User talk:RealPharmer3/Archive 1

Help with updating article on Kessler Foundation
Hi. I am reaching out to members of the Health and Wellness Wikiproject concerning proposed updates to an article about Kessler Foundation, which focuses on helping people with spinal injuries and other neurological conditions. Talk:Kessler Foundation. I have a conflict of interest as someone employed at Kessler. Thanks .Dogmomma529 (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

What editorial piece?
Hi! In this edit you used the summary "removed sentence about "debunked claims" as this is an editorial piece by an author which disagrees with sadhgurus views. For completeness' sake, i have now included as a citation above." but the piece in question does not appear to be an editorial, it appears to be a feature length piece in a top tier WP:RS. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Horse Eye's Back, I kept the citation in the article RealPharmer3 (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove the sentence? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed! That looks like whitewashing. We do not allow that here. I see this is a problem for you on other articles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Whitewashing
RealParmer3, you seem to be engaged in whitewashing of articles like Ramdev and others. Be very careful. You are violating NPOV and BLP's WP:Public figure provision by deleting properly-sourced negative commentary. We do not write hagiographies here. We write what RS say. NPOV requires we do this. We tell "both sides" of the story. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey @Valjean,
 * Please join the discussion on the talk page for Ramdev - I have addressed some of the concerns with my edits and I am open to hearing your opinion and working together to improve the article. RealPharmer3 (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics: Complementary and alternative medicine
-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics: BLP
-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
Hi, RealPharmer3. I have concerns about your edits at Andrew D. Huberman. In the first edit you made to the article, you appear to be trying to downplay the credentials of Jonathan Jarry, a critic of Huberman, by removing the wikilink to Office for Science and Society where he works. You also, in that first edit, remove the phrase "poorly regulated" (a quote), something you will do again a few days later. With that second removal, you point out in the edit summary that "Information about dietary supplement regulations can be found on the FDA website. (https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements)", presumably as a suggestion that the reader look there instead. Or what else was the FDA link for? I followed it, and noted that it's useless as a replacement for "poorly regulated". Also, of course, no reader is going to even see it unless they read the page history rather than the article. Can you explain this? Because it looks like blatant whitewashing, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're doing there. And you have repeatedly removed the phrase "been criticized by other scientists for prematurely applying the results of animal studies to human applications", while adding Huberman's own defence of his podcasts and of dietary supplements, in the form of this sentence: "Huberman explains that dietary supplements are "not absolutely necessary", but can be beneficial when coupled with "foundations of good health like sleep, nutrition, and exercise." He has maintained a stance of being supported by science, and has made it clear when referencing preliminary data or single studies." That addition of Huberman's own claims is extremely problematic. Compare WP:MANDY: "He would say that, wouldn't he?" To offer Huberman's own claims as a source for supporting his own reliability is, well, I'm lost for words here. Especially as I see you on talk, when your edit had been reverted, referring to your addition of these claims by Huberman as "bringing both negative and positive reception forward". I don't see you "bringing forward" any other positive reception than Huberman's own. So are you really saying that Huberman's own reception of his podcasts is positive (duh), and that that fact is worth a fairly elaborate sentence in the article? Or am I misunderstanding you?

I note that you attempt a new version of your first edit here, a couple of days later, after discussion on talk. The new version is a marginal improvement in that it no longer refers to Huberman 'explaining' about dietary supplements, which was egregious, and which you had been told off about on talk. But only marginal; you still remove "prematurely applying the results of animal studies to human applications", "poorly regulated", and the linking of "Office for Science and Society". And WP:MANDY still applies to your use of Huberman's own statements to support Huberman's reliability. (It's Huberman talking — being interviewed — though by saying "According to Time Magazine" in this second version, it looks a little as if you're trying to borrow some of Time's cachet as a reliable source. I'll assume good faith that that wasn't your intention.)

Altogether, I'm afraid these observations of tendentious editing incline me to page-block you from Andrew D. Huberman. But if you can answer my specific questions above ("I followed your FDA link and noted that it's useless as a replacement for "poorly regulated", and also that no reader is going to even see it unless they read the page history rather than the article. Can you explain this?" and "Are you really saying that Huberman's own reception of his podcasts is positive (duh), and that that fact is worth a fairly elaborate sentence in the article? Or am I misunderstanding you?" in a satisfactory way, and preferably defend your edits altogether, I'll give you a chance to continue editing it. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC).


 * Hi @Bishonen,
 * Thanks for the message, I'd be happy to address your comments. Let me start off by saying, my intention was not to whitewash any article. My edits have kept negative criticism intact (please see the current article and my contributions to the reception section), and I have absolutely no intention in removing it. I can explain each of the statements you have raised concern about below:
 * The first edit about removing Jarry's credentials - I actually did not remove any credentials, i gave further clarity about his position there (please see here). As I explained (please see here), I had no issue with the wikilink whatsoever and once it was pointed out that I missed it, I included it (please see here). I think my style of editing tends to add wikilinks once I'm done adding content, but because of the extensive back-and-forth conversation yesterday with another user, I must have missed that. But again, I had no problem adding that back once it was pointed out.
 * When Jarry says, "poorly regulated", it is very unclear what that means and what that quote is doing for the article at large to me. Although it is different from FDA-approved medication, dietary supplements are regulated through the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). I used the link as justification that there is a standard to regulation there. My opinion is that including the fact that dietary supplements lack efficacy data is much more potent of a statement to make, which I believe actually makes clear that the effectiveness of supplements is not established. If you and the other editors want to keep "poorly regulated", in addition to "lack efficacy data", then I dont mind. I am okay with that.
 * Actually from the start (please see here), I changed, "been criticized by other scientists for prematurely applying the results of animal studies to human applications" to "Jospeh Zundell, a cancer biologist, trusts Huberman's expertise in neuroscience, but has criticized Huberman for extrapolating animal research for human use, without appropriate scientific justification and straying away from his expertise." But it was immediately reverted (please see here).  I have no problem with the statement about his use of animal research prematurely. I actually think my sentence gives far more clarity to who stated it, and the contents of the opinion. Also, the editor who originally wrote it said "other scientists", but only one scientist is mentioned in the source. I asked that editor to provide a reason for why it was plural, and if there are other scientists that share the opinion, to make it clear because they are not noted in the source - but there was no response.
 * Speaking about this statement: Bringing both negative and positive reception forward was actually not just about that quote (Huberman explains that dietary supplements are "not absolutely necessary", but can be beneficial when coupled with "foundations of good health like sleep, nutrition, and exercise." He has maintained a stance of being supported by science, and has made it clear when referencing preliminary data or single studies). The editor actually reverted all my edits (please see here), and this quote was included in that mix. It just happened that the other editor wanted to speak about this one. Once it was removed again, I did not try to move it back in as I understand the perspective and it makes sense why it should not be included here. So, I dont believe it should be included and have not tried to include it again.
 * Lastly, each idea that was included initially, has still been preserved (i.e., giving false emphasis to animal studies without appropriate data, dietary supplements without efficacy data, his sponsorships, and his opinion on sunscreen) and arguably improved for clarity. At this stage, the editors on Huberman article and I have finally reached a consensus, and I am quite happy about.
 * I hope all that makes sense and I am open to further discussion if necessary. I really felt that the article was nearly untouchable because of the lack of willingness to actually speak about opinions and changes in the article. Luckily, through this exercise, I believe we were able to work together to make improvements in language and clarity on content.
 * Thank you for coming to me to discuss your questions and observations in this way and allowing me to explain myself. I hope to continue working with them and others with healthy dialogue and suitable justifications based in Wikipedia policy. RealPharmer3 (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Bishonen is going to review your answers. Just a comment.
 * We hardly reached a consensus. I had to clarify once again (here) that your edits were still problematic.
 * The FDA doesn't regulate supplements like drugs. They are poorly regulated. Jarry even points to a study linking these supplements with liver injury, as well as the use of barely researched ingredients, why not read the article?. More importantly, you shouldn't be doing your own analysis of reliable secondary sources. The WP:RS determine what is said on Wiki.
 * You appear to accuse editors of malice by claiming we made the article "nearly untouchable because of the lack of willingness to actually speak about opinions". Huh? You came onto the talk page, said critique needed to be "removed immediately", which I argued against. Then you proceeded to remove the critique anyway and replace it with praise. There was absolutely a willingness to speak.
 * Zenomonoz (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi@Zenomonoz,
 * Respectfully, can you please leave it to @Bishonen. I understand you're passionate about the topic. I have already addressed the questions and statements made by @Bishonen and tried to explain myself.
 * Quickly, because it seems you haven't read my explanation above - You actually glossed over the fact that i did incorporate the critique but it was reverted right away (here), the wiki link was added once you asked me (here)as its my editing style to normally add after I'm done my edits but slipped my mind (here). The FDA statement i have also addressed, please take a look - ultimately, if the editors want to keep "poorly regulated", I am okay with that.
 * Lastly, @Zenomonoz if you remember the beginning of the talk page discussion - i explained there were statements that were actually incorrectly written and the section itself was presented in a one sided manner on wikipedia. I tried to actually discuss with you my thoughts and you said "Take it to the noticeboard" and "I have instructed you to ask on the noticeboard for a reason. From your talk page and edit history, you have a history of misrepresenting and misinterpreting editing policy to WP:WHITEWASH BLPs. I am not going to go back and forth on this" - clearly stating to me that you want no part of the discussion. You made judgements on me without even working with me based off 1 persons accusation (which ended up being wrong too) - this was quite unnecessary and quite rude.
 * You have a history of being blocked, are currently involved in another dispute, and your talk page history clearly shows how you engage with other editors isnt always the best way (1, 2, 3, 4 to name a few). So again, please leave it to @Bishonen to make the call, and please try to stay off my talk page as they have asked me to discuss with them. I've worked with countless users on wikipedia in an effort to improve articles, and although we dont always agree, those who shared similar sentiments in overall improvements were able to come together and work in harmony. And again, I am very much okay with how the reception section reads now compared to previously. RealPharmer3 (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * RealPharmer3, you say My edits have kept negative criticism intact (please see the current article and my contributions to the reception section). This does not appear to be the case. You removed the wikilink to Office for Science and Society (which bolsters Jarry's authority) in your first edit, and when it was restored by somebody else, you removed it again here and again here. You eventually re-added it here, after its absence had been complained of on talk. I will accept your statement that the way you removed the link over and over was not deliberate, but I hope you realize that kind of thing puts a strain on the care and vigilance of others.
 * Also in your first edit, you removed "having been criticized by other scientists for prematurely applying the results of animal studies to human applications", and the phrase "poorly regulated". You replaced the simple and clear "prematurely applying the results of animal studies to human applications" with the phrasing "Joseph Zundell, a cancer biologist, trusts Huberman's expertise in neuroscience, but has criticized Huberman for extrapolating animal research for human use, without appropriate scientific justification and straying away from his expertise" — weaker, harder to follow, and softened by praise. (I agree that the source, the Time interview, does not mention any "other scientists" besides Zundell, so that part of your change is OK.) You removed "poorly regulated" again here.
 * Here, you removed a quote from Huberman, "stating he's 'as scared of sunscreen as I am of melanoma'", replacing it with another quote from the same context, "sunscreens have molecules that can be found in neurons 10 years after application." Your explanation of this change in the edit summary is "the previous quote didnt make sense and wasnt actually stating much. This quote gives a clearer explanation of the claim". Didn't make sense? IMO, the most striking difference between the quotes is that the first one makes Huberman sound like a kook, while the one you replace it with sounds more reasonable. Your change is putting him in a better light, which is altogether the tendency of your edits to this article.
 * You make no comment on my most serious criticism, which is of your repeated offer of Huberman's own claims as a source for supporting his own reliability. I indicated how serious I considered this by saying it's "extremely problematic", and "I'm lost for words". I don't speak that strongly about anything else, so I'm baffled that you simply ignore it, and ignore my emphasizing it as one of the two specific questions I wanted replies to ("Are you really saying that Huberman's own reception of his podcasts is positive (duh), and that that fact is worth a fairly elaborate sentence in the article? Or am I misunderstanding you?"). I see you quote a sentence fragment from my question above, "bringing both negative and positive reception forward", in your point 4, but I honestly can't see that what you use it for has anything to do with answering my actual question. The fact that both the versions of Huberman's self-defence that you've offered are gone from the article now is due to other people removing them — you can't take credit for that.
 * To summarize, I'm not satisfied. You have been page-blocked from Andrew D. Huberman for a month. I've left the talkpage open for you, so that you can still make suggestions. Finally, please note that I'm not an editor of the article, as you seem to believe ("If you and the other editors want to keep "poorly regulated", in addition to "lack efficacy data", then I dont mind"). I've neither edited the article nor weighed in on talk, and don't intend to; I'm just "adminning" it. Admins do edit articles, frequently, but then they're not allowed to admin those particular articles. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below this block notice: . Bishonen &#124; tålk 18:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC).
 * Hi @Bishonen,
 * That is unfortunate, but I understand you had to make a decision and I respect that. Nonetheless, thank you for considering my explanation. RealPharmer3 (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)