Talk:Anabolic steroid/Archive 2

message: I cleaned up an edit in the history section where numerous sources where quoted after one paragraph and all but one of the sources quoted had absolutely nothing to do with the paragraph at hand and were taken from previous sources in the article.
I changed it so it specified "Great Britain" as the country where many AAS users also used other illegal drugs.--Wikidudeman 01:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources had everything to do with the statement written (alcohol use, cocaine, and cannabis, among steroid users. Some studies were from Britain, others from America. --AF1987 10:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No that's false. One of the studies you provided is...
^ Psychosomatics.Psychiatric Complications of Anabolic Steroid Abuse.(August, 2005). 
This study makes claims about the so called "Psychiatric complications" with anablolic steroid use. This has nothing to do with the paragraph it's sourced in firstly. Secondly it isn't an experimental study but a review of the literature. Considering the massive amount of contradicting experiments, I see no reason to put this in the article. It's been refuted by the published studies out there.
^ An evaluation of anabolic-androgenic steroid abusers over a period of 1 year: seven case studies.. 
^ Bhasin S et al NEJM 1996 
^ Pope et al Arch Gen Psych 2000 
^ http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/81/10/3754?ijkey=719afd785eeda7585ddc14780b0f47877f722b42&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha 
^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8855834&query_hl=20&itool=pubmed_docsum
--Wikidudeman 22:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic cleanup in "history section" 

message: The following made me laugh, but I'm going to modify it anyway:
Lyle Alzado died from brain cancer caused by anabolic steroids. This claim was made by Alzado himself.
LaQuilla 12:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good eyes.
--Wikidudeman 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steroids promote life after death? 

message: The entire time it has been up I don't think any 'experts' have been attracted to the page and none of the edits done(other than my own) were very comprehensive. So i'm going to remove the expert needed template.  Any objections?Wikidudeman 01:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's see now...you've removed the globalize template, the POV template, and now the experts template.  And while I haven't had time to get busy around this page, for a number of reasons, I think you're assuming a lot about the timeframe that other editors contribute on, and also over-valuing your own contributions.  Patience, Wikidudeman.  And by the way, normally it's up to the person who places the dispute templates to remove them, not an intervenor.  And while I don't have time to get into, I do question the validity of many of your rebuttals on this page; including the idea that the page is not USAcentric and the disingenuous request for laws concerning other countries; give your head a shake - because if another country doesn't HAVE steroid laws, or anti-steroid laws, how can they be cited?????  And, to put it mildly, just because you, as an American, haven't bothered to research steroid laws even in neighbouring jurisdictions (Canada, Mexico, Jamaica, Bahamas) or in Europe, doesn't mean that it's up to someone else to do that; the USACentric tag was there for a reason; one you apparently aren't aware of or knowledgeable enough about the field to have been the guy to remove it.  Simply because it didn't make sense to you, in your USA-centricity?  Give your head another shake.  It wasn't up to you to remove, and it's not up to you to decide whether or not the experts tag had to go.  It should be put back, as should the globalize; as a reminder that the page IS NOT complete, and remains USA-biased, and without expert input other than from alteripse and strengthcoach and yankees 76; my "expertise" comes from experience "in the trenches", and apparently doesn't count; and apparently there's some bias as to certain kinds of experts (Duchaine, Collins, Colgan) being anathema to other kinds of experts (AMA, CMA); which points to a POV taint over all.  So put back the three tags you've had the audacity/presumption to remove.  They weren't yours to do so.Skookum1 01:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where to start? Firstly, I am the one who put all of the tags up to begin with. I put the USA centric tag up, I put the expert needed tag up and sources needed tags up. When I put them up there this page wasn't even a shadow of what it currently is. I've added several dozen sources since then and have removed any trace(that I can find) of USAcentricity. I've asked you numerous times to point out where there is USA bias and so far all you can mention is the fact that laws in other countries aren't mentioned. This firstly isn't bias, and secondly I've asked you to provide sources for them but you haven't. Just because a particuar country has no steroid laws(I'm not aware of any that do) doesn't mean there won't be sources supporting that. On Wikipedia if you have an objection then you must provide sources and examples.  You can't just be vague and demand the tags be put back up.Wikidudeman 22:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My back's been out of whack for the last week or so, plus my reading glasses got lost, which is why you haven't heard from me about this.  "This" being your claim that you put up the "globalize" tag - YOU'RE FULL OF IT!!!!  Now I know you've got a disinformation agenda here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anabolic_steroid&diff=66020784&oldid=66017606 (26 July, while your FIRST post here was 31 July) proves I put the globalize tag in place, and as I recall the POV tag had been taken off at some point, and I put it back on.  You're just bloody full of it, and of yourself, for making a puerile claim like that; I scratched my head when I saw that because I've got good memory and knew I'd placed the tag; thought maybe someone had taken it out, and you'd put it back on, but NOPE I was the guy who placed it.  I suggest you apologize for LYING and that you also leave this page for a while as penance; whatever your agenda is it's clear now that you're dishonest and also arrogant as to what you think is what's right and wrong with this page.  You don't own the page, and the globalize tag is hereby put back on (if it's not back already) as just because no one's put in international content doesn't mean it shouldn't be here.  You're an arrogant fool and I'm glad I was able to prove you are also a stinking liar.Skookum1 01:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Skookum1, Firstly I put the tag up on this name not my wikidudeman name. I stopped using this name because I didn't like it. Maybe you should think of ASKING QUESTIONS before making baseless accusations about my honesty. I suggest YOU apologize for making baseless accusations against me without even asking questions. Secondly, You can't just add up something because you think it should be added up. You must ASK and DISCUSS the addition of any tags before you add them. That's how wikipedia works. That's how it has always worked. Unless you EXPLAIN why you want these tags up and give SPECIFIC EXAMPLES they don't need to be up here.  I am REMOVING the tags until you give EXPLANATIONS and EXAMPLES of what and why you think they need to be there in the first place. Unless you're willing to give specific examples as to why they belong there, You can't continue to claim they belong there. Your claims are baseless and purely rants. If you continue to add the tags to the page without even explaining why they should be there in the first place, I will be forced to report you to an admin for Vandalism.
DustinKP 07:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you know it WAS indeed ME who added those tags, Perhaps you would care to explain WHY any tags should be put up. Be specific as to which parts of the article you 'dispute', Which parts of the article you think are 'bias' towards USA, Which parts of the article you think need an 'expert'. etc. Unless you provide specific examples of your problems we won't get anywhere.Wikidudeman 07:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. DUSTIN isn't a sock puppet name. I stopped using that name about a month ago when I changed names and haven't used it until now when you challenged my claim of adding the tags to the article. This is my name on wikipedia and will continue to be.Wikidudeman 07:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  P.P.S This entire discussion is pointless. The claim is the Tags were not "mine to remove". This is an absurd thing to say. Nowhere in wikipedia policy does it distinguish between the one who placed the tags or the one who disputes them. I can remove them regardless of who put them up. That's how wikipedia works. So even though I did add the tags to begin with, It's completly irrelevant. Let's assume I didn't add them. So what? It doesn't matter. I removed them because the person who keeps adding them doesn't(and hasn't yet) given a reasonable explanation as to why they should stay there.Wikidudeman 08:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the "Expert needed" template. 

message: Since the Marijuana article has a 'Decriminalization' section, I added a part about the movement to decriminalize anabolic steroids in America. To remove any usacentric bias I made sure I mentioned I was refering to America when I did. Also to remove any POV bias I was sure to source everything.Wikidudeman 23:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above about Wikidudeman's dishonesty and arrogance.  I haven't examined your edits, but I'm all too familiar with his.Skookum1 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The links are authorative links. Wikipedia often cites links that aren't from scientific studies or professional journals or the such. Citing sources from websites with articles on the specific subject is hardly "commercial links".Wikidudeman 07:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a problem with a link I added then specify WHICH link it is. Be specific.Wikidudeman 07:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added "Decriminalization" section 

message: As a separate article; got the idea from the separate [[Legal aspects of cannabis and Health issues and the effects of cannabis article; the main article is now scientific/botanical for the most part and spin-off issues have separate articles with only brief summaries; the controversial material around here can therefore have a separate field of play; so likewise with Anabolic Steroid. For msyelf, my POV issue stands concerning this article, and will be intrinsic in any participation in the other article; not usually citable as medical/scientific study but enough of a body of literature to have some kind of pride of place; subjective experience has a place in the account on this page; the details of legal and socioclinical issues (e.g. the danger of toxic or contaminated supply from unregulated underground production caused by illegalization, the details of the various national policies, be they medical or legal, or whether there are any policies or not; a directory of important user sites also would seem a propos on that page.  Silencing or ignoring the user community's knowledge on an open-source encyclopedia does not seem very valid, POV wise.Skookum1 06:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the section on Psilocybe#Social and legal aspects I was thinking of as a comparison, also (a friend is struggling with addiction and I looked it up because of the new interest in psilocybin as a rehab treatment, as with peyote, ayahuasca and ibogaine).  Also re the list of issues above, the oral tradition and any studies on multiple drug use re steroids and everything from opiates to hallucinogens; a page of drug interactions may already exist, for pharmacueticals to everything else just listed and herbals and what-not; I haven't looked around Wiki enough to know.Skookum1 06:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Skookum1, Firstly I completly disagree. There simply isn't enough information out there to make a seperate article for the criminal or social aspects concerning anabolic steroid use. Anything there is would fit in this article. Moreover subjective or personal experiences do NOT have a place in this wikipedia article or ANY wikipedia article for that matter. Don't you know wikipedia policies? No original content is allowed. [] Only references to other credible content or credible sources. And if you reference personal experiences then I will challenge it.  Secondly....You need to work on your grammar and sentence structure. I can hardly read your posts.Wikidudeman 08:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There simply isn't enough information out there to make a seperate article for the criminal or social aspects concerning anabolic steroid use.
That's quite the claim, considering the two million-plus users out there and the extensive writings on their experiences that THEY have published (but which aren't, for some bigoted reason, citable here).  I think you're full of it; and don't go expecting everyone to automatically know that you've decided to use a different one of your multiple personalities.  I won't apologize, because it had to do with you switching masks - implicitly, in a debating arena, dishonest and evasive.  If you don't udnmerstand that then you're just being disingenuous; why else change your name?  "Because you didn't like it?"  Right, so everyone else is supposed to automatically ASK your new persona if you're the same as this other persona?    Whether you're Wikidudeman or DustinPK it doesn't matter - the globalize template is valid, as is the POV, and the expert - and the edit record shows that I placed the globalize tag.  Just because other people don't work on YOUR time schedule doesn't mean you have a right to decide how much time is how much time it takes to globalize something, or wait for an expert to come along.  The world doesn't run on wikidudeman/DustinPK's time, and grownups don't have to play with little boys who like to change names in the middle of games.Skookum1 17:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Skookum1 I'm going to try to be as patient with you as I can possibly be. You believe 'personal experiences' can be used in wikipedia articles? This is false. Wikipedia forbids original research or claims or anything like that. Posting 'personal experiences' that aren't already mentioned in other places on the web or in other sources would be considered 'original research' and thus against wikipedia policy. Espically when these 'personal claims' are contradicted by large amounts of scientific research. [] ....Also you claim that the tags should remain in the article? Well i've asked numerous times to explain in detail why you believe they should be added. So far you've just put up the "neutrality' template. So I ask you WHY. HOW is the article not neutral? Talk pages are about explaining the conflicts of view. You aren't doing that. So I ask you to explain WHY the Neutrality tag belongs in the article so I can spot the problem and we can possibly fix it.Wikidudeman 03:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: [[Social and Legal Aspects of Anabolic Steroid Use]] 

message: Constantly readding tags to the article without explaining why they should be added and giving specific examples within the article whereas it would need the addition of a specific tag is against wikipedia policy. Also and this is directed specifically to "skookum". Personal insults or attacks are also against wikipedia policy. [] Making personal insults not only doesn't contribute to the discussion it also is extremly childish. Please refrain from making personal insults or personal attacks.
If you want to make a major change to the article such as adding a new section,erasing a section, adding a tag at the top of a page or erasing a tag please POST on the talk page asking for any objections as to the action. Simply continuing to make edits to the page without adaquetly explaining the reasoning behind the actions is against wikipedia policy and it doesn't help improve this article at all.
For instance if someone wants to add a "Global bias" tag to the page, Then explain WHY you want to add it. Give examples in the page as to what exactly is bias or "usacentric" or anyother 'centric'.Wikidudeman 08:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding major changes without discussion or explanation. 

message: Here is where anyone who thinks the article has neutrality problems can post their explanations. So Skookum. Explain what in the article has a neutrality and explain why the article needs a neutrality tag. Be specific, Give details and answer questions. We're going to discuss this tag and try to fix any neutrality problems in the article(if indeed they exist). So explain...Wikidudeman 03:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont question the neutrality but science version of your stuff. You bluntly put metamorphosis.com and other unrelated sites into external links, you put sister sites' links on a BS article about the opposing arguments for legalization of steroids, which has nothing to do with facts itself just to be able to stick in more links for SEO purposes to commercial links. Neutrality has nothing to do with it. A simple look at your external and reference links and the way you target them show your true goals. Sad really. And I get yelled at for preventing it. Steroid Expert 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What 'true goals' are you refering to? The metamorphosis site has DOZENS of articles written by credible steroid experts including Rick Collins and numerous doctors and other professionals in the field. Tons of very insightful articles. The link is very educational and detailed. It's not just 'some commercial link'. Did you even take a look at the articles featured on metamorphosis website? The site I featured has over 60 authors with nearly 100 articles on anabolic steroids. I posted the site for that reason and that reason alone. A vast source of information. Do you now understand? Try taking a look at the site itself.Wikidudeman 05:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: MKS...I didn't add those links for very specific reasons. steroid.com promotes the purches of anabolic steroids. This is currently illegal and thus a violation of wikipedia policy. It's basically a 'buy steroids' website. None of the websites I linked are illegal sources to buy steroids. anabolics.com doesn't exist. and steroid.com 1.Has half of the articles dealing with steroid use 2.Most of the authors don't have the credentials as the mesomorphosis website and 3. steroid.com has direct links to ways to purchess steroids illegaly which is a violation of wikipedia policy.Wikidudeman 11:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That website has random banner ads of any search that has a key word "steroid" in it. That website does NOT sell anabolic steroids. It has a store that only sells bodybuilder DVD's. That's it. Wikipedia does NOT have rules prohibiting links to websites with commercial material in them. As long as the websites provide useful information on the subject being discussed then they are allowed. Read the wikipedia policy for details. [] If you don't have any other objections than the so called 'commercial' links then I think we should remove the 'neutrality' tag at the top.Wikidudeman 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Skookum(For once) that the websites I put up with Articles on Anabolic steroids and a Lawyer who defends steroid users who happens to be an expert on the LAW aspect of the Anabolic Steroids is definitly a link that belongs on the website. Attacking the website because of some random ad's it has is nothing more than absurd. Wikidudeman 14:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I moved the 'neutrality tag' from the top of the page to the External links area considering that's where MKS seens a 'neutrality dispute'.Wikidudeman 15:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the 'neutrality' tag in the aricle. 

message: I don't see why this tag belongs there. Explain to me where in that section there is bias or 'usa-centricity'. I would edit it and fix it and remove the tag myself but I generally get flammed for trying to do so. So I will ask for an explanation of this so called 'bias' and any suggestions on how it can be fixed. Be specific.Wikidudeman 06:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy, you're hasty with those tags, aren't ya?  What's with that?  I'll be brief for now (my back's still bugging me and it's hard to sit up, and I DO have another life, and other wiki areas I've involved in).  But from my view (Canada, as well as a user) it's not just the History section that has a USA-oriented content/flavour; it's even in the Distribution section (even after my mention of Canada, added yesterday or the day before); "steroids are imported from...." implicitly, for example, means "to the United States".  But what about someone in a country where you don't need to import them OR they're not illegal to import.  There are a number of them.  "Distribution in the United States/Canada/Britain", "Illegal Production in Canada/Italy/Australia".  So many Wikipedia articles authored and debated by Americans go on assuming that the rest of the world isn't reading this stuff, as if only the United States exists or matters, and in this case as if its drug laws are assumed to be the right thing to do (NOT).  I'm gathering that Wikidudeman might even be a user, and he should then also appreciate that the views of the user community are not to be slagged out of hand (and to SteroidExpert I say: mesomorphosis is NOT like the other sites you've mocked; it and a few other sites also contain reams and reams of health/clinical experiences that can be cited in general discussions here; the experiential evidence is just as important as any lab/research papers - 'especially when the funding of those research papers is generally POV/DEA/IOC (DEA/IOC=intrinsically POV).  The idea that steroid use is necessarily bad is a USA projection on reality, and it is something other countries have been pressured into toeing the line with, although up here in Canada we made it criminal becausee the national guilt-fest over Ben Johnson; before that it was like illegally importing aspirin.  In Canadam, steroids are "Schedule IV" under the Controlled Substances Act, or wherever in the Criminal Code of Canada, and it's a category created explicitly for steroids because even our whacked parliamentarians couldn't see the point in putting it in Schedule III with marijuana, Schedule II with valium, perc, etc and Schedule I with coke, heroin et al..  But in the US steroids have been branded a "dangerous narcotic" and are in the A-list; and as per a news item which you'll find on www.rickcollins.com as well as mesomorphosis.com (I got it in elitefitness.com's newsletter) the penalties are being upped severely in the United States, with individual pills now being potentially a charge each or something ridiculous along those lines.  Witch-hunts, stake-burnings, and necktie parties over something that, let's see, makes you stronger, generally happier, and pretty well forces you to eat right, might get you bald and maybe you'll have some endocrine problems and maybe an enlarged left ventricle.  And the guys who made this stuff illegal are stoked on booze and cigarettes and prescription psychotropics.....and why is it illegal?  "Because we have to protect our children"???  The thing children need protecting from most is politicians.... Back to int'l laws, Italy changed its steroid laws in advance of the Turin Olympics from simple possession being only the equivalent of a misdemeanour to a criminal charge for even failing a drug test, i.e. for having any steroids in your body.  In general, in advance of any Olympic games, IOC pressure on the local officialdom helps perpetrate a witch-hunt; the old easy availability of veterinary steroids in Australia ended in the lead-up to the Sydney Olympics, for example; although years after Seoul you can still buy depoviron and oxymetholone easily in Korea; if you can find it, that is.  In Greece the internal steroid market was already sewn up between a few key distributors and certain sports clubs, so there was no need for a crackdown on the pharmacies who still freely sell whatever they have in stock; same with neighbouring Turkey; the legal specifics in each European country I DON'T know, nor in Thailand and India, where steroids are freely available.  One interesting thing, by the way, in that countries with copious supplies of hormonal drugs you don't see a lot of beefcake strutting around (well, except maybe in Russia and former Soviet countries); one reason may simply be the food intake these guys can't get (say, in Thailand) or the other being that because the stuff is legal it doesn't become fashionable in the way that contraband substances so automatically do.  One thing I do know - when England legalized ecstasy and made it over-the-counter its use dropped off dramatically as kids turned to something else more illicit (DMT at the time).  So the point is with the Distribution section and the History section, there's a much broader palette to be written up, and researched, and Wikidudeman's trigger-happiness over the globalize/USA and POV tags is a frustrating waste of mental energy.  Scratch your head a bit, Wikiman, and start doing some webresearch on other countries - Japan, China, India, Nigeria, South Africa, Brazil, and so on.  Do they have steroid laws, or don't they.  And those that don't should be mentioned; it should be not assumed, as North Americans do from having been so thoroughly brainwashed, that steroids should be illegal.  That in and of itself is POV.  Now, you'll have to excuse me, I'm prepping my morning shot of cyp...Skookum1 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Skookum1 I didn't even read most of that rant. Most of it is completly off topic from the USA centricity.    From now on keep your comments brief and to the point. Don't go off on rants about the history of steroids and their criminilization.  I agree with you that steroids should not be criminilized. However that's beyond the point. The point here is the tags.   You aren't being SPECIFIC as to why the tags belong in the article.  If you think the article should mention the laws of other countries then I agree. Provided SOURCES for those laws of those countries and then we can mention them.   And i'm asking one last time....BE SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT IS BIAS IN THE ARTICLE SO THAT IT CAN BE CHANGED. IF YOU WON'T BE SPECIFIC THEN THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN KNOW WHAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.  I'll give you 1 week to explain your case for the tags to be up there and then i'll remove them because you aren't being cooperative as wikipedia policy permits.Wikidudeman 09:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I just finished reading the whole thing and I don't see any details about why the Tags should stay up.  Please provide details.Wikidudeman 17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the "US worldview" tag in the history part. 

message: Recently I just reverted edits done by "Tomsintown" who butchered the entire article erasing entire sections that belong in the article. He erased the Popular Misconceptions area as well as erasing parts of the "Decriminalization" area where it was mentioned a prominent steroid expert admitted there was no evidence steroids were actually "deadly". This is an obvious POV conflict. Erasing any opposition to the claim Steroids are dangerous in the article imbalances the neutrality of the article.Wikidudeman 15:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TOM, Stop erasing and reverting my posts in this talk section!Wikidudeman 15:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recient Vandalism done by Tomsintown 

message: It reads like a user's manual with some pseudo science thrown in for good looks. Let's stick to verifiable, neutral facts here. Tomsintown 11:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That part of the article contains no pseudo science. And the "Medical disclaimer" was added for warning. I see no problem. Reverted.Wikidudeman 15:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Minimizing the side effects" paragraph 

message: This reads like a rebuttal from a pro-steroid POV. Frankly, so does much of the remaining article. Pity for an article on such an important issue! The neutrality tag is there for just cause until someone sweeps through this with a big broom (not necessarily steroid-infused big, though).
I suggest another way is found to mention these findings and studies and that the paragraph itself is removed. There cannot be a one-sided rebuttal that writes off criticism as "popular misconceptions". Very very wrong for an encyclopaedia. Tomsintown 01:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolute nonsense. NUMEROUS wikipedia articles have sections on urban legends,myths and misconceptions. Having on on Steroids who's reputation is ripe with myths and unscientific legends is paramount to this article.  This section to the article may be 'one sided' but only because it's SCIENCE. When presenting scientific facts on wikipedia we don't sacrifice science for NPOV(See evolution article). Even though the article IF ANYHING seems bias against steroid use opposed to for it. If anything, the POV is balanced against steroids and steroid use. Removing these parts of the article makes this page nothing more than an anti-steroid rant, as I and numeorus others see it. When you've got a claim like "Steroids make your penis shrink" as a criticism of steroid use, That's not criticism at all. That's simply false. Presenting false claims in wikipedia as somehow on the same level as scientific facts is NOT what wikipedia is about.  You need do do alot of research about wikipedia policy and anabolic steroids before making anymore edits. Wikidudeman 15:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then those "myths" should be placed in a paragraph that deals with "debated" or "controversial" points, as you and I both know there are many sources that do claim a connection between steroids and suicide exists. Penis size I'll give you. To only have a paragraph about "popular misconceptions" is to make the whole issue feel as if the issue isn't all that serious after all. It is simply the chosen words that can't be allowed. Quoting sources is good, but you need sources from both points of view. Tomsintown 15:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You must not have read the entire paragraph. We also have a paragraph on 'side effects' from anabolic steroids. You're new to wikipedia and you need to read more articles and see how scientific articles are put together. Read articles such as the Evolution article. That article presents evolution as being absolutely true even though the POV isn't neutral. This is because it's a SCIENTIFIC article. When dealing with scientific articles(Such as this one) you must have a POV favoring the science and not the myth.  Anabolic steroids are a topic with TONS of myths surrounding them. This is why that part of the article is so important. Sure there may be 'sources' supporting the claim that steroids cause suicide. But those sources aren't scientific as the article clearly explains. Putting unscientific and baseless sources up would be like putting sources that the earth is flat in the Geology articles. Absolutely absurd and doesn't belong on wikipedia.Wikidudeman 15:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Don't make anymore edits (Aside from grammar or spelling) to the article until they are completely discussed and agreed upon on the talk page. That's how wikipedia works.Wikidudeman 15:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Popular misconceptions" paragraph must be removed, its contents redistributed 

message: It seems like everyone who has participated recently agrees this is an article with many flaws. However, edit conflicts have erupted over 4 problems: (1) not everyone agrees as to the major flaws, (2) most of the edits have been removals of material rather than constructive additions, (3) there hasnt been much constructive proposing and compromise on the Talk page before making controversial changes, and (4) too much of the arguments have been over tags that are not that important and neither the tags nor the arguments actually improve the article. I propose the following to more efficiently improve the article with a lower level of conflict: (1) unless you can cite a source that it is false, do not remove any material without offering a rewritten version that improves what you find unsatisfactory about the POV or whatever, (2) propose anything more than minor changes here on the talk page first before changing the article, and (3) drop the debate over the tags-- they are not worth the conflict and put here on the talk page are nothing but an expression of an individual's dissatisfaction with the state of the article. alteripse 03:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: suggestion for cooperative editing

message: Someone added this little tidbit in on one of the effects. This is utter nonsense. What would steroids produce? "Fake muscles"? Haha. I don't even need to provide sources since the article contains literally dozens refuting this. My IP is currently blocked (I use AOL) so I can't erase that right now. Someone else please do it.Wikidudeman 14:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "May not produce real muscle"? 

message: A quite comprehensive article let down by poor formatting.
*The intro does not introduce the subject but only defines terms, should mention at least some of the major subjects discussed in the text below. See [WP:lead]
*No figures or illustrations.
*Too many lists, you might consider converting some to text.
*The references are unformatted. See [Wikipedia:Citing sources]
TimVickers 16:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your explanation. I will try my best to change the article and make it fit the criteria for a nomination.Wikidudeman 02:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, this article has many good features, but is a very long way from GA. Its most serious problem is its NNPOV, including many phrases like "purveyed in the popular culture and the media." Don't say the media "purveys" (like purveying porn?--a very common usage, hence the NNPOV of purvey), they "report" or "state" or "maintain" etc.Rich 06:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at what I wrote above, I should have emphasized the NNPOV problem is not just or even mainly wording--It's the insistent effort to downgrade dangers and side effects.--And I'm not saying that the rewards aren't sometimes well worth those side effects. In any case if we strive to be fair and not overpush the safety we won't push the pendulum too far towards deregulation and get a countermovement towards greater regulation. I hope.Rich 07:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed nomination

message: Is it worth going into the details of the natural creation of steroids from cholesterol here? Adam Cuerden talk 19:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try here: steroid. alteripse 19:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cholesterol

message: There technically is no such substance: Estrogen refers to a member of a group of substances, for instance, Estradiol, created by aromatisation of Testosterone. 
The easy solution would seem to be to replace most usages with "an estrogen" or "estrogens" as appropriate - it's slightly more precise, whilst still being easily understood. What do you think? Adam Cuerden talk 22:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So do it Adam.Wikidudeman 02:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikidudeman,it would be nicer to thank him for his hard work and civility under strained circumstances than to just say "so do it Adam."Rich 06:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I simply asked adam to make the corrections he thought should be made. He as of yet has not done it.Wikidudeman 06:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Estrogen and the definition of steroids

message: I have made a few minor alterations to this section regarding the issue of testicular atrophy.  A cessation of endogenous testosterone production was cited as responsible.  This is inaccurate and I have made the necessary adjustments.
Additionally, while I am not an MD or clinical specialist, I am in the final stages of my PhD, and I have been studying the molecular biology of the androgen receptor and other nuclear hormone receptors for the past 7 years.  So, while I will not bog this page down with technical molecular information that most will not understand, I will attempt to clean up various parts of the page that are not strictly accurate and provide reference information where appropriate  Rls9 19:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard, You sign your name by scrolling down and clicking the "sign your name" button which produces this.. Wikidudeman 07:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up of "popular misconceptions" 

message: Richard. You have added the 'experts needed' template over and over even though you refuse to defend your actions here on this talk page. I have removed your template one last time and I will notify you to an administrator if you continue to add the template without defending your actions here. It is official wikipedia policy to talk to other editors on the talk page about edits done to the article if they are disagreed upon. Simply editing the article without talking about your edits in the talk page or defending them is against wikipedia policy. WP:DR So here is your chance to defend your addition of the expert template.Wikidudeman 06:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Peterson on constantly adding the 'experts needed' template. 

message: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/jan20/kennedy/kennedy.html --AF1987 11:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some other stuff

message: I have added a new section on the biochemical mechanisms of anabolic steroids and how their androgenic and anabolic effects process in the body. The section could use some more additions or possible corrections from experts in the field of endocrinology.Wikidudeman 02:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added new section 

message: The 'Administration' section of this article seems to be based on nothing more than subjective experience of a steroid user and is not supported by any sources. It also gives medical advice(Which is against wikipedia rules). Nothing on Wikipedia.org or included as part of any project of Wikimedia Foundation Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a medical opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of medicine.  I will disperse what is not medical advice throughout the article as a whole.Wikidudeman 17:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks ok as far as I can tell Cavell.Wikidudeman 02:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The administration sections is still totally disingenuous. If Wikipedia really believed that you should speak to a doctor before administering steroids, it would not tell you exactly which kind of needle to use and provide links that describe exactly where you should stick yourself. This constitutes medical advice, even if it is prefaced by disclaimer. The potential dangers of people damaging nerves and blood vessels because they read it on Wikipedia prompted me to phrase it in a way that conveys the important modes of steroid administration, without supplying the details that might prompt someone to try it out on himself. --141.154.207.228 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You make a good point. Wikidudeman 05:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing 'Administration' section. 

message: I have altered the "Use and abuse in sports" section by erasing the paragraph that mentions the study and provides not link and replaced it with a paragraph that is more precise and provides a formated link to the study sourced. I have also changed the name of the section to simply "Use and abuse" to be more general.Wikidudeman 18:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altering "Use and abuse in sports" section 

message: This is not directly to do with the action of steroids but, in reference to their use in 'gender dysmorphia' I think this possibly should be 'gender dysphoria' (normally how a transsexual female-to-male or otherwise would be diagnosed initially). It looks like the term has been blended with the concept of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD)... I didn't want to go and change it myself as the term may still be relavent to some extent and the page looks fairly well established by other contributors. -- S Thompson 2007-01-06. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.202.76 (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember personally using that term but this is what it says..."Used for gender dysmorphia: whereby secondary male characteristics (puberty) are initiated in female-to-male diagnosed patients." And I looked for a site explaining the term and I found this one..Gender dysphoria: This is a medical term for feeling unhappy with your current gender (masculinity/femininity), which is in conflict with your physical sex. Many of us have mild feelings like this from time to time, but some people can be tormented by gender dysphoria for years on end.[]Wikidudeman 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Uses section 

message: A great improvement, some parts I didn't understand. TimVickers 03:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs a reference to explain what this activation process is, and perhaps a link to prodrug.
*The section on PCT needs a reference or two, since specific dugs are mentioned.
*The phrase "Anabolic Steroids" should not be capitalised in the middle of sentences.
For the quote
Oral administration, while perhaps the most convenient, suffers from the fact that oral steroids need to be chemically modified, and their metabolism into the active form can place strain on the liver.
You need a reference for what exactly? Steroids that are taken orally are generally made bio-available by 7 alpha alkylation? 7 alpha alkylated steroids are hapatoxic? Wikidudeman (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence made it sound as it the liver takes a prodrug form of the hormone and chemically-modifies it into the active form. From you re-write I can see that instead the drug is modified before administration to block degradation in the liver into an inactive form. Do you think this would be clearer if there was a link to Biological half-life? TimVickers 16:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I made some more improvements and added references to the PCT section as  well as correcting capitalization in the article body.Wikidudeman (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA questions