Severity: Notice
Message: Undefined offset: 1
Filename: infosekolah/leftmenudasboard.php
Line Number: 33
Line Number: 34
Hey, thanks for the welcome. Just wanted to say that some people (not me!) might find it a little bit of a back-handed compliment to link them to articles that are just huge masses of help/standards/tutorial content. It seems like a constructive comment but one could easily assume implications, e.g. 'basically everything you do is wrong, here's a gigantic resource on how to do everything right', or 'I saw something you did that was wrong, I won't spend the time to point it out but read through the beginners tutorials for a few hours and figure it out yourself'. Again, I didn't read into it like that, just wanted to point out how it can look from the other perspective. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljcrabs (talk • contribs) 05:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll post here, since I am also replying to a welcome message. Just wanted to thank you, actually! I did get the sense that the welcome script was an automated thing, but felt that the sending of it was very considerate and, well, welcoming!
Regards, Lehacarpenter (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC) lehacarpenter[reply]
Hi Literaturegeek.
Ethyl dirazepate and ethyl carfluzapate both exist as they have CAS numbers and there is no dispute that the chemical abstracts service is a reliable source - they are the definitive source for chemical information, indeed there is an official collaboration between the chemistry wikiproject and CAS to verify and cross-check the information on wikipedia to ensure its accuracy! So the grounds for deletion you propose are not made out.
Unfortunately the CAS database is a paid-only site which I do not have access to, but the fact that these compounds have CAS numbers assigned means they have certainly been reported in the literature, and anyone who does have access to the CAS database could verify this quite readily and add the references to the pages.
Now whether these compounds are notable is a bit more disputable and you can prod the pages per WP:N I guess, but consensus for notability requirements of distinct chemical entities with defined pharmacological activity is fairly low, and if you have a look at some of the deletion discussions for other borderline compounds the general feeling is that anything that has both a CAS number and an INN name assigned would be deemed notable per se. Meodipt (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://journals.prous.com/journals/servlet/xmlxsl/pk_journals.xml_toc_pr?p_JournalID=2&p_IssueID=140
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:279:0767:0876:EN:PDF
Meodipt (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I do admit that BHRT and compounding are highly conflated, which makes parsing the sources problematic. I don't think the solution is to rewrite the page based on primary sources (or even review articles) about individual molecules. If you are interested in any of the sources that are not freely available, I have many of them in PDF format - just e-mail and ask. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undent. That's why wikipedia is awesome. If you want a great overview of the Big Herb in the US (and their oversight, the role of the FDA), I highly recommend Natural Causes. Very readable, not too thick, and interesting. I gave it five stars. A for why advocates (and the people who take BHRT are so enthusiastic - placebo effect, money, they are effective at addressing menopause (because, you know, they're HORMONES!!!), their dangers are relatively minimal (there's a reason they're so highly prescribed!), cognitive dissonance (Mistakes were Made (but not by me) does a great job of walking through how people can justify dumb or ill-informed decisions, then bend their thought process to keep making them - great book, also gave it 5 stars), and the people taking them tend to be old - so they're likely to get cancer or some other illness anyway (and therefore don't blame the drugs). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your notes. I'm 99% certain that Linda,LCADC is a sock. One of his habits is to create socks with some name that suggests some spurious air of authority. PuckSR seems to me to be just an innocent editor who mistakenly thought the lobbyist's page to be of some merit. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Literaturegeek, I wanted to take the opportunity to reply to your greeting. I absolutely did not mean to scratch wounds by using a poor source. It was one of the first results for my search query, and being from a respected school...I assumed that it was a reasonable source. I did not realize how polarized the discussion of alcohol could be. As far as my corrections to the alcoholism article, I want to assure you that my motives are entirely altruistic. I am not trying to persuade or promote a certain point of view. I have just seen many people unknowingly distort statistical research. There still seems to be some problems with the current version of the quote. I also must apologize for my rambling responses. I typically only have a short period of time to make my contribution, and frequently my contribution is a direct transcription of my train of thought.PuckSR (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LG! I've been enjoying our interaction and curiously strolled over to your User page, which is great except that in my Firefox browser the layout is very strange (the first column is compressed down the left side). It looks fine in IE7. I came here to your Talk page to let you know, and I also see the top of this page is distorted (overlapping boxes) in Firefox, also fine in IE7. Just thought you might want to know - no big deal. Keep up the good work - I'm very impressed by your contributions. -- Scray (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
to apologize and express to you that I appreciate the effort you are putting in, and I am reading and absorbing what you have to say. However, I cannot resist at least trying to maintain the level of parity in the article which has already been attained. Previous experience has shown me that not acting is interpreted as giving carte blanche to massive edits. I had asked for comments on these additions for days (you can see my request further up the Talk page) and got nothing except some copyedit advice. So I can only assume that the content was deemed acceptable, so I will try to maintain it in its acceptable form.Riverpa (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
You notify contributors of en.wiki on AfDs, even such contributors as weakly involved as me in the particular case. Generally, it’s polite and good. Thank you. But you create new topic by editing the last section on a page. Not clearing the summary field even manually. It’s especially grubby, lame and, therefore, not good, even if there are thousands other users of en.wiki doing the same. I hate junks in the page history, which make creation of new topics untraceable. There is a special link New section (or + in some skins) intended for clean creation of a new topic. It even fills a special message MediaWiki:Newsectionsummary. MediaWiki coders provided a right way for section creating, not a lame way nor a grubby one, surprised? They were not so lame as you probably assumed. Please, use +/New section for new topic and forget clicking-over-the-last-header. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the page and now there is a boat load of clean up that needs to be done. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Guerillero (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for chiming in. We'll see what others say, but I do think I'm thinking straight. I wish that settled it, but this IS the real world. It's nice, in any case, to have just a tad bit of support. TomCloyd (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, I'm sorry. I am C6541 and I just didn't bother to log in. Cheers. 71.162.223.80 (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Still trying to help out with the BHRT page? I understand (but regret) if you've decided to back out. My editing is severely curtailed over the holidays, due to access and choice. If you're just going slowly, then that's cool.
Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undent. Pre-happy Chinese New Year to you! No worries, I do write messages that are too long, it's a problem and I know it. Bioidenticals are such a part of regular HRT that it's difficult to distinguish BHRT from CHRT if you don't include compounding, saliva testing, etc. And the reviews by Holtorf, Schwartz and Moskowitz are about individual molecules, not the package deal (thus arguably something for those individual molecules). Really, the question should be "do we have a page about bioidentical hormones"? That might clear some things up - presumably the ...pas won't object to criticisms of BHRT, compounding, saliva testing, etc. but that still leaves the problems of whether individual bioidentical molecules are better than non-bioidentical ones. I would suggest that arguably the jury is out. There are lots of contradictions and disagreements between the different authors, but the only ones really strongly promoting bioidenticals are non-researcher practitioners.
Also, the Rosenthal article on the ethics of BHRT is very, very interesting, I highly recommend it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and Happy New Year to you as well! The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind wishes, and Happy New Year to you and your family too! Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I hope that 2010 brings you both satisfaction and some pleasant surprises! -- Scray (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not just happy new year - happy new decade !!! p.s. I'm still around - just taken a detour through the help pages ( Wikipedia:Help Project ) - I'll be back to my more usual haunts once I'm happy enough with these, see ya around ! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys. :) I have not had a good start to the decade ill at the moment with some stomach thing. Yes a new decade as well as new year leevan. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I love genetically-engineered and non-organic foods - I'd never pay a nickel more for "clean" food. But, I know a lot about benzos and their use in medical practice, I know a lot about addiction (I'm a CCDC/III [certified chemical dependency counsellor]), a lot about organic chemistry in general (a BSc in O. Chem), and an extensive knowledge of psycho/pharmacology (DPharmDipSci, Doctor of Pharmacology). My main areas of personal interest are the opioids and benzodiazepines and all of their uses and effects, their structure and synthesis, et al. My main area of currently active research is into the deleterious effects of cannabinoids on the brain, mainly, how cannabinoids interfere with the development of such. Past research includes similar research into NMDA-antagonists (dextro-methorphan [whose laevo-rotary brother is a nice opioid], phencyclidine, ketamine), and classical hallucinogens (5HT2a agonists [LSD and tryptamines])/psychedelic phenethylamines, with a focus on MDMA. "This user finds it funny that the drugs most harmful to the individual's mental health are considered the least harmful (probably due to their lack of obvious and immediate negative societal effects evoked by the "hard drugs")." If you ever need any help with the facts, or with referencing articles, I'd be glad to assist you in any way that I can. It seems we share those areas of interest, which, for me, border on obsessive passion. Along with security, particularly, information security. Quite a lot of school over quite a smattering of subjects, eh? I don't have any formal training in information security, but probably know more about it than all the aforementioned combined. I am Jack's compulsive desire to learn everything than can be known. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.176.190 (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to let you know I've finally had a chance to review your edits of the quinolone article and have no real issues with any of them. Hope your tummy ache gets better soon.Davidtfull (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey LG we have hundreds of pages on signs and symptoms which our MOS do not address. Attempting to put together some structure recommendations for these type of topics. Would appreciated comments / recommendations here User:Jmh649/Sandbox8 and here [1] Hope you had happy holidays. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your appreciation. My flabber was gasted, and I got a great chuckle out of it as well. It is true that I'm passionate on the subject (PTSD), but even more so on the matter of thinking clearly and being a good scientist, as much as we can. That's the only way we can fight back the darkness and make the world a better place. I will also say that I'm only just getting started. I need now to follow through on my own proposals for the article. Soon! Meanwhile, thanks again... TomCloyd (talk)
User:The Sceptical Chymist is engaging in his own form of harassment and vandalism. Although he isn't vandalizing my Talk page, which would not affect everyone else on Wikipedia, he is actually going into my edit history and reverting my edits without valid reason. Take a look at Risperidone, he reverted two reliable sources where they were needed. Editor182 (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Literaturegeek for notifying my IP of Wikipedia's rules, but I think it will be in everyone's best interest to permantely block this IP since it is a high school library's. You know how kids are. 69.92.95.145 (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A little mistake above, you cite methamphetamine as a ring substituted amphetamine, vs. dexamphetamine etc., so it would be more harmful. methamphetamine is not ring substituted, it differs from amphetamine only in the methyl group on the terminal N, not on the ring. Greetings, Anon 70.137.134.49 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have to learn that. Its easy. 70.137.134.49 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism: The reference lists the side effects mentioned as from "estrogen and/or progesteron therapy". Most of the side effects are to be attributed to the progesteron. Underlying study wrt. dementia, cancer etc. is not with "estradiol" but "CE/MPA = Conjugated estrogen + medroxyprogesteronacetate", which is not estradiol. Unopposed use (without an progesteron) is not advised except w.o. uterus. It is unknown if the side effect/risk profile is the same without MPA, says the reference. I would advise to more clearly differentiate between estradiol, conjugated estrogens, their mixture with progesterons in general, and in particular with MPA, a synthetic. As it sounds now the estradiol is the culprit, which the ref does not claim. Articles involved e.g. Estradiol and nature identical hormone substitution. Needs work, to be precise and not misleading. Convince yourself by reading ref again, precisely. 70.137.134.49 (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, the horrible effects of the synthetic estrogen Diethylstilbestrol, which has pronounced teratogenic and carcinogenic properties, even into the following generations, makes it plausible to me, that synthetic estrogens and progestins may have a different risk- and sideeffect profile than the naturally occuring ones, maybe only discernible in large statistical cohorts. This is the reason to assume that exact citation of the conditions of the reference study may be important. There COULD be relevant differences between e.g. progesteron and medroxyprogesteronacetate, until we have contradicting evidence, which I could not read from the references. So it could be too early for generalizations between the different substances and mixtures, which have been employed in the studies. Maybe you can take a look. Greetings Anon 70.137.134.49 (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the membership in international treaties wrt. controlled drugs doesn't mean you have to follow their scheduling. Take Germany for an example, it has signed the UN treaty, but only the bulk drugs are controlled by the narcotics law for substances which are US CIII, CIV etc. The preparations (e.g. Diazepam tablets of 10mg, Codeine tablets up to 100mg per tablet etc.) are exempt and only POM. Only equivalent of US CII and CI (with exceptions) are under narcotics law. Exceptions e.g. Tilidine preparations which are US CI, but Germany POM. (probably because generally foreign pain killers, not approved for US, were as a class put in US CI, even if they were pretty low abuse potential). These things follow their own twisted logic and history, so frequently logical deductions will fail. 70.137.167.75 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lg. Yes, I'm stalking you, too. I know that you specialize in certain types of drugs and that the hormone melatonin is hardly on your list. However, you do know a lot more than most of us about the degrees of legal/illegal, regulated, available etc.
It seems so strange that one can get melatonin in any grocery store in the US, while it is forbidden to import in some countries (Germany), on a very restricted type of prescription (Norway), permitted to import for own use (UK, I think) or other variations. Would there be any international coordination re a substance of this sort? Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only the drugs on the UN schedules listed on the drug control treaties are subject to international drug control laws. All other medicines and supplements are regulated according to the individual country's medicines or food standards laws. The situation with products like melatonin is complicated, as it is found in some foods and therefore can be classed as a dietary supplement, but it also has well defined pharmacological effects and so is often viewed as a medicine, especially when sold explicitly as an insomnia aid. Melatonin is I believe classed as a dietary supplement in the USA, a pharmacy-only medicine in the UK and from the sound of things a prescription medicine in Norway. I did not think it was on the German drug schedule but perhaps it is listed as a medicine but is not approved for prescription, as this would make it similarly forbidden. This wide range of variation in between different countries is mainly because melatonin is very safe in the vast majority of people and has negligible overdose risk etc, but it can rarely cause adverse effects like lethargy, confusion and disorientation particularly in the elderly, which have led some countries to conclude it is not safe enough for general use. Meodipt (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey LG moved this page to Pelvic pain from Chronic pelvic pain as before it was a redirect.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded accordingly to your messages on my talk page. Rapunzel676 (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some people are vandalizing this wiki page. I have provided ref (see also talk page). What can i do ?.Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I made three reverts in favour of the longstanding version. My reverts were spported by another editor. Our "opponent" has made at least five and has, as above, falsely labelled his reverts as undoing vandalism. Paul B (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well ref or no ref, right or wrong, you are both about to lose the battle because you are continuing to edit war even after I issued a 3rr rule; you are at great risk of being blocked. There are a number of avenues you can take, such as WP:ANI, WP:RFC and Wikipedia:Mediation. I am not going to request your block though, I have just requested page protection.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick heads-up that an editor has offered to review Midazolam for GA, and has left some comments about referencing (in case you had missed it). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you for you attention to the need. Until now, I've been the only one concerned about archiving (I set up the archives, upon becoming active with the article, my main focus at Wikipedia). It's nice to have someone else taking an interest.
Second, I just moved back to the active Talk page two sections you archived. I tried to explain why in the "edit summary" note accompanying each edit. Basically, these sections still have an active function. One saves me labor, and the other is about organizing my work at PTSD and inviting comment - in an economical way.
I hope this make sense to you!
Tom Cloyd (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that I am not entirely sure, as I have never nominated anything to AfD. I have seen normal editor closure before, but i'm not entirely sure how that works. But what you put works as well, i'm sure, as an admin will come around eventually and see it. To further help this, you could strikethrough your intro paragraph there. That's generally done when someone changes their mind. SilverserenC 01:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed the AfD discussion as speedy keep, as a withdrawn nomination is covered under that guideline. Editors can close some AfDs , the policy is at WP:non-admin closure (I myself am not an admin). You don't need to strike your comments, just the phrase "withdraw nomination" is enough, and if there are no delete !votes then it qualifies for speedy keep. Hope this helps. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your tips. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
