I cite this series of revisions by Inhouse expert as both off topic to the issue of agreeing/disagreeing to the mediation and to ungodly long. Please require a very specific set of posting guidelinet to keep this from flying off the rails. Hasteur ( talk) 18:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to ask since this Dr. Proctor has become most famous or infamous depending on who one talks to worldwide for his hair loss formulas using complicated and patented custom chemical formulas, if these formulas can be included in the article and in mediation if need be to determine their efficacy and supporting documentation relative to approved FDA Finasteride & Minoxidil? BTW incorrect on forum shop, I went to above's talk pg because found my hours of volunteer research was deleted by him on mediation page & yes my edits are thorough & there is a place to add topics. Inhouse expert ( talk) 11:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
It appears at the bottom of page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nucleophilic perhaps objects so would that mean that it could be added in the place for additional issues on the mediation page, in regards to is it the same person http://www.drproctor.com/ , incl. it in article and references for efficacy of patented ingredients in such hair formula relative to FDA drug Finasteride can be included here. While we can't judge the accuracy of the treatment, since Androgenetic Alopecia is a medically recognized condition treated with FDA approved Finasteride & minoxidil, when a Dr. proffers his own unique patented treatment being sold worldwide for almost 40 years of "mystery ingredients" + NANO(nictonic n-oxide), PBN/Ntbha & SOD's, he holds the original patent on copper-binding peptide hair growth stimulators widely used http://www.hairsite.com/topical/t-proxiphen.htm http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid=102393 and suggests that they have been the subject of a 3 year clinical trial in advertisements for such with incredible pictures here in ads of Dr. Proctors http://www.hairlosstalk.com/interact/showthread.php/59371-Dr-Proctor-Snake-oil-n-since-(at-least)-1987/page6 in which ad at the time he says he is "able to double the response rate of existing hair loss therapies", if that is so, that is a medical breakthrough worthy of Wikipedia & in that case we could cover all or some portion thereof on the efficacy of such relative to the FDA drug Finasteride couldn't we? Inhouse expert ( talk) 00:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Some parties added for completeness, have decided to not respond even though they have notes from an editor in Jan & one from me on their talk page about Mediation response, particularly Drjem3 (talk · contribs) and Sthubertus (talk · contribs), what is the deadline on them to respond & if no response what impact does this have on mediation, if any, moving forward? I move for the deletion of extended comments by an editor Amadscientist, that editor acknowledges originally had no evidence to support them, as completely inappropriate & unfounded & not necessary to acceptance of mediation. Incidently these 2 schools HR & Registars are aware fo this mediation/DRN process and should get an official Wikipedia invite to participate in mediation as they know if he worked there or not & education there under dispute http://www.bcm.edu/hr/contact & http://hr.utmb.edu/. Inhouse expert ( talk) 11:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
In case any of the mediators are unaware of it, please note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor. (If I'm telling you what you already know, no problem, but I figured this would be of significant importance to this case.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I cite this series of revisions by Inhouse expert as both off topic to the issue of agreeing/disagreeing to the mediation and to ungodly long. Please require a very specific set of posting guidelinet to keep this from flying off the rails. Hasteur ( talk) 18:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to ask since this Dr. Proctor has become most famous or infamous depending on who one talks to worldwide for his hair loss formulas using complicated and patented custom chemical formulas, if these formulas can be included in the article and in mediation if need be to determine their efficacy and supporting documentation relative to approved FDA Finasteride & Minoxidil? BTW incorrect on forum shop, I went to above's talk pg because found my hours of volunteer research was deleted by him on mediation page & yes my edits are thorough & there is a place to add topics. Inhouse expert ( talk) 11:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
It appears at the bottom of page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nucleophilic perhaps objects so would that mean that it could be added in the place for additional issues on the mediation page, in regards to is it the same person http://www.drproctor.com/ , incl. it in article and references for efficacy of patented ingredients in such hair formula relative to FDA drug Finasteride can be included here. While we can't judge the accuracy of the treatment, since Androgenetic Alopecia is a medically recognized condition treated with FDA approved Finasteride & minoxidil, when a Dr. proffers his own unique patented treatment being sold worldwide for almost 40 years of "mystery ingredients" + NANO(nictonic n-oxide), PBN/Ntbha & SOD's, he holds the original patent on copper-binding peptide hair growth stimulators widely used http://www.hairsite.com/topical/t-proxiphen.htm http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid=102393 and suggests that they have been the subject of a 3 year clinical trial in advertisements for such with incredible pictures here in ads of Dr. Proctors http://www.hairlosstalk.com/interact/showthread.php/59371-Dr-Proctor-Snake-oil-n-since-(at-least)-1987/page6 in which ad at the time he says he is "able to double the response rate of existing hair loss therapies", if that is so, that is a medical breakthrough worthy of Wikipedia & in that case we could cover all or some portion thereof on the efficacy of such relative to the FDA drug Finasteride couldn't we? Inhouse expert ( talk) 00:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Some parties added for completeness, have decided to not respond even though they have notes from an editor in Jan & one from me on their talk page about Mediation response, particularly Drjem3 (talk · contribs) and Sthubertus (talk · contribs), what is the deadline on them to respond & if no response what impact does this have on mediation, if any, moving forward? I move for the deletion of extended comments by an editor Amadscientist, that editor acknowledges originally had no evidence to support them, as completely inappropriate & unfounded & not necessary to acceptance of mediation. Incidently these 2 schools HR & Registars are aware fo this mediation/DRN process and should get an official Wikipedia invite to participate in mediation as they know if he worked there or not & education there under dispute http://www.bcm.edu/hr/contact & http://hr.utmb.edu/. Inhouse expert ( talk) 11:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
In case any of the mediators are unaware of it, please note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor. (If I'm telling you what you already know, no problem, but I figured this would be of significant importance to this case.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)