User talk:Professional Crastination

Hello, Professional Crastination! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

More information Getting Started, Getting Help ...

Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Close

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I am reaching out to discuss some recent changes to the Amphetamine article on Wikipedia. First, I would like to thank you for your valuable contributions to the article. Your dedication to maintaining the accuracy and quality of the content is greatly appreciated.

I noticed that you reverted my change to move the "Medical" section earlier in the article. I apologize for any disruption this may have caused and appreciate your efforts to maintain the article’s structure and readability.

Additionally, regarding the recent reversion of several images I had added to the Amphetamine article, I believe these images significantly enhance the article by providing important visual context and supporting information. In particular, File:HarmCausedByDrugsTable.svg is especially useful as it succinctly presents expert rankings of drug-related harms both to users and to society, offering readers a clear, evidence-based perspective on the relative risks associated with amphetamines and other substances.

For your reference, here are the specific images and their corresponding edit histories. I would appreciate it if you could comment on each of them:

• 1291247170
  • File:Amphetamine.jpg
• 1291247934
  • File:HarmCausedByDrugsTable.svg
• 1291244675
  • File:Amphetamine_(Drug).jpg
• 1291245023
  • File:Amphetamine_préparée.jpg
• 1291246690
  • File:Tickets_and_benzedrine_tubes_linked_to_Jack_Kerouac's_life.JPG

I would appreciate your reconsideration of restoring these images and welcome any feedback or concerns you may have about their relevance or appropriateness.

Thank you again for your ongoing commitment to improving Wikipedia.

--CrispyCupcake (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the content you're suggesting is more fit for the article History and culture of amphetamine. That article covers recreational use of amphetamine more in-depth than the amphetamine article. If you take a look at the amphetamine article, you'll notice that the bulk of the content covers its context as a medication and therefore its efficacy at therapeutic doses; it also covers its adverse effects in the context of both therapeutic doses, high-doses and overdose (i.e., some adverse effects are dose-dependent on the latter, unless an individual has a contraindication for amphetamine).

We do have a recreational section under "uses" (NB: It should probably be placed under amphetamine#History, society, and culture instead to conform to MOS:MED, unless I'm remembering the policy incorrectly), but the quality is noticeably different to the other uses. That's representative of the quality of available sources, which is due in part to the fact that over the last ~20 years, "amphetamine" (NB: not "amphetamineS" a la meth) is used much less as a recreational drug (and much, much less when it's clandestine synthesised amphetamine sulphate and not diverted pharmaceutical amphetamine) and is widely used as a medication for one of its indications. So, that's why depiction of amphetamine powder in its "recreational" form is mainly depicted on the history and culture article, and why the depiction of methamphetamine hydrochloride crystaline powder is also depicted at high placement on the methamphetamine article (i.e., meth is primarily used for recreational intent, despite the fact is has medical use in the United States). In any event, there is an image of amphetamine in its powdered form in Amphetamine#Chemistry, and images of the various pharmaceutical dosage formulations are placed on the Adderall, lisdexamfetamine, and dextroamphetamine articles.

Re: In particular, File:HarmCausedByDrugsTable.svg is especially useful as it succinctly presents expert rankings of drug-related harms both to users and to society, offering readers a clear, evidence-based perspective on the relative risks associated with amphetamines and other substances.

Again, I think this would be fit for purpose in history and culture of substituted amphetamines#Illicit drug culture to compliment the other graphic in the hyperlinked subsection. My main opposition to the graphic you're posing is that it describes a general harm rating without context. This is going to be imaginably confusing for a reader who has just readamphetamine#Medical and learned that amphetamine is safe and improves the quality of life for a number of medical indications, only to then see the graph that amphetamine has an analogous "harm to users" rating to [[tobacco], a compound with zero medical indications.

With all that said, I do appreciate your kind words W.R.T contributions to the article. I think some of the content you've suggested can be an improvement to the history and culture of amphetamine article. Professional Crastination (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

that I did not replace the adverse effectinformation. I hope that we do not loose the very much respect from you to be capable to edit even in the methylphenidate-article in english wiki. ~2025-32397-93 (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've been clearer and less snarky on the edit summary. That was my bad. What I was referring to was the aside about vandalism; the changes you made weren't encyclopedic and were largely illegible. In future, I would recommend making a post on Talk:Methylphenidate regarding any changes you believe would benefit the article, especially whilst you're still getting accustomed to editing.

That said, I will change the Miller 2011 citation Re: the contrast between amphetamine and methylphenidate's mechanism of action to a more recent ADHD pharmacotherapy review because I believe that's a reasonable change. I think I will use one that I've cited extensively on the amphetamine article, because I remember there being a direct compare and contrast made both in text and in a figure. Professional Crastination (talk) 08:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)