Contents

User talk:Paul gene

Hello!

I asked of you:

"If you just stick to those questions, and don't respond to others quite yet, there's little that can go wrong, I think.".

However, after that point in time, you did respond to people outside the questions I asked you at WT:MEDRS. In the immediate future, could you please refrain from doing so? Thanks!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to take it that you will continue to respond to people outside the questions I'm asking? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you intend to answer the question I asked you please? (see below) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to your questions:

• Would you please go ahead and educate me on what you are trying to do?

  I'm acting to un-knot the situation in a systematic manner.

• Please provide the links to the ground rules.

  Ground rules are what I agree with you, and of course the body of wikipedia policy

• Will the unproductive accusations in "wikilawering" and "forum shopping" be dealt with swiftly and fairly?

  I'm asking you to not respond outside your section, so that such accusations can have no (further) ground. This is a temporary measure for your protection, and is used quite commonly for that purpose. If people continue to accuse you unjustly, it becomes easy to prove and easy to deal with.

• What about references to irrelevant essays with inflammatory names like WP:Fanatic or WP:Idiot?

  See above.

• If I am supposed to keep mum except for answering your questions, how fast my response is expected?

  Take your time.

• Why other people are commenting on the page on related and unrelated issues?

  Because it's a wiki. I do not control other people's actions, nor do I wish to.

• Why Sandy and Colin can respond to others' comments and I cannot?

  With due respect to yourself (but frankly), it's because they're (mostly) not shooting themselves in the foot.

• How quickly will you respond with your following questions?

  Probably within 24 hours, for the coming couple of days.

• You nudge me repeatedly and then disappear for several days.

  I'm not on any particular schedule. I'm a volunteer not an employee. As a general rule, if you answer quickly, I tend to respond quickly. If you don't respond and I happen to be away, there's not much I can do.

• How about contacting UnaSMith and NBauman who presented reasonable arguments against the "guideline"?

  Feel free to introduce me to them! :-)

• Are you sure you are impartial?

  So far this is pretty much routine mediation for me.

Here's some action points I need to have your word on. When editing in a consensus environment I need to be able to trust on people's word :-) :

• On WT:MEDRS, for now, please only answer questions I ask you (and only make edits I ask of you too). Directly answering others has clearly been unproductive at the moment, so it can wait a little while. This prevents people from accusing you unjustly, among other things. So far you have not followed this recommendation. May I have your word that you will do so in future please?
• I'm going to unprotect the page soon, and ask you to make some edits. Please only edit when I ask you to for now. Can I entrust this to you?
• Please contact UnaSMith and NBauman and cordially invite them to answer the 4 questions as well. Can I entrust this to you?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to all three questions. For this arbitration to succeed no incivility must be allowed. So, I hope the ground rules will be same for Sandy and Colin as for me. So far you admit to favoring them - you insist that they have the right to answer others, while I do not. This post [1] also worries me a bit. But I will humor you for now. Paul Gene (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Officially this is called an informal mediation (I'm not allowed to claim I'm arbitrating anything).

I customize ground rules or what have you on a per-person basis. Currently I'm actually leaning in your direction somewhat, to counter-balance the majority; but I can't be seen to lean too far, or others will see me as non-neutral. Sandy, Colin and others aren't silly of course, and they can tell what I'm doing, so I have to continue to reassure them that I'm just as much on their side. And that's as it should be :-). It's just a tricky balancing act to pull off.

As to why I'm asking you not to say much for a bit? Technically, I have no direct power to compel you; but I think it's a wise idea if I do most of the talking for a while, if that's ok with you. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points all around. I am silly of course, but I'll try to be patient. Be careful, lest some people will see that I am on your side. :)Paul Gene (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the spirit, Paul :) Sorry to butt in, as far as I can see Kim works in a methodical way, and the results of his work will be fair. I know you must be itching to write some responses, but I think this is the correct course of action at the moment... In the meantime, if your feeling frustrated, take a look at my recent suggestion on MEDRS, re sub article exploring the differences between different fields of science with reference to , er, references :( I 'think' it's a good idea, whether anyone else does is yet is to be seen! but I think you're ideally suited to knock up a draft of said essay? LeeVJ (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the encouragement. In real life I am busy right now with a galley of an article for a major journal in the area. There are other projects in the real life I am thinking about. WP is of lesser importance than the real life for me. Why do we have such a vehement disagreements at MEDRS? What puzzles me is that I am a natural scientist so there should not be much difference in our prospectives. Maybe because most of the peoples at MEDRS are laypeople or biologists or MDs, and nobody is actually is involved in a medical research? Paul Gene (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concentrate on that there sea-cruiser then, our real-life exploits take precident over wiki - it improves over time like a indominatable organism ( o.k. a little prod here and there helps !) I'm a comp/maths guy and as for academic accuracy, any references were checkable by anyone with the tools / brainpaower so were taken as read ( a false claim would quickly be debunked any of an army of geeks :) ), I have close friends in zoological research, these papers are ok but you can see some influence of commerce/industry/politics toward the top end of studies (i.e. commisioned studies) but still people involved are mostly honorable and dedicated. In editting the HD article I've come across so many papers - a can see a lot of them are by pharmaceuticals trying to up their shareprice by hinting at a cure or possibly a management drug which is big bucks ( expensive drug * length of time taken(15 yrs+) = £££$$$$) so I must look at these areas with varying cynicism/critisim. I also was invovled with a large number of surguries/doctors for a couple of software projects , and off the record - and seeing countless (untraceable) patient notes, they have a hell of a time after the media release most trash story about any health issue, with waves of hypochondriacs / mis-informed patients arriving. Sometimes when they've got their homework right the health articles can help, but it's the bad ones that make gps life hell, I guess WP:medicine has a fair share of GPs, but it also has coverage of all levels, different areas of science, and different positions in the food chain of corporate sponsorship. I think that's the problem ... and the strength! LeeVJ (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the mean time, Eublides made a proposal I'd like to check with you. Can you answer my question here please? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update The page has been archived, but I've maintained the existing thread. Can you answer in your section please? Thank you. --Kim Bruning (talk)

I did.[2] Please let me know if there are other questions I need (or can) answer. Paul Gene (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll see what I can do. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only have a small question for you today on WT:MEDRS. As promised, at least 1 reply per 24 hours, even if it's just a small one.

I've been busy talking with several other people today. <phew /> what a job!

It's worth it, however. As people start answering the 4 questions, things are starting to drop into place. Have you made any progress in inviting UnaSMith and NBauman? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left messages with the 4 points on their Talk pages. So far, no answer. I also asked if Eversince wants to formulate his views along the said 4 points but he is not sure if he wants to get deeper involved. I also answered your last question on the MEDRS page, see [3]. To avoid the stalemate I tried to expanded a bit on my views. Please tell me if that was inappropriate, and I will scratch my answer. Paul Gene (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're well within your limits, and you're taking your time to explain properly. :-) I couldn't ask for more! Now I'm going to have to think though. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Now where's the on button for my brain again?[reply]

+ I'll take the question by Eublides for now :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just let you talk with Colin for now and see what you two can sort out, then? It looks like you're working towards a good approach.

Do still tread carefully, and feel free to ask me to intercede if you get more people joining that particular thread than you can handle all at once, (or in fact anytime!) :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have a question for you here. Can you tell me on which point(s) you still substantially differ with Colin? (Brief summary is good)? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Also, start thinking about what edits would be needed to bring you both in-line? Perhaps a more careful wording? Or some level of clarification?[reply]

Well, I dunno, you can always trust me. And I think some of the medrs folks have just developed some bad habits is all. :-)

Could you please state your opinion and reasoning on that particular question somewhere? (here, on my talk, or on the MT:MEDRS) I am not looking for procedural reasoning, I am specifically looking for a reason why we should allow newspapers as sources for medical articles on wikipedia. (if you think we should disallow newspapers, that's fine too, I don't think we need an as extensive reasoning for that though :-P ). If you know someone else who has good reasons why using newspaper articles is a GOOD idea, please (also) invite them to the discussion.

Just to be sure (because at times you wondered how your own personal opinion could possibly matter)... for practical purposes today your own personal opinion on this topic is the only thing that matters. Alright? :-)

So if you think newspapers should be ok to use as sources, say so, and try to list convincing reasons why this must be so. That's how you start to form consensus.

On the other hand, if you think newspapers are not sources, we can move along quickly and try to find other points of contention which *do* still need discussing.

We systematically walk though all possible points of contention this way.

Then we unprotect the page, and try to find if there's more (as we'll quickly discover through the Bold Revert Discuss cycle ;-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we've gone on towards unprotecting the page. Let's see if our BRD nets catch anything. :-) Also, feel free to discuss changes. If you like, I'll make the changes for you at first. If you feel adventurous, you could also try making a single change yourself. Make a single small change at first, and then leave the page alone for half a day or longer to see what happens to it.

Try to keep the 4 questions in mind while doing so. (Before each edit, ask yourself 4 questions: 1. what do I want (this edit). 2. how can I compromise (what changes will I still accept) 3. Will others agree with this edit? 4. how can they compromise (what changes will they still accept)... sound familiar? ;-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you find the concerns reasonable (tho I wouldn't quite put it how you have as a separate existence issue per se), I am aware that's an option but I'm not sure what would resolve things (as I see them) and I'm just communicating how things seem to me and listening. Incidentally I think you have been within your rights to insist on having your and others views properly and respectfully discussed and addressed as part of the development of consensus. EverSince (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you feel it is over the line yet? If not, what do you want to do. are you around - I was musing on a 2-4 person nomination as it is/was a huge job. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, it's been nominated here. If you're around, your input would be appreciated. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bupropion metabolism.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGa^talk 01:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if you have any thoughts on the Paroxetine page. In my view, warnings about "suicide ideation" belong in a sub section and not the opening paragraph. Why is it that the risk of "suicide ideation" gets highlighted, but not the reduction in risk of actual suicide. Here is an article you may find useful: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2008/11/after_2_decade_decline_teen_su.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.150.2.55 (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul gene for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Bupropion MetabolismB.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}tothe top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Resveratrol has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Sertaline (estimated annual readership: 1,454,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Sertaline toFeatured Article status.

I see that you haven't been active for a while, but I wanted to leave you this nonetheless in recognition of the millions of readers your work continues to benefit. Thanks for all you've done here so far! I hope we'll see you back again someday. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we owe you for this, too:

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Major depressive disorder (estimated annual readership: 1,372,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Major depressive disorder toFeatured Article status.

Sorry these are coming piecemeal; we're still assembling the database. But thanks for your impressive body of work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have nominated sertraline for an FAR due to issues around usage of primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Metabolites of Bupropion.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nominationbyvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 04:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]