User talk:Osmodiar

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Femto 15:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tophus

I thought MSU denoted mid-stream urine instead of monosodium urate. It shows that whoever first wrote the page did not know either. JFW | T@lk 12:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Drug abuse, Substance abuse

I have cited sources for all edits made to drug abuse and have worked on merging content into substance abuse. Guttlekraw appears to be misleading you. I am the one who created the current Substance abuse article, which has a slightly different definition than drug abuse as cited by Mosby's. The arbitrary nature of the definition is being addressed, however Guttlekraw has been removing content and modifying cited definitions in order to change their meaning. He has been asked to cite sources for his changes and he has failed to do so. The source he cites on Talk:Substance abuse is merely an abbrieviated form that supports my own edits but does not support his changes. Please look at the different versions in the page history and review my proposed outline for the drug abuse page. Discussing the arbitrary nature of the definitions is part of the outline that I have created. Guttlekraw is not helping to contribute to the article, except by reverting to pre-merge versions that lack citations. In any case, any suggestions and criticisms you can make on Talk:Drug abuse are greatly valued. --Viriditas | Talk 21:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see the change I've made to the substance abuse introduction as a result of your suggestions. --Viriditas | Talk 05:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Changes in talk

Your impression is mistaken. I was in the proces of editing my comment when an edit conflict occurred due to your response. Because you composed and posted a reply while I was in the process of editing my comments, I was unable to save my comments. You are free to change your comments to reflect the update I had already composed prior to your edit. --Viriditas | Talk 09:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, which is why I have provided a link to the edit history. Please assume good faith. You may also want to visit Wikipedia:Edit_conflict to see how to resolve this issue. You are welcome to revise your comments, and I will do the same in response. --Viriditas | Talk 09:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The edits did not add anything which would prompt me to change my reply. I can understand your mistrust of NIDA but I disagree with your view that there is enough evidence to call them either biased or politicaly motivated. -- Osmodiar 09:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is not my view that has been offered, but the view of their critics. I neither trust nor mistrust NIDA, although I recognize the allegations of political bias and I therefore strive to maintain a neutral tone by choosing other sources for a definition. --Viriditas | Talk 05:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am having the same issues as you, I would love to try to make progress on this on the talk page, let me know what you think. Thanks, Guttlekraw 13:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Thanks for your message. It looks like I've had "Mark all edits minor by default" turned on in Preferences > Editing, which I've now disabled. --Viriditas | Talk 12:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for help

I am asking for help as I am running out of options. User:Viriditas is continually reverting almost everything I do, and refusing to discuss it on the talk page. I don't know how to respond to this, because he simply won't explain what he is doing. It looks to me like he is pushing a pretty extreme agenda at the expense of other points of view, but I'm willing to try to see it from the other side. In the past you've commented on this issue, and I need your help if you have a few minutes. Thank you, Guttlekraw3 09:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Thanks for your message. I will keep a close watch on my edit summaries, however the continued, daily personal attacks from Guttlekraw, including the latest today, where he has called me a liar multiple times across a number of articles, as well as a vandal seems to have gone unnoticed by you, including:

14:45, 22 Apr 2005 Substance abuse (OK, I tired to edit this new bolderized version, but it takes out nearly all the facts and begins with an outright lie. See talk page.)
05:04, 23 May 2005 Francis Ford Coppola (That's a blatant lie. It has not been documented)
05:08, 23 May 2005 R2-D2 (Slow revert of Veriditas's vandalism)
13:45, 23 May 2005 R2-D2 (Slow revert of Veriditas vandalism)
13:45, 23 May 2005 Francis Ford Coppola (Please show WHERE on the talk page. Your claim is a blatant lie.)

Then there are his talk page comments where he calls me a "liar" many times, and says, "Your patronising tone is less easily forgivable than your ignorance", "You are mind bogglingly ignorant", "You just destroyed two articles", "You are wasting everyone's time by not reading", "Your rampant POV pushing is beyond what I can tollerate", "Your usual useless vagueness doesn't help at all", "Get a grip", "My God. What universe are you in?", and many more. Perhaps you can address this on his talk page. Thanks in advance. --Viriditas | Talk 10:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motives

You're correct in that I assign motives to Guttlekraw, specifically because I've been dealing with him for almost two months and I'm familiar with his constant edit wars on multiple articles, distorting references, inserting POV, violations of 3RR (he's already been blocked once and he just reverted my changes five times in less than 24 hours), consistent personal attacks (he called me a lunatic yesterday and you didn't seem to notice), and use of sock puppets (particularly on R2-D2. The only reason he is inserting material about substance abuse is so that he can argue that drug abuse should be redirected. This was covered almost two months ago on talk and other pages. I must say, your comments on my talk page seem to mischaracterize the debate entirely. This is not about finding a consensus defintion, but about presenting the article in terms of NPOV. --Viriditas | Talk 14:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your comments, but I'm afraid I must disagree with you. I have consistently focused my attention on the substance of the article, only to have my edits reverted five times by Guttlekraw, a violation of the 3RR. --Viriditas | Talk 14:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the definition is, as long as it's presented on NPOV terms. Most of Guttlekraw's edits fail to meet the basic guidelines of this policy. --Viriditas | Talk 14:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From your comments I can only surmise that you don't understand the revert policy. He reinstated content five times; that's reversion, whether its in full or as part of an edit. Links to some of the reverts have been provided on Talk:Drug abuse. In each case he added back in content that had originally existed in previous versions, hence the revert. As for Guttlekraw's problem with NPOV, you've hit the nail on the head. For two months, he has made the article state, imply, and insinuate that his POV is correct, going so far as to distort references and cited content. His most recent change to the lead section illustrates this perfectly, as he attempted to push his POV over that of others by placing a quote by Leon Wurmser in the lead. While such a quote, properly verified, deserves to be in the article, placing it in the lead is far from neutral and impedes neutrality. The NPOV policy actually covers this type of behavior in specificying the use of balanced sources. Guttlekraw's entire edit history shows him doing this to many articles. We refer to these types of editors as POV warriors. --Viriditas | Talk 14:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User page

I like what you have written, but when you used the word "sinciere" (as in sinciere students of Galen) did you mean sincere? I was going to correct it, but was afraid you might mean sinecure, which would be odd. --Viriditas | Talk 15:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the catch. I've never been much of a speller. Osmodiar 15:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

Hello, I like the two quotes from NPR on your userpage. Do you have more complete references for them, or at least who said them? Thanks. Osmodiar 09:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I heard them on the radio, and wrote them down as fast as I could. The second quote is apparently due to Bruce Schneier. The first was on NPR on March 4, 2005 on Morning Edition [1], possibly in the Letters section. (No sound card on my computer, so I can't listen to those archives. Please let me know if you find the quote!) dbenbenn | talk 19:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isomers of butylene layout

Isomers of butylene

How does it look now? H Padleckas 19:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Re your question on my talk page, no. I think a cursory examination of my edit history should be enough to lay that rather odd accusation to rest. Intrigue 22:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas

I am currently on Wikiholiday (and have been since June 1) so please do not leave any messages on my talk page. Your current message, which I have removed, is not only in error, but directly ignores the name calling and accusations that have been made against me for the last two months by User:Guttlekraw. On the other hand, there has not been any name calling or unsubstantiated accusations from me, which for some reason you conveniently ignore. Guttlekraw is a sock puppet, and this claim is substantiated in the edit history and a number of admins are currently aware of this issue and dealing with it on their own time. I would appreciate it if you refrain from posting erroneous messages on my talk page. If you need to reach me, you are welcome to use the e-mail this user button. --Viriditas | Talk 02:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above comment by [[Viriditas was prompted by this message I placed on User_talk:Viriditas:

"Do you think you could knock it off with the name calling and accusations in your edit summaries and comments? You might also want to reconsider accusing editors of being sockpuppets without substantiation. Stick to the content and avoid the personal attacks, They don't help Wikipedia at all. 00:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

Lesch-Nyhan Werner Catel

Here is a reference to the original source where Dr. Catel described Lesh-Nyhan syndrom:

W. Catel, J. Schmidt: Über familiäre gichtische Diathese in Verbindung mit zerebralen und renalen Symptomen bei einem Kleinkind. Deutsche medicinische Wochenschrift, Stuttgart, 1959, 84: 2145-2147.

Apparently correct. Searching for that paper leads to this link. Not the most reputable source I guess and it could be made up, since it is the only search result, but I also don't understand German so I can't read the paper to refute. Thanks for digging that up. The anon just added it without any other comment. If that was you, sorry, but thanks for backing it up. Also please cite that study to back up the change. - Taxman ^Talk 23:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Methamphetamine and septum damage

Hi Osmodiar. On 24 July you reverted an addition I made to Methamphetamine, stating "Remove incorect info. see talk". I can't find anything relevant on the talk page, so I'm curious why you consider my contribution to be incorrect. Snorting methamphetamine can, as far as I know, cause sometimes severe septum damage. --Bk0 13:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paid Editing Project

Hi Osmodiar: My name is Tess and I work for a global independent research firm in New York. I am interested in hiring you for a Wikipedia editing project, based on your technology and medical experience and expertise. I attempted to email you through your user page. If you received it, please read it over and contact me with any questions. If you did not receive this email, please let me know and I would be more than happy to tell you more about this project. (You can call 512-651-1797). Thank you and I hope to hear from you soon! Tess - Gerson Lehrman Group 13:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oxycodone

Hey Osmodiar, I don't think the oxycodone article should say that "Oxycodone is fatal when combined with alcohol", as, well, it's not. You can take alcohol and oxycodone together, just not as much;) I see you're still around, neat.

Oh crap, just ignore that, I was looking at the wrong diff!!.. I agree with your edit, but I thought something should be said about alcohol potentiating its effects, although not neccessary. Skrewler 11:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholism

You wrote "Did you mean to add the phrase "raja lovesshagan in india" back to the alcoholism page? Also, what is your rational for changing the CAGE section?"

No, it was just a sloppy attempt to revert vandalism. Sorry. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Programming

I followed up on your request for more understanding on Talk:Extreme Programming, but you never responded. I believe the rearrangement I just did to the lede may be less intimidating to newcomers and the uninitiated, but if you could be more explicit about your difficulties, I'm sure we can fashion a strong lede between us. → (AllanBz ✍) 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising

The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human Deaths

Regarding your removal of abortion stats, perhaps the comments beside it - that it is debatable whether they are fully human - were misleading. It shouldn't really say that - my fault...bad rewording of Citizen Premier's comments. There is no debate that they are completely human, is there? I think the debate is over what degree of human rights they are entitled to. Perhaps it should say something like that? What do you think? ^ross ^nixon 22:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[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) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]