User talk:Димитрий Улянов Иванов

NOTICE

• ENGLISH

For effective communication please employ the following:

• Converse only the subject(s) relevant to the topic.

Do not outsource irrelevant subjects in your replies.

• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.

• Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
• Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please open this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

ВНИМАНИЕ

• БЪЛГАРСКИ ЕЗИК

За ефекивна комуникация, моля, използвайе следно:

• Разговаряйе само по темата(ите), която е свързана с темата.

Не възлагайте на външни изпълнители неуместни теми в отговорите си.

• Добавете или отговорете на съществуващ разговор под съществуващото заглавие.

• Направете отстъп на коментара си, когато отговаряте, като използвате подходящ брой двоеточия ':'.
• Създайте ново заглавие, ако оригиналният разговор е архивиран.

• За да започнете нов разговор натази страница,

моля, отворете тази връзка.

• Трябва да подпишете вашите коментари. Можете да направи това автоматично, като въведете четири илди (~~~~).

Your two recent edits of the Bulgarian language article

Hello Димитрий,

I have reverted your last two edits to the "Bulgarian language" article, because they removed instances of language templates being used correctly. You can do a quick check yourself with other language-related articles - e.g. Greek, Macedonian, Norwegian, etc - and you'll find that the language infobox, and often the leading article sentence, do contain an appropriate "lang" template.

Chernorizets (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Editing

Hello! Thanks for letting me know about the troubles with that. Might I add however, the reason why I rescinded the BG marker is to make better character support. Most platforms (including Windows, Mac, Linux etc) support the proper representations of Bulgarian (български) however, IOS does not and oddly represents print type Bulgarian in a cursive font when the marker is applied: It is shown as бълƨapcku opposed to български which is not the correct way to display the Bulgarian language. Removing the marker doesn’t affect the display of the page in any way, so it shouldn’t be an issue? Surely we want to ensure it’s displayed correctly on all platforms? Let me know your opinions on this.

Kind regards. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Strange letters

You're introducing strange letters into Bulgarian text, such as <ƨ>, which is a Zhuang letter. I know that handwritten <г> (at least in Russian) looks like <ƨ>, but it's still <г>, which is a Cyrillic letter. Please check your keyboard layout. phma (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

False! This is actually Bulgarian Cyrillic localisation

Bulgarian utilities slightly different character representations under localisation for prefered character forms. Гг is Russian Гƨ is Bulgarian. Please read into this before doing anything! Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

ϹΤΟ (into the, Greek with lunate sigma), СТО (hundred, several Slavic languages), and CTO (chief technical officer, English initialism) look alike (same glyphs), but have different Unicode points.

The bean (or bobsled) is ready: боб готов боб готов боб готов бобcode: srp promoted to code: sr готовcode: srp promoted to code: sr боб. Macedonian and Serbian бобcode: srp promoted to code: sr look different (at least on my computer) from the others, but the characters (code points) are the same. The г on my computer looks the same in all four languages. If you think it should look like ƨ in Bulgarian, I suggest you contact WP:TECHPUMP. phma (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Georgi Dimitrov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leipzig trial. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Serbia, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. —Alalch E. 16:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bosnia and Herzegovina, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Croatian and Bosnian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Medical articles

Please don't edit medical articles, such as Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, until you have carefully read WP:MEDRS. Medical articles have a higher standard for reliable sources than many other Wikipedia articles. What we understand about human health and medicine is based on the basic science of biology, and biology is complex. Non-medical sources often are dead wrong, or dramatically overstate what we can confidently say, based on the science. For health-related content, the field is evidence-based medicine. And per WP:MEDRS – which the community created after long and arduous discussion – we reach for review articles published in the biomedical literature, or statements by major medical or scientific bodies. Sundayclose (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That's understandable except I attributed sources by referencing content further down in the article.

Here is a veer meta-analysis comparing the current research substantiating SCT/CDS (PDF) Report of a Work Group on Sluggish Cognitive Tempo: Key Research Directions and a Consensus Change in Terminology to Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome (researchgate.net)

As it explains, the disorder presents with accuracy related attention that may occur due to maladaptive daydreaming rather than executive functioning retardation, which results from ADHD and other conditions where one is overly inhibited.

If you review the other sources listed below, from Barkley, Kay & Schneider, it also mentions that CDS is not related to EF & self-regulation. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Could you please provide a diff link where you "attributed sources by referencing content further down in the article" with citation(s)? Sundayclose (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited First Bulgarian Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulgarian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Hi Димитрий Улянов Иванов! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Atomoxetine several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Atomoxetine, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Atomoxetine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Medical training

Do you have any medical training at all? You confuse the patient with the medication. A medication has an "effect" on the patient. The patient "responds" to the medication. First year med students know that. Please provide a quotation from the meta-analysis indicating that the medication is "responsive". Sundayclose (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello there. First of all, I apologise for edit warring, if that is indeed against some guidelines, my bad. I was not aware. Thanks for pointing it out and will participate in endless contradiction no longer. I only just saw this.

Secondly, no, I am not confusing anything, the way I see it. There are many instances of medications being very effective, but the response rates are low, as they only apply to those with a certain disposition.

For example. Reuptake inhibitors such as MTH and ATX only primarily work on those whom have DAT1 or NET1 genes that are too long, leading to excessive reuptake transporters in their nerve cells in brain regions ADHD implicates. If someone's risk genes are marked more by poor connection between executive networks and instability and unfunctionally of said networks then they are unlikely to respond to reuptake inhibitors at all as the room for alternation is very minimal. That does NOT mean that they are less effective, as they're very effective in those who respond.

I hope that makes sense and clears this up for you. Thanks for writing. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

You still haven't explained your confusing use of "responsive" to describe the medication. Again, please provide quotations from the source indicating that the medication (not the patient) responds. Otherwise please change the wording you have used in the article. And yes, edit warring is very much against policy (you obviously didn't bother to click the links in the warnings above and read the policies), and a violation can quickly result in loss of editing privileges. You have already violated the three-revert rule. If you will change your edit to correctly represent the source you might avoid a block. Sundayclose (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Well I've just restored your edit in attempt to redact my apparent violation if that is even possible. Once again, I was not aware and that's my bad.

Second of all, I am no longer entertaining this discussion for the above reason. However, I vehemently disagree with your perspective as it has little support in the scientific literature.

Be well. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, but if you are so "vehement" that removing the word "responsive" has little support in the scientific literature, I would appreciate an explanation. Is that really true, or have you just misunderstood something? Sundayclose (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

From a standpoint of elegance I will voice my opinion.

First of all, we are getting down to pure semantics and I see your point that yes, the medication itself doesn't respond, rather the patient. But this could easily have been addressed by re-wording the sentence to contextualise it for the patient. Either way response rate differs from effectiveness, and while they are generally correlated, this is not always the case.

Secondly, suggesting ATX is less effective is so outdated and scientifically unsupportable as to reflect a stunning lack of scientific scholarship from someone who has experience in this field. In fact we have loads of evidence showing it is more effective than methylphenidate, and in some patients, even more so than amphetamine. The degree of improvement one gets for inattention, working memory, hyperactivity and impulsivity matches MTH but it treats emotional dysregulation even more so. It also improves articulation and one's ability to translate and structure thoughts into words, something not found in the stimulants, and this is a common impairment caused by ADHD.

So already we have two symptom dimensions it treats more effectively. Thus it is more effective than methylphenidate. This excludes the many other benefits it has, such as the fact that it lasts 24/7 (permanent duration of effect), treats anxiety very effectively (the stimulants do not and often exacerbate anxiety in existing patients), improves reading speed, reduces bed-wetting, treats aspects of ASD and more so.

I can provide all the evidence substantiating this if you wish to review it or you can easily find it yourself on google scholar, however, I don't make the active claim that it is more effective because of the lack of research on direct comparison. However we can still look at the effects individually and conclude it is more effective. Therefore, in my opinion, this has substantiation in atleast not making the claim that it is less effective.

Furthermore scientists like Dr Russell Barkley, who is the leading researcher on ADHD until his recent retirement, even agrees that ATX is more effective. This in itself is not good evidence but goes to show that I am not the only one in making such claims.

Be well. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I won't belabor this because I think we've thrashed it out enough, except to briefly make two points. My edits are based on the cited sources, and the meta-analysis is dated to 2016. If there are newer studies that show a clearly superior effect for atomoxetine (both immediate release and OROS), to my knowledge that was not cited in the article. My second point: I would have reworded the "responsive" wording except I really wasn't sure what you were trying to say. Anyway, best wishes. Sundayclose (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

No offence taken and your points are perfectly legitimate. That said, I fully understand and appreciate the potential conflict of interest here. But nor can I sit idly by while critics having their own conflicts seek to essentially vandalise the immense established research we have on these medications with innuendo or their own biased agendas. Still, I appreciate the guidelines here and will respect them assuming others who edit the page are held to those same standards. Just remember that our professional guidelines advise us to admit the limits of our expertise. I will leave the entry alone now but will check periodically to see if it has been hijacked by others having their own subservient agenda here. Thanks again and be well. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Degrees in infobox

Hi, I noticed that you added <br/>{{Nobold|[[Ph.D]]}} to infoboxes on multiple pages. Such information is not meant to be added to the name field, see Template:Infobox_person/doc#Parameters for documentation. Please revert. Cheers, Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I see no such specification on that page as a doctorate (Dr. [name] / Ph.D) is a title associated to the person (i.e John K Smith, Ph.D) similar to how "Sir" is used (i.e Sir John Smith) and this is acceptable to be placed on the name field, i.e see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer. It is not a honorific. Thank you for checking on that issue. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"Sir" should not be included in the field name either. Template:Infobox_scientist explicitly says to not include honorifics in that field. The field honorary_prefix exists for that purpose. For an example, see Isaac Newton (who, by the way, did not have a PhD, contrary to your edit).

The documentation in infobox_person also tells that one should not use that field for routine things like "Dr." or "Ms.". Similarly, PhD is not mentioned in the postnominal letters in the infobox. The degree of the scientist is included by adding the university and the graduation year in the field "alma_mater" or "education", and does not need to be mentioned twice in the box. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I stand corrected. I shall redact those edits.

Be well.

Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks and have a nice weekend! Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page De novo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Hi Димитрий Улянов Иванов! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Mason (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, that was not my intention. It was a mistake. Thank you for checking on that issue. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for addressing it!! The challenge with marking things as minor is that editors who have the page on their watch list won't see the changes. I did tweak your revision a little, to make it clearer that your environmental examples are, well, environmental (as in non-genetic factors). Mason (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

No problem. That's understandable and I will refrain from falsely marking edits as minor in the future. It was only rushed due to time constraints. I appreciate your notification and your most recent edit to the ADHD page.

Thanks again and be well. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Receptor site name formatting

Hello, I notice that you've repeatedly changed α_2A and α₂, across several articles, to alpha-2a and alpha-2, primarily in infoboxes. I pinged you in the talk page of one of the articles asking why you're doing this and didn't receive a response. Is there a reason you're preferring to replace something that is both more terse and stylistically consistent with something that's neither of those things? As I said in one of the edit summaries, the mentions of these receptor sites are wikilinked (especially in infoboxes), and so if someone manages to not know the Greek letter α is read "alpha", then they can click or even simply hover over the wikilink, as the main article on those receptors specify both "spellings" in the lead sentence that will show in the preview. I suggest you take a look at several other articles for compounds that aren't interacting with α receptors, but perhaps look at some nicotinic acetylcholine receptor ligands, some beta receptor ligands, or even serotonin receptor ligands, and see that they're written in the terse, Greek-letter style (or, in the case of serotonin, in the 5-HT_X style), and are also wikilinked to their respective receptor main articles where both "spellings" are again provided. Kimen8 (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for writing! Fact checking is always appreciated. My view here derives from abstracts in articles where guanfacine and clonidine are predominately referred to as 'alpha-2/2a agonists' as opposed to its acronym 'α', at least in my interpretation of the research literature. Notice that my edit was also intended to be consistent with the guanfacine page, where 'alpha' is used.

That said, I didn't see your ping or explanation previously so I apologise for that. I wont belabour this and I accept the reason for your edit.

However consider changing 'α₂-adrenergic agonist' to 'α_2A-adrenergic agonist' to indicate selectivity for 2a as I believe that is more accurate. Be well. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding abstracts in articles using 'alpha' rather than 'α':

In my experience, these articles will generally "spell-out" alpha in the abstract, but in the body it seems the transition to using α is rather common; the reason I don't think it needs to be expanded here is twofold:

• infoboxes should be rather terse compared to the article body even, and
• unlike in the articles/abstracts, here the reader can hover or click on wikilinks for abbreviations or other terms that they don't know.

I would support the first use of 'α' in the article (outside the infobox) being spelled out if you'd prefer that, and then follow with using 'α' in the rest of the article.

I do support changing 'α₂' to 'α_2A' and I believe I made that fix on the clonidine article after noting my reason and mistake on that article's talk page.

I'm rather new to editing and so perhaps a more experienced editor could offer an opinion on one of those articles' talk pages about the preferred format; for now though the above reasons are how I'm trying to operate.

I do appreciate the work you've been doing to ADHD-related articles.

Kimen8 (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello

I noticed you have been editing some ADHD-related articles recently. If you'd like to meet other editors who are interested in Wikipedia's medical content, you're welcome to join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. It's a good place to ask questions about finding good sources for medical content or writing style. Feel free to put it on your watchlist, or stop by to say hello some time.

By the way, you are just one edit away from getting access to Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. That will give you free access to a lot of expensive sources, including several medical journals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. I will check them out. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you have added Creative Commons licensed text to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. You are welcome to import appropriate Creative Commons licensed content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Compatibly licensed sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any Creative Commons content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will review this as soon as I can . Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cognitive disengagement syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DSM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)