User talk:Bon courage/Archive 6

Dispute resolution link re: Myofascial Release
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 this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Myofascial_release".The discussion is about the topic Myofascial release. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memtgs (talk • contribs) 07:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

removal of restructuring and additions regarding the article "Warburg effect"
Why were the changes removed, before they were completed, without any comment or discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellomino (talk • contribs) 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi! There was a comment: "sources fail WP:MEDRS". Please read WP:MEDRS. And please also continue any further discussion at the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Turmeric edits
May I ask why my latest edit on the article on turmeric was reversed? Thanks for your time. New to editing Wikipedia. 99.33.66.112 (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For deleting well-sourced content and making undue additions. You are also edit warring, which may lead to the article being protected. Kindly continue any further discussion on the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International System of Units
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International System of Units. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory's?
You like photography? I have plenty of pics I would like your opinion on. Please how can I send them to you? DBLUF (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't. Alexbrn (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is that?DBLUF (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Oh cause you haven't a clue what your talking about. Gease for having a degree in philosophy you'd think your mind would be open to anything especially if you have an opinion on a subject. DBLUF (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC) So tell me oh wise one. I have all the time in the world to listen to you dumbing down chemtrails. Have you personally tested the air, water,and soil before and after it rains? Why don't you head out to the Central Valley CA before you put your opinion about this matter ever again. I'd love to see the look on your face when you see your own results for the first time. Stop misinforming people until you have conducted actual tests and investigated every aspect of this "conspiracy theory" DBLUF (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Huh oh someone knows better. DBLUF (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Cloud seeding and chaff are real, but contrails are just water vapor produced by the burning of hydrocarbon jet fuel, like a large scale version of when you can see your breath on a cold day (it is always cold 30,000 feet up even in California). I don't know what you are testing, but the fact that rain can carry air pollution to the ground (or otherwise interact with or alter air pollution) is not evidence of some secret spraying. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please how do I upload lab results and endless photos I have personally taken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBLUF (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Have you tried Pinterest? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 22:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not post to my Talk page again. Alexbrn (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Military Sealift Command
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Military Sealift Command. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing my edit history
I noticed you're going through my edit history on other pages because we are having a disagreement about the Effectiveness section on the Atkins diet page. I'm actually a nice person :) I hope we can come to an agreement together about the Atkins diet page and not make this disagreement personal. Dbhall2 —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing's personal, but I am sure you agree that Wikipedia should be editing according to its WP:PAGs, by everyone. Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Learning
Dear Alexbrn,

Thank you for your guidance. I kept losing my browser and re-entering the edits I had made. It was not an easy introduction, although it seemed like it would have been quite simple.

I will follow your advise and see if I can resolve the issues I have with the page I was editing. It just appears that the entire section on The Feldenkrais Method is missing current studies, from the National Institutes of Health and elsewhere, which I had researched and cited. Instead, it actually misconstrues the method entirely. Out of respect to the person who had already written about the method, I was careful not to eradicate his/her current research, while adding some balance to the extremely biased account currently available on the Feldenkrais Method.

As a High School Language Arts teacher, copy writer, and editor, I was disheartened to see that none of my edits remained.

Thank you for the education, and I'll see if I can learn how to use Wikipedia in line with the expectations of the system.

I imagine I am messaging you incorrectly, and probably publically. Oh well.

Best, HDMotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by HDMotion (talk • contribs) 00:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

HDMotion (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Yup discuss article content on the article's Talk page. As ever, the WP:PAGs apply and for this particular topic WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE are important ones. Alexbrn (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

For your reference
Hey Alexbrn, Feel free to delete this if you wish after reading as it's really for your reference: I've looked into the SSB organization and I believe their internal handbook/operations manual is available online somewhere, Further I know many people who have been part of their work - it's not really a cult because: -they do not solicit donations (even from their members) -they do not active proselytize for their group or Sai Baba -they do not require or push people to become members -they do not require/ask people to cut off ties with family/friends -they do not ask people to believe in Sai Baba over their own God (Jesus, Allah, Krishna, etc.) -they do not claim to have exclusive knowledge of the truth They do however do thousands of service projects every week all over the world.

As for the two articles Movement/Organization (also ): Looking at the two articles - I think if done well, the two articles could likely be combined into one, though they are technically different things. Since WP:NOR does not apply to this space, I'll share some basic factual information: Generally with this group - people are not required to join or contribute to his organization, even those who join don't have to contribute and resultantly you have many people both believers and non-believers who are technically part of the "movement" he started (for example volunteers in the free hospitals and clinics, schools based on the human values model of his schools, charitable activities, etc.) some of these people are very committed to these activities, but are not members of his organization (some are not believers in Sai Baba as well) - they simply like the projects. The major endeavors are put on by his organization but in some cases they are not and do not bear his name (particularly the education modeling area). Objectiveap (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You piqued my interest, so I did a library search. It seems a scholar who has written on this organization and published in strong RS is Lawrence A. Babb, who seems to take it as given that this is indeed a cult (see e.g. here). There also seem to be a lot of hits to news coverage about scandals around pedophilia and sexual molestation, which aren't really covered in our articles. So it looks as if the neutrality noticeboard has some work to do to sort this topic out. I shall prepare a post for it - please continue the discussion there. Alexbrn (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Babb is, in fact, the source we've been discussing from the beginning and the one cited in the article. It's 35 years old and who knows if he even still considers it a cult given the developments since then. The molestation allegations are certainly in the wiki article and have been debated over for years if you look at the history, no charges were brought and it was never proven, but some believe the testimony, others say that there are groups that will say or do anything to try to defame him, which they say easily includes lying and making up or twisting stories, and this argument is also plausible, because Sai Baba in their mind threatens their religious beliefs and/or they became angry with him. If you keep researching the organization/movement that has come up around him and dig deep enough you will eventually realize it is not a cult for the reasons I already mentioned to you. His organization's schooling system is being modeled by European and American schools 1, and have provided education with no tuition fees to 1000s of people (many who were too poor to afford it), his hospitals do I'm told 5,000 free heart surgeries every year, over 1000 of his centers worldwide do 1000s of service projects every week. His organization is responsible for the daily providing of clean drinking water to literally millions of people. Despite the criticism, he is fairly universally regarded (even by critics) as a great philanthropist and adored by millions, many of whom are very intelligent people, as a spiritual leader or even incarnation of God. It is quite the fascinating subject. A dismissive term like 'cult' doesn't apply here. Objectiveap (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your personal view/speculation doesn't count; what matters is what sources say. Digging a little further we have Chryssides, George D.. Exploring New Religions, Bloomsbury Publishing, 1999.:
 * We should be reflecting what strong RS (like this) says. Alexbrn (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm only giving you background information, so that you have some education level before trying to dictate policy about whether to call this group a cult in a main heading. What goes in the article is based on RS of course, I do not plan to violate WP|NOR in articles, however it's useful to be shared freely here where WP|NOR does not apply. I hope you are aware your digging is likely biased as I can tell you are using the word "cult" as a search term. When you do not use that word as a search term, you will not find much about it, it is not generally characterized that way in common parlance by relevant RS. Do you notice the language above, how he doesn't actually call it cult. Overall, it is a stretch (in my opinion completely uninformed) to call this organization a cult in the modern times and in common parlance for reasons I've already shared and a few more below - sharing characteristics with a cult but not having enough of them to outright call it one means it doesn't go in the heading - the heading is for objective undisputed facts - it goes in a more subtle section. As mentioned you could call Christianity a cult by many (if not all) of the same measures. Whether you believe in Sathya Sai Baba and want to say "He is believed by millions to be God" in the heading or if John Smith (or in this case an unnamed IP Address) does not believe and wants to call it a "cult" to defame him; while both can be ascribed to some kind of RS, it doesn't mean it goes in the HEADING, Can you find an RS factually saying "he is not 'believed by millions to be God'" because there are plenty of RS that do. Whatever our personal sense of what the phenomenon of Sai Baba is, wikipedia is about objectivity. This is one of the most major, fascinating, developments in modern times relating to people's views on religion/spirituality and framework of living and thinking - a boy born in a village there isn't even a drivable road to and doesn't even appear on postal maps - stays in that village (for the most part) and yet grows to become a figure who world leaders, highest level celebrities, supreme court justices, and people from all over the world have the highest respect for and many worship. These people are not rabbits they aren't idiot sheep, they've reached the highest spheres in the world and they have great respect for Sai Baba and his movement. Look at the CIA report on Sai Baba, their intel suggesting when it was written (who knows what they think now) his movement (they don't call it a cult) is set to become another major world religion. Do you get the point I'm making here? Best Regards. Objectiveap (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We simply reflect what's in decent sources. You are writing lots of words but producing nothing useful for our purposes - more decent sources, particularly those considering the cult question, which are on point. So far as I can see, independent scholars see this movement as a cult, or at least as cult-like. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The CIA Document is not useful? The NY Times is not useful? The BBC is not useful? The Telegraph is not useful? The Times of India is Not useful? Time Magazine is not useful? etc. etc. etc. How many sources would you like? Do an unbiased (without the word cult in it) search on any source list and see what you come up with... majority do not refer to or regard it as a cult. I've done this on questia and on google and searched through all the things that came up (first 10 pages of google) and first ten relevant sources on questia. I posted those completely unbiased results on the talk page on the article. This is repeatable by you or anyone and NONE of them call it a cult. Objectiveap (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * University Press scholarly books are at the top of the quality tree. Other sources may be useful but you cannot base content on what they don't say. For the cult question we really need sources that weigh the matter, as the Chryssides source does above. Alexbrn (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Other sources most certainly are useful. And yes, people who weigh in on it in a scholarly way are definitely useful, those specifically addressing the criteria of what a cult is and whether particular organizations apply are hard to find, however. Headings must be handled with care. I just looked up the Thomas Jefferson article, nothing about him being a rascist in the heading, though many RS assert him as one. The bottom line is that it's not a majority RS opinion. It is not a fact. It's at best debatable, the passage you cited deliberately didn't call it a cult. It should not be in the heading. Objectiveap (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE is never a good argument. Focusing on scholars specialising in NRMs, I see David C. Lane has written an essay. Could maybe be useful as a self-published expert source per WP:SPS. Anyway the question is whether the movement is a cult, you seem over-focused on the dead leader. Alexbrn (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Two things to note here. He doesn't refer to it as a 'cult' in the article! But he does refer to Sai Baba as a "Spiritual Leader" (my contention of a good description, so he's agreeing with me). And two it's a skeptics website (self-published) not an RS in my opinion. Once again the source you are citing never actually calls it a cult; It's likely you can find some that do somewhere, but it is not generally done by RS and should not be done by Wikipedia in the heading. Objectiveap (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Two things to note here. He doesn't refer to it as a 'cult' in the article! But he does refer to Sai Baba as a "Spiritual Leader" (my contention of a good description, so he's agreeing with me). And two it's a skeptics website (self-published) not an RS in my opinion. Once again the source you are citing never actually calls it a cult; It's likely you can find some that do somewhere, but it is not generally done by RS and should not be done by Wikipedia in the heading. Objectiveap (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please make any further contribution on the articles' Talk pages. Alexbrn (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Vegetarianism article
Hi, Alexbrn. I think you are still watching the Veganism article. But are you still watching the Vegetarianism article? I'm asking because I recently saw this edit and that no one seemed interested in reverting it. I do see that the addition was tweaked. You have been good at scrutinizing such edits and are a help on these matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I blanked my watchlist a few months ago in an effort to bring it to heel - I'll take a look. Alexbrn (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I've thought about blanking my huge watchlist instead of editing it, but there are so many articles that I need to keep on it. Anyway, thanks for taking a look. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

stop edit warring on kratom
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kratom. 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 that 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.Stop taking ownership on kratom article. You and your three cohorts, if some of you are not socks, are now the minority. Next action will result in reporting.Ptb011985 (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Editing on Sathya Sai Baba Page
Your source to show that Sathya Sai Baba is a "cult leader" is not accurate as the new article is biased. Sathya Sai Baba is known as a spiritual leader and NOT a cult leader. His Organisations in India and around the world are spiritual organisations and NOT cult organisations. Refer to definition of cult: a religious group, often living together, whose beliefs are considered extreme or strange by many people. Sathya Sai Baba movement is NOT a religious movement, it is a spiritual movement which believes in the Unity of all faiths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyanaidu3715 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please discuss article content at its Talk page - or in this case in the ongoing discussion at WP:NPOV/N. Please also be aware of WP:SPA and maybe WP:SOCK. Alexbrn (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

?
Not sure you meant this... Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoops no. Sorry must still be half asleep! Alexbrn (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Antipsychotics - long-term treatment in Schizophrenia
Alex, your way of keeping or removing references to the literature is very questionable: removing or leaving references without having read the papers and understanding their content and without knowing anything about the scientific debate surrounding them - but instead using some formal criteria which have nothing to do with the actual content of the paper but only where or by whom (ad hominem!) they were published is very unscientific and doesn't do the quality of wikipedia any good.

Are you actually aware of the debate surrounding the first RCT about long-term (7 years) outcome of antipsychotic treatment of schizophrenics (namely Wunderink L et al JAMA Psychiatry 2013)? You should probably keep your hands off topics you have no expertise in. Lucleon (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please discuss article content on the article Talk page. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this won't solve the problem if people (like you for example) continue to edit pages without understanding the subject matter but instead applying criteria for good/bad references in a mechanistic way. It's not enough if an article ticks certain boxes (like meta-analysis or journal of high reputation) and at the same time it's not a criteria for exclusion if an article doesn't. After all it's the content of the article that counts. Then of course there will always be different views and different interpretations of the same results but that is how science is and it's not the case that a big meta-analysis by famous authors necessarily settles this issue (just look at the recent large meta-analysis on anti-depressants and the debate surrounding it). Therefore, there has to be certain level of understanding of the topic and a certain overview of the literature regarding that topic when writing or editing articles on (medical) science and I think everyone should be honest with himself and see his limits. Lucleon (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to understand how an encyclopedia works, and knock off the presumption. A strong source is needed for a strong claim and sourcing sweeping asserted health claims to 14 year-old articles in Medical Hypotheses is a big no no. Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about an article in PLoS Medicine from 2015. Which presumption? And btw, again you are not presenting any argument against the content of the article in Medical Hypotheses - which in my opinion is not so important anyway - but simply discredit the article by it's year of publication and where it was published. Lucleon (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucleon (talk • contribs) 19:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * An opinion piece in an iffy journal is similarly not useful. We have a decent source and it is now summarized without the spin you imparted. As I say, if you want to discuss article content take it to the article talk page. Please familiarize yourself with WP:MEDRS if you want to edit medical articles. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

PLoS Medicine an "iffy" journal?
If you really think PLoS Medicine is an iffy journal then you just demonstrated your complete incompetence about medical journals. I can only ask you to inform yourself. Lucleon (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * PLOS moved to bulk publishing a while ago to maintain revenues. In large part the journals these days are dumping grounds. Alexbrn (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * On which basis are you making these claims? PLoS is doing bulk publishing only in PLoS one and this is deliberate as it follows a different publishing model. The subject related PLoS journals have in general a good reputation but then again it's the content of an article that counts, not the packaging. The point of the publishing model of PLoS One is btw that the impact of a scientific article cannot be 'guessed' by a few reviewers and an editor at the time of publishing but only becomes clear years (if not decades) after publication. Therefore, this whole idea of rating articles before publishing and having journals of alleged higher quality is increasingly criticized and an increasing number of scientists suggest it should be abolished alltogether. Btw, did you know that there is data suggesting that in several fields the reliability of research may even be decreasing with increasing journal rank: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037/full (it's a review and it's from 2018). There is also the San Francisco Declaration of Research Assessment (https://sfdora.org) which partially goes in a similar direction (Stephen Curry, Provost at Imperial is the chair of the steering committee if that matters for you ...) Lucleon (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * the bigger issue is that PLoS piece is an essay, not a literature review;it fails MEDRS on that score alone.
 * Lucleon the way Wikipedia actually works is not intuitive, and if you keep being so combative instead of trying to actually understand how things work here, you are going to have a very unpleasant time here. Please  have a look at User:Jytdog/How and try to get grounded  in what Wikipedia actually is, and how it works. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, my point is, however, that I'm concerned with the way how this user judges the quality of scientific articles as I explained above. I'm even more concerned if he thinks PLoS Medicine is an iffy journal (while PLoS Medicine it's actually ranked 7th out 153 journals in the category "Medicine, General & Internal" regarding its citation statistics in 2014 as I just learned on wikipedia). Lucleon (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm sorry if I offended someone; that was clearly not my aim. Please accept my apologies if I did. I don't see, however, in what way my above comment is combative. Calling PLoS Medicine an iffy journal demonstrates a lack of knowledge in the field of medical publishing. I'm worried if editors with such lack of knowledge are responsible for making judgments whether a paper is included or excluded in wikipedia pages on the medical sciences. The consequence is that most of my colleagues simply don't consider wikipedia a credible source and do not allow students to use references to wikipedia. My hope is that this can be changed because the idea of an online encyclopedia which is edited by everyone is just too good to be abolished and in there are indeed very good pages on wikipedia. But to do so, I'm simply asking everyone (incl. myself) to be a bit more modest here and make edits only where you have sufficient knowledge of the field. Lucleon (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Another . But that would mean that I can only edit in the field of "Doggy Biscuits" so no. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 21:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Lucleon the editing community is actually very wary of people claiming great expertise and when someone shows up doing that, it raises eyebrows. See Essjay controversy. It really is true that on the internet nobody knows you are a dog.
 * Once you have been around a while and learn how things work (and I do hope you take the time and effort) you will see that when you edit in ways that are very strong under the policies and guidelines here, things go better.  It is very common for new  editors to make mistakes and be reverted.  Just bumps in the learning curve. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I admit that my initial edit on the page wasn't good. It was made in a hurry and didn't reflect the controversy around that topic adequately. However, what is now there does neither. I also still believe this controversy should be on the wiki page and once I have time I will write a short paragraph. There is no final conclusion about this controversy but that is often the case in medicine and even in science: simply look at SSRI, they are used since >30 years and still people debate whether they are effective or not. If we only want to represent established knowledge we can stop after Newton - but wait - even that is only an approximation as we know since Einstein.... Lucleon (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding your other (first) point: I think it should rather 'raise eyebrows' if someone demonstrates his incompetence (which we all have in many fields) but then makes bold claims which are not supported by facts; like this user at the beginning of this section. In contrast to that I have supported all my claims by additional material and references and I find it therefore rather weird to suggest I'm a fraudster.  Lucleon (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are saying that Alexbrn is incompetent, then you are demonstrating a total lack of understanding. I suggest you think again about what you are saying. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 22:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please consider the whole discussion: What I'm saying is that Alexbrn is incompetent about medical journals. First, he says PLoS Medicine is an iffy journal. Then he claims PLoS moved to bulk publishing which is incorrect. Lucleon (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You should consider that Alex has been an editor here for eleven years, and made about 35 thousand edits in that time. He knows our editorial policy very well. You have been here a couple of days and made perhaps a dozen edits, and haven't got a clue about how things work around here. You should stop this before you go too far. I don't think Alex will mind though. He's a reasonable chap. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 23:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all I'm not talking about Alexbrn achievements as an editor and we are not discussing editorial policies here. I made clear in my previous comment that I'm talking about his statements about PLoS in general and PLoS medicine in particular. Those demonstrate a lack of knowledge of medical journals. Secondly, it's a critique of his knowledge in a certain field and it's not personal. I'm even saying "incompetence (which we all have in many fields)" to express that it's of course totally normal that we are not competent everywhere. Thirdly, Jytdog is saying on his page "the fundamental principle here that it doesn't matter who you are here - what matters is what you do here." and I couldn't agree more. Still, despite backing up all my claims I can be suggested to be a fraudster; nobody has a problem with that. At the same time when I express a justified critique of your long established editor Alexbrn - a critique to which no-one here as given any counter-argument yet (so I guess you know it's correct) - there is a problem. Fourth, I find a sentence like "You should stop this before you go too far" disconcerting because I'm not sure if I should take this as an implicit thread.Lucleon (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've said all I intend to say. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 23:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes this is a complete waste of time. Lucleon if you become interested in learning let me know. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually found the discussion quite amusing. On the other hand it's worrying that people with so little knowledge about medical publishing and zero willingness to engage in a debate about it (there is not a single counter argument from you guys regarding the topic of this section), edit these pages with such over confidence. There are people who consult wikipedia for health advice. Lucleon (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually I see the journal was PLOS Medicine which unlike PLOS One, is one of the better journals in the PLOS stable. But the proposed source was still not useful. What we currently have (PMID 27802977) is fine, especially now it is not misrepresented. Alexbrn (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Alexbrn, that is a sign of greatness - hats off! Lucleon (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sex
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sex. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Atkins edit from 2016 Jun 23
I know it's been a while since you removed the Phases section on the Atkins diet page, but I just came across a page that points to one of the sub-topics in the Phases section: Low-carbohydrate diet. They were talking about ketogenics and referenced the Induction Phase. As it is no longer there, the link isn't as useful as it once was. Do you think we could put back a shortened version of the Phases? Not a complete revert as I agree that there is too much detail (How To), but at least some comments about the various Phases. That way the link will still be valid and useful.

Thanks, WesT (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably worth raising on the article Talk page. The nub, I think, will be whether there are some good secondary sources to establish weight. Alexbrn (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. GliderMaven (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly trying to force your edits is not following WP:BRD, now is it. Please take your outrage to the talk page and remember to WP:FOC. Alexbrn (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lists of earthquakes
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lists of earthquakes. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Apache OpenOffice
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Apache OpenOffice. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit in Milwaukee protocol
Next time, you should better read the changes, then delete what's wrong and leave in peace what's good - rather than removing 7,200 bytes at once. The reader should know what actually happened to this mentioned Jeanna Giese (I did not retrieve the whole old version - maybe you haven't noticed that). The last paragraph was complying with the current view on the matter, and had New England Journal of Medicine as one of the sources. BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please discuss article content on its Talk page. And please also read WP:MEDRS - biomedical information must be up-to-date and we generally don't use primary sources for it. Note the article is about the protocol, not about Giese. Alexbrn (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Patents as sources
Hello Alexbrn--You often seem to know what is going on around here, especially with the alt. med. articles. I was looking at Nascent Iodine and find that patents are used as references for a variety of statements. Can you please direct me to where this would be best asked about or discussed? Thanks. Desoto10 (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:FT/N would work - it would be a shame to have to waste the proper medical editors' time with this kind of nonsense! Alexbrn (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is nonsense, but, from the article, that is not clear. In any case, my main interest is in the use of patents as sources.  Thanks!Desoto10 (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

May I ask kindly for You to elaborate on why You consider this source and the reference on pre - clinical findings as unreliable. The article is found on EBSCO and PubMed: https://www.dovepress.com/oncolytic-virotherapy-including-rigvir-and-standard-therapies-in-malig-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-OV.

Thank You! DRJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Richard Jones (talk • contribs) 12:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume that you are asking user Alexbrn about this and not user Desoto10, who had never heard of RIGVIR before this minute!Desoto10 (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

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

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sci-Hub
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sci-Hub. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Ed Storm
I reviewed your deletion of my paragraph and would like a chance to argue for its reasonableness and accuracy. BSmith821 (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Functional Medicine
Hi, Alexbrn. I responded to your note on sanctions at Talk:Functional medicine, but I also wanted to reach you on your Talk page. I started editing Wikipedia in December, so I'm still new and finally beginning to learn what is a surprisingly intricate set of rules, standards, and community norms. I'm taking this seriously, as all Wikipedia editors should, and many do.

As I noted at Talk:Functional medicine, if you could explain the discretionary sanctions to me, or offer any advice as to how I can constructively edit Wikipedia in this area, I would appreciate it. I know functional medicine is a controversial article, and edits to it shouldn't be taken lightly. However, there are problems with the article that, in my opinion, need to be addressed. I am trying to work with the Wikipedia community to make those changes, not work against other volunteers or force changes that don't meet the community's standards or guidelines. This isn't just about content in the functional medicine article. I've developed an appreciation for how Wikipedia is made. I want it to be the best resource that it can be for its readers. How do we make this happen? Dr. Bob in Arizona (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable?
Ref the mindfulness research; you mean Lancet not acceptable to wiki? thanks actually I see from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/draft#Avoid_over-emphasizing_single_studies,_particularly_in_vitro_or_animal_studies you probably mean only a single study, with no secondary source back up. thanks. JCJC777

--Allforrous 11:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, per WP:MEDRS primary sources are considered unreliable for biomedical information. Alexbrn (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NightHeron (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You saw it was already raised? Alexbrn (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI-notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NightHeron (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Open access in Italy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Open access in Italy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Sorry but it seems that edit warring is ok for some but not others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breachdyke (talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is only one person edit-warring here. You really need to step back and start getting a clue, or your editing of Wikipedia will likely prove an unhappy experience. Please also learn to WP:SIGN your posts. Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Placebo
I was moving some stuff about to impose some kind of structure, but got an edit conflict and your edit was better so you win :-)

Applying MEDRS is an excellent first step, and will also reduce the incidence of Kaptchuk's dodgy studies, so have at it. Gøtzsche's an interesting guy, I sat with him and David Colquhoun at a Health Watch dinner. He really doesn't like psychotropics! Guy (Help!) 08:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised this article has remained under the radar so long - with ~1,500 daily hits that is quite embarrassing for us. I think we're going to need an "Alternative medicine" section which dwells a bit on how placebos are falsely leveraged. For parity, this Novella piece is interesting (bad we were repeating some of the "myths" he mentions). Alexbrn (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Aye. Also I just blocked Breachdyke for 3RR via a logged out edit at CFS. You might want to remove his reference to the Oxford criteria yet again. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Huh
Fresh off his block, rtc has started reverting again. What's to be done? Guy (Help!) 22:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sigh. That article still needs some work; I may have some time this week to expand it. Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Negative-calorie food
I reverted to an older version of Negative-calorie food which means some of your recent changes got reverted too because they were made to a version of the article that I think had problems. Can you please have a look and see if you think any of your edits should be redone? Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vitamin B3
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vitamin B3. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Crankosphere
Just to say that made my day. — Paleo Neonate  – 06:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Quite a fan of tu quoque, I see... since you were the one reverting (without satisfying the edit summary rationale) and I was the one who opened the talk-page discussion.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Atkins Diet. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. T P  ✎ ✓ 12:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Oh dear. Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed! I'm not much a fan of 'authority scare' and bullying tactics... those interested in presenting fact have no need for such behaviour. And, second reminder: I'm the one questioning, here, not the one 'forcing' claims (as statements in fact). T P  ✎ ✓ 12:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with templates bu the fact I warned you about edit-warring policy shows that I obviously know about it, so your "counter-template" is just pointy. You have forced your bad edit to 3RR. I suggest waiting for others to comment. Alexbrn (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (chuckling) Your 'warning' (after instigating revert-warring by reverting without satisfying edit rationale or opening a talk-page discussion) is being WP:POINTy, and disingenuously so, too. The 'knowing about it' part... doesn't even make any rational sense. That 'angle' reminds me of my little brother who would try to wrest a favourite toy of 'his' (ours) from me whilst screaming (for mom to hear) 'You're gonna break it! You're gonna break it!'".
 * Again, those interested in presenting (echoing!) fact have no need for such behaviour. T P  ✎ ✓ 13:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't post here again. Alexbrn (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trypophobia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trypophobia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Expertscape
Hi Alex,

Several years ago you did some deleting to an entry I created for Expertscape, a website that I have an interest in. We would like to be included in Wikipedia, if possible. But while I've created a new entry for submission, we would prefer it if someone not affiliated with the site did so instead. Would you be able to review what I've posted and make it acceptable to Wikipedia standards?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Expertscape

Thanks for any help you can provide.

Brendan B4chex11 (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B4chex11 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering WP:42, I have doubts that the topic is suitable for an article. You also need to be careful of WP:COI. If you can find decent sourcing, the best way then to proceed would be through WP:AfC. Alexbrn (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

For https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Expertscape, trying very hard not to have WP:COI so would appreciate editing/guidance on what else is needed. The site is frequently referenced by major health institutions and medical experts, who have asked us to post a Wikipedia page that they can refer to. B4chex11 (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dressed to Kill (book)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dressed to Kill (book). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hijama
Please open an AfD to request merge. I will gladly accept the outcome. The only participates were from WP:FRINGE please open AfD. Valoem talk contrib 18:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No need; the current situation seems okay. Alexbrn (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It does not though, we are an encyclopedia. Our goal is to document notable cultural concepts. I am not a quack you should know that based on our interactions, but I believe quackery which is notable should be documented. This isn't just quackery though, it is an Islamic concept dating back to the 7th century please work with me here, I am being completely reasonable, if you disagree please AfD, I believe wet cupping does not cover the cultural concept of Hijama. Valoem talk contrib 18:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for this discussion. If you want to split an article, please get consensus for that. Alexbrn (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus can be achieved at AfD. This concept needs to be restored immediately as a cultural concept I've made an argument that you have not refuted. Not one policy based argument for merge was made and the discussion was closed by a participate. Therefore please revert. Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 18:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are processes for reviewing closes. Pursue them if you wish. Posting to my Talk page won't progress anything. Alexbrn (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --89.243.179.116 (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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.

Please comment on Talk:Machine Intelligence Research Institute
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anesthesiologist
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anesthesiologist. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Bastyr University
Hey! I think you misclicked here or misjudged. I was undoing censorship and possibly COI edits. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you're right. The opposite happened to what I wanted - most likely cause is not havuing had my wake-up coffee yet! Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Time series database
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time series database. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice
I saw that you put a notice about discretionary sanctions on my page about the Royal Rife article. While I totally understand why you reverted the edits of the other editor who was trying to promote his pseudoscience as science and was filling the article with POV information, I was just doing routine editing, and was actually improving the quality of the article. I fixed poorly formatted citations, added information about his influences, and was adding references. I also took POV and other inappropriate parts out of the lead. I'm curious to know why you reverted those edits. It seems to imply that the article can no longer be edited. And it's not in great condition.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please discuss article content at the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My comment is not related to content. More plainly, will you keep batch reverting my edits even though they don't violate policy? I want to know if I should keep trying to improve the article, pe just move on? Because, if so, that's a waste of my time.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 11:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you keep trying to add claims about how Rife's stuff was "extensively verified" supported by crappy sources, then yes - further, I would seek to have you banned from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You I both know I didn't add that sentence. It's not like you can't check the history. It's not difficult to do. I just wanted to check if you were actually checking the edits or just reverting. I'll move on.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Placebo
I reverted Pol098, it included an explicit statement that the placebo effect is real based on fMRI, which of course cannot distinguish from classical conditioning and can find that desd fish think. Guy (Help!) 06:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, I was hoping to find some time for this article over the weekend. Alexbrn (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Germanium edit 2015
In your edit in 2015 you added a ref to the sentence Germanium is not considered essential to the health of plants or animals, but the reference does not include the statement. --Stone (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, WP:V is fully satisfied by that edit. Yes, you're right I used the wrong reference name, assuming "acs" was the name for the American Cancer Society ref - it isn't, rather it should be "American Cancer Society". Now fixed! Alexbrn (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That small error would have been hard to correct without you. --Stone (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on edit
Hi Alexbrn,

please could you comment on your edit here. I found that the link to one of the webpages is slow loading but not a deadlink (WHO one), the other link loads quicker. The summary lets readers know that there might very well be harms and that is my honest opinion which is backed up by numerous reseach also mentioned in the two sources. I know more sources or a better summary is possible. Please let me know what you meant.

Regards from Canada, Kmw2700 (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The WHO source says "To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use". Trying to use it to imply otherwise is very naughty. Please continue any discussion on the article talk page. The deadlink may have been a transient problem. Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the reply. The WHO source also says it's classified as possibly causing cancer in humans. But you are right better discuss it on the article talk page. Regards, Kmw2700 (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of missing aircraft
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of missing aircraft. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Source removal in the article about Adipose tissue
The article Adipose tissue is classified as an article within the Project Biology and has in its reference list a mix of reviews and primary sources. Your removal of the information referring to a primary article of a study in mice arguing that it doesn't fit the referencing rules in Project Medicine is somewhat strange to me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adipose_tissue&oldid=864464136. Why would this particular reference not fit when roughly half of the references are primary sources? Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The reference is not suitable, but this doesn't validate other potentially unsuitable ones - it sounds like more need removing? Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have understood it, the articles concerning diseases are classified as being part of Project Medicine and are as such only allowed to have secondary sources. The main reason for this is that even though Wikipedia shouldn't be used for medical consultation, people do, and to avoid "preliminary" results (as primary sources might be considered before a number of similar studies have come to the same conclusion) to be used for medical purposes, the use of secondary sources is a requirement. The same restrictions do not apply for articles that are considered as biological (within Project Biology) where knowledge about a tissue type, as in this example, will not lead to any maltreatments in patients. Indeed, the less well funded research in biology (as compared to medicine) leads to fewer review articles, meta-analyses are rare and books are typically outdated. While the restriction to secondary sources make sense in medicine for safety reasons, secondary sources may never appear for certain articles in the field of biology and until they exist, primary sources added by researchers active in the field is probably as good as it gets. Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS applies to all WP:Biomedical information. Since Wikipedia must reflect accepted knowledge, primary research is seldom suitable for inclusion - much of it is simply wrong – and if it hasn't been picked-up and discussed in secondary sources it will be WP:UNDUE: why should Wikipedia be touching it when reliable secondary sources haven't? We are a tertiary publication, not a secondary one. See also WP:SCIRS. Alexbrn (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comment "why should Wikipedia be touching it when reliable secondary sources haven't?" tells me that your research is published in an area where secondary sources are common. My basic interest is in entomology and books about e.g. a certain group of beetles may come out at an interval of decades although primary peer-reviewed articles are published on a regular basis. Many research areas in biology are of interest to Wikipedia, few of these have secondary sources. Also, for some reason there is a greater trust in secondary sources (books and review articles, where the author pushes a certain opinion or selects only some of the information available with quite weak peer-review), than in primary sources that normally are scrutinized much harder. The question is therefore where to draw the line and in my opinion it should be where wrong information, as you put it (I would see it rather as "to the best of our current knowledge"), could be harmful, e.g. in articles about medicine. In my view, an article about a tissue type is not dangerous in the way that should prohibit if from being up-to-date. Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You have your opinion, but it runs counter to the goals of the Project as stated in thr WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Your recent deletion of additions made to Sarah Wilson entry
Hi, I'm not a prolific editor on Wikipedia but I do try to occasionally add fully referenced materials about notable Australian women (primarily writers). I'm an academic and so I have nothing personal to gain by fleshing out and correcting such articles. I recently added a number of edits and corrections to Sarah Wilson's entry and it looks like you took them off? As I was trying to improve the credibility of the entry, I'm not sure why? Anyway, I will try to add some more robust references to back up my changes but if you can provide some helpful feedback it would be appreciated. Thank you. Writingtask — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writingtask (talk • contribs) 02:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi! Please discuss this at the article talk page, but in short your edits were promotional and inappropriate (also marked as "minor" edits, which they weren't). Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 18:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

your removal of my post at Talk:Milk
I'm wondering why you removed a signed talk page post based on a credible source by an established editor rather than simply replying to it. Perhaps you made a mistake & thought it was the article page rather than the talk page?--Philologia (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right! Sorry. Plese restore if you wish, but the content seems of little or no relevance to the aricle. Alexbrn (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Malcolm Kendrick
, I have never seen anything like this on Wikipedia before. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Of all the topic areas I edit it, food and diet attract by far the most swivel-eyed zealotry! But then I don't edit about religion or US politics, so maybe I'm an innocent ;-)


 * I didn't realise there was so many cholesterol conspiracy theorists. In regard to debunking food fads and myths you might like the books of Anthony Warner (chef). Skeptic from Britain (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I am a fan of the Angry Chef, except I wish he wrote a bit more conventionally seriously as it would make him easier to cite on Wikipedia! Alexbrn (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * In regard to Uffe Ravnskov, almost every reference was written by him. The entire article may have to be re-written because at the moment it is violation of various policies. Do you think this is a good idea? A lot of the material might have to be deleted. This might be controversial so thought I would ask some else first. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yikes! That's a horror - I'd be inclined to prune back the undue/primary material and see if there are any decent secondary sources ... Alexbrn (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Low-carb diet stuff added to the Diabetes mellitus article, any ideas on this? I have started a discussion on the talk-page. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably worth centralizing discussion at WT:MED. Sadly, this stuff demand huge amount of editor time :-( I'll see if I can spare some! Alexbrn (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's take this to the talk page
Could we take disagreements about edits to Abortifacient to the talk page? I very much hope that we can reach agreement or compromise, perhaps with input from other editors. If we can't, and if other editors don't come in, then we can try RfC.

Please note that Abortifacient, like all abortion-related articles, is RR1-protected. You reverted the sentence sourced to John Riddle twice in less than 4 hours. My edit summary when I restored the sentence suggested taking this to the talk page, which would really be preferable. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note about RR1 - I missed that (don't edit about abortion much - thankfully). As to your edit, I have taken it to the Talk page. I'll add here that unless I've made a big mistake this will probably need to go to ANI, since coming off a TBAN and immediately making problem edits in that topic area which take hours of reading to unpick would be a very bad thing, wouldn't you agree? (I have self-rv'd but this needs to go if it fails Wp:V as I think it does.) Alexbrn (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Low Carbohydrate Diet
Hi,

I would just like to understand your reasoning behind the recent reversals of edits to this page.

Thanks, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMArmstrong97 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings! The three main problems were: first, that there was WP:Biomedical information sourced to non-WP:MEDRS sources, such as primary research; secondly, that some content was off-topic (we have a standalone article for Ketogenic diet); thirdly, there was editorializing evincing a very strong POV, such as having phrases like "the smear campaign on fat" stated in Wikipedia's voice. Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Revert
It is unhelpful for you to revert edits 2x in a row without offering any explanation. If you review WP:DONTREVERT you will see "for a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edited must actually make the article worse". You claim it wasn't an improvement without specifying why, but that in and of itself is not enough to justify a reversion. Thanks 2604:2000:E0CF:5100:C571:7F7A:8095:E3FF (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please discuss article content on the article's talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, you've reverted the same text three times in 24 hours - [First], [Second], and [Third]. I'm here in good faith and would like to collaborate with you if possible but would like to note that you've effectively started an edit war which is a blockable offense. Based on WP:3RR I would like to invite you to self revert and explain why you feel those edits are not neutral on the talk page.  Out of goodwill, I wanted to give you the chance to correct your edit. 2604:2000:E0CF:5100:30AD:4F76:672F:DB6F (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I invite you to read WP:BRD, which is a good way to proceed in these circumstances. I will happily discuss this at Talk:Finasteride but you need to initiate discussion explaining what you are hoping to achieve. Alexbrn (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Questioning your action at Vitamin C
At Talk Vitamin C, questioned your removal of ref and text about vitamin C and lung cancer. My opinion - meets MEDRS. Please reply there. David notMD (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Diabetes Australia Position Statement
Alex,

I would like you to reconsider your deletion.

I understand that you have deleted this because you say Diabetes Australia is a patient advocacy group and is therefore not a reliable source of medication information.

(1) The article already includes positions from the American and Australian Heart foundations. These are very similar patient advocacy groups. (2) In Australia, Diabetes Australia sets the medical advice for diabetes management. It is the co-author with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) for that. That sets the trusted advice used by all doctors in Australia for diabetes management. You will note the Diabetes Australia logo on the cover. (3) By formally recognising the use of low carbohydrate diets for T2DM management in this position statement, that option is effectively added to the official medical advice for T2DM in Australia. There is no higher or better authority for medical advice for T2DM in Australia. No other governmental or medical authority supercedes that advice.

On that basis I do not believe your deletion reason is valid and respectfully request that you restore my edits which are valid and correct.

MetabolicMadness (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi! I haven't looked at the other content, but if it's as you say it will need to be removed/recast. Existing bad content is not a valid rationale for adding more. Please continue any further discussion on the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

John A. McDougall
Greetings,

I have recently received the following from yourself...it appears to be a sort of 'form letter':

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

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)"

Pardon me, but I believe that the only "war" being waged here is by yourself!

May I ask why you are so vehemently adamant that the article on John A. McDougall should remain so patently biased and critical? After all - it's supposed to be an ENCYCLOPAEDIC entry - not a platform for such assertions as "fad diet" and "boring food choices" - which are OPINION, and not fact (see edit history notes.)

Sincerely, MCCV — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCCV (talk • contribs) 23:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi! Please discuss article content on the article's talk page. In this case, the WP:NPOV policy is pertinent: we must duly reflect what is written in reliable sources Alexbrn (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Your accusation of sock puppetry
You accused me of using sock puppets. Did you have any evidence or good reason to believe that was the case? (I'm assuming the accusation was made in good faith). Is it because my signature doesn't always match my username? A low-carb high fat dieter (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Alexbrn (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why it's different. I changed my username years ago and don't see anywhere in my profile or settings where the low-carb high fat dieter name is. I can assure you I only have one account and haven't used any others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarbShark (talk • contribs) 21:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, I deleted my message very shortly after posting with an edit summary of "never mind" for this reason. Alexbrn (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC) I think it's fixed now. CarbShark (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You are biased against low-carb diets Alexbrn, I have written about this on twitter to Jimmy Wales Angela A Stanton (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am biased against bogus health information being pushed into Wikipedia. We've seen it all before: cancer quacks, vegan boosters, macrobiotic proponents ... and currently there's bad behaviour from a LCHF mob. It won't work. If you want to petition Jimmy, use User Talk:Jimbo Wales; if you want to complain about my conduct use WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

F-Factor (diet)
Hey, this article was recently created F-Factor (diet). As you are an experienced editor in this area, I wanted to ask your advice. I personally think it is a good first article creation attempt and certainly should not be deleted as some reliable sources exist. Problem is, the diet is newish so there hasn't really been much of a reception. Any ideas what to do? MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's pretty icky and smells of undisclosed paid editing; however it's been carefully done so as to stay just on-side of any policy violations I think - and there are no bonkers health claims. I suggest watching the article, and looking for better sources (After a quick search, I didn't turn up any though) ... Alexbrn (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

KD Scope
Wrt your edit here. I don't think that is accurate. The article is about the KD treatment for epilepsy, which has nearly 100 years of usage as a clinical therapy. The other possible treatments for some other neurological issues are all very much at the research stage, with none I know of even approaching wide use never mind official clinical guidelines anywhere. The "other applications" is a short paragraph in a long feature article that comprehensively covers the epilepsy treatment and is completely focussed on the epilepsy treatment (e.g. efficacy, indications, induction, etc). Would you please consider reverting? -- Colin°Talk 17:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Colin - you read my mind! ... I was just thinking of pinging you at WT:MED about this. I suppose it's just a question of where the line is drawn, but in view of the "Other applications" section at Ketogenic diet I was thinking it would be best to defer anything neurological to the Ketogenic diet aticle. But OTOH that article is an FA and I don't suppose it would be good to destabilize it with an influx of content about non-epilepsy aspects. So ... what to do? I'm happy to have Ketogenic diet focus on epilepsy and shift everything else out, or for any other solution just so long as we're clear. What do you think? Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The section on "possible future neurological treatments" has indicated promise for the eight years since the article was first expanded by me. Which is a shame because those are dreadful conditions where we would love a cure. I look, from time to time, to see if any review or research there has changed but have found nothing to report when I last looked in April. Have you found some material to expand this? I think the possible use of the KD for neurological treatments is more related to the epilepsy article subject than weight loss/diabetes, which belongs more with the LCD article (though I have no problem if the LCD article briefly mention the KD for epilepsy and research for other neurological conditions). The KD clearly does have a neurological effect, though we still don't really understand the mechanism or if ketosis is vital to that. I once asked a neurologist why they were investigating the KD for some of those other conditions, and his response was just that it produces something that passes into the brain with beneficial effect, and so it seemed worth trying. Sad that our understanding of the brain isn't better than that.
 * What I have found in my reading of the literature on the KD diet for epilepsy, is that comprehensive reviews do mention possible other neurological treatments, in similar proportion to what we do (they are writing to other neurologists after all), but don't spend any time discussing weight loss or diabetes except perhaps in passing. Similarly the papers on weight loss and diabetes only mention epilepsy in passing. A further complication is there are a wide variety of low-carb weight loss diets, only some of which are ketogenic or only ketogenic for some phases of the diet. Some of the literature uses the term "Very Low Carbohydrate Ketogenic Diet" (VLCKD) when discussing a weight loss / diabetes treatment, but there isn't much consistency.
 * So my feeling is that the section belongs where it is, and proportionally a small aspect of the overall topic, while retaining overall article scope on the epilepsy therapy. If you were to find a lot of new material that expanded this section greatly, then some adjustment may be required. But we also don't want to give too much weight to speculative research, when there is probably more we could say about actual clincial practice. -- Colin°Talk 20:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the neurological section is fine there. Most of the material I'm reading is on weight loss, cardiovascular health, and diabetes. I agree LC dieting is a tricky topic which intersects messily with ketosis. We shouldo have some form of wording in the hat note which directs readers appropriately: if a reader looking for material on ketosis and Parkinson's disease (say), arrives at the LC diet article, how should they be directed to the ketongenic diet article? Alexbrn (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I've only ever searched for fully ketogenic diet & other uses. I haven't researched if a low carbohydrate diet (not specifically ketogenic or very-low) is being researched for neurological disorders. I'd have to look to answer that question fully. I think someone interested in KD & Parkinson's is going to be disappointed if redirected to the KD article, because it is only really mentioned in a list of possible research directions right at the very end. So I don't think it worth redirecting them there (as the LCD article hatnote currently does). Indeed the hatnote is probably not a good idea on LCD because the first thing that LCD "keto" enthusiasts will read is that wow there's a whole article about our fad, and then they get disappointed when it isn't what they thought it was. I think the best approach is to treat LCD as the master article which will mention a bit of everything about all sorts of low carb diets. It should have a section on ketogenic diets (and/or very low carbohydrate diets). That section can mention the KD history and current clinical use as an epilepsy treatment, and possible research areas for other neurological displease. That section should be the one that has the "more info..." link to the KD article.
 * The people using very low or keto forms of LCD need a place on WP that documents that diet. They are currently disappointed that the KD article isn't that place. So I think there needs to be a place for that on the LCD article. One important distinction is that the epilepsy KD diet has adequate protein whereas many weight-loss variants that are called ketogenic have high protein. Large portions of meat is not what the epilepsy KD is about. And of course the aim for the epilepsy KD is to ensure an appropriate weight for the child and that they grow, and stop having seizures. Whereas the aim for a KD in tubby adults is that they lose weight and regain glycemic control. To some extent, the only thing they have in common is the word "ketogenic". The actual diets and practice are quite different. So this is also something that a "Ketogenic diets" section should make clear. -- Colin°Talk 10:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Curcumin page edits
Good afternoon - I see that you have disputed and reversed my edits on this page under the justification "Still unreliable". Why exactly? I also would like to make a number of changes to the "Research" section but decided to start with the first section for now (which you responded to) DNA0089 (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC) - DNA0089
 * Hi there! It's better to discuss this at Talk:Curcumin so that other editors of that article can see, but in brief our sources for WP:Biomedical information should conform to WP:MEDRS - e.g. things like secondary sources (not primary research) as published in reputable journals. Alexbrn (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Gardasil
I don't understand why you consider unrealiable this study on 190.000 patients: --Skyfall (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a primary source. We don't use those for WP:Biomedical information per WP:MEDRS. I have added a review article instead. Alexbrn (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Low-carbohydrate diet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortality ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Low-carbohydrate_diet check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Low-carbohydrate_diet?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Heads up
Hi! Just a heads up that someone posted claiming to be you on Malcolm Kendrick's blog. If it wasn't you, you might want to ask to get it removed. - Bilby (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not me. I'd rather not get involved in the Kendrick thing, that way madness lies ... ! I am curious though: got a link? Alexbrn (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not one direct to the comment, but: . - Bilby (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Amazing - all those people arguing with a fake version of me. Truly, the internet is a strange place sometimes. Wondering what to do about this: leave it as a nothing, or try and get it rectified (it's the sort of thing I can somehow imagine finding its way into some future arbcom stramash). Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A poor attempt at impersonation. Can’t spell. Roxy, the dog . wooF 16:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A direct link to the comment is here. It's interesting in that the mention of etc. suggests the imposter is somebody pretty familiar with whats been happening here. One of our editor colleagues probably. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see Malcolm Kendrick is on twitter, so I've made him aware. Let's see what happens. Alexbrn (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the blog is just an echo chamber, I was going to suggest not involving yourself. Roxy, the dog . wooF 16:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I just want to have something I can point to in future to avoid any "you didn't disown it" angle. Alexbrn (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * remember this thread when it gets archived too. Roxy, the dog . wooF 17:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey, now "you" are posting too. Alexbrn (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems I’ve posted there twice, the first time on Dec 22. It’s clear to me now who it is. Roxy, the dog . wooF 13:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)