User talk:Manofwar4662

Welcome!

ABOUT ME

I'm an industry expert in bodybuilding and steroids related subjects, with over 15 years of experience under my belt. I have trained many athletes, bodybuilders and fitness competitors - as well as an array of regular folks. Feel free to ask me questions.Manofwar4662 14:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Manofwar4662 ^(talk)[reply]

Steroids links discussions

your edits to steroids

The link you are adding is to a forum, an as such not a reliable source, and can be addressed as wp:spam, please read wp:el. Thank you --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

The following edits have been reverted: Oxymetholone, Nandrolone, Trenbolone, Anastrozole, Anabolic steroid. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not read, this is NOT a forum!

http://www.isteroids.com

go read the page again, it's a steroid information page, please review pages before deleting this takes time to contribute to! all the information is factual, why was this edited?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs)

The reasons are explained in the links that are available in my first post in this section. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm NOT affiliated with any of these sites, I googled keywords after reading these articles and found this site and elitefitness along with mesomorphosis to be relevant. So I wanted to add them as per Wikipedia rules, but you edited all my hard work before I could even contribute!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs)

you did NOT read

You did not read, this is NOT a forum!

http://www.isteroids.com

go read the page again, it's a steroid information page, please review pages before deleting this takes time to contribute to!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs)

What I see on the main page, is mainly forum information and advertisement, the site is not peer reviewed, and hence, not a reliable source (that the articles are citing literature does not say a lot, the articles cited are rather old). The way you are adding it, is spamming, and the page does not comply with the wikipedia policy on external links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, please, I am an avid steroid user, I read all these articles they are VERY much new, I wouldn't have posted them otherwise. Do you even know about things like mechano growth factor, just look yourself http://www.isteroids.com/mechano_growth_factor/ most users haven't even heard of MGF much less used it. SO it's VERY up to date. The main site is NOT an advertisment for a forum, look on the left and the right, ton of information. Would you please look before reverting my hard work. I have a lot of steroid experience and I'm very dissapointed that my interest in wikipedia is handled like this.

and you have this site http://steroid.com/ look at the top of that site, it has a forum link and ad, but it's in your trenbolone profile!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs)

Dear Manofwar4662, I do appreciate, I could have given you a direct spam warning, and not even have given you a welcome (please note that there are two experienced wikipedia editors who have reverted your additions). But please understand, that these links are not a reliable source, this is not peer reviewed information. I gave you a remark that the links, and the way you are adding them, does not comply with the policies of the Wikipedia. If there is information, please contribute by adding information to wikipedia, and include references (preferably/mainly to peer reviewed articles/reliable sources) for your work. The wikipedia is not a directory of external links. If you want to contribute, I again welcome you, and ask you to contribute information, not merely links. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the rules. I was trying to add a new MGF article when you started slamming me with this. I know it's not a directory and I was NOT using it as such. I adding content and informational resources for the USERS of wikipedia. I read the rules and the rules say I can HELP by adding or editing ANY content. I was doing so PER the rules. Believe me, I'm an old timer I read before I do anything. I am just very upset my hard work was deleted.

I have 3 resource links I was going to add, iSteroids, Elitefitness and bodybuilding (.com) and add an MGF article, but I don't know how I can even do that now without my work dissapearing. I am VERY upset over this. I feel like I have been censored for NO reason.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs)

These sites are, I repeat, not a reliable source, it is doubtfull if they would survive all points on the policy on external links (I doubt at least points 2 and 5 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided), and certainly, the way you are adding them is spam. The wikipedia is not a web-directory, and in any way, the number of links should be kept to a minimum (again from wp:el).

You are right, anyone can add all information that he or she likes, but that does not mean that all information should be added, there are many policies to which the information should comply, much info is discerned because it is not reliable, or (in other cases) unencyclopedic.

I don't really understand why you do insist so much that these sites are included in the pages, while you are not adding content to the page. You say there is info which is not on wikipedia, so please add content, and add references rom relieable sources, the sites you have do help you find references to reliable sources. I will leave it at this, I am only repeating myself. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) NOBODY is stopping you from writing a new article or adding content; I do not consider relatively context free external links to be 'additional content'. What we are concerned about is just padding articles with external links. When I first got started, I did some of that too because I thought that more links were better .. they would provide jump points for people to find more information. The problem is that the external links are there to support the material of the article in general, not to provide a jump point for further exploration. Wikipedia is not meant as an organizing framework for the web. So please write content and add links to support that content, or look for content that is not currently supported by external references and provide those references (there is a whole WikiProject aimed at that (Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check), but please refrain from simply adding external links to articles for the reasons I've (we've) noted here. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and look at this

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/steroid-profiles/anadrol.htm%20Oxymetholone%20Profile you have that link on the Oxymetholone page, the page is DEAD! I didnt even get to edit it out, I was about to - before you cut me off for no reason! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxymetholone

I gave you a VALID Anadrol 50 profile I found http://www.isteroids.com/steroids/Anadrol-Oxymetholone.html

and you edited it, I found 3 other information sources but you stopped my right of free speech and my interest in helping wikipedia users— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs)

You are not blocked from editing that I can see on your logs page. There are those of us who have taken issue with the edits you have made in adding the links to external links as you have done. Your editing and our individual response has not resulted in any blockade of your ability to edit Wikipedia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--I can see you took it the wrong way. I posted legitimate information but it's being acted on very bias and unfair. I read the rules and followed them and posted LEGITIMATE content, no different then what you already had. But ignorance and lack of review reverted my hard work. You know it took me time to read the articles and google information I found a lot and the site I added was very helpful. I tried to help Wikipedia users but I'm being punished for no reason.

You said I'm not "banned", can I post my informational resources again? or will this be a "watch you" and "edit your links" because you disagree with us issue all the time now?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't simply re-post those same links without considering our comments about adding content vs. adding external links. The 'injection angle into the deltoid' comment you made as an example of information on the isteroids.com site suggests that the articles have content that is currently missing from the Wikipedia article. Please consider move forward by adding missing content and supporting that added content with these links. If there is further dispute after that I can anticipate it might come from arguing that 'Wikipedia is not a how-to manual' if the added content is simply around how best to administer steroids (for instance) or 'the information added is ok, but the links are not good' in which case, you might need to go back to the cited references in the isteroids.com site and reference the peer-reviewed publications directly. I'll re-iterate - we're making comments here to try and guide you in adding content. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be adding content and citing the link. I know what I did is right because I did read the rules, but I know I can't win against the establishment. I'll be adding some content and the same links. And the site I added is CONTENT rich, just so it's clear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs)

I'll work on it the coming week. I hope next time I'm at least asked for an explanation before all my information is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs)

Links removal

Several points. First, the links that you added were to aggregate information articles without author attribution, unlike some other articles on the site that have author attribution; just because an author is missing isn't a reason to remove a link, but it is a contributing factor (i.e. many organizational missives are author-free and must be attributed to the organization or a committee therein - in this case to steroid.com). Without some indication of authorship, this becomes just another of hundreds of similar information aggregations around the web. Second, the site is heavily festooned with advertisers selling steroids. Third, the link addenda were just tossed on as extra information without any attempt to incorporate information from the links into the articles ... making them indiscriminate additional links there only as a matter of topical congruity. These three things add up to the interpretation that their addition is a form of topical spamvertising. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--You mean steroid.com contributed?? what did they contribute to anabolic steroids you talk about "SELLING STEROIDS" , did you bother reading this site? http://steroid.com/ look at the front page BANNER, the size of 1/2 the darn page "LOOKING FOR STEROIDS?" The site I posted DOES NOT sell steroids, just because you make this assumption, it doesn't mean it's true. The site I added was VERY relevant with relevant links. I followed the rules. The extra informatin is in the external link where people can find out more about the specific steroid. This is EXACTLY what the others have there. I had 2-3 more resources I wanted to add, but you edited my information without any reason. Your reasons are bias at best because the sites there NOW actually did not follow ANY Of the rules you are throwing at me now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs)

You are receiving a response to recent editing activity; that does not validate the reasonability of existing content in the target articles and using the argument ' they did it so why can't I ' is a non-starter. This is a fully asynchronous editing environment, which has both benefits and drawbacks. If you feel there are similarly 'invalid' links on the target articles, please remove them, including appropriate edit summaries. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will additionally point out that the ext. ref http://www.mesomorphosis.com/steroid-profiles/anadrol.htm on the Oxymetholone article at least has a by-line and some pharmacological data (such as a chemical structure). Further, the mesomorphosis.com item is written in a professional 3rd person while the isteroids.com (or steroids.com) item (http://www.isteroids.com/steroids/Anadrol-Oxymetholone.html) is written in a familiar 1st person tone. These are very different animals, these two pages. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object against user:Manofwar4662's argument that other links are to similar sites, that is not a reason for others to do the same, you can question the site on the talkpage. If consensus is that the site should not be there (your description gives that feeling already), it might be removed as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--I don't know why you have to make your comments so illfitting. I didn't do "he did it so I can too," I added legitimate content. You DID NOT review the site, you just assumed. Thus, you wasted my time by editing legitimate content I added to wikipedia. Essentially I see a lot of bias here, a LOT. Seems like I'm being picked on for no reason. My links were a LOT more relevant then anything you had there already. Now, please let me keep helping wikipedia users and stop editing all my content additions!

Dirk, You obviously lack steroid knowledge, since you are claiming outdated information is being shown! I spent good time researching sites, I know what I added was legitimate. Can you tell me what angle is best for injecting steroids into the delt? Thank you...I think this case has gone far enough. Your ignorance doesn't automatically equal me being wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs)

I think based on comments above that we are looking at the site and examining the content as part of this set of activities. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok first you said it sells steroids, then you back off that statement and say it's low on content, another lie, then one of you claims it's outdated information. Come on guys, if you are going to BS me, at least do it right. Don't delete my hard work for no reason!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs)

Comment about external links and learning from this incident

One thing that came out of this discussion was my considering more carefully the 'survival potential' of external links in general. One thing that you need to keep in mind is that different editors have different threshold levels for action and many different styles of action are tolerated under Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. Both a strength and a weakness of Wikipedia is this variety in freedom of action - however, it goes hand in hand with many micro-conflicts where editors of different stripes 'collide'.

That being said, I think I need to be generally more stringent in the evaluation of external links on pages that I spend some significant effort on editing. By way of example, I'll point out one I did a couple of hours ago, Colma, California, where I eliminated two of the external links — one was redundant with a link in the page's Infobox; the other could be interpreted as an advertisement.

The second part of the learning is to be less hasty in out-right eliminating links. I won't apologize for interpreting the links you added as spamvertising - you've presented enough discussion here to convince most folks that it wasn't your intention to add spam, but to add informational links; nonetheless, the choice of links was - despite your effort in identifying them - less than optimal and from the experience of many editors those pages look and smell like advertising wrapped in savory seasoning. However, I think my removing them outright was not the best course of action. As in the case of Colma, California and the potential advert link, I should have moved them to the talk-page for discussion about how best to use them or whether to use them at all. Note that removal is not permanent - the code is available in page histories and is easily recoverable; removal of content from a page in Wikipedia is not nearly as difficult to recover from as deletion of content from most other systems. I'm not going to go and add items to the talk pages now, as you've indicated you'll go and consider content additions, which is what would be the request on the talk pages anyway.

Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coyockey: I was sick for a few days. I appriciate at least the answers I got here. I tried had to be a supportive and helpful member of wikipedia and I hope my work is appriciated in the future. I have an injection guide I am adding to the anabolic steroids section. I think this will help a LOT of steroid newbies and maybe divert the newbies from use when they don't need to be using.

What happened

Coyockey, somehow our conversation dissapeared and my comment about the safety guide is gone too.Manofwar4662 18:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anyone have any suggestions on the safety guide that I think should be put back? at least that part of the writing.Manofwar4662 01:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Turinabol.jpg listed for deletion

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Turinabol.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, a non-profit website, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. RHaworth 16:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you re-upload it, for goodness sake, crop off all that white space! -- RHaworth 16:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>I'll reupload the file, I picked the wrong option. The owner let's anyone use the pictures, I talked to him and verified.

=>I cropped the space too as you asked

Your source on the Anabolic steroids Article

Your source on the Anabolic steroids Article Your source doesn't say that people between the ages of 15-25 are the ones who tend to use the most but it says they are the "worst effected by steroid use and abuse." whatever that means. This claim comes from a very sketchy website and the sources themselves aren't specifically referenced either. I can't find any study on the web verifying this assertion either. I've added a more reliable source and a more approximate age from Pub-Med.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first, explain to me how the website is "sketchy," that's the leading authority on steroid abuse websites.

second, the sentence goes like this "Out of all the demographics of steroid users, Males age 15-25, teens tend to be the worst effected by steroid use and abuse."

demographics of steroid users, Males age 15-25 <-- clearly that's black and white If you were a steroid user, you would know that specific age is IMPOSSIBLE to predict and NO study out there will tell the facts since steroid users do not want to come to light with their use. The demographic of steroids users is males age 15-25, and all steroid users know that's factual, from life exprience. I've been in the industry over 15 years and I know a thing or 2 about this; steroid use and information is subjective at best, not designed to be chewed down to a study citation.

I will leave your revision up until I get a straight answer, just because you don't have full grasp of steroid use - it doesn't mean what's posted is wrong. You have edited my work in the past, nazifying wikipedia and I'm frankly sick of it.

and what you wrote is wrong , even by your source [[1]] "The median age of first use of AAS for the study population was 18 years; for 12- to 17-year-olds, the median age of initiation was 15 years." not around 25 solely

Manofwar4662 14:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That website is hardly the "leading authority" on anything. Where did you get that from? The website said that "Out of all the demographics of steroid users, Males age 15-25, teens tend to be the worst effected by steroid use and abuse." which is very confusing. How are they the "worst 'effected' (Note that they confused "effected" with "affected")? Where are the studies citing this claim? Moreover, Your argument seems to be anecdotal. Wikipedia relies on credible sources and the MOST credible sources are direct studies done concerning the cited assertions. Not some websites that can't even get their grammar straight. You're also wrong about what my study said. Allow me to quote it:

“

Estimates based on data from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse indicated that there are more than 1 million current or former AAS users in this country, with more than half of the lifetime user population being 26 years of age or older. More than 300,000 individuals used AAS in the past year. Males had higher levels of AAS use during their lifetime than females (0.9% and 0.1%, respectively; P < .01). The median age of first use of AAS for the study population was 18 years; for 12- to 17-year-olds, the median age of initiation was 15 years.

”

[[2]]

This means that more than half of the respondents were at least 26 years of age. The median age of the study was NOT 18 years old. 18 years old was the median age at which they "first used".Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is where ignorance of steroids comes in. Most steroid users only use steroids 1 time, then quit for life. It's a common fact. With steroids, judgements have to be subjective and anecdotal based on the issue at hand we are dealing with. Steroid users are very private about use, and never discuss it - much less admit to it in a poll. I don't believe you are capable of making changes to a anabolic steroids, since you have no first hand knowledge of steroid use; as evident by your deletions (on many occasions and even with other users). Don't take it personal, it's just a non-user is not qualified to make judgements on a subject he has absolutely 0 knowledge about outside the media. Now, I'm not trying to start wars here, but understand that your ignorance about steroids can translate into deadly information for the user. As, steroid abuse can be deadly - especially if bad advice is given, or proper education is not provided.

As to the website, it's listed on some of the most popular steroid sites on the internet as a steroid abuse informational hub, example: http://www.mesomorphosis.com - the #2 biggest steroid website web 1.0 on the internet. (content based).

Manofwar4662 17:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, On Wikipedia we MUST use only empirical evidence from reliable sources and not anecdotes.

Secondly, I don't see how stating that most users are a specific age will have any negative effect on steroid users reading the article. It's not medical advice of any kind.

Thirdly, Who said I did not use steroids? I am the person who has contributed most to this article and turned it into what it is today. How did I do it? I know a lot about anabolic steroids.

Fourthly, Tell me where Mesomorphosis.com gives statistics on steroid users. Mesomorphosis is just an archive of numerous steroid related articles. Some of them cite their sources, some don't. The ones that don't are useless for us.

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since you're claiming you're a steroid user; please tell me why bodybuilders use small amounts of deca during cycles. One of the most wide uses for the product (and hint, it has nothing to do with growth). If you are a steroid user, this would be a very simple 2 second question. Manofwar4662 18:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was a steroid user. I simply said that I never said I wasn't. Why do bodybuilders use small amounts of Nandrolone during steroid cycles? I wasn't aware that they did. There's no medical reason to do such a thing as far as I know.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikidudeman, that's why unless you're a steroid user, you should not give steroid advice or correct steroid articles, it's dangerous and not responsible. It's nothing personal, it's just dangerous.

The reason bodybuilders use small amounts of deca during cycles is because of joint pain. Deca has an amazing ability to heal/moisturize joints, which makes life a lot easier for steroid users who tend to train heavy and have a lot of injuries. Now, there is many things you can learn from steroid users and many facts. You wont find this in "literature" but you will find it if you talk to ANY steroid user with a few cycles under his belt. NO disrespect or war intended, but I strongly disagree with a non-user trying to correct a steroid article based to book knowledge - having no first hand knowledge or experience. I would be glad to teach you some things via email or PM, so you can have a real understanding of steroids vs. what you are doing now. That's purely to spread proper knowledge on wikipedia.

Manofwar4662 19:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manofwar4662, Firstly, As I mentioned earlier, I'm not giving anyone advice. No part of that article provides medical advice. If you see a part that you think provides medical advice then please point it out to me.

Secondly, Yes, Nandrolone stimulates progesterone making it a progestin which causes anti-inflammatory reactions which can alleviate join pain. It doesn't "moisturize" the joints. You're confused about that. All of this information IS in the literature. Nandrolone has been used for medical purposes for years and scientists know all about it's anti-inflammatory effects from it's being a progestin.

Moreover, Your question was phrased in a way that made it seem that Bodybuilders use "small" amounts of Nandrolone during steroid cycles due to some adverse reactions it might have. You didn't phrase your question in a way that would ask why some bodybuilders used Nandrolone as an aid in cycles. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I'm talking about, you're clueless - but you try to sound like you know steroids (which in itself is very upsetting since you're putting people's lifes in danger). Deca moisturizes the joints because of the water retention, it's a known fact among bodybuilders - nothing else. Progesterone does not cause anti-inflammatory reactions lol, progestins like eq and deca aren't use for that. You're thinking anti-catabolic.

You ARE by proxy giving medical advice by preventing information about steroids from being released to the user. wikidudeman, sorry buddy, but your steroid knowledge is near 0 when it comes to real life. You are doing something very dangerous to the steroid user by editing steroid information you know NOTHING about, besides a few articles you read. It's dangerous, irresponsible and deadly - since your bad handling of the steroid article will eventually get someone liver cancer or worse. I don't really have time for this, but if you want I will give you some information about steroid use. You have a huge gap in your knowledge since you know 0 (nothing) about real steroid use, and it's VERY VERY bad for wikipedia and pretty much anyone that reads the article. Manofwar4662 03:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manofwar, Here are the facts.

1. You can't add anything to the article unless it's supported by credible sources. This is a wikipedia policy. I don't care how much of an 'expert' you claim you are, unless you have credible sources to add something to the article then you can't add it.

2. It's totally false that Nandrolone causes water retention in the joints. Progesterone is an anti-inflamatory. See [[3]], or [[4]] for Antiinflammatory progesterone action in OSE cell cultures, Or even [[5]]. All support the fact that Progesterone has anti-inflammatory effects. Or you could read this article by Anthony Roberts which explains the same thing I've been saying. [[6]] . Here's a quote from him...

"Progesterone, like testosterone, both stimulates humoral immunity (the TH2) and suppresses cellular immunity (TH1 response). Ergo, progesterone has anti-inflammatory action. Deca is a progestin, meaning it stimulates the progesterone receptor. And that’s why it alleviates joint pains. Remember that old idea that deca promotes "water-retention" in the joints, and that’s why it helps your joints feel better? Bullshit. You just read the real reason deca helps joints. Deca actually works on two fronts as an androgen—which have well-documented effects on corticosteroids—and as a progestin to reduce inflammation."Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

answer

Wikipedia policy clearly disallows false information and endangering the visitors lifes with false information.

1) Expert testimony and expert knowledge is considered a credible source - look it up.

2) LOL! This is funny, since I know Anthony Roberts personally, I've known him for years - we chat on the phone regularly. I can tell you that many of his profiles need corrections and many of his articles he doesn't write himself. He's said many times that there is a number of articles in which he has mistakes in. Water retention is the main reason for join pain alleviation with Deca Durabolin - and, yes, I can have anthony write that in an email to you :)

3) You just proved my #1 point. You used an industry 'expert' and cited him as credible in point #2; meaning, you fully believe that inudstry 'experts' are credible sources. Anthony has no medical or even remotely related training, he will tell you that himself, he's not considered a "degree carrying" guru - all his knowledge is from experience. So, if you use an expert based on his learned knowledge (from experience), then you are contradicting yourself in your claim that there is a standard of credibility (something you clearly made up).

4) Lastly. You seem to be a person who makes oneself really smart behind a computer, but how about real life? can you tell me your background in bodybuilding and fitness. How many years you've been seriously training, workout out, and following a healthy diet. How about your stats, height, weight, bodyfat and age. How many bodybuilding shows have you done? How many steroid users have you known? how many people have you trained? My stats will speak for themselves. I can back up what I say, can you?

Don't take this personally, I just don't believe a person in your position, with 0 real life knowledge about steroids, should be doing ANY edited of ANYTHING related to steroids. It's dangerous and irresponsible. Manofwar4662 12:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia "clearly disallows false information and endangering the visitors lifes with false information"? I agree. Prove any information you provide is factual and then we'll talk.

1.Who's the expert? You? Even if that's true (which it clearly isn't) please see WP:NOR for information on No original research. Saying that you're an 'expert' and then making assertions for which you can't backup would be original research. That's not allowed on Wikipedia.

2.Assuming you know Anthony Roberts, It's irrelevant. His article PROVIDES citations. I've provided citations independent of Anthony Roberts proving that stimulates the progesterone receptor causes anti-inflammatory reactions.

3.My citing of his article was only done because he provides sources. You don't.

4.My background or personal information is irrelevant.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what can I say? if you believe your background and personal information is irrelavant when giving possible life threatening advice...there is nothing I can say.

Go check Anthony's citations first before you talk. I'm not going to bother arguing with someone who has 0 industry experience, knowledge or understanding of steroids.

Putting people's life in danger and spreading false information via content control is also NOT allowed on wikipedia.

I'm done wasting my time discussing this topic. I have clients to train! (I don't sit on the computer and pretend to be a 'guru' lol)

If you ever want to meet in person, I'd be happy to show you what a real bodybuilder looks like, with real knowledge backing up my statements.

Manofwar4662 18:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to continue discussing it, that's fine with me.

If you have anything worthwhile to say concerning the Anabolic steroid article then please discuss it on it's talk page from now on.

Also, Read up on Wikipedia policy concerning burden of proof, NPOV, Citations as well as Original research.

Moreover, If you consider yourself a "Real Bodybuilder" then upload your picture and perhaps we could use it on some of the Bodybuilding related articles. We're lacking in such pictures.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've already gone ahead to proper channels in regards to this, not to worry. I think you're endangering people's lives and I'm sure a good number of people will be interested in that fact. Actually, I have my photos up on the web. I have nothing to hide. I don't hide behind a computer and pretend to be an expert like you. Please do not contact me again, as I'm really annoyed with your guruism on steroids without any knowledge. Any future contacts from you will be deleted from my talk page.

Manofwar4662 19:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What channels?

You claim I'm "endangering lives"? How? By refraining from posting medical advice and accepting only reliable sources from scientific studies? Please elaborate.

I've never said I was a "Guru" about anything. I know about Anabolic steroids and I edit the article appropriately providing sources and citations for EVERYTHING I add.

This page isn't "your" page. It's Wikipedia's page to be used for discussing YOUR edits. Erasing my edits without justification is frowned upon.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Turinabol.jpg

The file File:Turinabol.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]