sanction processes have never been conductive in finding common ground between us? Do they not create great animosity"? What is your opinion here?--scuro (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Mediation is only meant to be used to resolve serious disputes. I am happy to use it for serious disputes. There is no justification at the present time for mediation. I would prefer to resolve things diplomatically before going to arbcom.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, we both get to experience wikipedian justice now. :-( I understand your frustration here. It irked me to no end that at the initial topic ban proposal that about a half dozen contributors voted yes before I said a word. Looks like votes are coming in too quickly here also. I do want to tell you that I did truly feel that you were sympathetic and wanted to find common ground me. That was appreciated, thank you! :-) If you want to continue with this after the topic ban I'd be willing to do that. :-) I'm sorry if I caused you any stress. I know that you are very passionate about these issues, the world needs more people like you who care. Best wishes, --scuro (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Scuro I appreciate your kind words but they are coming a bit late now to be honest. I would refer to it as an injustice. I accept your apologies regarding the Jesus Christ posting. It wasn't just that but how you were character assassinating editors despite my ongoing efforts here to try and work things out. As a result I am being topic banned. I have never been blocked for 24 hours let alone topic banned. The least you could do is protest in my defense on the arbcom motion. You have my word that if I am not topic banned I will impose a voluntary topic ban on myself from editing any content into or out of the ADHD pages. You know I do not deserve this scuro.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, I missed your last post. No, I don't feel you deserve that "prevention", and I said so twice. I don't even think it a good idea to separate. It doesn't solve the problem, and even if we are topic banned for a year, that certainly doesn't mean that the same behaviour won't happen with two other editors. We have made the only headway here and I was hoping to use this possible agreement as a template for future agreement. I think where we could start is to state what we won't do, and if I could stress anything it would be cover a lot of ground quickly.--scuro (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Here are my thoughts.
- We need to strictly focus on content and make our best efforts never to judge people, accuse, or personalize issues. This should apply to sanction processes also. Focus as much as possible on the facts only.
- There needs to be some sort of safety check, we have been told that frivolous processes have been undertaken. Perhaps some were filed too quickly.
- There needs to be a private way to get feedback on behaviours for both sides. Too much of the problem is the reaction to the initial reaction.
- It needs to be recognized that this is not a two person issue. The following editors have all played a role in this entrenched dispute:Doc James, Vannin Hordaland, Whatamidoing, Unionhawk, and earlier Abd and Ned Scott. Doc James has played a major role.
- As much as possible group interaction should be avoided. Blowups always happen when four or more parties are involved. Talk pages need to be used and people need to respect one on one conversations.
- questions should be answered, and issues should be resolved. It should be everyone's business to deal with old issues before new ones are brought up. If someone is under time pressure, a time frame should be given when they could be answered.
- There are content issues and this is where a med cab should be used. We have agreement on important issues so lets cement the positive work we have done.
- We need to commit to working together no matter what, and apologize for wrongs and hurt feelings.
- My thoughts, you may think of other issues, better ways to address a problem..etc. Lets move this along. --scuro (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply scuro. Your suggestions are good, however, I am not going near the ADHD article for a long long time, if ever again. I am done with them. I will either be involuntarily topic banned or I will impose a voluntary topic ban on myself. I will be editing mostly antibiotic articles in the forseeable future so unless you are going to be editing those same articles I don't think that there is a need to discuss focusing on content.
- I agree that it is not just us, this whole drama was community wide, involved just about everyone at some point who edited the ADHD articles. I can certainly apologise for any occasion I lost my cool. You say that you have done nothing wrong on your talk page so,,,,.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Topic bans can go beyond one page. The ADHD article alone has about 10 subarticles. What I want to do is offer a solution. The solution would be mostly about behaviour but it would at least touch on a permanant way to solve content related issues.
- You know we have influence beyond ourselves. What we can do here can certainly be used for a template in the future. If you go back and look at that article, the disputes go to when it was first formed. The sides are always polarized. What I am suggesting is a way to peaceful coexistence and forming a real community, this possibility has never been more achievable. I do understand if you have called it quits permanently. If you do see yourself as editing any of the related page in the future, please consider pushing forwards.--scuro (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- The topic ban would include all related articles, I think arbcom said that. I actually reckon that we could both propose a motion to arbcom that we agree to a voluntary topic ban based on the fact we have both been able to stay away from the article for a number of weeks already and also because we have been talking civily with active dialogue for a number of weeks. I think that there is a reasonable chance that you and I could get out of sanctions based on the major positive developments of dialogue between us. The hostility between us has abated. We could stay away from the article for I dunno say until February or the summer or whenever, then do occasional edits. I think that if there is a return to us editing the articles that we should not try and overwhelm each other, our input in the future should be limited both on talk pages and editing. I really think part of the reason that tensions rose was not just down to opposing positions but also because we were investing too much often daily back and forth arguing. As you have stated we need to not focus on the past behaviour but on the current and future. That is what I and also I am sure arbcom are interested in, our future conduct. I would be willing to after a long break return to discussions on the ADHD articles but only in a very limited way and I would hope that you could agree to this as well. The days of arguing back and forth filling up talk pages need to be over for good.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Very good observations! Take a look at the recent edits to the page and talk. That was all very civil. It is the stuff off the page that side railed us. That's not to say that content couldn't increase tension but it hasn't been a trigger for 6 months or so. My editing style tends to run hot and cold. I think many editors are like that. They see something wrong, and they do a number of edits in a short while to make the article better, and then it ramps down. I'm quite willing to slowly make changes.
- Time heals all wounds, but really, lets get something in place that we can both agree too. Sooner or later we are bound to hit a speed bump and I'm guessing nothing would please arb com more then for us to reach consensus on how to approach future problems. How about the first point? Can we agree to focus strictly on content? Committing to the future makes the past is easily forgivable.--scuro (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think that we are pretty close to reaching consensus on what way forward to go. My suggestions are as follows, lets agree to remain civil, no character assassinating, give each other breathing space when needed and as you have requested and I support fully, focus strictly on content. If by some miracle neither of us are topic banned, we must still take a long break from editing the ADHD article, say until the new year at least.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there is not much distance at all between us, eliminating personalization of issues is key. The points we still haven't touched upon is: a) a private means to get feedback, especially before filing sanction processes, b)avoiding group interaction and instead try for one on one dialogue, c)responding to content concerns or at least indicating a good time to do so, and d) a way to solve content disputes. If the issue is simply something like using a newspaper as a source, that should be something we could do in a med cab and not burden arb com, or someone attached to arb com with. The problem for arb com is that there is a mentorship requirement so if that could morph into a private type of mentorship which we could all use sparingly, that is the way I see forward.--scuro (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think that we can message each other on talk pages to resolve issues. I believe that we both know and the arbcom are sick of the drama as much as the community is, so that should be a strong motivator that we all cause no drama at all. I would like to ideally avoid even mediation cabal if possible, it is better to work things out between ourselves. Arbcom is not for content disputes and we have never used it for that. We need a good long break from ADHD articles. Will you agree to take a break from editing ADHD articles? Mentorship is dead in the water I think but is it needed anyway? If we can work alongside each other then what is the point in having a mentor? Sometimes mentors can make things worse I think. Best we work diplomatically along with each other and the community. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- The spirit is there between us and I am all for no drama. My take is mediation cabal is not a bad thing but a good thing. They drop you like a stone if they don't see that you are willing to work together. The question is, do we want to commit to working together? I am most willing, and that would mean making community more important then content.
- You have asked about taking a good break from editing and I have avoided that question. I'd rather see us "lock things down", but it seems to be on your mind so lets talk about it. I've taken a hiatus twice from those articles in the last year for about 4 months. I on a voluntary topic ban now for over a month. I'm not sure what more time would accomplish for me, although I understand why you might want a break. Personally, I'd rather step into the pool gingerly and know that I can count on you for support. I'm afraid that more time doesn't solve the problem.
- I think that we can message each other on talk pages to resolve issues. I believe that we both know and the arbcom are sick of the drama as much as the community is, so that should be a strong motivator that we all cause no drama at all. I would like to ideally avoid even mediation cabal if possible, it is better to work things out between ourselves. Arbcom is not for content disputes and we have never used it for that. We need a good long break from ADHD articles. Will you agree to take a break from editing ADHD articles? Mentorship is dead in the water I think but is it needed anyway? If we can work alongside each other then what is the point in having a mentor? Sometimes mentors can make things worse I think. Best we work diplomatically along with each other and the community. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there is not much distance at all between us, eliminating personalization of issues is key. The points we still haven't touched upon is: a) a private means to get feedback, especially before filing sanction processes, b)avoiding group interaction and instead try for one on one dialogue, c)responding to content concerns or at least indicating a good time to do so, and d) a way to solve content disputes. If the issue is simply something like using a newspaper as a source, that should be something we could do in a med cab and not burden arb com, or someone attached to arb com with. The problem for arb com is that there is a mentorship requirement so if that could morph into a private type of mentorship which we could all use sparingly, that is the way I see forward.--scuro (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think that we are pretty close to reaching consensus on what way forward to go. My suggestions are as follows, lets agree to remain civil, no character assassinating, give each other breathing space when needed and as you have requested and I support fully, focus strictly on content. If by some miracle neither of us are topic banned, we must still take a long break from editing the ADHD article, say until the new year at least.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- You know we have influence beyond ourselves. What we can do here can certainly be used for a template in the future. If you go back and look at that article, the disputes go to when it was first formed. The sides are always polarized. What I am suggesting is a way to peaceful coexistence and forming a real community, this possibility has never been more achievable. I do understand if you have called it quits permanently. If you do see yourself as editing any of the related page in the future, please consider pushing forwards.--scuro (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- The key here is avoiding group confrontation, avoiding sanction processes, communicating, and most importantly creating community. Private communication seems key here to me, we have been far too public.--scuro (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Mediation cabal is an option for intractable content disputes, I am just saying it should only be used as a last resort, not a first resort. I have never had to use it with any other editor and I have been in many different content disputes over the years; we were always able to resolve issues within the community or among ourselves. Well agreeing to extending your voluntary topic ban means that you and I can go to arbcom and say to them; we have agreed to take a break for several months from the ADHD articles, we have agreed this and we have agreed that etc. Arbcom seem adament that we need to take a break from the ADHD articles so it is not actually me that you need to convince but them. The topic ban will last for a year so common sense would dictate it is best that you and I work something out and agree a voluntary topic ban. I am definitely taking a lengthy break from ADHD articles and I advise that you do so also. The choice is up to you. I am honestly trying to help and work with you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sure we can try to work things out on the article talk page. If we see group dynamics like we saw previously, we can move it onto someone's talk page. Avoid extended group interchange at all costs. If one on one communication gets deadlocked, then we should try something else. I'm not set on a med cab. We could seek guidance in such a situation.
- The drama hasn't happened on the adhd pages since May, about six months ago. The "resolved", "unresolved", and "to do" tags are the way to go. Since then, escalation has almost always happened in sanction processess. Often one side sees the process as completely unnecessary, and that raises the temperature. We can look at a voluntary time ban, lets leave that for now and come up with ways to avoid filing frivolous sanction processes.--scuro (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- The resolved, unresolved tags on the article talk page was a good idea of yours. My only thing was I felt too many issues were raised all at once which lead to overwhelming of editors and raised tensions. If only one or two issues are raised at a time I think it is ok.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Mediation cabal is an option for intractable content disputes, I am just saying it should only be used as a last resort, not a first resort. I have never had to use it with any other editor and I have been in many different content disputes over the years; we were always able to resolve issues within the community or among ourselves. Well agreeing to extending your voluntary topic ban means that you and I can go to arbcom and say to them; we have agreed to take a break for several months from the ADHD articles, we have agreed this and we have agreed that etc. Arbcom seem adament that we need to take a break from the ADHD articles so it is not actually me that you need to convince but them. The topic ban will last for a year so common sense would dictate it is best that you and I work something out and agree a voluntary topic ban. I am definitely taking a lengthy break from ADHD articles and I advise that you do so also. The choice is up to you. I am honestly trying to help and work with you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- The key here is avoiding group confrontation, avoiding sanction processes, communicating, and most importantly creating community. Private communication seems key here to me, we have been far too public.--scuro (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Well that is what contributors asked of me when they said, I never supported my contentions, in arbitration. In fact, "supporting my contentions", was why I had a mentor. But, that is the past so in the future I could certainly do an issue or two at a time. It's great to see that we have agreed to the resolved/unresolved tags.
Lets talk about the key here, and that is escalation which has only occoured for the last half year in sanction processes or when behaviour is mentioned. Here are suggestions made to avoid escalation.
- There needs to be some sort of safety check, we have been told that frivolous processes have been undertaken. Perhaps some were filed too quickly.
- There needs to be a private way to get feedback on behaviours for both sides. Too much of the problem is the reaction to the initial reaction.
- As much as possible group interaction should be avoided. Blowups always happen when four or more parties are involved. Talk pages need to be used and people need to respect one on one conversations.
Do you agree with these points?--scuro (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that there is a need for a safety check, which I think we have already discussed and agreed on how to avoid escalation. We can have one on one discussions on talk pages when possible. We will not be editing the ADHD articles for quite a while anyway so it will not be until after a lengthy break you or I can apply these new principles to make editing more relaxed. So where do we go from here now? Do you want to notify ArbCom that we have come to an agreement?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes we are very close. What is your opinion on the following?
- always attempting 1 on 1 platforms of communication and avoiding group interchanges even in sanction events.
- before one files a sanction event, get feedback from the person who you are filing against, and secondly if that does not resolve the issue, get feedback from an administrator. The second step could be a form of proactive mentorship. It could be done privately and it could be something that is used rarely.
- private interchange when things get heated.--scuro (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think that it is irrelevant because arbcom have reached the end of their rope as far as ADHD drama goes and any further significant drama from you or I or infact anyone will lead to sanctions or even the article being put under probation. You are on the verge of being topic banned and I am at risk to of some sort of a sanction, so it is irrelevant. Although as you think that it is relevant I will say that I intend to avoid editing the ADHD article for a long time, I have no desire to return to arbcom or any sanction process and intend to avoid them like the plague as I know that they have had enough of drama.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- What I am proposing is solutions to potential future problems, based on past breakdowns. I think there is nothing that would please them more then a solid well thought out plan on how make things work when things break down. You will be editing the article in the future, will you not? If so lets get the job done now. Let me know what you think of my proposals.--scuro (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I will not be developing the article any further scuro or at least to no significant degree; if after a very lengthy break you and I want to discuss certain aspects about the article content then I am more than happy to do so. Yes I am happy to try to resolve things with you rather than seek sanctions, which is what I meant when I said I would not be going back to arbcom after this motion closes.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- So you would never take part in another sanction process against me?--scuro (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Scuro, I will not promise anything as it all comes down to behaviour, I cannot predict the future. I can give my word that I will do my best to work alongside you fairly and squarely, in six - 12 months time when voluntary or involuntary topic ban expires. The arbcom has helped bring peace and quiet to the ADHD articles after years of drama, so going to arbcom was not a bad thing, it was necessary, otherwise they would never have accepted the case and passed rulings.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Literaturegeek, I'm with you a 100% on these two issues, I'll give this my best effort but I wouldn't promise not to file a sanction process in the future based on behaviour.
- Scuro, I will not promise anything as it all comes down to behaviour, I cannot predict the future. I can give my word that I will do my best to work alongside you fairly and squarely, in six - 12 months time when voluntary or involuntary topic ban expires. The arbcom has helped bring peace and quiet to the ADHD articles after years of drama, so going to arbcom was not a bad thing, it was necessary, otherwise they would never have accepted the case and passed rulings.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- What I am proposing is solutions to potential future problems, based on past breakdowns. I think there is nothing that would please them more then a solid well thought out plan on how make things work when things break down. You will be editing the article in the future, will you not? If so lets get the job done now. Let me know what you think of my proposals.--scuro (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes we are very close. What is your opinion on the following?
- So the goodwill is here now, lets take advantage of this moment. Arb com feels that unnecessary sanction events were filled. You feel that the sanction events that you were involved in were necessary, and I feel that my filings were not frivolous. There is a disconnect somewhere and it might very well be with us, and we may not know it! The point I am trying to make is lets have a proactive plan that finds several solutions to a problem before it gets out of hand. Please reconsider my three suggestions in previous posts. All I am asking is that I hear your opinion on what I have suggested.--scuro (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Filed by who? I remember arbcom enforcement saying that your attempt to get Doc james blocked was "not a game of gotcha" and declined to block him. You did not try and work things out with Doc James before seeking sanctions. One of the problems is that we keep going around in circles even when we are on good terms such as now. We have already written the equivalent of an article here. The three points we have already discussed, yes they are wonderful and I agree with them.
- One question for you, conversations seem to go on forever, rarely reaching conclusion. Can you agree to try and draw conversations to a conclusion a lot quicker and avoid walls of texts emerging from every discussion?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming that you agree with all 8 points. That is progress. Sorry if I missed your earlier agreement. I'd like to add some text to the first point, and that would be not to bring up the past. The only place where bringing up the past is necessary is during a sanction process where one is demonstrating that the current behaviour has a history, otherwise it would be my opinion that bringing up the past is not productive. Point one could now read:
- We need to strictly focus on content and make our best efforts never to judge people, accuse, dwell on the past, or personalize issues. This should apply to sanction processes also. Focus as much as possible on the facts only.
There are some issues that still need to be cleared up. The big one would be that there is a mentorship requirement for citations. There are two issues here. One I don't think they could find a mentor who wanted to get into the middle of the disputes, and secondly the requirement calls for mentoring with citations and sourcing. The solution I see here to recognize that citations and sourcing is no longer a problem, and instead make an amendment request that the mentor be a group mentor that anyone of us could use to assist with points 2 and 3. I'm hoping a mentor could be found if they saw that we are all working together. I'd like to hear your opinion about this.
Finally, if you look over the compromise thread, I don't see that as a negative at all. Two months ago the issue was a topic ban request. Look at all the ground that has been covered. The devil is in the details. How this is going to work may still take a bit longer.--scuro (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree and was the one that suggested not bringing up the past. Your previous post though was bringing up the past and I felt it was out of context which was why I replied with my opinion. I agree on focusing strictly on content, not personalising, etc. Mentorship is between you and arbcom. I will not be editing the ADHD article for a long time.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- So how do you envision points 2 and 3 working? Notwithstanding our mutual desire to avoid sanction events, how do you envision the elimination of filing of frivolous sanction processes? Secondly, how do you see private communication working? I had thought it could be done by sharing e-mail addresses and by using an administrator for the principle editors who have filed in the past. What is your opinion?
- There needs to be some sort of safety check, we have been told that frivolous sanction processes have been undertaken. Perhaps some were filed too quickly.
- There needs to be a private way to get feedback on behaviours for both sides. Too much of the problem is the reaction to the initial reaction. --scuro (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- So how do you envision points 2 and 3 working? Notwithstanding our mutual desire to avoid sanction events, how do you envision the elimination of filing of frivolous sanction processes? Secondly, how do you see private communication working? I had thought it could be done by sharing e-mail addresses and by using an administrator for the principle editors who have filed in the past. What is your opinion?
- Scuro, I think that it is time we wrap up this circular discussion. I will not be editing the ADHD articles for a very long time if ever again so I see no reason why we need to keep going around in circles. I have already said that I have no desire to go back to arbcom to file anything and I have said I reject anything was frivilous but you keep accusing me of this which is bringing up the past. Since I will not be editing the ADHD article for the forseeable future I can see no benefit in going around in circles. Conversations never seem to reach a conclusion but go in circles and I am tired. I hope that you have a happy Christmas and new year.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- The "accusation" of "frivolous" is not mine. Carcharoth stated in the discussion by arbitrators section of the topic ban proposal, "if large numbers of frivolous requests are filed, indicating that editors are looking at each other's behaviour, rather than working on article content, new restrictions may need to be imposed". He did not mention names and my take on that, rightly or wrongly, is that he sees both sides at fault here. Even if one party is innocent it doesn't hurt to look for solutions for all the editors. The filing of sanctions is always an area where excess drama occurs. It would be my take that the reduction of frivolous sanction proposals is what arb com wants. The points above are solutions that I have suggested and sought your opinion about their viability. These points have not been discussed, so no, I don't see this as going around in circles. Negotiation between parties holding polar opposite viewpoints is never easy, it takes time. We have made great progress. If you need a mini-break that's okay with me. Just give me a time frame when you want to start up again.--scuro (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- You forgot to quote the sentence before that; I note that one arbitration enforcement request has already been filed. If that is needed, sure, but please try and focus on the article content and its sources, and not each other's behaviour.
- He was clearly talking about arbcom enforcement and the potential for it to be abused. I have never used arbcom enforcement to try and get someone blocked. You have used it twice.
- The motion request that I and other filed, he said this, Response to amendment2 (from Literaturegeek): This is a problem that shouldn't have arisen. Such collaboration is indeed to be encouraged, but I would suggest delaying such until a mentor is found for Scuro, or an injunction passed topic-banning him until a mentor is found. I intend to propose such an injunction, in relation to the amendment
- Scuro I have typed the equivalent of an article, agreed with every measure that you have suggested (apart from exchanging email addresses). I have said that I will not be editing the ADHD article for a very long time. Scuro, I need a long break. As I will not be editing the ADHD articles for a very long time, I suggest we take a break from talking for say 6 months at least. Then come back, work out a plan and stick to it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Goodbye scuro, I will be removing any further comments regarding ADHD or anything remotely to do with it from my talk page over the next 6 months. Time for me to move on.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
|}
Proposed deletion of Ecinofloxacin
The article Ecinofloxacin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- It is dubious if this drug ever existed, the available sources might have even picked it up a hoax from wikipedia. Even if it does exist it most likely does not reach the threshold for inclusion on wikipedia per WP:N.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}}
will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppet tags
Nope. Do you enjoy being hostile? Mutual monarch (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Please log onto your usual account. I do not communicate with sockpuppets.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I am not a sockpuppet. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Never heard of those people, and I am not involved in whatever disputes you're currently involved in. Feel free to ask someone to check IPs. I don't feel comfortable editing Wikipedia because of this hostility. Mutual monarch (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
What hostility? I only asked you one time months ago if you were a sockpuppet in a very friendly and personable manner.[3] You gave an explaination which at the time I accepted, so how could this have driven you off of wikipedia?
Please explain this though. At 21:03, 18 October 2009 I add a tag to your account, then 13 minutes later 21:15, 18 October 2009 you reply on my talk page denying being a sockpuppet. If you check contributions, you very rarely log on, at least on that account but yet you conincidently replied within ONLY 13 minutes of my flagging of your account.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
New message
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I've responded again on my talk page. Regards, Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding WP:A/R/ADHD
Please see this motion. MBisanz talk 19:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- About this, I don't think you need to worry about it. Members can, and do, change their initial votes when further information or ideas become available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. :) I do worry though about voting because changing a vote means losing face in some people's eyes but perhaps I am being paranoid. I just feel it is less likely if everyone votes to support before reading evidence then it will be less likely that a majority will change their mind especially with all of the work load they have to do. I have mentioned your name in the arbcom motion and I hope that I have not said anything which you disapprove of, if feel free to "complain" here or on the arbcom motion. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- You need to dramatically shrink your comments, ASAP. You only need to address one issue, which is the statement from Vassyana on 02 October 2009: "In my view, LG and scuro both seem to have personalized this dispute, continued derailing discussions with personal commentary, and persist in exagerrating (if not outright misrepresenting) the comments of the other and other editors."
- Your invocation of the pending RfC/U is an example of the personalization that Vassyana decries. Whether or not Scuro chooses to tell me which statement(s) bother him now, or through an RfC/U about his persistent refusal to make it possible to resolve this dispute by providing the necessary fact, is absolutely unrelated to whether or not you can be a productive contributor to ADHD. Don't talk about Scuro: This has nothing to do with Scuro. Talk about yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I am in the process of shrinking, I initially just added lots of text because arbcom were voting hastily. Yea and her comments are thoroughly unfair with my efforts on this talk page with scuro.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I only mentioned the RfC as a way of saying lets wait until RfC is finished before banning anyone. I don't understand how thiss was personalising? I have however, deleted it. Thanks for your comments. The only reason that I am talking about scuro is because it is arbcom and they are meant to investigate things ya know. I will try to focus less on scuro. I did not personalise to my knowledge outside of arbcom for a long time.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because "Look! Scuro's such a bad guy, he's in yet another dispute!" is all about another person. "About another person" = personalizing. The comment makes Scuro look bad and provides zero information directly about yourself. Indirectly, however, ArbCom is going to read such things as: "Look! All I care about is making sure you know how terrible Scuro is!" Any statement against Scuro will convince some of them that you have personalized the dispute, that is, that your primary goal in your (wiki)life is to punish Scuro. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- The reality is that I just want the drama to end, diplomatically preferably, but you are right, it will be read by some arbcom staff that way. Thanks!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Length note
Your statement at Arbcom is currently 894 words long, please redact it to within the 500 word limit as specified on the page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 21:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing. :) I was planning to do that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
You have a reply
You have a reply about an alternative sanction on my talk page. Please review it and let me know what you think. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
FDA warning letters / quinolones
The broken links regarding these warning letters are a result of the FDA revising their site months ago. If you think we should delete that section from the articles then there is no sense in my chasing down the replacement links. Let me know which you prefer. Eliminating that FDA warning letter section or finding the replacement links. Regarding your request for the Public Citizen petitions urls I will take care of those for you.Davidtfull (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I should be able to focus on the quinolone articles now that the ADHD drama is reaching a close. Yea the broken refs are a result of FDA site update, I think it should be left deleted from the norfloxacin article, due to the huge size of the adverse effects section. I would rather come back to the other articles at a later date. I think that our primary focus now should be on the norfloxacin article. There is much too much undue weight in the adverse effects section, plus refs need to be made into inline citations etc. Taking care of public citizen refs would be helpful.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Its not a deliberate addition of undue weight in the adr section you are seeing but more the end result of the fact that this is a very old drug and a tremendous amount of negative and serious adverse reactions have been well documented over the past twenty years. I see you have taken the rough draft and sorted some of this out grouping by body systems and using other sub headings. You left some stray text behind that I moved to thier proper locations. We can continue to prune this down as needed but we may have to simply delete a lot of these reactions in order to accomplish this; as there are so many of them that have been documented and we will simply have to pick and choose what to leave in and what to take out in order to strike some kind of reasonable balance.Davidtfull (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I understand that it was not deliberate, just saying that it needs to be resolved is all. :) I think that we are making good progress day by day. We feel that we need to reduce case reports, per WP:MEDRS. If side effects can be sourced to say a product information leaflet on FDA site for example, that would cut down on references used as we could cite from a single source for many of these adverse effects. Feel free to fix any mistakes you see me making or do any tidying up that needs doing. Idealy prominance should be given to the most important adverse effects. Unimportant side effects or adverse effects can be left out.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Here are the links you asked for as well at alternatives for the ofloxacin article:
In The United States District Court For The District Of Columbia Public Citizen, Inc. VS. Food And Drug Administration January 3, 2008 http://www.fqresearch.org/fda_suit.htm
Office Of The Attorney General State Of Illinois Lisa Madigan Citizen Petition to Include a Black Box Warning on Fluoroquinolone Antibiotics May 18, 2005
http://www.fqresearch.org/pdf_files/fda_response.pdf
and
http://www.fqresearch.org/pdf_files/illinois.pdf
HRG Publication #1781 August 29, 2006
http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7453&secID=1686&catID=126
alt
http://fqresearch.org/hrg1781.htm
HRG Publication #1399
http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=6595&secID=1686&catID=126
alt
http://fqresearch.org/letters_to_the_fda_16.htm
HRG Publication #1768 http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7430&secID=1686&catID=126
alt
http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7430
alt
http://fqresearch.org/HRG_Publication_1768_original.htm
HRG Publication #1485
http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=6684&secID=1686&catID=126
alt
http://fqresearch.org/HRG_Publication_1485.htm
HRG Publication #1442
http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=6639
alt
http://fqresearch.org/HRG_Publication_1442.htm
June 2004, A petition To the United States Congress to immediately take action to protect consumers from the reckless and negligent abuses of the FDA and the following Pharmaceutical Companies
http://fqresearch.org/petition.htm Davidtfull (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you, several of those references are not directly relevant to ofloxacin, I shall take a look tomorrow, going to sleep. I think that the ofloxacin article could do with more trimming, any thoughts on how and which sections could be shortened? Much of the content is already in other articles eg main quinolone article or adverse effects of fluoroquinolones.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
These references were used to support the following statement that appears in all the quinolone drug articles under the Economic Impact section, to wit:
"The adverse drug reaction profile of ofloxacin and other fluoroquinolone drugs has spawned a grass root movement of those so effected to lobby for Black Box Warnings and Dear Doctor Letters as well as the petitioning of the FDA for the removal of some fluoroquinolone drugs from clinical practice."
As such the references would not be specific to ofloxacin other than the lobbying for the Black Box Warnings / Dear Doctor Letters / as well as the current petitions seeking the removal of this whole class from clinical use. But the references do apply to the class of which ofloxacin is a member, hence it would be relevant. I am down with a horrible head cold at the moment so not really up to doing much with the ofloxacin article. But you can trim it as you see fit as the manufacturers have quit making it so it really isn't that important as to how much content we end up with as this is a discontinued drug for the most part. (other than generics and throwing the remainders at third world countries that have minimal oversight until the existing stock is depleted.)Davidtfull (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:BEBOLD as well as your agreement to trim as I see fit, I made some major revisions to the ofloxacin article. Most of the material was moved to antibiotic misuse article where it was more relevant, the rest deleted because it already in the main quinolone article or adverse effects of fluoroquinolones. I managed to get the article size down to 80 kb which is the usual maximum recommended size for individual drug articles. I think that the major undue weight issues have largely been resolved. Unless you contest the edits we can move onto other articles. If you contest the bold edits I made then I feel we will have to find another section to significantly trim or delete, as I think that for individual drug articles we must not exceed 80 kb size and be mindful of WP:UNDUE weight. I hope that you feel better from your cold soon. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
As to not delay you I've reviewed the edits you had made and see nothing out of whack or that I can't live with. I've made a few minor revisions since you completed your peer review (adding a reference, etc); as such I think we can put this one to bed.
In the adverse section I don't care for the wording regarding therapuetic doses verses overdose as this wording is quite awkward in my opinion. Particularly since these reactions have shown to NOT be dose dependant. But be that as it may as this is an artifact from a previous editor. As such I can live with the changes you have made without further comment. Hopefully the other editors involved will do the same and we can move on to finishing the peer review of the other articles.
I think we are making pretty good progress here working together in this fashion so it is only fair that I not overload you with too many articles at once. So before starting on the remaining quinolone articles I will wait for you to finish reviewing the ones we already have a rough draft of. Davidtfull (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good you are ok with the changes and thank you for taking the time to review them; I think that now we need to shorten the ciprofloxacin article. I think that the risk benefit ratio could be pruned with some content moved to main quinolone article or other relevant articles and some of its content merged into other sections of the ciprofloxacin article. I think that the socio economic section of ciprofloxacin should be left as it is as it is relevant and specific to ciprofloxacin. I think that it needs a general prune and will need me to read over it and make some common sense edits to shorten. Would you be happy if I were to do this and then you could raise any problems that you see with my deletions and shortening? What are your thoughts?
- With regard to the overdose bit in the ofloxacin article, I am going to move that to the overdose section and prune, let me know what you think. I think that as the major issues with the ofloxacin article are resolved any further problems raised in the future will probably be minorish ones I think which can be discussed and quickly resolved, like editors disagreeing with a sentence or a paragraph or a citation rather than the entire article. We are making good progress.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
You have been over the cipro article any number of times so I am confused as to what you feel still needs to be addressed there. But go ahead and make the additional changes you feel to be needed and I will take a look at it when you are done and we can go from there. Just like we just did with the ofloxacin article.Davidtfull (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is too big for a single drug article, it should be at or below 80 kb. I shall try and get some work done to it soon. You can let me know what you think of it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- How are you feeling BTW? You said that you had a cold. I hope that you are doing better.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It's ironic
My personal opinions on benzodiazepine use are actually neutral to very negative. I took 30mg of Restoril for 5 months, and I could tell you some horror stories. Mutual monarch (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok thank you, but I am not sure what the relevance is, I don't have anything against people with differing opinions. Our disagreement was to do with this.User_talk:Literaturegeek#Sockpuppet_tags--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- That sockpuppetry investigation was the relevance, but it doesn't matter anymore. Mutual monarch (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello LG, long time no see
Greetings from 70.137. Please take a look at my recent edits and proofread, be so kind. Looking at the constant arguments you have to endure, I don't envy you. Keep the good work up. 70.137.134.62 (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Greetings anon!!! Long time now hear. Your edits look good to me! You keep the good work up to (and pssst get an account :=]) Yea the arguing is rather depressing but things seem to be settling down. The 2nd paragraph of the intro on the benzodiazepine drug misuse article needs proof read, it has been misrepresented and I don't have the time to fix it now.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I have fixed it. 70.137.134.62 (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Request for additional information regarding references
In response to your request within the levaquin article:
"Within a significant number of medical publications and books levofloxacin is described as a second generation fluoroquinolone.[1]
see:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1472979208700131
http://www.tuberculosisjournal.com/article/S1472-9792(08)70013-1/abstract Davidtfull (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much David. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Your welcomed.
Yet another problem within the cipro article. You may want to remove this statement as being original research as well as the fact that the reference used appears to state the exact opposite, that being that ciprofloxacin is not a recommended choice for community acquired pneumonia when resistent strep pneumonia is suspected. This is the recent edit I am referring to here:
“Ciprofloxacin is commonly used for empiric gram negative coverage for community and hospital acquired pneumonia, and is a recommended choice for community acquired pneumonia when resistent strep pneumonia is suspected. [2]
Here is a link to the full text of the reference used by this editor:
http://www.thoracic.org/sections/publications/statements/resources/idsaats-cap.pdf
which of course is co-authored by one of our fluoroquinolone cheerleaders (Mandell) who once again fails to reveal his financial ties to the quinolone manufacturers. Mandell, if you recall from the adrs of the fluoroquinolone article also has conflicts of interest. Lionel Mandell: recent research funding from Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Wyeth; consultant for AstraZeneca, Aventis, Bayer, Genesoft, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Wyeth; speakers’ bureau for Aventis, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Wyeth.
Mandell also has received research funding from Ortho-McNeil
In regards to ciprofloxacin it does not appear to be a first line agent at all. In fact it appears to be used only in addition to another b-lactam drug; rather than commonly used as the statement suggested. The reference stated that: “Data exist suggesting that resistance to macrolides and older fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin) results in clinical failure. Other studies have shown that repeated use of fluoroquinolones predicts an increased risk of infection with fluoroquinolone-resistant pneumococci. Whether this risk applies equally to all fluoroquinolones or is more of a concern for less active antipneumococcal agents (levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin) than for more active agents (moxifloxacin and gemifloxacin) is uncertain.” As such I rather doubt that it would be considered a first line agent under such circumstances.
The only reference to ciprofloxacin that I could find within the article states that it is to be used only in addition to a b-lactam drug. There is no recommendation that ciprofloxacin is to be used as a stand alone first line agent. Nor is there any mention of it being “commonly used for empiric gram negative coverage for community and hospital acquired pneumonia...” as this author has asserted. This is what I found within the reference used:
Inpatient, ICU treatment A b-lactam (cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, or ampicillin-sulbactam) plus either azithromycin (level II evidence) or a fluoroquinolone (level I evidence) (strong recommendation) (For penicillin-allergic patients, a respiratory fluoroquinolone and aztreonam are recommended.)
For Pseudomonas infection, use an antipneumococcal, antipseudomonal b-lactam (piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, imipenem, or meropenem) plus either ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin (750-mg dose)
Special concerns If Pseudomonas is a consideration An antipneumococcal, antipseudomonal b-lactam (piperacillintazobactam, cefepime, imipenem, or meropenem) plus either ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin (750 mg) or The above b-lactam plus an aminoglycoside and azithromycin or The above b-lactam plus an aminoglycoside and an antipneumococcal fluoroquinolone (for penicillin-allergic patients, substitute aztreonam for above b-lactam) (moderate recommendation; level III evidence) If CA-MRSA is a consideration, add vancomycin or linezolid (moderate recommendation; level III evidence)
For Pseudomonas infection, use an antipneumococcal, antipseudomonal b-lactam (piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, imipenem, or meropenem) plus either ciprofloxacin or levofloxacin (750-mg dose) or the above b-lactam plus an aminoglycoside and azithromycin
Bacillus anthracis (inhalation) usually with another agent.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Antipseudomonal b-lactame plus (ciprofloxacin or levofloxacinf or aminoglycoside
Anyhow since you are actively peer reviewing the article at the moment I will let you handle this as you see fit. The editor however did remove the previous referenced statement that contradicted his statements. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ciprofloxacin&diff=323819681&oldid=323672552
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ciprofloxacin&diff=323617716&oldid=323449927
Davidtfull (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- If an editor misquotes or misuses a reference, I usually would read the ref and then reword it according to what the reference says. So feel free to reword according to what the reference says, infact if the reference has been misquoted it really needs to be corrected and should be corrected.
- I am uneasy deleting the reference though because he replaced a 1994 reference with a 2007 reference. Generally speaking, per WP:MEDRS more recent references are superior to older references especially when dealing with antibiotics as bacterial sensitivity can change in a relatively short space of time. If you would like to delete and replace the reference I think that it is best to find a very recent reference, i.e. past 5 years or so, preferably a secondary source, eg review paper, FDA, national guidelines, meta-analysis, good quality medical book etc.
- At present, I am just trying to make refs inline citations in the quinolone articles and resolve undue weight in articles, I don't really have the time to dig out and read references.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I made the changes that I feel reflect the content of the reference used. Was just hesitant to do so while you were in the middle of working on the article is all; so I thought it prudent to give you a heads up. I did not have a problem with the reference other than Mendall being a part of it and not revealing his continuing conflicts of interest. So there is no need to replace it as 2007 is rather current and it does not refute the 1994 reference either. So we can use both for the time being. If he can find a reference that supports his assertions we can add them back in as well. Davidtfull (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)