User talk:Dr. Anymouse

You rang?

Fibromyalgia

Your edit summary actually can be ignored. What matters is reference sources (which you have provided). But just because you say you're a researcher has absolutely no weight with most reasonable and intelligent editors. I'm a Cardiologist, but I don't even bother with Cardiology articles, because they are so bad, written by shills from the Cardiology device companies, and my expertise is rather irrelevant, since I'm not going to post my credentials publicly. And even if you did, I wouldn't believe it, since it's the internet and everyone lies. I'm actually a fat, stupid, used car salesmen in Utah. :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warning at Fibromyalgia

Am placing a notice about the recent edit war at the 3RR noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, who does this remind you of? Or this? Dr. Anymouse (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Article. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You violated this rule, but I am merely warning you just now as there's no proof you knew this rule and your contribution history is short in amount. Additionally, please see WP:AGF and WP:Civility. The frivolous hostility shown above to User:Dlabtot is not acceptable. If you continue either the revert warring or the nastiness, you will be blocked. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We crossed. OK, I'm happy to drop it down to a warning William M. Connolley (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

See this ANI.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, doc! I was suffering from wikidramapenia.... Dr. Anymouse (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Some advice. Don't refactor other peoples talk page comments [1]; its bad form. Before making silly jokes about peoples user names, its best to establish that they won't be offended. Above all, if you want to be playful, its best to establish a solid reputation for good edits first. Otherwise you risk being blocked as a nuisance William M. Connolley (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, got it. Wasn't sure what "refactoring" meant. Thanks! Dr. Anymouse (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outing yourself

It would be helpful if you would "out" yourself, although I fully understand if you don't want to. I can understand your position: you want to help patients and you don't like them being told they have a "non-disease" or similar nonsense. I also wish patients to have the best information (after all, this article is the first google result that people get when they search). If issues like stress and psychiatric factors have been shown to be significant, then it is important to give the patients this info even though they won't like it. It is also important to discuss significantly held opinions even if they are objectionable. Of course wikipedia is not a patient resource info, it is an encyclopedia, although I believe that if the article is written well then it will achieve both aims of being a good encyclopedia article as well as giving patients useful information. A number of people close to me either have or did have CFS and fibromyalgia, hence my interest. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good words all around. There are actually several topics that come out of research that patients/patient advocacy groups don't want to hear. You do what you can -- the really neat thing about being in the community is watching it all evolve so rapidly. You just have to roll your eyes at the detractors at this point. The real issue is getting word out to community physicians about what it is and isn't and how to treat it. Not sure where you're based, but I understand that recognition/treatment is problematic on both sides of the Atlantic. And then there was the Japanese colleague of mine who told me that there is no fibromyalgia in Japan (!). Sigh...--Dr. Anymouse (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived on both sides of the Atlantic (Canada and UK) and there isn't much/any help for patients anywhere unfortunately. I certainly see the point of the detractors though, in that there is significant overlap with other syndromes and vague/arbitrary definition with no real objective diagnosis (the same is true for CFS), although saying it is not an illness or a non-disease isn't helpful because people are actually suffering from severe pain and other symptoms. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. Here's an insider's perpective: there is likely no such thing as 'fibromyalgia'. Rather, there are in all likelihood a collection of pathophysiological processes that contribute to the development of the clinical phenotype that bears the label. Not the kind of thing you write about in a WP article, though. There are likely 3-4 'fibromyalgias' out there hiding under that label, whc is itself an anachronism. Even the diagnostic criteria are this crazy tautology, but whatcha gonna do? On the upside: once you figure out whc process(es) are driving the symptoms, you can make a world of difference in these folks lives. Really, really cool to see it happen. Keep on truckin! Dr. Anymouse (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fibromyalgia

Hi, with Orangemarlin reverting all other people's edits on a daily basis, unchecked, I am now working on the article off Wikipedia. Let me know if something was lost earlier, before I rejoined the effort, that you feel should be in the text. Highest regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Guido -- I appreciate that. BTW, where in the Netherlands are you based? I have very fond memories of my 2 visits to Amsterdam. --Dr. Anymouse (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Rotterdam, Europe's mainport. :-) Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guido den Broeder

A discussion of Guido den Broeder's conduct and status as an editor has begun at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Improper_use_of_MfD_page.3F

I've alerted you since you are on his "respected user" list WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't look here...

...the jokeis on you! Dr. Anymouse (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archived at roommate's request.

Quoted unblocking text:

Okay, so I'm just playing with some Wiki-lawyering here. So...let me get this straight: User:OrangeMarlin has done an end run on the 3RR rule by asking User:Verbal to intervene on his behalf after summarily reverting a good faith edit. Indeed, User:Verbal complies. User:OrangeMarlin then actually violates 3RR (see here) and in so doing reverses the contributions of a good faith editor...who in the meantime is accused of violating 3RR by standing up for her good faith edits and, indeed, gets a 24 hour block in the process. Am I missing something?

Referenced page: here.

PS - you owe me a back massage, or at least some home made chocolate chip cookies, dear one. ;) Dr. Anymouse (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A71.191.7.3&diff=262176038&oldid=262174482

<3

Now to pick a name. How about KwitcherBitchin? LOL! 71.191.7.3 (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Also for posterity -- this is precious! As is this little ditty from the sheriff hisself. Dr. Anymouse (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is how this is done...

I think I understood from EdJohnston that I could continue to edit from this IP if I was logged in (?). I am pasting in the below per my understanding of the input on the block page. If this is incorrect, please let me know. Dr. Anymouse (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Dr._Anymouse Dr. Anymouse (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock-ip|1=71.191.7.3|2=Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]: See [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Dr._Anymouse]]. Account creation is still open to you|3=EdJohnston}}

{{unblock|Still not sure if I am doing this correctly. The IP was blocked to anonymous edits, but neither my roommate nor I are able to sign in despite EdJohnston suggesting we would be able to (?). Please comment one way or another. Thanks!}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Sorry, that was my fault, I checked the wrong box. See if it works now..

Request handled by: EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fibromyalgia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I'm doing this as a warning to you, and you can delete it at your leisure. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a charming fellow you are! Thanks for making this a better place. Dr. Anymouse (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr. Anymouse. Thank you. RetroS1mone talk 13:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's amazing. I log on for the first time in months, edit an article and a predatory editor has me blocked indefinitely without an opportunity to respond. Don't even get a chance to look at whatever evidence may have been fielded against me? Why have I been associated with the various other IP addresses? Really: what the heck? Dr. Anymouse (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]