As I wrote on my talkpage, doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02157.x is a reasonable source to support any claims of persistent sexual dysfunction after finasteride use. I suggested, however, that you wait until it has appeared in print so any reactions in the medical literature can be noted. I would also strongly suggest that you tone down the language of your addition; I can't see any evidence that there is a "controversy" here, for instance. Instead, I would integrate this information into the current "side-effects" section.
Wikipedia has a guideline for additions to medical articles, WP:MEDRS. Could I urge you to read through this document, because if you follow its advice your edits are more likely not to be reverted. JFW | T@lk 19:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
You can't expect other people not to edit the article, as you appear to say here. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Biosthmors ( talk) 02:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) if you want to try and create an article on the organization itself. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) 16:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
Jackmcbarn ( talk) 17:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Puffin. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Finasteride, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Puffin Let's talk! 20:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I am having technical problems with the Finasteride Talk page, so am temporarily placing my explanation of my edits here.
Several changes made on September 11 were reverted with the explanation "Please don't remove sections that have been discussed and agreed upon months/years earlier - Discuss further on talk page if you wish)". First I'd say that I don't see anything on the Talk page clearly indicating that the language you have reverted back to is "consensus". The discussion ended on February 24, with me asking you a series of questions that you never responded to.
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 02:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I proposed a 1 week block for you for retaliatory editing. Formerly 98 ( talk) 05:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I have posted a request to the ANI page that you post your evidence supporting charges of COI for evaluation by the community. Thanks. Formerly 98 ( talk) 02:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Doors, I made a change to one of your recent edits at a content discussion Noticeboard: I removed a sentence that served no purpose other than to disparage an editor, instead of focusing on content. I understand that you are passionate about the subjects you edit--this can actually be a problem on Wikipedia. Please try to maintain some detachment from the subjects, or consider not editing articles on those subjects. In any case, please stop using content discussion pages to make comments about editors. Thanks....
Zad
68
23:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
00:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
00:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog ( talk) 03:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
yes, i was still working on the posting at AN. i am indeed seeking a review of the close. Jytdog ( talk) 04:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
We are getting very little response over at the Wikipedia Medicine page. Given the communities lack of interest, should we try a little harder to find an acceptable compromise? Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 23:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog ( talk) 07:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doors, I've closed the COIN. [1] Just to be clear, you have agreed not to engage in direct article editing, but to post edit requests on talk instead, per WP:COI. See Wikipedia:Edit requests for more information. That can't depend on whether any other particular editor is active there. I hope that Jytdog does honour his own suggestion that he will walk away, but if he doesn't, or if someone else arrives that you disagree with, you will still be expected to stick to the talk page.
I suggest that you make the suggestions by writing out exactly what change you want to see; posting your source; quoting from the source where appropriate; and perhaps pinging Doc James (that assumes there won't be many requests; if there are, best not to ping because he has a lot to do). I will put the article back on my watchlist too. SarahSV (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Doors22. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doors, please don't keep mentioning editors you've had disputes with. The issue at that page is simply whether you gain consensus for your edit requests. Please focus only on that from now on. Otherwise, editors who feel attacked will respond, and the page will deteriorate. And if they don't respond, it isn't fair to keep discussing them. So either way, it's better to drop it. SarahSV (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Doors, per the COI guideline, COI editors should refrain from direct-article editing. That pertains in particular to sensitive medical articles, for obvious reasons, particularly where there may be a financial incentive. The expectation that COI editors avoid direct-article editing does not depend on the presence or absence of any other editor. We don't allow COI editors to remove people by saying "I'll abide by the guideline if and only if he stays away."
Jytdog did say he would stay away, and I hoped he would honour that. But that issue and your COI are separate matters. You've linked the two so often, despite being asked several times not to, that I'm afraid you risk being blocked indefinitely if it happens again. SarahSV (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
An apparent COI exists when there is reason to believe that an editor has a COI.[h] Example: An editor has an apparent COI if he edits an article about a business and for some reason appears to be the owner. In fact he may have no such connection. Apparent COI causes bad feeling within the community and should be resolved through discussion whenever possible.[i]
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. SarahSV (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Doors22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have spent a couple days thinking about the events that led up to this block and I would like to apologize for crossing the line after being warned me not to bring up another editor's behavior again. I would like to request that my account is restored. I regretfully didn't appreciate the significance of the warning. I am practical and promise to refrain from commenting on this personal dispute if I will be allowed to make contributions. Nearly one year ago, SlimVirgin asked me to use the edit request template to make changes on the finasteride page, a request to which I have respectfully adhered. I have a lot to offer the encyclopedia because for the past several years, I have closely followed the developments in scientific research about serious adverse events caused by the hair-loss drug Propecia. My knowledge of the most recent WP:MEDRS compliant research helps keep the article updated. I appreciate your time to consider my request and would like to make it clear that I understand my disruptive focus on a dispute with another editor was the reason for my block which I assure you I will remedy. Thanks. Doors22 ( talk) 19:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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.
@ SlimVirgin: are you satisfied with the above response? Max Semenik ( talk) 21:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
TParis and Just Chilling, thanks for the replies. It's an an easy enough matter to close this so that Doors can appeal to UTRS.
I almost unblocked earlier today rather than spend more time on this, but the reason I didn't, Doors, is that you really aren't here to build an encyclopaedia. You focus not only on one article, but on one aspect of it, and when you arrive at the talk page, everyone is expected to respond and do as you ask. In addition, you seemed to be targeting another editor in an effort to have him not edit there.
If you have any assurances, I'm willing to listen, but I'd really prefer that another admin handle it, which is why I suggested UTRS. SarahSV (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
As I wrote on my talkpage, doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02157.x is a reasonable source to support any claims of persistent sexual dysfunction after finasteride use. I suggested, however, that you wait until it has appeared in print so any reactions in the medical literature can be noted. I would also strongly suggest that you tone down the language of your addition; I can't see any evidence that there is a "controversy" here, for instance. Instead, I would integrate this information into the current "side-effects" section.
Wikipedia has a guideline for additions to medical articles, WP:MEDRS. Could I urge you to read through this document, because if you follow its advice your edits are more likely not to be reverted. JFW | T@lk 19:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
You can't expect other people not to edit the article, as you appear to say here. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Biosthmors ( talk) 02:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) if you want to try and create an article on the organization itself. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) 16:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
Jackmcbarn ( talk) 17:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Puffin. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Finasteride, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Puffin Let's talk! 20:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I am having technical problems with the Finasteride Talk page, so am temporarily placing my explanation of my edits here.
Several changes made on September 11 were reverted with the explanation "Please don't remove sections that have been discussed and agreed upon months/years earlier - Discuss further on talk page if you wish)". First I'd say that I don't see anything on the Talk page clearly indicating that the language you have reverted back to is "consensus". The discussion ended on February 24, with me asking you a series of questions that you never responded to.
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 02:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I proposed a 1 week block for you for retaliatory editing. Formerly 98 ( talk) 05:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I have posted a request to the ANI page that you post your evidence supporting charges of COI for evaluation by the community. Thanks. Formerly 98 ( talk) 02:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Doors, I made a change to one of your recent edits at a content discussion Noticeboard: I removed a sentence that served no purpose other than to disparage an editor, instead of focusing on content. I understand that you are passionate about the subjects you edit--this can actually be a problem on Wikipedia. Please try to maintain some detachment from the subjects, or consider not editing articles on those subjects. In any case, please stop using content discussion pages to make comments about editors. Thanks....
Zad
68
23:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
00:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
00:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog ( talk) 03:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
yes, i was still working on the posting at AN. i am indeed seeking a review of the close. Jytdog ( talk) 04:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
We are getting very little response over at the Wikipedia Medicine page. Given the communities lack of interest, should we try a little harder to find an acceptable compromise? Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 23:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog ( talk) 07:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doors, I've closed the COIN. [1] Just to be clear, you have agreed not to engage in direct article editing, but to post edit requests on talk instead, per WP:COI. See Wikipedia:Edit requests for more information. That can't depend on whether any other particular editor is active there. I hope that Jytdog does honour his own suggestion that he will walk away, but if he doesn't, or if someone else arrives that you disagree with, you will still be expected to stick to the talk page.
I suggest that you make the suggestions by writing out exactly what change you want to see; posting your source; quoting from the source where appropriate; and perhaps pinging Doc James (that assumes there won't be many requests; if there are, best not to ping because he has a lot to do). I will put the article back on my watchlist too. SarahSV (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Doors22. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Doors, please don't keep mentioning editors you've had disputes with. The issue at that page is simply whether you gain consensus for your edit requests. Please focus only on that from now on. Otherwise, editors who feel attacked will respond, and the page will deteriorate. And if they don't respond, it isn't fair to keep discussing them. So either way, it's better to drop it. SarahSV (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Doors, per the COI guideline, COI editors should refrain from direct-article editing. That pertains in particular to sensitive medical articles, for obvious reasons, particularly where there may be a financial incentive. The expectation that COI editors avoid direct-article editing does not depend on the presence or absence of any other editor. We don't allow COI editors to remove people by saying "I'll abide by the guideline if and only if he stays away."
Jytdog did say he would stay away, and I hoped he would honour that. But that issue and your COI are separate matters. You've linked the two so often, despite being asked several times not to, that I'm afraid you risk being blocked indefinitely if it happens again. SarahSV (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
An apparent COI exists when there is reason to believe that an editor has a COI.[h] Example: An editor has an apparent COI if he edits an article about a business and for some reason appears to be the owner. In fact he may have no such connection. Apparent COI causes bad feeling within the community and should be resolved through discussion whenever possible.[i]
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. SarahSV (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Doors22 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have spent a couple days thinking about the events that led up to this block and I would like to apologize for crossing the line after being warned me not to bring up another editor's behavior again. I would like to request that my account is restored. I regretfully didn't appreciate the significance of the warning. I am practical and promise to refrain from commenting on this personal dispute if I will be allowed to make contributions. Nearly one year ago, SlimVirgin asked me to use the edit request template to make changes on the finasteride page, a request to which I have respectfully adhered. I have a lot to offer the encyclopedia because for the past several years, I have closely followed the developments in scientific research about serious adverse events caused by the hair-loss drug Propecia. My knowledge of the most recent WP:MEDRS compliant research helps keep the article updated. I appreciate your time to consider my request and would like to make it clear that I understand my disruptive focus on a dispute with another editor was the reason for my block which I assure you I will remedy. Thanks. Doors22 ( talk) 19:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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.
@ SlimVirgin: are you satisfied with the above response? Max Semenik ( talk) 21:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
TParis and Just Chilling, thanks for the replies. It's an an easy enough matter to close this so that Doors can appeal to UTRS.
I almost unblocked earlier today rather than spend more time on this, but the reason I didn't, Doors, is that you really aren't here to build an encyclopaedia. You focus not only on one article, but on one aspect of it, and when you arrive at the talk page, everyone is expected to respond and do as you ask. In addition, you seemed to be targeting another editor in an effort to have him not edit there.
If you have any assurances, I'm willing to listen, but I'd really prefer that another admin handle it, which is why I suggested UTRS. SarahSV (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)