User talk:Seppi333/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Presentation

Signaling cascade in the nucleus accumbens that results in psychostimulant addiction

Note: colored text contains article links.

Nuclear pore

Nuclear membrane

Plasma membrane

Ca_v1.2

NMDAR

AMPAR

DRD1

DRD5

DRD2

DRD3

DRD4

G_s

G_i/o

AC

cAMP

cAMP

PKA

CaM

CaMKII

DARPP-32

PP1

PP2B

CREB

ΔFosB

JunD

c-Fos

SIRT1

HDAC1

This diagram depicts the signaling events in the brain's reward center that are induced by chronic high-dose exposure to psychostimulants that increase the concentration of synaptic dopamine, like amphetamine, methamphetamine, and phenethylamine. Following presynaptic dopamine and glutamate co-release by such psychostimulants, postsynaptic receptors for these neurotransmitters trigger internal signaling events through a cAMP-dependent pathway and a calcium-dependent pathway that ultimately result in increased CREB phosphorylation. Phosphorylated CREB increases levels of ΔFosB, which in turn represses the c-Fos gene with the help of corepressors; c-Fos repression acts as a molecular switch that enables the accumulation of ΔFosB in the neuron. A highly stable (phosphorylated) form of ΔFosB, one that persists in neurons for 1–2 months, slowly accumulates following repeated high-dose exposure to stimulants through this process. ΔFosB functions as "one of the master control proteins" that produces addiction-related structural changes in the brain, and upon sufficient accumulation, with the help of its downstream targets (e.g., nuclear factor kappa B), it induces an addictive state.

Seppi333,

May I use your material (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Psychostimulant_addiction) in a presentation to a college of pharmacy? If so how would you like for me to attribute credit to you? I'll be making alterations to focus the material on my presentation topic.

(I'm a wikipedia newb...)

Cicatrix768 Cicatrix768 (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cicatrix, that's fine with me. You can credit me as either "Joseph Mickel" (my real name) or my Wikipedia username "user:Seppi333". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're interested in actively improving this figure any longer. However, do you feel that the bubble labelled cAMP should be adenylyl cyclase (AC)? Going into even greater detail would obviously require a lot more work.

Gi and Gs inhibit adenylyl cyclase. adenylyl cyclase produces cAMP which activates PKA.

Regardless, thank you very much for permission.

Cicatrix768 (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cicatrix768: I'm always open to revising any figures that I've drawn with the goal of improving them. The primary diagram from KEGG Pathway which mine is based upon includes the GPCR interactions with AC via the linked G proteins and then shows cAMP production via AC. I originally decided to just forego that part for simplicity; however, it probably would be more accurate if I added that to the diagram.

So, I'll replace the current cAMP oval with one of the greenish-yellow gene product boxes containing the abbreviation "AC" and link that abbreviation to the adenylate cyclase article; the incoming activation/interaction and inhibition connections from the 2 G proteins won't need to be changed since they're correct if either AC or cAMP is placed there. As for the connections from AC, I'll simply re-add the cAMP oval next to the AC box, and then connect AC → cAMP → PKA with the red activation/interaction arrows, analogous to how it's shown in the KEGG Pathway diagram.

If these proposed changes are consistent with what you had in mind, I'll revise the diagram accordingly within the next day or two. I might make a few additional revisions for accuracy though, such as position the AC box on the plasma membrane itself – since that's where AC is localized – instead of inside the neuron where the cAMP oval is currently located. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Boghog: You gave me a lot of feedback when I was creating this diagram, so I was wondering what you thought about this. How do you feel about this proposed revision? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that AC should be inserted between the two G proteins and cAMP. The only down side is that it make the figure more complicated, but accuracy should take precedence. Boghog (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cicatrix768 and Boghog: I've updated the image file (File:ΔFosB.svg) and Template:Psychostimulant addiction so that adenylate cyclase is included in the pathway (see the image in this section). I decided not to put AC on the plasma membrane since it would involve moving way too much stuff around. The screenshot file for off-wiki use - File:Annotated ΔFosB.svg screenshot.png - has also been updated to reflect this.
If either of you have any other ideas/suggestions for improving it, feel free to let me know. It took me only 20 minutes to complete this update. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

References for this section

A better TOC idea?

Has anyone proposed a multiple column TOC option? You know how damn much white space growing TOCs create; the horizontal layout can fix this dead space but is terrible to use. (I believe that you've been positioning the addiction glossary to compensate, in part.) What are your thoughts on multi-column TOCs? — βox73 (৳alk) 13:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Box73: In articles where the TOC is placed in the lead section, I typically align it so that it appears where an infobox would normally appear. There are alternative TOC alignment options (e.g., see WP:TOC), but those are seldom used in normal articles. When TOCs become too large, it's usually best to use {{TOC limit}} or merge subsections within an article into their parent headings. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, amphetamine has been using the TOC limit template for around 3 years to limit its size. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

{{TOC limit|2}} is often still too excessive, merging subsections to serve the TOC is troubling, and other layouts (I've seen) don't work for typical articles. (I'm ignorant of {{tlx...}} parameters helping.) I'd be more inclined to move subsections to a third level than merging. This white space problem occurs for example in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and addiction, even euphoria. It doesn't seem to occur in amphetamine because of the long infobox, although dead space occurs sandwiched between the two. I'm not trying to argue; I just see a better unexplored solution. But thank you for the feedback.

Your knowledge and use of extended wiki markup code is impressive.

• The addiction glossary is easier to read with cell lines as displayed in amphetamine.
• I would ask you to consider changing the background color of the top caption to FFCC66, which increases contrast with the text while retaining strong contrast with the white background.
• You might reconsider whether addiction and dependence in the table's caption need be wikilinked since the blue text is harder to read on a colored background, and those words are linked immediately below.
• Last, the bottom section of the operant conditioning diagram seems like it should be cut off. It's too small, poorly laid out and cut off, a larger thumbnail of the diagram could be displayed. Terms are defined in the diagram anyway. Thoughts? (I made a revised version in svg but the Wikimedia png didn't convert well.) — βox73 (৳alk) 07:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. The main problem with converting the glossary to a wikitable, which is used when the template is collapsed and widened, is that it expands the size of the text. At its current size, that would create a lot of unnecessary line breaks (e.g., compare [1] to [2]).

I've removed the links in the glossary title. {{Addiction glossary}} is based upon {{Transcription factor glossary}} and similar glossaries, so I'll need to change the header color in several templates when I implement it.

I've revised the svg image to fix the text rendering issues. IMO, the svg image is better than the png one. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to overcome the confusion... On amphetamine it displays as a wikitable but not elsewhere? {{midsize|}} or similar could be used for every line if one desired. But no issue there. My real concern was coaxing you to change the deep gold to FFCC66. I had an attack of blurry eyes, tried different colors and this one clicked. Thx re caption links.

I didn't do shapes because that defeated the purpose of being readable electronically, though the pngs produced were horrible. Going with shapes works and produces good pngs. I left a little white space to keep it text from touching the outline margin but lets see how this works. Thank you for fixing it. — βox73 (৳alk) 22:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Box73: {{Addiction glossary}} has a |class= parameter for setting the table class; in the amphetamine article, this parameter is set to "wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed". The default class parameter for the addiction glossary is "toccolours", which is not a wikitable class. When using the "toccolours" class parameter, the rows within a table are not partitioned by table cells like they are when using a wikitable class.

I don't mind changing the header color to #FFCC66, but I'd like to do this simultaneously in the other glossaries. I need to ask Boghog about what other glossaries use the current orange header color and see if he's okay with me making the change. There are articles where multiple glossaries are transcluded (e.g., addiction has both the addiction glossary and transcription factor glossary), so I'd like to keep the glossary formatting consistent. In the future, I suppose it might be worthwhile to make a standardized glossary template shell for creating topic-specific glossaries (analogous to how topic-specific infoboxes, like template:drugbox, call template:infobox to create topical infoboxes) to help maintain uniformity in the formatting of templated glossaries. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit: I just realized that "toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" is an accepted class parameter which collapses the glossary template analogous to "wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed", but with the same formatting of the expanded glossary. I'm using this collapsed class parameter for now in articles where the collapsed wikitable formatting was previously used to collapse one of these glossaries. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Boghog: are you okay with me changing the transcription factor glossary's header background color to #FFCC66, as proposed above for the addiction glossary? #FFCC66 is a lighter orange color relative to the current header color, and I agree with Box73 that changing the background color accordingly increases the readability of the header text. Also, are there any other glossaries that use the current formatting of {{Addiction glossary}} and {{Transcription factor glossary}}? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I generally am not too picky when it comes to colors. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made the change in both templates. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Auto Blocked?

Are you still blocked? According to Special:BlockList, you are not. Let me know. I am watching this page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Thanks! That addressed the problem. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

GREAT! Please be aware that I will be revoking this once the IP block expires. Also I suggest you let your Russian friends know that if they ever do anything like that again that they had better start checking their tea with a geiger counter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Haha. Will do. I'm pretty annoyed with my roommate right now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Mail Call

Check your email. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I don't appear to have received anything. I did get an email notifying me that you posted this message on my talk page though, hehe. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Argh. I hate tech. I will try again... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Sent again. I don't think there is much to reply to but I wanted you to be aware of the situation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to be really pissed off if the checkuser was Bbb23. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: If you think there's even a shadow of a doubt that I'm not the same editor as Nickusa1, you need to indefinitely hard block my IP because I think there's a pretty high likelihood that my roommate will do something stupid again after the block expires. This issue will probably come up again in the future because he's still aggravated by the existence of that article and, after speaking to him about how his actions violated WP:TPG and about the alleged WP:NPOV issues with the article, he doesn't seem to care to take the time to understand how Wikipedia works and go through the WP:NPOV/Noticeboard. I've been around long enough to know that simply deleting shit just because one doesn't like it is a terribly ineffective way to make a binding deletion of article content. If the article in question truly was not written in a neutral point of view (which I don't think is the case after looking at it), I'd go to the NPOV noticeboard or examine whether the cited sources were suitable per WP:RS, not delete the article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocking IPs is almost never done but I may consider extending the block to a year. I will have to discuss this with some other admins to get an idea of what the best course of action is. This is not a time sensitive issue since the IP block will not expire for another month. Have you contacted QD? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm well aware of how seldom indefinitely blocking an IP is done in practice, but that's due to the fact that indefinitely blocking an IP involves uncertainty about who is actually being blocked. No one assigned to this IP besides me is an active Wikipedia editor or even interested in constructively editing Wikipedia. Blocking my IP address until such time that I move to another physical location will guarantee that the only person editing from my home network is me and not my vandal roommate. Since I probably won't be living where I am in a year, that would probably be a sufficient block duration to resolve this problem. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I left him her a message here: User talk:DeltaQuad#Sockpuppetry. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I posted a note there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Reward system

Hello:

I am an undergraduate student at LSE. Psychology is my optional course. Enriching a psychological entry on Wikipedia is one of our assessment. Reward system is the entry allocated to me. We have to write 750-1000 words in addition to the original piece. I am totally a new hand to Wikipedia. If I do something not very good, please feel free to give me your advice! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by XUY49 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@XUY49: Hey again. Normally I'd revert content additions to an article that don't cite appropriate sources; however, since you're editing for a class and being graded on what you write, I'll work on adding appropriate citations to the text that you wrote so that it can remain in the article as is or with slight modification. I expect to make minor revisions to a few of the sentences that you wrote when I work on adding appropriate citations. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Precious two years!

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Addiction#Reward disorder or reinforcement disorder

Please check out my comment.--Penbat (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

You're a fine editor but I take issue with the abrasive tone of your edit summaries regardless of their validity. But this went further. I don't want interact with you. I can't, at least presently. — βox73 (৳alk) 01:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Please consider the language you're using Seppi; describing the work of others as "shit", "retarded", or "dumb" is not in the slightest bit helpful. You do great work here, don't let that be tarnished by attacks at your fellow editors; we're all here to build an encyclopedia. And edit summaries are not for discussion - use the talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: I'll make an effort to curb my frustration in discussions with Box73 in the future. Going forward, more than likely I'll just seek assistance from WT:MED instead of engage him directly since I feel like I'm at an impasse in regard to getting him to cite reliable sources for medical statements. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

hi

Seppi, would you like me to post this GA nom,beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid to do Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine so you can get the ball rolling, let me know(I'm sure it'll pass easily)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ozzie. Yeah, I'd really appreciate it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Reinforcement#Applications nudge

Please can you do a one or two paragraph subsection on Addiction here Reinforcement#Applications thanks. I've done a placeholder inspired by you last edit :-) Reinforcement#Addiction --Penbat (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Penbat: Sure. Sorry for the delay. I know of three decent sources that cover this, so I'll probably start from there. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Penbat: How does it look – Reinforcement#Addiction and dependence? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Penbat: I'm not 100% certain that I did a good job of describing that since I completely glossed over the involvement of classical/pavlovian conditioning in that process, but I think it's still accurate as written. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Reflist
References

It is definately good enough for now. Thanks. Hopefuly you will get time to develop it further at some point.--Penbat (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 03:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the thanks Seppi --Iztwoz (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

NP, you deserve the credit. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Human brain

Thanks for having a look at the article and making some changes, Seppi333. We're aiming to nominate for GA at some point in the medium term.

It's been quite hard given the extensive role of the human brain to balance accuracy, prose length, comprehensiveness and readability. If you haven't had a look through the whole article I'd be quite grateful if you could skim along to make sure there's nothing unusual about it, given you're one of the few editors around who may have an informed view about it. There's a couple of editors (including one now blocked from editing it) so we can't speak to all the edits, and I plan on editing to finish up the modern history and clinical significance sections tonight... but for an article like this, more eyes will be better

Hope that you're well, --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey LT. Sure, I'll take a look tomorrow. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much Seppi333, also I and other editors on slow connections would be very grateful if you could archive some content, your talk page takes a very long time to load :)...! --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@LT910001: Alright, I'm going to start looking at it now. Out of curiosity, how long does it take you to load my talk page on your connection? Also, how does the load time for my talk page compare to the load time for the human brain or amphetamine articles? Amphetamine is one of the few pages on Wikipedia that doesn't load immediately on my connection (i.e., it takes 1–2 seconds since it's about 208 kB ≈ 8x the current size of this page). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I look forward to your comments. Honestly, when using my phone it was pretty awful. 1-2 minutes and it didn't always load. Lucky I don't have to rely on it :P. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@LT910001: I removed the transclusion of my talk archive since the size of that page is 360kB. My talk page should be easier to load now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

:) --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Template editor granted

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! Alex Shih^Talk 12:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Pavlovian-instrumental transfer

On 12 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pavlovian-instrumental transfer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a classically conditioned stimulus can affect operant behavior and motivation through Pavlovian-instrumental transfer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pavlovian-instrumental transfer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pavlovian-instrumental transfer), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Heroin addiction and/or physical dependence

Thanks for your help! :3 2601:19A:4003:50:708B:26A:171F:F407 (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Malinaccier (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Downstream effects of DA

I was wondering what you think about elaborating more about the effects of DA signalling on downstream targets such as the beta subunits of GABA, trafficking of GluA1/GluN2B, and mTOR signalling. I dont see much of that in the dopamine or dopamine receptor articles, and was wondering if you had any thoughts about where these additions would go if they were significant enough. Im considering adding a lot of it to the nucleus accumbens article, since quite a lot of this research bas focused in signalling in NAcc MSNs.Petergstrom (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It really depends on the context of the illustration (e.g., is it specific to the nucleus accumbens and/or pathological conditions, or does it occur under physiological conditions in striatal MSNs?).

From personal experience, I can tell you it takes a lot of work to draw a detailed signal transduction diagram if the pathway is complicated. If you want to illustrate a single pathway and not a series of them (e.g., something like signaling through the D1 receptor through PKA leading to CREB phosphorylation), I'd suggest just writing it in the article text itself as opposed to drawing it; a signaling cascade like that isn't particularly difficult for a reader to follow (case in point: we have a whole article on the cAMP-dependent pathway which doesn't include any diagrams). The only reason that I felt it necessary to actually draw {{psychostimulant addiction}} is that it involved 2 signaling pathways that converge at ΔFosB CREB and DARPP32 and involve biological cross-talk at DARPP-32; describing that clearly in the article text would be very difficult and hard to follow IMO.

Anyway, I'm not sure how dopamine receptors signal to those proteins that you mentioned, but if those pathways involve a single modified signaling pathway via G protein-coupled receptor heterodimers - examples of which include the D2-TAAR1 heterodimer or CB1-OX1 heterodimer (see the 2nd paragraph) - or via receptor transactivation, it would probably be simpler to just describe the pathway in the article text. It may be harder to describe in writing if what you're referring to involves multiple signaling pathways though.

Sorry if my explanation was a bit complicated. If you can show me a diagram of the pathways you're referring to, I'd be able to advise you better. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This is kind of random, but I just came across this figure and thought of this thread. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

We stick with secondary source generally. I am not supportive of filling articles full of case reports. IMO that is clutter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: It is literally two references. Two. ^[1][2]. That doesn't seem very cluttering to me. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The details are in the review article. Therefore those two are not needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Changing Adderall's name to Mixed Amphetamine Salts

Hey,

I think it's time that we try to follow through on the page rename from Adderall to Mixed Amphetamine Salts that was recently discussed on Talk:Amphetamine (specifically at Talk:Amphetamine/Archive 7#Mydayis). Box73 agreed when you asked him about his opinion on it and the only glimmer of opposition was from an IP editor that did not seem to be acquainted with the topic and did not further participate in the discussion after their initial comment.

I have created a draft article in my userspace with my proposed edits to Adderall in it that would sufficiently expand the scope of the article to include the other two MAS products and take the focus away from Adderall specifically and change it to the broader scope of mixed amphetamine salts. It's accessible at User:Garzfoth/Draft:Mixed Amphetamine Salts. While some additional work needs to be done to more clearly explain the differences between equivalent mixtures of amphetamine bases and actual mixtures of amphetamine salts, my recent re-read of FDA application # 208147Orig1s000 for Dyanvel made it clear to me that it is indeed completely appropriate to categorize the salts and the equivalent mixtures of bases under the same article/name, and I made enough changes to hopefully communicate the basics without being misleading (difficult to do in this case).

I am a bit uncertain about how exactly the process to proceed would work. It seems that I would need to follow the process in Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves, but I wanted to run this by you before starting anything so I could get your feedback on the proposed edits in my draft first, and I'm not certain about some of the particularities of moving this page (the problem is mainly that I don't know if it'd be better to make the edits prepared on User:Garzfoth/Draft:Mixed Amphetamine Salts when I request the move, or if I should wait until the move is approved even though the edits and the move should really go hand-in-hand — but I am also not sure if I need to reiterate all of my arguments in a move request, or if I can just briefly summarize them and link to the past two places where I went into more detail - I don't want to end up with a 35,000–45,000 char request that has to be mostly collapsed, which is approximately what it'd end up being if I actually rehashed all of my arguments within the request in full detail and included all those refs I dug up, as well as the new ones I now have...any advice on that?). Garzfoth (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Garzfoth: For controversial moves (e.g., moving the Adderall article), the process initially involves having a move discussion (via WP:RM) and, if a consensus is reached to move the article, the article is moved and copyedited accordingly to reflect the new page title. I don't think there's much point in working on a draft because it's entirely possible that there won't be a consensus to move the article.

Also, Adzenys XR-ODT and Dyanavel XR contain the amphetamine free base, not the 4 amphetamine salts in Adderall and Mydayis, so they're not actually "mixed salts"; those 2 drugs just contain roughly the same enantiomeric ratio (3:1 and 3.2:1, respectively) as the "mixed amphetamine salts" formulations (their enantiomeric ratio is 3:1 if measured as salts and 3.2:1 if measured as the amphetamine free base). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I adjusted the draft to refocus it solely on the literal salt products — you're right, the others may be based on Adderall and designed for functional equivalence, but they're not literally mixed amphetamine salts as the term is used, so shoehorning them into the article wouldn't be correct despite the linkage. I'll probably start a move request via WP:RM#CM soon, as I think consensus may be more realistic now that Mydayis has been fully formally launched and an even stronger and clearer precedent for the name exists than in the past. I expect some of the same tired old arguments will be trotted out again against it like they almost always are when renaming is discussed, but the copious use of the term mixed amphetamine salts in the Mydayis product monograph combined with the different marketing name and the use of the term in Adzenys/Dyanavel FDA material has nullified quite a few of the arguments used in the past. It does seem that I'll have to rehash more of my arguments when requesting the move, and keep it short unless this template allows line breaks or br tags, so that'll need to be written... Thank you for your help. Garzfoth (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Your waffles are indeed tasty!

Thank you for the excellent work at Template talk:Tryptophan metabolism by human microbiota - you've convinced me of the value of annotated diagrams! Slashme (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Slashme: Glad to have helped. They're a lot more of a pain in the ass to create than regular diagrams with image text, but I think they provide much more utility to readers and editors on other wikis.

Anyway, I'm not sure if you noticed, but I cropped the right side of the image in the annotated diagram in Template talk:Tryptophan metabolism by human microbiota/af:Template:Triptofaanmetabolisme deur menslike mikrobiota yesterday to see how it looks. If you want to uncrop it in the af:Template:Triptofaanmetabolisme deur menslike mikrobiota image, just change the | wydte = 580 parameter to | wydte = 600.

The width and height parameters in {{Annotated image 4}} specify the width and height of the thumbnail for the image; the "image-width" parameter specifies the width of the image (the image's height is automatically scaled based upon that value and its aspect ratio). The reason there's two width parameters is to allow you to crop or expand the area around the top/bottom/left/right sides of any image; using the "image-top", "image-left", "image-width", "width", and "height" parameters together lets you crop/expand images like that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that looks fine, thanks! --Slashme (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. You are encouraged to change

[[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) → Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)

to

[[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color: #32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color: Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) → Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)

That's my 2¢.—Anomalocaris (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: That's my 2¢ – LOL. Anyway, I've made the changes you've indicated. Thanks for letting me know. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Anomalocaris (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Seppi333. I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:47, 21 November 2017‎ (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I'm curious as to what I did that motivated you invite me to become a page patroller. Also, I figured I should let you know that the {{NPR invite}} template needs to be substituted (i.e., use {{subst:NPR invite}} instead of {{NPR invite}}); otherwise, it doesn't add your signature. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder about the template. I found you down at The Wikipedia:Database_reports/Editors_eligible_for_Autopatrol_privilege, then checked out your talk page. Luckily AnomieBOT has my back on the templates... :D — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Seppi333. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Mast cell

Hello Seppi333,

Please could you explain why my edit was wrong/bad and why you reverted it in this edit? Thank you! --Treetear (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

My bad, I've restored your edit. I must've been looking at an outdated edit history window because I was attempting to revert the edit that you reverted prior to that edit. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your quick response! No worries, I was genuinely curious about the reason: I was interested in learning what I could improve for next time, and you seem very knowledgeable. It happens to all of us - thanks for explaining! And finally, thank you for your many and high quality contributions! Feel free to remove our little chat here since it kinda clutters your otherwise perfect wall :) --Treetear (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tom (LT) -- Tom (LT) (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you please substantiate your "Wikilinks should not be placed inside a reference quote" assertion?

Hi there! In your revert of my edit of Transactivation you commented that "Wikilinks should not be placed inside a reference quote". Could you please substantiate that? DadaNeem (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@DadaNeem: A quotation reflects an exact replication of the text of a source. The only instance where it would be appropriate to place a link in a quote is if the link were included in the source itself. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand that where there is doubt about the intention of the quoted. Is there any doubt in this technical quote? DadaNeem (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@DadaNeem: If you really want to add those wikilinks to the article, just summarize the quote in the article text and add the links to your summary of the quote. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

LRT inconsistencies

Hi. You recently changed the LRT page by switching the numerator and denominator in the definition of LR. As I understand it (I am not an expert) it occurs both ways in the literature, so either way is OK, but now there are inconsistencies, I believe, with other parts of the article. e.g.: in the 'Simple hypotheses' section: 'In the form stated here, the likelihood ratio is small if the alternative model is better than the null model.', and in the 'Interpretation' section: 'The likelihood ratio test rejects the null hypothesis if the value of this statistic is too small.', and 'The numerator corresponds to the likelihood of an observed outcome under the null hypothesis. The denominator ...'. And maybe there are other inconsistencies. I don't know whether is would be better to revert to null model likelihood in numerator, or fix the statements inconsistent with your version. Perhaps you could do one or the other. Thanks. tom fisher-york (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like I was confused about who did the latest revision. I'll put this on the article's talk page as I should have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomfy (talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tomfy: Can you link to a diff? I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm assuming you're confusing me with the IP editor who made this edit. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Seppi333, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Seppi333, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks James. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A blessed feast to you and yours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you have a good Christmas/New Years! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid

The article Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tom (LT) -- Tom (LT) (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Main section

Hi Seppi333, here is the hatnote from Template:Main section. Credit to Mclay1 who originally wrote this. {{Hatnote|The main section for this topic is on the page [[{{{1}}}]], in the section [[{{{1}}}#{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]].}}

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Thanks! Much appreciated. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Massanutten Military Academy Shoulder Loop Insignia.jpg

Actually I am his father, and I don't know the details of where the insignia were worn. Feel free to adjust

ed

Ecragg (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanks for letting me know. I'll look into it when I get a chance. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

NACC

Hey Seppi333, I just wanted to notify you as to an edit on the nucleus accumbens page I just made. From what was already written in the function section, it seemed as if the page was suggesting that increased excitability in NAcc MSNs is responsible for reward, so I changed the wording a bit, along with adding reviews of how reduced excitability is the predominant response in the NAcc.Petergstrom (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response; I've been really busy off-wiki. Sounds good; I'll take a look in a bit. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

hi

can you helpUser talk:Doc James#apparently not?(update... whenever you have time, just realized you've been out for 2 weeks)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Looks like that thread was archived in the meantime. I talked to Doc James about doing that, but I'd still need the scripts for it to start. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Precious three years!

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid, "a natural product in humans which is used as a medical food ingredient and dietary supplement; it has medical and athletic performance-enhancing applications for preventing/reversing muscle wasting and improving body composition respectively"! - I'd have difficulties to even remember the name, and appreciate highly what you did to make us understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: You're welcome! I hope you liked the article; it took a long time to comprehensively research and write an FA-quality article on a compound like that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Chromium deficiency - talk

I have created new content about chromium dietary supplements. Because I have a declared COI, I placed it as New section in Chromium deficiency Talk. I am asking you and several other editors with an interest in nutrition/supplements to look at it and comment, perhaps making changes and/or stating that it is appropriate to move into the article, or not. A separate question is whether it belongs in Chromium deficiency, Chromium, or both. Thank you for the consideration. David notMD (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Will take a look soon.  Done Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Nootropic

Hello Seppi333. You've been warned per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. If either of you reverts again at Nootropic without getting a prior consensus in your favor on the talk page that person may be blocked. This shouldn't discourage you from active participation on Talk. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thank you for following up on my post at the noticeboard. I created a new section on the talk page and requested feedback from 3 WikiProjects regarding this content at Talk:Nootropic#Coverage of CNS stimulants; hopefully a consensus for the recent or original revision will be reached sometime in the near future. On an unrelated note, I'm interested in knowing why Zefr is not required to self-revert his 4th edit revert today. I was under the impression that this was a requirement of WP:3RR, per the last paragraph. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Seppi333, you do get credit for opening up a proper discussion at the article talk page. However, the question you are posing is very complex. Maybe you could add a bit more motivation at the top of the proposal as to what people have been disagreeing about up til now. Also, if you want to recruit general editors, see WP:RFC for how to advertise it more widely. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm familiar with RFCs since I've done a few before. The only reason I didn't do one this time is that it's a technical subject matter (i.e., neuropsychopharmacology) and I think it's more valuable to get input from individuals who are familiar with the drugs in question, their biomolecular targets, and/or the cognitive processes the sources say they affect, which basically just means WT:MED/WT:PHARM/WT:NEURO. In any event, the current disagreement is literally just the differences between the versions of that section shown on the talk page. I've been fine with most of Zefr's edits in the article once he discussed them with me, but the ones he made in that section seem entirely at odds with WP:V and WP:NPOV to me. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Nagajoshi

My draft text did not assert that Nagajoshi synthesized amphetamine. Instead, he purifed and characterized ephedrine from Ephedra. He then devised a synthesis for *ephedrine.* (not amphetamine.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 19:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware. That wasn't really the issue I was referring to though; the issue was that ephedrine is used in the synthesis of methamphetamine, not amphetamine. The only reason I moved the statements about ephedrine to this article is that they aren't particularly relevant for the amphetamine article. In the context of chemical synthesis, ephedrine is much more notable in relation to methamphetamine than amphetamine. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Automated scripts

Moved to User talk:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates

7th Annual Los Angeles Wiknic

It's the 7th Annual Los Angeles Wiknic!

Sunday, September 30, 11:00-4:00 PM
Pan Pacific Park, 7600 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90036
Hang out. Consume crowd-sourced BBQ! Bask in the glory of late September in Los Angeles (and the glory
of our new user group, Wikimedians of Los Angeles).
RSVP (and volunteer) here.
We hope to see you there! JSFarman (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Join our Facebook group, or follow us on Twitter!

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

No sci-hub links allowed

Just a heads-up, sci-hub is blacklisted across the wikipedia realm. Please don't give links to it (actual *links* won't be possible, and <nowiki> wrappers could give the appearance that you are trying to circumvent that policy). The links don't always work anyway (as sci-hub keeps changing sites). But instead, {{DOI}} can be used as a valid link. And if you like using sci-hub, the doi is apparently sufficient to find an article on it. I and others are gradually removing existing existing links to prevent others from having difficulty with it. DMacks (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Chembox assistance

Howdy! Based on some of the templates you have recently edited, I'm hoping you might be interested in helping me out with a project. I'm working on building a {{Infobox}} based replacement for {{Chembox}}. I have a working proof of concept at {{Infobox chemical}}. Looking for some expert opinions and feedback. If you have any interest, please let me know. Feel free to disregard this message. :-) (P.S. Happy thanksgiving if you are in the USA!) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

INN stereochem.

To your edit summary: no, it does not imply racemate. Read e.g. this. (By the way, I won't call you moron for re-enabling disputed image, it would be rude). Regards, —Mykhal (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

Merry Cristmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Seppi333, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Nicotine and addiction

Hello, Seppi333. I promised you I'd reply to your extensive post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 119. I'm afraid it's taken me a week and a half and the section has been archived. I'm replying on your talk page, but please feel free to move the content elsewhere if you prefer (or of course just delete it).

You are correct to say that I know little about addiction. Thank you for the detailed and helpful reply; it has been very useful to me in improving my understanding. I've read all the articles you linked to, and quite a few directly or indirectly linked off of them, and some of the sources for them and related sources. I think I now have a somewhat better understanding; not your knowledge or perspective, but some useful concepts, like the wanting/liking distinction (the terminology here is a bit confusing; "hedonia", for instance, seems to be used to refer to a)just the the liking and b)both the liking and the wanting together; the relationship between these and the dopamine and opoid systems is also not yet clear to me). The coverage of the difference between dependence and addiction is also much clearer in addiction than nicotine dependence. I've taken notes, and once I think I understand the concepts well enough, I'll try and clarify the bits that confused me when first reading them. I've been focussing on some of the studies around natural rewards, to start on more familiar ground. I hope you will continue to correct me if you see problems with my edits.

You are certainly better acquainted with your beliefs and knowledge than I, and I was not trying to tell you about either. My apologies for failing to make this clear. I didn't know of studies on multigenerational cognitive effects of nicotine; are you referring to this paper (with an impressively dense COI statement)? I was writing on COIs, and COIs in research papers, and you can probably guess the tie. I've written a fair bit in nicotine marketing, which sheds an interesting side light on pathways of addiction (I've also been arguing with editors who are Phillip Morris employees, which I fear has affected how I've been interacting with other editors).

When thinking of the marginal cognitive benefits of psychostimulants, I was rather going by adrenaline, which I knew to be conditional in its cognitive effects (which presumably have survival value). I'd never come across the idea of taking nicotine to enhance cognition before reading it in the nicotine article. I'll have to read some more on the subject. HLHJ (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. That was the main paper supporting evidence of that, yes.

AFAIK, adrenaline isn’t a cognitive enhancer (I’m aware of a correlation between peripheral adrenaline, cortisol, and flashbulb memories, but that’s not particularly reflective upon adrenaline-induced memory enhancement; rather, it likely modulates memory via glucocorticoids); there are so few adrenaline neurons in the brain that it’s seldom even considered a neurotransmitter. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I think I've read something along the lines of it enhancing learning of simple stuff, like associations, but making it harder to learn more complex and nuanced ideas, with effects from some other factors like duration, but that was over a decade ago and a quick search finds nothing much (this on rats). And I suppose its physiological effects could have indirect knock-on effects, but I'm just supposing. I found an interesting if odd paper on liking and wanting which simply asked people to rate wants and likes under assorted conditions (addicted or not, having taken methylphenidate to boost dopamine levels or a placebo).[3] Apparently the subjects usually liked things more than they wanted them, but the methylphenidate decreased that tendency. HLHJ (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Readability of medical physiology articles.

Moved to WT:PHARM

 – Tom (LT) (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Norepinephrine/levartenol

Hi Seppi, I'm not sure I agree with your revert here. I was not familiar with the term myself, but looking it up, it has seen substantial use in the literature. Also levarterenol redirects to norepinephrine, so the term really ought to appear in the article somewhere. Looie496 (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Looie496: they’re not actually synonymous since it refers to a specific stereoisomer: [4]. That’s an alternate name for levo-norepinephrine. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Beta-Hydroxy_beta-methylbutyric_acid

Why did you remove my copyedit of the HMB introduction? Everything I removed from the intro is repeated word for word in the article body, and shorter introductions are what I’m accustomed to seeing on Wikipedia. What makes the HMB article different? Dogshu (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beta-Hydroxy_beta-methylbutyric_acid&oldid=856827744

I saw you also brought this up at Talk:Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Long and repetitive introduction; I've replied there. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Addiction

Hello Seppi - can i ask you to reconsider your recent change of deltaFosB to use of Greek letter - (symbol), it is unreadable to any reader without the knowledge of the symbol - and is unsearchable on the page. if i make a change - feel free to revert. best --Iztwoz (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Iztwoz: no problem; actually, I think it's a marked improvement to write it as "DeltaFosB (ΔFosB)" like you did on its first use in an article, with subsequent uses of the term written as ΔFosB. That said, when the Δ in ΔFosB is written in English, it should always be written as DeltaFosB regardless of where it appears in a sentence; this is because the Greek letter Δ is a capital delta and, in the context of alternative splicing of genes, is used to indicate a truncated splice variant of the corresponding gene (i.e., ΔFosB → a particular truncated variant of the FosB protein; Δ2ΔFosB → a further truncated variant of the ΔFosB and full-length FosB proteins). The lower-case Greek delta – written as δ – is never used to indicate truncation. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the welcome explanation! --Iztwoz (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Comprehensive open release of fully identifiable medical data and biomedical hackathons

Moved to WT:MED § Comprehensive open release of fully identifiable medical data and biomedical hackathons

 – Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Moved to WT:MED to centralize the discussion – Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seppi - I'm so sorry to have missed the post you made at WT:MED/Archive_124. I wanted to just add a quick note here that I think something like what you're talking about could very well be published through WikiJMed. There are some editors at WikiJSci (especially User:Jacknunn (link) who could advise on considerations and format, and help out in gathering suitable peer reviewers. Depending on exactly what description and analyses are being done, it could be a series of small publications, or a single publication that goes through multiple versions as new parts are added (versioning like a textbook, or extending with addenda). Let me know if you're still interested in the idea. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 07:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC) @Evolution and evolvability: Hey there; sorry about the late reply. I haven't been active on WP much lately due to a loss of interest in editing; subsequent to the discussions at WT:MOSMED and elsewhere, I don't really feel like my work here has much of an impact. Anyway, I'm still open to the idea. I spoke to my brother about it; I'm going to speak to SVAI's founder over the phone and sell the idea to him sometime this week. I'm fairly confident that he'll be amenable to the idea of working with WJM as a publisher of articles related to the hackathons they host for a couple of reasons, but the main ones are that WJM is an open access journal (NB: SVAI is strongly pro-open knowledge and open-data) and, by comparison to their current journal partner, has much lower publication costs (i.e., no costs with WJM vs $250–1000 per article with their current publisher, depending on the length); hence, they don't have to sponsor the publication fees for their attendees if they work with WJM as their publisher. That said, I'd like to be able to offer an objective comparison when I talk to him, so what would you say are the other benefits and drawbacks of publishing primary research articles in WJM vs this journal (F1000 research)? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)