User talk:207.61.84.162

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your Changes to the Bedbug Article

Hello. I've changed your latest contribution so it doesn't quite so strongly advocate a particular opinion. If you're the person I think you are, we've been going back and forth in a sort of very slow "edit war," where you make changes, I revert them, you go and make them again, and I revert them (for example: you, me). That's never healthy for Wikipedia.

This time, I'm trying to incorporate your changes but get them more towards a neutral point of view, which is the tone that Wikipedia articles are required to be written in. You used words like "worthless" and "reputable," which are words that demonstrate an opinion and a bias about something. Since we're writing encyclopedia articles, we're required as editors and writers to keep an objective tone and not let our opinions about the subject shine through. More on this can be found at WP:NPOV.

I'd like to see if we can come to a happy compromise, but it's difficult when you're editing from an anonymous account and seem to be coming from different IPs. I urge you to sign up for a Wikipedia account and come talk with me about what you feel needs to be done on the article's talk page, Talk:Bedbug. I'm cc:ing this message there, just so people know I'm leaving this. I encourage you to work with me on getting this paragraph to a place where we're both mutually satisfied with it, instead of us just yanking it back and forth between our two ideas about how the paragraph should be written.

Hope to see you over on the article's talk page! — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 16:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of signing in, so was doing the edits.. i am a professional in the pest management business... a B.C.E. i take difference with the bit about preparation being a requirement by Most or Some reputable firms. I cannot see how a reputable firm could offer a service without requiring preparation.. The consumer needs to be clearly warned.. i have been changing this because the reputable firms do not need it to be too soft, and the ones who are not reputable.. i don't worry about them... welcome your comments.. but i feel that it is wrong to compromise clear statements about expectations that someone should have from a reputable firm. I didn't think it was so terrible to leave it like that.. We don't need to defend bad companies.. Sam — —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.84.162 (talk • contribs)
You don't need to sign in to edit Wikipedia, but you might find that signing up for an account gives you a measure of credibility, since there are other people out there who do bad things to Wikipedia while being anonymous.
Take a look at the way I reworded things. I think it gets your point across. However, the thing is that we need to keep things objective. The words you're using are opinion words -- "worthless", "reputable", etc. I think we've managed to get the idea you're trying to say across fairly straightly -- the place needs to be prepared, or else the poison isn't going to get everywhere. That's the facts of the situation, and they're in there, thanks to you and I. But it's an encyclopedia article, not an opinion piece, and so for us to start introducing opinion words -- that's problematic. Anyway, take a look at the way it's reworded now and let me know if you can live with it that way. You can do it just by replying on this page here -- I'll look for your response. Thanks. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 00:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venlafaxine discontinuation

I have removed the following text from the Venlafaxine article:

"The distinction between severe discontinuation syndrome and addiction withdrawal is meaningless to users who experience the symptoms and have severe difficulties stopping use of this drug. Dependency on the use of a drug to "feel good" may be a matter of degree rather than distinction. Heroin users are given Methadone to counter the severe effects of "severe heroin discontinuation syndrome" commonly called addiction withdrawal effects. If there is a difference between these two situations it is perhaps similar to the description of drug addiction euphemistically as "self-medication". Patient anecdotal reports in the Effexor Petition will give an indication of how difficult this can be."

I recently stopped taking Effexor XR, so I am personally familiar with the nasty effects of its "discontinuation syndrome". It f^H^Hing sucked, to be perfectly blunt, even after slowly reducing my dosage over a period of a month. I agree that Wyeth bears some responsibility for failing to inform (and using euphemisms to mislead) venlafaxine users. However, we cannot accept this sort of text as part of an encyclopedic entry. The text endorses a strong point of view and consists of editorializing rather than the impartial presenting of information, and hence violates policies such as WP:POV and WP:NOR. Cheers, Skinwalker 11:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your perspective about editorializing, however, I tried to bring the actual experiences of users into characterizing "severe discontinuation syndrome". When some speak about a lifetime dependency on a drug, i really cannot see how one cannot view this as a type of addiction, and the severe discontinuation syndrome as withdrawal.

I do not agree with your removal of my text because it does not really editorialize, it speaks to the facts.. One of the petitioners on the effexor was a brave psychiatrist who said that she had attended Wyeth training for physicians on more than one occasion and found that their education of risks was lacking and as a result she was not able to advise her patients adequately of risks and only found this out from her patients' feedback. Twelve thousand petitioners, and you could be one as well, is not a small number for a website that is shared slowly by word of mouth.

To be blunt.. i lost my only daughter to suicide. She had a personality disorder and was at risk, and so all the doctors who failed her can easily say "depressed people do kill themselves and she was depressed" but the reality is that we were not informed of the risks of this drug and she had a panic attack took her own life violently in an act of impulse consistent with the side effects of effexor .. Her doctors increased her dose in a typically sutpid manner by presuming that her worsening symptoms were caused by her mental health rather than effects of the drug itself... that is actaully written up in a number of places as way that doctors become so dependent on drug treatments that they fail to see that hte symptoms are caused by the drug not the condition.

I am amazed that you would want to remove the text i have entered a number of times .. each time needing to rewrite this again. It is important to realize that words are very important, and using a phrase "severe disconinuation syndrome" instead of withdrawal effects, to give the real measure of the impact of this drug, is a drug company strategy so that dependency on a drug is removed from the lexicon for that drug.. There is risk of dependency, for example, in the group that includes Valium, and the pharmaceutical firms cannot avoid this, but the usage of the anti-depressants has been HUGE, and most patients are simply not told that Effexor can be 'ADDICTIVE' in thes sense of a patient being dependent on the drug.. If you have a distinction between addiction and dependency, perhaps you should define these.

Meanwhile, drop a line, because I want to reinsert the comment and i think it is not editorializing at all.. it puts the facts as they are about this drug... you may already have read David Healy's book "The Anti-depressant Era" or Joseph Mullen who wrote "the anti-depressant solution"... Sadly, i trusted doctors and just could not imagime risk to my daughter, i simply could not imagine a medical doctor - especially our family doctor, knowingly prescribing a drug with such risks.. and as it turns out, the sad reality is that our family doctor trusted a psychiatrist, most of which give out these drugs like candy... it is changing, but too late for me. too late for my daughter..

If anything you may respect the tone of my writing in consideration of what happened to my family..

I wanted to drop you a line about the link that you put into venlafaxine, but now I read your story above, and I am shocked. What I did was, move the 'discontinuation' part of the article into SSRI discontinuation syndrome#Discontinuation of Venlafaxine, I think it deserved its own place. Your link was more appropriate on that page, in stead of on Venlafaxine, so I moved that link there as well. But since I have a similar discussion running on aspartame, I am now pondering if these move-actions are right.
My reasoning has been as follows (I am sorry if this sounds a bit cold). The page venlafaxine is about a chemical compound (just like water (molecule) is about a molecule), so it should tell what it is, what its history is, what its good sides, and what its bad sides are. For some chemical compounds, one bad side can be really bad, in which case I think thát bad side should have its own site. In a way, drowning could be a section on the water (molecule) site, since it is a bad side of the molecule 'H2O' (I know this comparison is a bit awkward, but the trouble is, where to draw the line).
I hope I made my move a bit clear, but I am always willing to discuss things. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Dirk.. i appreciate your comments but i think that your reasoning may be faulty and i will give you my arguments why respectfully. This is not merely about a chemical compound but aboutg a drug that is prescribed to people. If the drug were in a drug compendium then all the details of the chemical plus effects and contraindications, cautions and recommendations for use should be in that section, but Wikipedia is not a drug compendium. An article on this drug should have in it all considerations and then some as it should encompass all facts about the drug not merely such things as are the current "facts" as offered by either a drug company or by the FDA. There is a lot of information over the last two years speaking to distortion of resesarch results by drug companies, and of mimimization of risk factors so as not to affect sales.. and there are some dramatic cases in recent history in which drug companies either threatened researchers with legal proceedings if they published results (the Olivieiri case) or of a research chair offer being withdrawn because the researcher gave a key lecture of risks (David Healy and Prozac)..

while the page on Effexor cannot address these details at length, however, it is a disservice to a user to leave out key elements. it has nothing to do with the paradigm you offer of going beyond an entry for a chemical compound. If this drug were not a drug for human consumption and being used by millions of people. it would not even make an entry of any kind. If Wikipedia is to address an issue properly, it should present the reality of current kmowledge and concerns, not do an edit to weaken the strength of the information.. The information on severe discontinuation syndrome may reside as a separate GENERAL subject elsewhere, but as it relates to Effexor it MUST be present int he main article, otherwise, the wikipedia entry becomes a drug company apologia of sorts.. and that is horrible in a society in which free speech and proper dissemination of knowledge is a sacred trust. Dirk.. let's get this right.. not delete stuff because it is not comfortable for some... go to the link of the effexor petition and look at the entries... it tells the truth about this drug, ... as for defining 'addiction' as being different or 'severe discontinuation syndrome' being really different from 'addiction'; -- right now it looks more like semantics than real difference. if a person is dependent on heroin and suffers the agony of withdrawal what is different about that and effexor withdrawal.. i am not convinced that there is a real difference at this point.. let's not be in an editorial battle on this.. if i had had any inkling of the risk of this drug to my daughter.. believe me i woujld have been talking to a lot of people before agreeing to provide this drug.. but i trusted the doctors.. terrible error on my part and i must live with this while they rationalize that it wasn't the drug at all that triggered her death.. let's make sure that wikipedia users have all the pertinent information. i don't careif it is not comfortable for the drug companies...

First, I am trying to do my best in finding ways of retaining info, and keeping a wp:npov. About the splitting off of an article. I believe it is not the same as hiding, let me try and explain. Say we have a chemical substance that is the perfect agent against coughing. You dissolve it into a water-sirup, and you take it for two days, 3 times a day, a big spoonful, and your cough is gone. Absolutely perfect stuff .. except .. it gives you a bad taste in your mouth for at least 3 hours. And I mean a BAD taste. That compound would get a big page on Wikipedia, similar setup as Venlafaxine (intro, general 'what is this compound chemically', history, what are its good points, what are its bad points, references, external links .. that bad points section would be a couple of lines, telling it tastes awful. But with Venlafaxine, there is not just a small section, this compound has a side effect so bad, it even has its own article. And I would even advocate to split of 'venlafaxine discontinuation' from that SSRI-article where it is now, because, as I understood, it has more negative effects, which should be under different articles (SNRI???, might even do that one of these days, if nobody beats me to it!). (just an inbetween line, chemical compounds don't have to be very important to be in the Wikipedia, I mean, Holmium(III) oxide does not seem to be a very important compound to me). In all those articles there should be a short, neutral paragraph about the bad effect of venlafaxine, and a link, using the {{main}}-template, to the main subject article (like on venlafaxine, now). In that way it would even attract more readers from different angles (you are now only attracting people via the chemical compounds names, and if they see a 30 kb article, they may not think about reading it). By the way, your link could even be a reference on that article, in stead of an external link (on that article a sentence like 'a petition started in xxx collected more than 11,000 signatures (count date: August 2006)<ref>[http://your.ref Petition against Effoxir/venlafaxine]</ref>' would have a good place!).
Other reasons to split off are again cold, technical ones, the Wikipedia Manual of Style (or, more specifically the style guide) says: "When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own entry, that text can be excised from the present entry and replaced by a link." There is a preferred maximum size to articles, which is about 30 kb, above that people get a warning when editing the whole article, roughly, I think venlafaxine is getting close to that.
So for now, I will remove link and data from the venlafaxine page. Sorry, we are going into an editorial about this, though I hope you will go on and create and edit an article for this subject, and linking it from the pages that need the link. I will be glad to help, drop me a line and I'll try to be there as soon as possible. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Changed my mind a bit, I leave the external link, maybe needs a reword of the presentation (at least, it says Effoxir i.s.o. venlafaxine, may I suggest a reword into 'Effoxir (Venlafaxine)'? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't egree but es my eh key is wrecked for now, will reply enother time.. too mch senitizing to the point of impeirment of freedom of informetion.. this group of drugs is et centre of mejor controversy end you ere censoring this.. the denger is being minimelized.. not good. fine line.. will comment more when my keyboord is fixed.

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it. ⇒Bayerischermann - 23:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)