I'd be interested to chat with you off-channel about the recent trends at the aformentioned page (not very good since I stopped trying as actively to keep it NPOV, rather than as an ode to Lynn). If it's OK, would you email me at the address listed on my user page. All the best, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ultra, Can we keep just one tag. As Kim says {{disputed}} is enough to alert reader to disputes which can been seen on talk page. Probably a bad idea to wind up the mediation cabel. --Salix alba (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your recent edit re paracetamol not coming as a slow-release preparation - interesting points raised, but I suspect the reasoning is wrong:
re large tablet size - yes it does seem to generally come in largish tablets
Very little of any tablet tends to be the active drug, but rather base material to both hold the tablet together and give a large enough size to hold & swallow.
In addition the non-active components affect the break-up rate of tablets allowing them to be swallowed whole rather than starting to break-up in the mouth.
Paracetamol is very bitter tasting and one really does not want pure product on the tongue (consider the large soluble tablet forms that must include sweeteners).
My local pharmacy does have a version of paracetamol in small caplets (tablets but in a capsule lozenger shape), so it's not impossible to do.
re lack of slow-release versions - yes requires patients to take frequent doses, but surely the issues for slow-release paracetamol are to do with its pharmacokinetics:
Speed of absorption.
Required blood concentration to provide adequate effect
Rate of elinimination
Finally paracteamol has a low Therapeutic index (ratio of clinical useful effect to level at which proves toxic) and any variations in a person's handling of a slow release preparation risks leaving some with inadequate dosage and other at risk of paracetamol poisoniong.
The issue of accounting for different people and the low therapeutic index is not as obvious in the article as it might (its burried within all the technical discussion) - do you think a less technical mention of some of the above issues is required higher-up in the article for the 'lay' non-medical reader? David RubenTalk 17:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was wondering if we could talk in private about a few things... please email me, or set an email address in your options so I can email you. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 15:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean we should talk about Criticisms of socialism in private, but about more general issues (though I suppose CoS has tangential relevance). Discussion relating to the article will of course go in the article Talk page. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultramarine, if you disagree with my edits, I'd appreciate it if you talked it over with me first instead of heading straight to 3RR. I'm a reasonable person, as you'll see if you give me a chance. Infinity0talk 00:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Quick communications issue. You don't have your e-mail address set, so I can't send this to you privately (which would have been my preference).
In the same way as with email quoting, wikipedia discussion generally allows the splitting of comments, and answering to each section of the comment.
This is used to systematically cover every aspect of what has been said. The trick here is to maintain communication in such a way as to make sure that the entire thread can be reconstructed in place.
If you don't wish your comments to be split, then it's going to be very tricky to hold a conversation with you.
While I shall respect your wishes (and thus effectively end up not talking with you in some particular percentage of situations) if you insist, would you reconsider your stance on this matter?
I certainly allow quoting of everything I have written in comments by others. However, the original comment by me should be presented in the complete and original form before the comments by others. The comments on this by others and the quoting may of course split the original text. As every writer, I wish to preserve a record of my original argument to avoid distortion. I find it necessary to state this plainly due to may past experience on this article, where my comments have been distorted by selectively splitting and moving them relative to later comments by others, often to create an incomprehensible travesty of what I stated originally. Ultramarine 18:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the custom you propose is likely as good as many others. However, like driving on the right side of the road, or the use of the latin alphabet, or 230V 50Hz (,or TCP/IP in fact), people have picked one particular custom and stuck to it. So it's somewhat annoying to read and reply to you, due to you insisting on an alternate (In fact I get a headache, and it's one of the reasons I took a while to drop in and mediate. :-( )
People are accustomed to the current wikipedia way of answering, so -rest assured- people will be able to read your arguments clearly and without distortion when we use that custom. Conversely, to people accustomed to the wikipedia style, your custom actually appears to distort!
As stated before, if your feelings on this are particularly strong, I'm willing to compromise, though it will be somewhat more tiring for me to talk with you. :-) Kim Bruning 18:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, note that it's not currently considered ok for people to actually split and move your comments in a distorting fashion. I'm sorry to hear that people have been doing that in the past. Either way, I shall certainly watch page history carefully. Kim Bruning 18:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the problem. Pmanderson may quote and split my text however much he wants in his replies. I think that preserving the original text in another place will only help the clarity.Ultramarine 18:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this.[1] Pmanderson made a comment, I made a reply. In response, Pmanderson changed his original comment without even changing the timestamp, making my reply seem very strange. Things like this makes me very anxious to preserve my comments in their original form.Ultramarine 18:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that wasn't a one-off accident, then that's typically not permitted. You've discovered the reasons for that rule now! :-) I'll keep an eye out and make sure it doesn't happen again while I'm around. (Though note that not changing the timestamp *is* correct, since it allows us to reconstruct that his comment was made earlier.) Kim Bruning 18:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am preparing conduct RFC's against User:Commodore Sloat and User:Ryan Freisling. They have been harrassing me, including wikistalking, because I have resisted their attempts to push POV in several articles, including Plame Affair and Larry C. Johnson. They and their POV allies have just launched an unjustified attack RFC on my conduct.[2] I will eventually need someone to join me to certify both RFC's. Could you please review the situation. If you agree that their conduct is becoming a problem, could you weigh in on their talk pages or one of the article talk pages (a pre-requisite to certify a conduct RFC)? It would be appreciated. Thanks! --Mr j galt 01:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I do expect all participants I'm mediating between to engage in civil conduct. Don't let 3rd parties rile you up! If there's particular points you'd like to make, we can pull them out of page history or whatever. Worst comes to worst, we take this to e-mail (something I'm tempted to do) No worries! :) Kim Bruning 09:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh*
While I have no trouble explaining in great detail and with diffs as nescesary exactly what I have done, what I have said, why I have said it, and etc, you have made my job exceedingly difficult by picking fights with additional persons.
I apologise for failing to keep up with your behaviour. Kim Bruning 10:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Civil conduct (from Kim Bruning's talk page)[edit]
I have not made any uncivil remarks. However, I have been called a stalker. Please state exactly what you object to. Ultramarine 09:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Next to typing in ALL CAPS before, which is considered impolite, you have also not assumed good faith thus getting into an unnescesary childish match with two other people. I take it those were merely brief oversights made in the heat of the moment. Kim Bruning 09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling one's eyes can express exasperation or condescension . They inserted this picture and you accuse only me? Ultramarine 09:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was accused of being a stalker and you replied "Hehehe, I think ultramarine was watching this page already, so unfortunately, no stalker"? I also see discussions between you and Pmanderson on this page and his, and also direct intervention on his request without informing me or giving me a chance to reply. Unfortunately, I can longer consider you an appropriate mediator.Ultramarine 10:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
