Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:19, 17 April 2015

Misplaced Pages

Formerly you do good work and your efforts have improved Misplaced Pages. While we have slightly different opinions on certain aspect of the literature I hope we can come to some compromise on these differences. Any suggestions? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the excellent work you put in these last few years. Enjoyed the discussion. All the best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Consider a break as opposed to retiring

I am sorry to hear that your experience has been less than fun. I use the word fun intentionally. First and foremost editing should be a fun experience. I understand your experience has some rather specific detail that could be categorized as worse than "not fun". I am very sorry that you have been disrespected and hurt. I hope you will consider taking a wikibreak instead of deciding to completely retire. In my experience you have been a very valuable editor. You bring a considerable intellect and a great deal of knowledge and education. You have, from what I have seen, been polite and measured (not to mention learning and using policy). Regardless of individual editing opinions I like to think of WP as a community, hopefully one with some warmth and camaraderie. Regarding individual editing opinions I think WP needs more editors with varied POV and background. Your opinions and contributions have been of value to WP and I would hate to see the project lose you. I am saddened to think that the community I see myself a part of has treated you disgracefully. No matter what you decide I wish you the best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I suspect the issue here was simply that I mishandled a disagreement, and failed to express my concerns in an appropriate manner. I posted a comment over on the Medicine Talk board. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

?

Where is this coming from? I know you are in an angry place, but really.... Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC) (striking, with apologies Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC))

Actually I really wasn't angry when I wrote that. It's been my position for a very long time that we would all do better to focus on the facts rather than questioning each other's motives. Formerly 98 (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I have been the subject of witch hunts. I am offended that you would claim I am part of one. The COIN posting is not a witch hunt. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of that. I apologize and have struck the offensive comment. I really don't seem to be able to get anything right these days. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It was nice of you to do that but not really necessary. You raised a point of view that a lot of people have, and I take no offense. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Offline

I am now offline as promised, and expect to be away for at least 2-3 weeks. Formerly 98 (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Recreation of an article you asked for the deletion of?

Hi, could you give your opinion at User talk:Sandstein#Proposed restoration of "Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction" page? Thanks,  Sandstein  17:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

SSRI discontinuation syndrome

Moved to Talk page

More important that article be accurate than behavioural issues be spot on

Your threatening behavioural sanction in the paracetamol-asthma discussion is not particularly helpful. A wide variety of secondary sources indicate that there is an avid medical/scientific debate here, with causality currently indeterminate. While paeds docs have to make a daily operational/therapeutic choice (keep prescribing, or no), we do not. Best practice would have us state both sides, and not sit in judgment over the secondary sources. (In various places, editors have herein expressed, in Talk, strong displeasure/bias with meta-analysis and this-or-that other pharmacovigilance approach. This is simply not ours to do, to choose among expert opinions based on our own.) If there is a lively debate in the refereed secondary literature, and if a matter is not settled, this is what the article needs to say. Bob...cat may be approaching this uncivilly, but — see the extensive quoted abstract he presents (which I went on to verify) — he may indeed be pointing us in a better direction, that the current text needs to be broader and less assured than it is. Cheers. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

why the heck are you bringing up ancient history, leprof? that was a very frustrating interaction and i for one am glad it is behind us. that editor was dead wrong, POV-pushing exaggerations of side effects throughout the article, and is doing the same thing elswhere. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

May 2014 is not ancient history, and, while I deeply appreciate the role that you, Formerly, and all played in the extensive Feb discussion on this matter, it is not a settled one — citations continue to appear, and recent ones across three continents still call for more thorough study in relation to the causality issue — and as such this will remain a matter on the table. I stand by my call, here and in general, to not threaten editors with behavioural sanctions in the midst of important debates. Yes, demand that revisiting an issue requires new evidence (new citations). No, do not otherwise squelch renewed debate. We all get heated about things we feel strongly about. Leading folks back from this "cliff" is an art, granted; but threat of sanctions almost never solves a fundamental behavioural problem or underlying disagreement. Nothing more to you, here; comment was for vacationing esteemed Formerly when he returns. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

that user was behaving badly which was interfering with debate, and was rightly warned. Gentle suasion was unheeded. Til later! Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

As the editor in question, I'd like to say I walked away from the discussion very discouraged that a group of editors appeared to be engaging in WP:CHERRYPICK and when I objected, I was threatened with admin action/sanctions. While I doubted sanctions would stick, as a busy person, who edits much less frequently than the other three editors involved, I unfortunately didn’t have the time or energy to fight it, but I stand by my edits and my objections. There were 4 WP:MEDRES compliant secondary sources presented regarding paracetamol's epidemiological link to asthma.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22065272

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23347656

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23292157

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338428

This is the edit put in the article: “There is an association between paracetamol use and asthma but the weight of evidence of the collected studies strongly suggests that the association reflects various forms of bias, the most prominent of which is confounding by indication. The majority of the evidence does not support a causal role.”

This edit does not seem to accurately reflect the sources and seems like WP:CHERRYPICK.

Thank you Leprof 7272 for addressing this concern with Formerly98. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

At my Talk page, here, and at your Talk page, I argue that the matter be tabled pending appearance of further high quality secondary sources, at which point discussion might—at a specific article Talk page—be very carefully and very cordially renewed, with aim of consensus via discuss in Talk prior to making edits. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

LeProf, I usually try to measure my words, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The behavior was not simply "not spot on", it was an example of some of the most intransigent behavior I have seen in 3 years on Wikipeda, and Bob got himself blocked for his behavior. He repeatedly and stubbornly defied the consensus of 3 other editors, and then dragged two of us into COIN with the only evidence supporting his accusation that we were engaging in "undisclosed paid editing" being that we did not agree with his point of view. He engaged in edit warring, ignored the WP:GF requirement by repeatedly responding to every attempt to discuss the issues by questioning our motives, engaged in copyright violations, and broke WP:3RR

The current text on paracetamol and asthma was set by a consensus of 4 editors just a few months ago. If you feel it is in error, bring it up on the Talk page. Don't change it unilaterally, the four of us are still here and I don't think any of us have changed our view in 3 months time.

As for the business with Bob, please don't ever post anything like this on my page again. I really don't have the time for this kind of nonsense. Struck with apologies Formerly 98 (talk) 04:53 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You misread the "more important that … than..." construction in my section title; I did not in any way imply his behaviour was spot on, and indeed said "Bob...cat may be approaching this uncivilly"… It's just my (granted, WP unpopular) opinion, that some stridency should be expected and indeed tolerated when important scientific matters are being debated, and that we should, at least in the sciences, make accuracy a higher aim than the highest norms of civility. (As I said, a minority opinion.) Some of my ivy science mentors were among the most strident individuals I know—interestingly, one wrote chemistry for Encycl Britannica—as was my jurist father, who was also shaped by his context. Not that we should ever allow individuals to become like Hermann Kolbe (all the worse for being periodically, brilliantly wrong).

But thank you for words at my talk page, and all well here. I will not go further into the matter, and allow no forum shopping for renewed debate (but steer all discussion to article talk page). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Civility Barnstar
		Given for the generosity in spirit you displayed in dealing with my belated comment. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright

This is unclear "

The efficacy of aripiprazole for the treatment of acute psychotic episodes in schizophrenia was evaluated in 5 short-term (4-5 week) trials in hospitalized people. The prespecified endpoints varied by trial, with the following included in at least one trial.

• The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, and interview and observational index of 18 core schizophrenia symptoms, including suspiciousness, hostility, and grandiosity.
• The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), an inventory of general psychopathology that is commonly used in schizophrenia clinical trials to measure medication effects
• The positive symptoms subscale of the PANSS battery - A subset of questions dealing with the "positive" symptoms of schizophrenia, including delusions, conceptual disorganization, hallucinatory behavior, excitement, grandiosity, suspiciousness/persecution, and hostility
• The negative symptoms subscale of the PANSS battery - A subset of questions dealing with behaviors such as blunted affect, emotional withdrawal, poor rapport, passive apathetic withdrawal, difficulty in abstract thinking, lack of spontaneity/flow of conversation, and stereotyped thinking
• The Clinical Global Impressions scale, which provides a physician-rated measure of the overall psychological state of the patient

Aripiprazole demonstrated superiority to placebo against all primary endpoints in 3 of the 5 trials. In a fourth trial aripiprazole failed to show superiority to haloperidol; haloperidol showed a trend toward greater efficacy. A fifth trial was considered to be a failed trial, as the known active comparator haloperidol failed to show superior efficacy to placebo. Overall, aripiprazole showed superiority to placebo against endpoints including the PANSS total score, the PANSS positive symptom subscale, the PANSS negative symptom subscale, and the CGI in at least two trials for each endpoint."

The FDA does not write the application and thus I do not think they own the copyright. Which page number are you using exactly and why a 2002 ref? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc,

On phone so hard to discuss at length. Anything that looks like cut and paste here is from the FDA approval summary, not NDA itself. So I'm pretty sure no copyright issue.

The other issue is complicated and is something that I hope you can offer some ideas on, because I'm very aware that I am pushing the envelope here. As you are probably aware, I have some concerns about meta analysis. The positive spin of meta analyses coming from industry makes it clear how readily the results of these conform to the pre existing beliefs of the authors, and the procesd by which the analyses arr performed is not transperent to the reader.

The prior into relied on a meta analysis written by an author with a total of 6 publications under his belt, concluding that evidence for superiority to placebo was marginal. Do we take the analysis of this inexperienced author over that of the scores of scientists who evaluated this drug at FDA and EMA? Does it really sell $6B a year ehen it doesnt work? While recognizing all the inappropriate marketing and what not, this is no anti depressant. There is a clearly didtinguishable difference between a pt eho is psychotic and one who is not. And how does a drug that doesnt eork end up on the WHO list of essential medicines and approved by NICE?

So if you can offer some guidance here I will consider myself in your debt. I don't think the old intro was an acceptable representation of mainstream thought, even if supportrd by Cochrane.

Fuller version of this on article Talk page

Formerly 98 (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

1. "www.accessdata.fda.gov" (PDF).
2. "www.accessdata.fda.gov" (PDF).

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited GlaxoSmithKline, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PATH. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Named references

Hi Formerly 98,

Thanks for your help cleaning up Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder management! The article is a bit of a mess, isn't it?

I noticed a couple of your edit summaries mentioned removing references to primary research. I'm all about sticking with secondary and tertiary sources as described in WP:MEDRS, but please check to see if named references are reused before removing them. When a named reference is used without being defined, the result is an error like this one. Those can be tricky to sort out later, even with the help of a tool like WikiBlame.—Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 04:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I thought these days a bot comes along fairly soon afterwards and rescues the full reference ... in fact I've come to prefer allowing the bot to do this for me (it's less error-prone!) Alexbrn 04:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

In my experience the bot has always cleaned it up pretty quickly and completely. Is there reason to believe that this is not correct?

and thank you for being so diplomatic. I am running through it like a chain saw through butter, aren't I? Formerly 98 (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Reanalyses

One day only there.

Thanks for the paper, much appreciated. I didn't follow what you were trying to communicate with the aripiprazole links, can you be more explicit?

Overall, I thoroughly understand that pharma has lost the trust of the medical community and the population as a whole, and some sort of patient level data access is coming. Unlike many others, I see this creating a lot of problems that will partially offset the advantages that result. These are summarized by the former head of the EMA here, far better than I could express it myself: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001202

Best, Formerly 98 (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. The lesson seems to be that reanalysis of marginal clinical results using different analytics can help reduce the risk of misinterpretation. Seems pretty obvious, but the idea that one in three such marginal results should see different practical results is rather staggering... Those stray aripiprazole links were there before my edit, not sure from who or what.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I agree, but not enough of an expert to have a fully informed opinion. Definitely better if the re-analyzer prespecifies the details of endpoints and stat analysis before doing the analysis or having access to the data that will tell them how endpoint and stat method selection will affect the conclusions.Formerly 98 (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Reintroduced copyvio

This edit reintroduced copyvio text that was copypasted in by blocked user truebreath. Please address this problem as quickly as possible.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the heads up.Formerly 98 (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Opioids article

I would like to know why you and another Misplaced Pages editor undid almost all of my edits (all factual, all with citations) on the opioids article. Right now, this article is very high level, reads like it is written by a pharmacist or someone involved in some way with pharmaceuticals (and the composition thereof). I was trying to add -- in a balanced fashion -- the many concerns with over-prescription of opioids and accidental addiction. Both the governments of Canada and the U.S. have declared opioid addiction a public health crisis -- why was this removed from the article? This is not an opinion, but a fact. I was careful to leave up all the discussions of how useful the drug can be, etc., but the public health information should be included here as well otherwise it is not a balanced article.

Also, this article is not plain language. I was trying (a first attempt) to do much more to make this article accessible to those who are not doctors, pharmacists, in chemistry, etc. It is a terrificly meaty article, but needs a plain language intervention.  : )

So, my question: how can I proceed to include all the information I know well on the issue if you and the fellow editor take it all down? What's the process? I've not had that happen to the numerous other edits I've undertaken over the years on Misplaced Pages.

I can see if what I was adding was controversial -- but it's not. It was all factual.

I can see one paragraph was left (of my edits), which I'm happy to see. But frankly, this article still reads like a pro-opioids piece, and there are many issues that are not adequately raised. (I'm not anti-opioids for the record).

So, again, I'd like to know the process for making edits to this page. Who is 'in charge,' so to speak.

Thanks if you can help.

kathleen5454

Kathleen5454 15:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleen5454 (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) this discussion belongs on the article Talk page. i would be happy to join there. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Merck & Co. may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• oref=slogin Merck Agrees to Settlement Over Vioxx Ads], '']'', May 20, 2008]</ref>
• oref=slogin Merck Agrees to Settlement Over Vioxx Ads], '']'', May 20, 2008]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Technical problems with the Finasteride talk page.

I've attempted to post the text found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Doors22#Finasteride_Sept_28) on the talk page, and consistently get blocked with a warning about a blacklisted URL link. As near as I can tell, I've cut out all the links in the text, and am certain that the URL listed in the warning is not present.

Formerly 98 (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem was not with the content you added, but with what was on the talk page before. I assume the effect occurred right now because yours was the first edit after the new feature which lists references even without a {{reflist}} was introduced. Previously the URL was hidden within <ref> tags and not displayed; that may have allowed it to be added to the page. I have modified the URL to avoid Google; now it should no longer trigger the spam blacklist. Huon (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Formerly 98 (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent Deletions

You posted on my talk page that the most recent edits on the talk page were you asking questions to which I didn't not respond. This isn't correct for two reasons. First, your comments were directed at an entirely separate editor and secondly, you were asking questions about the PLESS study which has already been removed from the article. You even mention you aren't influential enough to reverse decisions made after extensive discussion, but several months later this is exactly what you did.

"I suppose we should talk about what the goals of this discussion are. I know that there has been a lot of discussion of this topic before, and I am certainly not influential enough to reverse decisions that were made previously after extensive discussion. What reason has been given previously for not including the observations from the PLES trial? Formerly 98 (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Thanks"

The previous consensus was attained much earlier in the history of the talk page or in the direct notes of the edits. Some of your points are valid - I did not notice that some people had given incorrect references or maybe the reference links had broken, since as I mentioned, the edits were made a long time ago. I will take your comments into consideration and try to fix the reference links where possible. Doors22 (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit

These edits were flagged and this text

"The American Psychiatric Association 2000 Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with major depressive disorder indicates that, if preferred by the patient, antidepressant medications may be provided as an initial primary treatment for mild major depressive disorder; antidepressant medications should be provided for moderate to severe major depressive disorder unless electroconvulsive therapy is planned; and a combination of antipsychotic and antidepressant medications or electroconvulsive therapy should be used for psychotic depression. It states that efficacy is generally comparable between classes and within classes and that the initial selection will largely be based on the anticipated side-effects for an individual patient, patient preference, quantity and quality of clinical trial data regarding the medication, and its cost"

Is word for word the same as the text here Please advice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: Sorry about that. I copied that text verbatim out of another Misplaced Pages article. I've deleted it from the source article as well as the two copies. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 98. Which article did you copy it from? If you mention the article in the edit summary I can than follow up. It might be that the link I put on your page copied from us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: I'm a little confused on which was the source article at this point, but the three articles were Depression (mood), Major depressive disorder, and Antidepressant. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay it came from the article on antidepressant and was added in Jan of 2007 . Thus the other site copied from use. When moving stuff around just mention it in the edit summary. Feel free to restore this text as it is not a copyright issue. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.

For pointing out it out, since I was unaware of it

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Because Misplaced Pages doesn't need their advocacy for MDMA. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 19:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Z147

hooray! Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for your recent collaborative work on MDMA. The English Misplaced Pages would be a better place if more people stepped up to help out like you did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

for the clean-up I've noticed you doing on drug content. Much appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd certainly appreciate any feedback or tweaks as we go along, as I was a pharma guy in a previous life, and probably carry some biases. While I tend to get a little distracted by minor issues and pet peeves from time to time, my main goal is to edit drug articles bearing in mind that people use them to make healthcare decisions. In this view, overstating and understating risk/benefit ratios are probably equally harmful to patients.

I originally joined up here because the fluoroquinolone articles had been taken over by a group engaged in litigation with the manufacturers (none of whom I have ever worked for). They made these drugs sound horrible. I had visions of people with pneumonia reading those articles and not finishing their prescription, which as I am sure you know may have a fatal outcome.

The industry has made some real marginal drugs in recent years as well, but even these I think should be labeled "marginal" and not "completely useless". And of course the completely useless ones should be called completely useless, though thats a lot harder for me to do. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Atrazine

Moved to article talk page

Conflict of Interest

Formerly98, I have already stated that your suspicion of conflict of interest is based on a year's worth of editing behavior and has nothing to do with disagreeing with me on a single article. It is well known and documented in many places that 3rd party agencies are hired to make edits on Misplaced Pages on behalf of self-interested organizations (pharmaceutical companies are a single example). I don't even need to specify this but they could do this for general PR purposes, inducing new patients to feel confident with their products, or minimize legal risk. Your attempt to feign ignorance would only fool the ignorant.

I edit completely with the norms of the Misplaced Pages community which is why I am not personally hesitant to discuss these issues in a public forum - despite your threat I will bring awareness to my own editing history. As I mentioned, take care to not violate any principles and you will be OK, but I or somebody will start an investigation if you continue to violate rules on reversions, referencing without reading sources and the like. Doors22 (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) doors22 it is fine to raise questions about COI, perhaps once or twice, but after that it comes harassment. Please see Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest. Do not personalize content disputes; bad road to go down. There are many conflict resolution pathways in WP; I suggest the two of you use them. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Sofosbuvir Prodrug Chemistry.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sofosbuvir Prodrug Chemistry.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Leyo 07:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment

This was imho a seriously inappropriate comment. Could we leave those out? I won't even try to decipher what you meant there, and assume that you were simply lacking in caffeine. --Kim D. Petersen 22:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? After weeks of potshots and insinuations, you come here to criticize that? Kim, AlbinoFerret's proposal wasn't a serious one, just a rhetorical flourish. After failing to get concensus to move the medical section out of the beginning of the article, he proposed an outline in which it is removed altogether. I would not have responded that way to any serious proposal, but the intent does not appear to have been to work toward compromise, merely to be provocative. And while sarcastic, the comment does illustrate a key concern here. All this endless discussion of how these things are designed looks to me a lot like the brochures you get from a car dealer about how elegently engineered the products they sell are. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

RFC responce

Since you didnt post a Yes or No in the Comment your post was moved to Discussion. If you want to add a Yes or No and move it back, feel free. AlbinoFerret 14:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pharmaceutical industry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merck. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm Arnavchaudhary. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Triclosan without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The reverted edit can be found here. Arnavchaudhary (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

More praise

I just noticed your temperate response to another editor on the Triclosan talk page. I wish that many others would follow your model. Most talk pages seem to read like a war zone, so I'm afraid I contribute far less what I could. Burressd (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

new user page

love, love, love it! especially the self-portrait. :) Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Your !vote at AF's ANI thread

Hey there... About 2 weeks ago you changed your !vote at the ANI thread regarding AF from support to oppose, based on something good you apparently saw at the time. Is that still your position? Zad68 04:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You can be blocked for edit warring

Your removal of the link on Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor did not meet the criteria for removal. You can be blocked per Misplaced Pages guidelines for edit warring. Misplaced Pages is not a place for you to shill for the pharmaceutical industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpuskrusty (talk • contribs) 01:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry buddy, but as a sworn agent of the Forces of Evil, its my job to spread as much misinformation as I can. You'll be hearing from my contacts in Homeland Security in the next couple of days. Hope you enjoy the weather in Guantamano. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Re Request

Done!--FergusM1970 15:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions!

Formerly,

I'd like to express my heartfelt admiration for your many excellent contributions to the encyclopedia this year, your depth of medical knowledge, commitment to presenting a balanced and neutral POV, and your infinite patience when faced with difficult behavior by others.

I remain your greatest fan and admirerer.

Holiday greetings! Formerly 98 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holiday's

I hope you have a great time with family and friends and a happy new year. AlbinoFerret 20:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice message on my talk page. I know we have disagreements on the article. But I know you would rather work things out. I do hope we can find common ground in the future. AlbinoFerret 21:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

RE: revert of USA section on the article pharmacological torture

Hello Formerly98, I see that you have made 2 changes on pharmacological torture. Thank you for your input, I am glad there is someone else looking into this as well. There is only one book I could find on the topic, so most of the content is from that. I have one question in regards to the USA section which you have deleted. I read through WP:RS and I could not find the reason as to why you deleted the USA section. The first part of the USA section I referenced from Truthout and the second part is about about Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri which I sourced from the CIA senate report itself. I had not got around to referencing it. I am aware the latter is from a primary source but after reading WP:PS I carefully put in the sentence which could be easily be found by reading the CIA senate report on torture. Please could you explain? Thank you. Mbcap (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, I have just undone your revert and also referenced the sentence about Abdal Rahim Al-Nashiri. I still however, even after reading the above mentioned articles, do not know why you undid my edit. Could you please explain? Thanks Mbcap (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mbcap:. I have a couple of concerns with the article

• I'm not quite sure why "pharmacological torture" should exist as a separate article at all, and not as a section of the "torture" article. It doesn't seem to have that many sources, and the entire article almost is written from a single source. This always makes me nervous, because we are putting a lot of weight on that once source. If the book cites other sources, can you extract them and add them?
• The material I deleted was sourced to Truth-Out.com, which does not strike me as an established reliable source. Per WP:RS " News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact.", and "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." I see that you have now added some senate hearing minutes as a source. Please delete the material supported only by Truth-out.com or find a more reliable source for it, and I will have no further disagreement with you. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98: You have put an unreliable source tag onto the senate hearing document source. Could you explain that please. Secondanly in regards to Truth-out.com, why does it not strike you as a reliable source may I ask? They have provided their sources some of which are:

• http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/operation_and_plans/Detainee/OtherDetaineeRelatedDocuments.html
• http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/operation_and_plans/Detainee/death_investigation/medical-1/Pages_12-19_from_Dickstein_Medical_Files_folder_1_of_3_part_3_of_81.pdf

In regards to the article being a seperate entitiy or being part of the main torture article, I am afraid I will have to leave that to yourself and more experienced editors. The book does reference nearly everything. I can extract the sources but I am taking a month leave from wikipedia to concentrate on exams. I will try to do it after I return fully. Thank you. Mbcap (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For arresting promotional edits on Good Neighbor Pharmacy. DOCUMENT★ERROR 11:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Z147

Next time

Regardless of the future outcome of this ban proposal you filled on me. Next time you have a problem with what I said about whatever subject, you can come and talk to me on my talk page so we can try to figure out a way to settle the score before filling an all out ban request. Anyways, merry Christmas if this is something you celebrate. TheNorlo (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

TheNorlo topic ban

It could just be me, but don't you think TheNorlo should get an indefinite community ban instead of a six-month topic ban? All of the following you said in your proposal could add up to it:

• You refer to a WP:RS as "Garbage" because you do not like the contents.
• You mischaracterize the basis of my opposition to your proposal and suggest that my opinion as an editor can be disregarded
• You attack the character of other editors and call them Idiots, morons and "liars" , thus violating the talk page rules calling for an assumption of good faith.
• You use unnecessarily opinionated and provocative language that seems intended to galvanize your allies and provoke your opponents rather than support consensus building

How can this not add up to a community ban or a block? ElectricBurst 18:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

A question

Hello there Formerly 98!, after seeing your recent edits at Norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor I feel the need to ask you; do you find it logical to assume that such compounds exist naturally in plants?

Can you tell me of putative Genuses of such plants? it could help me in gathering data for the article, in this context, and if you don't have such data, even some recommendations of where to search could help me very much indeed!

Thank you!, Ben-Natan (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, wish I could help but I don't know a lot about natural products. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Formerly 98!

Formerly 98,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

SPN

Thanks for your edits on State Policy Network. As you can see, I've done some editing on the article at various times. Don't get me wrong about my deletion of the George Will piece. I actually admire Will and I approve of what the governor did in Wisconsin. And I think the Guardian piece is noteworthy, albeit not especially so. Happy New Year. – S. Rich (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

4-Methylimidazole and soft drinks

You seem to have an interest in good citations and biomedical themes, so maybe you could look at the article 4-Methylimidazole, which discusses a compound that is found in soft drinks and apparently has aroused some concern. At Talk:4-Methylimidazole, there is a note from (apparently) a Pepsi rep who is probably worried about some aspects. Since the Pepsi person had the good idea of leaving a note at the Talk page and it seems that we (you?) might help out by reviewing the soft drinks part of the article for fairness and objectivity. Just a thought. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look tomorrow. There is a nice IARC monograph on the subject, and on first pass it looks like one of the millions of chemicals that causes cancer if you consume massive amounts of it for years at a time. But I'll look at some more sources. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 16 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Phenibut page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism at Pharmaceutical industry

Give them warnings as I did at User talk:50.206.77.2. Helps to check their recent contribution history, as they were being given a pass for a lot of crap. Document the warnings. Lots of rope, so to speak. Then be patient, and when they persist, report them to WP:AIV. I usually write something like, "Warned, persists, hot" and perhaps "school, short block?" If it is a real account, not an IP address, may put in "Vandalism only" if that applies. Then be patient. It will work itself out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Good work! Pass it on. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:List of Adverse Effects of Olanzapine concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:List of Adverse Effects of Olanzapine, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of Adverse Effects of Olanzapine

Hello Formerly 98. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "List of Adverse Effects of Olanzapine".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:List of Adverse Effects of Olanzapine}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Misplaced Pages, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edits

You have reverted my edits to Merck & Co. using this edit summary: remove ax grinding Would you please elaborate? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Ottawahitech your category has been deleted - seems like you were on some kind of mission across the encyclopedia to expose what you call "untaxed profits". Misplaced Pages is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Most of the content you added as part of your campaign has been reverted and by more than one editor. Let this go. Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the place to post your gripes about how this company or that does not live up to your personal standards of how you think they should behave. If a company knowingly sells defective products that lead to deaths or injuries, that's one thing, but using Misplaced Pages to complain about completely legal behavior is another.

I recently edited an article about a company that had an entire section about how the company turned down a request from an activist group to label all its Spanish bottles in Catalan. We have to draw the line somewhere, and your edits were clearly on the wrong side of a reasonable placement of that line. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Primary source usage

The paragraph I added the primary source to already has two primary sources citing neurotoxic effects; I do not understand why a primary source citing the cause of neurotoxicity would not be relevant. If secondary sources must be used, then the whole section should be deleted. This rule should either apply across the board or not. Please review WP:MEDRS; secondary sources are not a requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrowfolk (talk • contribs) 00:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sertaline: Sexual Side Effects

Where did you leave a comment for me Formerly? AmiLynch (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Amy, i must have walked away from my computer without hitting Save. I was just going to say that the only MEDRS compliant source I am aware for the content you want to add is a sentence in the Prozac prescribing information. Unfortunately, there is no similar statement in the sertraline insert at this time. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diplomacy

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thank you for your thoughtful talk page contributions at State Policy Network, and for helping to keep the discussion focused on content and policy. Your work is appreciated. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Actavis

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Actavis, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
What are "the other examples"? I've undone your content removal. Please discuss on the talk page in the future before removing content.
Ulmanor (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

A vast and insidious conservative conspiracy

I think you're right about this, with one important caveat: it is the reliable sources that are deciding what is newsworthy, and generally speaking we simply follow in their footsteps. I submit there are quite a few people, perhaps not just on the radical leftist conspiracy theorist dirt digging fringe, who are interested in examining the connections among these entities. Perhaps there is a vast and insidious conservative conspiracy, perhaps there is not; but we are simply describing the reliably sourced facts. Then to the extent possible we add context to those facts to prevent our audience from being misled. From the perspective of DT/Koch, we're airing out what's already known and showing they have nothing to hide. (Or do they?) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I don't mean to be tendentious. As you can see from my history of edits, one of my ongoing areas of interest and concern is editors using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. Its something I feel pretty strongly about, and its not just about defending conservatives (I'm a scientist and abhor climate change denialists). In parallel with my "defense" of SPN and DT, I've been giving some presumed campaign staffers a hard time over on the Rand Paul article.

I understand your point about reliable sources, but I also believe very firmly that not everything that can be reliably sourced adds value to articles. For example, the Washington Times has published a series of articles suggesting that Obama is a closet Muslim. The Washington Times is a reliable source, but do we really want to cover that with its implications that it would somehow be a scandal if it were true? In writing these articles, the Times asserts that this is a notable issue, but the deafening silence from the vast majority of reliable sources on this "issue" speaks volumes that they don't regard this issue as even worthy of discussion.

As near as I can see, most of the "criticism" of DT and SPN in RS has consisted of attacks on what I called the "vast and insidious campaign by conservative groups to support conservative causes". I think stuff like that deserves mention, but only very briefly because it is predictable and frankly a bit vacuous. I think if some material could be found discussing the issue of these organizations promoting legislation while operating as 501(c)(3) charities, that would represent to me a more substantive criticism (e.g., a "real" issue) that would add value to the article.

The WP:CRITICISM essay has a nice section on this with regard to religion.:

"For example, consider religion. Every major religion probably has criticism of every other major religion, so an article on one religion could easily be almost entirely a restatement of everyone else's critiques of that religion. That would squeeze out most of the main information about the one religion that is the subject of the article, which would make it less useful to readers of this encyclopedia."

But I have much to learn here still, and recognize that my views are well, just that... Formerly 98 (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I hear you and I certainly don't consider your concerns (or your expression of your concerns) as tendentious. I am quite cognizant of the fact that there are too many contributors on our politics-related article who seem more far eager to push a political agenda than to present the facts in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Are these people more on the left than the right? I don't know, it depends on the subject matter. Overall in my experience it's roughly 50-50.

I don't know anything about the Washington Times Obama muslim thing beyond what you wrote, but it sounds like it might not be equivalent largely because, by my understanding, these claims have been largely debunked. So, for most facts I presume we have reliable sources contradicting the Wash Times, and then we have WP:FRINGE issues as well. (By the way I've stayed well clear of WP:FRINGE debates so I'm very inexperienced applying it.)

That seems like a different case than for the suspected Koch evil empire, where we have uncontroverted, reliably sourced facts between which some people are trying to connect the dots. As long as we stick to the reliably sourced facts, put them in proper context, and don't connect the dots ourselves, I think we're on solid ground.

I think a better comparator than the birther/Muslim thing is Benghazi. That's another case where there are reliably sourced facts, and then there are people trying to weave them into a conspiracy theory. The fact that this is a story that will probably never bear fruit for the conspiracy theorists and is of far more interest to Obama's opponents than to his supporters is no reason not to cover the subject in WP. In fact we have a whole article dedicated to that subject - and I fully support that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Email

Hi Formerly, you should have gotten an email from me around Feb 17/18 - could you take a look and let me know if you don't have it? It's a bit time-sensitive. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I"m on it. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ping. Nikkimariana (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. Done. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry if I seemed impatient, you were the last I needed to pass the list on. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bigbaby23 (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits at the Dow chemical article

Please see my talk page edit at the The Dow Chemical Co. which you have moved from your user page. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

hi

Formerly 98 you might remember me from the wikiproject med talk page, I have an article for GA nomination Dyslexia that is finished, however it needs to be reviewed by someone first, so it can get passed, I would really appreciate it (it only takes a few minutes), thank you ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but have not done this before. Is there a guidance document somewhere? Formerly 98 (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

yes, Misplaced Pages:Good_article_nominations if you go here the article, under biology and medicine will appear you just give your opinion, and that starts the process, if others join in that's great, generally if you have issues with the article I must meet and satisfy your issues, and you therefore pass/fail the article based on my performance.thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look Formerly 98 (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

thank you,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Help me

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

This diff https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&curid=11424955&diff=650888460&oldid=650888427 shows me as having deleted a large fraction of a discussion about Donors Trust on the reliable sources talk board. To the best of my understanding, I edited only the section on Government Sources below line 392. I don't know if the removed material was a legitimate removal by someone else or if I screwed up somehow. Formerly 98 (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If I'm understanding your question correctly, that looks like a single edit made by you; if you accidentally took out that much content you should be able to re-add it to the current page. Best, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 11:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Publications by elected officials

Hi Formerly 98. I wanted to thank you in general for your thought-provoking comments on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

You wrote something in particular that made me stop and think: "I would personally be quite comfortable with press releases from the EPA or FDA...It's the much more political nature of press releases from the offices of elected officials and agencies whose head are usually replaced by the newly incoming executives that worry me: DOJ, Attorneys General, the Office of the Governor..."

I am sure you are not alone in thinking this. And more worryingly, I think you may be right. But it seems like an interesting comment on the state of our democracy when those officials who are most directly answerable to The People are those whom we trust the least. We trust those officials and institutions who are unelected, and who cannot be removed or easily influenced by the democratic process. Along a similar vein, people seem to agree that the federal congress is non-functional, and hope that important questions regarding the most fundamental issues in our society will instead by answered by the "elders" of the Supreme Court. I sometimes wonder how much faith we really have in the idea of government by the people. Just a thought. -Xanthis (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree a sad state of affairs. Its funny, but I put great faith in bureaucrats. Pharma is trying to make money, academics are trying to make names for themselves, journalists make their careers by finding a big story (and are thus incentivized to make the story look bigger than it is), politicians are trying to get re-elected. Give me the opinion of a middle level manager at a government agency every time. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard incident posting

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User removing content from RSN discussion.The discussion is about the topic Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thank you. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Request

Hi Formerly 98, could you please give me a link to the discussion you mentioned on WT:COI, where you say I was in a content dispute with you and threatened to block you? That's something I wouldn't do, so I'd like to see the discussion that gave you that impression. The only editor I recall interacting with re:COI who edited the article you mentioned – Levofloxacin, which I haven't edited – was User:Alfred Bertheim, and the discussion is here. It was about a different article, and there was no mention of a block, warning or anything similar. Sarah (SV) 20:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Slim, I apologize for the inaccurate statement that there was a threat to block and have struck the remark on the COI discussion page.

I will say that whether my perceptions were accurate or not, the statement that I edited as a IP for most of a year and then came back with a different username was genuinely motivated by a perception that I was being subjected to a campaign of harrassment by an admin. This perception arose from

• My obviously subjective feeling that you were being unreasonable and heavy handed in the discussion on the article Talk page - this is of course purely subjective so I won't rehash the content dispute here
• That this was followed up by questioning my motives on my Talk page in the absence of any evidence other than that you disagreed with my edits. You did this in spite of the very first conversation on my Talk page being a question about COI which I had responded to on the other author's Talk page, and which you could have more easily clicked through to read my response than type a new accusation.
• When I denied any COI, you continued to express doubt in a back handed way "I'm sorry you feel the question about COI isn't justified; your pro-pharma edits do have that flavour to them." and suggested that "If COI is not the issue, perhaps I should direct you instead to our neutrality policy at WP:NPOV. Your edits definitely don't appear to be neutral and disinterested, so perhaps you could work on adjusting that."
• Three days later, you showed up to revert my edits on an unrelated article that I had been working on intermittently for a month, and which you had never edited before.

Looking back on this, I think as a newbie editor I reacted more strongly than I would today. But nonetheless, I think this bears on new editor retention if not the general atmosphere here.  :>)

You, petrarchan, and certain other editors here seem very quick to raise the issue of bad faith editing in the midst of content disputes. My personal feeling is that this really poisons the atmosphere here, reduces the potential for truly colloborative editing, and makes the whole thing less fun. No matter how politely you ask a man if he is a thief and a liar, it is still an offensive question that in my opinion should be reserved for cases in which there is some evidence and not simply an inability to believe that any honest person could disagree with your opinion.

This may sound harsh, but I don't know how else to ask: Do you and Petrachan and the others never consider the possiblity that Jytdog, myself, Kingofaces, and others find your editing style just as troubling as you find ours? Have you considered the possibility that it is good manners and not a concession of the moral high ground that keeps us from making accusations and insinuations of the sort that Petrachan made after you invited her to comment on the discussion you initiated?

I'd like to get along with you and have a respectful and ideally, even collaborative relationship. I think the basis for such a relationship would be to treat each other with respect, to avoid insinuations, and to publically dissociate oneself from such insinuations made by others. And I of course will refrain from commenting on our past differences in public forums going forward. My purpose in doing so in this particular case was to present to you how damaging these freewheeling accusations can be, and not to "call you out". But in any case, I won't do it again.

And to leave this on a correct note, I acknowledge that I was wrong to accuse you of threatening to block me, and I am sorry for my misbehavior. I should have fact checked before putting a comment in a public forum. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for striking. I don't want to make a meal of this, but I've reviewed my edits, and not only was there no threat to block, there was no following you to articles, and no allegations of bad faith, as you said there were. Our interaction was brief, polite, confined to one article, and absolutely nothing happened that could be described as harassment. If you disagree, please show me some diffs, but otherwise I would appreciate it if you would make clear on WT:COI that you have made a mistake. Your retraction that you were threatened with a block implies that your other allegations are accurate. Sarah (SV) 00:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, no. Please re-read what I wrote above. There is no point in repeating myself. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Warning - The AfD you initiated

Ironically, your request for MfD re: WP:COIducks is clearly a COI and quite disruptive to the project considering the content and purpose of the essay. It actually originated on the TP of admin, (SV) during an extensive discussion between several editors. Its development was properly announced, and input was requested beginning March 30, 2015 thru April 3, 2015. It was published after TP discussions, and it is still editable per proper editing procedures for essays. I will give you an opportunity to withdraw your MfD before I seek further remedy. Atsme☯ 04:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Oh dear, I came here from WT:MED after sardonically predicting that the MfD would be taken as evidence of COI and find this. This behaviour is getting out of hand - anybody is entitled to start an MfD and nothing has immunity from that. Please strike or delete the accusation that Formerly's MfD "is clearly a COI" (classic use of the word "clearly"), or I shall raise this at ANI. Alexbrn (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This was a very silly comment to make Atsme. If you really want to file a complaint against me for filing a MfD, that is certainly your right, but I'd honestly recommend against it as it puts you at risk of WP:BOOMERANG. Formerly 98 11:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Notice to stop edit warring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodigy 16 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

What????????????????????????? You were reverted for a silly edit! What have you been smoking? Formerly 98 01:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

made a mistake seeing a revert, my apologies.

Format and sign this comment

Hi Formerly 98, could you format and sign this comment of yours at ANI? Thanks... Zad68 21:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Finasteride

I have answered your questions before and don't believe they are appropriate or relevant for you to ask again. On the contrary, many editors have been concerned that you edit with COI. The degree to which you have tried to manipulate articles and content regarding controversial content relating to corporate activity is alarming. The policy of COI on wikipedia is still in flux, but you very strongly appear to be a pro industry advocate with a prejudiced POV. As I have mentioned in the past, I believe your edit history warrants a proper discussion in an advocacy or COI setting but I have not yet been inclined to initiate. Please exercise caution as there are many editors that would support these claims that have had very negative experiences with you in the past. Doors22 (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Doors22: I have no memory of ever asking this question of you or for that matter of anyone before. Could you please either answer the questions or provide Diffs? Thanks Formerly 98 03:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I find your questions highly inappropriate, intrusive, and not reflective of whether an editor actually has a conflict of interest. Very hypocritical as well, since you have previously refused to answer much more reasonable and direct questions about conflict of interests from myself and others. Don't forget about your incessant whining where you complain other editors are concerned about you having a conflict of interest(s). In the past, you have suggested I may work for a hedge fund that is shorting Merck's stock. Get real. None of these edits have any material affect on legal/financial issues. These issues are disclosed in the appropriate financial filings and the legal issues will be dealt with by experts in court. The true effect of what you are doing is burying/distorting information that may mislead consumers into unknowingly taking cosmetic drugs that have risks of dangerous and permanent side effects.Doors22 (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Doors22: you still have not answered my question. Here's what WP:COI says:

• If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly... and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions.
• Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest.
• If you are involved in a court case, or you are close to one of the litigants, you should not write about the case, or about a party or law firm associated with the case.
• Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns that engage in advocacy in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest.

My Talk page provides a very explicit discussion of my professional history, interests, and areas in which I might have a COI. There is nothing to talk about beyond that. I have no financial or other relationships that would tend to influence my editing. I am sorry if you have health issues (if that is the issue that is the basis of you finding my questions intrusive), but if you have health problems that you attribute to finasteride, you are in violation of Misplaced Pages's COI policy if you edit the article directly.

Please also note the following from WP:COI: "Accounts that appear to be single-purpose accounts that exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion or denigration of a person, company, product, service, website, organization, etc., and whose postings are in apparent violation of this guideline, should be made aware of this guideline and warned not to continue their problematic posting. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked."

Formerly 98 03:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)