User talk:Mythobeast

Welcome!

Hello, Mythobeast, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholism

Robert, I never know how my written text is going to be translated and it is the contentious atmosphere found on the talk page of the alcoholism article that leads me to want to let you know I am not trying to be difficult with you regarding the definition section. You and I disagree on some of that (as I outlined in my reasons there) but I have respect for you and your opinion and look forward to us working together and getting that article in shape. Mr Christopher 21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got your note on my talk. Cheers! And also I read your latest comments and replied to you on the talk page. Also, when you get a minute would you do the agree or disagree thing there, I am fine with whatever you decide, I'm just waiting for you and a few others to give us their thumbs up or down so to speak. Mr Christopher 04:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RR, I took a crack at combining the troublesome sentences in the intro and so far other editors seem agreeable to it. I'm still holding my breath though because I want to hear from you as well. I feel like there is much more positive spirit of cooperation on the page at this point and I'm sure we can all work together to produce a better article. In fact, I'm pretty sure that we could bring it up to Featured Article status. BTW - I also wanted to thank you for making me, as a newcomer to the article, feel welcome there :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Color me confused

I may have misread the intent of the vote at Talk:Alcoholism. I hope my comments at least made my intentions clear that:

We can, and probably should, archive some sections of the Talkpage, but it's generally best to keep the discussion at the article rather than move it to a new location.
I strongly support your move to create a new article regarding the controversy. Copy and pasting material from the Alcoholism article and talkpage will be a good way to "seed" the new project.
I'm glad you're taking steps to move the project forward; it seemed to be stalling out somewhat with a debate that could continue ad infinitum. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the article(s); progress feels good, eh? I thought the IP edits were you, it seemed to fit, but could you explain (to a dummy) how you redirected it to your Username? I'd like to do the same for mine since I've forgotten to log in more than once myself :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Doc. I'd respond on your user page, but I seem to be blocked from editing anything except this page at work, will transfer this to your page tonight.

I think that we're in agreement on this, baring some semantics. The objective of the move was to give those interested in that topic a place to discuss the issue and present their findings, where it wouldn't overwhelm the other discussions about alcoholism. Essentially I entirely split off the disease discussion to its new home. Leaving the elements of that discussion on the Alcoholism page would only serve to encourage the discussion to continue on BOTH places, which would not be good for that discussion OR the alcoholism discussions.

This move is equivalent to archiving the discussion, except that we're archiving it to its own topic where it can grow and flurrish (and maybe produce a decent article) instead of archiving it to a little-referenced sub-talk page off of the existing talk page.

We still need to leave reference to that discussion on the alcoholism page for three reasons. The first is that it'll prevent people from continuing to discuss it on the alcoholism page. The second is that we need it as a pointer to the new page. The third is that the topic of alcoholism isn't really complete without it.

Does that make sense?

I've responded on my Talkpage and at Talk:Alcoholism. I was shocked to see an unblock request on your page; based on what I've seen of your contributions I couldn't imagine you getting blocked. The fact that it was "Collateral Damage" explains all :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note about splitting Disease Theory of Alcoholism off from Alcoholism: I would have wailed and gnashed my teeth if you hadn't have sent it. I'm new to Alcoholism so I haven't followed the argument but I can see there's been some debate over this topic and hiving it off seems sensible to me. Nunquam Dormio 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forging Ahead

Thanks for your excellent contributions to Alcoholism. I'm pleased to see good progress on the article itself, and not just the talkpage :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hi...you wrote, "Hi, Doc. I'm still plugging away at the Alcoholism page. I wanted to check with you about merging the Epidemiology section with the Societal Impact section. As you know, I've been gearing the article towards a reader who has to deal with themselves, a friend, or relative who has alcoholism, and not those who have expertise in the field and probably have much better resources and strong opinions. As such, I'm thinking that the broader topic of how alcoholism effects society is secondary to that of how it effects individuals, and would like to move the epidemiology content in with the societal impact content, which exists after the treatment options. I know you had strong feelings about the placement of the epidemiology section, so I thought I'd check with you before doing that. Robert Rapplean 22:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)"

My first thought was that this is fine, but on second thought, merging the epidemiology content with the societal impact content would diminish the medical aspects of this condition. For instance, would we do the same thing for lung cancer or for diabetes? Both have significant societal impact and both also have issues around prevalence and incidence. I think both sections are important and I don't really care if they're merged IF the differences remain distinguished. In terms of how you're gearing the article, I think you're right that some readers are very likely to be people dealing with their own personal issues (or with friends/family). This is very likely to be the majority of the readership - I'll bet the same is true for all diseases (conditions). Drgitlow 20:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for writing! I'm going to check out that podcast!--Twintone 20:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool guy

Hey there. I was reading your response on the talk page of the gateway theory, and I just want to say that it's refreshing to see non-drug users adopt a unbiased, fact-based view towards drug usage and laws in the country. If only there were more of your type!--Pyromancer102 14:04, 15 April 2007 (EST)

Alcoholism

I had the same concerns about the level of details of my edits for that page. Rather than deleting the new content; how about we move it to a Alcohol detoxification stub and link to the new article from Alcoholism?Badgettrg 17:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SMART Recovery

Hi, I'm an associate of the two folks who have been trying to post a SMART Recovery page, and have been following the saga of the posts/deletes. Thank you for your efforts in discussing this with IrishGuy. It doesn't seem to have gotten the page restored, so I'd like to re-post it. His reasons seem totally spurious, so it hardly seems necessary to rewrite the page; it isn't copyright issues, it isn't cut-and-paste, and it isn't advertising. But I'd hate to ignite an edit war. Suggestions? Thanks.Redwood81 16:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Redwood. Unfortunately, just reposting it is, in fact, a cause for a quick delete. I'm going to have to put another more complete post on the Undelete Review page. I'll do that later today. Robert Rapplean 15:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been almost a year since the re-written SMART Recovery page was posted. Again, I appreciate the information you provided. Oldefarquer (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PE

Hello Robert. In the Alcoholism discussion page you wrote: "Pharmacological extinction specifically requires the alcoholic to drink while on naltrexone, preferably where and when they normally drink. The FDA's standard instructions specifically prevent PE from occuring, and coctailing it with antabuse is even worse. PE has a success rate of about 87% for converting serious alcoholics into people who can forget alcohol exists from one day to the next, and have no problem with drinking socially."

Do you have a reference for this statistic? If true, you would think that the method would be widespread. Thanks.Desoto10 (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC) I am asking because a similar number appears in both the Alcoholism and the Sinclair Method entries without reference and I would like to clean those up and provide the study references. Thanks,Desoto10 (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey request

Hi, Mythobeast I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Extinctioncurve.gif

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Extinctioncurve.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Sinclair Method

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Sinclair Method. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinclair Method. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair Method Article

Hi Robert, I've been looking through (briefly) the amount of work you've been putting in ensuring that the Sinclair Method article meets guidelines. I also had a quick look at the AfD discussion. I was pretty much impartial in that discussion, I closed it procedurally after the nomination was withdrawn, and as such had no real opinion either way on the merits of the article. As such, and having only had a brief look at the article just now, I don't feel my input would be that beneficial right now. However, when I can give the article a little more time, I will pour over it in more depth, and if no-one else has given any advice or input, I'll try and help out. It's to your credit, by the way, that the article is looking in much better shape (albeit at first glances) and seems better referenced than earlier in its history. It's also to your credit that your looking for advice, so I hope you do get the feedback you need. Cheers :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Quark Content Manager

The article Quark Content Manager has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references, no assertion of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair Method

Hi Robert--Long time no argue! I have been editing a little on the Sinclair Method and I think it could be made much better still. The troubling part is that the bulk of the information is pulled from a couple of books, which is fine, but it makes it difficult for most to check on the sources of the statistics that are presented. I just found a decent review on naltrexone which includes the Sinclair use and I will add that soon. My goal is to minimise the dependence on the books as much as feasible, and to try to find as much literature as possible that might replace some of it. By the way, I read the expired patent and, to my amazement there were a few claims that sounded more like the Schick-Shadle (sp?) aversive method (alcohol + an emetic). Do you know if the inventors were just trying to cover all possible uses or was this part of the program in the past (or is it still part of the program?). I would be pleased if you could cast your eyes on the article sometime. Best--Desoto10 (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sinclair Method for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sinclair Method is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinclair Method (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Extinctioncurve.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Extinctioncurve.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 09:13, 15 October 2015 (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) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mythobeast. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mythobeast. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]