Talk:Pregabalin
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pregabalin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 21 days  |
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Pregabalin.
|
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pharmacology
Text explains no direct action on GABA (A or B) receptors, which is fair. At the same section, there is a glorious figure of a GABA receptor and pregabalin molecules as if they are agonists on it, and a caption that only says "Pregabalin is not a GABAA or GABAB receptor agonist". Why have a figure showing it as agonist just to say it is NOT an agonist? The figure serves no purpose at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.230.77 (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- @86.11.230.77 what is the adult does of Pregabalin? 41.57.95.36 (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
pregabalin blocks formations of new synapses, drastically reducing the potential for rejuvenating brain plasticity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2791798/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govedo321 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- 9 year old primary source; not useful in Wikipedia. See WP:MEDDEF and all of WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
in the meantime there is a lot of studies showing that Pregabalin and similar calcium channel modulators are bad for brain plasticity. So please update. New drug => new problems. Please don't make the article not look more positive then is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8680:3241:9CCA:E6DF:7230:2E26 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
How mach
Hae mach 105.196.173.82 (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
@ThaddeusSholto: I refer to the edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pregabalin&diff=1208934179&oldid=1208821290
I visited the User talk:Publishedarticles and found out that other editors consider that "it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers". While this may be true, but this particular edit, in isolation, seems to be relevant and compliant. If the administration considers that the user Publishedarticles violates the rules of Wikipedia, than the administrators will take administrative action. Still, that edit is OK in my opinion. If you think that this edit is not OK, please give your argument other than that it was done by a user suspected in adding citations to research published by a small group of researchers. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Maxim Masiutin: I provided a reason in the edit summary. This is WP:CITESPAM. Publishedarticles has spent years adding references to papers by Jamir Pitton Rissardo and it is apparently their sole reason for editing here. These edits are self-promotional. They have racked up warnings over the years yet continue to do so. Per policy the links should be removed and the user warned which is what happened here. Upholding policy is not the sole domain of administrators. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation, I didn't know that all the articles are by Jamir Pitton Rissardo. Your explanation makes sense, thank you again! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)