User talk:TAz69x

Hello TAz69x! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for signing up. Here are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! --ElectricEye 04:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
Where to ask a question Help Desk
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Block

It should work now. There is nothing against you in the record. It's just that the IP you use was also used by a vandal. When the IP is blcoked, automatically all people who share the IP are also blocked to stop the vandal from getting an account and starting again - called an AUTOBLOCK. However, it isn't shown in your personal record as you have done nothing wrong. The next time this happens, use {{unblock}} to get attention. Thanks.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Kal-Toh-completed.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kal-Toh-completed.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Moebius Ring

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Moebius Ring, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This is not a general idea, just something from one episode of a program. The categorisation of the Cube films as 'Moebius rings' is purely OR, which leaves the rest thoroughly non-notable. I propose deletion, but if this is contested, that should only be on the basis of a thorough rewrite making clear that the idea and name are entirely fictional from a small obscure source.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Kan8eDie (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sublimaze and Sufentanil

Hi. I noticed your disagreement at ANI and I wanted to suggest that you find a reference that supports your position. A quick search of online resources seem to disagree with the position that Sublimaze is Sufentanil and it seems that you are simply mistaken. If the others are mistaken, providing a reference might help convince them, where asserting the truth never will. Celestra (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you reverted to this several times, even reporting Devi on WP:AN/I for correcting it, I would ask that you stay away from these articles for a bit until the rest of your data can be checked. If you do that, I don't have to block you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to check the other changes, but without medical knowledge, I'm not sure I got them all. Please be careful going forward -- as was pointed out elsewhere, this confusion has caused serious complications in the past.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fentanyl

Please STOP entering incorrect information on this page, otherwise you will be reported. This has been a common problem with you and vandalism notes against you are in effect already. This is warning 1 of 1. --Mishi4 (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I took pretty careful precautions lately to limit my edits, kept it down to a mere couple lines, and made sure I reviewed the latest sources, and posted them as references as well. I'm also leaving discussion notes within the page (and also plan to do so from now on, as well as with my edit-notes for the history) for people to apply additional information. My latest edit was on information pertaining to the fentanyl potency compared to the global prototypical morphine. I myself (prescribed in a palliative capacity due to a CNS condition I unfortunately bear) have Janssen Pharmaceutica Duragesic patches whose package inserts include the same information, though I looked hard to find additional information on the web that I could directly cite, and direct users to.

Could you please forward me to an admin? I'll get in touch with SarekofVulcan, as I like him, and have dealt with him before. There's nothing lately that I'm more careful about (and more passionate about) than ensuring the fentanyl page is completely correct, and completely up to date as well. On that note, I'm also taking the time to go through my notes before an edit, to limit any pertinent edits to be minimal, and to start discussions (and allow other people to edit as they may think each might help (such as with the LD₅₀ and the lines in the intro)).

I've even linked to a letter written by a colleague of the original inventor of fentanyl, who cites the introspective inception of fentanyl's chemical starting point, and how it pertains to the article.

I myself am a University student, and my studies (en route to my major) include Organic Chemistry, and some Neurosciences courses within which I've queried my professors as to aid they can provide me with when I have a question that I might need to update this page, though nothing has surfaced unequivocally yet to reveal this I assume, but is a resource that's also greatly helpful.

The latest potency data is pretty concrete, and also the widely accepted equipotent conversion of fentanyl to morphine. What specifically do you have a problem with with this figure?-TAz69x (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have NOT provided any sources to back up your claims. Instead, you replaced information with unsupported claims, which is called vandalism. Sarek is aware of this, as there is already issues with you inappropriately replacing information in this article in the vandalism thread. You were requested to not to change anymore information; however, you have not abided by this. Another attempt will be made to ensure that you do not continue vandalizing articles with false information that is not supported by any impeccable sources. Thank you! --Mishi4 (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Reported

A copy of the report:

TAz69x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been continuously vandalizing the fentanyl article with information that is not supported by references. This user was previously warned; however, he/she persists. Please deal with this accordingly. --Mishi4 (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishi4 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about reference abuse

Following up the ANI complaint referenced above, I am an uninvolved administrator reviewing the situation.

I am extremely concerned by your edits. You appear to be providing numbers (specific efficiency, etc) with a supporting reference ( http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datasheet/f/FentanylcitrateinjUSP.htm ) that does not contain those numbers anywhere in the webpage text. I just read the article there, and searched it for the 0.83 mg number for Fentanyl (not present) and the 75 mg number for its Morphine equivalent (not present for Morphine, given as pethidine equivalent).

Either you are using reference information from another source and mis-citing where it is coming from, or you're fabricating information and vandalizing the article. For articles on medical subjects, this is an extremely serious issue.

Please provide a proper reference for the 80 times and 0.83 / 75 comparison.

I have fully protected the article as-is for 24 hours so the edit warring will stop while discussion is underway.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the ref I provided. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19252390 is the ref). The article sites an oral morphine 80:1, and a fentanyl therapeutic efficacy of 2.5mg per THREE days or 0.83mg per day, as the per-day conversion is far more effective. In addition, Mishi4 has just created that account for the sole purpose of editing that article, as they appear to resemble the user-edits of another vandalist on that page. If there really is a problem, please check this ref here, as not only does it cite it, but the conversions to pethidine currently within the article are inaccurate, and my figures are from an official clinical trial. If need be, you can convert the figure to 2.5mg per three days or 75mg ORAL MORPHINE per day; though the 24 hour efficacy is more accurate and globally used. The pethidine conversion as it stands now is ambiguous, and has repeatedly been attempted to be re-inserted without explanation. My edits have been minimal lately, and I've attempted to uncover concrete sources for my edits (the ref). At the very least, this is a good-faith edit, and FAR from vandalism. If need be, I'll retrieve countless ref's, as this is becoming troublesome to have to repair this page again and again after these improper equipotency conversions.-TAz69x (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, take a look at mishi4's contribs, as the user was created solely to undo my edits, as well as speak to the ADMIN that I had dealt with before SarekOfVulcan (a GREAT GUY btw) concerning another user inserting the same reference. Once again, this user keeps undoing edits that are accurate, and lying when reporting them as vandalism as well, which is troublesome.-TAz69x (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues:

1. That is the ref you provided in recent diffs: [1]. You provided the NIH pubmed reference earlier on Aug 10. You also put the citation before the "80 times" rather than after, where it would logically support the specific claim. It appeared entirely like you were trying to support the 80 times and 0.83 mg values off the NZ reference, which does not support those values at all.

2. You did the conversion to 0.83, not the article summary you're citing here. That is valid math, and not a violation of WP:SYNTH, but you need to explain when you make specific references that you're doing a units conversion and cite the underlying text appropriately so others looking at it can confirm.

If you confused me - I have not worked on this article before, but am at least vaguely familiar with pharmacology and understand medical citations and journals just fine - then you have a citations problem. When you cite very precise and specific numbers, both the reference source and the way you use it have to be correct. When you do sloppy citations and convert without mentioning you're doing that, it looks wrong. People will call you on it when it looks wrong. You look like the bad guy, because casual review shows problems with what you did.

I am going to try and fix the citations and description to a better, clearer explanation.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good; thanks for your help George! I'll apply at least half of the effort of retrieving the information from now on to actually physically organizing it properly, as well as reference ordering. I'll probably perfect any information I've added recently to have it properly conform to the most lucid presentation with the available information too, particularly with the knowledge of article flow now.-TAz69x (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just accept the fact that you vandalized the page and have been warned for doing it before, and all will be well. As well, your allegations against me are much too hollow. Please provide evidence of this. Anyone is able to edit that section of the article, and we all know that does not make them vandalists or the same person! However, your unsupported information indeed supports vandalism and makes you appear as the pathological liar, not me. I did look at your "Sublimaze is Sufentanil" edits on the Fentanyl page, and how you made every effort to ensure that Fentanyl's brand name was inaccurate. You even reported the user for correcting the information! Now that is ridiculous. University Student eh? With that edit, you appear very far from that description, in fact, you look more like a schmuck. Better luck next time ! Cheerio my dear! --Mishi4 (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol, you have to belay the intropression of intellectual self deprecation. But anyway...

It's a program of several B.Sc foundational courses, a Wide-Field major, which is intromissive of several fields of course for a major proceeding, with the inherent cost of two more semesters of work, while volitionally supplanting delegatory choice of the final major without imposing an insular course progression.

Part of my favorite courses involve pharmacodynamic studies; particularly involving the Nucleus Accumbens, VTA, and Substantia Nigra nuclei axes, and mediated reactions, obviously in this case which would involve ligand binding and the action potential elicited. Obviously this also requires prerequisite courses of Organic Chemistry, of which the chemistry of opioids, endogenous and exogenous alike, are ridiculously fascinating to me, and a huge focus of my studies. This, however, does not inherently grant implicit knowledge of brand names, as it is not a determining factor in any facet of the course, and is researched extracurricularly. Also, being prescribed Duragesic myself, imposed through a painful CNS condition I bear, helped spark fentanyl as an obvious focus for my pertaining studies.

You seem to forget, people make mistakes. The moment I went to the campus library to research Sublimaze, I was able to corroborate any applicable opinions on it, and even found that the mistake is not so isolated either, even within the clinical community. So I corrected the error, and now research concrete sources for any additional information before I add any more revisions. This latest addition was a simple slip of WP styling standards and ref ordering; so I've gone over those articles a few times, and am now fully rehearsed in reference ordering and article styling for future edits, which will be compounded with proper citations, commenting for any conversions (if they are needed in any way), and ordering them properly.

My original edit was made on August 10^th; shortly thereafter, Mishi4 was created (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:ListUsers?username=Mishi4&limit=1&group=), and immediately following, jumped to the fentanyl page, and imposed that specific edit as well. All contribs also point to this.

Regardless, good thing I don't care.

However, for all additions, they should be verified, and obviously the latest clinical trials will imply great aggregate quality to the article's whole. Obviously, a revision itself isn't proper vandalism either, as it'd be more closely cited as a good faith mistake, or improper citation. At the very least, Pethidine isn't widely used as an analgesic, and has fallen out of favor with respect to its unique subset of side-effects when compared to more widely used semisynthetics, and even straight alkaloids such as morphine imparting greater therapeutic profiles; even morphinones and polar salts of other simple opioid compounds provide better alternatives to meperidine, making the citation and conversion of it in this article very odd. If anything, a simple oxycodone HCl conversion would bear superior applicable presence in the article; even within its pertinence of the medical community as a second-line introductory opioid and equipotent conversion staple. Regardless, talk to ya later, peace man.-TAz69x (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful editing tip

As amusing as some of your edit summaries might seem —as in your most-recent "buying by the buy and bye by the by" to merely correct the "by by" typo in the Royal Wedding article, and an earlier "Smart Adds: - since when did we change "ADvertisementS" to AttentionDeficitDisorder?" from the Gizmondo article— they also tend to display a certain attitude which in the 2nd example caused you to make poorly-based (and unreferenced) edits that have since been corrected.

True, the lower-case usage of "adds" for adverts (UK) or ads (US) in the text were an eyesore, but the Section header and other uses in conjunction with "Smart" were part of the tradename "Smart Adds" (d/b/a "Smart ADDS mobile UK"). Any peek at the existing references cited (or a quick Google) would have led you to this detail.

Sarek, and others, have tried to caution you into more-careful editing and better use of references. Don't go off "half-baked" on an edit spree, as in Gizmondo without some fact-checking first.

As Sarek once told you, "Please be careful going forward...". Best regards, — DennisDallas (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "thx man"

Hello, TAz69x. You have new messages at DennisDallas's talk page.
Message added 06:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]