Misplaced Pages

User talk:DangerGrouse: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:17, 11 October 2012 editBrainbug666 (talk | contribs)146 edits →Speaking of imploring← Previous edit Revision as of 16:40, 11 October 2012 edit undoDangerGrouse (talk | contribs)35 edits Undid revision 517186380 by Brainbug666 (talk) I consider this post WP:HARASSMENTNext edit →
Line 31: Line 31:


:* yes, I realy understand that you are new since ] 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[REDACTED] you are working on ? Funny, The only thing you are doing here since 11 month are such things. This .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''' ]. ]--] (]) 03:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC) :* yes, I realy understand that you are new since ] 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[REDACTED] you are working on ? Funny, The only thing you are doing here since 11 month are such things. This .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''' ]. ]--] (]) 03:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

*Hello user DangerGrouse, on my talk you said that what I wrote here is unfounded. Well, as you and everbody else can see in the links. Just for you, I will show it a bit more in detail.
Once again, you claim, you are a new user, but you are a member since ] now we have October 2012.
'''
I do not understand the importance''' of adding this to an article about Finasteride? The '''content from the Propecia website is readily available from numerous other sources''', and the circumstances surrounding the removal of the official Merck Propecia website are entirely speculative. You say: "clearly a reaction to the increasing awareness of the dangers of Propecia" '''but this appears to be simply your interpretation of the event'''. I agree with Jfdwolff, and that these types of submissions should be saved for other mediums such as public forums and social pages, as it would seem out of place and of no use to the average reader of this article. Perhaps in the future if further information is available that supports your speculations, it would make sense to be included in this article. ] (]) 06:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

*rating down posts by other users and making statements dubious

I was recently prescribed Propecia, and found my way to this article a while back to learn a little more about the drug. '''I notice the side effects listed here were drastically different than what was listed on my product insert.''' For instance, this article lists '''impotence occurring in up to 18.5% of patients, but my package insert indicates all sexual related side effects occur in less than 2% of men.''' Additionally, I came across a study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21980923) that concludes the total of all adverse reactions occurred in 0.7% of men, in a sample of 3177 individuals. '''I agree with another editor that this article reads a bit like a horror story. I just wanted to shed some light onto this''' as I am not an expert on this subject by any stretch, but it's a little puzzling. One more point that I would like to make: '''are impotence and erectile dysfunction not one and the same?''' Why is impotence listed separately as a different side effect? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems strange to me. In fact, ‘impotence’ links to the page on erectile dysfunction. It may make more sense to '''simply remove ‘impotence’''' '''and the corresponding incidence percentages from the list.''' ] (]) 02:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

*This edit shows also that this user gives us like in every edit a subjectiv picture, which only try to devaluate facts. Just as an info for the user. Erectile dysfunction, is when its hard for you to get it up and maintain a erection, sometimes the patient only can get it up with a drug. The term impotence is, when you are absolutly not able to get an erection, even with drugs and the ability to make a child is also gone, by worse sperms.


Saedon, you are correct; Adderall XR is still widely available in Canada. It was reclassified to a class 1 drug, but this does not mean the same thing as a schedule I drug in the USA. Class 1 drugs in Canada still may have recognized medical uses (such as Oxycodone, which also appears in this list) but criminal offences involving these drugs carry stronger penalties and jail times versus lower classes.] (]) 23:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

*the only edit that is not about Finasteride, but here the user shows that he seems to know a bit more. But sleeping ] until here.

'''Delete'''. Agree that this syndrome does '''not appear to be appropriately recognized'''. The '''most relevant sources disclose significant biases''', and several animal studies that have been discussed ad nauseum (see discussion archive in ]) are also included. The extent that these sources convey is the observance that there are case reports of individuals exhibiting various symptoms, but the specifics (cause, symptoms, incidence) are anything but clearly defined. It doesn't appear that this is even medically classified as a unique condition, let alone one that can actually be named and exist in it's own article. The take-away from these sources (the fact that case reports exist) is already discussed in the finasteride article. If an appropriate PMID containing "post-finasteride syndrome" is available, I would argue that this should exist in it's own section within the finasteride page. Unless there are a significant number of additional sources, this simply doesn't need it's own article.] (]) 19:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

*This edit shows also that this user gives us like in every edit a subjectiv picture, which only try to devaluate facts.

Take a look through ]. You have quoted what '''two doctors believe''', but understand there exists a firm distinction between belief and recognized medical facts that are accepted by the consensus. If you could please provide direct links to the articles you obtained the quotes from then they can be addressed and discussed directly. ] (]) 04:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

*This edit shows also that this user gives us like in every edit a subjectiv picture, which only try to devaluate facts.

'''Delete'''. Agree that this syndrome does not appear to be appropriately recognized. The most relevant sources disclose significant biases, and several animal studies that have been discussed ad nauseum (see discussion archive in ]) are also included. The extent that these sources convey is the observance that there are case reports of individuals exhibiting various symptoms, but the specifics (cause, symptoms, incidence) are anything but clearly defined. It doesn't appear that this is even medically classified as a unique condition, let alone one that can actually be named and exist in it's own article. The take-away from these sources (the fact that case reports exist) is already discussed in the finasteride article. If an appropriate PMID containing "post-finasteride syndrome" is available, I would argue that this should exist in it's own section within the finasteride page. Unless there are a significant number of additional sources, this simply doesn't need it's own article.] (]) 19:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

*This edit shows that this user gives us like in every edit a subjectiv picture, which only try to devaluate facts. Changed edit, afer more other infos were found may be.

User JacksonKnight said: "There are no biasis". '''This was pulled directly from the study I was referring to:''' ""...Study limitations include a post hoc approach, selection bias, recall bias...". You may verify this yourself at the source URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02255.x/abstract. I am not suggesting the author personally holds a bias, rather that biases existed within the study parameters.] (]) 22:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

References 11, 12, 13 and 18 are animal studies. Please do not suggest that I can not count when I have already specifically addressed these in a previous post. '''If you feel these are not important for the article then you agree that they should not remain.'''] (]) 23:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

*This edit shows that this user gives us like in every edit a subjectiv picture, which only try to devaluate facts.

*None of this is relevant to this discussion. If you have issues with the articles you mentioned, you are free to take it up through the appropriate venues. This isn't about what's fair or right, so please stick to discussing this article specifically.] (]) 23:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

'''The abstract itself is confusing and poorly written''' (ex: "However in literature a lot of case of persistent sexual adverse symptoms are signaled"). The study retrospectively enrolled 78 participants that presented persistent symptoms, but then goes on to say that these men were somehow given questionnaires ''before'' they started treatment. The only way this would be possible is if the researchers knew all men in the study would end up with these rare symptoms, which is quite unlikely. Additionally, the results of the hormonal tests were not discussed in the results, which leaves me to wonder why.] (]) 01:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

*The user claim false statements where, on the one hand he says he is new and dont know much about this topic, but in some posts he seems to be totaly able to interpret a studie.

None of this is relevant to this discussion. If you have issues with the articles you mentioned, you are free to take it up through the appropriate venues. This isn't about what you feel is fair or just, so please stick to discussing this article specifically.] (]) 23:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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.''' ] (]) 16:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

*This edit shows that this user gives us like in every edit a subjectiv picture, which only try to devaluate facts and let other users look like doubtful.

The fact, that he is an user since 26 January 2012 he only gets active, when there are discusions about finasteride, his only aims are to promote a drug and let it look better. This fact seems for me and this is my subjectiv picture, that this user. Why should someone else, defet a drug in this way? Might be possible an employee of the company, that is here to promote the drug? --] (]) 12:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


==] case== ==] case==

Revision as of 16:40, 11 October 2012

Welcome!

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

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 Misplaced Pages: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)
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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages: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)

User talk:DangerGrouse: Difference between revisions Add topic