Talk:Dexbrompheniramine/pseudoephedrine

Unreffed and spammy

This is basically unreffered and spammy.[1]

Thus I have removed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

agree w/ Doc James interpretation--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that telling people the name of a single American pharmacy that will sell this medication (online... I wonder how one handles the DEA's photo identification requirements?) is WP:UNDUE. People might "want" to know where to buy this, but they are not entitled to find sales information in any article – not in Mobile phone, not in Computer, not in Aspirin, and not here.

User:Beetstra, just a heads-up that this website might be headed to the spam blacklist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS:@Doc James:So now that my 24-hour block has expired (thanks for that, RexxS) let’s get a few things straight. First of all, most drug articles have information in them about who manufactures the drug, and there is no reason why this article shouldn’t also include that information. I’m fine with RexxS’s neutral statement edit simply stating who the manufacturer is, just like the thousands of other drug articles do. But if there is something wrong with saying who manufactures a drug in a drug article, then there are literally thousands of drug-related articles that need to have that information in them removed immediately.

Secondly, while I fully admit that I was technically engaged in edit warring, I think a block was unwarranted. My edits were described as "good faith" edits in edit summaries reverting my edits, and I was going back and forth with edit summaries attempting to come to a compromise solution. But yes it was technically edit warring and I was blocked for it. Fine, I can live with that. But I think the only reason I received a block for this was because I was engaged in an edit war with a high-profile Admin, who was also engaged in edit warring behavior. Yes, he technically avoided violating the 3RR, but per WP:EDIT WARRING: “The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.” And while my edit warring behavior was punished with a 24-hour block, Doc James’s edit warring behavior didn’t even receive as much as a verbal reprimand. If anything, an Admin should be held to a higher standard. And further, per WP:EDIT WARRING: “Where multiple editors engage in edit wars or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues.” I want at least an acknowledgment that Doc James was also engaged in edit warring behavior. I don’t think that’s too much to ask for. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rreagan007: This page is for discussing improvements to the Dexbrompheniramine/pseudoephedrine. I would expect to be discussing your behaviour on your talk page. However, I'll make an exception in this case. Let me be clear: I observed you inserting an advert for Poly Pharmaceuticals six times, the last four times in a single day: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Two other editors reverted you. Of course you're going to get blocked for the combination of persistently inserting promotional material and edit-warring. My job is simply to prevent further disruption to the article, which was the sole purpose of the block. I tried to amend your contribution to be neutral, but yet another editor has since removed it as 'spam' and I will not edit war to replace it. I suggest you follow the same course. --RexxS (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS:Do you think that your neutral edit constituted "spam"? And if I were to restore your very own edit, would you block me again? And I would like you to directly address Doc James's edit warring behavior in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need proper sources. The one you linked too was spammy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. How's this for a source then [2]? Rreagan007 (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to say with that source? It is okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like: "Dexbrompheniramine is currently manufactured by Poly Pharmaceuticals and marketed in the U.S. under the brand name ALA-HIST IR." Rreagan007 (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

seems similar to what was reverted[3][4]...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rreagan007: What I don't understand about all of this is why you are fighting so hard to insert a piece of information about who manufactures a single component of a compound formulation. This article is about the dexbrompheniramine–pseudoephedrine combination, and the stated reason it was removed from sale was the issues surrounding pseudoephedrine. We have a perfectly good stub article on Dexbrompheniramine, and surely your information is far more relevant to that article rather than this one. Although, it seems to me that dexbrompheniramine is freely available as I can order it from Amazon, so I can't see what's encyclopedic about stating that its manufacturer can supply it. That's surely a truism. If U.S. readers want to know when and how they can purchase the dexbrompheniramine–pseudoephedrine combination, putting Drixoral into Google will give them plenty of speculation to read. --RexxS (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS:That's a fair question. I've had very severe allergies all my life, and pretty much the only thing that really helped was Drixoral. When they took it off the market in the U.S. it was pretty devastating to me. I tried just about every antihistamine on the market, but nothing worked for me like Drixoral did. I actually had to order it from Canada (where it's no longer available), and when I could no longer get it from Canada it became impossible to find. I tried seeing if there was another manufacturer and for the longest time there wasn't anyone in the U.S. actually manufacturing this antihistamine until Poly Pharma started making and selling it on their own website. Perhaps now it's more widely available on Amazon as you say, but several years ago I assure you it was not. I searched everywhere I could think of to find it. So yeah, this was pretty personal to me. I also know that the information in this article helped at least one person in the same position as me find where he could get it because he actually made a YouTube video about it [5] (this Wikipedia article referenced at timestamp 4:20). To some people, the information that was removed from this article can completely change our quality of life. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it belongs anywhere it is on the page on that topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying you're okay with me adding it? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding it here? No I am not supportive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: And why not? Is it your position that drug articles should not state the manufacturer of the drug? Rreagan007 (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not about this combination. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Ah I see. So then you're fine with me adding it to the Dexbrompheniramine article then? Rreagan007 (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A little too detailed. Meh. Neither here no there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: You think it's too detailed to say who the manufacturer of a drug is in a drug article? The Dexbrompheniramine article is just a stub. Don't you think that article could use a little more detail? And does your logic apply to every drug article that currently says who the manufacturer is? Should every drug article that says who the manufacturer is have that information removed too? Rreagan007 (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I am neither here nor there. If you want with that source. We often state the first manufacturer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: I'm still waiting to an answer to my above question as to whether you are okay with me adding a line stating who the current manufacturer is. And @RexxS: I'm still waiting for you to answer my question as to whether Doc James engaged in edit warring behavior. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rreagan007: I'm obliged under WP:ADMINACCT to explain my actions when using admin tools. I'm not obliged to feed speculations about actions that I didn't take. Nevertheless, I think it should be obvious to you that you were blocked for the combination of adding an advert and edit-warring to insert it six times, as I made clear in the block log: "Using Wikipedia for promotion or advertising purposes: and edit-warring the advert into the article". It should also be obvious that no other editor partook of the same behaviour. It is expected that admins use the least action necessary to protect the encyclopedia, and I believe I did just that. I don't believe I owe you any further discourse on the matter, but if you are still dissatisfied, you have the option of taking up a grievance by following the guidance at WP:ADMINABUSE. --RexxS (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: I think it's interesting that you won't say one way or the other whether or not you think Doc James's actions constituted edit warring. I am not asking whether his edit warring rose to the level where he should be blocked too, I'm simply asking if his actions constituted edit warring. It's a very simple question with a simple answer. Either "no I don't think his actions were edit warring" or "yes, it technically was edit warring (but it wasn't bad enough to warrant a block)". If you refuse to answer this simple question, then I may choose to seek the opinion of an uninvolved admin at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]