User talk:Anypodetos/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Levofloxacin

Appreciate it if you can take a look - The regulatory section needs to be cleaned up still but I think the Intro, Medical Uses, Adverse Effects, and Pharmacokinetics sections are about where I think they should be.

May be a shit storm coming from my rewrite of the Adverse Events section if any of those engaged in litigation against JNJ are still hanging about. The Cipro rewrite hasn't been challenged, but I think that litigation was settled some time ago.

Many Thanks 98.155.21.76 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do come weekend if I find the time. Thanks for telling me. Happy editing, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I like the article now (apart from the sections History and Society and culture, which are still a bit of a mess). I haven't checked yet whether the Side effects and Interactions sections are comprehensive enough, but the major points are there. So I can free you from any accusations regarding removal of adverse effects :-)

Could you have a look at the [clarification needed] marks in the Interactions section? There should probably be "levofloxacin" instead of "ciprofloxacin", but I can't check whether the sources cover these claims for levofloxacin as well. Have you got access to theses sources? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, Why create an account? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, the edits you made were all very good and helpful. So far I have not done much work on the "criticism/controversy" parts of these articles though I think they are mostly B.S., as there is a tremendous amount of medical misinformation in the fluoroquinolone articles, and just clearing that out seems like it should be the first priority. I'll likely circle back to the other stuff after the medical information is cleaned up on all the fluoroquinolone articles.

I actually have a registered username (you can probably figure it out pretty easily if you try). I stopped using it and went away for a while after a very difficult interaction with another user whom I believe was an administrator. I was accused of being a sock puppet and my edits were summarily deleted with refusal to engage on the Talk page other than to tell me I was wrong and had no right to make edits that were not pre-approved by him/her. Although I felt that the information I added was critically important to a balanced view of the story, reliably sourced, and in compliance with all Wikipedia guidelines, I was not able to get any traction approaching administrators with this problem. When my antagonist began following me to other articles I threw in the towel and went away for a while.

Thus my current preference to seek consensus/potential allies in advance of making major changes, and to edit identified only by IP address. Numbers are less memorable than user names, so I'm lower profile. And if I need to change my IP address, all I need to do is leave my modem unplugged overnight. I'm not doing this to avoid accountability, I just don't feel that Wikipedia has any meaningful policies or procedures in place to prevent abuse such as what I feel I have experienced.

That was probably too much whining, and I apologize for that. Thank you very much for your help and the excellent edits. I very much appreciate it and have enjoyed meeting you.98.155.21.76 (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

And BTW, I'm truly not a sock puppet. I'm not even employed at the moment.  :>) 98.155.21.76 (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your bad experiences. I'm not going to find out who you are/were or who that other editor was, but only judge from your present edits. For example, you didn't remove the mention of tendon ruptures but only downtoned the text to an IMO realistic level. If you keep up that stance, I don't see how you could be accused of promoting drugs. In case you get around to editing the history/litigation sections, I think it would be a good thing to leave the information in the articles – after all, these litigations did happen, and they are well sourced as far as I can tell. Being silent about such stories would not only compromise the balance but also the credibility of the articles. But probably you were intending this anyway --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, and apologies again for the whining.

I might be wrong on some things, but I take the idea that a thousand people a day look at these articles very seriously. I try very hard to evaluate the data with an open mind, and to tell the facts as I best understand them. What I understand here is that some people have been greviously injured by these drugs. Where my understanding of the literature differs from what was presented in these articles previously is that my interpretation of the literature is that it is very uncommon, and that the alternatives pose serious risks as well.

I think I was innocent in the previous conflict, but I suppose everyone always thinks that. So if its ok, I'll keep you on my list of people that I rotate through for a second set of eyes reveiewing my work. Actively seeking review gives me credibility as a good faith editor if issues come up, and it protects me from the perils of self-deception about my own even-handedness when working on controversial topics.

Again, thanks for your kind assistance. 98.155.21.76 (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem :-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I have registered and can be found under this usernameFormerly 98 (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I received a notice that I have been reviewed by you (Hmmm), but have no idea how to view the review. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I only marked your user page as patrolled, meaning I couldn't find any spam there :-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stibophen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mesenteric vein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sofosbuvir

Hi Anypodetos,

I was hoping that you could add some comments on the specific language you find objectionable to the sofosbuvir Talk page. My understanding is that a concensus is required to remove this tag, but since you have not offered any specific objections, how can I possibly respond?

At the time most of this was written, I asked Jmh649 to review it. While this should not be considered an endorsement of my work by him (especially as he was on vacation at the time and looked at it only cursorily), I think the request can at least be taken as a sign of my good intent.

I will put all additional commments on the article talk page. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I backed up the Medical Uses and Lede sections of the Sofosbuvir article to the January 10 version. I'd appreciate it if you will consider removing the "Advertisement" flag, as I believe this suffices to remove all of the contested material. As a newcomer I'm really quite uncomfortable to have such a flag attached to an article that makes up much of my editing history. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested to know that the IDSA and AASLD have jointly published new treatment guidelines for HCV. You can find them here. They've featured sofosbuvir based combos as first line in most cases, with simeprevir based regimens as alternatives for GT1. What's really interesting is that they've taken the unusual step of specifically recommending against the use of telaprevir and boceprevir based regimens, which were considered SOC for GT1 in the previous guidelines. http://www.hcvguidelines.org/full-report-view. Some have argued that in the field, SVR rates for Peg/INF/telaprevir are lower than than for Peg/INF alone due to the additional dropouts from Telaprevir AEs. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Formerly 98 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Single-domain antibody, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GFP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear bot, that's why I placed a {{dab needed}} after the link. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Monomethyl auristatin E

Left a note on my page for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for laudable content work in both linguistics and pharmacology articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

This auto-patroller, rollbacker and template editor has been editing since mid-2008 with over 70% of his over 27000 edits to article space. He is a hardworking active member of WikiProject Pharmacology. Always willing to help, he is a unifying force wherever his endeavors lead him. Anypodetos is also a member of WP:Linguistics. An example of his diplomacy in a controversial arena can be found at Talk:Proto-Indo-European root#Vowel-initial roots. A deserving recipient for Editor of the Week. ```Buster Seven Talk

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Universum by Camille Flamarion (1888)

Anypodetos

Editor of the Week for the week beginning March 16, 2014

Active member of WikiProject Pharmacology and WP:Linguistics. Known for article creating and improving.

Recognized for

Diplomacy in controversial arenas.

Notable work

Created PotatoBot

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 18:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What a fine surprise, thank you! And with the Flammarion woodcut, too. I am honoured! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Mifamurtide is a formulation of MTP-PE.

Greetings. You may have noticed I have edited something on your page for the drug Mifamurtide. Based on the many literatures I have read, it has come to my understanding that Mifamurtide is a formulation of MTP-PE encapsulated into liposomes (L-MTP-PE). This particular compound is owned by Takeda. The muramyl tripeptide phosphatidylethanolamine (MTP-PE), however, is not the same as Mifamurtide (again, which is a formulation).

Reference: http://www.dovepress.com/review-of-mifamurtide-in-the-treatment-of-patients-with-osteosarcoma-a4585

If you say that the name Mifamurtide is the same L-MTP-PE and MTP-PE, could you provide any literatures to support this? Thank you.

I know Sigma-Aldrich sells this particular compound; however, the Mifamurtide that they sell is NOT encapsulated or has any relevance with liposomes. If you could clarify this misleading information and confusion, much would be appreciated.

Thank you, again.

Cytotoxic1 (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Cytotoxic1

Hi Cytotoxic1! First of all, the Mifamurtide page isn't my page. As with all articles on Wikipedia, it is free for anyone to edit :-)

Now for your question: "Mifamurtide" is the United States Adopted Name (USAN) for a chemical structure. The official designation is here; it contains the formula, the molecular mass and the CAS number, all of which only apply to well-defined chemical structures. Now the confusing thing is that "mifamurtide" is often equalled to "L-MTP-PE". Even the official designation does this – I suppose the manufacturer gave this as their code for mifamurtide, and the people at the USAN council simply didn't know that the "L" stands for "liposomal".

The paper you linked to, as many medical papers, was written by health professionals (not by chemists) who tend to be rather careless about chemical subtleties. For example, while the paper says that mifamurtide is liposomal muramyl tripeptide phosphatidyl ethanolamine, it also says that it is a ligand of NOD2 and other receptors (p. 281). One of these two claims must be false, as a liposome certainly cannot reach and bind to an intracellular receptor. Given the USAN designation, I'd say the equation mifamurtide = L-MTP-PE is, not to say wrong, but rather imprecise. The paper even manages to contain a drawing (Figure 2, p. 282) entitled "The molecular structure of liposomal muramyl tripeptide phosphatidyl ethanolamine (L-MTP-PE)" but not showing any liposomes...

Now the question is whether the liposomes contain pure mifamurtide, which might be possible given its chemistry, or are formulations of mifamurtide plus something else (just as Tylenol tablets are formulations of acetaminophen plus some excipients). The UK leaflet says (right at the bottom) that Mepact contains palmitoyl-oleoyl-glycero-phosphocholine, which almost certainly forms part of the liposomes as well.

Bottom line: Mifamurtide is the active chemical (just as acetaminophen and countless other substances that have been assigned USANs), and Mepact contains a liposomal formulation of mifamurtide and another phospholipid. Hope this clarifies.

Sorry for the long text, and happy editing, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Glottolog

Hi Anypodetos!

Left you a message at PotatoBot. If you're not interested, pls let me know, and I'll start a regular bot request. — kwami (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Any progress? Looks like no-one's responding. — kwami (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I've already placed a "BAG response needed" there, but nothing happens... --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I verified all fifty articles, BTW. I didn't see any problem except for the fn names not being robust. The change I suggested, with "glottorefname", will not affect the appearance of the info box, but only the language name that appears in the footnote. If we do that to all articles, then the ref name won't change if we move an article. — kwami (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, could I ask you a favor? My user space, User:Kwamikagami/sandbox2.

I downloaded a list of alt names per Ethnologue. I was able to remove dialect names, and to link them all, but AWB has maxed out. If you could, would you mind deleting all lines with a blue link, keeping just those with a red link? Once the size of the page is reduced, I should be able to work with it again. I might ask you to create rd's later, but first I need to go over it by hand. ("Central Asian language" would not make a good rd for Uzbeki Arabic, for example.) — kwami (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Probably Friday or Saturday if that's quick enough. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. The non-ISO Ethnologue names should be in there, but so are a lot of other alt names, some I'm sure too obscure to bother with on their own, but not worth sifting out either. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. There are a few malformed entries (e.g. ISO codes aou, aue [pipes in page names], awg [empty entry]), which the bot left in place. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

thyroxine/levothyroxine

I happened to notice your edit to Levothyroxine and saw that the article appears contradictory. Levothyroxine is described as a "synthetic" form of thyroxine. Thyroxine is described as its "naturally secreted counterpart". These two sentences imply that levothyroxine does not occur naturally. Later in the article, however, it says that "thyroxine was first isolated in pure form ... from extracts of hog thyroid glands" implying that it does occur naturally. From my recollections of organic chemistry it seems that maybe levothyroxine is a synthetic single enantiomer and thyroxine is the naturally occuring racemic form, but I don't know enough to be sure that this is correct. In any case, do you think you could clear up or correct this apparent contradiction? Also, if thyroxine is chemically distinct from levothyroxine, why does it just redirect to thyroid hormone and not have its own article? Deli nk (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! Levothyroxine is the name used for thyroxine in a pharmaceutical context (e.g. on packages containing thyroxine tablets). Chemically it's exactly the same, including the stereochemistry which is enantiopure L = S. (Racemic forms are pretty rare in nature.) It's the same as with liothyronine = triiodothyronine. I'll try to clarify. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Guttural R

Hi Anypodetos, thanks for this edit. As a non native speaker, I try not to do too many edits. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker as well :-) What's your first language, if you don't mind to say? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

My native language is German. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, important ongoing discussion

Dr A …concerning the future direction of the Natural Products article, please see the "Class" section in that article, and skim remaining. Article is in a current sorry state, and it is apparently avoided for its current structure and constraints. See developing discussion at [1]. Perhaps you have a view to express. You can see my User page, hidden though it is—un-gray by clicking on Edit tab—to see who I am. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Florbetaben

Hi - Since you were the most recent one to edit the Florbetaben page, I wanted to see if you could look at the updates I posted on the talk page for the entry. Since I have ties the company, I don't think it's appropriate for me to make edits but it is a matter of record that Florbetaben is now approved in the U.S. and E.U. An update to make the page current would, I think, be useful for all. - Best, Emily Emilyfisher boston (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks – I've updated the article. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for going through categories and putting up topic for discussion. It would be my honour to learn from experienced Wikipedian like you. Kindly guide me to improve Wikipedia. Keep Supporting, Keep Inspiring :) AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the star! I suggest waiting a few days, and if nobody objects, I can get the drugbox (the info box that is present in most drug articles) to "automatically" fill these categories. Strictly speaking, if a pregnancy category is filled in in the box, the category would be added to the article. Filling in the box would still have to be done by hand, of course. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Affitin/Nanofitin

Affitin is the academic name, as used in a recent congress (Affinity 2013, Vienna, see program http://events.dechema.de/affinity2013_congressplanner.html) and in several scientific articles published in 2013/2014 (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23315487; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24823716; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25301962).

Nanofitin is a commercial name owned by a French biotech compagny (http://www.affilogic.com) and is a registered trademark (can be seen with a search at https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/welcome). --Seshoumaru (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There was some confusion over the name two years ago, although I don't remember the details. Thanks for your sources; I've moved the article back to Affitin. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you have got a source for affitins targeting viruses? (Preferrably a journal paper.) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Precious

linguistics and pharmacology
Thank you for quality articles on linguistics Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon and Proto-Indo-European root, and on pharmacology, such as Nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies, for updates, assessments and redirects, for templates like {{M. C. Escher}}, and for your memorial featured picture, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Idelalisib, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ORR. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS

HI Anypodetos,

I put a proposal up on the MEDRS Talk page and would appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks, Formerly 98 (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems I've missed most of the discussion, and there isn't anything I can add at this point. Thanks for the notification anyway. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10