Talk:Filana Therapeutics

gaps and confusion

Hi, I havent read the book mentioned above but got here via a different route. In trying to understand short selling and its implications, I learned of several companies where it has come into play, including Cassava. That's what brought me to this page. As references to the phenomenon seemed glancing here, I added a bit about what I'd found out. I may come back for some other general edits though. The article seems to have become a chronological jumble and is quite outdated regarding the current company. I'll see what I can find out and try to find time to make it more current, accurate, and easier to read. Ever hopeful on my to-do wishlist. WhetstoneEd (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I was forced to revert this, as it slipped in apologetics for the company with misleading edit summaries which claimed only minor changes and reordering. Kindly do not mislead people like that again. This article has a long history of antics from a sockpuppeting, block evading user and must be treated very carefully. MrOllie (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie, I came back to this page to look up a source and found that you reverted the entire article to the previous outdated, incomplete and muddled version, with only a cryptic note of explanation. Could you please explain what you mean by "apologetics"? I have not been following the long history of antics here as I gather you have. Why did you not just correct mistakes if you spotted any? Or identify the offending bits so someone else could edit appropriately? I did not intend to mislead with my edit summary and don't believe I clicked the "minor" button. This babies-with-the-bathwater action on your unspecific complaint seems capricious and, if I may, impolite. WhetstoneEd (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean the removal of well sourced, critical terms which this company happens to dislike (a frequent target of sockpuppet accounts), the overemphasis on this company's complaints about short-sellers, and the general attempts to strike a WP:FALSEBALANCE and the improper use of press release churnalism as sourcing. The mistakes were far too numerous and damaging to fix one by one, reversion left the article in a better state. Reverting is a normal part of editing on Wikipedia, you should expect it, not accuse others of being 'capricious' or 'impolite' when it happens. MrOllie (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

WhetstoneEd, your edits relied on low quality sources, gave UNDUE weight to many aspects, and were not an improvement. I will separately post to your talk page about Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the revert because of the overemphasis on the short-selling issue and the extensive use of churnalistic press release sources. It's possible there were some worthy edits buried in there, so I suggest proceeding more slowly to be sure sourcing standards and due weight are respected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie and SandyGeorgia, Thank you for your instruction and advice. Forgive me if I was oversensitive in my first response; the natural disappointment of an editor finding their work dismissed whole cloth. And perhaps you suffer a bit of the same, if my categorizing an article you produced as “jumbled” was too harsh. Anyway, I find myself still wanting further clarity. Could you offer an example or two of the “critical terms this company happens to dislike”?

I had added more about the short selling because that is how I came to learn about this company’s story and it does strike me as more important than the current version portrays. Perhaps it’d be better added as an example to an article on short selling itself.

This article is not a hill I am going to die on, or even fight very hard on, but the alacrity and vigor with which you defend the old article’s status quo does pique my curiosity more than might have been otherwise.  For thoroughness, though, I do intend when I have a moment to update with current officers etc. and put things in better chronological order, with care as to sources. WhetstoneEd (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The problems were pervasive. I've been around the block enough times to know that giving an example leads to all the problems coming back minus that example - the whole approach needs to be fixed here. That means not mistaking WP:NPOV for WP:FALSEBALANCE and not taking the company's self-serving claims at face value. MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)