User talk:Bon courage/Archive 2

What do you mean by "take it to the talk page"?
You say in response to my edit "take it to the talk" page? When I click on "talk" i get to YOUR talk page. Is there a link on the history page to a article specific talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NR biogeochemist (talk • contribs) 21:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Every article has a talk page. It might be labelled "discussion" in a tab near the top of the page, depending on your settings. Go there and make any arguments for changes to the article which need to be discussed ... see you there ... Alexbrn talk 21:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way
We were trying to get dengue fever published in Open Medicine, but I'm not sure if it's going to happen. We need (as medical editors) to establish a pipeline for how to get a well-developed encylopedia article into a format we can submit to a journal. I was messing around with Zotero and that wouldn't rearrange citation numbers when I messed with things. I've heard of LaTeX and BibTeX but I'm not sure how long those take to learn. Anyhow, let me know if you have anything brilliant. I do have User:Biosthmors/Dengue. O well. I guess I should ask the journal. Let me know if you have any ideas though! I see you've worked on some stuff that sounds similar. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 00:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Biosthmors – Eeks - this sounds a bit too much like my day job :-)))


 * What format do Open Medicine want their submissions in? Generally in journal publishing the standard "currency" is articles marked-up in XML using the NLM (sometimes called JATS) markup language (see here). It'd be pretty much impossible to automate a Wiki->JATS conversion, because the articles here are not marked up with sufficient consistency to make them amenable to that. At best, a semi-automatic converter might do the basic work (including the hard stuff like tables and references), and then an editor could hand finish it. It would, however, be quite possible to convert from JATS->WikiText ... but I don't know whether that's something people will even want to consider! Alexbrn talk 08:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a .doc & NLM request for submission. I hope you don't mind if other people comment here because I asked them to! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 13:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Biosthmors – Sure, no problem. I would be happy to prepare a one-off NLM/JATS version of dengue fever for submission - this might give us some data to think about for later efforts. Usually this requires some back-and-from with the publisher, since there are many different incompatible ways of marking up an article with NLM/JATS, and usually the recipient has particular things in mind (which typically aren't documented). I will add as a general comment, that devising a digital production workflow (which is what is being proposed) usually goes hand-in-hand with the discovery that those publishing folk aren't making money from doing nothing: there's usually a lot of effort, stress and grind in getting something operational going! Alexbrn talk 13:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much. We'll see what people/the journal says. So far there hasn't been much interest coming from Wiki Project Med but there have only been a couple comments so far. I think Open Medicine has very understandable fatigue with the dengue draft (partially my fault for not figuring out technical solutions sooner), but I haven't lost hope on identifying a pipeline for an eventual publication. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 15:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI, there is m:Grants talk:IEG/LaTeX Export and the possibility for people to get funded with grants (of up to $30,000 USD) to work on technical projects that will benefit Wikipedia/Wikimedia. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 16:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And now I started Village_pump_(technical). Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 16:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Biosthmors – Wouldn't want to go near LaTeX. Shudder. Alexbrn talk 16:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries. I have no idea about it. I just figured I'd flag it for you! It might give you an idea for a future grant, if you so wish. ;-) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 16:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I can handle the LaTeX part if that is still an option. Also know enough about JATS now (especially its problems) that I can help with that too. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Daniel. No word yet from Open Medicine. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 19:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, is the only thing that needs to be done to get the article published is that someone needs to convert the citations from wikimarkup to JATS? If not, what else needs to be done? Remember (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure. Is there any actual statement somewhere of what the recipient wants? Alexbrn talk 18:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the draft isn't perfect. It still has a few blemishes. For example, it would need to have its citations rearranged. I tried to do this in Zotero, but it didn't automatically renumber the citations. As for the journal wanting this article, it could very well be too late. I'm posting now to see if we might be able to draw some lessons from the experience. I don't feel like I've learned anything about how to possibly do this better in the future. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 20:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Cranial electrotherapy stimulation
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DevourerOfBooks Ruby Murray  18:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Alex good to have you on-board
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colon_cleansing Do look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dubvit2012/sandbox Danger^Mouse (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * we need to talk. I am beginning to wonder about coi myself. She is a doctor and is affiliated with the topic, however I like to merge what she is saying rather than having a different article, perhaps a name change to the article, and a merge of what she is saying. I am tagging it as resolved on Monday, if you vote in support of what I am saying then we call it a draw. Seems reasonable having the two in one, and neutral. Danger^Mouse (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * By Friday I am tagging it as resolved then or you could do the honours.Danger^Mouse (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There are similar issues with Laser teeth whitening. Alexbrn talk 11:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Same scenario. Danger^Mouse (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alex please merge the articles, I am not quiet sure, what goes where. However, the merger proposal is a success. Thank you. Danger^Mouse (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I am writing on ANI, this is going for worse, and I have tried to help the user. Danger^Mouse (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's wise: a (quasi-)legal threat seems to have been made after all. Alexbrn talk 21:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I told her over and over, create a draft, etc give citations, if you have an issue write on the talk page, and threats like that is not civilized, I told her, to come on the table sit with us, and discuss it. Danger^Mouse (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Collaborative working can be great, but is has to take place within the framework of the rules. The basic problem here is that "colonics" are a health scam (according to the reliable sources). Accordingly that's what WP is going to say and if an editor isn't going to accept that there is simply no room for negotiation: they need to go away. Alexbrn talk 21:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You have acted totally unethically. You asked for my email in a customer service room 2. When you got it you said "what fun" 3. You sent sleazy emails telling me how "superpretty" I am 4. Now you posted my real name on wikipedia talk 5. I have removed the talk you just posted now and I would ask you to leave it like that.

1. IRC is a public, and yes I pm ed the user told her I can assist you further, and I did say you're pretty/ 2. I never said what fun, we both talked about Dublin etc.. 3. Super pretty sure I said that, error on my judgement, Wikipedia wants me blocked on these basis for sometime, go for it. I am not denying anything and yes we had a decent conversation, and I have acted stupid on my part. Danger^Mouse (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn talk 21:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I want this to be resolved, I accept full responsibility, for my actions. Danger^Mouse (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Colon_cleansing, Apologized to her too, not sure what else I can do about that, and ANI said no action needed. Danger^Mouse (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute to resolve. There is some behaviour which needs investigating, probably at AN/I. Alexbrn talk 22:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * My behaviour or her threats? If both I have apologized, and make it public. Danger^Mouse (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

re editing on the Kombucha page.
Hello, I now see that there is a basic rule that there is a basic avoid 3 reverts policy, and I shall conform to that in the future. However, each time I have made changes I HAVE (now) been taking it to the talk page, and the users continuously reverting the page to an an inaccurate formulation but do not engage in a productive discussion in the talk section which I have pointed people to "state of science". I have created a talk section, and referred people to it, but no one has attempted to discuss the content and scientific merit of the studies, or why these do not constitute legitimate primary sources. I would kindly ask you to discuss your reasons for removing my edit on the talk page. I do not see why my supported position and continuous adding to this position with evidence constitutes "edit warring" while those who simply delete with either no, or cursory, reasons are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NR biogeochemist (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see you have been told there what the problem is. I agree. Anyway, yes, the article talk page is the place for discussion:see you there! Alexbrn talk 20:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Where? You have not engaged in the talk sections "Claims" or "The state of science and avoiding the insertion of personal bias (pro or con)." regarding my edits, which is where the relevant discussion is, and in regards to your comment "no consensus for this change " this is untrue, numerous people have in fact tried to change it but they give up after you cha and what seems to be 2 other people change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NR biogeochemist (talk • contribs) 21:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Lindane
Hi Alex. I guess you do not like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lindane&diff=580385746&oldid=580246413 this addition of a recent study outcome]. --Leyo 07:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a good source, and isn't even presented as circumspectly ("may") as it presents itself. Is there some good secondary material that covers this topic? Alexbrn talk 08:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I'll leave it on you whether this addition shall be removed. --Leyo 09:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is Deepak Chopra. Thank you. ~ Matthewrbowker  Make a comment! 19:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that went as my accuser intending, coming to be described by a passing editor as "the most amusing case of WP:BOOMERANG I've seen on COIN". Alexbrn talk 07:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm thick, and new.
In thirty seconds, could you explain to me what OTRS is? Pretty please - I don't want to waste your time, but I need to know what on earth is going on with the COI thing?? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome aboard! I hope you enjoy your stay on Wikipedia!


 * OTRS or "Open-source Ticket Request System" is a system for experienced volunteers to answer emails sent to Wikipedia. Often times, OTRS emails contain sensitive information that can't be posted publicly, so sometimes you'll see tickets referenced in regard to permissions and things of that nature.


 * If you are referring to the same COI thing as I think you are, OTRS received an email claiming that Alexbrn had a conflict of interest in regard to Deepak Chopra.  That is currently being discussed at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard.


 * P.S. If you ever run into a weird acronym that you don't know what it means, most of the time you can type "WP:" and the acronym into the search box and find out. For example, information on OTRS is located at WP:OTRS.  ~  Matthewrbowker  Make a comment! 23:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Matthew and yes you have identified the COI I am referring to. In a previous COI discussion you identified a COI the complainant had, and invited himher to declare it, but the invitation was declined.  I am not asking you to comment on that, but I am very uncomfortable that Alex is accused and the accuser is hiding something.  I also note that Alex has told the accuser that disclosure isn't required !!  I don't understand.  I'm naive.  Thanks for the welcome too, I registered a few years ago ;).  --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Users should be allowed to maintain their anonymity if they wish. However I notice that an admin (presumably after viewing the OTRS material) has now flagged as having a declared conflict of interest, using the connected contributor template. So, a clearer picture is beginning to emerge. Alexbrn talk 06:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback
Hi Alexbrn, for some reason my browser has always had difficulties with Article Feedback. I don't seem to be able to easily access feedback and consequently I've never really learned to understand its ins and outs. I find the WikiMedia documentation on the topic to be rather opaque. Can you explain to me what this edit accomplishes? I've seen others perform similar edits several times in the past and I'd like to know what it all means. Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. It just "turns on" the feedback mechanism (I did this by using the "tools" menu in Wikpedia's UI). The practical effect is that readers can now leave feedback on the article. if they do, It will show up via an icon on the Talk page. Alexbrn talk 14:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah OK! Thanks for the explanation. -Thibbs (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(Potential) risks and benefits of Soursop/Graviola
Hello Alexbrn. I am trying to introduce a (missing) balance in the soursop article. It is clear from research and from the positions of cancer organisations that there are potential benefits and potential risks. I think that in order to have a balanced article, both need to be reflected. I hope we can come to an agreement on this. Just a few pointers and questions at this stage:

- Why do you not consider primary research on the anticancer effects of soursop noteworthy? Why can't we have a section on "cancer research and treatment" where both the research and the treatment aspects are included, if necessary in separate subsections. Obviously primary research has no direct implication on treatment since doctors, hospitals and cancer organisations cannot rely on primary research to prescribe treatments. This is obvious and therefore any anticancer health claims made by manufacturers or sellers of soursop-based products are illegal and liable to prosecution. That said, primary research is usually the first step towards finding and eventually developing drugs against any disease. - Cancer Research UK states that "In laboratory studies, graviola extracts can kill some types of liver and breast cancer cells that are resistant to particular chemotherapy drugs. But there haven’t been any large scale studies in humans. So we don't know yet whether it can work as a cancer treatment or not. Overall, there is no evidence to show that graviola works as a cure for cancer. Many sites on the internet advertise and promote graviola capsules as a cancer cure, but none of them are supported by any reputable scientific cancer organisations." Why do you selectively quote, for example suppressing the statement that "we don't know yet whether it can work as a cancer treatment or not." I think it is important to quote fairly and not selectively. Selective quoting is a way of misrepresenting the author's intentions.

- The toxicology findings are blown out of proportion as the studies are as conclusive or inconclusive as the studies on benefits. This is why the French food safety agency decided against restricting dosage of soursop, explicitly stating that the findings were insufficient to confirm a causal relationship between soursop and the observed cases of atypical Parkinson. Again, this fact was misrepresented in the earlier version of the Wikipedia article. Yes, there are potential risks (like with many foods and substances) but it is misleading to give more space to one potential risk than to a series of potential benefits.

I look forward to discussing these and other issues with you with a view to seeking common ground.

Thank you Elfriede21 (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! The place to discuss this is really the article Talk page. But in brief, we don't generally build article out of primary material but prefer secondary sources - especially for anything in the biomedical space (see WP:MEDRS and WP:SPS). Mentioning laboratory studies is particularly inappropriate in a section about human health since there is zero evidence of benefit from graviola, and implying otherwise would be a very bad thing. Anyway - please raise this on the article Talk page if you think edits to the article are needed. Alexbrn talk 16:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks, will take my questions/comments to the article talk page.Elfriede21 (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Bold facing
Could you please dial down the excessive use of bold face in your comments here? See WP:TALK specifically the point on clear layout? Italics and underlying are useful and less shouty :) (see also WP:SHOUT) --Kim D. Petersen 09:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironically, the guidance you point to makes a heavy of of bold :-) It's good to be clear! Alexbrn talk 09:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The irony is not lost on me :) It is a genuine concern though that people are shouting too much on the talk page of that article, just scroll over the page to see. Yes, it seems that things are a bit heated, unfortunately (to me) to the extent that people are talking past each other. Please keep up an attitude of assumption of good faith :) --Kim D. Petersen 09:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the most pointless uses of a Talk page comment I have ever seen this. I'd bet significant dog biscuits that there was a small formatting error on the word oppose that led to this disastrous state of affairs.  --Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You lost significant dog biscuits then.. --Kim D. Petersen 17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

AN/I
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Big mess at Colon cleansing
I wanted to tell you how funny this heading was. It made me laugh for a full 5 minutes I reckon, on a dreary Scottish winters day. Take care. scope_creep talk 12:48 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - AN/I can do with a bit of humour from time to time! ;-) Alexbrn talk 09:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2nd that! :-) - DVdm (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

My mistake
I should have looked deeper down the history. Thanks for this. - DVdm (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * NP - it gets tedious to check when the POV pushers start messing with the content - thanks for helping keeping the article in reasonable shape :-) Alexbrn talk 20:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Bedtime
It's all yours ... thanks for the help. I don't have journal access, so I can't always get full text (only if it's free). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) I'm in the waking-middle-period of my currently poor sleep patterns (it's 03:36 here), but will have a go at finding secondaries to cover the topics that were poorly-sourced over the weekend. Thanks for kicking this off ... Alexbrn talk 03:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It all started with the now-deleted student (copyvio) essay at Cannabidiol effect on epilepsy. And now I see there's another mess at Long-term effects of cannabis.  The ridiculous part about this is that there are good secondary reviews on cannabis-- no need to synthesize from primary sources (unless POV is the goal).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to wonder why there is a medical cannabis article, since the distinction between the material here and material of cannabis in general seems unclear in most cases. Maybe some merging/reconciliation of WP's cannabis content might be helpful down the track ... ? Alexbrn talk 04:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Four articles covering the same territory, and using the same bad sources, and promoting the same POV. Surprise, surprise ... it's Wikipedia. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cannabis
 * Medical cannabis
 * Effects of cannabis
 * Long-term effects of cannabis


 * Yikes! Collectively those are ... quite something. Alexbrn talk 05:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hea, now I *am* really going to bed ... don't assume that anything left there and moved around was checked by me ... I only got the worst of it, there's lots more. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Alex, I really don't see a WP:MEDRS issue at the Compassionate whatever article. If you're seeing fringe everywhere, you may be spending too much time on fringe ... try working on something like Hypothyroidism for a bit :) And it's always good to pick your battles; there are enough bad articles that need to be addressed that there's no reason to look for problems where they don't exist-- it will only make you lose credibility.  Now, the BLP issue there is serious; I don't understand why that was overlooked.  We just don't write articles about living people without citing them.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:PSCI is a policy too :-) For comparison here, I was thinking for example of the Christian Science article where some editors wanted to include "testimonials" from people to offset the critical mainstream medical commentary. If not approached carefully doesn't this become a kind of debunking? I wonder if any of these people are still alive ... I'll start digging ... (bad choice of image there). Alexbrn talk 07:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Compassionate Investigational New Drug program is not the Christian Science article; it's an article about six specific people in one little program.  Statements about the general efficacy or medical benefits of the program would need MEDRS sourcing (I didn't see any of that-- I didn't see any medical statements), but statements/beliefs that those six individuals make about themselves, attributed to them, do not. If we go around demanding MEDRS sourcing for stuff that doesn't require it, we lose credibility and risk a backlash at MEDRS.  And we risk missing the much bigger BLP issue that existed in that article.  I cannot see how the MEDRS tag on that article was helpful, because I do not see a single statement in the article that requires medical sourcing. And I can't believe that WhatamIdoing missed the BLP vio in both 2010 and 2011 when she was in there. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article says they are alive. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right the BLP issue is pressing (and I missed it too of course, probably since by BLP-ometer is not very attuned since I - purposely - don't do much BLP work). My concern about personal testimonies is that stringing them together is an established MO of presenting dubious information, and I don't think WP should be doing that. I'll think about it some more - I guess you're right that other issues are more important to attend to right now ... Alexbrn talk 07:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Pick your battles, unless you want to be at war all the time! There are big articles that need big work. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 08:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where to find all of the old discussions, but Google book views are different between the UK and the US, and even in the US, sometimes you get a page, and sometimes you don't. The discussion came up at WT:FAC with respect to whether we should have convenience links to google books in citations, since most people find them irritating since they are sometimes there and sometimes not. So I never use them ... Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 10:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the talk-page stalking (came here via the series of cannabis articles). You should probably also change the local Google url address from .co.uk to .com if you want those in N. America, and possibly elsewhere, to view such links. Thus, I would change:
 * http://books.google.ie/books?id=UUCsEIfpQsEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=dementia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ssSlUpK0Neeu7AbT2YHQAQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=dementia&f=false
 * to
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=UUCsEIfpQsEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=dementia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ssSlUpK0Neeu7AbT2YHQAQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=dementia&f=false
 * FiachraByrne (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Message
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:COPYPASTE
Please see   petrarchan47  t  c   21:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, so by leaving a note I was syncing with the main, it's all cool. Alexbrn talk 21:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks! I seem to be bound in destiny to that article :-O Alexbrn talk 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Anthony Holland (composer)
Please see my comment on the talk page -- tagging without participating in an ongoing discussion is pointless. On the other hand, your participation in the discussion would be valuable. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

GAPS diet
I notice that, over the course of scores of edits, you appear to have been responsible for the GAPS diet article changing from a balanced & factual analysis with some relevant research, to a largely uninformative (little details as to foodstuffs involved) article pushing only a negative POV of a skeptical agenda.

Please compare the two versions. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GAPS_Diet&oldid=554628502 (original) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GAPS_Diet&oldid=585205639 (your edits)

Removing factual information as to the basis of the diet, and research possibly supporting it, in favour of skeptical claims against it (bone broth being a hazard for lead poisoning), have made the article far less informative & useful for people who genuinely wish to know about GAPS.

The only thing these edits accomplish, and the only goal they would appear to serve, are to push a strong POV. This is clear vandalism and you are warned.

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

I note also that this is not the only biased editing/ vandalism warning on your page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhitmore.nz (talk • contribs) 08:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Unfortunately the article previously was not acceptable: it was largely unsourced, contained original research and synthesis and failed to present a neutral point of view. I strongly recommend checking-out the text I link to in the previous sentence to give some basic grounding in how we edit Wikipedia. For this topic it might well be wise then to move on to WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. As regards your interactions with me it is also worth checking out WP:NOTVAND. Discussion of the article content is best raised on the article Talk page, or at the current WP:FT/N, and not here. Alexbrn talk 08:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely false. It presented a neutral POV, included all the research I could find, and pointed out the lack of scientific evidence currently to back up psychological or autism claims. By comparison the article you have edited is horrible & serves not to inform anyone about GAPS, merely to push a skeptical agenda.


 * I would like to point out that [Continental_drift] did not become accepted science until the 1960s. Your "reductionist science" attitude seem to believe that science is 'complete' and 'closed' -- that everything is known, and research (except into your favorite subjects) is not necessary & should stop. You would be among the villains trying to shout continental drift down.Twhitmore.nz (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well done Alex for improving the GAP diet article. Twhitmore really doesn't know what heshe is on about.  --Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I can find, this seems to be a money-making scam of one of the worst kinds: preying on the worried parents of children having a difficult time. As it happens the clinic where it is centred (which claims to be in Cambridge, but is in fact a domestic dwelling in a village several miles away) is only a short drive from where I live. Alexbrn talk 09:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's the "GAPS diet", not "GAP". The article is not improved -- it is far less factually informative as to what GAPS is, and mainly addresses associated negative judgements and inferences as to McBride's character. As for it being a money-making scam, buying one book is enough -- what's that going to cost, $30? I feel that your negative prejudgement, rather than considering or accepting the references, are informing your editing. And that is biased POV.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhitmore.nz (talk • contribs) 09:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not just books but (as the sources put it) a cottage industry of woo. Alexbrn talk 09:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You're editing the GAPS Diet page without consensus, again.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

POV edits to GAPS: Refusing to address on Talk Page: Removal of POV Notices

 * Do not remove POV notices without resolving the issue on the Talk Page.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at GAPS Diet. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * You persist in editing GAPS Diet in a biased manner, promoting skeptical opinion & POV, using "weasel words" & biased phrasing, and removing other relevant material & sources.


 * You have repeatedly edited without consensus and, in discussion on the talk page, you have avoided addressing the issues & points raised. See Talk:GAPS Diet and discuss in the thread before any further editing.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at GAPS Diet, you may be blocked from editing.


 * Since you have been a key editor responsible for the current POV and AfD state of the article, you may wish to consider stepping back from editing the article & focusing instead on discussion.


 * Thankyou for your time.

Twhitmore.nz (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming you know...
You've been mentioned here on Skeptools? Killer Chihuahua 20:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You troublemaker! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ptah. Alexbrn is famous, he ought to know. Is good! Is praise! I am not trouble maker. Killer Chihuahua 21:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Famous? or infamous? ;-) This episode further confirmed my suspicion that play #3 from the Karl Rove Handbook is one of the most popular moves among certain up-to-no-good editors. Alexbrn talk 21:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * By all means, go with famous. Killer Chihuahua 22:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

dispute resolution notice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#novocure

Howdy, just writing to inform you of a dispute resolution notice involving you.

Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this. Not sure what happened - I must have accidentally self-reverted. bobrayner (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thought as much: smartphone in-pocket weirdness or something :-) Alexbrn talk 14:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Homoeopathy
Dr Martial (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Hi, I am Dr. Martial, I have added few lines to the Introduction to Homoeopathy in Wikipedia, which you undid saying the citation is not sufficient. A system of Medicine which is followed and chosen by a billion of people all over the world has a very advanced science involved in it such that only modern science, the science of Nanotechnology has been able to crack the long old puzzle and only paper which is as of yet is the most scientific and logically reasonable by the scientists around the world. Therefore it is requested of you to kindly publish in order not to defame or demoralise the suffering humanity from gaining the succor.
 * Hi there! Content in articles needs to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which unfortunately your additions didn't. I have posted a welcome message to your talk page: this contains some handy links to material which will help you get started editing. Alexbrn talk 08:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Symphony in D minor (Bruckner)
Dear Alex,

I have seen that you have removed the reference to The Date of Bruckner's 'Nullified' Symphony in D Minor because of possible copyvio.

I have contacted John F Berky, editor of the site http://www.abruckner.com, who confirmed that has got permission of the author (Paul Hawkshaw) for putting it on his site. See John's answer below:


 * ''Hi Reginald,
 * That article is copywritten and unless you have permission to publish from the author or the publisher, it should not be posted. I received permission from Paul, so it is OK for my site.  Perhaps you can reference it with my link: http://www.abruckner.com/Data/articles/articlesEnglish/hawkshawpaulthedat/hawkshawnullte.pdf
 * That article is copywritten and unless you have permission to publish from the author or the publisher, it should not be posted. I received permission from Paul, so it is OK for my site.  Perhaps you can reference it with my link: http://www.abruckner.com/Data/articles/articlesEnglish/hawkshawpaulthedat/hawkshawnullte.pdf

(redacted)

Please take John's answer into account, so that my previous version could be restored.

Regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! I removed the link only (the reference is still there, with a link to the article on JSTOR). In my understanding including a link to scanned pages of copyright material violates the holder's rights (in this case the journal publisher). Alexbrn talk 14:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's probably not a good idea to post third parties' personal details here. bobrayner (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"poorly sourced"
I see that you reversed my edit on cassava along with any and all mention of cassava hay providing natural parasite resistance in ruminants, claiming it was "poorly sourced." Perhaps as one of Wikipedia's well-esteemed and oh-so-holy "Barnstars" you have wisdom on the subject of sourcing, not to mention vast experience with cassava, anthelmintic-resistant parasites in the developing world, etc, which far surpasses that of my own. Perhaps you are so wise that you need not even Google the subject to know that MANY additional studies, such as this one and this one, are so trivial as not to bear import on the decision to delete my work, rather than merely edit out my line about it being a rather "modest" study, let alone bother to buttress it with additional, easily-performed online research. . . All I know is that high-handed and dismissive edits like yours discourage new users of Wikipedia. I cleaned up an ugly paragraph full of barbarisms, an edit for which I am grateful not to have seen you reverse. But for taking the trouble of crafting what seemed a perfectly-executed footnote to a scholarly source, well, why does Wikipedia even need my help on that, anyway, with cassava authorities like you on the scene? Why, after all, would anyone in the white-bread First World even WANT to know about a subject that Big Pharma, who make and administer these ugly anthelmintics causing such a plague of resistance problems everywhere else, want such a reference to appear in some small corner of the cassava article? I won't assume bad faith by suggesting you work for Big Pharma; I will suggest you think about being a little less vigilant in your policing activities here. God forbid you would restore any part of my edit, let alone incorporate these and other additional studies to buttress the important underlying point. . . You seem to be far more handy with the wrecking ball than with the time-consuming bricklaying done by such peons as me. "Poorly sourced?" Do your homework, please, and help add to to world's available knowledge in the future, will you?

. . . End rant. And my apologies, in advance, for snide ad hominem (my spellcheck corrects that to ad homonym, Jesus!!) that has no place on Wikipedia and that I post despite the better angels of my nature. I plowed a lot of fields for that footnote, that's all, and just want you to show respect, and ruminate on it. . . . Thanks. ShongóBongo (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ShongóBongo Have you thought of trying sarcasm? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, sarcasm is always effective on the internet. bobrayner (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you being sarcastic, dude? Alexbrn talk 14:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome – and thanks for your copy-edits, but content starting "Anecdotal evidence (borne out by a modest scientific study) suggests ..." and sourced to a copyright-violating copy of a primary study falls afoul of some of Wikipedia's rules. I have posted a welcome message to your Talk page with some handy links about getting started editing ... Alexbrn talk 14:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Acupuncture
Thanks for your moderation of the discussion. I have expressed a previous opinion about the article here (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine) that elaborates on my position here. --LT910001 (talk) 10:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - yes, it's a controversial article because of the difficult intersection of FRINGE with MEDRS. Alexbrn talk 10:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

bias article - needs objective physician voice to balance and represent
Hello - I see you removed my deletion on grounds that the content was "well cited". I made that deletion as the article as a whole has a very negative POV and is not represented by physician voices. I hope to make this article more objective than a quotebook of quackhunters. I hope that you agree in the neutrality of how an article on such a large topic should be treated. I am curious to know, since you live in the UK I think, whether it may be a good idea to separate or at least make the distinction in this article that American D.O.s are medically trained and licensed and the use of manipulation is to decrease symptoms of pain and increase healing time - not to cure disease. I too have a problem with the fringe side of OMM, maybe that could be separated out better from the techniques that are similar to what a highly trained physical therapist would utilize in an orthopedic rehabilitation (ME/SCS/FPR/LVHA articulation). Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaekae99 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! The right place for a content discussion is really the article Talk page - but in general, since this is a WP:FRINGE topic it needs to be very clear that is so, and the mainstream view must be dominant. If there are better sources, then bring them forth! There is a separate article on DOs that covers them in detail ... Alexbrn talk 06:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

LEDE
Alex, you are reinserting information into the LEDE which is not covered in the body. Why not wait until it is? Why would you revert me for correcting it? Why would you revert MEDRS that states that not all information about cannabis effects is negative, that some is neutral and positive, as is evidenced by the body of the article? This is not a benefit to the encyclopedia, presents a very one-sided view, and is against policy. Why don't we work together to give fair, accurate and thorough coverage to the subject? I cannot fight you and your friends, even when my edits are in compliance with guidelines. I know that. Happy Christmas.  petrarchan47  t  c   09:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry - for which article? (And a Merry Xmas to you too!) Alexbrn talk 09:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it (I think). The real issue here AFAIAC is not this editorial matter, but your use of http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2013.00042 which seems cherry-picked to me. Alexbrn talk 10:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
To all my talk page stalkers. I trust, for some of you, your seasonal bonuses from Big Pharma/Big Oil/The FDA/Microsoft will be ensuring suitably lavish celebrations ;-) Alexbrn talk 10:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wohoo! I already blew my Big Academia bonus on two BBQ sandwiches at Cookout.  Happy Holidays, a13ean (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Massive deletion of long-standing section on major article
Hello Alexbrn. You recently performed a massive deletion of t'ai chi ch'uan's health section without any discussion. Your action is likely to result in an edit war, which is already starting between you and OtterSmith. I would thus request that you revert such a volatile edit & open discussion(s) on t'ai chi ch'uan's talk page and/or the WP:WPMA talk page in reference to your opposition of what is written. Thanks. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! There's a section at WP:FT/N on this. The removed content was out-dated, superseded, or poorly-sourced health information by the criteria of WP:MEDRS (and so making some dubious claims) so I don't believe there's anything controversial in removing it is there? Alexbrn talk 12:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I will take my discussion there then. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Brownie Mary
You recently deleted a large block of text from Brownie Mary, writing in the edit summary, "rm. irrelevant / SYN / non-WP:MEDRS".  That's odd as the source clearly says, "Susan Bro, an agency spokeswoman, said Thursday's statement resulted from a past combined review by federal drug enforcement, regulatory and research agencies that concluded "smoked marijuana has no currently accepted or proven medical use in the United States and is not an approved medical treatment"...The Food and Drug Administration statement directly contradicts a 1999 review by the Institute of Medicine, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific advisory agency. That review found marijuana to be "moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting."  Could you please explain how this is, as you claim, "irrelevant" synthesis? More to the point, could you explain how this has anything whatsoever to do with WP:MEDRS? Finally, why did you remove the sourced contradiction but leave in the FDA's statement? I think we both know the answer. The answer is, you did not read the source, you simply deleted it without even looking at it. But let's review the points under consideration:


 * The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not currently recognize any medicinal use of cannabis and it remains classified under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.  According to the FDA, "smoked marijuana has no currently accepted or proven medical use in the United States and is not an approved medical treatment".
 * Verified, unambiguous fact attributed to the FDA and the NYT.
 * However, the FDA's position contradicts the findings published by the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies. The Institute of Medicine published a review of the evidence in 1999 and found that cannabis was "moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting."
 * Verified, unambiguous fact attributed to the IOM and the NYT.

Now, what's so odd about this, is that you have included the FDA's position while ignoring the position reflected by the IOM. Both the FDA and the IOM position (and their contradiction) are cited by the NYT. In what appears to be a disingenuous attempt to remove this information, you claimed that it was "irrelevant". That's odd, since the material is entirely relevant to Brownie Mary's position, her legal battle, and her political campaign to legalize cannabis for medical purposes. Further, the sources on this subject have noted the relevance (Werner, C. A. (2001, March 4). "Medical Marijuana and the AIDS Crisis". J Cannabis Ther. (3/4): 17–33)  According to the timeline evidence presented by Werner, the IOM study itself appears to have been funded in response to the public's anger against the federal government's attempted crackdown on medical cannabis after California passed prop. 215. The DEA and other agencies threatened to go after any physician who prescribed a Schedule I drug like cannabis. When a class action lawsuit was filed against the government in response to their draconian pronouncement, a million dollars suddenly appeared to fund IOM study that looked at the scientific evidence for medical cannabis (contrary to what the FDA claimed), the results of which are cited. The NYT cites this material in full, there is nothing synthesized. Finally, nothing here goes against WP:MEDRS. One must wonder what you were hoping to achieve by deleting relevant, reliably sourced historical facts about the FDA, the IOM, and the history of medical cannabis. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, nice coat rack! I've explained it on the article Talk page. Your conspiracist "wonderings" are, as usual, a waste of time for everybody. Alexbrn talk 10:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no "coatrack" and there is nothing "conspriacist" at all in the above. Perhaps you should quit stalking other editors and making false accusations.  What you refer to as "conspiracist" is a paraphrase of the documented history of medical cannabis from Werner's 2001 article in the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics.  Once again, you are adept at making baseless accusations but completely unable to review and read the sources. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your conspiracism is about me, and you're doing it again ("stalking")! Anyway, I'm glad to see you've reduced the coatrack material a bit, despite the blast of hot air protesting nothing was wrong. Keep going. Alexbrn talk 08:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (Total stalker) Like the time, Alex, when you removed MEDRS material from the Lede to "Effects of Cannabis" because it wasn't covered in the body, while leaving stuff about liver damage from cannabis in the Lede, which also was not in the body. Then in a frantic maneuver, you inserted something about liver damage to the body in order to justify your move. You also made a lot of hot air and even threatened me with a 3RR violation, like we're in playschool or something. I had to speak up here, as I watch you accuse Viriditas while actually describing you own behaviour. NPOV is the biggest rule here, it trumps all others. I think it is important to point out that in the cannabis articles that you and Project Medicine have obsessed over for the past month, NPOV is sorely lacking and that fact should be a great concern to any Wikipedian.  petrarchan47  t  c   21:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're sincere. But unfortunately you're wrong. If you think something in the cannabis articles needs attention there are very many avenues to use (Talk pages, noticeboard, DR of various kinds). So why not use them? Alexbrn talk 02:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

TCM article
FYI, your comment reflects an innaccurate reading of this source.

Dr. Yu (20th century) decided to do cold extraction after reading Dr. Ge (4th century) saying Artemisia shouldn't be boiled (unlike most TCM herbs). (See other two sources that clarify. )

As with GERAC (which you thought was a pro-acu coatrack) and the Howick source there (that you thought was a legitimate indictment of GERAC), you're missing details and jumping to false conclusions. Slow down a little, OK? Nobody's forcing you to comment on stuff, so there's no rush. Besides, QuackGuru gets confused enough on his own, and doesn't need help (he cited your diff above). --Middle 8 (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've commented on this extraction method question for a couple of weeks (I've decided it's a trivial detail not worth huge debate). I'm not sure your reading is "accurate" while mine in "inaccurate". The cited source says that after reading a description in a book she decided to try another approach after finding that "traditional methods" were damaging the actual ingredient; the other salient points here (that modern purification and detoxification processes are needed) further show different this process is from folk medicine (and I see you've been removing these details). From the Science piece you link this is perhaps pertinent too:
 * Because - it is kind of lame propaganda to suggest that it is only because of the ancient wisdom of TCM that a researcher would think to try low-temperature extraction! The whole thing is rather ridiculous (and you have hinted with your "TCM ROX" comment). However, if you've found other sources which clarify the point then - great!
 * As to GERAC, the concern there (and in fact other editors raised the coat rack issue more than I did at the AfD) was the picking out of impressive-sounding details from the primaries to construct a coat rack of undue details: something which is still happening (but not for long?). Again, I've said my piece on this but decided to let it run because - nobody reads that article. Howick is good secondary commentary on GERAC and I think you misrepresent him by saying he dismisses sham controls. He does however say they are unlikely to have been useful for GERAC, as WP relates. I've been looking at his work more widely and his schtick seems to be that conducting effective trials (of any kind) is really hard in general. For GERAC Ernst, of course, also says the placebo methods used were problematic. Alexbrn talk 06:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

RE the leaky gut page edit
Hi Alexbrn,

I believe my edits make sense, in that they reference pubmed and a gastroenterology textbook and demonstrate that leaky gut, as far as the term goes, is equivalent to intestinal permeability (as noted, in fact, at the top of the existing article), and is an established biological fact. A sentence such as mine (with citations) noting the related science clearly belongs in a leaky gut article section called "Conceptual basis and background", especially since nowhere else in the article is any citation made referencing the proven nature and causes of intestinal permeability (aka "leaky gut"). As it exists now it is an article about what has not been proven, rather than what has been.

The QuackWatch reference, however, isn't relevant. It just makes a relatively emotional piece more so, and appears to be an advertisement for that website.

The primary issue, however, is that the article itself clearly needs to be renamed to "Leaky gut syndrome", and if the QuackWatch content stands then the term "leaky gut" in the sentence that mentions QuackWatch needs to be replaced with "leaky gut syndrome".

In addition to modifying the title of the current article a new article needs to be created for leaky gut/intestinal permeability and cover related issues like Crohn's disease, celiac disease, gliadin, zonulin, TNF, etc. Most of these related topics are noted on the leaky gut syndrome talk page...however there is a disconnect between the name of that talk page and the name of the article in question.

Until that new article is written "leaky gut" should simply be a blank placeholder, with a similarly blank placeholder for an "intestinal permeability" article and, probably, a disambiguation for "leaky gut" and "leaky gut syndrome".

Nakomajoe (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Nakomajoe


 * Hi! I agree the "dual" nature of this article is a problem (and have raised this before). Let us continue this discussion on the article's Talk page ... Alexbrn talk 06:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (Update) @ I have proposed a split along the lines you suggest. Alexbrn talk 13:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Kava soft drink manufacturers update
Alexbrn, I am not looking to get into any kind of a dispute with you over the edit of this category but I am looking to provide up-to-date, cited, verifiable, and neutral information. I have amended the edit to ensure it lies within all of wikipedia standards and am willing to work toward a compromise to advert escalating this any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B10A:B324:A46B:DD7D:79A6:8413 (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! You need to get consensus for your desired changes, starting perhaps at the article's Talk page. I have to say though, that in my view there is practically zero chance of there being agreement to add links to saltedboards.com and doctoroz.com - and if you continue to attempt to edit war this change in you are likely to find yourself blocked. Alexbrn talk 08:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply Alexbrn - as stated I am not interested in warring over this, just providing neutral, verified and up-to-date information. I believe citing a company that is current and relevant to the article only adds value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B10A:B324:A46B:DD7D:79A6:8413 (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you are edit-warring. I have requested page protection since you seem to have a dynamic IP. 09:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no edit warring. From Kava Talk reference it seems the consensus is users want more information on available brands. It is also notable to point out it seems you have had a history with this issue before as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B10A:B324:A46B:DD7D:79A6:8413 (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You have inserted the spam links three times now without discussion or consensus (and they are there now). Alexbrn talk 09:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: comment on Talk:German acupuncture trials and Circumcision and HIV
I am posting here as this references two articles and I do not wish to contribute to any kerfuffle on GERAC. Regarding your comments in diff, although your comment may have been a pointer to irony, I wholeheartedly encourage your efforts at Circumcision and HIV and would support a separate article if you thought it appropriate and were willing to write/create it. Regardless, I agree that the African trials warrant adequate and clear material on WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was being ironic :-) I think that the African trials would be much more worthy of a standalone article than GERAC: there's quite a lot of material on them: they have a significant ethical angle and have some detailed aspects which have attracted comment ... and of course big ramifications for public health policy. Overall though, I think its probably proportionate for WP to have a section on them with roughly the amount of material/detail that's there now (do you think there should be more)? - and as I said when I AfD's it, I believe GERAC also merits at most only an article section somewhere, not an entire article.
 * I raised this because I hoped it might prompt thoughts about how we could treat the GERAC trial details proportionately - though in GERAC's case it's harder because there isn't the mass of secondary commentary that exists for the African trials. Alexbrn talk 07:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. Although in principle I agree that GERAC might be handled proportionately by a section, it is precisely the mass of secondary commentary that establishes notability. WP is by no means perfect and we humble editors simply function within the policies and guidelines to make it the best it can be. Your acknowledgement of irony is appreciated. I think the African trials can be handled as a section, but if some additional commentary is available I urge its inclusion. It is particularly notable for its worldwide health impact and for the ethical implications. I would hope some RS has discussed the issue, esp. regarding implications and ethics. (disclosure: 6, 9 30, 35 with apologies and best wishes and something else clever ). - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * - sorry, I wasn't clear ... I meant the mass of secondary content on the trial details made it easier for me to include some African trial details with a clear conscience. I'm not sure the details of the GERAC trials have received similar secondary coverage (but let's see if new sources can be found); the biggest fallout from the trial setups seems to be that they stirred up the "placebo debate" a bit more. It seems the most significant reaction out of the African trials stem from the 2007 WHO/UNAIDS conference in Montreux, and at that point the article transitions out of "history mode" since this is where the main content takes up the narrative, in the Circumcision and HIV section. Alexbrn talk 12:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for edits on the page of - clinical trials on Ayurvedic drugs. It is people like you who give me strength to write on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Both of you do great work, and I'm lucky to work alongside you. Keep it up. bobrayner (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:German acupuncture trials
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:German acupuncture trials. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sonic weapon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tintin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Here is some nutritious protein to keep you going in your hard labors.

Lesion ( talk ) 02:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 


 * Consider having a look at Candidiasis. There is huge alt med activity promoting "candida diets". Wondering if you are interested in expanding this section at all? Lesion  ( talk ) 11:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Awww, sweet :-) Thanks. I might take a look at Candidiasis later. Thanks for paying attention to Leaky gut BTW - I think it's a topic area with some annoyingly slippery terminology in play so if we can settle this down it would be good. Alexbrn talk 11:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC:Google hits vs reliable sources
Not sure about edit conflicts....but I have formatted the page a bit...are you aware there is a "Survey" section? -- Moxy (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the formatting! I'll keep an eye on this and chip in again later maybe ... Alexbrn talk 08:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification
Hey Alexbrn, I mentioned you at the chiropractic talk page here. I am pretty sure that you were the editor who wanted to include some info from the Villanueva-Russell paper, and I think it was this discussion and the thread immediately following it where we formed a consensus for how to include it - after the long discussion about WHO. If I am mistaken then please disregard this. Puhlaa (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been a while - I'll take a look ... Alexbrn talk 21:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

With regard to your removal of a new entry on “Glossary of Alternative Medicine:”
Percutaneous Hydrotomy is a new non-surgical medical technology originated in France which gained acceptance in the French medical community in the late 1990s and now practiced by many doctors in different countries of the world. The International Association of Percutaneous Hydrotomy in Nice, France has a web site at www.hydrotomiepercutanee.com in French and English.

The available reference and source materials such as from ANAES (French national agency for healthcare accreditation and evaluation) are in French and this presents a challenge. Your suggestions for how to correctly address this will be greatly appreciated.

I realize now that any entirely new innovation or technology faces the challenge of proving itself where little history yet exists.

As someone who avoided major spinal surgery by the use of this alternative therapy I can personally attest to its effectiveness without the use of anti-inflamatories or anagesics. I hope Wikipedia will permit increasing general awareness of this new innovation in medical science.

Your advice and suggestions for how to improve the Wikipedia entry will be sincerely appreciated.

Respectfully,

Pierre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre Lepoureau (talk • contribs) 04:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! We need some reliable sourcing that describes it, which backs up the text on Wikipedia, and which shows readers that it gets coverage in secondary published sources. Alexbrn talk 06:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractic edits
Do you remember this discusion about the Villanueva-Russell paper here. Even though I disagreed with many of your edits that included the Villanueva-Russell paper; when QG tried to remove it I defended those edits because they were generated from discussion and consensus according to collaborative editing and wikipedia policy. Now you have made some major, controversial modifications to the lede, that you know I am going to disagree with - you have removed a source from the WHO from the lede (a international medical body) and replaced it with an NHS source specifically from the UK. Moreover, I noticed that you disregarded the very first sentence of the NHS report, which seems to quote the exact definition of chiropractic that you just removed from the lede; instead you have now started our lede with a critical comment about treating a range of diseases. You can see in [this thread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic#Edit_warning] that controversial edits are going to require discussion (per BRD). It would be a good sign of collaborative editing if you reverted your own very controversial changes to the chiropractic article and started a specific proposal discussion on the talk page so we can discuss the merits. The alternative is that I revert you per BRD, but I would rather not start the discussions that way. I will post at the talk page, but want to give you a chance to revert your changes first. Puhlaa (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's an improvement (surprise!), but am of source open to discussion. The WHO document is problematic (and now old), and presents an "idealized" version of Chiropractic which isn't really NPOV. Anyway, see you on the article talk page ... Alexbrn talk 16:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just so we are on the same ppage, I can live with your additpns to the body of the article. I will be wanting you to revert and discuss first the changes to the lede and the removal of the who source from the lede and where you removed it from the body. I have mentioned before, we can go to RS noticeboard to get consensus on the WHO source! We seem to have this same discussion repeatedly~ Puhlaa (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that's possible: anyway the article Talk page is the right place for discussion of this change, not my place! Alexbrn talk 16:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, I can stick to the talk page from now on :) Just wanted to give you a friendly heads-up of my concerns away from the zone of controversy.Puhlaa (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean, my Talk page is not controversial? ;-) Alexbrn talk 16:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

With regard to your removal of a new entry on “Glossary of Alternative Medicine:”
Thank you very much for your gudance and I will read the reliable sources quidelines to comply with the Wikipedia policies !! Pierre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre Lepoureau (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Cannabis
What would be best for our readers is what I am bringup at an informal Wiki-meet-up this coming weekend (about 10 of us Ottawa University)..The questions I will be asking the group about Cannabis are.... Should we just have the article at "Marijuana" as its clear the average person uneducated with the topic thinks this is correct? Or should we have it at the correct name to educate people off the bat? What is best to educate more....what would the average person search for....what would be the most direct way to the article? Do people skip over our article at Wikipedia called "Cannabis (drug)" in favour of the next article they see called "marijuana". Does the redirect of marijuana appear in the top 10 of search engines. Do we need to expand more on the terms because peoples understanding of why there is a difference between the terms is relevant (as in we have distinctions for stats, labs, researcher etc...)   How can this be worded so that a grade 5 student would understand? Would love any feedback you can give so I can bring it to the group anonymously. -- Moxy (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi - I hoped I had said my last on this. It all seems to be settling down now? For me the main argument is still the whole/part one. Alexbrn talk 04:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Alan Questel
Last August you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks - I have started an AfD. Alexbrn talk 18:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding false information to the Rolfing page
Tell me what you need, and I can provide it to you to help you see that what you are adding is actually false. Wikipedia is supposed to be accurate and not untruthful. Rolfing is not, nor has it ever been, massage therapy. It does not use massage techniques. Please stop putting that in there since it confuses people who want to learn more on what Rolfing is. It is structural integration, which is a completely different modality, like how chiropratic and accupuncture are different. Please help make sure Wikipedia is the best is can be by ensuring true and accurate information be provided to the users. Thanks. Sbwinter2 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BRD, which is a good approach to follow. You need to get consensus for these contested changes - please raise this on the article's Talk page if you are not satisfied with the current text. Alexbrn talk 21:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

 * Why thank you - yum :-)

Join the discussion
WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Likely socks, determined to force the edit; I somehow doubt discussion is going to help but let's see: good luck! Alexbrn talk 20:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru and WP:OWN
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the RfC and its links to earlier issues. I think we may have to show him the door. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn, I am taking a break from editing the chiropractic article. I am only commenting on the talk page. I want to know specifically if you think I should be banned. See Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Too much drama. I don't think I'd support you being banned. Alexbrn talk 12:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

ernst's contribution to the shiatsu page
The fact is many studies have been undertaken since 2011, and although the jury is still out, shiatsu is recommended in many hospitals around Europe (I cite Vienna General, and Athens General) and by the cancer society, so Ernst is reflecting only his personal views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankank (talk • contribs) 15:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're pushing a POV on the page and deleting good sources. And if you continue to edit war, there's a risk it will attract a block ... Alexbrn talk 15:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Shiatsu corrections
I guess you are enjoying this. You didn't see my remarks here because I forgot to put the tildes after signing. Be that as it may, the chage I propose are based on 1: facts and 2: more facts. Yes discuss the evidence for and against shiatsu but put them in a different section. You are pushing the views of Ernst who has done no research of his own. His cnclusion;s are not valid. Further the Cancer Society does approve of shiatsu even though it does not believe it offers any cure. Now if you want to dispute thes facts then do so, but you are not helping the page this way. And BTW what do have against presenting the history of shiatsu and naming its two principal creators?

ank____ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankank (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're likely to be blocked for edit-warring soon. I strongly recommend, if you want to continue editing, reading the linked pages from WP:5P and then, for Shiatsu, paying special attention to the WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS guidance. Alexbrn talk 16:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

COI acupuncture
Hi, I filed this re myself: WP:COIN. Hope you don't mind that I pasted in some of your comments from my talk page; I thought they were helpful. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 23:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem - should be interesting ... ! Alexbrn talk 08:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

On the merits
WP:IAD is starting to come into play, but your COI concerns don't justify ignoring the second sentence of WP:NPA: comment on content, not on the contributor. I'm tired of attempts to wrong-foot my comments based on my affiliation. I'm scrupulous about sourcing and policy, and I don't tendentiously make arguments that fall outside them, unlike, e.g., the silliness espoused by the thread-starter here, which turned MRDRS on its head and which was rightly rejected. Frequently, and I'm pretty sure more often than not, I'm not alone in making an argument, and those who agree with me don't have a potential or real COI. I've sought community input on the latter, and as far as I can tell, am proceeding as I should per community consensus. You may not agree with that, but it doesn't justify remarks like the one I just objected to, so please don't do that. If you have a problem with an edit or comment I've made, address it on the merits. All right? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 21:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Scrupulous"!!! How scrupulous was your recent RFC/U against QuackGuru? It seemed to contain some blatant & cavalier errors. You make money from acupuncture - how can you edit in this area and call for bans of your "opponent" editors with even a scintilla of a claim to ethical correctness? Sheesh. Alexbrn talk 21:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Pretty scrupulous, given the concerns about QG shared by Guy's JzG and Macon, and others unconnected with alt-med... Yes, I think Mallexikon screwed up the evidence and I shouldn't have co-signed without vetting it more thoroughly, and better evidence is needed -- and I suggest you find some for me if you want to press it -- but such evidence does exists for QG even though much was presented poorly in the RfC. Some kind of user conduct inquiry for him was inevitable, and unsurprising re the history. Tendentious editing and poor talk page conduct isn't the same as "not suffering fools gladly" and holding the line against alt-med POV pushing. If you think I'm doing that (TE and TPG vios), you have a responsibility to show evidence, same as for those who think QG's conduct is a problem, and I stand by the evidence I submitted.

You're ignoring points I'm making in my comments and just arguing. I asserted I'm scrupulous with sourcing and policy, and you respond by complaining about an RfC/U that's unrelated other than the fact that you're boomerang-ing. You complain about my making money from acu, but haven't made any case at all that this actually biases my edits, and I think my subject area knowledge and medical literacy are good for WP, and other editors have said the same. You don't think I should be editing. I get that. As far as I can tell, WP's standards aren't as strict, and I'm not bound to follow yours. (BTW, I'm on extended sabbatical from my practice for family medical reasons and make little or no money from it, but I've cued up my COI/N inquiry in more general terms because I think WP could use a more general answer.) Your standard for COI -- "Somebody heavily invested in a single procedure probably shouldn't be writing about it"  -- would exclude hand surgeons from writing about hand surgery. I don't buy it, and neither does global WP consensus.

Your choice to edit in subject areas you're not closely connected with creates the problem that sometimes you're in over your head and gloss over nuances. Acupuncture isn't the same as faith healing, and lots of acu'ists don't believe in a literal qi. We're smart enough to see that the map isn't the territory. Primitive cultures that believed a dragon periodically swallows the sun or moon could still predict eclipses. We use acu for pain and stress, applications that are obviously (per RS) accepted by a great many in the mainstream. The global dismissal of TCM by some editors, and hostility towards editors involved with it, reminds me of the responses to the guy posting as "Skeptical Acupuncturist" (with many of whose expressed views I agree) in this thread, which were knee-jerk, dickish and ultimately non-productive in promoting rational thought. See his comment #22:


 * "I’m clearly open to criticism, or I wouldn’t be posting here. But to dismiss my world as “total and utter nonsense” is unlikely to encourage me to consider finer points of persuasive argument. There are something like 28,000 acupuncturists in the USA now, and there are perhaps 10 who have spoken out critically and skeptically about the delusions and dangers in the TCM world, including Ben Kavoussi, George Ulett, Sabio Lantz, Felix Mann, and me. That’s about 0.03%. You may insult and dismiss me if it helps you avoid cognitive dissonance, but if you help me refine my critical thinking skills, make new observations about science-based medicine, or show some support for my attempts to expose the worst frauds and fallacies in The TCM/CAM world, it will probably reach more people who are making important decisions about their healthcare and sway them in the direction of science and skepticism."

When I end up opposing skeptic editors, it's usually because they're tending to take black-and-white positions like the people who responded to that guy. Which can be a result of thinking that just because of the qi thing, acu is as useless as crystal healing.

You're intelligent, and I enjoy conversations with intelligent people. I hope we can clear the air a little. There's no reason for hostility on either side. Nor am I hostile to QG; I just think his approach is disruptive. I'm certainly not trying to sideline him because of his views; you don't see me arguing for sanctions for any other skeptically-oriented editors. And what ever happened to focusing on RS rather than "views"? I don't mind if you need to boomerang if you're annoyed a/o if you think QG's conduct is that awesome, but you might consider the fact that multiple other editors have real issues with QG as well. Hope you have a good, de-stressing weekend. regards, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 00:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hand surgery is a diverse area so the parallel doesn't hold, what would parallel acupuncture was if there was a particular technique (injecting cement between joints to alleviate arthritic pain, to imagine something) which became controversial because some research queried its effectiveness or safety. A practitioner who performed just that procedure would be conflicted in writing about it. Alexbrn talk 07:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You made the same points on my talk page; there's obviously nothing more to be gained by further discussion and no point in even trying. Wikipedia won't be a better place by excluding people who know the profession from the inside and are science-literate and reasonable.  I think that's a pretty fair take on where the large majority of the community stands.  But I'll make a good-faith effort to verify that. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 10:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have a different view of WP than I do. Leaving acupuncture out of it, I sometimes feel the majority of my edits are pushing back on "insiders" trying to get their insider views into WP (often counter to independent RS). WP:COIU doesn't say COI-tainted editors should be excluded, but that their editing activities on affected articles should be limited. Alexbrn talk 10:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think WP has a lot of problems, but for COI, WP:COI (and COIU) are actually pretty good solutions. It's too bad there aren't comparably specific policies and procedures for other problems, including frank editorial bias (as opposed to just its potential) and other poor conduct that are tolerated as means if they're perceived as serving an end.  To the extent WP doesn't handle such things, it lacks integrity.  But it would be tu quoque for me to appeal to hypocrisy as an excuse to ignore WP:COI, and of course I won't.  I'll abide by COIN if my situation reaches that threshold per community consensus.  I hope you'll respect the latter, in contrast to the continued harassment promised here. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 10:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Rosen method
Why did you undo my other references? I added 3-4 reputable sources for Rosen Method. I don't understand why you are insisting on referring to quackwatch on this page. Quackwatch has attempted to "discredit" any number of alternative health method; why don't you go troll on page for yoga, for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etolpygo (talk • contribs) 20:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! Please see my response on the article talk page. Alexbrn talk 20:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the current version of the article. Etolpygo (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Vitamin D article
I have copied the entire conversation for your convenience.

Tb patients are deficient for Vitamin D. Reference: Srinivasan A, Syal K, Banerjee D, Hota D, Gupta D, Kaul D & Chakrabarti A (2013) Low plasma levels of cholecalciferol and 13-cis-retinoic acid in tuberculosis: implications in host-based chemotherapy. Nutrition 29, 1245-1251 Kirtimaansyal (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

- not a WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn : Sorry, but i could not get, how it is not a reliable source. It is a human study with concrete evidences. It has been published in Nutrition journal (Elsevier) with 3.1 impact factor(implying good reputation in the field). And most importantly it is the latest and have been accepted by peer reviewed process. i am the co-author in this article and sure of its experiments as i have my self performed them. So please clearly indicate how it is not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirtimaansyal (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Kirtimaansyal (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog gave some explanation and i agree to that. I got your point. In future i will not give primary source references alone. Thank you. Kirtimaansyal (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

russell's teapot
hi in my view russell's teapot is a great argument for stopping the efforts of someone else, to get you to believe or even spend time considering their unscientific proposition (e.g. that god exists). i don't see it is as an argument that one's equally unscientific opposite proposition (e.g., that god does not exist) is valid. the question of god's existence is not a scientific one. the point i was making to jps is that on the GERAC article, we are discussing something scientific (clinical trials of a health intervention) and that consistently interjecting his nonscientific proposition in various ways ("acupuncture will never be shown effective for anything") in a heavy handed way was a) POV-pushing and b) not helpful to reaching consensus on content. he wasn't hearing that. his choice!

The actual teapot is example is more interesting wrt to acupuncture, especially with today's astronomy technology. In the example of the teapot it goes beyond the data available to say either "there is a teapot" or "there is no teapot" - both are equally invalid from a scientific standpoint as we have no data at all. In a debate as to whether we should use public resources to try to falsify the hypothesis that "there is a teapot", the question that should drive that debate would be, "is there any utility to the public, in determining whether or not the teapot exists?" As to whether any individual engages in the effort to find it.. well that is a life-choice, something beyond reason.

Moving beyond metaphor. In my mind it goes beyond the data and is equally unscientific to say "acupuncture is effective for anything we use it on" and "acupuncture will never be found to be useful for anything." I think there is decent argument to be made, to spend public money on studies to determine if it is good for any specific thing (if only because a lot of people believe it, and it would be a public service to falsify the hypothesis). And again, whether any individual chooses to engage in that work, is a life choice.

As for the question that you raised, "is there even any scientific basis to understand why it might work?".... as i understand it, there are some hypotheses about that, that are being investigated. Qi and the TCM conception of the body are of course prescientific cultural artifacts and they have no place in even forming hypotheses. As I understand it the current hypotheses being investigated don't go there at all. So.. the answer to your question, as I understand it, is yes.

Summary - sweeping factual claims about most anything (not everything) are generally nonscientific as they will just about always go beyond what the data can actually support. when sweeping factual claims are made, especially fiercely, there is very likely to be a strong element of passion and belief driving it. Which has no place on Wikipedia as per WP:ADVOCACY

Thanks for listening! Interested in your response.Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Could the same argument be made for homeopathy? As with that, I'm not sure acupuncture is falsifiable in practice since however many studies there are showing it being equivalent (or nearly equivalent) to placebo there will be calls for more studies, and more money to fund further research so long as there is a sizable commercial community that benefits from this. With all these things: acupuncture, homeopathy, reiki, rife machines, etc. etc. I tend personally to lean to the view David Gorski has expressed that sees evidence-based medicine as having fallen into "methodolatry" which has been "blindsided" by CAM (see from about 28:30 here). However, Wikipedia of course can't limit itself to just that view. It's a difficult area but I am reasonably sure that if we abide carefully by WP:FRIND and avoid the WP:GEVAL fallacy then our articles will end up in at least approximately the right place. Alexbrn talk 15:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting point about EBM being blindsided by CAM. Like I said there are important public policy issues; we have limited research dollars and I would prefer that the vast plurality of them go to well-grounded fields.  And I think if you look at the NIH budget you will see that this is the case. I agree that CAM articles are a difficult area - we need to neutrally describe these alternatives but also make very clear where there is no scientific basis from which to reason that they could be effective.  Yep. They are really hard intellectually to work on, and the emotion involved is decidedly unproductive and frustrating to crafting appropriate NPOV language from the best sources we can find.  As far as I can see, on the acu pages, currently most of the POV-pushing "static" is coming from the those seeking to uphold wikipedia's science standards, which is kind of tragic.  As far as I have seen mallexikon and middle8 (especially the latter) have been pretty reasonable for the most part (not always).  i realize that you have been in the trenches in acupuncture for a long time (for which i am grateful, and i recognize that you may have been through a real grinder on some of this) so maybe they or others were doing more nefarious things a while back.  but jps and QB are reminding me a lot of how Viriditas was behaving on the March against monsanto article. really fierce, bold sweeping claims made, and somewhat arbitrary changes of position. (is the He source in or out??)  it is hard to work reasonably in the environment that this creates.  anyway thanks for talking... Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I'm only a "dipper in" to the acupuncture article, and agree the interactions there have been less than ideal. The RFC/U is especially problematic because - yes - there are difficulties with the user under discussion (as I mention here), but equally it sticks in the craw to see prosecutors largely composed of those with COI/advocacy issues themselves. The whole thing has been a big mess. Taking a wider view, WP:CPUSH is also big problem on Wikipedia in my view. I don't think things are as bad as they were on the MaM article, which is - I suppose - why no sanctions have been imposed yet. Alexbrn talk 16:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * amen brother. i had a bad CPUSH on the qigong article a couple of weeks ago. whew.  anyway, thanks again for talking. see you around! Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * this was for me a sanity check, by the way. i wanted to say what i saw and hear your reaction.  if you see me going off the deep end, btw, please throw me a rope!!  thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't imagine that - you are always buoyant :-) Alexbrn talk 08:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn, which editors signing under Outside view by Jojalozzo and Outside view by Guy Macon have COI/advocacy issues? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 10:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you've singled that section out (I didn't have it in mind). But anyway, I don't think this is a discussion that can be fruitfully pursued here. Alexbrn talk 11:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can discuss that someplace else; sorry if my commenting here was unhelpful. I'm curious about your conclusion that QG's critics in the current RfC are "largely composed of those with COI/advocacy issues themselves".  Feel free to comment on my talk page, or maybe I'll post at the RfC's talk page.  --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 19:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the 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 find a resolution. The thread is "Rosen Method_Bodywork". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  21:36, 26 February 2014 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. user:Etolpygo failed to notify you so I will. He has added you to the Edit warring an site. However he added his complaint above yours so it looks like he filed the complaint first. VViking Talk Edits 13:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate 3RRNB
Hi, I made a report six hours before you did. Since my report has comments from others, you probably want to merge your report into that. vzaak 15:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha - thanks! I have now merged 'em ... Alexbrn talk 15:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Osteopathy claims
In the Osteopathy article I noticed that you added "claimed" before "body's ability to heal itself". Body's ability to heal (and repair) itself is not controversial by itself, only the osteopaths' claims to affect the said ability. I hope I can convince you that the article is better off without that word :) H eptor   talk 21:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's extremely controversial - and absurd (can the body cure itself of Parkinson's Disease? Cancer?) ... and is the central point of dispute raised by Quackwatch, as we relay in the OMM article. We should not be making a blanket statement that the body has "an ability to heal itself" in Wikipedia's voice. Alexbrn talk 21:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh well, it seems you want to edit war rather than discuss ... Alexbrn talk 21:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that you answered, sorry. Still, I think the "edit warring" notice that you left on my page is a bit too much. It appears that we have a dispute about semantics. I think the statement that "the body has an ability to heal and repair itself" does not imply anything about the scope of the said ability. Just as saying that "I can juggle" does not imply that I can juggle elephants. I'm going to open up this discussion on the talk page, maybe other editors are willing to contribute. H eptor   talk 21:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence in the lead does sound weird in Wikipedia's voice. The sentence is technically correct, it's just that the terminology is awfully unspecific. If there were alternative mechanics who claimed that they were enlightened about the relationship between the air and the fuel, and that they could therefore improve the acceleration by massaging the tires, there wouldn't be an easy way to describe that in Wikipedia's voice either. H eptor  talk 22:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Bowen Therapy edits
Hi Alex,

I see you've repeatedly deleted my updates to this page without explanation, or specifics on which part you disagree with. The information in this page is not only outdated, but it is biased negatively. Further, the page as it stands has poor sources which I can not corroborate. I am not a Bowen practitioner, my intention is to get unbiased, neutral information on this modality to the public. My sources are valid and verifiable. Please be more specific on exactly what parts of my edits you have an issue with. Your repeatedly deleting the entire edit with vague rationale will likely result in an edit-war (which you seem to have a history of with other people on similar sites), and suggests you have the intention of maintaining a non-neutral perspective, and inaccurate information on this modality. Can you please provide exact details with each of my edits so that we can proceed with updating this page? Kind Regards.
 * Hi! The place to discuss this is the article's Talk page, and the onus is on you to make the case for your edits. See you there! 14:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Tumor Treating Fields
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tumor_Treating_Fields#Adding_link_to_Novocure Hello, I'm sorry I forgot to include a comment with my edit, but will include one now. The link to novocure is appropriate in this article as they make the product that is being discussed. See first sentence in article. I posted about this link on the talk page about 3 weeks ago and no one has commented. If you want to remove the link PLEASE POST ON THE TALK PAGE. thanks 66.245.21.131 (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! I've removed the link and commented on the article Talk page ... Alexbrn talk 06:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

== Please comment on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ==

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — 10.4.1.125 (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Top medical editors

 * Wow thanks! I'm not sure whether to feel pleased with the award or sad at this showing there are not many more better contributors ... More editor power would be good ... Alexbrn talk 20:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration
Hi, I just want to let you to know I am requesting arbitration for fair resolution of the current editing dispute on Daniel Amen.

Thanks, 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You should probably read WP:DR. But before that, WP:5P and then especially WP:MEDRS & WP:FRINGE if you want to edit Amen's articles in line with Wikipedia norms. Alexbrn talk 22:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is the arbitration link: #Request for arbitration re inappropriate editing of leads on Daniel Amen article

Notice of mediation

 * Instead I am starting with mediation, I have named you as a party in this case. Here is the link to the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Daniel_Amen You might also want to check your Wikipedia related email.


 * Thanks,


 * Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edit
Hi, I noticed that your recent reversion to Chemtrails conspiracy theory DIFF removed properly sourced material and re-introduced material unsupported by sources. This was probably done in error without checking the source however this is being done repeatedly. Please use care in reverting material and remove un-sourced material rather than re-introduce it simply because you do not like it. If you have a concern, please discuss it on the talk page prior to reverting. Thank you.Johnvr4 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no need to discuss before reverting a bad edit. Alexbrn talk 20:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A pattern of removing my edits because you don't like them, or because I did not obtain your prior approval are illegitimate edits. The 3RR rule and Edit warring do not apply to edits that violate other policy such as vandalism or repeatedly reintroducing the same poorly sourced or unsupported material.  While I am not accusing mal-intent, and assuming good intentions the situation is that your edits are introducing material that is not supported and there is a pattern of the reintroduction of the same material.  This is the reason I have provided an edit warring notice to you.  There is already a discussion about this edit on the talk page.  Please consider joining it.  You have previously expressed a POV for which there is no source.  Your recent edit and the reason for reverting my edit reflect that POV.Johnvr4 (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also point out that your edit inserted a faulty definition of chemtrails in the first sentence that does not contain the word contrail or even normal contrail. "The chemtrail conspiracy theory posits that some trails left by aircraft are chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed in the sky for purposes undisclosed to the general public and directed by various government officials." Concensus was not reached to use this definition.Johnvr4 (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's best to keep discussion about the article to its Talk page. Alexbrn talk 11:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring notice
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Chemtrail conspiracy theory. 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. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnvr4 (talk • contribs)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * After one edit? This looks like a WP:POINTy notice ... Alexbrn talk 20:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnvr4 (talk • contribs)


 * Alexbrn, I'm less sure it's Pointy than an issue with a CLUE deficit. I'm thinking towards the later. Second Quantization (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

CS
Just to let you know that I've moved the sentence "Several scholars ... continue to view it as a cult" to a footnote for now. Once the talk page calms down, if it ever does, we can think again how to handle it, but for now it seems like a major distraction over a minor issue. Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's an over-focus on labels. I wonder whether things will ever "calm down"! Alexbrn talk 15:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Wiki article on Max Gerson
Hi Alexbrn,

This is regarding the article on Max Gerson - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Gerson (which seems to have ended up being a wiki article on Gerson therapy)

The article seems to be one sided, rather than being balanced, showing both - the current view of the main stream medical community (which is also reflected in most research) and the other views on this therapy (alternative medicine)

Hence I have attempted to make relevant edits.

Do let me know if you feel things should be done differently.

Notthebestusername (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't want to WP:GEVAL, we should use WP:MEDRS sources for health claims and the WP:LEDE should summarize the article body rather than have its own distinctive material. Your edit was problematic in these terms I think - but if you disagree please start a discussion on the article's Talk page ... see you there! Alexbrn talk 08:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Purinergic signalling
The page is undergoing a major revision, so please wait until it's over before making edits. Thank you. -A1candidate (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well be careful, as it is you've junked some of my improvements, including fixed errors in the Adenosine and Pain reference (which, BTW, doesn't support the text - I'll just fix this up and then leave you to it for a bit). Alexbrn talk 13:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (Add) Hmmmmm. I see you've reverted to imply that the acupucture/mouse experiments cited in the Adeosine book don't just apply to mice (and you've put them in a section on "Therapeutic intervention" when they're just "experiments"). On what basis? Alexbrn talk 14:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reply
But I did find another source for a similar insurance claim. It is not exactly the same statement. The text is indeed non-controversial when found in another source. I recently found this too.

However, because of the outcome of these trials, in the case of the other conditions, insurance corporations in Germany were not convinced that acupuncture had adequate benefits over usual care or sham treatments.[5] QuackGuru ( talk ) 08:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Reversion
Hi, I noticed that you've removed my tag that certain material is in dispute. Can you please open a dispute resolution notice board topic if you have finished discussing this sentence disagreement rather than reverting my small change. I don't feel it would be of benefit to tag the whole entry as disputed as that sentence only needs some minor tweaks. My efforts at fixing it were also reverted. There is no consensus to keep it and there is no consensus to leave it. We have a larger content dispute and this is only a tiny part of it. Why do you feel my tag was tendentious tagging? It has not been resolved. Is it inappropriate? ThanksJohnvr4 (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. One editor does not have a right to have tags stay in place in an article until it is resolved to their sole satisfaction. This wording has been discussed on the Talk page before and there is no consensus there's a problem that needs resolving. That is the correct place to discuss it should you wish to raise it again. Alexbrn talk 04:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to raise it again on the talk page unless it is to respond to a concern or comment. I don't think the statement is accurate, and further, it's not in the cited source. I've said so in discussion and have nothing to add to the talk page disagreement at this time.  The discussion has not resolved it. If you are unwilling to make a minor compromise or talk about it, then we are still in disagreement and there should be an indication of that dispute on the main page and that indication should direct editors to discuss it in a particular section of the talk page.  That discussion is already opened and is still taking place. My request to determine consensus was ignored. There is no consensus to leave it and from the above comment, no consensus to change it.  We still have a content dispute.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussions about content need to take place on the article's Talk page; consensus-forming requires participation. If we discuss it here we're leaving people out. Alexbrn talk 16:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your last discussion of this particular issue was 28 January 2014 while you last edit of the material in dispute was on April 1. You aren't participating in the discussion any longer.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My view hasn't changed, and the consensus seems solid. Quite frankly, it's hard to work out what's happening on the Talk page anyway with your many content edits there revising the content. I suggest if you want to change something say briefly, in a new section, exactly what it is that is proposed, and why, and using what sources. Alexbrn talk 14:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like not to war with you over pedantry.
How can I address your concerns over the Lipoic Acid article?Khimaris (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Follow WP:MEDRS and WP:STICKTOSOURCE (if that isn't too much wiki-jargon). Alexbrn talk 20:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I fully understand MEDRS. I simply question the way you are wording the article. And I would suggest that you stick to the source yourself...Khimaris (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll know then that Cochrane reviews are updated, so calling it a "2004 review" as well as being bad style for medical articles, is not really correct. And "howevering" it with unsourced qualification is a big no-no ... Alexbrn talk 21:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you continually refuse to simply state that there were no trials run. That is the complete substance of the article as it was presented. There are no listed MEDRS rules that state the language must confirm to the way that you've used it. None whatsoever! Secondly, a simple search on pubmed will reveal that there ARE in fact trials of lipoic acid with dementia patients. The Cochrane source, that was only updated in 2008, is outdated and either should be removed, qualified to confirm to it's outdatedness or the new trials should be posted as. I really don't like fighting over such simple things. There must be some solution that doesn't involve you getting everything you want. Khimaris (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Cochrane's plain language summary: "No evidence of efficacy of alpha lipoic acid for dementia". A significant finding (especially in light of how this supplement is promoted). If good evidence emerges, the secondaries (like Cochrane) will be sure to follow and then WP can relay that information. Alexbrn talk 21:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it unreasonable to say that Cochrane's review of the literature did not find a any trials? Honestly this is a simple question that can be answered in a sentence or two. Please address this issue.Khimaris (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the 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 find a resolution. The thread is "Lipoic acid". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  00:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Reorganize mindfulness articles?
Hi Alex. You seem to be an active editor on these articles, so I was wondering what you'd think about reorganizing them a bit. Right now there seems to be confusing overlap. It seems like the most common usage of "mindfulness" in the popular media and scientific literature is "mindfulness meditation" in conjunction with the usage of "mindfulness" as a concept to mean attention to the present moment — thoughts, sensations, and physiological state. The usage of the term is almost exclusively secular. I was thinking we could consider something like this:


 * Mindfulness
 * Mindfulness (Buddhism)
 * Mindfulness meditation
 * Mindfulness-based stress release
 * Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy

The current Mindfulness article would become "Mindfulness (Buddhism)", the current "Mindfulness (psychology)" article would become "Mindfulness." And we'd add a "Mindfulness meditation" article that would comprise content that's now a bit haphazardly spread among other articles and would focus on the secular practice, including the burgeoning body of research and popular interest. (Mindfulness as a religious practice is simply part of the Buddhism umbrella.) What do you think? TimidGuy (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really have much involvement in these, but from memory it seems that the psychological varieties were independent of religion, and this was a key distinction made in RS. I suppose the secular/religious divide would be useful to keep however the articles end up being arranged ... Alexbrn talk 11:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think as a first step I'll create an article on the secular practice of mindfulness meditation, which has become quite popular and for which there is quite a large body of research. TimidGuy (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Seahorse
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Seahorse. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Apology
Hi! Just wanted to apologize for my edit summary here. Just read it again, and noticed that it sounds kinda rude. I meant to say that, if you don't like my wording, please change to wording that you find suitable. Sorry I wrote in haste and not too carefully, I didn't mean to be brusque .... Bestest, Darx9url (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No probs - I think your revised edit improved the text usefully! Alexbrn talk 13:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

following me around?
you want me to do the same? or do you think there are other editors who can start reverting if they disagree... or you think you are the guardian for the whole subject topic... 178.221.220.214 (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's called a WP:watchlist. You are adding bad / irrelevant material in multiple places. Alexbrn talk 07:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * sure: one, two, three, many... oh wait, one, many! good counting! :P 178.221.220.214 (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I just realized you don't even read my changes, but revert by automatism! good work! keep on!!! 178.221.220.214 (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You "realize" wrong; meanwhile you've left the articles you've touched in need of attention to remove off-topic content. We shouldn't include general information about cancer and diet in altmed articles. Alexbrn talk 09:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

cherrypickin
half of the refs there are 15 years old — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.15.99 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So it's good to add more and make things worse??? Don't think so. Alexbrn talk 19:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * what is your problem? find more recent one contradicting that 'old' one.. if you can't that only makes the study more relevant and time resistant. i went now through a number of med related articles, and ALL of them have so many 'old' citations... you are twisting the wp:medrs. read it over, and discuss with people who understand it better... 109.93.15.99 (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That last one you added looks quite good! If you remove the ancient ones and keep that, the article will be improved. Alexbrn talk 19:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * cornell study is a very famous study, it is useful to be mentioned... 109.93.15.99 (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

William Coley reversion
Dr. Coley has been accused of all sorts of quackery, even by the Journal of the AMA, which later reversed itself, 4 decades after the fact and with the damage done to Dr. Coley's reputation. Would you please explain your "poorly sourced" in relation to the Medical Journal of Australia's respected MJA InSight. It is distributed to the largest database of health practitioners in Australia: https://www.mja.com.au/insight/about-us And also the journal Cancer Research, est. 1941, so that this edit can correct the record of Dr. Coley's achievements on the Wikipedia page devoted to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchellian (talk • contribs) 22:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion of the article content should take place on its Talk page - see you there! Alexbrn talk 23:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

 * yum - thanks! Alexbrn talk 11:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Not appropriate EL"?
Hi Alex - Could you please give me a link to the Wikipedia policy which supports your comment that the external link "Free resources for Mindfulness Meditation from the UCLA Mindful Awareness Research Center, including guided meditations" is not appropriate to the article Mindfulness meditation? Thanks; Leo LeoRomero (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The guidance is WP:EL. I think providing a link to an organization's audio "meditations" isn't quite encyclopedic - and even if it were, I'm not sure any one organization's collection of material should be privileged by having an external link to it. Alexbrn talk 06:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alex. Best we continue our discussion on Talk:Mindfulness meditation. See you there! LeoRomero (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see you've just restored your content on the grounds I didn't "respond" to you (for what - 2 whole hours?). WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Alexbrn talk 09:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. link to incident


 * Seriously? Alexbrn talk 09:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring
It seems silly to warn after one reversion but OK if you want the same applies. Hi! I noticed you made a load of edits to Chemtrail conspiracy theory which I reverted because they adversely affected the neutrality of the piece. You then simply reinstated them. Rather than do that, you should (as you know) discuss the disputed changes on the article talk page. Just reverting rather than discussing is (the beginning of) edit warring, and is likely to attract a sanction.Johnvr4 (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? I don't think you understand. Edit warring is repeatedly changing to a preferred version of an article. You have started along this path by now twice performing edits to make Chemtrail conspiracy theory as you want it (not neutral, watering down the fringeiness of it). This is the start of edit warring; your second edit came within seconds and without discussion. My single revert to the stable version (11 days with no substantive edits) is not edit-warring, but simply part of the normal editing cycle, as described in WP:BRD. Note BRD, not BRR. Given the damage you've wrought, it would be acceptable for me to revert again for the greater good of the encyclopedia: we don't want non-neutral articles facing our readers. However, since this is a fairly quiet article I'll wait: I am sure another neutral-minded editor will be along at some point who will have the same kind of concerns as me. Alexbrn talk 06:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That my edit was without discussion is ridiculous. I am not sure how you can even say that with a straight face given the enormous amount of discussion I have have on this topic. Your accusations and false perception of "not neutral, watering down the fringeiness of it" is a straight up lie.  I feel that you are making the article worse and your lack of discussion and response to these concerns proves this. You reverted my edit without reading it and you did not discuss it or open a talk section to discus it prior to the reversion. The stable version is not 11 days ago it is the one before you and others insisted on reverting each of my edits and upon abusing sources -which continues.  If you have a VALID point to make please do so in the discussion about this reversion.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Case in point: . I have warned you about inserting fringe POV stuff. And this "justification" for a concern is beyond comprehension. "This would accord, I think, with the David Icke chemtrail view, that it's ultimately the reptoids who are directing this operation (the government are just pawns)"
 * Really? Why is this person notable? Why is his view notable? Why do we need to remain consistent with it? I thought we were discussing a topics discussion in mainstream media- specifically whether a USAToday source supports the view (or statement as fact) that all mainstream media on the subject is presented in terms of "anti-government 'paranoia.'" I really hope this is some joke you are trying to make.  I don't get it.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just an intriguing aside really, to illustrate the point that there are chemtrail conspiracy theorists (and Icke is the King of Conspiracists) who aren't from the US and so don't think it's all the "US govt's" doing. But the substantive point is we have a strong source saying it's "forces unknown" - so we must not assert that every believer thinks it's the govt's doing. Alexbrn talk 17:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That was an incredibly awful way to make the point that the U.S., U.K., and Canadian governments have all been implicated in various theories that all emanate from releasing their own declassified documents. To entertain your illustration, the view in your point seems to offer agreement with some gov involvement in relation to chemtrails (or ufos). A ufo involvement in chemtrails appears to be a minority view even for him.  The statement is not about whether chemtrails believers are paranoid-delusional (they are) or whether they have a king or whether we need to respect some minor part of that kings minority view (We don't).
 * We are now talking about are the admittedly limited examples of the mainstream media's approach the subject in terms of "anti-gov 'paranoia'" with one specific article in USAToday as an alleged example for a statement by James/Knight about all mainstream media.  Can you re-state your concern and be sensible with your illustrations? They don't come across well.  Please see the CIA section and COLD WAR (last two) sections of the James/Knight book for the roots of contemporary conspiracies (especially the US ones) and after doing so comment on the entry talk page on Gov suspicion or gov mis-turst or Gov suspicion as opposed to anti-Gov "paranoia" (a medical diagnosis).  The release of declassified documents and mainstream media coverage of them included involvement of and revelations by the governments of US, UK, and Canada in cold war test programs from which the various conspiracy theories emanate.Johnvr4 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The believers simply dont't have a coherent set of beliefs, so we need to avoid making out they do ("mistrust of government"). The Icke faction seem to think the reptoid overlords are geo-engineering the earth to turn it into a more reptile-friendly environment, and govt. is powerless to stop them. Still, this is only what I can glean from the primary sources (not an avenue I want to travel down too far) ... it hasn't hit the secondaries, yet. As for paranoia - we could put it in quotation marks to mirror the source (I'll suggest this on Talk). Alexbrn talk 19:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring #2
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Pulse (legume). 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. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.32cllou (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!
Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.
 * Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
 * You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with   with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
 * You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
 * We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
 * Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
 * Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
 * To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
 * To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
 * You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.
 * You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.
 * You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation!  D ip ta ns hu Talk 12:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)