User talk:Dogshu

Welcome!

Hello, Dogshu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Hoatzin. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Zazpot (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Wikipedia is an incredible resource, I’m happy to help. Dogshu (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Cotham Marble

Thanks for your edit - I never noticed that I left a gap when I created that page. I've filled it in now and it's given me the chance to update the urls to two of the citations as well. Mikenorton (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Dogshu, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Dogshu! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

thank you for the invitation Mr Bot but I may be a different style editor than Rosiestep, partially because I don’t think a rational person should believe Myers-Briggs Type Indicators have any scientific validity after having read the Wikipedia article.

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dogshu. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dogshu. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

3O Declined

Please be advised that I have declined your filing at 3O. You phrased your listing as potentially a conduct dispute, which 3O does not address, and furthermore failed to link to a discussion between yourself and a fellow disputant. Additionally your listing was phrased in a non-neutral manner. You are welcome to re-file if you can provide a link to a discussion and phrase your concerns in a neutral manner. Alternately, please consider other forms of dispute resolution. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Cool!  Another worthless wikipedia article on a major topic, the Evolution of insects.  Thanks DonIago - you know I have a day job right?  I am not going to spend weeks or months trying to get blatantly false content removed. I tried that with Quaternary extinction event but got nowhere (full of animals that went extinct way before 2.5 million years ago), look at its talk page.  I failed to link?  No I linked to the article, to see an article’s history, click on the “view history” button.  Maybe someone like @Animalparty: or @Petter Bøckman: would be willing to correct the false statements about vertebrate paleontology in the first paragraph after the ToC of the Evolution of insects article, or recommend someone who can.  @Doniago: did not give any vertebrate paleontologist a chance to fix it, my request for third party resolution was deleted within seconds.  I guess the third party dispute page has its micro-dictators as well.  Users like he and Kevmin don’t care about the accuracy of articles on major topics, just control.  I am being neutral, I call it like it is. Dogshu (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. DonIago (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Doniago: I care about what’s true and what’s not true, I don’t care about inane edit wars. This is an encyclopedia, not the US Congress. There is so much dated or wrong information on these two articles it’s unbelievable, given the usually high quality Wikipedia articles on such topics. I recently updated the snake evolution and lizard evolution articles with no trouble; I guess herpetologists are more reasonable. :)

The best thing about Wikipedia is that it has the most up-to-date facts compared to other encyclopedias. It really disappoints me to see inaccurate information, especially on major topics. Paleontologists don’t even believe in QEE anymore; Quaternary extinction event should redirect to Holocene extinction. DonIago I’m sorry, I’m not being lazy, I really do not have the time, and it will not help my anxiety problems arguing with the Alex Jones of an article. Please, @Animalparty:, @Petter Bøckman:, or @Doniago:, can any of you help to fix the QEE or insect evolution articles? Dogshu (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

For better or worse, Wikipedia works via a process of consensus in cases where editors disagree and one party isn't clearly engaging in vandalism/disruption/other bad-faith conduct. This means that when there are disagreements, resolving them can require some time and effort. I think you were right to request a third opinion, but as someone who helps out there (please remember that all Wikipedia editors are volunteers), we need an existing discussion to weigh in on so that we can in fact offer a third opinion. It also demonstrates that a good faith effort has been made to try to resolve the dispute before escalation. I'm sorry that I don't have a better suggestion for you than to start a discussion at the article's Talk page and to see how matters evolve from there. If you already have a discussion between yourself and another editor and it's stalemated, link to it at 3O and someone will help you if possible. If there's more than two editors involved, you may want to go to WP:DRN instead. But all of these options, as I noted, take some time and effort, and there is likely to be a sense from others of "if you don't care enough to start a discussion, why should we care enough to help you", rightly or wrongly. There's also WP:NODEADLINE, which is likely to factor into a perceived sense of a lack of urgency to resolve the matter, but also means that if you don't have the time now, maybe it should wait until you have more time available. My apologies if this isn't what you're hoping to hear. DonIago (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear enough on my 3O submission. The insect evolution article makes several false statements about vertebrate paleontology. Specifically, the disagreement is visible in the insect evolution history page. In particular, the entire first paragraph in the fossils section is dedicated to the author’s dated or just plain wrong beliefs about vertebrate paleontology. These are delineated on the history page. I would have deleted the last sentence in the first paragraph about Dinosaur behavior but I never even got that far, reversions without any responses to the facts I was providing . I tagged @Animalparty:, @Petter Bøckman: because they had made nontrivial edits to the Vertebrate paleontology articles and are still active. This is the best revision I could come up with before reversion by Kevmin. I would have removed the dinosaur BS at the end of the paragraph as well, but like DonIago did on the 3O page, my fixes were reverted so quickly I didn’t have time to fix my edits. It’s just not possible to consider whether there might be a problem with the paragraph in that short an amount of time. @Doniago: is this enough information for a 3O submission? Can you help me properly format it so I can get a third opinion? Dogshu (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dogshu...as noted in the 3O instructions, for a third opinion to be offered, you need to have evidence of a discussion regarding the content dispute. It seems to me that what you're saying is that you're making changes and that they're being reverted, but that no discussion has occurred. 3O is intended as a way to ask editors to weigh in on existing content disputes between two parties. My suggestion would be that you initiate discussion(s) at the Talk page(s) of the articles where you find yourself involved in content disputes. Depending on how things play out at that point, you'll have a few options:

• If no other editors weigh in after you post your concerns, you would be at liberty to assume you're within your rights to make your edits (you'll have established the high ground). If you're reverted at that point, you can ask editors to participate in the discussion. If they refuse to do so, then you'll be well-positioned to say that they're editing disruptively.
• If only one other editor weighs in and you have significant discussion that nevertheless makes no headway, then 3O is likely an appropriate option.
• If more than one other editor weighs in and you're dissatisfied with how the conversation evolves, 3O is no longer available (hence third opinion), but you could open a case at WP:DRN to get additional opinions.

Note that these are all options for content-based disputes. If you feel the concern is the conduct of other editors, then I'd recommend looking at WP:DR. If someone is repeatedly reverting you w/out explanation, especially after you've initiated a discussion at the Talk page, that may constitute edit-warring. Otherwise, if you feel they're engaging in disruptive conduct and should be sanctioned, WP:ANI may be an appropriate option, though I would consider it a last resort. Note that in both of these cases I would strongly recommend leaving at least one message at the Talk page of the editor with whom you find yourself in dispute, asking them (nicely) to come to the article's Talk page to work with you. In other words, establish a paper trail showing that you've made a good-faith effort to work with the people with whom you find yourself in dispute. I know it's a bit of a nuisance and may involve time you don't feel you have, but it's essential to be able to show that you made a reasonable effort to try to work things out with the people you're having issues with, rather than simply undoing their changes.

I hope this is helpful. I know I'm throwing a lot of Wikipedia-jargon at you, but these are the systems that are in place to try to address the problems that you're describing. DonIago (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Doniago:! I think disruptive editing will fix most of my frustrations. And you put a guide right on my talk page, again thank you. Dogshu (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

You're quite welcome! I hope this will help. FWIW, anyone who's edited here long enough has been where you are now. Disputes suck, especially when you're new to how WP handles them. DonIago (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Having been prompted, here I am! I've looked at the section mentioning vertebrate fossils, and while it certainly could do with a tiding up, there's nothing catastrophically wrong with it, and most of what is ails the section could be corrected with some small language edits. From what I can see, the mentioning of vertebrate fossils is perhaps a tad on the prominent side, the article being about insects. I'd happily have a look at it of you chaps so wish. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Response to question asked on edit summary

Hello, on your edit summary here, you asked "it is illegal to sell compounds for human consumption without FDA approval. If I google phenibut an ad for buying it from amazon shows up. Am I incorrect that dietary supplements must be approved by the FDA?" Yes, you are incorrect. Dietary supplements do not need to be approved by the FDA as long as no claims are made that the product is to be used to "cure, treat, or prevent any disease", which is the reason that you'll often see a disclaimer on supplements in the United States saying something like "this product is not intended to cure, treat, or prevent any disease". Dietary supplements do not currently undergo any sort of federal regulation in the United States.

Phenibut is a bit of a grey area, however. It is sold online, and is not specifically illegal, however it could hypothetically be prosecuted under the Federal Analogue Act, due to its chemical similarity to other benzodiazipines, but this could likely be worked around by simply not selling it "for human consumption", but instead claiming that it is being sold as a plant fertilizer or something of that nature. I'm not aware of any cases of it actually being prosecuted, however. I hope this clears up any confusion. Vontheri (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Vontheri: I really do not think I’m confused, otherwise why can’t I buy etizolam off of amazon as long as it’s not advertised as curing any disease? Things like plants aren’t regulated, i.e. Kratom. Kratom extracts are probably illegal though. Which the FDA citation on the Kratom article clearly states, but the page is locked so I’m not getting in that battle. But synthetic compounds must be approved for human consumption by the FDA. Let’s not pretend the FDA is perfect or Amazon would sell illegal substances for human consumption. Citation here clearly states that dietary supplements are regulated: FDA statement on dietary supplements Dogshu (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Vontheri: If you look at this FDA page there is a section called “FDA doesn’t approve dietary supplements” which obviously contradicts the previous link. They say “dietary supplements are not reviewed and approved by FDA based on their safety and effectiveness“ which seemingly contradicts the next paragraph where manufacturers “must include the information that provides the manufacturer’s or distributor’s basis for concluding that the dietary supplement will reasonably be expected to be safe” in a notification to the FDA, which the FDA has 75 days to review. If you read carefully, however, they say they don’t approve “safety and effectiveness” just “safety.” i.e. they thought it was safe for human consumption. Do you think the FDA would approve etizolam as safe for humans to consume as a dietary supplement? I don’t think so. They are free to take phenibut off the market at any time, but they haven’t. The FDA regulates dietary supplements for safety, to say it’s not FDA approved is misleading. It’s just as FDA approved as a vitamin B complex. The whole thing reads as a cover your ass essay. The fact is the FDA is responsible for evaluating dietary supplements’ safety and has not decided []phenibut]] is not safe for human consumption. Saying phenibut is not FDA approved is misleading IMO. Have I convinced you at all that the wording is misleading @Vontheri:? A more accurate statement would be “the FDA has not evaluated phenibut for curing any illness.” They’re fine with phenibut on store shelves as of this writing. Dogshu (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Very sorry for my delay in responding. Currently I'm a bit overwhelmed with various things offline and don't have much time for Wikipedia or to do research for this. My understanding previously has been that the FDA reviews dietary supplements but can't actually deny them or approve them, it just reviews them. A bit of a pointless process, but seems to be the way it is. They are by default allowed to be sold unless there is some action taken, the process for which I don't have knowledge of currently, to remove them from market. Phenibut is permitted to be sold because there hasn't been any action to take it off the market.

As for Etizolam, I'm not sure why it's not available for purchase in the way that Phenibut is. It could be that for some reason there just isn't enough demand, which seems unlikely. Perhaps it is more costly or difficult to produce without complicated pharmaceutical equipment/knowledge/reagents that only a more well-funded large pharmaceutical company would have. Perhaps for some reason no one has yet bothered to start producing it and selling it in the United States. Perhaps it is something to do with the fact that it is a scheduled substance in certain states.

Perhaps, more likely, although it isn't currently approved as a drug, it is still somehow legally considered a drug. "Not approved by the FDA" could mean that it has never been submitted for approval to the FDA, but it could also mean that it has been evaluated by the FDA and was denied approval, which would mean it is still considered a drug and could not be sold or purchased by just anyone. I'm not familiar with the history of etizolam, so I don't know for sure if this is the case or not.

The FDA regulates dietary supplements in that if a manufacturer is found to be lying about the ingredients. For example, if they claim a pill contains, say, milk thistle, and it is found to actually just be some cheap inert substance, then action would be taken. The FDA "reviewing" and "approving" are different things. From one of the links you sent, it says:

"Unlike new drugs, dietary supplements are not reviewed and approved by FDA based on their safety and effectiveness. Unless an exception applies, dietary supplements that contain a new dietary ingredient (a dietary ingredient not marketed in the United States before Oct. 15, 1994) require a notification to FDA at least 75 days before marketing.

The notification must include the information that provides the manufacturer’s or distributor’s basis for concluding that the dietary supplement will reasonably be expected to be safe. When public health concerns arise about a dietary supplement after the product is on the market, FDA evaluates the product’s safety through research and adverse event monitoring."

The FDA reviews the information from the manufacturer/distributor of the new dietary supplement which contains information from the manufacturer saying why they believe the substance is safe. The FDA doesn't approve or deny this, they just "review" the information. So, I assume, the manufacturer could hypothetically even say something like "we think it's safe because our astrologer said so" and the FDA wouldn't be able to approve or deny it. It's just allowed to be sold by default. Seems like a pointless process, but it seems to be the process that exists. After the dietary supplement is being sold, if there is reason to believe it is causing adverse reactions in consumers, then the FDA has more power to have it removed from market.

See this link Note that "reviewing" and "approving/denying" are not the same thing. It states:

"Who is responsible for the safety of dietary supplements?

FDA is not authorized to review dietary supplement products for safety and effectiveness before they are marketed.

The manufacturers and distributors of dietary supplements are responsible for making sure their products are safe BEFORE they go to market.

If the dietary supplement contains a NEW ingredient, manufacturers must notify FDA about that ingredient prior to marketing. However, the notification will only be reviewed by FDA (not approved) and only for safety, not effectiveness.

Manufacturers are required to produce dietary supplements in a quality manner and ensure that they do not contain contaminants or impurities, and are accurately labeled according to current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) and labeling regulations.

If a serious problem associated with a dietary supplement occurs, manufacturers must report it to FDA as an adverse event. FDA can take dietary supplements off the market if they are found to be unsafe or if the claims on the products are false and misleading."

If you want to re-add the "citation needed" then I won't remove it. Where it says "not FDA approved", it is referring to being FDA approved as a drug and not anything to do with dietary supplements. Perhaps saying "not evaluated by the FDA as a drug" or something like that would be a clearer thing to say. Vontheri (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid infobox would be a good template for drugs such as these, i.e. AU: S9, US: Dietary Supplement, Ru: Rx-only. I found other examples such as Yohimbine and Melatonin, the latter of which incorrectly claims it is an OTC drug (see this section for citations). I think the articles make it clear these are drugs, but “not approved” and especially “Unscheduled” is a misrepresentation of US government policy, implying that it is illicitly sold as a Designer drug without any opportunity for Federal oversight.

BTW, Phenibut is structurally similar to GABA, not benzodiazepines. Analogues of schedule IV drugs are not under the purview of the Federal Analogue Act anyway. If a company attempted to market etizolam as a dietary supplement, the FDA would (hopefully) step in because it is, colloquially speaking, a benzodiazepine. As an aside, I feel that references to the Federal Analogue Act in myriad Wikipedia articles are far overdone given the rarity of such federal prosecutions and the dubiousness of some molecules’ structural similarities. Dogshu (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The distinction between "drug" and "dietary supplement" is kind of an arbitrary one, given that according to google the definition of a drug is "a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body", then melatonin is certainly a drug. Melatonin is sold as a drug in some countries, such as Sweden where a prescription is required for its purchase. And testosterone, for example, is legally considered as a drug in the United States and a prescription is required for its purchase, but in essence it is no different from melatonin in that both are simply hormones that are produced by the body naturally. Melatonin is not legally considered an OTC drug in the United States, but really is there anything about it that isn't a drug, especially when compared to something like testosterone? It's just legal semantics, really.

I thought phenibut was a benzodiazipine; my mistake. I'd seen it referred to as such before, so I made the assumption that it was one.

I agree that the infobox in the way that it is on the article for beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid looks like a good model to use.

I have to strongly disagree that if etizolam were to be sold that the fda would "hopefully" step in. Would they step in? There's a good chance that they would, but my hope would be that they wouldn't. I strongly believe that people should have the right to do with their own bodies as they decide, without anyone else telling anyone what they can and cannot ingest. Vontheri (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the intelligent discussion @Vontheri:! I’ve made the Phenibut InfoBox change. Dogshu (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

That looked great, but apparently someone has reverted it for some reason. Perhaps we should copy this conversation to the talk page for phenibut and ping the person who reverted your edit?

By the way, I just realized that what I said in my previous message on this page about melatonin could have sounded ambiguous. I agree that melatonin's article should be changed to say that it is legally considered a dietary supplement in the United States. I notice that you changed the melatonin article to reflect that, which is great. I was just stating that it's an arbitrary distinction in reality, but not in legal terms, since there is nothing about melatonin that doesn't meet the definition of a "drug". Was a bit of a tangent on my part. Vontheri (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Awesomecakes

Hey I got an email from @Gerda Arendt: for editing @EEng:'s talk page. I don't recall maaking any changes and she linked me to not wikipedia. Does this mean I've finally made it in life? Dogshu (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall having sent you an email, sorry. I added a thread on EEng's page and forgot the header, - may be it was connected to your's?? - Strange. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Well I can say with complete certainty that I haven't the foggiest idea what you two are talking about. EEng 14:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry @Gerda Arendt: and @EEng: I changed my notifications, didn’t realize I would get an email. Apologies, still not sure why I would get email notifications for his talk page and not others. Newbtastic!!! Dogshu (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration Invitation

Hi! Thank you for working with me on phenibut. Since you seem to be an active editor on articles within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, I thought that I would invite you to collaborate with me. I have a list of articles that need help, such as Vabomere, though WP:PHARM maintains a list as well. Personally, I'd like to address an article in the CNS pharmacology realm. Would you be interested in working together? ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 23:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes! I would absolutely love to collaborate on WP:PHARM. The only problem I have is citing references in the technically appropriate way, I'm sure I can learn quickly, however. Please point me to the CNS pharmacology article you would like me to take a look at, or otherwise show me how to get started :) Dogshu (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

sorry ―Biochemistry🙴❤ but never got an invitation before so I was a little overexcited. I will get to Vabomere soon. It will be a really busy month though, so please excuse my tardiness. Dogshu (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)