User talk:Bon courage/Archive 10

New new Happy new new

I just love a virgin talk page four years in a row.

My best to you. Roxy the dog. wooF 03:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we can call it a tradition. Happy New Year to you too, and to all my lovely Talk Page watchers. Let's hope 2022 turns out better than 2021! Alexbrn (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Nirmatrelvir

Hello Alexbrn, could you please advise me If the changes citing peer-reviewed scientific journals can be kept? Thank you for your help. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nirmatrelvir&type=revision&diff=1063501789&oldid=1063500319 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exaltedyeti (talk • contribs) 12:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! Please see the welcome message on your page and WP:MEDRS (or WP:MEDFAQ for a quick start). In general, the English Wikipedia requires much more than just that a paper is peer-reviewed for it to be considered suitable as a source for biomedical content. Alexbrn (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for linking this resource. With this in mind, I will attempt another, smaller edit of the page, using review article content only!Exaltedyeti (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Psilocybin Microdosing (Safety)

Hello Alexbrn,

(1) Thank you for letting me know about the 'Sea of Blue' issue. I will make sure I correct the links.

(2) Could you please point to the unreliable sources that are making you redirect the page? I would like to fix the errors and provide proper sources for the article.

Thanks! R-Cal-L (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! Just picking one at random, PMID:30829033 is primary research on rats. In general, primary research is not suitable for use on Wikipedia for biomedical content — see the links I have posted on your talk page for guidance.

If you can find better sources (e.g. review articles, textbooks and statements from major medical bodies) then material on the the very niche topic you are writing about ("Psilocybin Microdosing Safety‎") should be added to the Psychedelic microdosing article and, if that gets too big, split out eventually. Because of WP:NOPAGE it is not a good idea to fragment a topic into many tiny fragment articles (which this would be, given the likely tiny amount of viable sourcing). Alexbrn (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions.

@WP:MEDRS: I have to say that initially I was surprised to find that Wikipedia doesn’t support providing primary sources but the more I read on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine), the more it makes sense. I will work on getting secondary sources for the data. However, since the page doesn’t exist because of the redirect, how can I make changes to improve it? Should I start another draft from one of the older versions from the history of it?

@WP:NOPAGE, I understand what you are saying. I have reviewed the redirect page. I could create a psilocybin microdosing safety subsection on it. The page I am trying to create is much more detailed. My goal is to provide a more specific safety-related page to the psychedelics community especially because of the anticipated review of psilocybin microdosing safety information by various legislative bodies across the world in the coming year. I imagine I could add this information to the psychedelics safety subsection but I feel that it would take away from the general psychedelics-based focus of that page. Please advise. Thank you and Happy New Year! R-Cal-L (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be better to expand the article as is, and if it gets to big then a WP:SPLIT might be warranted. In general articles tend to cover all aspects of a drug in one place, even for major ones like, say, Clozapine.

I see you have created/edited Psilocybin Microdosing and Psilocybin Microdosing Safety — I don't think having these as standalone articles is a good idea. Any sources for biomedical assertions in these articles which were not WP:MEDRS would almost certainly be considered unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will add the psilocybin microdosing safety content as subsections to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_microdosing after I take care of the WP:MEDRS issues with it. Quick question: I had two tables in the content. One with serotonin receptors binding affinity values and the second with dosage information of some compounds. I had cited the non-review papers for those experimentally determined values. Is it ok to do that? If not, what other way can experimental data be presented? My goal is to provide some experimental proof to the readers since lately it has been more difficult to convince readers about scientific facts. Thank you for all your help with this. Best, R-Cal-L (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If you can find MEDRS sources, your plan sounds good. I'd say the tbular detail detail you propose is not appropriate: Wikipedia is meant to be a summary for general readers, and in any case we are in no position to judge whether content in primary sources is correct (the kind of "accepted knowledge" Wikipedia is meant to be summarizing). P.S. in Talk page interactions, please use the conventions of WP:INDENT to keep conversations threaded. Alexbrn (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Hello, I'm Levivich. I noticed that you made a comment on the page WP:COIN that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. When I correctly identify and report a COI, and you repeatedly call what I'm doing a "witch hunt", you are personally attacking me, and attempting through bullying tactics to get me to stop reporting COI editing. This is unacceptable; please stop defending COI via these intimidation tactics. Levivich 14:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't be silly, it's not you personally that's the problem and I've been quite clear about seems questionable behaviour. COI-tainted editing is bad, but misguided zeal is as much a problem as we have seen in the past. Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who it's directed at, you shouldn't be saying it about anyone. I'm the one who started the COIN, I'm the one who is pursuing this. What I'm doing is not a witch hunt, so stop calling it that. You are trying to create a chilling effect -- to discourage people from pursuing this -- and that's not ok. You, personally, need to get on the right side of this issue or you're going to be a party to the inevitable arbcom case that's coming. They do in fact have a COI and they did in fact lie about it in the COIN thread ("I have never edited about myself" = flat lie, quickly disproven with diffs). This won't go away, and later, everyone's conduct will be examined. When the question is asked, "why couldn't the community handle this?," I will answer, "because Alex kept making personal attacks against whomever raised the issue." So stop creating the diffs that support that answer; stop accusing people who are concerned about an actual COI of being on a witch hunt. Levivich 14:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree it's a personal attack and if I see witch-hunting behaviour I will call it out. Alexbrn (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You'd better double check the definition of "witch hunt". I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. "Witch hunt" doesn't mean "ganging up on someone" or "false accusation". A "witch hunt" is the pursuit of people for holding unorthodox or unpopular views. Enforcing our COI policies isn't even analogous to pursuing people for their views. Nobody is even talking about these editors' views. By accusing the COIN I started of being a witch hunt, you're saying I filed it because I want to silence their views, meaning I am anti-skeptic or pro-woo. That's why it's a personal attack. Levivich 14:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Witch hunting is exactly hitting the nail on the head. It does mean false accusation. Good grief. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"By accusing the COIN I started" ← what does that even mean? The thread at COIN has diffused beyond your input and my concern is specifically behaviour which (yes) does accord exactly with the behaviour of a witch hunt: identifying and rounding up people for blame. In case you weren't aware there have also been mass deletions of articles attempted and nearly-block-worthy personal questions made by some of the posse ... all in an area where for some kinds of editing it is not even agreed by the community a COI is problematic (i.e. citing a publication with which one is associated, or encouraging people to cite one's RS works). I have no tolerance for problematic COI-tainted editing and a record to show that; equally I have seen misdirected zeal having bad consequences (and have been on the receiving end of dodgy COI accusations myself). You seem to be saying that everything that happens in a thread in which you posted first has to be by definition okay, which is absurd. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Slight edit to your comment

Some people get testy about minor formatting edits to their comments, so I just wanted to let you know I closed up your underline tag. There was a missed / in the closing tag. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

D'oh - silly me. Thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Just didn't want to step on toes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Whitewashing Paul Thacker's page

Your "good faith" edits removing the extremely well-documented facts that Paul Thacker is a dishonest, anti-GMO, anti-vaccine activist haven't gone unnoticed. 73.254.14.29 (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Does that mean I get a WP:Barnstar? Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. You and the other good faith editors at Wikipedia should be proud that you're helping promote a guy who is keeping the COVID pandemic going by spreading lies about vaccines. 73.254.14.29 (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

BLPN notification

There is a discussion occurring at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard that you may be involved with. ––FormalDude talk 09:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you ever get the feeling we're unpaid workers cleaning up somebody else's mess? Alexbrn (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Meh. It's the cost of an open encyclopedia. I like being a volunteer. ––FormalDude talk 09:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You're invited! January 29: COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon - Online via Zoom

COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon (January 29, 2022)

Hello Alexbrn! I'd like to invite you to a Covid-19 focused Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon, open to the public, via Zoom on Saturday - January 29th, 2022, 1pm-3pm E.S.T. We will be focusing our edits on the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic. Click the event page to read more. This event is hosted by Sure We Can, a recycling and community center in Brooklyn. This is the 4th Covid-focused Edit-a-thon that Sure We Can has hosted. Click here to see the last three COVID-19 focused edit-a-thons: Sept 6th, 2020 & Nov 21, 2020 & Feb 6th, 2021. In past events, we translated the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City article into Spanish, Yoruba, Malagasy, Hebrew, Swahili, Tagalog, Korean, Russian, Japanese, Portuguese, Polish, Greek, Haitian Creole, and wrote the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States article. We would love for you to join us. All experience levels welcome. COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon Saturday January 29, 1PM - 3PM E.S.T (18:00 - 20:00 UTC)

--Wil540 art (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Letting you know

Your name has come up in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia, where I've mentioned in my statement that you should be notified. You are not a named party or anything like that, but I felt that someone should let you know. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. So, it looks like there's going to be a case. Probably just as well, though it appears some people have unrealistic expectations about what Arbcom can/will do. Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Circumcision article

Hey, Alexbrn! I just wanted to give you a notice — so it's not misinterpreted as a form of edit warring — that I temporarily reverted the article back to the original version — until there's a consensus on what to do about it. I wrote about why I thought that the suggested changes made by Stix1776 were heavily problematic and a downgrade from the existing version here.

As for the Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, and Council on Foreign Relations citations, I agree with you that they're pretty excessive, and not at all crucial to the article, and I can see why they might raise problems related to WP:MEDRS, so free to delete them. I don't have an objection there. Best regards, KlayCax (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem, I haven't been paying much attention to the article (which, to be honest, is a bit of a chore because of the controversy). From a quick look now it seems a lot of the sources are getting a bit old. Alexbrn (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Misconfigured cluebot?

Hi, on the talk page for John Campbell, the cluebot you added is configured with an 'age' parameter of '14'. Did you intend that? It means threads are archived if they receive no further edits within 14 hours. That seems rather extreme. Typically it's set to something far more conservative like 720 for thirty days, or a slightly less conservative 360, for two weeks. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

D'oh! Mixed up my days/hours and bot behaviour! It should be - yes - 720 or something. Alexbrn (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Easy mistake to make, certainly. Shall I correct, or you? And should the aggressively archived stuff be restored, or just let sleeping dogs lie? I'm inclined neither way really. I'm tired of writing about it. :) Anastrophe (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to interact

Hi! I asked you to stop editing my talk page some months ago. See thread. I think enough time has passed since then, so feel free to interact in my talk page if you wish. I thought it was unnecessary to clarify it then as it would probably just increase the animosity, but I used the word "stalk" because you had used the {{stalker}} template IIRC, it wasn't an accusation or anything. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe I have ever used the {{stalker}} template, but I'm happy to move on. Alexbrn (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: it was the {{Buttinsky}} template linking to a page by that name. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, I do use that: that one's much more fun. Alexbrn (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I do like the template myself as well ^u^ A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-neutrality in the Vision Therapy article is a known problem

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

---

You keep undoing my edits. Gatekeeping is easy for you. But the article isn't up to snuff, and if you want to appoint yourself its' guardian, it needs to actually comply with the rules. --Horatio Von Becker

Agreed. Please make your case on Talk. And maybe learn about the correct use of the apostrophe. Alexbrn (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

At least two people have already made the case for it! Also the possessive apostrophe is entirely valid. -Horatio Von Becker 180.148.123.68 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Explain. -Horatio Von Becker 180.148.123.68 (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Horatio Von Becker sounds like the name of someone who offers you a million dollars to spend the night in his haunted mansion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Epastore (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability/falsifiability of real existence

Since Tryptofish asked us to take our discussion elsewhere, I'm coming to your talk page with it. I hope you don't mind. I'll also ping PaleoNeonate since they started the discussion, and I suspect they might be interested.

I'm happy that we moved from calling me pro-fringe to eccentric. I have spent a lot of time studying ancient and medieval philosophy, and I cannot deny that this has had some influence on my personal views, to the point of me becoming perhaps somewhat eccentric in my approach. I will note though that I'm not a proponent of the idea that we can't know anything. Like most modern philosophers, I regard the question of what we can and cannot know as depending on epistemological premises about which very legitimate discussion can be had. But, again like most contemporary philosophers, I do believe it justified to lay out such premises, and to call the propositions which result from them knowledge. For example, I believe the epistemological foundations of science to be sound, and I regard scientific inquiry as productive of knowledge.

I'm also just parroting mainstream philosophy of science when I say that inquiring into the real existence of something falls outside of the epistemological scope of science. To make claims about the real existence of things we need further epistemological premises, such as for example the premise that things for which there is no scientific evidence simply do not exist. As I've tried to explain in the other thread, this premise is not one that is near-universally held to be sound, like the epistemological foundations of science are. It's a specifically positivist view, which was never universally held, and which has in fact been largely abandoned by a large majority of philosophers since the 1970s. You just can't invoke this premise as something only eccentrics would disagree with. It's also not in any way a premise that non-philosophical reliable sources just take for granted, like they take the soundness of science for granted. It's really important to differentiate between these two things.

Finally, you wrote: If you think (in anything other than a school debate) that the non-falsifiability of something means it might be real, then good luck to you. Well yes, if something's existence cannot be falsified, that means that it is possible that it exists. This is just basic modal logic. It does not mean that it is necessary that it exists, nor even that it is likely that it exists. But it does mean that it is possible, by definition: that which cannot be shown to be false is not necessarily false, and that which is not necessarily false is possibly true.

So yes, if the existence of qi cannot be disproven, that means that it is possible it exists. But note that with the positivist premise outlined above, it does become possible to prove that qi does not exist. If there is not scientific evidence for the existence qi, and if things for which there is no scientific evidence do not exist, qi does not exist. This is as much as to state that Ernst, who says that the existence of qi cannot be disproven, does not share the positivist premise. He also affirms the possibility of qi's existence: even though we can't observe it directly in any way, it may still be there, in the same way that God may be there.

It really seems to me that you just have a hard time understanding these subtle philosophical points, which sound to you like the bogus reasoning of fringe-pushers, while they're actually entirely accurate and mainstream. I also think that if only you would trust a little more that I'm really not here to push or justify fringe in any way, you might more easily see that what I say is accurate and mainstream. I'm in fact entirely with you on most points, and IRL I'm actually regarded by my acquaintances as a skeptic and a defender of science. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't call you PROFRINGE, though your arguments seem to align with those that are. I think your arguments are insane. Please don't post here any more about them. Alexbrn (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry about that then. Won't happen again, I promise! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Bon courage. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 20:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-neutrality in the Bret Weinstein article

Forgive me, I'm new to the wikipedia editorial process. So the jargon is confusing for me.

You have reverted my change removing what I consider non-neutral commentary in the Bret Weinstein article.

I don't seen the benefit of framing Odysse as an "alternative/fringe" platform. "alternative" maybe, but "fringe" is definitely non-neutral.

You say "Rv. to good - take it to Talk, where this has been discussed before" where has this been discussed before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by F127635817 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

See here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Pine tar

As an expert on WP:FRINGE, would you take a look at the material in the Pine tar article inserted some time ago by Pjsaw (but still in the current article), and take any action you see fit? See Special:Diff/938078710. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

The Impartial Truth (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the question 'Is Kulldorff an epidemiologist?'. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Martin_Kulldorff".The discussion is about the topic Martin Kulldorff.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.C.Wright (talk • contribs) 02:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

AntiVegan

Alex, why are you anti vegan and against John McDougall? You know he is a Harvard trained doctor so he obviously knows what is what when it comes to diet and health. Do you not actually care about seeing Diabetes and heart disease gone from the planet? No? You want heart diseaes to go around the world? Wow... okay, someone clearly has an agenda to see bad health predominate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by a diet crazy (talk • contribs)

I love Wikipedia – it's the only place where I can be accused of being both "anti-vegan" (by diet crazies in one camp) and a "pro-vegan activist" (by the diet crazies in another camp). Of all the subjects I edit, diet has the most zealous true believers of all I think. Alexbrn (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

But are for or against antipasto? lol --ARoseWolf 16:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Pro-antipasto. How can that even be controversial? Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not, you are for it. I am waiting for the lamenting to begin. Why are you anti pasta? But seriously, or not, a controversy can be made out of anything. The reason I love Wikipedia is because I may edit within the sphere of my interests but I do not nor should I edit my opinions into mainspace. Many view that as constricting but I do not. It is freeing to an extent. You can believe what you want, I can believe what I want and there are cases where neither even makes it into the encyclopedia because what Wikipedia considers a reliable source says different from the both of us. What is freeing is that I don't have to care, only follow policy on reliable sources. --ARoseWolf 17:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it doesn't antimatter. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer RfC

Could you maybe chill? Your tone and words against me are completely disproportionate to the situation. JBchrch talk 15:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing against you personally, but I do take objection to snide attacks on groups of editors built on erroneous statements. That kind of thing won't do. Alexbrn (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Changes in article low carb diet.

Hello,

This is regarding the changes I made to the article Low carbohydrate diet that was reverted by you. I used a non-primary reliable source to back the added content.

I added that low carb diet tends to raise the blood LDL levels commonly known as bad cholesterol, which as per the lipid hypothesis is a risk for multiple heart/cardiovascular diseases. There is a well established scientific consensus which corroborates the lipid hypothesis as stated in the lipid hypothesis article.

Now it is well known that low carb diets tend to raise blood LDL which isn't mentioned in the low carb article currently. It is important to mention it, hence I made those changes.

So pls consider restoring my version that you reverted.

Thank you!!!2409:4071:E96:1D6:BD8C:CAF2:7368:F711 (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The article already said it. Please continue any further discussion at its Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Not reliable sources

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

---

I am curiois how you are determining if sources/references are "not reliable". You repeatedly remove peer reviewed journal articles as "fringe" sources. Your determinations seem arbitrary and not based upon criteria stipulated by wikipedia guidelines. Your editorial contributions do not appear to improve this article but just remove valid citations. Additionally you remove itens as "gobbledygook". Just because you lack an understanding of a concept dies not naje the concept gobbledygook, and if SE is based upon sonetging that sounds like gobblydygook to you, but is from a peer reviewed or secondary source, it is a valid inclusion. Please reverse you recent edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanguard666 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant for lay readers, so if something is gobbledegook outside its fringe milieu that it's bad. Please see WP:MEDRS for guidance on sourcing for biomedical content. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

you did not reply to my question. You personally believing something is gobbledygook is not a peer reviewed determination, especially when your assessment that it is such is not peer reviewed in a respected and well cited journal with a high impact score. You delete all articles from Frontiers in Psychology or Frontiers in Neuroscience despite being peer reviewed sources, with high impact scores AND meeting Wkipedia's source guidelines. Please cite how your deletion of material specifically does not meet specific criteria set by Wikipedia as i know of no guidelines that pertain to "gobbledygook". Vanguard666 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_in_Psychology

"Individual Frontiers journals have separate journal-level ratings. As of 2021, over 60 Frontiers journals are listed in the Norwegian Scientific Index, of which 2 have a rating of "level 2" (top 20% of all journals in their field), over 60 have a rating of "level 1" (standard academic) and 3 have a rating of "level 0" (not academic).

As of 2021, 9 Frontiers Media journals have been selected for inclusion in MEDLINE.

In broader databases, Frontiers Media has over 80 journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) with a DOAJ seal, over 40 journals listed in PubMed Central, and over 50 journals listed in Scopus and the Web of Science." Wikipedia Vanguard666 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm informing you what's gobbledegook, in case you can't tell yourself. You still need to read WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

John Campbell

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

---

I am unsure that your recent reason given for reversion will look good given the page is under some scrutiny. Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Only to people who aren't familiar with the matter. The source is of course "reliable" but trying to use it to imply the certificates show death-with-covid not death-by-covid is not good. Alexbrn (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

No true Scotsman, right? Alex, now that consensus is uncertain, I advise you to stop edit warring. If you believe your version is the consensus version, I point you to the quote at the top of my user page. MarshallKe (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

They do have a valid point, as that is the claim being made (by Cambel), that deaths were inflated (which no RS supports), thus it can be seen as supportive of a claim that the source in question does not make. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Norman Fenton

Dear Alex. Thank you for your recent attention to the article Norman Fenton. You say I should not write on your talk page about the content of an article, but how can I discuss Norman Fenton's merits as a teacher of writing skills when you have deleted the corresponding section. I see you are a venerable Wikipedian with more than 50,000 edits to your credit, whereas I have just enough to lose the leniency shown to newbies. You state that my contribution fails WP:V. However, it contained a citation linking to a website that is still alive. This citation, admittedly is a primary source, being the essay written by Professor Fenton, which allows the reader to verify that this essay exists. The website is RS as it is published by the Queen Mary University of London's School of Engineering and Computer Science. Could you please enlighten me about your reasons or, failing this, revert your deletion? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The place to discuss that would be Talk:Norman Fenton (an awful article BTW, as the banners indicate). The material in question did indeed fail WP:V, which is a core policy. Do you have a WP:COI in respect of Fenton? Alexbrn (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Good day Alex. Thank you very much for your reply. My only link to Professor Fenton and his university is that I read his essay "Improving Your Technical Writing Skills", which I found on the Internet at the indicated place. I found it very useful and well done. So when I discovered that there was a Wikipedia article on the professor, I added this paragraph about his essay, my only contribution to his article. So I think I have no COI. I will follow your suggestion and try to come up with some contribution to a possible discussion on the talk page. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

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

---

This is an attempt to address perceived disruptive editing of the biography for Martin Kulldorff. The diffs provided below indicate to me a pattern of disruptive, tendentious, and uncivil editing.

Failure to assume good faith

Repeatedly insinuating I have a conflict of interest: here, here, and here

Campaign to drive away productive contributors

Labelling editors "crazies"

Labelling disagreement with you as "disruptive"

Encouraging other editors “Time to ignore.”

Point-illustrating and Righting great wrongs

1. First inserted biased statement into lead here
2. Reinserted here
3. Inserted identical statement in body here

Followed up with a statement "But Wikipedia is going to be pointing-out that the bullshit behind the GBD is bullshit."[1]

Additional editing to prove a point (using biased language):

1. First stating: "Yeah it's fucked-up, but Wikipedia isn't going to shy away from calling it like it is,”[2]
2. Then inserted weasel words "making the false promise" here
3. and similar weasel words "made the false claim" here

Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability and Not accepting independent input

Despite lengthy discussions at both the talk page and the biographies of living persons noticeboard, reinserted unverified, original research here despite two other editors agreeing the statement is unsupported:

This context plays into the reasoning for the health risks of the GBD...But it is not saying that GBD will cause waves of COVID-19.
— Endwise

(source)

...the only question is that can this be rewritten to remove the alleged OR, the recurrent waves mention, and just simply focus on the counter, "the declaration’s approach would endanger Americans who have underlying conditions...
— Morbidthoughts

(source)

After reverting the content, you indirectly threatened sanctions (further Campaign to drive away productive contributors).

I request that you remove the following disputed and poorly sourced statement from the biography of Martin Kulldorff:

...warning that attempting to implement it could cause many unnecessary deaths with the potential of recurrent waves of disease spread as immunity decreases over time.

Per content policy regarding biographies:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Open invitation to de-escalate

Lastly, my previous invitation to de-escalate the situation is still open.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 06:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

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

DS Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Just a formality for the ayurveda page. I'm sure you know the drill.Cedar777 (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of John Campbell (YouTuber) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Campbell (YouTuber), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Campbell (YouTuber) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Blugeon

For forms sake I have to leave with this too, as the other user has already used a "but you didn't want the other user " defense. You need to read WP:BLUDGEON. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't parse that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I actually wondered about it too. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I left a warning at Michael Martinez's talk page. I felt it best to also ask you to stop too, as they have (previously) used the fact I did not wanr everyone about commenting on users to imply I was being unfair to them. Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, the sun is over the yardarm! Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Not that they are taking any damn notice. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."

"This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."

The segment that I added should not have been marked as a minor edit. I work with the typo team a lot, and often mark as minor, but that should not have been, and that aspect is entirely on me. As for the text being WP:OR that I added, I am completely unsure as to how that would qualify in the slightest. I can reword the segment then, though it is very neutrally written to only reflect the content from the RS as well as Prasad's views as presented therein, but it is from a secondary source and merely reflective of one particular interview (which I even annotated as coming from Reason magazine's Zach Weissmueller). Other than mislabeling the edit (which was a mistake, and right for you to call out), I do not see what else about this could possibly be construed as OR? Anyway, I will not revert again, as I do not wish any "edit-war", but I will reword with even more care this time... ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 13:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes it's obviously an essay. But it's wise. You are already edit-warring, having made your bad edit THREE times, which is poor behaviour. Maybe read WP:BRD (another wise essay). Alexbrn (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I took this to the talk page as you suggested. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 13:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Calidum 18:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverting from ignorance is not helpful. You need to read WP:MEDRS. These primary sources are unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Low-carbohydrate diet - revert

Hi there, you seem to have removed a citation I added related with the article at hand. Rather than wholeheartedly reverting my edit, don't you think it would've been more productive to improve my version? Can I ask you put back citation you deleted? Thanks. --Zaurus (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! Your link is broken. It would probably be best to raise this at the article's Talk page so everyone involved can see! Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Ivermectin studies

Regarding your reversion of my edit changing “many” studies to “some.” I looked thru MEDMOS which u cited and didn’t see anything relevant. Pls let me know which part. Thanks. JustinReilly (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"Patient". But that's just part of the problem. Please take to article Talk. Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Need your advice

Hi, Alex - sorry to bother you, but you know more about this topic than anyone. I attempted to cite the International Journal of Livestock Research but was prevented from citing it because the doi triggered a list of predatory journals. I didn't know livestock journals would be included. Apparently, that means we're not supposed to use anything that was published in it, correct? Does a predatory journal mean the articles published in it are unreliable? What about the author of the article - are they banned, too or does the problem include the journal, and the Ardahan University which is relatively new, and perhaps not accredited? Atsme 💬 📧 23:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much. Although it's possible a "good" piece will get published in such a journal (if, say, a good faith academic gets duped into submitting) it is an inherently disreputable publication so can give no confidence that WP:V is satisfied in respect of reliability. If the author, or their colleagues, manages to get published in a bona fide journal, then that would be another matter. If the content for inclusion is truly accepted knowledge, it should be possible to find an alternative source. Alexbrn (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:African wild dog on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Precious

One year!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Glutathione precursors

What about this source for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research&diff=1086118345&oldid=1086118260?: https://www.bcm.edu/news/covid-19-patients-have-increased-oxidative-stress-oxidant-damage-and-glutathione-deficiency

Merry Christmas. --Bawanio (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It's churnalism. What do you mean "Merry Christmas"? Alexbrn (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I said "Merry Christmas" because I felt stressed by you since I was editing an article and it was interrupted the same minute by you. Perhaps you can wait for 10 minutes before you revert changes. What do you think about https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7263077/ --Bawanio (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

What would be the advantage of waiting? That is primary source from 2020. Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It gives the editor time to reflect over their own edits which may make them improve the sources for example. Well, glutathione covid-treatment is widely researched, please give it a shot. --Bawanio (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Your best bet is something like PMID:33336769, though interest in this seems to have evaporated since the early stages of the pandemic. Alexbrn (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think it's very likely to be WP:UNDUE to treat glutathione as being important in Covid. I think there would have to be a review of clinical studies before we should cover it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Experimental cancer treatment

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

---

You recently undid edits made to the Experimental Cancer Treatment article, citing "Lots of unreliable sourcing and a spot check finds copy-paste copyvios." While inadvertent copy-paste copyvios will be corrected, your must justify your assertion of "lost of unreliable sourcing" (which includes esteemed publications such as the journals Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics and the British Journal of Cancer, otherwise the edits will remain as-is. Please specify exactly which sources are "unreliable" (in your subjective opinion) and how exactly so, so that this issue can be resolved. You cannot simply remove various subsections based on your obvious biased towards the pharmaceutical industry. as has been documented previously in other talk pages and web articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.217.91.34 (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia's guidelines on medical sourcing. In short, avoid this kind of use of primary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Vitamin C / cancer

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

---

The added source is the primary pharmacokinetic literature from which the claims in the other cited source, which is a review, derive. Careful examination of the source, particularly with respect to the cited review, reveal that they are from the same group, and this study has been widely cited and produced throughout the literature.

(talk page watcher) Csrj, please sign your comments with four tildes like this ~~~~. A bot did it for you this time but it is good practice to remember to do it because not every page on Wikipedia has a bot setup for that purpose. Thanks! --ARoseWolf 17:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Csrj: Better take it to the article Talk page. Using primary sources "rather than" reviews would fly in the face of WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Low carbohydrate diet edits

Hi,

What POV problems are there for the recent edits on the page? Thanks Altanner1991 (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Excessive attribution rather than WP:ASSERTION and a big disconnect between what your edit summary said and what happened. Please continue any further discussion at the article's Talk page. So far as I can see, that article does not have a WP:MEDPRI problem. Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

How berberine sources are unreliable?

Btw I was also gonna add https://goop.com/wellness/health/understanding-diabetes/

Also this https://www.goodhormonehealth.com/2020/02/03/3ss-2/ Machinexa (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Why troll? Alexbrn (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What? Machinexa (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, you were serious about adding Goop as a source? Alexbrn (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Machinexa Good Hormone Health is also not a reliable source reference. Either limit your referencing to reviews published in reliable source journals or cease to edit medical/health/supplement articles. David notMD (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your work on medical content, especially your close attention to sourcing. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 13:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! After a turbulent start I have a feeling we're going to be wikifriends . Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this is the beginning of a beautiful wikifriendship. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 17:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but who's Rick and who's Louis? Alexbrn (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I've got some French blood so I guess I'd be Louis? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 18:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:OpenSearch (software) on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Plant-based diets

Thanks for the check, I wasn't aware of this. I just found the publisher on WP:CITEWATCH. CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

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

---

I have lodged a dispute about this article. StN (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

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

On feeding the trolls

I'd recommend not engaging with the IP trolls on VPP further. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 10:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Incident discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Palpable (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Carnivore Diet Citation

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

---

Hi Alexbrn. Here is a link to a study from Harvard University published in Current Developments in Nutrition (https://academic.oup.com/cdn/article/5/12/nzab133/6415894) regarding the Carnivore Diet. The Wikipedia section on the Carnivore Diet states, "There is no clinical evidence that a carnivore diet is safe or provides any health benefits". Due to the fact that there are some reputable studies (this one from Harvard for example) which dispute that claim, stating there is "no clinical evidence" is incorrect, and the term "limited clinical evidence" should instead be used. I know there are some politically motivated, bad actors on this page. I'm hoping you're not one of them. ReadingRiot (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)ReadingRiot

There is no clinical evidence. This is correctly sourced. Alexbrn (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Simply claiming the evidence doesn't exist isn't an argument; especially after I cited the evidence. Either make an argument or you will be deemed a malicious actor. Again, here's the study. (https://academic.oup.com/cdn/article/5/12/nzab133/6415894)

ReadingRiot (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

ReadingRiot, please strike your personal attack (WP:AGF and WP:NPA) against Alexbrn. I know discussions can be frustrating but please stick to commenting on the information rather than the motive intent of any individual user. --ARoseWolf 15:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@ReadingRiot: I am aware of the "study". A survey in a low-quality journal does constitute evidence of anything much (other than the delusions of various food faddists), and it certainly does not constitute clinical evidence of anything. Please raise any further discussions on the article's Talk page, and expect further personal nastiness to earn you sanctions. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Carnivore Diet Citation

"please strike your personal attack" What personal attack? I have not made any personal attack. I asked him to make an argument to back up what he was saying. It is important to debate and make arguments and provide evidence. Stating that I will personally think of them as malicious if they refuse to make arguments is not an attack, just a statement of my own viewpoint. I'm willing to hear his argument, but he refuses to make one. Until he does, my edit will stand. The term "no clinical evidence" means there is not a single piece of evidence; and any evidence, even supposedly low quality evidence, makes the use of the term "no clinical evidence" incorrect. "Limited clinical evidence" is the correct wordage. ReadingRiot (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)ReadingRiot

The personal attack in the section above which reads - "Either make an argument or you will be deemed a malicious actor." - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 04:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

ReadingRiot, the fact that you take this discussion to the editor’s talk page and not to the article talk page gives the impression that you are willing to making this a personal matter. Concerning the „study“ you mentioned it was an online survey between carnivore fanboys without monitoring any clinical biomarkers or endpoints. Clearly this ist not clinical evidence. CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Linking the Apocrypha

Linking the Apocrypha.[3] Readers must be able to find the entire Holy Writ! Bishonen | tålk 19:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC).

Something new every day. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake

I'd like to apologize for edit-warring in the GBD article with possibly unreliable sources. I'm not very experienced with MEDRS, so I'll stop editing the GBD article for now. X-Editor (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

NP, maybe WP:MEDFAQ (incomplete as it is) may be useful? Alexbrn (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That seems useful. Thanks! X-Editor (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Novem Linguae/Essays/MEDRS simple explanation might also be helpful. I'm still refining it, feedback welcome. But I think it concisely captures some main points. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll also be sure to check that out. X-Editor (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

"Plagiarism"

Your edit summary here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&curid=66692273&diff=1093872785&oldid=1093871692 mentions "plagiarism". I'm not sure what you're referring to. Please clarify. Le Marteau (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

You took novel wording out of a source and asserted it without attribution in Wikipedia's voice. Alexbrn (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

My wording is not "novel" I put it in my own words as the story is being covered. You need to stop calling other editors work "plagiarism" so casually. You're helping to make the place suck. Le Marteau (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Please Google "WHO reverses stance". That is how the issue is being phrased by MULTIPLE reliable sources, not just me. Le Marteau (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Don't copy thoughts out of sources as if it's your own work. Alexbrn (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Havana Syndrome - cohort affected

Hi Alexbrn You removed my edit on Havana Syndrome page as unreliable. However, it was supported by statements by one of the leading experts in the field of neuroweapons, Dr Giordano of Georgetown University at a medical symposium organized by UT Southwest. Judging by the expediency with which you removed the edit, you didn't have time to review two videos from the symposium I posted as substantiation. I would hardly call a statement from the leading expert in the field at a medical symposium unreliable. Please, correct the situation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenbermd (talk • contribs) 09:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

We need reputably-published sources, and the WP:LEDE must only be a summary of material already in the article body. Please make any further comment at Talk:Havana syndrome. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to improve that article lately, I remember of the GEVAL mess and will try to compare when I can. —PaleoNeonate – 16:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Polarity therapy

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

---

Hi Alexbrn. Thanks for reviiewing this article. If you check the history of this article it has been given as notable for main space. Can you please reinstate it. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

See discussion at WP:FT/N. Just because a topic may be "notable" does not mean it has to have its own article. Alexbrn (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Alexbrn. It was discussed with Wikipedia Administrator.Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I know. If you want to argue for a standalone article I suggest contributing to the discussion at WP:FTN. I'm quite happy with the outcome. Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Glossary of areas of mathematics on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Isolation tank

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

---

Hi, I appreciate your attention to the Isolation Tank article. However, I was wondering why you have flagged and deleted material on neuroimaging in the article as unreliable? It is properly cited with references to recent work in the journal Human Brain Mapping. Thanks in advance for your time. Kleinhern (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not WP:MEDRS (as my initial edit summaries said). Alexbrn (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see some of the confusion. The paragraph on neuroimaging cited Al Zoubi et al. 2021 Human Brain Mapping and does not give any biomedical info or conclusions. This was simply a study of the effects of several float tank sessions on resting brain networks in healthy volunteers. So, not info about health or medicine, but very relevant scientists who are interested in sensory reduction and brain connectivity. So I think this would be appropriate to add back in, would you agree? Kleinhern (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

No. The "effects of several float tank sessions on resting brain networks" is WP:BMI. This would be better discussed at the article Talk page so others can contribute. Alexbrn (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I see your view. My view is that this context doesn't treat the float tank as a therapy or medicine, but rather just an experimental condition where sensory input is reduced. So, in other words, it's like saying "viewing a bistable percept like the Necker cube results in competition between two representations of the stimulus in higher order visual areas" ... it's not a statement about medicine, just a statement about perception. Kleinhern (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

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

AD research

Are you working up Sylvain Lesné? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Noticed all this stuff this morning. Not sure if notable as a person, though the likely ramifications are ... ! Alexbrn (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you get this? I'm paywalled ... https://www.startribune.com/senior-university-of-minnesota-scientist-responds-to-fraud-allegations-in-alzheimers-research/600192351/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this a copy? https://yrtnews.com/senior-u-scientist-responds-to-allegations-of-fraud-in-alzheimers-disease-research/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, I got it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• @SandyGeorgia: Also, this Alexbrn (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just coming to today after 14 hours sleep, COVID brain fog. Haven't yet checked the article, but knew that angle was coming. Glad we got out ahead of the curve ... will next check if it has hit the New York Times, Wash Post et al yet ... A lot of the financial stuff is mentioned in the Science podcast that I added to External Links last night, just before I crashed with COVID exhaustion ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  PS, I'm really slow today in case you have a chance to get on any of it ... I imagine I will find all kinds of novice editing messing up the articles already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  PS, read the Science Podcast ... there are two separate and concurrent scandals. Kinda makes one contemplate MEDRS ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm slow too (travelling Bruges->Cambridge coming back from a post-COVID holiday). Nice work on Sylvain Lesné BTW! Alexbrn (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Still catching up, still slow, relieved to see the article held over night, will incorporate new sources throughout the day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  PS, I got lucky on Lesné. As you noticed, I jumped the gun on notability a bit, which I had not realized when I started the article. I held my breath, knowing he would shortly become notable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar of Medicine

		The Medicine Barnstar
		Duly awarded to the gatekeeper of all medical knowledge. jps (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Bravo -Roxy the English speaking dog 14:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Bravo from me too. I looked at what it was about, and I can only Facepalm over that stuff on Twitter. (But then again, that's pretty much always how I feel about Twitter.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SmolBrane (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It's made of wood ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Research article in Science

26 Jul 2022 research article in Science: The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic

Key quote: "Our analyses indicate that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred via the live wildlife trade in China, and show that the Huanan market was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic." --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I've raised this at COVID-19 lab leak theory (and indeed started including content there). Alexbrn (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hemi-Sync

Considering your expertise with this, I thought I'd just leave a note in case you'd like to evaluate these claims and sources. There's a claim of randomised controlled trials but the idea that listening to a sound effect could replace anaesthesia still appears extraordinary to me. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Never heard of this! I'll take a look ... Alexbrn (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: In the end I did a WP:BLAR. Alexbrn (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oh well, that didn't stick. Have raised a query at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Request attention on John Campbell (YouTuber)

Dear Alexbrn, I have made an edit to the page of John Campbell (YouTuber) for which you are the contributor. I have left my reasoning at it's talk page (Talk:John_Campbell_(YouTuber)#Monkeypox_parallels) but wish to notify you and give an opportunity for discussion in case it is not within your watchlist. SuperiorWalrus^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Request of having some editing done to a user's "user page"

The user in question is "Smaricic". If you look at their user page part of the text there is just a advertisement asking people to go to a certain website. I believe trying to convince the person to remove the text over the "talk section" won't work at all. I have no idea what official channel to go through for something like this (that's not trying to convincing a user through their talk page). 2601:443:47F:2130:29E1:CFFE:3736:BA4D (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:WPSPAM for some guidance on what to do ... Alexbrn (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Request attention to WP:Placebo

I see that you did some work on the Placebo article, there's a long standing mis-reference dating to:

Revision as of 11:15, 22 August 2019 (edit) (undo) Anywikiuser (talk | contribs) (Restructured lede, moving effects and non-effects to a higher paragraph; various other tweaks.)

which puts reference (4) as supporting the text "In general, placebos can affect how patients perceive their condition and encourage the body's chemical processes for relieving pain" - the given reference doesn't in fact support that. I'm unclear how to unpick this particular problem, so just alerting you as a possibly interested editor. In Vitro Infidelium (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

"Maybe" bludgeoning

In this edit, you changed your comment and inserted the phrase maybe even to the point of WP:BLUDGEONING. I believe that my edits in that RfC were civil, that I responded to comments directly, and that I did not engage in the sort of repetitive thumping of one's own arguments that constitutes bludgeoning. Please do not hedge on this—if you mean to suggest that I was bludgeoning, please say so directly. But, if you do not believe that I was bludgeoning the discussion, please strike that comment so as to not cast WP:ASPERSIONS. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you're right - comment struck out. Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Berberine

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

---

Hello Alex, I do no understand a) why you remove my edits which include sourced infos about the substance Berberine and its possible use, and b) why you consider this an edit-war at this stage and treaten me with a lock. I included only information which has been in the cited source for years, and I included some other sources which are reliable. Please be detailed why you are going against this. Not only the possible negative effects should be mentioned in such kind of article. Thank you -- Chris 2003:CB:2F02:AAF2:B410:5A48:C024:10ED (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

You cannot (for example) take a source which says something is "possibly safe" and have Wikipedia say it is "safe". That is misrepresenting a source. Please raise any further points at Talk:Berberine so other editors can see. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Recreational use of nitrous oxide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relaxation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Email

...what if I don't agree to my email address being made public? Cabayi (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

If you can think of a good solution that would be great. The scheme is to prevent abusive emails being sent with the claim their content is protected; in that case I reserve the right to share (something I've never had to do). Bon courage (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Username

Note to my Talk Page stalkers: I have changed my Username in an attempt to reduce the risk of further outing and off-wiki harassment. Bon courage (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I am so sorry this has occurred. I do like the new name though. Very fitting. --ARoseWolf 15:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Me, too. And of course this resident of BONaire likes the name.... Atsme 💬 📧 17:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

+1 to all of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Might want to {{Db-author}} or revision delete more of your userpage. I still see some personal info floating around in the oldest revisions in there. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bon courage,

I just noticed that you changed your username. If you are concerned, you might tag any redirects from your former account to this account for deletion. Generally, all of your user subpages have a redirect from your former account to your current account. I'm sorry if you have faced any harassment. You've done so much good work here, no one should face abuse for simply editing an encyclopedia. Take care, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks Liz, ARoseWolf, Atsme, Novem Linguae & Tryptofish for your encouragement and support. The baddies have noted the name change in various locations and of course once you've "outed" yourself on Wikipedia the genie can't be put back in the bottle. I am contemplating another name change in the future to muddy the tracks, or maybe a WP:FRESHSTART – though that seems to invite as many problems as it would solve since the assumption seems to be that fresh starts always follow problem histories! Bon courage (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

My RFA

Gotta wait a bit, still not actually open. Someone else is supposed to add a co-nom, but they're very busy. I'll be opening it up in 6 or so hours if they haven't added their nomination statement by that point. Thanks for the vote of confidence as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

I mentioned you in an existing edit warring complaint, for your violation of this Arbcom ruling.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 15:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Appreciation

I just want to say that I appreciate your patience. I'm willing to learn and listen. TheWandering (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

All that's needed is to find good sources and summarize them well. There is no need to fight. Bon courage (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Reverting all my edits

Hello @Bon courage, you've gone thru and reverted all my edits from the past couple days, I think I'm doing the right thing, can you explain what the problem is? Lead's commonly have a sentence or two about health affects of the article's topic. For example, the meat article already had health information about raw meat in the lead, in a single sentence, medical information about overcooked meat should work as well? Brian Shaposky (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be inserting the same content from non-WP:MEDRS sources into multiple articles, and using a cancer.gov source which states "IARC did not conclude that HCAs and PAHs were associated with cancer incidence", to imply not just the opposite, but the opposite effect as causal. Medical sourcing for human health, especially serious diseases like cancer, needs to be impeccable and responsibly summarized, and Wikipedia must be careful not to contain misleading content. Bon courage (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

First, there are three different chemicals in question here, PACs, HCAs, and Acrylamide. You seem to be disputing the source for PACs and HCAs resulting from burnt meat. But, you also reverted my edits on Potatoes and starch, about acrymalide resulting from burning those foods. That's based on a different source, from the American Cancer society (Cancer.org, easy to confuse with cancer.gov), which says in no uncertain terms that it is probably carcinogenic. Do you also think these sources are bad or did you just think it was the same as the meat and fat articles, and if so can I re-add my edits here?

@user:bon courage did you have a response to this?

Regarding the sentence in the cancer.gov article about PACs and HCAs, the sentence right before it says they determined it to be "probably carcinogenic to humans", which is why I always used "probable" "potentially" or "likely" when referring to the chemicals created from burning food as carcinogens. The sentence saying they couldn't conclude they were associated doesn't mean they disproved it, it just means the didn't meet a certain significance interval to definitely say they were associated. Both are correct, that its "probably carcinogenic" and that it hasn't been definitively proven yet.

@user:bon courage did you have a response to this?

Also, another sources I used, Healthline, said similar things, is that source also not satisfactory for WP:MEDRS? The organization seems reputable, with articles written from experts, containing citations to other reputable medical organizations. Also, the source from the uk university should satisfy WP:MEDRS right? And lastly, I don't think it hurts to add reputable news organizations, like Times of India, writing articles based on good medical sources and summarizing the results. Or are you saying I shouldn't include these other sources at all?

Brian Shaposky (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

None of those sources (except cancer.gov) are WP:MEDRS for these kinds of weighty statements about cancer. Bon courage (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but does it hurt to add sources that say the same things as reputable organizations? Often the reputable organizations are American ones, and if there's an article from another country in a reputable news source that has the same conclusion, that can help increase the confidence in the claim made for people who might want something from institutions in their own country saying the same thing. Brian Shaposky (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Just use reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Keto

Chris Ducat Also dealing with this behavior from this account, they're being banned from accessing my email. I have pointed out specific examples of phrases that are not NPOV and their only response is "it's good". No, the summary of Low-carbohydrate diet needs to reflect phrasing that is NPOV. The diet has been practiced, in some form or another, since the 19th century and has mountains of research behind it. Reducing carbohydrates and sugars is not "extreme". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Ducat (talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

What you say about the diet is wrong. It might be an idea to follow WP:BRD and raise any suggestion you have at Talk:Low-carbohydrate diet. Repeteadly blanking most of the lede is unhelpful. Bon courage (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism of Krista Varady's page

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

---

I noticed you removed all of the research of the scientist, Krista Varady, even though each statement was supported by a scientific article. The page simply outlines her research contributions to the field of intermittent fasting. It is interesting that you chose to target a female scientist and call her "self-promotional", while you chose not to target any male scientists. This behavior seems overtly sexist. Also, I believe what you did is considered vandalism, since you "removed encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition". Please stop removing content from this page or these actions will be reported. It seems like others are complaining about similar behavior from you (Keto article above). Ejacobs8990 (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

What I wisely removed was promotional-seeming original research and biomedical claims sourced to non-WP:MEDRS sources. We can't have that! I have removed thus stuff again, and note the WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for content you want to add. Please make any further comment at Talk:Krista Varady. Bon courage (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

These are not promotional claims. They are the research contributions of this scientist to her field. Each statement is supported by several medical journal citations. Your actions are vandalism and blatantly sexist. I will be reporting you to the administrators. I seems like you have a history a bullying on wikipedia and this will be brought to their attention. Ejacobs8990 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ejacobs8990: You'd be well-advised to discuss the matter in a collegiate manner before escalating. Bon courage is a very experienced and respected editor. Your accusations are in blatant violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ejacobs8990: Vandalism and sexism!? Sounds serious. If you really believe that you would need to report it at WP:AIN. However, I assume you're just trying to "bully" your way to getting the article to how you like. It won't work. Wikipedia is not going to include unverified WP:PEACOCKING in its biographical articles. Bon courage (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Heather Heying

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

---

Hi Bon New to Editing and I won’t repeat my reasons for the edits here since I think you read them. I liked your Bio and I think we’d agree on most things given the bit of hand tipping you did by adding the additional notes about why Heather is wrong about her use of Ivermectin. Could you address my concern though? Is a Bio a place to take issue with the subject? I appreciate that I don’t agree with her because I don’t either but I think that is for readers to determine without our help. Thank you for the guidance for editing here I truly appreciate what you’ve said and I apologize for my clumsy landing. I’ll learn the right way to do this. Best, Jonathan Jonathan94596 (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Alexander Technique wiki

Hello there, there is an important topic which you removed to do with the miscateogization of the AT; see below:

The Select Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Lords included 44 recommendations in its comprehensive report on “Complementary and Alternative Medicine” (CAM) released in November. Many of the recommendations refer to a classification scheme used in the report to organize therapies into three groups.

Group 1, called “Professionally Organised Alternative Therapies” contains acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal medicine, homeopathy, and osteopathy. The Lords report says: “Each of these therapies claims to have an individual diagnostic approach and are seen as the ‘Big 5’ by most of the CAM world.”

Group 2, called “Complementary Therapies” contains Alexander technique, aromatherapy, Bach and other flower remedies, body work therapies including massage, counselling stress therapy, hypnotherapy, meditation, reflexology, Shiatsu, spiritual healing, Maharishi Ayurvedic Medicine, nutritional medicine, and Yoga. Therapies in this group “are most often used to complement conventional medicine and do not purport to embrace diagnostic skills.” 68.129.197.221 (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, what? In general a report from the House of Lords is not a reliable source for things in the realm of science/medicine. Please discuss this article's content at its Talk page. Bon courage (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not the only source for this info, but there are no sources stating explicitly the AT is an alternative medicine to my knowledge (it isn't one). 68.129.197.221 (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The Complete Guide to Complementary Therapies in Cancer Care, pp. 155-159 (2011)No Access

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/9789814335669_0023

https://scoliosisclinic.co.uk/blog/complementary-therapies-and-scoliosis/

https://wp.stolaf.edu/musician-health/complementary-practices/ 68.129.197.221 (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://alexandertechnique.co.uk/public/document/registering-complementary-natural-healthcare-council

https://nass.co.uk/managing-my-as/exercise/complementary-therapies/ 68.129.197.221 (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Warning

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

This is an attempt to address perceived disruptive editing of the biography for Martin Kulldorff.

WP:BLP states the following:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

WP:RSP states the following:

Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation.

This edit is an unsourced statement that you made after you participated in a discussion on the talk page specifically about it being unsourced and factually inaccurate. In that discussion, you acknowledged that the SBM article's "wording is imprecise" and that this new version is what you think "the "two years" comment means." This is WP:OR.

WP:OR states the following:

A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of this policy against original research.

Poorly sourced and contentious material are not acceptable in a biography. This is core policy, as quoted above. This biography and the statement itself is also in context of WP:ARBCOVID, of which I'm sure you're aware.

WP:TE states the following:

Tendentious editing is a manner of editing that, when taken as a whole, is partisan, biased, or skewed. It does not conform to neutral point of view, and it fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content, or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions.

Because the statement as currently written is unsourced, it should be removed from the biography as original research without further discussion.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 01:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Michael.C.Wright, luckily that source links to its source which makes it clear it's the 2020/2021 season.[4] If you're concerned, that additional cite can be added. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The SBM article does not mention the 2020/2021 season at all.

The statement from the SBM is this: "The past two years, with COVID-19 mitigation in place, the flu killed just one child." If the author was talking about a single flu season, they should have written "the 2020/2021 season." But they didn't. They wrote "the past two years" which is not a simile for "the 2020/2021 flu season."

The article was published in December of 2021. The past two years would therefore be 2020 and 2021. That will include part of the 2020/21 flu season and part of the 2019/20 flu season, which makes the statement of "just one child" factually false.

Editors are having to make assumptions and insinuations to make it say otherwise. The word "season" is used exactly once in that entire SBM article and it is not in the context of one child who died of influenza.

Bon courage has already acknowledged the SBM article is imprecisely worded. Therefore any attempt to "interpret" the imprecision is WP:OR. On a WP:BLP, the sources should be of such quality that they stand on their own, without interpretation. This is core policy.

As I continue to ask other editors and now I'll ask you; if an editor said 'what Kulldorff really meant was not what he said, but this...' would you accept it on a COVID-related BLP?

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 02:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

As it's not providing detail about the BLP or making a claim about the BLP, I don't see it as a BLP violation. The source cited links the text flu killed just one child to the CDC site which provides the clarity necessary to state 2021/2022. We have a secondary source providing the context and linking it to the article subject and then another source, specifically called out by a secondary source, that gives the exact data. That isn't an OR issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

"if an editor said 'what Kulldorff really meant was not what he said, but this...'" ← if Kulldorff had written something vague but it was 100% obvious from the context what was meant then yes, we would respect the obvious meaning and certainly not propagate a wrong interpretation. And (unlike this case) that might actually have a BLP aspect to it. Bon courage (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice

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

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 16:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Bloody Hell! you just won't give it a rest will you. Please never post to my Talk page again. Bon courage (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Cannabidiol Edits

Why are you deleting correctly cited and referenced text regarding the 'Origins of Cannabidiol. What authority do you have to delete factual information cited correctly?? Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see your Talk page. Bon courage (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I have seen your response; it doesn't answer the question. Qualitative CBD Researcher (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps try WP:BRD at Talk:Cannabidiol ? Bon courage (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

EMDR

I was not aware that one was not allowed to remove incorrect & opinion-based information without replacing it. This seems counterproductive to supplying accurate information but I will be happy to gather the correct research and *current* information since I have access to it. Veritst1.6 (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article's Talk page. Thanks. Bon courage (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Aseem Malhotra

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

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your uncouth comments on Mr. Malhotra's character. The thread is Personal attack against article subject on talk page. Thank you. Nutez (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Before heading to the drama boards you might want to read WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is not a place for apologias for grift, misinformation and quackery. Bon courage (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar with those policies, thank you very much. You might want to familiarize yourself with WP:AGF. I have never advocated for the inclusion of apologias for grift, misinformation or quackery in Wikipedia, so please do not accuse me of such harmful activities. Also, please mind your edit summaries – rude comments like "pain" or "go away" are not helpful. Nutez (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

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

re: Great Barrington Declaration talk page

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

---

On what grounds did you close this talk page discussion after only a single comment? That appears to be a violation of Wikipedia policy and norms. Without some explanation, that appears to be a closure that will have to be reverted. Rossami (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a reasonable closure per WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAP. There are already a number of similar sections open on the page of that user cares to vent their spleen about their specific issues with the article and suggestions for improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

No, that's actually not a reasonable closure. Arguments over the neutrality of the content of an article are exactly what the Talk page is intended for and are a core part of creating the encyclopedia. NOTAFORUM does not apply. Neither does SOAP. You might be on slightly stronger ground to say that the argument is duplicative of a debate already on the Talk page but I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment either. The other arguments are about overall tone, credentials, etc. This was a very targeted complaint about the lede. The discussion should be allowed to continue. Rossami (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Some people are really really slow

I'd categorised you as a new good chap, and have just now discovered your secret identity. - Roxy the dog 08:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

This was discussed at the cabal's Summer Summit, Roxy. You were there, so must have been doggy daydreaming ... Bon courage (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Endemic (phase of) COVID-19

Is it really necessary to carve up lasting content on an article with (my count) fourteen edits in a three hour span? Including the renaming? It's a bit over the top. This is a collaborative project... SmolBrane (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I could have bundled them up into one, but I prefer to do individual edits to make it cleaner. You'll see some great new sourcing too – Rejoice! Meanwhile, the discussion at WT:MED is gradually veering in a good direction I think ... Bon courage (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Male expendability on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Would love your help on a ProPublica RFC

See User:Shibbolethink/Sandbox. I think my personal position is "generally reliable except science/data reporting".— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't really approve of WP:RSP - and this current situation shows why. It has no policy force so can't be used as much of an argument, particularly when an entry depends on a single RfC. I might comment on a RfC, but suspect it could open a whole can on worms with the fringers coming down on one side, US politics people having God-knows-what axes to grind, and many participants not appreciating why a "Pullitzer-prize winning" outfit could be dubious. Bon courage (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Your recent editing history at Endemic COVID-19 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Crossroads ^-talk- 09:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring to use prevention.com as a source for COVID-19. Okay, you've shown your colours. Bon courage (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that's the issue? Then just delete it and leave the other 4 sources. [5] Very strange to purge comments from the head of the World Health Organization. Crossroads ^-talk- 09:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Not really, I've inserted them in another article where they're appropriate. Thanks for the reminder about 3RR: in my concern to get the article right I'd temporarily put it out of my mind! Bon courage (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Your closure

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

---

In light of the fact that you're on record as suggesting that I should be sanctioned[6], you're not neutral with regards to discussions I've started. This makes you unsuitable as a closer of discussions I'm involved in, and especially of ones I started. I suggest you self revert your close here: [7]. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It was a good close. Bon courage (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

ever having suggested the user be sanctioned is not grounds for "involvement" of any discussion the user ever starts. To suggest such a precedent is to suggest an ever-dwindling number of administrators who are allowed to act. It's absurd. The topics in question are completely different, the consensus at that RSN discussion is patently obvious given the numerous discussions about that topic in the archive, and the discussion progress itself. One might ask: are you unhappy about the closure or about the course of the discussion? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah and TBH I wasn't paying much attention to usernames, rather just that another AP2 snowball was gathering pace. Bon courage (talk) Bon courage (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Literally no one who responded was in overall support of OP's ask. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

*Shrug* The OP can always undo it, or raise this at WP:ANI. Doubt that would be wise. Bon courage (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Interested in your viewpoint

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

---

Could you please underscore your decision to not include credible cited sources that were included on the page to show updated academic consensus in the scientific literature about naturopathic medicine?

I welcome your input. SP1111 17:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenpeters (talk • contribs)

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

Your Stance on Naturopathy

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

---

Hey Bon. Could you please let me know your decision to not include credible cited sources that were included on the Naturopathic Medicine page to show updated academic consensus in the scientific literature about naturopathic medicine?

Looking forward to hearing back. SP1111 23:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GR8M8 (talk • contribs)

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

a proposal regarding Macrobiotic diet

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

---

Have you investigated the claims I made today, that the way macrobiotics is being used in 2022 is far different from what the current article says? The "rice diet" cited in that article was something one of the macrobiotic founders suggested many decades ago as a temporary measure; it was never intended to be used long term. I am not myself practicing macrobiotics, and I recognize that there were some outrageous health claims made by certain individuals in the past. My claim is that the macrobiotic community: (1) has not died out, and thus was never a "fad", and (2) is no longer "officially" making any outrageous health claims, and (3) contains within its body of advice information on cooking and healthy eating that might be beneficial to people with heart disease and other conditions requiring a low-salt, low-oil diet. It is not easy to cook that way. My hope is that this article could be revised in such a way as to include the appropriate warnings (it does not cure cancer, prevent infections, etc; and being mostly vegan, people eating that way require a B12 supplement) but also include the potential benefits. There are a number of articles in the medical literature that support what I say here. If you are willing, I will look some of those up and write a draft in my sandbox of some possible revisions to the article as it stands now. Would you be willing to look over such a draft if I write it? You may of course reject it, but would you at least look?Harborsparrow (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

If I write such a draft, I will of course put it on the article Talk page for review. But, would you agree to read it? I am asking sincerely.Harborsparrow (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Harrassment

Don't know if any admins are watching, but having trouble at User talk:World Carnivore Tribe‎ with that user stirring things and wanting to riff on my real-world identity. Bon courage (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about that. Absent a prompt response, there's an email link at the top of WP:OS. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bon courage!

Happy New Year!

Bon courage,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)