You are now a template editor

Your account has been granted the template editor user right, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer reasonable edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.

Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no-one else should be allowed to access your account. You may wish to take a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links:

Happy template editing! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was actually quite a close call due to your relatively low number of edit requests or edits to template sandboxes (that I could find). However, I've decided to give you the benefit of the doubt after reading the archives of Template talk:Drugbox and seeing your approach to changing it. Please be sure to always seek consensus before making potentially controversial changes to templates, and try not to break anything. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll take care :-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

anypodetos

any progress in shark research & their antibodies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.48.191.244 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no idea. I haven't kept up to date on this subject since I wrote Heavy-chain antibody. Try http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=shark+antibodies, there are a few recent free-text papers. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nitrovasodilator

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Calfactant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Respiratory distress syndrome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Levofloxacin

Appreciate it if you can take a look - The regulatory section needs to be cleaned up still but I think the Intro, Medical Uses, Adverse Effects, and Pharmacokinetics sections are about where I think they should be.

May be a shit storm coming from my rewrite of the Adverse Events section if any of those engaged in litigation against JNJ are still hanging about. The Cipro rewrite hasn't been challenged, but I think that litigation was settled some time ago.

Many Thanks 98.155.21.76 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will do come weekend if I find the time. Thanks for telling me. Happy editing, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the article now (apart from the sections History and Society and culture, which are still a bit of a mess). I haven't checked yet whether the Side effects and Interactions sections are comprehensive enough, but the major points are there. So I can free you from any accusations regarding removal of adverse effects :-)
Could you have a look at the [clarification needed] marks in the Interactions section? There should probably be "levofloxacin" instead of "ciprofloxacin", but I can't check whether the sources cover these claims for levofloxacin as well. Have you got access to theses sources? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Why create an account? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, the edits you made were all very good and helpful. So far I have not done much work on the "criticism/controversy" parts of these articles though I think they are mostly B.S., as there is a tremendous amount of medical misinformation in the fluoroquinolone articles, and just clearing that out seems like it should be the first priority. I'll likely circle back to the other stuff after the medical information is cleaned up on all the fluoroquinolone articles.
I actually have a registered username (you can probably figure it out pretty easily if you try). I stopped using it and went away for a while after a very difficult interaction with another user whom I believe was an administrator. I was accused of being a sock puppet and my edits were summarily deleted with refusal to engage on the Talk page other than to tell me I was wrong and had no right to make edits that were not pre-approved by him/her. Although I felt that the information I added was critically important to a balanced view of the story, reliably sourced, and in compliance with all Wikipedia guidelines, I was not able to get any traction approaching administrators with this problem. When my antagonist began following me to other articles I threw in the towel and went away for a while.
Thus my current preference to seek consensus/potential allies in advance of making major changes, and to edit identified only by IP address. Numbers are less memorable than user names, so I'm lower profile. And if I need to change my IP address, all I need to do is leave my modem unplugged overnight. I'm not doing this to avoid accountability, I just don't feel that Wikipedia has any meaningful policies or procedures in place to prevent abuse such as what I feel I have experienced.
That was probably too much whining, and I apologize for that. Thank you very much for your help and the excellent edits. I very much appreciate it and have enjoyed meeting you.98.155.21.76 (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW, I'm truly not a sock puppet. I'm not even employed at the moment.  :>) 98.155.21.76 (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear about your bad experiences. I'm not going to find out who you are/were or who that other editor was, but only judge from your present edits. For example, you didn't remove the mention of tendon ruptures but only downtoned the text to an IMO realistic level. If you keep up that stance, I don't see how you could be accused of promoting drugs. In case you get around to editing the history/litigation sections, I think it would be a good thing to leave the information in the articles – after all, these litigations did happen, and they are well sourced as far as I can tell. Being silent about such stories would not only compromise the balance but also the credibility of the articles. But probably you were intending this anyway --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, and apologies again for the whining.
I might be wrong on some things, but I take the idea that a thousand people a day look at these articles very seriously. I try very hard to evaluate the data with an open mind, and to tell the facts as I best understand them. What I understand here is that some people have been greviously injured by these drugs. Where my understanding of the literature differs from what was presented in these articles previously is that my interpretation of the literature is that it is very uncommon, and that the alternatives pose serious risks as well.
I think I was innocent in the previous conflict, but I suppose everyone always thinks that. So if its ok, I'll keep you on my list of people that I rotate through for a second set of eyes reveiewing my work. Actively seeking review gives me credibility as a good faith editor if issues come up, and it protects me from the perils of self-deception about my own even-handedness when working on controversial topics.
Again, thanks for your kind assistance. 98.155.21.76 (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have registered and can be found under this usernameFormerly 98 (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I received a notice that I have been reviewed by you (Hmmm), but have no idea how to view the review. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only marked your user page as patrolled, meaning I couldn't find any spam there :-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stibophen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mesenteric vein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sofosbuvir

Hi Anypodetos,

I was hoping that you could add some comments on the specific language you find objectionable to the sofosbuvir Talk page. My understanding is that a concensus is required to remove this tag, but since you have not offered any specific objections, how can I possibly respond?

At the time most of this was written, I asked Jmh649 to review it. While this should not be considered an endorsement of my work by him (especially as he was on vacation at the time and looked at it only cursorily), I think the request can at least be taken as a sign of my good intent.

I will put all additional commments on the article talk page. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I backed up the Medical Uses and Lede sections of the Sofosbuvir article to the January 10 version. I'd appreciate it if you will consider removing the "Advertisement" flag, as I believe this suffices to remove all of the contested material. As a newcomer I'm really quite uncomfortable to have such a flag attached to an article that makes up much of my editing history. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you might be interested to know that the IDSA and AASLD have jointly published new treatment guidelines for HCV. You can find them here. They've featured sofosbuvir based combos as first line in most cases, with simeprevir based regimens as alternatives for GT1. What's really interesting is that they've taken the unusual step of specifically recommending against the use of telaprevir and boceprevir based regimens, which were considered SOC for GT1 in the previous guidelines. http://www.hcvguidelines.org/full-report-view. Some have argued that in the field, SVR rates for Peg/INF/telaprevir are lower than than for Peg/INF alone due to the additional dropouts from Telaprevir AEs. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly 98 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Single-domain antibody, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GFP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear bot, that's why I placed a ((dab needed)) after the link. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monomethyl auristatin E

Left a note on my page for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for laudable content work in both linguistics and pharmacology articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

This auto-patroller, rollbacker and template editor has been editing since mid-2008 with over 70% of his over 27000 edits to article space. He is a hardworking active member of WikiProject Pharmacology. Always willing to help, he is a unifying force wherever his endeavors lead him. Anypodetos is also a member of WP:Linguistics. An example of his diplomacy in a controversial arena can be found at Talk:Proto-Indo-European root#Vowel-initial roots. A deserving recipient for Editor of the Week. ```Buster Seven Talk

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: 

((subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box))

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 18:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More