Talk:Daytrana

POV

article has been clipped of contraindication and safety information by user Garzfoth. this user shows up repeatedly in POV disputes. this user exclusively edits patented pharmaceutical medications. this has led to accusations of professional bias and that the user may work in the pharmaceutical industry. User attempts to present an overly idealistic and positive description of patented pharmaceutical drugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.71.54.86 (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi 106.71.54.86,

In the future, please be sure to sign all of your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~)

I cleaned up the article to better comply with WP:PHARMMOS. The existing information in the article prior to my edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daytrana&oldid=701134802) had extensive problems, and as Daytrana is a methylphenidate product, transcluding information from the methylphenidate page is generally considered to be ideal. This model is used extensively for the various amphetamine-based drug pages, and I previously converted dexmethylphenidate to use transcluded content for the same reasons that I used it here. Another issue is that this article shouldn't exist at all, as Daytrana is not notable enough to have its own article.

The transcluded content used in the article now is much more complete, accurate, and better sourced than the previous content was. The article is missing some info that should be transcluded as per WP:PHARMMOS, but I didn't feel like dealing with that mess at the time as the sections did not exist in this article prior to transclusion. The "Black Box" section that I removed covers information that should either be transcluded or obtained from the source methylphenidate article, which extensively covers that topic.

I do not exclusively edit "patented pharmaceutical medications", if you look at my contribs, you'd notice that my edits span a broad variety of topics. Any accusations of "professional bias" are entirely unfounded, and I have explained this quite a number of times now, so I'd like to know why you believe this is something that needs to be discussed yet again... If you think I'm trying to present an "overly idealistic and positive description of patented [drugs]", then you must not have looked at many of my contribs in detail, and I think you need to revisit the WP:FIVEPILLARS as well as WP:MEDRS if you truly believe that you are following those guidelines, as your edits to date have not reflected that at all. Garzfoth (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)