Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:47, 11 October 2012

Nomination of Post-Finasteride Syndrome for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Post-Finasteride Syndrome is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome 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 template from the top of the article. JFW | T@lk 23:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• You are advised to assume good faith at all times in deletion discussions. Suggesting that I am biased or work for Merck achieves only one thing: undermining your own argument. JFW | T@lk 06:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comment. Where am I suggesting, that you baised or work for Merck? So where and why do I undermining my owen argument? What argument anyway? What are you talking about?

But I think you must be a superman, when you can check all ref´s in less than two hours. If you are talking about the orher comment, under mine. This is not mine IP and I use to sign what I wrote. So please avoid in futur comments on my talk, only by speculation. Anyway a IP can be proven. Keep this in mind, the next time. Thanks. --Brainbug666 (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• My apologies for mistaking 99.27.163.166's comment as your own. Unfortunately the discussion has become a bit convoluted and the indentation and threading becomes unreliable. As for your own comment that I need to read all the references, I don't believe this is necessary. I have had endless discussions with Doors22 (talk · contribs) over the last few months about the relative notability and acceptance of post-finasteride syndrome. I don't deny that there are men with problems after taking finasteride, even after cessation, but much of the content was based on sources that are not compatible with WP:MEDRS. It was my view that the review by Traish probably met these criteria. I will respect the views of the deletion discussion. JFW | T@lk 14:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This is no Problem, we all do mistakes. For me its only important, that people read things before they judge. I dont know, what kind of references has been used here in the past. You believe it is not necessary to read all references? Are you kidding? Sorry, to say that but this is not a church, what you belive does not count here. I know the WP:MEDRS well. The first ref. counts check the WP:MEDRS again please. here is just a part of it.

"However in literature a lot of case of persistent sexual adverse symptoms are signaled. The persistence of symptoms after discontinuation is named Post Finasteride Syndrome (PFS). We sought to characterize the types and duration of persistent sexual side effects in otherwise healthy men who took finasteride for MPHL."

Even things like PSSD dont get so much media attention like PFS. We could also make the same discusion about PSSD the cause for it is also unknowen, but some papers also show that this is real and are described. Like PFS. Here are less common diseases on wikipedia, than PFS. But on the PSSD entry you can also find links to a forum.

See it like that, if a patient tells you he has headache. Do you say, no this cant be? Just because you dont see it?

For PFS there are tousands of young and healthy man, who say they never had any of those symptoms, before the usage of finasterid. Now they get genital shrinkage, and many other worse symptoms and some also have even low levels of LH/FSH and Testosteron. So, this has nothing to do with belive it or not. Tousands are calling it PFS. For me only facts and vaild science publ. articles count and the WP:MEDRS. --Brainbug666 (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am hesitant to open another discussion here, considering the AFD page and Talk:Finasteride are already serving that purpose. However, just because something exists (I don't deny the existance of PFS) doesn't mean it needs a dedicated page. I think the main points about PFS are better made in the context of the finasteride article, in a more compact form. JFW | T@lk 18:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, like I wrote before, there are even less common things, like the Postorgasmic illness syndrome, that have a page here. Anyway, we discused this also on the german wiki site long before and its keeped. Because everthing is valid. Yes, lets stay on the main discussion.

--Brainbug666 (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Brainbug666 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Then respond there. Meat puppetry is also considered poor form. Other than you, almost every "person" who has contributed to that discussion (in favour of the article) is a brand-new WP:SPA who writes the same way, makes the same basic formatting errors and uses the same insults. If they are not all you, or are not all closely connected to you, then they certainly act like you, are only interested in the same things as you and contribute in almost the same way as you. Feel free to contribute to the SPI - that's the whole point. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Like I wrote you, just check the IP. They uses the same insults like me? can you show me this? Well, we call it in german lemma and there is no one of the users who is for the deletion of this article, who gives any valid reason. For me only counts facts, papers and WP:MEDRS --Brainbug666 (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

(Belated) Welcome

Hello, Brainbug666, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

IDIDNOTHEARTHAT

You have indeed written the same thing many times, and, you have not listened to the responses that you have been given. If you want to have general conversations about policies fine, but take it off the AfD page which is solely for discussing whether the article meets the requirements for a stand alone article or not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for writing here and please read your owen wiki link. --Brainbug666 (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, you're not allowed to keep copies of deleted pages on Misplaced Pages. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

but this only my sandbox, I would love to work on this entry until its ready--Brainbug666 (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to edit the relevant section on the Finasteride article. We generally don't allow people to keep archives of deleted articles in this situation. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

it is not possible to work on the Finasteride entry and users who are able, doesnt change a single thing. I mention a few things, but they where all to bussy with the discusion. Well, like I said, this is my sandbox and I wold love to work on this entry, until the relavant sources are there, Where can I read, that this is not allowed? I was the author of this entry.--Brainbug666 (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello mark, I checked this here It only says on my Userspace, what would look like this Brainbug666/Post-finasteride syndrome and not like Brainbug666/sandbox so in this case im allowed to work on this entry it also just talks about Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. What I did not, this is only the sandbox. Please, show me if I´m wrong. and please undo the deletion of my sandbox. This is my work.--Brainbug666 (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello mark, please show me were its said, that I´m not allowed to work on this article in my sandbox? If you cant, I will start to work on it again in the next days.You as an admin, may be can also help me to understand, why the finasteride entry also is not changed? You are so quick with deleting the entry on my sandbox, may be you can be also be so quick and change this. Thank you a lot.--Brainbug666 (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the link to the guideline is WP:UP#COPIES. Furthermore, I strongly suggest you disengage from this subject area and the people who disagree with you about it. It appears that you are here to advance your cause (which may be a great cause) rather than build a neutral encyclopedia. There is a decent change that you'll be sanctioned if you continue this behavior. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for the link as it looks for me on the first view, you are right.

The picture I have now and what I didnt had before of the english wiki is a very bad one. It appears to me that many users bend the gudilines to their advance. The fact to help, to build up a neutral encyclopedia. Neutral is very important, but I dont see this here. I mention to add the fact, that finasteride also inhibits the 5AR type III and gave a valid source but such things are totaly ignored here. I wonder why it is like that. Keeping facts back is not a neutral encyclopedia. Or do I see that wrong? The more I see, what is going on here, the more I see, that the english[REDACTED] is controled but not for[REDACTED] as a neutral encyclopedia. This is very sad. My biggest cause is a neutral Encyclopedia. I´m working now a long time in the medicine and have seen a lot, I just came here to edit the entry the article. But than I saw, what is going one here and how users act here and now I see this also protected by admins. The first thing that makes me realy realy wonder was, that there was a deletion for this entry less than 2 hours and I realy wonder how someone can check all sources in this time. Than I saw more and more like a Sockpuppetry case and no one cares about to look after it. Many things happen in the discussion as everybody can read. Links were deletet, that had vailid sources. But other things are totlay ok here, this makes me realy wonder and my picture became more and more worse. So now I also mention this to you that there are things that sadly have to be changed in the Finasteride entry. But I think you will ignore that also. feel free to sanctioned me. If it is a crime to make[REDACTED] neutral. What it is in fact, what the case of Finasteride is not, even the 5AR entry had a big lack of informations and a few things are wrong. I dont image the sources. I dont know, what happend here in the past on the finasteride entry and honestly I dont care, but when there are valid sources that should be added, to make it to a neutral entey, I realy wonder, why such things are the whole time ignored. This shows me that in this case wiki is not neutral. Keep in mind what wiki is and what it is not, I think you know this better than me. Keep also in mind, that I´m not a naitv speaker and a few things of what I write, are may be wrong. What is going on here is not serios and sadly everbody can see it. Please, help to make wiki neutral. Feel free to do something against me, but than also do something on the things I mention, or you dont make yourself credible.--Brainbug666 (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Enough with the accusations

Brainbug666, I am asking that you refrain from posting unfounded accusatory statements on my talk page. If you feel that you have sufficient evidence that these accusations are indeed true, then I suggest you take the matters up with the appropriate venues. Otherwise, your posts are becoming borderline WP:HARASSMENT. At the very least, they are extremely rude. As I mentioned, I am a new editor. I asked you to provide feedback if you have any specific issues with my actions here. Since you responded to this plea with more accusations, I am now telling you to stop. DangerGrouse (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I just refer to your talk. All you are doing staatements with no prove, show me where I´m extremly rude? I made some statements and quoted them. As you can see on your side. A admin will now have a look on this and will decide.--Brainbug666 (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Repeatedly posting unfounded accusations on an editor's talk page is considerably rude. I don't exactly understand what you think an administrator will be deciding in the sockpuppet investigation you opened against me. I encourage you to farmiliarize yourself with WP:SPI before opening another case, because IP abuse or meat puppetry requires at least two named users. Even after my extremely respectful post on your talk page, you still subject me to further accusations, and now suggest that I am a Merck employee. Enough of this. DangerGrouse (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if I would post unfounded accusation on your talk page would be very rude, but sadly I gave you the resons and proved it by linking it. As you can see and everbody else. After your extremely respectful post on my talk. Just look a bit above, "I am now telling you to stop."

"Enough of this." and all the other comments you have done before. Just look on your talk page please. the only one, who is making unfounded accusation, are you. As we have also seen here too. Do you realy think people are that stupid? --Brainbug666 (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Merck & Co., because to me it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks, Jim1138 (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello user Jim138, thanks a lot. I added this link because it was mention in the newspaper article. A big newspaper reported about this topic and I think, like also only newspapers reported about merck, the rest of the merck entry are also only owen sources by the company, what seems to me also more like selfpromotion and spam. Where are the differences? Thanks a lot--Brainbug666 (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Merck & Co. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Depression and Persistent

5-alpha reductase (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Depression

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Conversation has just started, but what's already clear is that your report, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/DangerGrouse, is complete nonsense. Your argument is incredibly weak (just because the editor opposes you doesn't mean they're a company rep), and since you don't provide any accounts to compare to DangerGrouse's I have to choose between one of two options: you don't know how sock puppet investigations work and made a good-faith but totally bogus effort, or you do know and you're hoping for a fishing expedition--in which case you actually also don't know how it works since we don't do that.

  Like I said, the thread is recent and more comments will be forthcoming; don't be surprised if there develops a consensus to block you indefinitely for your battleground mentality and your overzealous activism. At the very least, please realize that I (and probably others) have no problem blocking you immediately in case of any more disruptions and personal attacks (like that SPI, which really is a form of harassment). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello thanks, this is wonderfull. Thanks a lot, than you can also look here, I realy wonder how fast you are here for other topics. My argument is not that he opposes me. He only is here to make a good light on a drug and this is showen. I did not claimed it I asked it. just have a look on his talk were I show my weak arguments --Brainbug666 (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)