User talk:DangerGrouse

Welcome!

Hello, DangerGrouse, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk 14:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of imploring

Duly noted. Can I beg you to reconsider it, though. It is quite likely true but your characterisation is also quite likely to blind him further. :) On second thoughts, maybe not. Don't know. Umm. Hi. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I have addressed the undue tone of that particular response so that it is more conducive to productive discussion. DangerGrouse (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Hello Dangergrouse, I read what you wrote here. Let me clear something up, I know that the user is for this entry, I can read, But it doesn´t matter, if we both are for the article, when the argument by Gilmour1201 is not vaild it was a argument, finding a theorie and this is not wikipedia. So this does not show that im not able discuss this topic rationally. It totaly show the the opposide. It is realy sad what some users, like you are doing here. This personal attaks and trying to highlight a fact, that is none, is only a way to make users look like an idiot and dubious. Is this a way to run a discussion? Keep in Mind everbody can read, what you are doing here and please, avoid such things in future. I also can see here that the users, who are not for the entry are all closely connected. User, JFW, Anthonyhcole, DangerGrouse, may be more but that also doesnt matter is that a case of meatpuppetry? Seems like that. This is what you wrote and was deleted 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainbug666 (talk • contribs) Might I remind you that you started with the rude comments? See the talk page for finasteride, you posted two quotes from two doctors, I counted "one, two" and then you suggested that I can't count. Not to mention the number of personal attacks you have launched on other editors in the post-finasteride syndrome deletion discussion. I'm a bit puzzled at why you felt it was prudent to come post on my talk page and accuse me of being a meat puppet, but with regards to the comment I made, I had redacted it. The fact that you came here to specifically highlight a mistake I made shows poor form and is quite disrespectful. I removed it because in retrospect and re-reading it, I felt it was not conducive and would not achieve anything. Granted I am new to wikipedia, but I don't appreciate when people rub mistakes in my face, especially since I had already addressed this accordingly. If you have further issues with my actions I encourage me to let me know, but please keep topic related discussions to their respective sections.DangerGrouse (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Please sign your edit. Yes, this might be a rude comment to mention, that you can not count. The Problem is just, that you take things out of the whole context. You generalize. You play down things, by saying that. There are more MD´s who are talking about that, but you havent read the other article and I only asked yok, if you can count? You try to let people look like dubious. In fact, you where the one who tryed to highlight that before. Everbody can read, what is going on here and I asked, if this is a case of meatpuppetry. I just see a conection, like everbody else can see. Keep in mind, I´m not a nativ speaker, as you can see on my bad mistakes.But I give my best and people here can read what its going on. People are not stupid and make their owen picture.--Brainbug666 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Thank you for catching that, I have updated my comment with my signature. I already explained this in the finasteride talk, but you posted two quotes and did not provide references. Each quote was followed by the name of a doctor. I had no idea what you were referring to, so I took the information you provided at face value. Most people would respond with something along the lines of "I think you have misunderstood, here are the sources I was referring to..." instead of "can you count?" I have not once commented on your proficiency with the English language, but I admittedly find it quite difficult to ascertain some of the points you try to make. Even now, I have difficulty understanding why you continue to post on my user talk. I have seen your comments about the post I redacted, and observed your meat puppetry accusations. Unless you have any other specific issues with my actions (other than the fact that you disagree with my assessment of the post-finasteride syndrome article) then we can continue to take up discussion in the respective article talk pages.DangerGrouse (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Looks for me that you are only interested in Finasteride. As everbody can see here.--Brainbug666 (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry but I don't understand the point of your previous comment. If you are accusing me of being a WP:SPA then you will notice I haven't made a single article edit and am not pushing a specific viewpoint or belief. I am new to wikipedia and am trying to get the hang of the editing guidelines before I start working on articles that interest me. In contrast, every single one of your edits involves finasteride:Brainbug666 History. Not only finasteride, but all your edits seem to be in attempt to implicate the drug or Merck in some way shape or form. As I have mentioned several times, I am a new editor here and don't understand all the guidelines yet. If you feel I have broken any specific rules or guidelines, please let me know. If you only wish to berate and accuse, then I respectfully ask that you abstain from continuing this behavior. DangerGrouse (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 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)

Sockpuppetry case

Extended content

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DangerGrouse for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.--Brainbug666 (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Please note - the above investigation was closed as pointy and disruptive. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Options

1) you can delete most content from your user talk page at will. It will signal that you are aware of the post. Some things you cannot remove, but they are generaly formal notice boxes that are clearly labeled "DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE", or you could set up archiving and move the contents off your talk page. (the bot that I had been using broke and I havent done any follow up to see which are currently active and working and how to set them up)

2) You can ask another use to stop posting on your talk page.

3) You can ignore it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

^^ All good advice. You can also collapse sections of text, which does not remove it but it means people have to proactively open the collapse template to see the content. If nothing else, it's a sign the issue has been dealt with and you have moved on. I have added a couple of collapses above (in good faith) to help you move on with things. If you don't like them or don't like where they are, please feel free to move or delete the {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} tags. Have also added a note about the SPI, a talk-page header template and a TOC index. But you are free to remove any or all of it as you see fit. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC).

Thanks kindly for your advice, and I also appreciate your demonstration of the collapse template. I'm glad to see there are genuinely kind and helpful people here, so thanks again! DangerGrouse (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)