User talk:RXPhd

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, RXPhd! Thanks for the contributions over on the Eli Lilly and Company article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

Take a look at the New contributors' help page, the Wikipedia Tutorial and the Manual of Style, and If you still need any help, you can always post your question at the Help Desk.
When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia and Assume good faith, but please keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Best of luck, RXPhd, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making edits solely to avoid a redirect

It is not necessary to make an edit solely to avoid a redirect as you did here. Unless the redirect is broken it generally isn't necessary to fix it. Don't worry about going around undoing what you've done, but I'm sure there are better things you can do rather than fixing a redirect that isn't broken. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't go around looking for them, but I do fix them when I encounter them, which seems appropriate. RXPhd (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're making other edits to the article, go ahead and fix them, but if that's the only edit you're making it is generally not necessary to make the edit. Unless the the link is conveying the wrong information, then an edit just to fix a redirect that isn't broken is generally more a resource waste than leaving it as a redirect. That being said, I was just giving you an FYI. It's not like anything horrible will happen if you continue to update links so they avoid the redirect. Happy editing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Erectile dysfunction, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not add insignificant see also links. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Medicinal chemistry, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please do not add any more links like you have been. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of a related "see also" Wikipedia article is constructive, not disruptive. You need to explain your deletions on the respective talk pages, especially when the additions are logical and more highly related than some of the "see also" articles already listed. RXPhd (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links to List of pharmaceutical companies to pages such as Erectile dysfunction [1] and physician [2] add little. Others have brought this up here WT:MED. Please discuss before making more changes.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will add it to pages directly related to pharmaceuticals and pharmacology only. RXPhd (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree strongly that it's highly relevant to most of the articles you've added it to. I could see adding it to the pages of the articles that are included on the list and articles like Pharmaceutical industry, but you've added it to something like 100 articles, most of which are general information on medical topics. Is there some particular reason why you think this is such an important list? SDY (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to add it without consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to offer this advice: If you read an article and see that it mentions pharmaceutical companies generically, then it is possible to assume that another reader might want to see a list of such companies; in that case a See also link to List of pharmaceutical companies might be appropriate. For example, in Biopharmaceutical there is the phrase "the company will typically apply for a patent", and there's a possibility that the reader may wish to see the list. It's tenuous, but at least arguable. However, most of the articles where you've been adding the list as a See also don't even meet that level of relevance. You may think that because an article like Pharmaceutical formulation has a word in common with the title of the list, you can justify adding it as a See also. In fact, that article focuses wholly on the process, and never raises the topic of a pharmaceutical company – reading List of pharmaceutical companies does nothing to aid or expand the understanding of the article. So here's a third editor bringing you an opinion that what you are doing is inappropriate, and requesting that you self-revert and cease to edit-war by undoing reversions by other editors. See bold, revert, discuss; you should be discussing each of your contested edits on the talk page of the relevant article if you think the edit is appropriate. Failing to do that across multiple articles is generally regarded as disruptive editing and may eventually lead to sanctions. I'm sure you'd rather avoid that, so please take the time to justify your position when challenged. If you're right in any particular case, then others will agree with you; if not, then please accept that consensus is then against you and let go. Remember, there is no deadline. --RexxS (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those additions is particularly controversial. Including a link to a list of companies that largely conducts pharmaceutical formulation, for instance, is not unreasonable. Your bold, blanket reversions might be. RXPhd (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a few of your additions. But as I mentioned above adding this link to 100s of pages such as erectile dysfunction adds little. The see also section as per WP:MEDMOS is not usually recommended.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus has been obtained for you resuming adding this links again.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The links you are adding are inappropriate. Please stop. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]