User talk:Dan1679

Welcome to the Talk page for user AbsolutDan

If you are initiating a new conversation, please click here or use the + sign above (next to the edit this page button) to create a new section for your comment. If you are continuing an existing/past discussion that is less than 14 days old (not yet archived), please find the discussion and click "edit" to add your comment to that discussion. Please be civil. If you have a problem with any of my edits or reverts, please state the issue calmly and factually, and I will respond in kind. If you are not civil, I may choose to not respond. Please sign & date all comments by adding ~~~~ at the end of the comment. If you need to discuss something that doesn't belong on the Talk page, email me. Please note that Wikipedia E-Mail often ends up in my Junk E-Mail folder, so if you do e-mail me, please drop a quick line on my talk page as well to notify me of the incoming e-mail so I'll be sure to check it.

Template:Werdnabot

Archives
Archive001 Archive002 Archive003 Archive004 Archive005 Archive006 Archive007 Archive008 Archive009

"Overdose Prevention" deserves a separate entry...

AbsolutDan:

No problem whatsoever with linking from an "Overdose Prevention" entry to the actual "Drug Overdose" entry for purposes of definition of that term. That said, there is a general misunderstanding of the statistics regarding overdose deaths and their possible prevention that the "Purple Ribbon" campaign will be addressing. Accordingly, I ask that that "Overdose Prevention" entry be restored.

In the linked-to testimony by Dr. Paulozzi before the Senate, he defines death by "overdose" (rather than "unintentional drug poisoning" or some other more clinical term) as unintentional or accidental, regardless of the legality of the drug, and specifically excluding alcohol poisoning.

Within that testimony he states that, according to the CDC's NCHS, overdose is now the second leading cause of unintentional injury death in the United States, exceeded only by motor vehicle fatalities. There were 22,400 such deaths in 2005.

Further, that the recent increase in deaths is not related to the use of "street drugs", but with prescription opioid analgesic use across many demographics. These deaths increased from 2,900 in 1999 to at least 7,500 in 2004, an increase of 160% in just 5 years. By 2004, opioid painkiller deaths numbered more than the total of deaths involving heroin and cocaine. People in their 40's are the most likely to die with the highest rates concentrating, not in inner cities, but in the more rural Appalachian states, the Southwestern states, and New England.

More people in the 45-54 age group now die of drug overdoses than from traffic crashes. Read that again: more people 45-54 die from drug overdose than from traffic crashes. Almost nobody is aware of this fact.

A number of recent peer-reviewed papers indicate that while the problem is real, nobody knows what is causing it or how to mitigate it.

This is a public health and public education problem just now being addressed by harm reduction professionals. The "Purple Ribbon" has been chosen as the symbol for this developing campaign and restoring the "Overdose Prevention" entry provides a place to post information.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Ron_in_Irvine Ron in irvine (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ron,

I see this is a topic you feel very passionately about. And overdose prevention is a good cause. However, Wikipedia isn't here to promote anything, good or bad, it's here to present facts. I redirected the article you created for a couple reasons: First, there was only one source. All material here must be backed up by reliable sources. After reviewing the source, I determined that it fit better within the scope of the Drug overdose article.

The remainder of the article was not written from a neutral point of view. Again, it's clear this is a topic you feel strongly about. This is actually the reason you should avoid writing about it; Wikipedia discourages those with strong emotional connections with a topic from writing about it, primarily because it's difficult to remain neutral.

That said Drug overdose has plenty of room to grow. If you can add additional (sourced) information, written neutrally, please feel free to add to this article.

Regards, --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Articles for deletion/MojoMojo

Hi AbsolutDan,

Please see the reply to Articles for deletion/MojoMojo on my talk page. We are seeking independent writeups about MojoMojo in specialty journals. Is there a way to keep the page alive in the meantime, perhaps by indicating that it needs more references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 March 2009

Reply to Deleted MojoMojo

Hi AbsolutDan,

I am disappointed to see that you proceeded with deletion in spite of the few external non-related references links provided in the article. I understand the need to scrub wikipedia, and to that end it is my sincere hope that you apply the same standards of notability and speed of deletion to evaluating the plethora of other wiki software pages that you used when deciding to delete MojoMojo. Anything less would seem the height of impropriety indeed. Jayk806 (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, those articles will get their day. If not by me, someone else will eventually. I've already taken a preliminary look at some of the other products the "keepers" mentioned in MojoMojo's AfD and agree that some look non-notable as well, but just wanted to let this mess settle down first before taking any action. Articles that clearly have no RS's I'll probably flag for deletion. Ones that seem to have been written about in RS's, I'll tag with an appropriate "attention needed" maintenance template.

Just for the record, there's only 1 reason that I flagged this article for deletion and not one of others: I stumbled across it on new page patrol (a listing of new pages created within the last 30 days). Had MojoMojo been created 35 days ago and some other wiki article (similarly failing WP:V) was created 29 days ago, that page would be at AfD with my name right at the top like this one. The amount of free time I have to work on this project is limited, unfortunately, so I can't fix them all! Regards, --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

J Hudson & Co Merge with Acme

Hi Dan... Hope its the right place to discuss.. or write you , I thought it is not a bad idea at all, ( Thanks ) to merge the two but did not want to touch the Acme page since I am new here ,The Acme May well go into the Hudson as a section ,since that was traditionally the name of the company and Acme was one of their trade marks,So hudson should defianetly stand in its own right, but I am not sure.It may well be that they can both have a seperate page since The Hudson page deals more in History and types and the Acme page is really about a currently active company. should propably wait & see what others say.. Kind Regards --Avner Strauss (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Avner - thanks for your message. I agree that we should probably wait for others' opinions. From what I've seen, when a company changes names, the newest name is the article retained, with other names redirecting to it. I agree that there's enough history with J Hudson & Co that most or all of that article's contents should live on in one place or the other. Regards, --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I read, would wait a while and then discuss again, and add some info.also I see a citation note on the Acme, would check it agian soon if I can find any,to improve, meanwhisle there is no harm in just linking the two pages or putting some names in Bold letters, or adding a note that one can also see more details, In the Acme about Hudson and Vice versa will check in a week or two. Regards--Avner Strauss (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)