User talk:Doc James/Archive 135

Rabies
I do agree that Youtube is not a good source, but where else is one to watch something like that? There's, but it's hardly as detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumanuil (talk • contribs) 17:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * People could upload to commons yes. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Academic peer reviewed
Template:Academic peer reviewed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 02:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Police Officers murdered in the line of duty
Dear Doc James, Why am I writing you on a subject totally out of your field? Because I TRUST you. My son Officer Shaun Diamond was murdered in the line of duty 10/29/14 by a Mongol Gang member. His name is only listed in the Mongol page. I hadn't checked in a while but his name has disappeared from the appropriate pages. Google his name for plenty of resources. Could you/would you help put his name where it belongs? My health is still poor so not up to editing. So much I have edited has been mutilated, I don't know if I will ever be back. I miss it & my 2 missing friends that kept me line ;-). I'll check with you in a few days.

Thank you for your time. I always appreciate you. — DocOfSoc • Talk  •  05:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:DocOfSoc currently traveling but will take a look. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * He is mentioned here Mongols_Motorcycle_Club Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lamotrigine&oldid=835765753
Is this genuinely duplicate content? I think clean up on my edit is certainly necessary (similarly, it's odd that the sentence I believe you're referencing is in the section for bipolar disorder), but I feel like this is absolutely different from the Reid/Gitlin/Altshuler 2013 meta-analysis. That concluded there weren't enough studies at the time to say (one way or another) if Lamotrigine was effective for other disorders. This is an actual, notable study with the explicit conclusion that it is not effective in the treatment of BPD.

Thanks, J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentism (talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:MEDRS. Also some of the text was word for word the same. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Encephalitis
Hi Doc James,

Ozzie10aaaa said I should speak to you regarding the below. Can you help/advise, please?

Thank you.

Hi Ozzie,

You removed the link to the Encephalitis Society on the Encephalitis page? Can I ask why? And can you give me some guidance as to how we can correct it?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewPitt (talk • contribs) 08:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#External links.... Don't use external links:

that lead to information already included in the article to web-based or email-based support groups for patients, professionals, or other affected people (even if run by a charitable organization) to local, state, or regional charities, hospitals, clinics, or programs, or to meetings or events in a single location to personal experiences or survivor stories that recruit for clinical trials, sell products, or raise money...thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, Ozzie.

I'd (respectfully) argue against some of those points which are relevant to us. Namely, that we are not purely web or email based: we are a dedicated society which provides accredited, evidence-based, peer-reviewed info. Indeed, some of the authors used as references are members of our Scientific Advisory Panel. We do exist in bricks and mortar (I assure you!) and provide global services. Along the same lines, we are not local, state or regional - we are an international organisation. Thanks - love to hear your thoughts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewPitt (talk • contribs) 11:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

any further inquires should be taken to User talk:Doc James, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewPitt (talk • contribs)
 * User:AndrewPitt yes we do not generally allow those sorts of links. Provided you further details on your talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Software development
There is something seriously wrong  withing  the WMF. See Horn;'s latest at  m:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2018-2019/Draft. It's bordering on  the farcical. Is there anything you or the board can do? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just boarding a plane. Will read up on it well in the air. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Potential predatory journals has been nominated for discussion
Category:Potential predatory journals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The turn of the screw
Wanted to help you out with this but your user page is **PROTECTED**. Make it vice versa, please. sirlanz 05:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * user:sirlanz to what article do you refer? Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks and done. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

ALL
You reverted me on that article, claiming primary sources. I didn't add any source. All I did was clean up the text. Please fix it. Lfstevens (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It was the IP before you, not yourself User:Lfstevens. Not sure why you were notified... Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Cushing's syndrome video
Just wondering why you removed the open.osmosis.org video on this article, that's all. SUM1 (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SUM1 thanks for the note. I personally like these videos and view them as an overall positive even though a few do have issues that need fixing.
 * Discussion was in these places among others:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * I might one day try to provide inline citations to MEDRS sources and than try another RfC. I am not sure if Osmosis has any interest in further collaboration following the bad faith assumed of them though. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a little unfair. One does not have to presume bad faith on the part of Osmosis to acknowledge that not all of their interests as a commercial venture necessarily align with our interests as an encyclopedia, or to note that the team of Wikipedia and Wikimedia volunteers who managed our relationship with them were a bit naive about how they examined and addressed – or failed to discuss and address – those non-parallel interests.  Lessons were hopefully learned. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The videos were claimed by a few people to be simple advertising for some of their other material (which is paid for).
 * Some also appear to disagreed that their goal, similar to ours is to get high quality health content out to people. Are their videos 100% perfect? No, but neither is Wikipedia.
 * I am not, however, stating that some of the concerns raised were not valid. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Chromium deficiency - talk
I have created new content about chromium dietary supplements. Because I have a declared COI, I placed it as New section in Chromium deficiency Talk. I am asking you and several other editors with an interest in nutrition/supplements to look at it and comment, perhaps making changes and/or stating that it is appropriate to move into the article, or not. A separate question is whether it belongs in Chromium deficiency, Chromium, or both. Thank you for the consideration. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:David notMD. Will take a look. Currently travelling. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the other editors moved the proposed content into the article, so you will find it there. I would still appreciate a lookover. Gist of my concern is how to describe conflicting meta-analyses and describe shifts that are statistically significant but unlikely to be clinically relevant (the cited authors' opinions, not me expressing my own opinion (although I agree)). David notMD (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Separate question to only you: Should Chromium deficiency be re-named Chromium in biology? That way, the article can validly contain content on chromium dietary recommendations, deficiency and supplementation. As it stands now, supplementation is in Chromium deficiency. Some of the other nutrient elements articles have a hyperlink to "____ in biology" articles, but chromium does not. David notMD (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We usually have an article on the disease separate from the one on the supplement itself. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Predatory publishers/journals cats
Hi, I'm not sure that these cats which you created are a good idea. I've been populating them a bit, but even very like-minded editors such as myself and don't necessarily agree on what should be included and what not. The only reliable reference we have is Beall's list (which is only available through archived versions and is not being updated any more). Any thoughts? --Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem is that for most of these journals, Beall lists them as potentially or probably predatory, but often falls short of explicitly calling them definitely so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Should we change the list to "potentially predatory journals" User:Headbomb and User:Randykitty? Being able to quickly find this info on WP is useful as an editor. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That change makes sense to me. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Have begun the move. Might take time for me to finish. If others wish to finish... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this solves the problem. "Potential"... That means that some of the journals included in this cat might perhaps not be predatory. But calling a journal predatory is very negative and has (at least I hope) consequences for the number and quality of submission that these rags receive. I'm only bringing this up so that people think about it. Personally, I can live with both solutions, as I feel that all publishers and journals on Beall's list are there for very good reasons and deserve to be tagged that way. But some publishers might think otherwise and I don't want to give them any legitimate reason for a complaint about how WP treats them... --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think that "potential" works. It's too WP:WEASEL. Categories are supposed to be WP:DEFINING, and there's no way something can be defining if it might-or-might-not be accurate. I think some thought needs to be given to an alternative way to describe this, without using the word "predatory". I also feel like there is a WP:RGW issue with this kind of categorization. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We could use "Journals on Beall's list" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But as I said above, the problem with his list is that it isn't being updated any more. No new predators are being added and a while ago I got some flak for calling a journal predatory (for all I know it even was on Beall's list, I haven't checked), so what do we do with new predatory journals/publishers that "everybody can see" are fishy but for which we have no source that says so? And from time to time, Beall would remove some publisher that had cleaned up their act. This won't happen any more, so current low quality (but not necessarily dishonest, just incompetent) publishers are condemned to this cat forever? This is an important problem that goes beyond these categories. Several of us (me included) add a phrase like "this publisher/journal was added to Beall's list of possible etc publishers" to articles and all that I've said above about the cats goes for that article text, too. I very much want to continue to flag this kind of publishers/journals, because I think that's an important service to our readers, but how to do this while steering clear from the WEASEL/RGW territory that brought up? Perhaps we should move this discussion to a more visible place so that more editors can participate. --Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a new group who has taken on detecting possible predatory journals. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Which one is that? I know of one (but can't find it right now), but they haven't updated their website for about a year now. And we'd have to establish if this new group is a reliable source. Beall is a respected scholar, the site I mentioned before is done anonymously. --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Was thinking of these two lists:


 * 


 * 


 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Than we have Cabell's list which one must pay to access. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The first one is the one I was talking about. The compilers are anonymous and it hasn't been updated since last year February... I didn't know the second one. As for the Cabell's list, tht would be a great source, but I don't know anybody who has access to it... --Randykitty (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As noted just below, there is now a CSD discussion, which I think is necessary to take the discussion here to a broader location. I've just commented there in favor of deletion. Really, there is no way to make these categories work with "potential" and/or "predatory" in the category name. My advice is to find a different way to define the categories. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you suggest defining it User:Tryptofish? I can try to get access to Cabell's list. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wish that I could give you a better answer, and I've been struggling with it. If, in fact, Cabell's is available, then something like Category:Journals on Cabell's list, or Category:Journals on Cabell's predatory journal list, or Category:Journals described by Cabell as predatory would be fine, because we are attributing the description to a source. One could substitute another list name for Cabell, as well as substitute "publishers" for "journals". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Cabell's is avaliable but not freely avaliable so that will likely be difficult for most. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I got an idea for a rename. I'm not sure if it would have sufficient sourcing to make it valid, but I thought of Category:Pay-to-publish journals. A potential problem might be that the phrase is used for other things, per the DAB page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pay to publish does not mean predatory. Predatory is mainly about pay to publish with little to no quality control. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. This is difficult. If only there were a succinct way (other than "predatory", of course) to say "pay to publish with little to no quality control". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * thank you for leading us w/ knowledge!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Czech wikipedia
Please dont edit foreign wikipedias, as you probably done as Wakkie1379 in 2014 https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anafylaktick%C3%BD_%C5%A1ok Thank you, Robert Pleskot MD, --DRobert (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:DRobert if you look at the edit summary its states that she was "Adding translation from English by translators without borders (Pavla Dohnalova and Zbynek Taborsky)."
 * Can you explain the issue you have further? If you are claiming that we are sockpuppets, well there are lots of people in the movement who can verify that we are two separate people. Though we do know each other / collaborate on stuff.
 * Additionally I do not speak or write Japanese. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello James, I dont speak Japanese either :). Excuse me for attacking you, but I found your name at Wakkie discussion page and I hope to find source of mistakes. That why I writed "probably". Never mind. Wakkie dont speak Czech and changed the whole article with translation. I looks that nobady controlled it. For example in the beginning of articcle is sentence "First step is intravenous epinefrin". OK let it be. Best regards to Wakkie if you can. --DRobert (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:DRobert you can read more about the translation efforts here. If you are interested in recruiting translators via Translators Without Borders happy to support you doing so.
 * If the translation said "intravenous epi" was first line agree that is a problem. Thanks for correcting. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think, that translation itself is not main problem. Wakkie and you too, have changed whole article. Its possible to make it in really bad stubs, but now some of information are lost. One question: Part of English article about myocardial infarction sounds like misunderstanding for me. Main problem is hypotension, not AIM, isnt it? Coronary spasm is rare complication. Thanks--DRobert (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * All the details are in the history, thus nothing lost.
 * Shock may occur as a result of hypovolumia from third spacing of fluids. It may also occur from vasospasm of coronary arteries resulting in cardiac dysfunction.
 * The ref says "Anaphylaxis can present as an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (angina, myocardial infarction, arrhythmias) before, or in the absence of, epinephrine injection. This potentially occurs in patients with known coronary artery disease, those in whom subclinical coronary artery disease is unmasked, and, due to transient vasospasm, those in whom no cardiovascular abnormalities can be detected after recovery from anaphylaxis."
 * Many worry about giving epinephrine / adrenaline due to inducing an MI, so it is important to know that anaphylaxis can cause MI by itself. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not against informations about MI, but the patophysiology is 1.vasodilation 2. third space lost 3. hypotension ..... sometimes can be coronary spasm. Section starts with MI, that I feel like confusing order.--DRobert (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:DRobert Yes agree switching the order around makes sense as tachycardia and hypotension from vasodilation is more common. Have done it on EN WP here. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm honored, I go to make it in  CZ version --DRobert (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

ebola
noteworthy/Hungary,?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think so, at least in the body of the text. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vitamin B3 complex


The article Vitamin B3 complex has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
 * Should go through the usual deletion process. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Doc James
Thank you for your great contributions to Wikipedia. (Redacted.) Brian Everlasting (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Vandalism? Please read wp:aspersions. Why don’t you step back and wait a day or two to see if other editors at Talk:Tetanus have opinions before escalating a minor question of phrasing into a battle that requires you to canvass for favorable intervention? —Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Will look. Brian please remember to remain civil. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Vitamin B3
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Vitamin B3&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. SusanLesch (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply from IdleMan
A pleasure, Doc James. (This is a response to your message, sent about 2 days ago, thanking me for edits.)

IdleMan (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg None
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news
 * The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
 * A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news
 * AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new  function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
 * When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
 * The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
 * There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries
 * (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.


 * You would do well to reply on the talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Vitreology (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have closed the AN3 discussion. Please do not edit-war to get your desired wording into the article. Please use WP:DR in the future. If you need any help with that, let me know. --John (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

finasteride adverse effects
Hi Doc James,

Would you kindly take a look at the current state of the finasteride article?

There seems to be a concerted effort to block mention of adverse effects of finasteride. This has been going on for years, but in light of recent high-quality secondary literature (and recent primary literature), the finasteride article now deviates considerably from a NPOV.

Thanks,

Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 13:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hum... Why was the Cochrane review removed? Have fixed the concerns. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

James,

You deleted the hyperlink antiandrogen from the lead. Finasteride is indisputably an antiandrogen. Goodman & Gilman classify finasteride as an antiandrogen. The original composition of matter patent from Merck describe finasteride as an anti-androgen. The bottom of the wikipedia page for finasteride classifies finasteride as an antiandrogen!

The anti-androgen nature of finasteride is essential to understanding both its therapeutic effects and toxic effects. Please restore to the lead. Also, I would favor creating a "mechanism of action" section that is separate from the adverse effects section. A more detailed description of the mechanism of action of finasteride could be explained in this new "mechanism of action" section. All previous attempts by me and others to include a discussion of mechanism of action of finasteride have been deleted. I will leave it to others to speculate as to why this essential information is being removed from the wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 17:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sbelknap, I will say this clearly and not hide behind vague aspersions. Your editing is pure advocacy.  Your initial edits were all citing your own papers (promoting yourself).  You segued into the finasteride stuff by citing your own work, and all you have done since then is crusade to emphasize the adverse effects of these drugs.  Being here to promote and advocate, is not here to build an encyclopedia. I suggest you reconsider how you are using your editing privileges; the community restricts or removes editing privileges of people who abuse them. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Those editors interested in working on the finasteride article are encouraged to focus on the substance of issues under discussion. Here, we are discussing the rather odd fact that the drug class/mechanism of action has been repeatedly removed from the lead and from the adverse effects section. Finasteride is an antiandrogen. This fact is omitted from the lead. Most drugs include this information in the lead, because it is (arguably) the single most important fact about a drug. Please stay on topic. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The claim that this is the most important aspect is strange as this source does not even mention it is an antiandrogen.
 * The class is 5-alpha-Reductase Inhibitors which are antiandrogens so it is an antiandrogen but that does not belong in the first sentence. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Goodman and Gilman's 13th edition pharmacology textbook classifies finasteride and dutasteride as antiandrogens. This has been the standard reference for pharmacology for many decades.
 * Doc James accuses me of a COI on the wikipedia administrators talk page. What exactly is the COI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 14:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

sbelknap tban
You mentioned in this tban discussion that I referred to myself in the third person. You then provided an example of this. However, in this example, I referred to "Belknap et al" which was the article I was citing and not to myself. I also was using the wikipedia name "sbelknap." There was nothing deceptive in what I did. Based on my understanding of self cite policy at wikipedia, I was acting in accordance with the rules.

Whatever our disagreements, I have acted in good faith in all my wikipedia postings. I have disclosed COIs, I disclosed my identity, and I have followed all the wikipedia policies as I understand them.

I feel I am being treated unfairly and that you specifically are treating me unfairly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * it is not true that you "disclosed COIs". Not here in Wikipedia. When I first asked you to disclose, you ignored that request, and then we blocked you. You confirmed your identity in order to get unblocked. That's it. You have disdained to join two COIN postings about your activities, here and here.
 * You have made no disclosures in Wikipedia (other than your identity) until your posting at AN. Here.
 * You have assumed that editing under your real name and confirming that this is you (after we pretty much compelled you to) is enough, in Wikipedia. It isn't.  You should  disclose things here, in Wikipedia, just like you disclose to a journal when you submit a manuscript. What you have done is as unfathomable and unethical as simply refusing to fill in the COI form when you submit a manuscript to a journal.
 * Like a lot of experts, especially in the biomedical field, you came to WP without engaging with how we do things here. I and others have tried to explain how WP is different (like we try to explain this to a lot of people like you), and you have consistently just ignored that.
 * You have disdained the policies, guidelines, and norms of Wikipedia. Consistently.  (Consistently not signing your posts is a symptom or clinical sign of this basic stance toward the editing community.)  This stance is one of the reasons why you are in hot water now, here. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)