User talk:Brainbug666

Nomination of Post-Finasteride Syndrome for deletion[edit]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(Belated) Welcome[edit]

Hello, Brainbug666, and welcome to Wikipedia. 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:

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)[reply]

IDIDNOTHEARTHAT[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 wikipedia is controled but not for wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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)[reply]

Enough with the accusations[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Brainbug666, I am quite frankly appalled at the most recent MASSIVE edit you made to my talk page. I have reverted this because I consider it WP:HARASSMENT. I have asked you multiple times to abstain from posting unfounded accusations on my talk page. You respond to these requests with further accusations and then open up a blatantly false WP:SPI case against me. If you have specific questions or issues pertaining to articles, edits, or anything else wikipedia-related, I would be happy to discuss these items on my talk page. Otherwise, I INSIST that you stop with this behavior. DangerGrouse (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you wrote, posting unfounded accusatory statements on my'Italic text.... This is the source why some can thing this.--Brainbug666 (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

ANI Notice[edit]

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

Conversation has just started, but what's already clear is that your report, Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You need to stop attempting to justify your improper behavior by attacking other editors based on your assumptions of their motives. And given the number of times people have told you this, you need to stop it NOW.

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked this and I said this is a subjectiv picture I get. What is going on here is more and more breathtaking, show me any personal attak by a quote. Shouting doesnt also make a thing true. Keep in mind that everbody can read, what is going on and everbody can see what I wrote and others. Keep please also in mind, that this what is going on here doesnt help wiki, it only makes wiki to a doubtful source. This is very sad.--Brainbug666 (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked kindly, but you continued to make personal attacks and aspersions. You have been pointed to the policies, but you continued to make personal attacks and aspersions. You have been asked directly, but you continued to make personal attacks and aspersions. and you have now been shouted at. If it takes shouting to get you to stop making personal attacks and aspersions, great. If not, the next step is a block. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me and quote, what you claim. Or is that also a personal attak again?--Brainbug666 (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Combination of socking as an IP, WP:DE violation, battleground and WP:HERE. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Brainbug666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My reason for unblocking is very simple, I was the one who asked for a neutral Admin, I wrote, to an andmin, to check this case please, Cause there is no conection. There is likly one IP and I would love to know what kind of IP it should be? I am based in Germany and Im a editor there. I just came here to make this entry and also worked on articles related to it. While I was writing Dennis Brown, i was blocked. This was I wanted to write on his talk. This was my text.Hallo Dennis, You had a look on the sockpuppetry an I would love to ask you, If you have the time, to have a look at what is going on here. I think it would be the best, when a totaly neutral admin would have a look. The sockpuppetry was none, the meat puppetry also not, I tryed to explain that a few times. There are about 2500 young patients, who suffer badly and only tryed to defet a article that describes their Problem. Thats all. When you read, how this went. But take time there are many many useless arguments, even some done by me, May be I am wrong but most were a reply on useless arguments. but what is going on more is more like a witch-hunt and some users totaly ignore what I wrote and this doesnt make wikipedia very neutral in my eyes. the more I see the more the picture gets bad. I normaly work in another language so I´m not a nativ speaker. I also said that there many times. Thanks a lot. my talk the talk side of the other user the prove, why some on me can subjectiv think that And more on the admin board, bur no one is talking about the other user I never have seen such things on other wikipedia and I am shocked, what is going on here, this is not wikipedia.--Brainbug666 (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Dianna (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dianna, but I cant not say, I never do that again, because I never did any sockpuppetry. I can not say I are not allowed to defend myslef and when people attack me personal and nothing is done to other users. I totlay undertand this points. WP:DE violation, battleground and WP:HERE But I do not undertand why nothing happens to other users. --Brainbug666 (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to strike your response, read this Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and then try again (with, per the blocking reasons, a sincere statement that your future actions will not fall under WP:DE violation or WP:BATTLEGROUND and show that you are WP:HERE to write an encyclopedia and not WP:SOAP push an agenda.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please stop also posting here.--Brainbug666 (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, your block was based (from the note that went along with it) on four different violations, of which sock-puppetry would probably be considered the least serious (in my opinion), especially from a less-experienced foreign-language editor. There is plenty of good faith to go around but that goes out the window when you start handing out personal insults and removing valid content from articles as "pay back" for having your own article deleted. The SPI you raised was not only technically flawed, it was border-line harassment and when that was pointed out, you responded with yet another tirade against the other user and against the admin who cautioned you. Plenty of editors would likely consider giving you a clean start if you asked for one but at the moment, each of your responses has been entirely unapologetic; your response to TRPOD's advice above being particularly indicative. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

honestly, what is going on here showes me enough. Please prove the blaming you are doing. Show me where I am doing sock.puppetry. I was the one who asked for a fast look on this. I´m very sure there is a way to prove what you are claiming. Prove this please, once again you are only claiming some statements here, please quote what you are writing. I am so happy hat it is not like that on other wiki sites, all I see here is a big shame. All the time just claiming some statements with no prove, ignoring facts and imputation. The whole time the user DangerGrouse was borderline with statements in this discussion, You also fully ignoring those facts, all I can say, everbody can see and read what is going on. This is not wikipedia this is just a shame. Please, quote also where I respond with another triade against the admin. quote this and prove this. All you did was to start a SPI against me, is any of the other IP´s one of me? no, this can be proven. That it is a case of meat-puppetry, can you show and prove this? I also explained more than one time, there are tousands of patients and if they are for this entry this in not a case of meat puppetry anyway even this term is nasty. The user dangerGrouse is user since 1.2012 now it is 11.2012 he says he is a new user, what I did on his talk just a prove to show what he is doing here. because he said what I claim is not founded. So I showed it. Also wrong? Sorry, we have the same lemma and the same rules, but how you here bend the ruls for owen atvance and how hardly you are ignoring here facts and what other users, like me write, is realy shocking. You still talk like that it is proven that I used other IP´s, but you dont show it. Yes, you pointed out one and other can do what they want here and trust me this is not wiki the MERDS count for every user and not only for selected ones. And honestly I dont care, if they will unblock me or not I dont want to be a part of the english wiki, if it alway runs like that. I am the leader of this meat puppets, because I made the entry of the article? What is that here put him in the water, when he swimms he is gulity, if he dies in the whater he is not? Like I said you realy use fantasic methods. I wasted to many time here, repeting myself just because most of the users I saw here like redpennerofdoom, Dangergrouse and you totaly ignoring things and just making some statements with no prove. Keep in mind please, everbody can see what you are writing here and people can make their owen picture. --Brainbug666 (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here again, as many here hardly try to hide this, may be because i was so personla and rude:

yes, I realy understand that you are new since 26 January 2012 I realy honor that you take a long time (11Month) to get hang of editing guideliens before you start working on an article. In contrast to me, sadly I mostly work on the german wikipeda and this will not be showen here. So meanwhile, you are learning the guidelines of wikipedia you are working on this? Funny, The only thing you are doing here since 11 month are such things. This also.Do you reaqly think people are that stupid? Do yo know how this is called on wiki? Well, you had 11 moth time, it is called Sleeper accounts WP:SLEEPER. WP:ILLEGIT--Brainbug666 (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user DangerGrouse, on my talk you said that what I wrote here is unfounded. Well, as you and everbody else can see in the links. Just for you, I will show it a bit more in detail.

Once again, you claim, you are a new user, but you are a member since 26 January 2012 now we have October 2012.

I do not understand the importance of adding this to an article about Finasteride? The content from the Propecia website is readily available from numerous other sources, and the circumstances surrounding the removal of the official Merck Propecia website are entirely speculative. You say: "clearly a reaction to the increasing awareness of the dangers of Propecia" but this appears to be simply your interpretation of the event. I agree with Jfdwolff, and that these types of submissions should be saved for other mediums such as public forums and social pages, as it would seem out of place and of no use to the average reader of this article. Perhaps in the future if further information is available that supports your speculations, it would make sense to be included in this article. DangerGrouse (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rating down posts by other users and making statements dubious

I was recently prescribed Propecia, and found my way to this article a while back to learn a little more about the drug. I notice the side effects listed here were drastically different than what was listed on my product insert. For instance, this article lists impotence occurring in up to 18.5% of patients, but my package insert indicates all sexual related side effects occur in less than 2% of men. Additionally, I came across a study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21980923) that concludes the total of all adverse reactions occurred in 0.7% of men, in a sample of 3177 individuals. I agree with another editor that this article reads a bit like a horror story. I just wanted to shed some light onto this as I am not an expert on this subject by any stretch, but it's a little puzzling. One more point that I would like to make: are impotence and erectile dysfunction not one and the same? Why is impotence listed separately as a different side effect? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems strange to me. In fact, ‘impotence’ links to the page on erectile dysfunction. It may make more sense to simply remove ‘impotence’ and the corresponding incidence percentages from the list. DangerGrouse (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit shows also that this user gives us like in every edit a subjectiv picture, which only try to devaluate facts. Just as an info for the user. Erectile dysfunction, is when its hard for you to get it up and maintain a erection, sometimes the patient only can get it up with a drug. The term impotence is, when you are absolutly not able to get an erection, even with drugs and the ability to make a child is also gone, by worse sperms.

New add, this page sounds like a horror story... only 0,7% adverse reaction. The whole entry is a totaly promotion.

Saedon, you are correct; Adderall XR is still widely available in Canada. It was reclassified to a class 1 drug, but this does not mean the same thing as a schedule I drug in the USA. Class 1 drugs in Canada still may have recognized medical uses (such as Oxycodone, which also appears in this list) but criminal offences involving these drugs carry stronger penalties and jail times versus lower classes.DangerGrouse (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the only edit that is not about Finasteride, but here the user shows that he seems to know a bit more. But sleeping WP:SLEEPER until here.

Delete. Agree that this syndrome does not appear to be appropriately recognized. The most relevant sources disclose significant biases, and several animal studies that have been discussed ad nauseum (see discussion archive in Finasteride) are also included. The extent that these sources convey is the observance that there are case reports of individuals exhibiting various symptoms, but the specifics (cause, symptoms, incidence) are anything but clearly defined. It doesn't appear that this is even medically classified as a unique condition, let alone one that can actually be named and exist in it's own article. The take-away from these sources (the fact that case reports exist) is already discussed in the finasteride article. If an appropriate PMID containing "post-finasteride syndrome" is available, I would argue that this should exist in it's own section within the finasteride page. Unless there are a significant number of additional sources, this simply doesn't need it's own article.DangerGrouse (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit shows also that this user gives us like in every edit a subjectiv picture, which only try to devaluate facts. new add, suddenly he is an expert of studies.

Take a look through Wikipedia:MEDRS. You have quoted what two doctors believe, but understand there exists a firm distinction between belief and recognized medical facts that are accepted by the consensus. If you could please provide direct links to the articles you obtained the quotes from then they can be addressed and discussed directly. DangerGrouse (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit shows also that this user gives us like in every edit a subjectiv picture, which only try to devaluate facts.

Delete. Agree that this syndrome does not appear to be appropriately recognized. The most relevant sources disclose significant biases, and several animal studies that have been discussed ad nauseum (see discussion archive in Finasteride) are also included. The extent that these sources convey is the observance that there are case reports of individuals exhibiting various symptoms, but the specifics (cause, symptoms, incidence) are anything but clearly defined. It doesn't appear that this is even medically classified as a unique condition, let alone one that can actually be named and exist in it's own article. The take-away from these sources (the fact that case reports exist) is already discussed in the finasteride article. If an appropriate PMID containing "post-finasteride syndrome" is available, I would argue that this should exist in it's own section within the finasteride page. Unless there are a significant number of additional sources, this simply doesn't need it's own article.DangerGrouse (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit shows that this user gives us like in every edit a subjectiv picture, which only try to devaluate facts. Changed edit, afer more other infos were found may be. new add, alos the new user is suddenly a expert.

User JacksonKnight said: "There are no biasis". This was pulled directly from the study I was referring to: ""...Study limitations include a post hoc approach, selection bias, recall bias...". You may verify this yourself at the source URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02255.x/abstract. I am not suggesting the author personally holds a bias, rather that biases existed within the study parameters.DangerGrouse (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References 11, 12, 13 and 18 are animal studies. Please do not suggest that I can not count when I have already specifically addressed these in a previous post. If you feel these are not important for the article then you agree that they should not remain.DangerGrouse (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit shows that this user gives us like in every edit a subjectiv picture, which only try to devaluate facts.

None of this is relevant to this discussion. If you have issues with the articles you mentioned, you are free to take it up through the appropriate venues. This isn't about what's fair or right, so please stick to discussing this article specifically.DangerGrouse (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The abstract itself is confusing and poorly written (ex: "However in literature a lot of case of persistent sexual adverse symptoms are signaled"). The study retrospectively enrolled 78 participants that presented persistent symptoms, but then goes on to say that these men were somehow given questionnaires before they started treatment. The only way this would be possible is if the researchers knew all men in the study would end up with these rare symptoms, which is quite unlikely. Additionally, the results of the hormonal tests were not discussed in the results, which leaves me to wonder why.DangerGrouse (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user claim false statements where, on the one hand he says he is new and dont know much about this topic, but in some posts he seems to be totaly able to interpret how poorly a paper is written.

None of this is relevant to this discussion. If you have issues with the articles you mentioned, you are free to take it up through the appropriate venues. This isn't about what you feel is fair or just, so please stick to discussing this article specifically.DangerGrouse (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brainbug, I implore you to read and digest other user's comments before responding and abstain from going off on tangents so that this discussion can be kept relatively tidy. You don't appear to have understood the fact that Gilmour1201 actually agrees with you and wants to keep this article as it stands. The fact that you are arguing against him indicates that you may be somewhat blinded by your resolve and may not possess the ability to discuss this topic rationally. I don't say this to be insulting, but I wanted to highlight this fact for others. DangerGrouse (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit shows that this user gives us like in every edit a subjectiv picture, which only try to devaluate facts and let other users look like doubtful.

The fact, that he is an user since 26 January 2012 he only gets active, when there are discusions about finasteride, his only aims are to promote a drug and let it look better. This fact seems for me and this is my subjectiv picture, that this user. Why should someone else, defet a drug in this way? Might be possible an employee of the company, that is here to promote the drug? --Brainbug666 (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soo the ??? is not a claim. Now this user is fully under protection of some other users here. Keep in mind I am the master of puppets, because suddenly some IP´s poped up and wrote on the discussion. Even longer users where added to this. So this is the way things are handelt here. Wonderfull.--Brainbug666 (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

If you are looking to demonstrate that you will no longer have a battlefield mentality or be disruptive, this probably isn't the best way to do it. Socking isn't a case of proof, it is a case of judgement by an objective and experienced SPI clerk. In this case, mine. Since I am was completely unfamiliar with you, I am obviously neutral. What would have been a 2 to 4 week block turned into an indef block after witnessing your attitude at ANI and examining your contributions. So far, your talk page has only served to bolster the argument for an indef block. DangerGrouse and others should probably just leave this talk page, as antagonizing a block editor, accidentally or otherwise, isn't helpful. Soon, yet another neutral admin will come along (due to the unblock request) and review the situation and make a determination on the unblock request. That is how the system works. Again, the other editors really need to just find something else to do. Please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dennis,

I know, what you mean this about the battlefield mentality, but please have a look, what is going on here. unproved statements and most things are just totlay ignored, this is not the way I used to discuss. I never have seen before, that a entry as put on a deletion discussion in less than 2 hours. Checking all sources takes some time. This was something totaly new for me, than. the whole discussion was a joke. Useless statements, like a paper is poorly writen and the authors are baised. that are things I have never seen before, that are things that do not belong in a discussion. This is realy not serios. The whole entry was from the early beginning a target of some users. You can read the whole discussion, but honestly it is a waste of time and even nearly all of my arguments are useless answers of useless statement. It doesnt matter, because this were ignored. The was no constructiv input. The user redpenofdoom deleted things you can read this on the admin site. I wanted to edit on our side, to have an neutral admin, I asked another admin before. I also added a neutral in the SPI. I asked for a fast clear up. I always used this username and I am not a sock puppet or a meat puppeter, you even have to change this term it is not very nice. I wrote a few times on the SPI that the IP´s must be patients. They are not a activist group and the foundation is also not. This are terms that were used for patients. In my eyes this is realy a shame. On other wikipedia, we would delet a user like dangerGrouse, because we can clearly see for what he is here. As a promotor and like in the case of SPI this issue would be discussed and not like here ignored. The user started a sock pupperty and said we dont have a meat pupperty. Honestly this whole term is so nasty and I am very very sure that most of those IP´s are patients so to call them meat puppets is simply in my eyes just terrible. When you know how badly some people suffer. just have a look in the patient forum and look in the memberstorys and than call young man, who are fighting to keep and article online. Everbody, who was for the entry was put on the SPI, So no one would ever say something for the entry, this was also a way to manipulate. Like I think the user DangerGrouse is also manipulating here. Anyway, If some things dont change here and users are treated in other ways than other. Dont unblock me. I wont like to stay here on the english wiki any longer, cause I saw to much. I mention a few times to add a source that the 5AR3 is also inhibit by Finasterid, this is also ignored. Please, check the SPI and prove it as good as you can or let neutral people judge. But as You see above the user talks like I am guilty and that I did that. Thanks a lot. Please take a loo at the whole context.--Brainbug666 (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We won't be changing the terms, they are pretty standard terms. If you looked it up at WP:SOCK, you might understand. How you are used to doing things when you aren't at Wikipedia doesn't apply when you are here. And you did post several times as an IP. If you were serious about getting unblocked some day, the first thing you do is 1. Admit what you did wrong. We might be smarter than you think we are when it comes to determining sock puppets, etc. 2. Take the time to read and actually understand what is expected of all editors here. 3. Explain in your unblock request what you expect to do so those same mistakes won't happen again. And keep it short. We often use the expression TLDR, which means "too long, didn't read". If you want people to actually read your comments, they need to be more pithy, less emotional. Wikipedia isn't a blog or forum, it is an encyclopedia that operates in a collegiate environment. People who can't work in a collaborative environment don't last long here. Not everyone is able to, even some really smart people. So if you want to be unblocked, follow my steps. Otherwise, you have no chance of being unblocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello Dennis,

Where did post several times as an IP in this discussion? show me that and show me the IP´s. No, please dont unblock me. Wikipedia isn't a blog or forum, I said this also in the discussion. Go on like that dont change things on the finasteride site and igonge that it inhibits the 5AR III too. Ignore promoters for drugs and close your eyes. But for me this is not wikipedia. Ignore that fact that, the main users aginst this entry gater on users DangerGrouse Talk site, we see user JFW the one who put the deltion on it, Anthonyhcole, TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom , Stalwart111. What a neutral encyclopedia. --Brainbug666 (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now i get this, How you are used to doing things when you aren't at Wikipedia doesn't apply when you are here. Sorry, but you did not understand what I mean. The english wikipedia is not the only one on the world and I use to work on other languages, So I know how wiki works, but you have other terms here. I realy dont want to be a part of the english Wikipedia, cause it is not neutral, users like DangerGrouse can go on, entrys are not up to date. Discussions are a joke. Even when users gave the source and mention it. No Thanks. I have forgotten a important point, what happen to the user stalwart111? He personaly ataked many other users by claiming them sockpuppets and me also. --Brainbug666 (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still no changes and still ignored[edit]

Dear Wikipeda and dear Admins, you all were very quick by blocking me the reason, Combination of socking as an IP, WP:DE violation, battleground and WP:HERE, I´m still waiting for a prov of socking as a IP. I see this as a personal attak. The User DangerGrouse still can do what he want, he attaked me and this was no problem. The Entry of Finasteride is still not changed and not up to date. Post-Finasteride Syndrome If you klick this like you only get to the Adverse effects of Finasteride. I mention to change, that Finasteride also inhibits the 5AR type III source is valid and can be found in the talk. What you can see here is that, the last thing is.... In December 2010, Merck added depression as a side effect of finasteride. But 2012 the FDA made a labelchange to: A revision to the Propecia label to include libido disorders, ejaculation disorders, and orgasm disorders that continued after discontinuation of the drug. Has you can see here. Why is this also ignored? All I see is that the english wikipedia ignores and ignores . Is that a encyclopedia? Please, do not unblock. --Brainbug666 (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brainbug666. I am not a check-user so I am unable to review the technical evidence that was used to back up the claim that you were socking. In order to protect your privacy, IP numbers and named accounts are never publicly linked on-wiki, as the IP identifies your location geographically. Even the exact building you are editing from is revealed by your IP if you are editing from a library or school. In your particular case the blocking admin used a combination of technical evidence and his training and experience to decide that at least one of the IPs used was related to you. Again, in order to protect your privacy, it would be best if the link was not made publicly.

I will now try to address the rest of your comments. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs; it's not the place to promote the existence of the Post-finasteride Syndrome Foundation. There's some pretty strict requirements for sourcing for medical articles on this wiki: Please refer to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) for more information. If it's your intention to edit within those strict guidelines, that would be great. As far as your comments about the "other guy" go, I'd like to say that pointing out other people's faults will not get you unblocked. I understand that you feel you have been treated unfairly, but after an extensive review of the editing patterns of both yourself and DangerGrouse, both the blocking admin and myself both felt your activities warranted a block, and the other guy's did not. If you decide to apply for unblock, I suggest you re-read the advice at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and familiarise yourself with the sourcing guidelines for medical articles at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). — Dianna (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dianna, Thanks a lot. You are the only one who are responding and I realy honor that.

I always used the same PC so it can not bee and did not any sockpuppetry. Even the user Stalwart111 said, he thought is is not sockpupptery and is meatpuppetry, but because we dont have a meatpuppetry inverstigation he started a sockpuppetry investigation. Anyway it is also not a case out meatpuppetry, just have a look how many people suffer by this drug and than does anyone wonder, why they fight for the entry? Me as the author, sure want to keep the entry, because it took a long time and work to make it and it is realy funny how fast the entry was for deletion, this was the frist point. Less than two hours someone added it for deletion. No one is able to check the sources in that time. And If someone dont have the sources and do not check them it is nothing more than vandalisem. Please read the discussion, you will see, before the only vaild argument came up. Every argument against this entry was just a joke and does not fit in the WikiWikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). I know the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) I also know the MERDS and this is why I think, what is going on here is not right. I never will say, sorry for my sockpuppetry, because I never did that and no I never will say sorry, for the other things. Because, this meatpuppetry gang of guys. Started this, I ask more than one time for an admin. I m not here to fight or to promote a foundation, I just came to edit this entry and may be take part a bit of the discussion, but how the things went on here was a realy shame and I only can say this is not wikipedia. As you can see, the change is finasteride is still not done. I gave a valid an reliable source for this. I edit in my owen language and will keep on going there and not here anymore. The english wikipedia is not a encyclopedia. It is controlet by people who refer to MERDS, brake them on the other hand, do not look on them for other people and use them for their owen benefits. Why is the Finasteride entry still not changed? The user DangerGrouse is back to sleep until the next one comes up. Nice english wikipedia and on the other hand, we have many many entrys here, who have no valid source and no one cares. This makes me just wonder. (I mention such entrys, but no one cares too) I honestly dont want to be a part of the english wikipedia. Just, read all the things that are going on here, and show me where I attaked anyone personal. I always said this is my subjectiv picture and asked. Never made any statement. The User DangerGrouse attaked the entry with no vaild arguments form the early begining and me, personal and tryed to let me look like an idiot. Just read all and you can see. But it is ok, go one like this. But the sockpuppetry was a personal attak on me and my privacy. I dont know how they will prove it and I dont care, it is not my problem, but if some claims such a things and can not prove it. in dubio pro reo that is wikipedia. Thanks a lot. --Brainbug666 (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brainbug. The article you created, Post-Finasteride Syndrome, was created on October 3, and was deleted a week later, on October 10, as the result of a deletion discussion. The person who nominated the article for deletion is a doctor from the Netherlands, a person with over 70,000 edits to this wiki who has been an administrator since 2004. His rationale when nominating for deletion was "Content fork of finasteride. Already discussed there with sufficient weight." I have no reason to doubt that he checked out the sources, and I have no reason to doubt that a trained medical man would be able to do so in two hours and 43 minutes. Sorry you find the accusation of sockpuppetry to be a personal attack. No one is asking you to apologise for sockpuppetry; if you wish to be unblocked you would only have to state that you understand the policy and would not engage in that behavior. In dubio pro reo is a Latin phrase which translates to "in doubt for the defendant", or loosely means that if there is any doubt that the court must find in favour of the defendant. But that's not the way Wikipedia works. It's not a democracy and it's not a court of law. You were blocked because your behaviour, not even counting the sockpuppetry, was such that you were doing more harm than good. You do not have a right to edit here—it's a priviledge, not a right—and we are not obligated to publish your version of the truth about finasteride or any other topic. If you cannot abide by those conditions, you will have to find another outlet for your writing, because you won't fit in here, so sorry. If you wish to apply for unblock, please do so using the unblock template. -- Dianna (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dianna, I dont know what kind of entry has been done before about finasteride and I dont care, I created a new entry with a few new sources. It doesnt matter, if someone is a Doctor or a Professor. Checking sources takes time. If one source does not fit in the MERDS ok, But even the Term is knowen... anyway. I´m not talking anbut this at the moment what I mean the whole time is the entry about Finasteride and This in not what I think or belive. This ware valid facts published in valid sources. Ignoring the fakt that finsaterid also inhibits the 5AR Typ 3 does not make wikipedia to a credible source, this is what I mean and such things are not for wikipedia it is a free encyclopedia. Changing not the entry is hiding informations. Just have a look on the talk site of finasteride. I know the MERDS very well and we dont have a nasty term like meatpupperty in German, but we have a sockpupptery and I just refer to here. "You do not have a right to edit here—it's a priviledge, not a right—and we are not obligated to publish your version of the truth about finasteride or any other topic." I never said I have the right, but I have the right of my privacy! IT is ridiculous to say that this is my truth about finasteride: This are science fakts and not what i belive, we are not in a church.

Or does this look like that I belive that?

Human type 3 5α-reductase is expressed in peripheral tissues at higher levels than types 1 and 2 and its activity is potently inhibited by finasteride and dutasteride http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/de-gruyter/human-type-3-5-reductase-is-expressed-in-peripheral-tissues-at-higher-HwVY3MbV0i

--Brainbug666 (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sole activity you should be pursuing on this talk page is posting unblock requests. Arguments about the drug finasteride will be ignored. -- Dianna (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is exact the reason why I dont want to be unblocked on the english wiki. Because this is not a encyclopedia every facts here are ignored (hidden) and entrys will not be changed.. you should call the english Wikipedia better ignoripedia. I dont want to be a part of this english wiki because it is not serious, dubious and entrys not up to date.--Brainbug666 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long time ago later the Finasteid entry is still not up to date, valid studies are still ignored. Awsome. Who does trust in the english wikipedia? Can a Admin do a change on the entry? May I have a reason, why you do not add that fin also blocks the 5AR3?--Brainbug666 (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW trhe user dangergouse went to sleep again for a long time, undtil the next comes and says something against fin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DangerGrouse --Brainbug666 (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]