User talk:Bon courage/Archive 7

Happy New New

My edsum said "we dont speculate" Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you figure out what this was about? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Not really - wasn't this to do with the Malcolm Kendrick trolling? Alexbrn (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea. All I remember is that you beat me to it!! -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Your recent editing history at MDPI shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on MDPI. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. I am not 'hypocritical', however you really ought to look at your own behaviour, especially reverting when i specifically asked to go to the talk page. twice. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Your continually just mashing the revert key while saying this should be on Talk does make you a hypocrite. I do not question your good faith. Alexbrn (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Banana Flour

Thanks for your comments about primary references for banana flour. I'll re-write the section using the numerous review articles shortly. RSWitwer (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)RSWitwer

Great - but appears to be only one secondary source on PUBMED, and it isn't about human health. So I suspect there may be no accepted knowledge on this topic we can relay. Alexbrn (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Curcumin

Hello - I messaged you a few weeks ago about your undoing my edits to the curcumin page but have not received a response. Did you receive this message? As mentioned before, I disagree with the present wording on this page claiming no medicinal benefit from curcumin since successful human studies from independent labs refute this. I selected peer reviewed journal articles to support my edits. I believe a cautious tone regarding curcumin human benefit is more accurate that the dismissive one now present. Can we discuss this on the Talk page?

Below were my comments on the changes back then, which I still prefer. Please note that I I also plan to edit the "Research" section consistent with the above

Biologically, curcumin has been found to possess numerous desirable activities including anti-oxidation, anti-inflammation, anti-microbial and others and so has significant potential in treating various human pathologies and conditions (Mehta, Tasneem, Jamwal, Ramirez, Tabrizi, Khurana). However, “Curcumin has unclear medical use in spite of efforts to find one via both laboratory and clinical research. It is difficult to study because it is both unstable and not bioavailable. It is unlikely to produce useful leads for drug development.[3]“

From the sentence ““Curcumin has unclear (no confirmed) medical use in spite of efforts to find one via both laboratory and clinical research”, I removed “no confirmed” from this second line and replaced with “unclear” as successful human studies from independent labs refute the “no confirmed”. From the next sentence, I also removed “not” and replaced it with “poorly” bioavailable since curcumin has some bioavailability.

DNA0089 (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I replied but this has now been archived. You can find it here. Alexbrn (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Your Reversion of My Edits on Timothy Noakes and the Central Governor

Hi,

Please discuss; I am genuinely baffled.Mikalra (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anthroposophic medicine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conception (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Foreskin article

Alexbrn, I know that you and Doc James watch the circumcision articles. And that Jytdog did when he was here. The Circumcision is on my watchlist, although I usually don't need to weigh in on anything there because you and Doc have everything handled there. Regarding the Foreskin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, though, Jytdog and I were the only WP:Med editors watching it. Well, Zad68 was as well, but Zad68 has been missing in action. And now that Jytdog is not here, I'm the only one watching it. The article seems to have been on Doc James's watchlist at one point, but that seems to no longer be the case. So because of this and other stuff I've seen with GenoV84's edits and those who edit like he does, I'm wondering if you and Doc wouldn't mind watching the Foreskin article as well. I know that you both already have enough articles on your watchlist. So do I. So I'll understand if you'd rather not watch this one. I can always drop a message at WP:Med and WP:Anatomy and see if anyone else is willing to help watch the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It's also worth looking into whether or not GenoV84 is Sugarcube73 (talk · contribs). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: The AAP's 2013 critical review of the 2012 circumcision policy and the Aktuelle Urologie review of both the AAP articles are both secondary sources, not primary sources, therefore i think that those two references should be restored; i'm aware of the WP:MEDRS but i couldn't find any secondary source for the BJU Int. 1996 and 2013 studies, so i decided to add them anyway because it's a high quality, peer-reviewed medical journal. Perhaps you could help me by telling me where to look and how to find secondary sources that are suitable for the WP:MEDRS.

By the way, the answer to your question is No, i'm not a sock-puppet, but you are free to check if you want.--GenoV84 (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

GenoV84, no need to ping me. There is no reason to add that old material. Why are you looking to add material from 1996? See WP:MEDDATE, which is a section of WP:MEDRS. As for you adding secondary sources (reviews or otherwise), one issue has been your distortion of the material and cherry picking. Jytdog noted this on your talk page. Did you decide to show back up to the Foreskin article because you know that Jytdog is no longer editing? As for you not being a sock, going by your edit history, you likely are not a sock of Sugarcube73, but your edit history very much indicates that you are a sock. Whose sock is the question. New editors generally don't even know about our WP:Sock terminology. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

And, yes, I consider your account new. It's new enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I ping you because i'm talking with you, very simple. Sock-puppet is a common term used on the internet, not a big deal. As i said before, i'm not one, but you can check that out if you want. Also, i have to say that i've seen some cherry picking based on the material that was already on that page before i even started to edit that. I just tried to improve the page by adding reliable sources, as i always do. If you think that i misrepresented the informations that those references report, then i would suggest you to read them and write down what needs to be on that page.--GenoV84 (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It matters not why you've pinged me when I've stated that I do not need to be pinged. Alexbrn's talk page is currently on my watchlist. And even if it wasn't, I'd check back for replies. As for sockpuppet, you state that and yet many of our new editors are clueless about that term. Listen, from your first substantial edit made as GenoV84 to this site, it's clear to anyone with significant experience editing here that you were no newbie when you showed up. Your early edits show that you knew that our internal links are called wikilinks. You knew of other things that our newbies almost always never know. I'm not interested in hearing the usual explanations that obvious non-new users give, such as "I used to edit as an IP." I'm not interested in reading any denials from you.

As for your editing, it has been problematic. Because of that, I do not trust any edits you make on the foreskin or circumcision topics. Your cherry picking has been demonstrated. You have not demonstrated that others have cherry picked. Also, not all journals and other sources are created equal. Some journals can be WP:Fringe, predatory open-access publishing, or simply WP:Undue with their primary sources or reviews. So you coming across a journal's review article doesn't automatically mean it should be used. The undue aspect is partly why WP:MEDDATE states, "While the most-recent reviews include later research results, this does not automatically give more weight to the most recent review (see recentism)." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: So, basically there's no way to determine whether a source is reliable or not? I'm sorry but now i'm very confused: those sources are both reliable, high quality and peer-reviewed medical articles, the one published by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the one published by the Thieme Medical Publishers, and yet we can't rely on them? I understand what you're trying to say, to keep my eyes open, but i don't think that this is the case.

Also... regarding the accuses of distortion and cherry picking on sources, i think it should be pointed out that the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision is a primary source, not a secondary source, therefore it shouldn't even be there, and yet it's used as a source! Can't you see the blatant cherry picking and violation of the WP:MEDRS right there? Let's be honest here... you've been pointing your finger at me from the very beginning, accusing me of anything, while there are other people than are allowed to write whatever they want on the Foreskin article and cite anything they want to, as long as it supports a pro-circumcision stance.--GenoV84 (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Not even Jytdog removed that source, quite the contrary... he didn't do anything about it and just continued to ignore the fact that the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report was a primary source, a blatant violation of the WP:MEDRS, therefore it couldn't be used on Wikipedia, but he didn't care because he was totally fine with that. You wanted a demonstration of cherry picking? Here you go.--GenoV84 (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Have you even taken the time to read WP:MEDRS? All of it? To comprehend it? I think not. You would not be confused if you took the time to understand WP:MEDRS. For example, WP:MEDRS is a guideline, not a policy, and primary sources are not banned. It's just that with regard to medical topics, their use is strongly discouraged. Per WP:MEDRS, they should generally be avoided for medical topics and biomedical topics (with few exceptions, such as society and culture matters). I did not state or imply that "there's no way to determine whether a source is reliable or not." But it is the case that WP:Fringe, predatory open-access publishing, WP:Undue and WP:Recentism matter. It is the case that context matters. Position statements by authoritative sources are absolutely allowed per WP:MEDRS. Let's be honest, you say? I have been. I have been "pointing [my] finger at [you] from the very beginning, accusing you of [things]" (not "anything") for valid reasons. The edit history of the Foreskin article and talk page history of that article do not support your claim that other people "are allowed to write whatever they want on the Foreskin article and cite anything they want to, as long as it supports a pro-circumcision stance." Your claim (in addition to your editing) also shows that, like Sugarcube73, you are here to push an anti-circumcision viewpoint. I am not about going by my personal views on Wikipedia. I'm about following the literature with WP:Due weight and accurately reflecting what reliable sources state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Good morning everyone! As it happens, I had taken this article off my watchlist. I'll take a look later today ... Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

COIADVICE

Hi Alexbrn -- at the in-progress RfC on COI for CAM practitioners, you said that COI was ruinous for a consensus-based collaborative project such as WP (in contrast to, e.g., Cochrane, where it's not as bad). Question, not as dumb as it may sound: how exactly does following COIADVICE address this problem? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It alerts the participants in the consensus-forming process to the fact that any point at issue has a tainted participant, and input from that participant can be viewed accordingly. Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

But wouldn't simple declaration -- as opposed to following COIADVICE, which pertains only to mainspace edits -- work just as well for that? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 08:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Practically, no, since the default Wikipedia practice is that edits are "nodded through". If I start watching a page on internet privacy and see an edit by an editor named xyz, how I am to know they are a Google employee (say)? Flagging up their edits on the talk page would make the COI aspect of their edit apparent. Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Equally, one could infer their profession if, say, they disclosed it every time they signed an edit. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • I haz acupuncture COI?) 09:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be unreasonable to put the onus onto every other editor to scour the talk page (archives even) to determine if a participant had a COI. Alexbrn (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

(Reverted to revision 880993860 by Benbest (talk): Rv. primary research; need WP:MEDRS (TW))

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On the 30th of January you reverted my edit to the intestinal permeability article on the above grounds. I have been traveling, and have only just returned to respond to your reversion. The justification of your reversion seems a little obscure to me, but it seems to me you are claiming that the two citations I gave lack scientific merit, or that I am engaging in "original research". Both of the citations I gave were to peer-reviewed journal reviews cited in PubMed. Did you look at either of those reviews? Causal Relationship between Diet-Induced Gut Microbiota Changes and Diabetes: A Novel Strategy to Transplant Faecalibacterium prausnitzii in Preventing Diabetes mentions "leaky gut" four times. Probiotics, prebiotics and amelioration of diseases not only contains "leaky gut" four times, but one of those references are in the keywords section. Please either give a reasonable justification for your reversion, or undo the reversion. --Ben Best:Talk 17:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article's Talk page. We need decent sources, not flimsy Chinese research and/or stuff from predatory journals. Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MEDRS

Hi, just a quick note that MEDRS applies exclusively to biomedical information. No need to insist on MEDRS compliance when sourcing a doctor's career. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Depends on how much biomedical content is in the "career" description: so if we're going to convey the fact in Wikipedia's voice that there was a "successful head transplant between two human cadavers" (whatever the fuck that is meant to mean), then MEDRS does apply. Articles should be based on secondary sources in any case - undue use of fringe/primary content is bad: there was too much of this at Sergio Canavero. Alexbrn (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, fully agree here. Still - the mention of his earlier publication was undue and self-promo and you rightly deleted it, but not a medrs issue IMHO. BTW, I am also extremely sceptical of the guy's claims. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Essiac

Hi Alexbrn - I'm relatively new here, thanks for your comments on the revision. I'd be grateful for your input - here are some of the issues that I see with the page now:

Neutral point of view •The assertion that “there is no evidence that it is beneficial to health, and it may be harmful”, forces one particular point of view over another, the use of the word ‘may’ implies an opinion, not a fact. And this statement has not allowed for the inclusion of opposing prominent views which can be referenced.

Verifiability •The second reference does not verify or support the statement that it references and conflates the efficacy (or lack thereof) of Essiac with an entirely different product, Flor Essence. •Reference 4, is referencing the formulation and ingredients for Flor Essence, not Essiac •“However, this has never been substantiated” This is stating an opinion as fact. It has been substantiated by Rene Caisse’s memoir and referenced in Clinic of Hope, The Story of Rene Caisse , Written by Donna Ivey, who managed information research in business libraries in Toronto. Can reference. •Reference 3 – it’s well documented, including support in reference 2 that the formulation does not use Turkey Rhubarb, it uses Indian rhubarb – all of those ingredients grow and have been widely available in north America for a long time. •‘Killed test animals’- no reference is made to this apparent statement of fact •Reference 5 – “Essiac may interact with some types of cancer treatment so it is very important to tell your doctor if you are thinking of taking Essiac” This quote is found nowhere in the referenced material. •‘Increased cancer growth’, reference 6, this is referring to Flor Essence, not Essiac. •Looser regulation – The tone here is biased, the FDA does indeed regulate dietary supplements as food, not drugs and forces the manufacturer to ensure the product is safe and effective, similar to any food product. •‘Fake cancer cures the FDA should avoid’ – reference 7 link not working.

Basically, there are a number of statements that not supported by proper references. Should we send a request for administer attention based on unreliable and unsupported sources? Thanks for your expertise. Gerald.T.Munro (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article's Talk page, where I will reply. For incidents that require administrator attention, use WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Gua sha

Hi. I saw you added the sources banner after I completed a major re-write. Why add this now? RobP (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! As it currently stands there's primary medical sources that fail WP:MEDRS - this notes that. If nobody gets there earlier, I'm planning to take another look at the article tomorrow. Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Baking soda cancer cure

I still don't understand what I did wrong. I'm new on english wikipedia and I'm not used to your "jargon", yet. But I'm editing in good faith. I'm an expert in oncology (see my page), my "reverters" aren't, so I insist. Sorry for the troubles. MedecinMadinina (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

You are editing a list article which is meant to be a summary of content which exists in other articles on Wikipedia - so Sodium bicarbonate is the principal article. More particularly, we are not going to use some primary rat experiments to imply that baking soda has any therapeutic potential for cancer. Please discuss further at Talk:Sodium bicarbonate. If you continue edit-warring, you will get blocked. Alexbrn (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your prompt action on Treatments for PTSD! Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! There's still a heap wrong with Treatments for PTSD though! Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Protandim

Would you mind elaborating on the issues with my edits to the Protandim page.

It currently states "unsupported claims", which I would argue to be bias as there is some support in certain claims.

I was also trying to add some relevant studies, nothing that should be bias just some information I gathered from an NIA study.

If you have any relevant information to disprove my information please share! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.66.84 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how this is useful. Wikipedia's stance against medical advice is one of the reasons I made my edit. Wikipedia should simply be a non-biased source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.66.84 (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You were adding unreliably-sourced material. Please discuss article content at the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Things you learn about yourself on Wikipedia

Today I discovered I am a "fan of altmed"![1] Damn - my cover's blown! Alexbrn (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Restless legs syndrome

Hello, I saw that you reverted my addition to this article citing WebMD as a source. Why do you say thath WebMD is unreliable? If so, shouldn't the rest of the sentence (which also cites WebMD) also be deleted? jej1997 (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably. Please discuss on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! 108.4.142.215 (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sarah Wilson (journalist)

Hi Alexbrn. Thank you for your message. I don't have a WP:COI in relation to this page. I don't know Sarah Wilson. I added information after reading about this issue from blog entries and I believe my changes/additions did not seek to present information in a biased way (I tried to write only about what had been published "according to..." etc) or promote the living person. Teratix ₵ trimmed back my additions which must have been too wordy. Thank you for adding a link that leads to the Twitter exchanges. I didn't see them before and see your point entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fransplace (talk • contribs) 06:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back! Alexbrn (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

PTSD treatments sourcing questions

Hello, Thanks for your work on this page. I just have a question about your assessment of the sources used for this article / page: the alternative treatment sources are all from scholarly journals / and or university secondary articles. Given this fact, can the sources used be described as unreliable?

Here is one example of a source used:

Grodin, Michael; et al. (2008). "Treating Survivors of Torture and Refugee Trauma: A Preliminary Case Series Using Qigong and T'ai Chi". Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 14 (7): 801–806. doi:10.1089/acm.2007.0736. PMC 2745908. PMID 18803491.

Thank you, J

Depends what use is intended. For claims of therapeutic worth, a fringe journal won't do. Please discuss content questions at the article talk page. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis

Hello. You have recently !voted 'oppose' under my proposal on Talk:Answers in Genesis, justifying your !vote by stating that, "the proposed version is unclear and its English a bit wonky". Can you please explain why you believe the version is unclear and what exactly made you conclude that "its English is a bit wonky"? Furthermore, I would advise you to look carefully into the current version, whose English is also questionable, as it contains a confusing dangling modifier in 'which'. Finally, if English and lack of clarity are your only concerns, consider my initial proposal, which simply adds "on the basis that the Bible, unlike science, is infallible" to the existing version.^Ol^Ja 12:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Circumcision

Could you explain a little more why you thought my sources were unreliable and reverted the change? Ten Beard (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ten Beard, have you reviewed WP:MEDRS yet? Can you explain whether or not the sources you included met the requirements of WP:MEDRS? I would pay particular attention to the WP:MEDDATE and WP:MEDASSESS sections. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

1st warning

Please stop Alex - there is no reason for you to be edit warring at Cherry juice. Everything I've added is cited to RS - one of which is a literature review and study review. You removed all the sources except one which was uncalled for and unnecessary. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Kindly discuss at the article talk page. WP:BRD can be a civilized way to proceed, rather than repeatedly trying to force your edits - particularly when it's being suggested there is a WP:V problem with your text. Alexbrn (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Grammatical question

Would you say "more critically endangered than any other group of species" or "more critically endangered than any other species group"? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

They're both fine, but if forced I'd choose the first because it's probably clearer to non-native English speakers. Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Y TY ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Chemtrail conspiracy theory edits

Although I understand you may not agree with my changes to the Chemtrail conspiracy theory article, I would appreciate you providing a reason for undoing my edits rather than reverting without comment. This is part of the guidelines given here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Help:Reverting

Thank you ahpook (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I did leave a comment. For the avoidance of doubt, we're not going to caption a photo as being of "chemtrails" because chemtrails do not exist. Alexbrn (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome

Hi Alex, can you please elaborate on how my edit was marked as "unreliable/spam"? PNAS is a reputable source, and the result of the research groundbreaking and of high interest.

Hello there! Primary research is generally not reliable for medical content - see WP:MEDRS. Please continue any further discussion at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello Alexbrn Regarding the Turmeric wikipedia page, are you the editor? Respectfully, when I wrote the part of the article I added, I used a neutral voice throughout and did remind readers that the research I was presenting was still preliminary and was still in the very early stages of clinical trials/pilot trials. I do not understand what it is about my work that comes off as biased or not neutral. In my view, I am simply stating what I have read in my sources. As I put in the editing comments, six of my eight sources are primary literature sources. Doesn't that mean anything? Also, thank you for reaching out! I am new here and that was a kind gesture that is much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turmericiscool (talk • contribs) 15:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! The page has hundreds of editors. Primary sources are not considered reliable for biomedical information per WP:MEDRS. Please continue any further discussion on this at Talk:Turmeric. Alexbrn (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Placebo

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Placebo&diff=901508711&oldid=901508607 Hey Alexbrn, I am curious why you reverted the edit? I have provided a more accurate description of potential biases in studies investigating placebo effects. Why is the source poor? It is an article in a peer-reviewed journal. It proposes new ways to overcome methodological problems in researching the placebo effect. As Hróbjartsson has pointed out in his meta-analyses, there is a lack of blinding in previous studies examining placebo effects. Thus, it was not possible to disentagle different biases (e.g. patient-practicioner) from possible placebo effects. This new approach proposes a way to actually disentagle these effects. Have you actually read the study? Borkert (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Journals from Frontiers Media have a poor reputation, and are generally not considered reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Wikipedia also has a poor reputation with a lot of people. Whereas this might be true for some topic pages on Wikipedia, others might be very valid and reiable. There is variation. The same is true for articles on Frontiers. In my opinion, rejecting all of the articles in Frontiers right from the bat without reading them (and assessing their quality) is a simple but not a useful way of moving forward. After all, the journals are peer-reviewed and the most reputable researcher can publish there. Regarding the article I cited, I see no problems. Borkert (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source either. Sources are required to have a good reputation. If some claim really is the "accepted knowledge" we are meant to be reflecting, it should be easy to find a good source that supports it. Alexbrn (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning. And I agree that this is true for old information thas has been around for some time. However, regarding new developments and solutions this might not be true. Regarding my edit: I think it is fairly straightforward that using mobile apps for investigating placebo effects can be a solution for several methodological problems in placebo research, as many biasing factors associated with the face-to-face interaction can be controlled and disentagled. I am convinced that this information is very important for advancing progress in this area of research. However, as I see it, a lot of individuals (I am not implying that you are part of them - but now after your reverting of my edit, I have seen the edit wars that are going on here) don't like this area of research to progress and would rather see it remaining at the current stage. This topic seems to be substantially ideologically charged. This is very unfortunate. Borkert (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

But you haven't got a reliable source to support that in an article. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) ... don't like this area of research to progress and would rather see it remaining at the current stage Or not being a journal to advance such research, Wikipedia usually only reports about what is already mainstream. —PaleoNeonate – 12:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey Roxy the dog, thanks for joining the fun. To both of you: is there any official recommendation by the Wikimedia Foundation to not cite articles published in Frontiers' journals?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Borkert (talk • contribs) 12:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"is there any official recommendation by the Wikimedia Foundation" ← of course not, such matters are not their business. Alexbrn (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Are there any other consensus recommendations not to include Frontiers articles in Wikipedia? Borkert (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You might want so search WP:RS/N or WT:MED or see this recent RfC or consult WP:CRAPWATCH. Another disqualifying issue with the source is that it is not secondary, so would fall afoul of WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV even if it appeared in a decent journal. Alexbrn (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

thanks Alexbrn for providing me with the links. I think the following quote is interesting:

Linked above are two related noticeboard sections; in both I endeavored to suss out the perceived problems or reliability issues that caused the text to be deleted. In both sections, the reactions were wide ranging, with the only consensus being that Frontiers journals are not blacklisted across Wikipedia. The "open access" journals were for a time added to "Beall's list", controversially, which you can read about in this Nature article. A comparison of Frontiers Media and The Lancet articles shows that controversy and retractions are not uncommon, and don't necessarily speak to the overall quality of content.

— petrarchan47คุก 09:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the secondary source issue: the article in my edit is not an empirical paper - it is a methodological paper. As such it is not a primary source using empirical data. Secondly, even if it was a primary source, the use of primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources. This is not the case in my original edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Borkert (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It is billed as a "Hypothesis and Theory" article. If the authors' "hypothesis and theory" gets traction in reputable secondary sources (to establish WP:WEIGHT) then it might have a place in Wikipedia. Until then, it does not. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I am happy that you actually took a look at the article. Borkert (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A lot of the information discrediting Frontiers seems to be outdated. Also Beall's list is not being updated any more. Furthermore, there are also other quality indicators. Frontiers in Psychiatry has an impact factor of 2.9. Borkert (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

As detailed in our Frontiers Media article, the dodginess continues. You have your answer about this source, I don't think any further discussion here will be fruitful. Alexbrn (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem with such discussions is that facts don't matter as much as they should because people are gridlocked and are afraid of losing face (or being perceived as having less "power" on Wikipedia if they yield). Confirmation bias might also have a big effect on both sides. Having said that I appreciate your time and your relatviely constructive approach. However, I continue to think that the edit would be a great improvement for the Wikipedia article. Borkert (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if you have actively participated in the peer-review and publishing process so far. Journals are no homogeneous entities. Quality varies depending on the editors and the peer reviewers. Thus, if a journal has independet peer review, the validity of articles published in it should not be rejected right from the bat.Borkert (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is if a journal is "hit and miss" how does one know what is what? It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to perform such expert sifting which is why WP:RS requires reputable sources, and readers can be assured our content is WP:verifiable. There is such a universe of great sources Wikipedia isn't using, I always wonder at editors arguing to use comparatively weak ones. Alexbrn (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's hope that both of us learned something out of this discussion. Borkert (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting edits just because you don't like them.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear Alex, this is the second time that you reverted an edit by me calling it unreliable. The last time it happened was in the circumcision article. The source clearly indicates that neonates develop heighthened pain response if circumcised *without adequate pain relief*. In the previous text of the Wikipedia article it was not clear that this happens only after inadequate pain relief. You can read the sources and come to the same conclusion. I would like to ask you to READ first and then, if you still think that something is unreliable, please give a reason before you revert anyone's edit. Yuri7474 (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article's Talk page. Please be aware of our WP:MEDRS sourcing guidance, and remember that WP:EWing is naughty. Alexbrn (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

My main point is that you revert edits without adequate explanations. That is why I talk to you here and not at the talk pages of the articles where it happened. My sources are ok, and again, if you think they are not, you should give reasons - just referring to the sourcing guidance is not good enough, Alex. And concerning edit wars. I don't believe I started one. I am a reasonable person and if a person gives a valid reason for a revert, I have no problem with it. Yuri7474 (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Please learn to WP:INDENT your posts. I gave a reason, you just don't agree. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor seeking inclusion. In such situations, WP:BRD offers one reasonable way to proceed. I note you have initiated no discussion of the disputed edits, but are edit warring instead; that will not end well for you. Alexbrn (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You did not give a reason at all. You need to understand that just saying that a source is not reliable without saying why,is not giving a reason at all. If there is an edit war at all, you started it by doing this, namely reverting an edit without giving a reason. Don't worry, discussions have been initiated. Yuri7474 (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sahaja Yoga article

Hi Alex, just wondering why you reverted my change to the "Role of Women" section of the Sahaja Yoga article. I had added some material and provided a better context for that first quote which also appears in Judith Coney's book on the subject. I also provided a good rationale on the talk page. You have reverted the change without any explanation. Could you please discuss this on the talk page because I believe my changes were an improvement and I have not removed any sourced material. Freelion (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Sahaja Yoga. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Freelion (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @Freelion: Where was the evidence of talk page consensus before restoring per WP:BRD? —PaleoNeonate – 02:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The edits I made were constructive, with plenty of notes made on the talk page inviting discussion. Alexbrn has merely been reverting the page back to his version without engaging in any discussion. His edit summaries have consisted of "gobbledygook" and false accusations about misrepresentation. He's effectively shutting down the discussion and is displaying "ownership of Wikipedia" traits. Freelion (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

At some point this is going to need to go to WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have made three changes to the article today which I believe comply with Wikipedia rules. My reasoning is also laid out on the talk page. If you disagree with any of the changes, please discuss them individually on the talk page instead of reverting everything as you keep doing. Your behaviour has so far been obstructive and tendentious and I will have no choice but to report you if this goes on. Freelion (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss content on the article's Talk page, and strive for consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Freelion: I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 11:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, again you are reverting my edits which have been discussed fully on the talk page. Again you are accusing me of edit warring when you are the one reverting and not addressing numbered points on the talk page. Freelion (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I have addressed the points, you just don't like the answers. In contrast, while you are continuing to try and force your edits, you have failed to pursue dispute resolution by responding to questions at WP:FT/N, where there is an open thread on Sahaja Yoga. Alexbrn (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You have not addressed the points. There are 7 numbered points and you have given 4 flippant one word answers. You are mocking the process! I've answered the question at WP:FT/N and since there is nothing happening there, I've suggested continuing the discussion on the article talk page. Your recent edit summary "edit-warring/whitewash & excessive quotation" is nonsense and here is why:

1. The edits were discussed on the talk page with no adequate reply from yourself, so it's not an edit war.
2. It's not whitewashing because there was no unsourced material added, nothing was rephrased, only some contentious material was removed as discussed on the talk page – again where you have not adequately addressed many numbered points.
3. It's not excessive quotation because no quotes were added. They were only reformatted as quotes to add clarity. Freelion (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring isn't justified by a WP:CPUSH on the talk page. You are continuing to remove the text you "don't like" (as other have said), while failing to pursue dispute resolution as you said you would. I have raised this at WP:FT/N to see if we can get a wider consensus: the Abgrall material needs to be in the article in one form or another. Alexbrn (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Freelion (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You should have listened to Doug Weller. Alexbrn (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: this noticeboard report is archived here

Bates method woo

The neutral point of view article states that the content of the article in question must be represent fairly and proportionately all significant views published, without editorial bias. The article in question has very little or inaccurately transcribed information that cites the author's book, and is composed mostly of other sources which are biased in nature. "Quackery Watch" is not going to be neutral with respect to this article. At best, the edits made introduces more content by the author into the article, to proportionately offset the majority of biased sources. As per the second point "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." this was not met in the article. Most of the few points that exist with respect to the author's book are stated as opinions, most of what editorials say are stated as direct facts. The introduction very little says anything about the doctor's research and more about criticism, misguiding for new readers on the subject starting with the first sentence. It can not be called "ineffective" based on one biased article. Perhaps this conversation belongs in the talk page of the article I'm not sure.

Keysandbridges (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! We must base articles on secondary sources; pseudoscience and fringe theories are clearly identified as such. Please continue any further discussion on the article's Talk page. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kundalini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 13:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing Yoga articles.

Can I ask why you are going through many Yoga articles and editing them when you don't appear to be involved in any sort of Yoga practice?

How can you be qualified to write and edit on a subject you know very little about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwin3881 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a good thing to avoid editing on topics where was has no one has a conflict of interest. Also see WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC); amended 23:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is like a large book on many subjects. An author who knows nothing about Neuroscience cannot write a book on Neuroscience can he/she? I still don't understand how you can think yourself qualified to write on Yoga unless you practice or study some form of it. While I have practiced both Yoga and Pranayama (old Indian term for Breathwork) I do not consider myself biased as I have made no material gain from the practice. Also I am not qualified nor do I seek to be qualified to teach either of the above. Darwin3881 (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a summary of accepted knowledge as found (generally) in secondary sources. Editors require little or no understanding of the underlying subject matter to edit - they require the ability to understand and summarize these applicable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) The WP:EXPERT essay, while not policy, also has relevant information. —PaleoNeonate – 01:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

A reality based project?

You mean now that all the fancruft and comic book stuff has mostly been ported to Wikia? Thanks for the good laugh, though. Let me know when you get done deleting all those articles speculating about the future. SBHarris 07:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Speculating about the future is one thing. Reframing unfounded speculation as reasonable likelihood and taking people's money on that basis, is the basis of a lot of quackery, from cancer cures to cryonics. Wikipedia likes to be fairly up-front what's what in these cases. Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

To good what?

I cannot use wiki editing language, you just had to adjust the " </ref" to the Governative link i provided what's going on with you 2? Cancer survivors? False flagging? I had an entire branch of my family killed by cancer, no one that experienced the situations and the doctors lack of knowledge of the problem would ever act like you are doing. AntoPax8 (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss article content on the Talk:GcMAF page. This is obviously a fake cancer treatment that can help nobody, and Wikipedia needs to be clear about that. Alexbrn (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

PD-USGov academic articles

Because you previously wrote on the topic, I think you may be interested in commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bischoff and Rosenbauer, 1988 - Liquid-vapor relations.pdf. Nemo 07:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

They probably need a copyright lawyer to comment. AIUI a publisher's final-form PDF typically contains significant elements (formatting, improvements to diagrams, metadata, reference enrichment, regularization & maybe even re-writing) that distinguish it from the author's MS, which even it it was PD, would not be the same thing considered as a work. But I'm not going to get involved, as IANAL and en.wikipedia takes enough of my time as is! Alexbrn (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Cryonics heads

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding the cryonics page. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Severed heads. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Theodorus75 (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no such discussion. Alexbrn (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for closing that discussion.... KFvdL (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

hematogen revert

you can't undo a reference only because the source is in another language. you know, in french wikipedia, there are sources in english? should i revert all english sources? you can use google translate to see if the source correspond, if you don't talk french... i find it really but really odds that everytime i participate in english wikipedia, i am reverted. the reason why i try to avoid to participating to your wikipedia language is here. Vatadoshu^french 20:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! That wasn't the issue. Please discuss article content at Talk:Hematogen - thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Methods not yet proven to a substancial degree are not proven to be pseudo science without the use of bias.

From having a look at your blog and a little bit your writing in Wikipedia it is possible to address a couple meta-science (philosophy of studying science) pointers.

I might be wrong, I did not study enough of your opinions to claim certainty, and there may be points that you imply without mentioning them.

My interest in Wikipedia is to correct some misconceptions on what reflexology is. I have been a reflexologist from 1995 till 2012, and I now own a reflexology school in Greece. So this is not about myself, my family or friends, my organization, my clients, or my competitors. It is about my previous profession which is something that Wikipedia allows. Blocking me from this subject because of conflict of interest is not founded in the rules of the site, so please let us take that off the table.

I know that reflexology has a good many research papers of high value that mention that it shows good results, always with the caveat that more research is needed. This is not the same as reflexology does not work, it is just to encourage more research and to show that no definitive scientific answer can be drawn from the research paper on hand. (If you need a list of these research papers please ask for them as results oriented research papers.)

I know also that reflexology has too few research papers on how it works, 2 papers with fMRI analysis, a few with blood pressure influence and a couple with neuroscientific instruments (I am unable to understand anything other than the conclusions). All these use the same caveat, more research is needed, and I am 100% that is is true. So there is need for more research to reach a safe scientific definition on how it works. (If you need a list of these research papers please ask for them as mechanism oriented research papers.)

This bring us to the reflexology page on Wikipedia. It is full of errors. It starts with its definition that puts up a straw man argument. It is easy to prove that reflexology is not medicine, and easy to prove that reflexology is an alternative to medicine. Naming it a an alternative medicine is misleading and false. I recently tried to change this to complementary therapy and you personally change it back. I quote the Lannoye Report which is the foundational document that the European Parliament created Cambrella, the EU research center for complementary and alternative treatments. This is as official it gets, a transnational legislative body categorizes reflexology as complementary and not alternative. I really do not see how this can be argued.

The same definition comes from the Reflexology in Europe Nexus (the federation of associations and schools of reflexology in the EU)(I am a member of the board there so there is a conflict in mentioning them in the article myself) reflexology is complementary and not alternative.

I see that you name reflexology and other therapies as magic or pseudoscience. This is not a proven point, it has no official of scientific backing. The only research papers that use this kind of language are from the early 90s and before (very few papers with research done on reflexology with the applicators of reflexology having no training in reflexology). In more recent years only religious "universities" disparage reflexology in this way.

Reflexology does not yet have a proven way that it works, but it has more or less sufficient evidence that it does. It definitely does not have proof that it is a pseudoscience or magic.

I may be talking to the wrong person, if I should address someone else about this please inform me.

(In this communication I do not represent others, I speak only for myself) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambros Stravelakis (talk • contribs) 07:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! If you have suggestion for improvement, please make them at Talk:Reflexology, not here, so that the article's other editors can see them. Please be aware of our WP:NPOV policy, WP:FRINGE guidance and WP:MEDRS medical sourcing guidance. Alexbrn (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman2718 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: this noticeboard report is archived here

Osteopathy

Why did you delete the revisions to the osteopathy page without explanation? Golan1911 (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello there! I left a pithy edit summary. Please continue any further discussion at Talk:Osteopathy. Alexbrn (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I've left a detailed explanation of my edits regarding the introductory section of the Osteopathy article. It is available on the article's talk page. Please be aware of this. Golan1911 (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I replied there. Alexbrn (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Non scientific bias in Paleolithic Diet entry

Hi Alex,

Not sure how to respond to your message, but when valid scientific journal articles are ignored, in favour of information from sources such as "The top 5 Celebrity Diets to avoid", when balance is added to the obvious bias in a Wikipedia entry (an entry that seems mainly centred around two books) and my edits are undone - with no consultation or messages... I felt like returning the instant undo favour for attention.

There has been some serious headway made on this diet, and the fact that contributors choose to ignore certain research, yet embrace any information source that offers confirmation bias, weakens Wikipedia's status as the "go to" source on the web.

I welcome debate, and like to see balance in an article, but when people who think "the science is settled" (because they say so) are in charge of a page, it is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and science in general.

Please read the article in its current form and tell me how outdated, poorly referenced and worded with extreme bias and lack of understanding the article is... (especially the "most modern domesticated plants and animals differ drastically from their Paleolithic ancestors" line - that is not even the ethos of the paleo diet movement, and does not address that the diet seeks to mimic plant and meat consumption of the past - not replicate it).

I did try to bring balance - while leaving the original author's criticisms intact.... No such courtesy was given to me.

Cheers

Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Sardo (talk • contribs) 06:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss the article content at Talk:Paleolithic diet, not here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

You do not seem to be actually reading or comprehending the edits I made. You seem to be undoing them out of a simple sense of ownership of the article. You need to explain specifically what you object to, particularly in regard to things like a sentence that made no sense, which I rewrote. Why do you think the sentence should make no sense? Sthatdc (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I have very good reasons. The WP:ONUS is on you to justify your contested edits. Maybe try WP:BRD? Alexbrn (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:REVEXP. What is your very good reason for wanting a sentence not to make sense? If you refuse to explain your motivations, you are clearly not editing in good faith. Sthatdc (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do not post to my Talk page again. Discussions about article content can take place on article Talk pages. Alexbrn (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Advice on topic ban

Hello, as someone who took part in many related discussions, could you perhaps be so kind as to advise on how to proceed? Thanks, Nemo 11:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Nemo_bis hi! I'm not really familiar with the procedure around topic bans, so can't really advise on process. The substantial point concerned the insertion of copyright-violating links: if the community was assured that was no longer going to be an issue then I'd have thought the process of overturning the TBAN would be a formality. Alexbrn (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!103.231.217.50 (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no such discussion. Alexbrn (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Forgive my talk page stalking, but you may wish to see [2]. Have a great day. Ifnord (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks - have commented. Alexbrn (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: this noticeboard report is archived here

Image needed

A "sad weasel". Thanks for keeping on top of the nonsense at that article and providing me some humor! DMacks (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

MEDRS

The Journal of Ethnopharmacology is a peer-reviewed medical journal. Can you point me to where it fails MEDRS? Article/edit ref: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Prunus_africana&oldid=917214084Anastrophe (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

PMID 27235020 is not a secondary source as MEDRS wants. Alexbrn (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. hotpass105 Hotpass105 (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard incident

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an incident about your alleged disruptive and aggressive behavior in intermittent fasting towards Signimu (talk · contribs). The thread is Disruptive_and_aggressive_behavior_from_Zefr_(talk_%C2%B7_contribs)_and_Alexbrn_(talk_%C2%B7_contribs). --Signimu (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: this noticeboard report is archived here

ANI notice 2

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is POV-Pushing_and_harassment_by_Zefr_(talk_·_contribs)_and_Alexbrn_(talk_·_contribs). --Signimu (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm . Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: this noticeboard report is archived here

ANI notice 3 (last)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Signimu (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm   Facepalm . Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: this noticeboard report is archived here

RE CFS page Exercise Therapy review talk page

Hi, If you don't understand why I started that discussion on the talk page, it is because I anticipate debate around how the recent Cochrane review update shall be discussed in the article. The discussion was to point out that the quality of the article was disputed according to former Chief editor Cochrane and the conclusion that is mentioned in the article is part of this dispute. Unfortunatley, not all Cochrane reviews are of the highest quality. The rest of the discussion was to point out the prior issues regarding referencing of prior versions of the review. There was much debate in 2016 if you were unaware. Arch (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Raking over previous disagreements, and discussing editors, on an article Talk page is not appropriate and this section was not going in a good direction. Feel free to re-open it if you wish, but I'd suggest it would be better to WP:FOC. Alexbrn (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

"See above"

COme on, Alexbrn, the only thing missing from that conversation is crossed swords. Do me a solid and just state the issue with the edits only. Others will follow suit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to ask everybody to repeat what they already said, but I put a comment directly above yours which summarizes the issue. Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It is helpful, when the issue is clouded with a bunch of blustery bullshit being tossed by both sides. The point is to make a better article, and clearing away all the garbage-y personal crap is key to getting it done.

As an aside, I had a handle on the discussion with CEngelbrecht2. I know he is a proponent of the subject, but his behavior threatens the stability and neutrality of the article. He needs to know (as well as you and others) that the article is not going to go away. Ever. You guys are fighting under either fake assumptions or unrealistic outcomes. Let cooler heads prevail, and solve the problem the right way. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken about a number of things, and that your attempts to act the policeman on the Talk page are actually amplifying the WP:DRAMA. Forgive me if I ignore them. Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course I forgive you for ignoring my points, Alexbrn. I wasn't trying to police the article, I was trying to de-escalate the drama, which you were contributing to. I wasn't seeking to chastise you, but to point out an easier path of DR. Anyhoo, have a good day. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ani

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: this noticeboard report is archived here

October 2019

Your recent editing history at Circumcision shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Guarapiranga (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Entry for Dr Alan Howard

I'm new to wikipedia. I think this point should be discussed on the talk page for the article but I don't know how to do that AND alert you to the comment. Regarding your removal of the external reference to the Howard Foundation website. You give the reason as "promo". I regard the external link as providing additional information should be reader want more. That seems to be how external links are used on other pages. I'd like to put the link back on that basis. What is your opinion? Tomp-uk (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

That is unduly promotional and not about the guy but about an organization. As an editor with a COI you should not be editing the article - and certainly not removing the COI tag. Alexbrn (talk) 04:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I noticed this the other day, and ignored it. However, it was already linked in the ifnobox. Just fyi. Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

pyramid power

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't underhand so are you also a racist or what is going on? Some kind of English language supremist? Elspru (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Do not post here again. Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dr. Johanna Budwigs Wikipedia page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If you, "Alexbrn", have any opinions about the interaction between diet and cancer, then you can just keep it to yourself. Johanna Budwig's Wikipedia page should not be used for black painting of her work. Budwig's hypothesis is confirmed by research teams who found the Budwig diet very effective with 90% efficiency. Do you call that "not proof that the diet is effective"? Please remove these two sentences in the intro: "Based on her research on fatty acids she developed a diet that she believed was useful in the treatment of cancer. There are no evidences that these or other "anti-cancer" diets are effective." It sounds like personal statements and degrading attitudes, and this is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. It's all about being a good fellow here on Wikipedia too, "Alexbrn". To speak indirectly degrading about other people's work is really not allowed here on Wikipedia. I will continue with this case until these sentences is removed. VictoriaAve (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I have responded to this at article talk. Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@VictoriaAve: Please see WP:MEDRS for our medical sourcing guidelines and WP:FRINGE for guidance on how fringe topics, like the Budwig diet, are treated on Wikipedia. Note there is also an active thread discussing this topic at WP:FT/N#Budwig diet. Alexbrn (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Please remove these two sentences. That's all I ask for. VictoriaAve (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Not gonna happen unless the science changes (don't hold your breath). Alexbrn (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no point in having these sentences there. What good are they doing? No damage has occurred if removed. VictoriaAve (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

They are giving our readers essential accepted knowledge about this diet (that it's a scam). This is what an encyclopedia does. If you want to advocate for this fake diet go away and do it somewhere else. Do not post here again. Alexbrn (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

William Davis (cardiologist)

I tried to fix this article but it might need more work. I know you have fixed similar articles so you might want to have a brief look. I like your edits. Thanks. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Cannabis

I abhor edit wars, they always end badl. You warned me of edit warring and unfortunately they are caused by ego and/or ideology . So I responded to your revert here You were quick to revert me, but haven't yet responded to my ping and my desire to converse. As I stated on the talk page. The sentence as it stands is the opposite of the very citations used. The citations state the opposite of the sentence. Please justify allowing this misrepresention to stand.Thank you. Oldperson (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Please respond at the article Talk page, thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Oops

Hi Alex I just did a completely accidental click of the rollback button on one of your edits. I hadn't even read it! My apologies if I caused you any disturbance there. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Clayoquot, No problemo ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Piracetam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You do get that both of YOUR posts are referring to the exactly same study right???

"A 2001 Cochrane review concluded "At this stage the evidence available from the published literature does not support the use of piracetam in the treatment of people with dementia or cognitive impairment. Although effects were found on global impression of change, no benefit was shown by any of the more specific measures. There is a need for further evaluation of piracetam by : 1) Obtaining the data from the identified studies for an individual patient database review, 2) Performing a randomized trial of piracetam in patients with diagnoses made by currently accepted diagnostic criteria.[5]

In 2008, a working group of the British Academy of Medical Sciences said that many of the trials of piracetam for dementia were flawed.[7]"

In 2008 paper (not a study or a review) uses only 1 single reference for the statement you wrote which is based off of the 2001 Cochrane review above. You're listing the same study twice and making it sound like somehow it's newer than the 2001 one. They are just quoting the same flawed and limited Cochrane review. Nothing new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeurologicalFacts (talk • contribs) 14:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The view of the British Academy of Medical Sciences is probably due. Cochrane reviews are strong sources. Please continue any further discussion of article content at Talk:Piracetam. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chronic Lyme

See WP:ANI § Chronic Lyme Guy (help!) 11:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting you suspect this isn't such a new account - my spidey sense is also tingling. Alexbrn (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG, I see they got CU blocked: interesting. Alexbrn (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, This is my shocked face. Guy (help!) 21:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Cancer survivor

At least we have that in common. After 2 years immunotherapy (Keytruda) my lung cancer appears to be in remission. Oct 2017 they removed a tangerine sized tumor that was depressing my left occipital. I had an orange sized tumor in my left bronchus. Four consecutive CT scans have shown that all that remains is scarring. Immunotherapy has been suspended after 2 years, but being monitored via MRI and CT Scan on a quarterly basis. Oncologist offered me a scrip for medical marijuana, Irefused I don't do and never have done any drugs, legal or illegal except Keytruda..there are no free rides with drugs. I don't even do flu vaccines, and never had the flue. What kind of cancer did you have. Best wishes that you stay in remission.Oldperson (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that's great news about the remission - may it long continue for you! Immunotherapy is such an exciting area. You can read all about my experiences here, here and here. When it comes to drugs I'm pragmatic: I've recently started having flu jabs because the flu is bad enough when you're young, but when you're older it can really knock you sideways for a long time. Alexbrn (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem with flu vaccine it is formulated for lastyears strain, and as you know these virus mutate quite fast,and thereis always more than one strain of flu at the sametime. You are correct, the ability to resist infections invasions decreases with age. Vaccinations themselves introduce a mild form of the virus into the body, and the older we are the harder it is for the immune system to fight off the invader. I am quite lucky as I have, despite my age,a robust immune system,my BP is122/70 and prior to each session of immunotherapy I get a complete blood panel workup, and except for my A1c (2 month average of blood glucose)I am always within normal limits, never the less I refuse the flu jab, because I've seen it actually cause the flu,especially in elders,and I cannot recall ever contracting the flu,an occasional cold maybe. As regards Keytruda (generic pembrolizumab) for it to be efficacious, one must test positive for the protein PD-L1, I tested high positive.My sister, who never smoked but has lived around smokers all of her life, has lung cancer and is on immunotherapy with a competitive product:Opdivo,per her the tumor is shrinking. President Carter had melanoma which also metasized to the brain, and the liver. He too had a craniotomy to remove the brain tumor, and (lucky him) after three months the liver tumor disappeared. it took me 2years of treatment. I, sadly, think of all those who have passed, usually in great pain, before the discovery ofimmunotherapy, I am curious as to whether immunotherapy will work on all types of cancer. Mine was small cell carinoma,President Carters was melanoma.Mine metastasized to the brain and Carters to the liver.I also had some lymph gland tumors, but they disappeared by the timeof my first CT Scan. Small cell lung cancer is suppose to be accompanied by pain, but I never experienced pain. My question raises the issue of "is chemotherapy necessary"oris it still being administered (especially for breast cancer) because it is a lucrative racket between oncologists, PhARMA and hospitals.

I suspect the latter.The reason I received immunotherapyis that Itold my oncologist outright, that I would not subject myself to chemotherapy, (chemo kills mor rapidly than cancer as it destroys the immuno system and it has devastating effects.I had no side effects from Keytruda.Oldperson (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Chemotherapy has its worth, but there is a lot of misinformation out there in the dodgier corners of the web.[3] I notice that here in the UK, Pembrolizumab has been available from the NHS from last summer as a chemotherapy add-on even for people with lung cancer who have lower levels of PD-L1 in their tumours.[4] "My" cancer (renal cell carcinoma) was one of the first for which immunotherapy was explored: Interleukin-2 has been known of since the 1970s as useful for metastatic disease.[5] Alexbrn (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Review

Hi, pls review my drafts Draft:Debabrata Nath and Draft:Kumar Sen. 42.110.142.93 (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"Stunning the literary world: Shakespeare as Stooge"

Do you have a copy of Jackson's essay you could send me? If you need Kell's book, or the Neville section of Bill Leahy's book, I can send you a copy. I also have Dave's SQ review, if you need a copy. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

YHM. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Feldenkrais method

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Alex,

I just edited the Feldenkrais Method page, trying to provide a view that is closer to the actual situation. Here are the first paragraph that you decided to wave away:

There is limited evidence that workplace-based use of the Feldenkrais Method may help aid rehabilitation of people with upper limb complaints.[10] More broadly, a review published in 2015 concluded that most articles rely on too small a study group and that the risk of bias was high, however it was possible to perform a meta-analysis over 7 studies and find in favour of the FM for improving balance in ageing populations. The authors conclude that further research is required.[11]

I am eager to learn and I am already thankful that you made me notice that the Evid Based Complement Alternat Med is a Hindawi journal, and having been contacted by them with spam (I am a (modest) mathematician) I know that they are not the brightest publishing company. Obviously Edzard Ernst read the article more than the name of the journal, since I can see that he clearly critized the journal itself, he changed his mind about the fact that Feldenkrais can be useful for some situations.

This leads me to my main concern, the second paragraph : On this unstable terrain, the opinons of experts of evidence based medicine display a wide range: David Gorski wrote that the Method bears similarities to faith healing, is like "glorified yoga", and that it "borders on quackery".[4], whereas Edzard Ernst concludes "considering that FM is virtually risk-free and inexpensive, I feel that it is one of the rare alternative therapy that could be integrated into clinical routine (for this particular indication)."[12]

I don't think anything here is not true, and not keeping Edzard Ernst's view should lead us to also withdraw the part about David Gorski, for I can't see anything but his opinion in this part (and an insulting one). I would be happy to read your view about this.

Warm regards, Vladimir (mathematician, but also Feldenkrais practictioner since 2009) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir-latocha (talk • contribs) 11:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Gorski is not making a biomedical claim, Ernst kind of is - hence the higher standard of WP:MEDRS applies I think. Plase make any further comment at Talk:Feldenkrais Method so that others can see it. Also be aware of WP:COI, in case it applies. Alexbrn (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CIRCUMCISION PHYSICAL EFFECTS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why did you delete the truth??? It does make the penis shorter and other horrible side effects such as Low Testosterone, Less Facial Hair and Muscle Mass. CIRCUMCISION SURGERY GENITAL MUTILATIONS ARE SLAVERY, ANATOMICAL & BIOLOGICAL WARFARE UnHeaven Kevin (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

BETTER TO DISCUSS THIS AT Talk:Circumcision. Alexbrn (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jorge Cruise

Can I get your advice on this because I noticed you have fixed some similar articles. Seems to be an intermittent fasting/keto nut. Apparently some of his books are best sellers, but it is hard to find decent sources and his article reads like promotion. I have removed some sections but 80% of it is unsourced. The entire thing might have to be reduced. What do you think? Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Just another borderline-notable biography that smells of COI/PAID. So long as any bogus health claims are kept of out it, it is though probably harmless enough, especially only averaging 19 page views / day. Alexbrn (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)