Talk:Efaproxiral

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Efaproxiral. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203030039/http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/2009_Prohibited_List_ENG_Final_20_Sept_08.pdf to http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/2009_Prohibited_List_ENG_Final_20_Sept_08.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513020202/http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-Prohibited-list/2012/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf to http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-Prohibited-list/2012/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Brief history in sporting
Hello fellow wikipedians, I've added a brief history of efaproxiral in sporting. Efaproxiral has received much press over the last ten years as a potential performance enhancing substance. The extreme rarity of this substance in sporting makes it noteworthy when compared to its popularity in the press and scientific community. The single anti-doing rule violation for efaproxiral is cited in several scientific journals. Dr. Don Catlin explains that for a substance to be included on the WADA List it needs to fit two of three criteria: 1) widespread use amongst athletes, 2) potential to enhance athletic performance, or 3) potentially dangerous or harmful to an athlete. Hopefully my fellow wikipedians will agree that the History in Sporting addition is a factual and objective update to this page, which has not been changed since 2012, over 10 years ago. Thanks for reading and any input! Baudrillard6969 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * As we've discussed elsewhere, Wikipedia isn't a place to right great wrongs. This isn't a place to argue that a particular athelete's drug testing problems are somehow strange or unjust. I disagree that the addition is in any way a 'factual and objective update', which is why I removed it. You should not add it again without agreement from other editors. MrOllie (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Simple objective facts here only. There is no argument about strange or unjust anything, there are no great wrongs to right, there is no POV. Update to a 10 year old page with established mainstream historical facts that are old news and behind the curve, cited from: ESPN, AP, BBC, LA TIMES, CBS NEWS, pubMed journals. This 12 year old historical moment in sporting is also cited by scientific journals which are several years old and peer reviewed. This is a simple factual historical update. History in sporting is a simple fact, just like efaproxiral failing phase 3 clinical trials is a fact. That fact is permitted on the page, while other facts are excluded. Should editors be cherry picking facts and/or gatekeeping facts? Perhaps another editor can review or weigh in on MrOllie ‘s opinion? Baudrillard6969 (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Should editors be cherry picking facts Given the cherry picking of sources and WP:SYN on display in your addition, that's quite a strange accusation. MrOllie (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Strange opinionated gatekeeping. Its not SYNTH, its called a paragraph with combined sentences, citing the factual history of efaproxiral in sporting. Need a neutral editor viewpoint here, MrOllie has expressed strong fan sentiment for the Olympic Brand and Dr. Don Catlin, his edits suggest biased binary viewpoints as to mainstream vs. fringe, right vs. wrong, fact vs. original research. MrOllie did not edit the facts in a more neutral way, instead he deletes the facts which he believes to be counter to his personal opinions on this topic. What SYNTH is not
 * SYNTH is not a policy It's part of a policy: no original research. If a putative SYNTH doesn't constitute original research, then it doesn't constitute SYNTH. The section points out that synthesis can and often does constitute original research. It does not follow that all synthesis constitutes original research. Baudrillard6969 (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA. Also, that entire comment is false. MrOllie (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOVT https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial “The first element in negotiating issues of bias with others is to recognize you have a point of view, and to pin-point where it comes from.” MrOllie began deleting the history in sporting facts from efaproxiral after I edited the Don Catlin page, which I asserted read like a marketing brochure or advertisement for Catlin’s drug testing family business enterprise, and changed to a neutral objective encyclopedic tone. MrOllie called me a bot and questioned my English for this sentence “After graduating from Yale, Dr. Don Catlin built an upper middle class career in the non-profit sector testing the urine of athletes for athletic event brand rule compliance.” That addition triggered MrOllie to delete facts from the efaproxiral page, facts published by CBS News, ESPN, Law360, Vogue, Los Angeles Times, several PubMed journals, WADA and United States Anti-Doping Agency. It’s not a personal attack, I’m trying to find unbiased neutral ground from a position of newb weakness with a powerful Wikipedia editor, MrOllie Baudrillard6969 (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

amphipathic substance?
NO, the compound is not amphiphilic! And the story about propanoic acid is of no interest! Unnecessary, superfluos I say.--FK1954 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)