User talk:Bon courage/Archive 4

Notice of ANI

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

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Alexbrn. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. __DrChrissy (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

btw DrChrissy it is fine to post formal notices on the talk page of users who have asked you to stay off their pages. in case you need it said explicitly, you can do so at mine. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yohimbine

Curious about your reversion. The Institute of Sports Medicine, Serbia is not, as you put it, a "crap source". The Serbian Journal of Sports Sciences is an oft-cited, peer-reviewed journal. The study I linked to is also cited frequently. See http://www.corpuscompendium.com/2014/01/yohimbine-hcl-fat-loss-aid.html and elsewhere with a simple gsearch. Other studies corroborate the findings with a high p value. I'm reverting again, and ask that you more vigorously check sources before reverting again - superβεεcat  18:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss article content on the article's talk page and - don't edit war. Your source is an old primary, replacing a more recent secondary with it is a big no-no. Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

A single revert is not "edit warring", but happy to move discussion to Article's talk page. Recency of a source is secondary to quality, but finding a secondary for that (and other corroborating sources) is trivial - superβεεcat  18:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, repeatedly forcing your favoured version (as you have done) is edit warring. You are misrepresenting the current state of medical knowledge on this topic and article is now misleading our readers. But I'll not edit-war too, and let others weigh in ... Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Under that logic any SINGLE REVERT would be an edit war. wp:3rr, which you mistakenly invoked, specifically states that three is the number for good reason; I haven't even hit TWO reversions. A single reversion is not a war. You are assuming bad-faith, and misrepresenting my intent. - superβεεcat  19:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Read the policy WP:EW. You seem to think it's okay simply to re-assert your dodgy edit without even any Talk page discussion. Why are you inserting old primary sources and erasing up-to-date secondary ones? Alexbrn (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Example for discussion

Alexbrn, if you aren't a zombie, could you take a look at Brain (food)? There's a false narrative setup playing off the "benefits" of eating brains vs. the "risks". However, when one takes a look at the sources in the article, one finds little to no support for the "nutritional benefits of eating brains", just original research and cherry picked data. My guess is that this argument supporting the eating of brains comes primarily from culturally-specific manufacturers and marketers who target certain ethnic groups. For example, there is big money behind promoting the eating of beef brains in the latino community in the US. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Have trimmed/watchlisted, but at first glance the article looks reasonably sensible ATM. Alexbrn (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a huge improvement. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No hurry on any of this, just curious on how you would respond to it:

Eating live animals

• "Oysters are the most common animal often eaten raw and alive. They are considered healthiest when eaten raw on the half shell." (health claim sourced to "mother nature network")

Snake soup

• "Scientifically, snake meat itself is "credited with unusual nutritional properties".[1] (Would you be surprised to find that this quote and statement isn't supported by the cited source?)

This next several examples are a bit more difficult. It's hard to know what to do:

Virgin boy egg

• "Supposed health benefits. Dongyang residents believe "the eggs decrease body heat, promote better blood circulation and just generally reinvigorate the body."[2] According to a practitioner of Chinese medicine, urine crystals are like ren zhong bai. "It can treat yin deficiency, decrease internal body heat, promote blood circulation and remove blood stasis."[5] One doctor said that urine has no beneficial health properties as it is simply a waste product while another labelled it unsanitary but did not object to the practice of consuming the eggs.[5][6]

Blood as food

• " Raw blood is not commonly consumed only by itself, but may be used as an addition to drinks or other dishes. One example is the drinking of seal blood: "Inuit food generates a strong flow of blood, a condition considered to be healthy and indicative of a strong body."[3] After the consumption of seal blood and meat, one could look at their veins in the wrist for proof of the strength that Inuit food provides.[3] The veins would expand and darken and, as Kristen Borré observed, "the person's blood becomes fortified and improves in color and thickness."[4] Seal blood is "seen as fortifying human blood by replacing depleted nutrients and rejuvenating the blood supply, it is considered a necessary part of the Inuit diet."[4]

Viriditas Yeah some problems with all of those. I've poked them a bit. Alexbrn (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It was interesting to read about your position on anti-corporate POV, particularly the use of so-called "shit lists", etc. Is there a guideline that you can point to so you don't have to explain this again? If not, have you thought about creating one (or an essay)? Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really interested in articles on corporations, but the policy in question would be plain old NPOV: I'd expect to see content here mirror that is good RS (the best financial, business & general press, independent scholarly & historical academic studies, etc.) That would never resemble what we have in the Criticism of Tesco article! Alexbrn (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit wars

You have it wrong. I am not engaged in an edit war, but it appears that someone else is.

Anyway, how did you get involved?

Sugarcube73 (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You aren't following WP:BRD at Circumcision, ergo, you are edit warring. Your attempt to reinstate an edit which had been deleted was the first shot in an edit war. You should have gone to the talk page and started a discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I got "involved" using my WP:WATCHLIST. Alexbrn (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"Looks iffy-article with no title"

It was definitely iffy. Found it at doi:10.3109/15368378.2012.701190. It's a primary paper, studying molusk neurons. Last time I checked mollusk neurons don't normally get exposed to intense RF, living underwater and all. In any case, mollusk neurology does not seem like the best possible model for human neurology. Good catch. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ermmm Guys. Check again. Not all molluscs live underwater. Those gorgeous helical gastropods called "land snails" are molluscs. As are land slugs. Last time I checked, they did not live underwater. Rather, they live on land and are bombarded by RF every day. Are you perhaps going beyond your areas of expertise in trying to debunk papers?DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the giant axon of the squid (a mollusc, albeit an underwater one), is the the cornerstone of research on neurology...including humans.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Snail or oyster, it's not RS for a human health claim at Electromagnetic radiation and health - thanks for confirming, LeadSongDog! Alexbrn (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy:I certainly don't claim any expertise in neurology, nor in molluscs (as if my spelling error alone wasn't enough evidence). I do know a fair bit about electomagnetics, and that was sufficient to flag this as wonky. However, we don't use our own judgement at wp, we rely on published secondary sources to provide evidence that the assertion is deserving of attention. This isn't one. As you know, for biomedical assertions we require wp:MEDRS sourcing, which is a substantially higher bar. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Magneto (generator)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Magneto (generator). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit wars

I would like to call your attention to the rule against edit wars.

WP:EW

There is a three revert limit. You are getting close to it.

You need to be careful about what you edit. You are making unintended deletions of work.

If you don't like what someone else has done, you need to discuss it on the talk page.

Please be more careful in the future.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Alexbrn. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Rose (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You should probably notify Martin Hogbin too, since he reverted you. Alexbrn (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Changes to breathwork entry

Could you please explain why you removed the history of breathwork and other changes I made to this entry. Thnaks you.

It was unsourced, for one thing. See WP:V. Alexbrn (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Acupuncture

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Acupuncture. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Creatine

Hi Alexbrn, could you give me more details about the reason why you reverted my changes in this article? - I am a relatively new contributor so I am not sure why you did that. I found quite a few reliable sources so in my oppinion that section should be added. Totocol (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there - yes, Wikipedia sets the bar very high for sourcing on matters of human health - see WP:MEDRS. A primary study and WebMD aren't really good enough for our purposes. WebMD is sometimes okay but not here in my view. If you want to discuss further please drop a note on the Creatine Talk page so everyone can join in! Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the primary study is good enough, and less than this is used as citation in millions of places on Wikipedia, where nobody removes it because it's fantastic and beneficial information for everybody else to work off of. Alex removed it because he has personal agendas and beliefs he loves to push on people to steer their potential for taking control of their own health care into the gutter.

Here's an experiment you can try: start an edit war with him and a bit of a flame war on his talk page, and then find that he will follow you to every single page you edit for the next few months, even where you just correct some punctuation, noticing he will then systematically destroy three quarters of a well written and useful article, while proving that it is justified with Wikipedia rules. 99.235.168.199 (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

Please see Wikipedia:AN3#User:Jytdog and User:Alexbrn reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: ). I think you are already aware, but this means anyone can clearly see you were notified. I have no opinion on the report and haven't looked into it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - yes, I was aware. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Friendly request to stop edit warring

Your sourced material is inaccurate as proven via WP:V so please do not revert the properly cited information with the inaccurate information. If you feel your information is factually accurate, then provide the reasons at the TP. An RfC will then follow. Atsme^📞📧 16:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You have now repeatedly inserted your preferred version, so it is you who is edit warring - and edit warring in poor content too. After the amygdalin episode I wonder if you're being deliberately disruptive or if you really just lack clue. Alexbrn (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your relentless and unwarranted hammering over the Griffin incident is tiresome and proves nothing. It's actually a form of harassment. I suppose it doesn't really matter since I can't be baited by such childish nonsense, especially considering the extent of disruption you've been involved in one way or another. Regarding the Kombucha article - extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources which is exactly what I provided. I'm somewhat surprised that you can't see the blatant factual inaccuracy of the cited book's claim in the lead. It is not supported by the source that was cited. Oh my, have I been giving you too much credit for knowing such things? There is clearly a pattern of rather disruptive behavior whenever you are involved in editing articles that are evenly remotely associated to CAM. It may seem exaggerated to me right now because of your battleground behavior and edit warring; I'm not sure. Curious - do you consider yourself a CAM-hater? --Atsme^📞📧 17:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not post on my talk page any more. Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Alecbrn is a real shit-disturber. 99.235.168.199 (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Saw palmetto extract page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of TW

It appears you abused the rollback feature when you reverted my GF edits. [1]

ABUSE of TW Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's account blocked. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. Not good. Atsme^📞📧 14:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been asked not to post comments here. Do it again and I'll raise this at AN/I. Alexbrn (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You cannot prevent me or any other editor from posting warnings to your TP. Atsme^📞📧 14:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Official/required notices are exempted. However, "Abuse of TW" is something you made up. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Medicinal Cannabis for Cancer Sub-section

"Still undue" does not make any sense as to why this section keeps getting reverted back to the original form. The information being added is in the link that has been used to cite the text that still remains. Please explain further the need to remove this section. ThoHug (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Hi! Mentioning animal research is undue in an article summarizing substances' reasons for being classified as ineffective cancer cures (worse, it implies somehow the animal research has bearing on the effectiveness question). If you want to discuss further, please do so at the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Defecation Postures

Hi Alex, could you give me more details about the reason why you removed a major part of this article? - I am a relatively new contributor so I am not sure why you did that. There was a lot of interesting information and now there is nothing. Furthermore, I added the references to useful articles all of which you dropped, which I don't understand. (From Wikipedia policy I get that a literature review is better than a primary source. However, when there are no literature review, than a primary source should be of course better than nothing?) HereAndThereNowAndThen (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! If there is no secondary coverage then it's unlikely the content they have has risen to the level of "accepted knowledge" which is what Wikipedia deals in. Happy to discuss further on the article's talk page ... Alexbrn (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Steve Jobs

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Steve Jobs. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

thank you

Dear alexbrn .., In the editing there are any book about water fasting and You delete books for Amazon about water fasting Can you but it again please FREEDOM77 (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Wikipedia is not for hosting collections of commercial links to low-quality popular health books, but an encyclopedia. Such a list of links is inappropriate here. Alexbrn (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear alexbrn .., Thank you to help me ;) FREEDOM77 (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Kratom

Hi Alexbrn. Kratom doesn't appear to be listed on the DEA's current list of fact sheets. One can go to the current list by going to the Current DEA list of Fact Sheets. One can confirm this is the latest list by going to the current DEA website and clicking Drug Info/fact sheets. While not a reliable source, this link may be able to help shed light. I am sure this wouldn't be the first time a government agency didn't clean up its website once changes were made. Would you be willing to agree to language that states that Kratom is not listed on the current list of "Drugs of Concern," while noting that a fact sheet appears to have been issued in 2013 that contradicts the current DEA site? Let me know if you have a better idea on how we can address this confusion. Thank you. Journalist1983 (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This is best continued at the article's Talk page, but in brief I want to ensure we mirror RS and don't make statements about what the DEA has done which might be only a misinterpretation of a web site SNAFU. Alexbrn (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

CFS

Hi, is there a reason why you posted this on my talk page only? That does't seem very constructive. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It is what it says it is, a warning about edit warring. You've being doing a lot of reverts recently and are near or beyond 3RR (I didn't count closely). Edit warring risks getting you blocked. Take heed. Alexbrn (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Policy requires that, if you perceive editwarring, you must look at all sides. Please do so in the future. The Jolly Bard (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing Ramadan health section

Hi, I would like to thank you for your reviewing of that section, and also I would like to ask if this bit could be added there by the same standards :

There are some health issues involving Ramadan fasting. It has been suggested that although Ramadan fasting is safe for all healthy individuals, those with various diseases should consult their physicians and follow scientific recommendations. Fasting on Ramadan may cause a change in weight. One study concludes that the observers of Ramadan lose on average about a kilogram of weight over 4 weeks, and the lost weight is quickly regained.

Darwinian Ape ^talk 20:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This is better discussed on the article's Talk page; the first source is potentially okay, the second fails WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I added them since the section seemed a bit sad after your trimming. The cautionary tale, I guess, that the articles that are not about health should not make health claims.:) Sorry for bringing this to your talk page, feel free to move it into the article's talk page or remove it altogether. Thanks again, cheers! Darwinian Ape ^talk 02:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, it's just it's better if we're discussing article content that all the article's editors get to see what we're saying. I've made some more edits. Alexbrn (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you! Be sure to eat it after the iftar.

For your helps in Ramadan article, a favorite dessert of Ramadan feasts Darwinian Ape talk 03:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

One of my favourites, thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Your templates on Racz

If you're going to challenge an article that has received a GA rating, and has also been through a DYK review, you need to be more specific about the sources you have an issue with, otherwise I will consider this hounding in light of our past interactions. Atsme^📞📧 20:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

As has been said by others, that GA rating is a joke. In general, when arguing it's a good idea to pay heed to this. Alexbrn (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Vitamin D

Can we find a way to improve this section rather than just revert each other's edits! Jrfw51 (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That pre-supposes it needs "improvement". Anyway, you're edit-warring poor content in now. I shall post on the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I would appreciate hearing why these articles are poor content and if you could use the Talk page rather than Twinkle! Jrfw51 (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You've been told before by others we don't use primary sources in that way - and in any case it's a good idea, when reverted, to discuss (maybe abiding by WP:BRD) rather than mashing the revert button again: that's edit warring. Alexbrn (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Having spent time picking a review and a high quality article to support my 12:12 edit, and giving a justification, your immediate reversion at 12:16 as I was expanding this on the Talk page seemed premature. But clearly you have much more expertise on Wikipedia editing and manners (if not on vitamin D) so I stand chastised. Jrfw51 (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for apologising and showing GF! Jrfw51 (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Cannabis!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Cannabis! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 559 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in the subject of cannabis.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring at Gabor B. Racz

You have been warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 06:09, 11 July 2015‎

I am not. Please read WP:EW for a description of what edit-warring is. Alexbrn (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Racz is a BLP subject to DS as with all BLPs. You have done nothing but edit war. You have been reminded. Atsme^📞📧 06:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

In fact the editor who is "repeatedly restoring his or her preferred version" is you, since you have now undone both mine and DGG's attempts to improve the early life section, reverting to "your" text (which also fails WP:V incidentally). Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason some (not all) were restored is because the changes were not an improvement. What makes you think you can go in and change a GA per your POV? The reviewer stood by the initial assessment and the fact that you may not like how it is worded doesn't change that fact. If you want to make changes, get consensus on the TP first. As for DGG's attempts, he butchered the article by adding back mistakes, leaving gaps and spaces, changing the meaning of sentences, leaving out defining information, etc. so please don't try to make it appear as though his attempts were an improvement. I highly recommend that you focus on articles that actually do need improvement, like David Gorski. DGG provided a list for you to work from so you can make those improvements. Your work there would be far more productive than the disruption you're creating at Racz. I would be happy to collaborate on Gorski, but between the disruption you're causing at Racz and final preparations for my case at ARBCOM, I just don't have the time. Atsme^📞📧 16:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I've asked that you don't post to my Talk page (though emergencies are excepted). I don't see anything productive coming out of this exchange so it's probably best we stop here. Alexbrn (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

COI tags and COIN

Perhaps you would prefer to make the announcement at COIN regarding your edits to various articles where a COI is rather evident and allow a proper investigation to take place which should include your creation of the unassessed article, Information Technology Task Force, and edits at [Office_Open_XML], and ISO/IEC_JTC_1, to name a few. I do find it rather ironic under the circumstances. To say you have nothing to do with ITTF when the article includes ISO/IEC 29500 Office Open XML File Formats in its publishing activities, and your COI declaration states "the Standardization of Office Open XML article, since I was a key participant in that controversial process" is, well, conflicting (and you mentioned a controversial process nonetheless). There's also your involvement with [2]. It's a bit inconceivable to think you are still denying a COI and reverted the templates. Oh well, things always have a way of working out in the end. Atsme^📞📧 18:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't stay off my Talk page eh! I may have a COI with International Standards I've edited or presided over, or committees and panels I sit on (albeit on a voluntary basis, so some people might say meh anyway). But ITTF is an adminstrative group in Geneva I have no connection with. Please feel free to raise this at WP:COIN if necessary. Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

No, they don't say "meh" anyway. You might want to see what a COIN investigation colonoscopy looks like for volunteers using my case as a reference. Anyway, I'll stay off your page and if you will please, show me the same courtesy and stay off mine. Atsme^📞📧 19:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind conflicts of interest enquiries. As has been said, having conflicts of interest shows one's doing something in life! The problem on WP comes from editors editing who are afflicted by a conflict of interest (and yes, in my early editing I was a sinner - so I know what it looks like). But at least let COIs be accurately assigned: ITTF is rather above my pay grade. Alexbrn (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of COIN

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)

WP:TALK#FACTS

A lot of material on this page, gathered by several users around the world, in now missing, deleted by you.

You've also inserted a lot of incorrect information about the symbols used in the name of Reiki, as identified in my edits which you removed.

I think you're abusing Wikipedia here, on this page, as you are erasing information by users which conflicts with your agenda about how Reiki is perceived, that is, that you believe it is not effective and are concerned that vulnerable people with illnesses may be abused by Reiki practitioners who purport it to be a cure for their illness.

I think you've gone off topic on this page - there is space for "debunking" on this page, but it would be against the wikipedia philosophy for it to ALL be that. I think you need to allow some other editors onto this page, relax your grip a bit. I know that might be a bit confronting to read, but I just want the knowledge that I have about Reiki to be shared with the world rather than being deleted by someone who shows fear of the practice.

I'm new to Wiki but I'm a published academic. I understand a lot of information about Reiki is hearsay, that's why a Reiki wikipedia page is important, it gathers and balances knowledge from practitioners of the last generation so as to get concensus about divergence and variation. It can also function as a way for the public to get some basic information about the practice. Please share the Reiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrishApps (talk • contribs) 08:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! I don't believe I've added any material on "symbols" to the Reiki article. Material added must be well-sourced and verifiable (see WP:RS and WP:V). Please continue any further discussion about the article content at the article's Talk page. Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Abuse of COIN arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Graphology July 2015

I really dont know, what your problem is. I search for new studies and insert them on wikipedia, new metaanalysis that graphology does not correlate with personality questionnaire. You do not read it but always delete it. This is edit war.

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

Err, it's you who is reverting reversions! You removed good material and inserted poorly-sourced claims e.g. that graphology can "predict cancer". Happy to discuss further on the article's Talk page; please do not keep simply reinserting your favoured material. Alexbrn (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Read the reference before you delete anything. My references are recent research articles in psychological peer-reviewed journals! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wicky media (talk • contribs) 11:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Peer reviewed is not enough. For health information we need WP:MEDRS and for this topic WP:NPOV (and particularly WP:FRINGE) are also in play. Please continue any discussions on the articles' Talk pages. Furthermore, the graphology content at Projective test should be in WP:SYNC with the lede of Graphology. Alexbrn (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Tartrazine July 2015

Please visit the talk page of "Tartrazine" to resolve this issue. Sunpoint (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sunpoint: Hi! I have commented there. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Which sources are not reliable?

Why did you revert my edits in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anavex_Life_Sciences? I even added 3 sources. Which links would you dispute, and why? --Agamemnus (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of forestry journals

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of forestry journals. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Kudos

…for your conciliatory outreach to the new editor Jrf51. It is noteworthy here at WP. Look in on his PBS Foundation matter some time if you have the time. (He is, by the way, quite knowledgable about matters, at the molecular level.) Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Tweaking prose...

It is not edit warring when we're tweaking prose. Stop placing unwarranted templates on my TP whenever you disagree with something I've done. You might also want to read up on edit warring and tag-teaming. Atsme^📞📧 15:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The "prose tweak" doesn't matter. You reverted a revert[3] to re-assert your preferred text. As you should know by now that is the beginning of edit warring. The warning is issued to prevent it getting worse. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

NOTICE: Discussion that involves you at WP:COIN

Sorry for the delay. I should have initiated the WP:COIN investigation earlier but was tied up with other issues. Atsme^📞📧 16:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, a reprise of some of the WP:POINTy behaviour which was aired at Arbcom, eh! Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

DRN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Ubiquinol.23Therapeutic_Uses_of_Ubiquinol_discussion Notification, because the OP didn't do it. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why I bothered !!! -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 16:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/List

This is excellent but it leaves out a large number of articles which are pseudo-archaeology. See Category:Pseudoarchaeology. The category needs to be fixed however. It should not be a subcategory of pseudoscience as it isn't a science, it's a social science or a humanities subject according to the country (English-speaking countries, Germany calls the social sciences sciences). Nor should pseudohistory be related to it. History's a different subject. Anyway, can we add the articles in the category to the list? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed the category problem. Doug Weller (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You probably know better than I how to drive this! It strikes me that this WikiProject had a lot of effort put into it an one time, but is now rather quiet. Alexbrn (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

And I've been reverted, see Category talk:Pseudoarchaeology. Doug Weller (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Deworming controversy?

Hi - it seems to me that it's worthwhile to discuss the development economist side of this and the randomized controlled trials that show various effects - maybe in a section on education effects. The evidence of the effects of deworming isn't just Cochrain - there are a number of other single studies and meta analyses not included in Cochrain that shed light on this matter and not to include them really does not do justice to the topic for the reader. Right now the entry is misleading at best by focusing exclusively on the medical review that inadequately shows long-term effects as those studies are not included in it. To leave out the recent debate about the efficacy of deworming is misleading. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.212.127 (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This'd be better at the article's Talk page. I suspect there may be more economic sources, but for medical evidence we should rely on up-to-date secondary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Mate (beverage)

It's not clear why the sources are not valid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS - we need secondary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

They're medical journals and were actually vetted by an editor who gutted all of the other sources leaving only these are RSes. Please take the point, precisely explaining your concerns on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a bunch of "health effects" sourced to a confection of primary sources ("medical journals" is not enough) and oh - you've put it back twice. I have posted on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Sourced to a confection of primary sources " - what a beautifully poetic and dismissive description of a secondary source that one does not like. Sometimes wikipedia is better than the comedy channel.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 12:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate

Wondering why my recent amendments to the glyphosate page have been removed?JGZ 09:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johann Zaller (talk • contribs)

Hello there! Most material on Wikipedia, and scientific information in particular, should come from WP:SECONDARY sources. See WP:SCIRS for some science-specific sourcing recommendations. Happy to discuss further on the glyphosate article's Talk page ...

guidelines for submission

I received your response to my recent submission on the Naturopathy/Naturopathic entry. You mentioned that my edit did not adhere to the guidelines, but I am unclear which part of my submission was unacceptable. The edits I included were from the Journal of American Medical Association, a public government report from the US Office of Technology Assessment, and two peer reviewed published medical journals. I'm not sure what criteria is used for determining legitimate sources, but I can not imagine that these sources would not be considered legitimate or reliable.

Are you the person that authorizes editions to the entries? If so, please provide specific details regarding which of my edits you consider to be unacceptable.

Thank you, Wdnelsonnmd (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! All edits are ultimately decided by WP:CONSENSUS, not by individuals. Please start at WP:5P to get a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. Your edit had many problems, including lack of sourcing, poor sourcing, and making points not directly supported by the sources. Also, article introductions are supposed only to mirror the article body and should contain no distinct content. I suspect another editor will reverse your edit shortly. Naturopathy is a controversial article and possibily not the best place to start learning how Wikipedia works. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Alexbrn, are you stating, categorically, that you have no professional relationship with Cochrane Collaboration or their publisher, Wiley? Wiley is a client of Griffin Brown, according to the Griffin Brown website: http://www.griffinbrown.co.uk/client.asp. This qualifies you for a conflict of interest, especially given how aggressively you have edited the CES page and promoted the Cochrane Collaboration content. This strikes me as something I should submit to the Wiki board and request that you are banned from editing the CES page and any other content on Wiki related to CES.

ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Wiley has been a client of my company (as indeed has the Cochrane Collaboration, in common with many of the World's publishers), but since the work done is focussed exclusively on production technology, and has no intersection with the published content, there is no conflict of interest - unlike for you. Feel free to take to WP:COIN if in doubt, but be warned you'll be wasting people's time. Alexbrn (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn Given that you admit to having Cochrane Collaboration and Wiley as clients, and given the amount of time and effort you spend editing Wikipedia pages during weekday business hours (not only the CES page, but many other pages), I find it hard to believe that you are not paid, at least in part, to edit and influence Wikipedia pages on behalf of Wiley and Cochrane Collaboration (which are your clients). If you are going to assert that you are not paid to do so, please explain these profound contradictions. Regardless of whether it can be proved that you are paid to edit Wikiedpia in particular, you still have a very clear COI given the fact you have a financial relationship with these organizations. In my view, it is inappropriate that you are both compensated by these clients, and at the same promote their products (in the case of CES, the Cochrane Collaboration lit review published by Wiley) on Wikipedia. Your Conflict should be clearly stated and considered by other editors. ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no COI. As I said, feel free to take to WP:COIN if in doubt, but be warned you'll be wasting people's time. I have nothing more to add. Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagreement

Unless you are a medical expert, which I am by the way, it would be beneficial if you stopped trying to prevent the addition of actual legitimately referenced scientific material to articles. If you would like to come to a compromise let me know otherwise I think we will have to possibly revert to arbitration. Setanta Saki (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Setana please read WP:MEDRS; the content you added is not OK. I'll add the template to the Talk page that helps editors find sources that comply with MEDRS. But this is a conversation that should be happening at Talk:Soursop, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay as a medical professional I totally understand the concern, however those are expressed guidelines not hard rules nor were any actual medical claims being put forth just expressed interest in ongoing "potential" areas of as seen in scientific/cancer research. There should be logical flexibility, also literature/Systematic reviews are classed as the absolute ideal understandably. But to expect that in this relativity new case especially when it is natural compounds being recently examined is far too hard line frankly, to not reflect or even mention some or any of the primary source areas of research which will form the basis of those future reviews is frankly a little extreme. Graviola was included in an overall natural products review in a cancer treatment review journal one of the references.

Also is this ideal literature/systemic review reference requirement being imposed on the the unproven "potential" neurotoxicity claim outlined in the article many of the links are broken and are primary source or open letters?. Lastly I did not edit war as claimed, I started another new heading to separate any implied medical/health claims and wanted to reflect current areas of research in the natural compounds, I wrote a totally different introduction and added different referenced links to some well known cancer journals. As suggested I will discuss on talk page and get some differing known administrator views as to the overall application of the guidelines on the article. Setanta Saki (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Setanta Saki you deleted my comment in this dif. don't do that. Jytdog ([[User talk:|talk]]) 21:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If i did Jytdog, it was by accident apologies, I only get to frequent on the rarest of occasions now so am rather rusty Setanta Saki (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You did it. There is no "if". If you are not competent enough to know that you did it, or read the diff that I provided to you proving that you did it, you are not competent to be calling another editor "disruptive". You need to slow down and start asking questions instead of calling other editors "disruptive"Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Which source ?

Alexbrn, you did revert my request for citation needed, claiming that I should read the source. You are still reverting faster than checking the sources. Which source ? The link to the source is not valid anymore. Paulmartin357 (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, fix it using archive.org - as it happens we quote from the source in the Naturopathy article body which provides verification. Please continue any discussion on the article's talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Resistant Starch

The Nutrition Bulletin is published by the British Nutrition Foundation and is one of the most credible sources there is. Dr. Anne Nugent is highly respected and did a great job of evaluating the health benefits of resistant starch - she's a nice lady besides. This reference is available free online, which goes to show that Medline and Pubmed are NOT the only sources for credible science. If you are relying on these search engines as credibility screens, you're not doing a good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSWitwer (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss any proposed improvements to the article on its Talk page. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Throwing around words like "edit war" on my talk page is not keeping proposed improvements to the article on its Talk page. I advise you to take your own advice.RSWitwer (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edit-warring is a behavioural problem - the template serves as a warning, and is recommended if action becomes necessary. Discussion about the article is best kept on its Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Attention deficit disorder

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Attention deficit disorder. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Note to self

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Waldorf education, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

honey

Hi Alex, would you be so kind as to let me know what lead you to reverting my edit, and [4] claiming it is a poorly sourced copyright violation? I would be most grateful for a reasonably detailed reasoning, as I don't really see it. I used two academic journal articles, and in no way directly quoted any of them. If the revert was just by mistake, I understand - we all push buttons too quickly sometimes :) Pundit|utter 20:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I noticed at least the closeness between your text "even though there are no studies present that support the systemic use of honey as an antibacterial agent" and the source's "there are no studies that support the systemic use of honey as an antibacterial agent". By and large this source shouldn't be used in a "Health applications" section when its conclusion is there are no antibacterial health applications at present. The other source you used was old when we have newer ones. Happy to discuss further on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Paraphrasng a text is not copyvio, you may want to refresh your memory of the policies :) also regarding reverts - they are meant for clear vandalism, not for removal of properly sourced material. I understand your concern about the source being old (although it is from 21st century, so really?). It is definitely not falling under revert though. Just think how newcomers must feel when they get reverted - we're losing editors this way. Regarding meritum, it would seem that your claim that there are no proven health benefits of honey is ungrounded (there are sources stating otherwise, so the bottom line is presenting it as inconclusive). I'm not an expert in the field, and I am not honey fanatic, I just came across the topic following FB discussion that got me interested. But clearly there are academic sources showing honey's medical use (and advantages at least over placebo), which is not reflected in the article. In this light, I believe that you can either add other sources, or retract your revert. Please, pung me when you reply on your own talk page. Thanks! Pundit|utter 13:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pundit: Copy and pasting (the text I bolded) is WP:COPYVIO, and close paraphrasing risks WP:PLAGIARISM. You're wrong about reverts. If there are other sources which are better that's great - in general WP:MEDRS specifies sources ≤ 5 year old, as best. Alexbrn (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging! I understand why you've assumed that the paraphrase is not deep enough, and I may agree that putting the bolded text in quotation marks would be the best solution (although not, obviously, deleting the whole paragraph). I was unaware of the 5-year rule for medical topics, thanks! This is good to know. But one way or another, the section seems really skewed against the academic sources. I've looked up publications since 2011, just have a look: it seems that the first three publications clearly support medical use of honey, e.g. There was a reduction (p < 0.05) in duration of hospital stay in the honey group (median 12 days, IQR 10–21) compared with the control (median 18 days, IQR 13–28) (although more research is needed); similarly the fourth one states that there is currently not enough strong evidence to fully support the use of honey in wound care; however, use in minor burns and prevention of radiation mucositis appear to be 2 areas where honey shows therapeutic promise, which, again, supports the medical use of honey. The article, as it currently stands, suggests otherwise (as if there were no studies suggesting promising results, or effects comparable to other, non-placebo treatments). You're more versed in medical topics, do I read these wrong? Pundit|utter 14:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pundit: You're quoting primary sources, which aren't reliable for health statements. This conversation would be better on the Honey Talk page I think. Alexbrn (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm quoting primary, academic sources, which are missing in the article, which seems not to reflect the academic community's view... I don't care enough about honey to risk a wheel war (I haven't been aware that honey can be such a controversial topic!), I'm just pointing this to you, as you're more into medical topics and you reverted my modest attempt to make the article less skewed. Pundit|utter 15:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes but primary sources are not reliable, see WP:MEDRS (and WP:WHYMEDRS for background). So far as I can see, we are properly reflecting reliable literature in this article so it is not "skewed". If you disagree, please make a proposal on the article's Talk page ... are there better/newer secondary sources we've missed e.g.? Alexbrn (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn: would be grateful for your input on the new discussion at Talk:Honey about the use of reviews on in vitro research to infer health effects. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Anmccaff (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You're wasting people's time, not least your own. Alexbrn (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Faith healing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Faith healing. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Crop circles

That was pretty funny though :-) Guy (Help!) 16:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Paid or Edit

No I did not get paid but just interested in saving this page because I got benefit from this technology and do not want to see this page gone. It may help many others.

Indepentten (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

You are invited to join in a dispute discussion about the article through the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request. Indepentten (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Greenfield SPAs

Any thoughts on what to do about the ongoing parade of COI/SPA accounts who edit the Susan Greenfield article to claim that she actually totally rebutted that autism thing? (The most recent SPI I raised - against someone who said they "work alongside" Greenfield - was tossed out on insufficient behavioural evidence.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@McGeddon: not sure; I've got it on my watchlist and will keep an eye for escalation, in which case we might need to think again about what to do (it seems to have settled down now). Alexbrn (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

Edward Tobinick page

Dear Alex,

A strange response from you regarding new information I am adding regarding the outcome of a verifiable, high relevant, court case. By your reasoning nothing new, however germane, could, or will, have ever be added to a Wikipedia page if some unidentified person doesn't want it to be. Put simply, I am not changing the information that is already there, but providing additional relevant information.

So it is not I, the bearer of unwelcome news, who should be censured, but the person who keeps removing this new, legitimate addition. Verifiable, high relevant, court case outcomes should, in an honest world, be sacrosanct, and welcomed. If not, surely the whole Wikipedia ship is unseaworthy, having been corrupted. Please advise.Strathfieldcattle (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

See WP:5P as an encyclopedia we deal in accepted knowledge - generally that which has been digested, analyzed and reported on in good secondary sources. We do not offer "news" or running commentary based on primary documents. The legal case in question is already covered more than adequately. Feel free to discuss further on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, courts do not decide whether medical treatment works or not. They only decide, and not always on good grounds, what constitutes active malpractice. On the subject of courts and Tobinick, I expanded the section on his use of legal thuggery against Steve Novella. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, please stop

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Your edits have or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. The consensus reading said, yes, this very change was warranted. I am restoring it. If you continue having a problem with the reading, you might consider going about it a different way. LesVegas (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI

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

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit war on Scarsdale diet resuming within hours of release of EW block. Thank you. The Dissident Aggressor 14:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Reiki

Hello, I see your revert on Reiki but I can assure that the thermal view are not a forgery. I don't know if Reiki is a placebo or not and I'm an atheist. I see you appreciate the selfish gene so as me and I would add E.T Hall in the balance ;-). Source is not dubious, it is just a collection of thermal view of the world, no more, no interest about other interest, just the crude thermal print of the universe in place of the visible light. How could we work together for improving the truth? I have the rough of the thermal file if you want, they are not forced maybe my manner to express was incorrect? Regards --Hcrepin (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

If there are sources that meet WP:MEDRS then it may be usable. Are there? I doubt it. Alexbrn (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Problem is that it is a lot of topics where they refuse to do the test. How do you want to proove when authority refuses to test? This is ironical, isn't it. They dislike a lot thermography because displaying too much things, I have the same problem in buildings, demonstrating situation on whom nobody wants to know. Well, I don't know, do you have proof about psychology and psychiatry by the way? Authority is all the time the problem, their rules are very fluctuating. You can just consider it as a picture, what to say else?--Hcrepin (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Gluten-free diet

I left a message at talk page: [5] Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I may have really f++ked up the talk page on that article, so I'll make no further attempt to edit it; I would probably make it worse. Could you look as a favour? -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, if the solution is obvious and you need to delete anything I did, please do it. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you cleaned it up (thanks); I then just misplaced a reflist (now fixed). Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

Commented at talk:broccoli sprouts. LeadSongDog come howl! 01:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

chronic fatigue syndrome

hello, can you please explain why you consider my contribution, which included four sources, was "poorly sourced". thank you. Dailyshampoo48 (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi There! The problem is yours were primary sources (=weak for the purpose you used them) - it's especially bad to overwrite a strong secondary source with them, and also to "bomb" the lede, which is meant to summarize the article body. Please see WP:MEDRS for guidance on what constitutes good bio/medical sources. Please continue any further discussion on this at the CFS Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Functional medicine

Your information about functional medicine is outdated and factually incorrect. I have tried to delete inaccurate information, but you appeared to add it back in . May I ask where your information is coming fronm, and why you choose to include this information only? Specifically the anti vaccine information and reference to pseudoscience and unproven science. Are you familiar with the institute for functional medicine and how they operate as of late? Everything is deeply scientific and heavily referenced .This wiki page is outdated. Please allow others to edit the page accurately so that it can be a real"common knowledge" source for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:198:102:B218:451C:8DE4:98B9:5686 (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on the article's Talk page if you have any article improvements to propose. Remember WP:5P in drafting such proposals. Alexbrn (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi Alexbrn. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. [Muses to self: hmmm, not too bad - might at least bring some opportunity for sanity in our GMO & agritech articles]. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I started off this process with a personal commitment to follow the case, and understand what went on. I failed, miserably, and gave up some weeks ago. Understanding is obviously way beyond my pay-grade. It is a morass of dissembling, dammned lies, and obfuscation. I gave up, disheartened. Do you have any suggestions to aid my understanding? Is anything actually decided yet. Seems to me that a lot of arbcom votes need casting before things actually solidify into a take home summary. How much longer until I can read something that isn't flexible and wobbly? -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not finaly final yet but assuming the proposals are passed it seems that the whole area will be under lockdown and most of the activists will be topic-banned. Unfortunately a couple of our more rational editors got sanctioned too, but they did rather open themselves to that by allowing themselves to be too provoked (there's a lesson there!) I only watch from a distance, as this is not generally an area of editing that attracts me. Alexbrn (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Though the subject of all this (GMO stuff) is well covered on my watchlist, I too have stayed away from most of it. I assume that the rest of the process is just crossing t's and dotting i's, in which case I am a little disheartened. I think I may well refrain from further opinionating until things finally resolve. thanks for replying above. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well it looks like Jytdog has abandoned WP anyway because of a new job; the proposed de-sysoping of Guy/JzG is not going to happen because it's procedurally irregular. So in practical terms it seems just things will be calmer in this topic area. Alexbrn (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. I read JD's explanation about the new position. It will be sad if he leaves completely. -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

edit warring

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Chronic fatigue syndrome. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dailyshampoo48 (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you bother. You're obviously not going to succeed in prying Wikipedia away from high-quality sources on CFS; you're just wasting your time. All you'll succeed in doing in wasting other people's time too. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not that I'm seeing it here from Dailyshampoo, but the pattern of behaviour that involves ignoring the science available on the subject is endemic to the CFS community active on the internet. I know this from personal experience, and it is poisonous stuff. -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, not really my area - I think it's only on my watchlist because of some past WT:MED call for assistance. But yes, looking at the archives there does seem to be some "motivated reasoning" - it seems some with the condition cannot bear the thought it may be essentially mental/psychological in nature. This is bitterly ironic as you'd have thought CFS sufferers, as a group which has received a certain amount of social stigma, would realise that their sniffiness about it being a psychological/mental condition is a manifestation of another kind of social stigma, that attached to mental health conditions generally. Alexbrn (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Bristol Homeopathic Hospital

I've reverted your removal of a redlink to Bristol Homeopathic Hospital in the homeopathy article. Hospitals are inherently notable, and this one is of particular interest, as it's notable for being one of the last in the UK, prior to its closure. Please see WP:REDLINK for the rationale behind red links in articles. If you disagree, please take this to Talk:Homeopathy instead of merely reverting again.-- The Anome (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

please wait

You deleted a section I added to Ginkgo biloba while I was inserting citations, but before I saved the page. I am actively editing this section/article, please withhold your changes until I an done.Sbalfour (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Organic Foods Article (user deleting valuable information)

Hello, I'd like to ask you to stop deleting verified and valuable information from the "Organic Foods" section here on Wikipedia. All the information posted there comes from the article already mentioned on the section. I'm just complementing with information that has been (intentionally) hided.

Therefore I'd like to ask you to stop removing valuable content and stop hiding information to the public.

Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTruthSeeker1 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 2

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. Icarus of old (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably not a great idea to report a 2RR editor when you are at 5RR. Alexbrn (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The report has been closed with warnings to both parties per this result (permalink). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Astral Projection

Hi Alexbrn. You reverted my entire edit here with an edit summary "Supported by sources; best not to edit war over the lede - maybe WP:BRD?" Ironically, you reverted twice while mentioning edit warring; re-added new content without consensus while citing BRD; and you claimed supported by sources which I dispute. I've opened a talk page discussion which I hope you will join.- MrX 13:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing and WP:V violations; likely sock

Hello. You reverted all of the changes I made to the Anthroposophic medicine, and left these comments/notes: Rv. POV pushing and WP:V violations; likely sock. Besides POV, I don't know what they mean, including "POV pushing", and you don't identify any specific examples to support your reversion and comments. What is particularly concerning is that the NIH article which I cited to support the research on a specific mistletoe extract was deleted, even though it included research much more recent than that you cite (from 2006 and 2009). I also don't know why you didn't discuss with me your concerns/criticisms before stripping them out. This is particularly curious given the prominent display of "Be nice to newcomers" or some such on your talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookerT-MG (talk • contribs) 08:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no such banner, and besides Wikipedia is not the place for incubating dubious views. You added a link to a dubious altmed site[6], added some primary research (which fails WP:MEDRS) and deleted a Cochrane Collaboration review, which is about the best possible source we could use. Hence you're POV-pushing for mistletoe cancer products by misrepresenting the distributions of weighty & respectable sources out there, and putting in shaky sources -- and as your very first edits to Wikipedia too! Also remember there is a policy for WP:SOCKs. Any further discussion should be confined to the AM page. Alexbrn (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Llod Pye edits

Why is it when i have tried to update thei page with factula dta and remove some sarcasm and unflattering wording i am now being mugged by 3x different users who will not allow me to post factual information. I am now in dialogue with 3 individuals becasue i wanted to do what Wikipedia was built for - update and edit a page with information. And now i am being accused of vandalism whilst trying to edit the site with some truth and different wording

The guy is dead - why should his Wiki page be allowed to slander him?

Am i not allowed to change wording to better portray his views? And add factual information about the DNA results? If its peer review i need then i will ink to the Genome database that shows these results - is that factual enough? The worldwide genome database is not peer reviewed though - so will i be allowed to post factual data from there? Will that be acceptable? Haggisnneeps (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of "information", but an encyclopedia that aims to summarize accepted knowledge as contained in the highest quality, most-respectced, reliable mainstream sources. To get started, maybe explore WP:5P. The on-point policies and guidance for the material you wanted to add are WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS and WP:REDFLAG. Alexbrn (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

please cite from journals re K2

User was banned
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
not from woowoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by T12999 (talk • contribs) I cited and you have not, i also have changed what was not copyrighted in the first place. Please do not war or you will be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T12999 (talk • contribs)

The question becomes: have you read the reliable sources page

@Alexbrn: The information your marking as poorly sourced is biographical. News articles are acceptable for this type of information in a medical article. "the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article." So please self-revert as I do not want to start edit warring with you. If you want to clean up the information I would welcome that, but the fact that certain teams or players use yoga is not medical information and can, according to wiki policy, be used in this article. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I commented on the article Talk page. Whoever put this text in was very naughty. Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

To save face, I will blame your edit summary. But, yeah...you're right. It doesn't belong. Cheers. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Functional Medicine

@Alexbrn: Why did you undo my neutral and source-based edit of Functional Medicine in its entirety without explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cawjac (talk • contribs)

Because it was blatant fringe POV-pushing, violating our need for neutrality. Please continue any discussion on the Functional medicine Talk page. Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex, the comments were taken from a scientific journal and the journal was cited verbatim. It was both negative and positive. How is that pushing my point of view? The current description is inaccurate, functional medicine is not 'alternative medicine'. I don't feel that strongly about it to take the time to argue, however the current page is biased so I have reported it.Cawjac (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is really about content, so please continue on the FM Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Zephrs?

I don't know if I'm dealing with Alexbrn or Zephr but the overly brief and meaningless comment of "poorly sourced" hardly applies to peer reviewed medical literature that I referenced. Edit what I did instead of reverting (censoring?) it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what's this about? Ah, this reversion was clearly by me, not Zefr (and not "Zephyr"), although as an editor who is familiar with policy I'm fairly sure Zefr would approve my edit. The issue here is that your source is not a WP:MEDRS; we need such sources for WP:BIOMEDICAL information. Alexbrn (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. How is a pubmed article not a reliable source here? That seems like a preposterous statement. Especially when you defend a scientific american article as reliable to make an entire 'controversy' section for Dean Ornish.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS (and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background). Most of the content "in" PUBMED is primary research, which is unreliable for asserting biomedical information on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry I mixed you up with another editor there for a moment. I've got my wiki goggles on. Although your opinion might be useful on the Dean Ornish talk page. I have some serious doubts about the controversy section in the article. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, which article? In general, controversy sections are A Bad Thing. Alexbrn (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly why I object to it. The article Dean Ornish has a controversy section based on one smear article in scientific american that is filled with flimsy strawman arguments. It gives the false impression that he is viewed as controversial, which he does not appear to be. And since when is any dietary advice not disputable regardless of who gives it? I wouldn't think one author disputing dietary advice is an adequate source for such a strong heading. But the editor I mistook for you (again, sorry) has been adamantly defending this little slice of negative POV. I would suggest the source is fringe, and the neutrality is thrown out the window. You'd also have a better eye for which studies belong in the article since I'm more of a yoga/hinduism editor than a medical editor. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I've edited the Ornish article, but in my understanding he's (become) a WP:FRINGE figure pushing some odd beliefs. It's not so much a "controversy" as him just being at odds with science on some topics. Per our WP:PSCI policy this should be called out on Wikipedia and per WP:PARITY the sourcing can be quite relaxed. I think https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ has some stuff on him which may be useful. I may get a chance to take a look at the article sometime ... Alexbrn (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas/New Year!

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove by adding {{subst:User:The Utahraptor/Christmas tree}} to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yay! I'm going to get our real one later today ... Alexbrn (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Respect

Until yesterday I had some respect for you and your scholarship above many of the so called skeptical or pseudo skeptical editors. You attempted to bait and discredit in the cmts that I made, you attempted to twist everything I said and in effect created a dishonest picture of the discussion all of which was a surprise given my initial premise. And sure I kick myself for allowing my time to be wasted, as I initially assumed good faith and tried to clarify my very honest attempts to create a fair bit of content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC))

Wasted time? Well, you did come up with "Medical evidence is a phrase with no meaning". That's ... quite something. Alexbrn (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The phrase was given clear meaning only because it was linked. In and of itself the phrase doesn't really mean anything, is obtuse. On the other hand the linked article does make sense. It would have been better and more succinct to use the exact language of the source even if quoted rather than the extra steps required to form a phrase created for our article which then links to something else- a better encyclopedic writing style. Just my opinion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC))

It is a phrase in wide use across the English-speaking world and is used by the best medical bodies in their medcomms material aimed at the general public[7][8] (i.e. the type of writing we should be trying to emulate). It is also of course widely used[9] and even particularly studied[10] in the professional medical literature. Bloggers blog about it too![11]

There are other phrases we could use: "medical research evidence" or even - yes - "scientific evidence" ... but to make a WP:WALL of complaint about this and to attack it as having "no meaning" and as a "critical" misrepresentation of a source is just ... bizarre. As you observe, the words were also even helpfully linked to evidence-based medicine so the scope for misunderstanding, even among the illiterate, should have been nil. Alexbrn (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

ALA and MDMA reversion

Can there be clarification on why the article at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619665 was reverted? Research shows that ALA can prevent MDMA induced toxicity and is relevant to this article. All but one note under clinical research was also sourced from the same medical library I sourced and cite from. (Timbudtwo (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC))

Hi! That's a primary source is it not? We would need WP:MEDRS for such material ... Alexbrn (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

www.NutritionFacts.org

In the Swank diet article talk you said that www.nutritionfacts.org looks dodgy. I don't know. The site has a staff of twelve researchers who review about 6,000 papers annually. The articles and videos provide both reductionist and big picture information on the latest in nutrition science without having to read 6,000 articles a year oneself. The reviewers also read the sources of a paper being presented and also the papers that cite that paper to evaluate the legitimacy of the paper. Although it presents information from research papers, which do not qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia medical articles, it also presents quotations from and references to literature reviews, systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognized standard textbooks by experts in the relevant field, and medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies - all of which qualify as sources for Wikipedia medical articles. If you have the time, please watch some videos on the site and let me know what you think.David H. Barr (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I browsed around a bit and stopped as soon as I saw the stuff about Turmeric treating cancer. In this country making those sorts of scientifically fraudulent claims (e.g. that the effect of consuming this spice can be "in effect reversing cancer progression") is a criminal offence - and rightly so too. It's quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

declaring COI in Anthroposophic medicine

Hi Alex, user Chickpecking has twice ignored my reminder to have him WP:DECLARE his COI on talk page Talk:Anthroposophic medicine. I thought it was a requirement? AadaamS (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It's debatable whether the community would agree than an anthroposophic practitioner has a COI for anthroposophic medicine (although in my view they do). In my experience it's not productive to pursue potential COIs, as ultimately there is no way to resolve a problem by this route - it's simpler to focus on the basics of NPOV, sourcing etc. Alexbrn (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your response. AadaamS (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Knee-jerk reverting

Please try not to revert every change with lame justifications that refer to one small part of the modification. Modify what needs changing, keep what is valuable. If you can't find anything valuable in others' changes, perhaps review WP's style of editing. HGilbert (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violations in particular need fast reversion, and de-tangling would have been more time-consuming. If there's anything worthy to emerge from this it can emerge in time ... there's no hurry. Alexbrn (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

(Add) In fact I see you've done this kind of thing quite a lot. You need to be A LOT more careful about this. In general if you're linking a PDF from a journal (or something which replicates copyrighted text) be very sure that permission has been granted. There are many sites on the web offering dodgy copies. Generally the safest thing to do is to supply a DOI in the reference - this will get turned into a URL in a way which auto-finds the "official" version of an article. Be wary of other URLs. Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I have frequently linked to what seem to be officially available copies of articles: on the author's website, or on other reputable websites, that I have reason to believe would not be making unauthorized copies available. I have never linked to dubious copies (e.g. through sites that purposely make copyrighted information available). As I said, there is no reason to doubt that this is an official copy. HGilbert (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Authors are among the worst offenders. Tell you what, why don't you email the permissions department at T&F and say, "you know that paper you want to charge £30 per view for? Well, I've found a copy of the same text on the web - is it okay if I make it freely available via Wikipedia rather than have our readers bother with your fee?". For added excitement you could try the same with the Elsevier paper you linked to. If we ever do get permission to redistribute such content, I believe the permission agreement needs to be lodged with the WMF.

I hope it goes without saying that in such matters one errs on the side of caution rather than "risking it". Alexbrn (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Apology and Request

Dear Alex, firstly, please accept my apology. I removed templates you placed on some of my articles, mistaking them for those placed by a BOT, after also misinterpreting what that BOT does and its instruction for ignoring it. This was not meant to be disrespectful or even directed towards you or any of your responses. If and when you have time, I wondered if you might help me interpret and respond appropriately to your assessment of two articles: 'Creative visualization' and 'Brainwave entrainment'. In the case of 'Creative visualization', after significant time spent on research - possibly way beyond that necessary for what was a several sentence article prior to my re-write, I faced a major problematic, in that the term is used in evidence-based disciplines adjuvant to medicine, such as cognitive approaches to psychology and psychotherapy, but also in fields based upon pseudoscience and the derivatives of New Thought, and New Age paradigms. The latter is particularly disturbing - by which I confess a bias - because there are some whose claims for it include the curing of cancer and the attainment of wealth. 'Creative visualization' is also used in design. I therefore split the subject into three: Creative visualization Creative visualization (New Age) Creative visualization (Design) In the light of the templates you placed on Creative Visualization, I have clearly not done a sufficiently good job, and I have no problem at all in accepting that, nor with working further with humility to improve it, based upon your assessment. If I do not do it, I believe, based on the length of time the previous article, or rather sentences, existed without editing, probably nobody will do it. And if not for the importance of the subject, which no doubt you will empathize as someone with a specific interest in sorting fact from fiction in relation to subjects such as cancer, I am sure you will agree. I have spent a long time going through the article today and I need your help in simply drilling down and identifying: 1. The sections you believe require more medical references. 2. The sections you believe rely too much on primary sources Then, if I am unable to find additional sources, I can pair the article down to include only those sections that do exhibit the aforementioned deficits. I have also looked carefully at the 'Brainwave entrainment' article and would very much appreciate the same input, though I do believe I might have a hunch, which perhaps you could refute or confirm. You have placed two templates. Regarding Fringe Theories, the only section I can identify that might be construed as 'Fringe' is the one entitled ' The rhythmic nature of human activity'. All the others are well established and seem sourced accordingly. If you disagree, could you please name the sections so I can either improve or remove them. Lastly, could you please identify the sections that require more 'medical references', so that I can also amend their deficits, removing them if no such sources exist for their claims. I can of course simply leave both articles, and if they were the subject of regular consistent editing by others I would. But having worked so hard on the two subjects I would like the self-satisfaction of knowing I have left them in an acceptable state of clarity and without unsupported claims, so that my responsibilities are fulfilled. I reiterate my apology by way of closure. Many thanks in advance. Prolumbo (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! I have over 600 articles on my watchlist and not the considerable time free it would require to fix Brainwave entrainment, but here are some general thoughts about what I'd do if I did have that time:

• Be particularly suspicious of WP:OVERCITED claims (like "There is significant evidence to show that such listening precipitates auditory driving by which ensembles of cortical neurons entrain their frequencies to that of the binaural beat, with associated changes in self-reported subjective experience of emotional and cognitive state.^{[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72]}") – if something can't be plainly cited to one strong source and have WP:INTEGRITY it's usually a sign something's wrong. Remember we are meant to be a tertiary work summarizing accepted knowledge (generally found in secondary sources). We must not be a secondary work drawing conclusions from primary work. In the sentence just quoted, there should be a good secondary source to back up the claim.
• Remove any WP:BIOMEDICAL material not cited to WP:MEDRS
• Ensure any remaining material is sourced to good independent secondary sources, with primary sources just being used for filling-in detail.

You could always ask for further assistance/guidance at WP:FT/N. Good luck! Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Very helpful and supportive indeed. Many many thanks. Prolumbo (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

naturopathy edit you performed.

how was any of the truth i claimed "silly" that was your only response. are you as stupid as the admins who are against natural medicine? is that why you removed it without a valid reason good work there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.23.43.212 (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Silybum marianum

Hi Alex, thanks for correcting my error - I thought Pubmed was an accepted source for reporting medical research. Is it acceptable to link to the same trial published in Clinical Nutrition, which I understand is a peer-reviewed and highly respected Elsevier journal? Clarella (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! - no, we need secondary sources not research articles for this kind of content. Please see WP:MEDRS (and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background). Alexbrn (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Clarella (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

To all my talk page stalkers ...

Wishing you a skeptical Xmas and an enlightened New Year! Alexbrn (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Probiotics

Hi Alexbrn,

I saw that you were one of the lead editors in the Probiotics section. Perhaps this article would be useful? Quite often these companies target consumers with deceptive ads.

Thank you.

--Bluezell (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Mis-click

Thanks. I didn't know I'd done that. Should I explain what must have happened somewhere? (Fat paws on an iPad) Roxy the dog™ woof 14:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's just put it down to ... Xmas ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit War

Let me be very clear Alex, you cannot just simply revert my post and supply a non-substantive reason and expect me not to revert. I've supplied very detailed reasons in order to seek consensus yet your behavior is very similar to that of KingofFaces and Jps where you provide non-explanatory reasons mixed with insults for reverting my submission. I will assume in good faith that although your behavior is very similar to KoF and Jps, you aren't addressing this issue with them as a unified block. 16:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

I gave my reasons; you've gone personal. You've reverted very many times to "your" version. Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn you underhandedly undid a compromise wording on the Rolfing Rolfingarticle, refusing to acknowledge the compromise, and stubbornly edit warring with those that tried nicely to point out that you were vandalizing the rolfing page by using the perjorative "quackery". Using that description is kind of like calling a person a "whore" or "sadist" or other similarly ultimately non-descriptive, but inflammatory terms. That has no business in Wikipedia, if you want to say that some people\doctors\philosophers\doubters, doubt the efficacy of something, go ahead, but name calling (especially since you insist on doing it both at the beginning and the end of the article) should be something not allowed. You vandalized a page and got away with it for a long time.

Please make any comments about an article on its Talk page, not here. Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Animal therapies

Alex, you can't just delete a bunch of sourced material and replace it with a mere meta-analysis of 14 poor studies and reach the conclusions you are reaching. Let's collaborate here and improve these articles, not treat them as a fringe theory to be debunked. Montanabw^(talk) 18:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a case where extremely poor content needed to be rapidly excised. Replacing it with a strong RS led to an big overall improvement of the encyclopedia in my view. I strongly oppose including promotional content giving our readers bogus information about ineffective & expensive treatments (to "deal with" autism e.g.). The previous versions of these articles (which you are restoring to) is shocking, frankly. Alexbrn (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Some yes, but I have issues with you dismissing the entire concept wholesale as "bogus" and accusing me of edit-warring. This is a legitimate model, though some of the individual programs raise my eyebrows, too. Per BRD, we discuss. I don't have an issue with some of the material you removed (the promotional tone, the stuff on certification in the AAT article, for example) but where there is sourced content, we should leave it and discuss the sources. It is better to look for improving sources rather than trashing them; for example, many magazines or books actually do have underlying citations to scientific literature, they are worth finding. I am leaving town today for a day or so, but in the meantime, take a look at [12] and [13] Montanabw^(talk) 18:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

There is enough blame as to who is "edit warring" to go around, I'm sure. I am guilty, you are guilty, we all are guilty. Still, I find it rather objectionable, Montanabw, that you would continually replace content that is so clearly skewed towards sources which are not nearly as reliable as to the ones which Alexbrn is referring. Sometimes wholesale removal of poorly sourced material is the only recourse. It seems to me that this is exactly what is happening here. Your insistence that we cannot do this is very much reminiscent of your documented WP:OWN problems which are part of which sunk your last RfA, for example. jps (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, with this current episode in view, the very fact of a previous RfA attempt rather boggles the mind! Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you discuss the content and article and do not muddy discussion with references to an RfA. Such red herrings always suggest that real arguments are thin, while this not so subtle slap at an editor is pretty low.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC))

This is a user talk page, so we are not constrained to discuss article content. I hope you'd agree that the WP:PAGs are as important as article content, and that in general admins (or would-be admins) need to be familiar with them. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Shall we muddy the waters instead with the suggestion that you are a paid shill for MUM? jps (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure you can muddy the waters anyway you want to. Its still muddying the waters, its all red herrings, and I do get fed up with attacks on people whoever they are and especially excellent editors like Montana. I know what it feels like. And no I'm not paid by anyone to edit WP.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC))

WP:CIV "Present coherent and concise arguments, and refrain from making personal attacks; encourage others to do the same." A discussion of content that veers off to an editor's failed RfA and uses that RfA to bolster a position in an argument is an incivility and undermines one of our behavioural policies. So yes, I clearly support our policies and guidelines when I call editors on behaviours that fall outside our civility guidelines. Further, a talk page does not provide immunity from compliance with our policies and guidelines. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC))

Olive, you've got it the wrong way round. The RfA does not bolster any argument about the current article issues; the current article issues (retrospectively) inform the circumstances of the RfA. I repeat, that an editor who seems to lack a basic understanding of our neutrality and sourcing policies underwent (and was somewhat well-supported) in an RfA boggles the mind. If you think my saying so violates a policy take it to a drama board. (I'd also add that your grasp of policy seems a bit shaky - or selective; to quote from WP:CIV: "an editor's talk page is more like their kitchen; it's more informal, and (within reason) it's up to them what happens in there".) Alexbrn (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex, please remember both CIVIL and AGF. For you to come into an article and immediately dismiss its contents as "bogus pseudoscience" is not terribly helpful. It is far more appropriate to make specific, cogent arguments rather than attacking individual. And yes, I will be trying again for an RfA next spring and you are welcome to !oppose me again. Now let's move on. The bottom line is that you derailed a sincere attempt to actually improve an article by inserting your own POV into it. Given that there are respected programs that have been around for decades, you need to look at the topic with a more neutral eye. Montanabw^(talk) 22:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS says equine-related therapy is pseudoscience; "bogus" is my word, drawing on that RS. There's an industry out there selling this expensive stuff (mainly to parents of children with difficulties it seems) and there is no good evidence supporting it. Wikipedia was giving the opposite message (buy this stuff to "deal with" your child's autism e.g.). You say I "immediately" dismissed this stuff, but this is wrong: the dismissal comes from looking at RS. I have not inserted my "own POV", but material from good secondary sources -- the first that have ever been used in this article. Your implication that this not neutral is completely, 180° wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I already agreed that some of the phrasing was problematic and the sources needed improvement. My concern is when you use a word like "bogus," you are clearly inserting your own POV. But see below. Montanabw^(talk) 00:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

No, bogus may be my word, but it's not "my" POV (or at least not original POV), it comes from reading the secondary literature on equine therapies which find it makes sweeping claims and is expensive, but doesn't work. That means it is bogus. As the same literature also points out, selling this stuff is ethically problematic. I hope all editors respect the views as expressed in RS, and work to make these articles express them: that will give us the NPOV that is badly needed. Alexbrn (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

For the multiple articles we are discussing, I found this, which I think may meet everyone's need for NPOV and analysis... they provide the research and the summary. We can't copypaste, obviously, and it doesn't cover everything, but it seems to be the most comprehensive review I've seen. I can live with its conclusions (beats "bogus pseudoscience" which one person called it) Montanabw^(talk) 00:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS: communications from insurance companies are not reliable sources for biomedical content. Since we (now) have high-quality academic secondary sources there's no need to reach for junky ones. 00:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You didn't even read it, the link has an article that cites at least eight studies and offers a brief summary of each of them. It's useful research already done for us and if you don't want to agree with their conclusions, the studies themselves have full citations so you can review them for yourself. Montanabw^(talk) 05:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You didn't even read it ← what are you trying to achieve by writing that? As a matter of fact I did, and it's not a useful source. Why not use decent sources? We're beginning to get a reasonable number of them now. Alexbrn (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You appear to not have read to the bottom or you would have seen the source material, which is the stuff worth looking at. Montanabw^(talk) 05:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it references some good secondary sources (which are usable), but it is not a source we can use itself because it fails WP:MEDRS. And you're edit-warring it in now to imply hippotherapy can treat a huge range of conditions. Naughty. Alexbrn (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not edit-warring, as I keep trying for a workable rephrasing that is truly POV. (Keep in mind that your reverts, restoring your own edits, were complete with the same typo...which seems a bit knee-jerk to me) and do lay off the threats, they are not needed; I am trying to work in good faith with you here (and on about four other pages, it's getting difficult to track all these conversations.) The hippotherapy article itself says speech/occupational therapy and mental health. The Aetna piece references physical therapies of various sorts. Frankly, I would be OK if we un-redirected Equine-assisted therapy and merged the hippotherapy article into that title, making it an overview. But you need to lay off of the "no good evidence" phrasing (which I see you are also using on a number of other non-animal articles I have nothing to do with), it's SYNTH and it's editorializing. Just let the studies speak for themselves. Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You are repeatedly reverting to your preferred text, which is edit warring. In this case, it is to insert this insurance source which is not WP:MEDRS as has been pointed-out. What is more you are misrepresenting the source by taking investigational work and smudging it to be "treatment". And saying "treatment" in lay language implies some degree of efficacy, so it is not honest & neutral either. In almost every way, this is bad behaviour giving us bad content. (BTW, "no good evidence" is often a good lay-language paraphrase of findings in EBM. This has been discussed at WT:MED quite recently, and you can always get assistance there for this sort of wording query.) Alexbrn (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Here: I have been trying to take time out from arguing to actually look up some more material and found this: [14] A literature review of 47 articles and if this isn't comprehensive, then I invite you to dig on your own. I also finally obtained a full text of the Anestis study and what struck me is that several of the 14 studies they looked at were the EAGALA model, which I personally find to be problematic. Even so, even Anestis stated, "we believe that research concerning ERT and other experimental treatment modalities should continue. At the same time, the quality of that research needs to improve..." They clearly are taking a very conservative approach, but I would not read their conclusions to say that Equine therapies are "bogus pseudoscience" -- their conclusion was that the 14 studies they looked at basically sucked in terms of various design elements. Montanabw^(talk) 06:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Where does the phrase you quote ("bogus pseudoscience") appear? Nowhere. The two words are explained above. Thank you for looking for good sources; the Lentini paper probably isn't a good one: it's does not appear to be indexed by MEDLINE (or included even in PUBMED) and the Journal of Creativity in Mental Health has an impact factor of zero. We do not need to use questionable sources when very good ones (like Anestis) are available. The Anestis paper does a lot more than criticize study design, it recommends avoiding these therapies - which is quite unusual, as is electing to use a keyword of "pseudoscience" for the paper. Alexbrn (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You admitted that you called equine and animal therapies "bogus" above ("bogus information") and you tagged some of them with "pseudoscience" links. If you do not consider equine therapies to be "bogus pseudoscience," then I shall clarify. Montanabw^(talk) 07:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Right so it's not a quotation from anywhere. To be pedantic, it's not bogus pseudoscience, it's genuine pseudoscience (at least that's how our RS categorizes it). It's bogus because it makes claims that aren't evidenced (and makes a lot of money, incidentally, which probably makes it worse than just bogus). Note I am not suggesting using the word "bogus" in the article, but it's fine for my user talk page ... Alexbrn (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, so I did combine two different statements without meaning to, and thus and I misstated this as a direct quote when it was actually a paraphrase. That was my error. Fair enough. So am I clear that you view all animal therapies as "bogus"? If so, I must point out that "bogus" is an imprecise and rather insulting word that merely expresses your opinion, and also shuts down both debate and collaboration. As for "pseudoscience," that is also merely your opinion. Do show me a RS that o dscribes all animal therapies as "pseudoscience" please ... we have some wikipedia editors who even classify psychology as "pseudoscience" -- are you one of them? Montanabw^(talk) 04:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

As for the rest, there IS evidence, certainly evidence that could be presented in a court of law, but its quality as scientific evidence is weak (not non-existent) and more study is needed -- even the critics agree on that. The critics also agree that it does no harm, unlike a great deal of true pseudoscience (such as laetrile, for example). As for "makes a lot of money," that only exposes your lack of understanding of the field. Gross income or per-session cost may look pricy, perhaps, but in net income, not at all; do you have any notion of how much it costs to keep a horse? (national average in the USA is $2000 a year for minimum care) Also, the standardization of protocols now generally require two professionals in a session; the mental health counselor (to focus on the client) and the equine specialist (for safety and management of the animal) I am only familiar with a few equine therapy programs firsthand, but none of them are flush, they are always begging for donations, in part because many horses suitable for these therapies are elderly ones, with concomitant health expenses related to extra care for digestion issues, arthritis and dental issues that are quite common in older equines. No, I am sorry, but your bias is really quite significant. Montanabw;;;^(talk) 04:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

So am I clear that you view all animal therapies as "bogus"? ← "all" is your word. I have concerns about bogus information and bogus claims for these therapies being promoted by Wikipedia (particularly about "dealing with autism" etc.), I I have concerns about you reverting to them. "Pseudoscience" is actually a keyword for Anestis's article, which gives us an RS basis to use the term. I think any "bias" here is evident in your not noticing things I write (or which appear in RS) which don't conform with a certain world-view. What we need to be doing here is reflecting what the best sources say: it's really very simple. Alexbrn (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That's why I asked; but you did not answer. DO you view ALL animal therapies as "bogus?" IF your answer is not "yes," then it will benefit a collaborative atmosphere if you explain where you actually sit on the issue. I mean that sincerely. And, for my benefit, where is this word "pseudoscience" used in Anestis's article? Can you link to this? I am rather concerned that your "concerns about bogus information" lead to its own form of POV-pushing, as evidenced by your penchant to add the phrase "no good evidence" across multiple articles on multiple topics and then rather harshly shut down debate with anyone who argues with you (though admittedly in some cases I agree with you). It's one thing to take that approach where we are dealing with a brand new sockpuppet of Wiki-PR or some breathless groupie of Bigfoot or young earth creationim, where the sooner an endless nonsense debate is shut down the better per WP:DFTT. But here, we are both well-established editors who know the rules and simply have a difference of opinion. I'd like us both to shut down the snark and see if we can get to a middle ground. To that end, I actually kept most of your edits at Hippotherapy but restored some of what you removed. (I do tend to revert and re-add as an editing style) Montanabw^(talk) 20:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a view, it doesn't interest me. I just want to be informed on what the view "out there" is. As I said "pseudoscience" is one of the keywords of Anestis's article - it's there on the page. I'm sorry, but I don't agree that you know the "rules" very well - you argued for primary sources for health information for example, and are still pushing Lentini as a viable source. Reverting and re-adding as an "editing style" is also not really great behaviour (it has wasted my time), neither is edit-warring your fanciful thoughts about hippotherapy not being used for mental health treatment, into the lede of the article. Alexbrn (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Séralini affair

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Séralini affair. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Ironic. -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

THERE IS NO ESCAPE! Alexbrn (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. "no good evidence" is not professional writing and is too conclusory a statement for these articles. I suggest that you come up with something less inflammatory Montanabw^(talk) 07:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I wasn't the one who went travelling and said other editors should stop editing until I returned! Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Who are you to threaten me?

You place OPINION on pages, and then get pissy when they are changed? Not going to tolerate that.

Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)

Dear Alexbrn, These changes are not correct, according to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) "Another useful grouping of core medical journals is the 2003 Brandon/Hill list, which includes 141 publications selected for a small medical library[Hill DR, Stickell H, Crow SJ (2003). "Brandon/Hill selected list of print books for the small medical library" (PDF). Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. Archived from the original on June 15, 2011. Retrieved 2008-09-16.] (although this list is no longer maintained, the listed journals are of high quality)" and please come to the talk page before editing, best regards - Jdontfight (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant to the edit in question. Please discuss content issues at the article Talk page, and note that demanding editors discuss with you before they interfere with your text is a kind of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR which is frowned on. Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I asked for Dispute resolution [15] best regards Jdontfight (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I declined it; there is unfinished business on the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Pilates health benefits?

Even a cursory glance at the scientific research on Pilates shows that the statement "There is no good medical evidence that Pilates confers any health benefits" is clearly untrue, not to mention the basic commonsense fact that all forms of exercise confer health benefits.

Even if it weren't flagrantly false, however, this preposterous statement would not belong in the introduction to the article. It's simply not the place for it. Your edits are ideologically driven, and they are objectively false. Revert again and I will get an admin involved.

A basic scan of the peer reviewed literature shows that Pilates provides health benefits. Here are some examples. You did not read (or understand) the reference you cited. You have a responsibility to remove your false statements from this page http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26473443 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26578458 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26435334 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26004043 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22397236 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.122.39 (talk • contribs)

Hello there! Please discuss matters of article content on that article's Talk page, but before doing so please also read WP:MEDRS. Peer-review alone is no guarantee of reliability for this kind of content. Alexbrn (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, the study you linked is not even close to being scientifically rigorous. The peer-reviewed studies I showed are, and I could have shown you dozens more like them.

And your writing is seriously terrible-- I mean it, it's just off-base and embarrassingly amateurish. You are not qualified to interpret data for the public. Please stop editing wikipedia pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.122.39 (talk • contribs)

Hello again! If it's not clear from WP:MEDRS why we don't use primary source, you may find that WP:WHYMEDRS gives an easier-to-understand explanation. Alexbrn (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE 05/04/2016. Alexbrn, I totally agree with the above contributor whose points are absolutely valid against your edits and censorship of our voice. I can only conclude you qualify as a biased editor, who seems to have a specific view of certain areas in the health industry, and to ensure they spread across the globe, you use the tactic of reverting perfectly justified edits that could go against your interests, and in doing so you give no coherent, reasonable justification. As such , the article gets endlessly stuck in your definition of how it should be. Several valued contributors to the Pilates page are trying to clean the articles every now and then from content unrelated to the Pilates discipline, normally written with malice and quoting dubious sources. You are not even allowing correction of grammar or restructuring of certain sections, or removal of duplicate content. What is this about? I am afraid I have enough evidence and will have to take it further with the administrator team if you don't come to reason and stop reverting justified edits.

Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge from reliable sources. Unfortunately, that doesn't look good from the perspective of the Pilates business. Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Alexbrn I wish someone in Wikipedia administrative team could see your replies do not make sense. You keep writing true statements that are not connected to the topic. It is an evasive technique old as sugar, but I know Wikipedia Administrators will spot what you have been doing. You also do edits and reversions quoting and linking Wikipedia's guidelines usually used in medicine and medical research to justify your edits, and you extend that criteria to whatever you want, in this case, Pilates. Health topics and health industry is not the same as medicine and alternative medicine.

To raise such concerns use WP:AIN. Please do not post here againn. Alexbrn (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Welsbech gases US pat 5003186

Good day. I think the Patent is very significant to the topic of chemtrails. Its a patent describing the method and chemicals involved. How can it be that it is irreleveant ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Dark gungal (talk • contribs)

Hi there! Because it has no connection to the chemtrail conspiracy theory. You need to produce a reliable source making such a connection. Please make any further comment on this topic on the article's Talk page. Thaks, Alexbrn (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

KE Diet

Hello. I'm a new Wikipedian and ask for help in bringing attention a scientific article that supports a basis for using a ketogenic feeding tube diet in medically supervised weight loss. This is the link to the peer-reviewed medical article: http://medcraveonline.com/AOWMC/AOWMC-01-00005.php . Thank you.

Hi! It's primary research and therefore not considered a reliable source here for claims about efficacy. Please see WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background. Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Family Constellations

I think you missed a FRINGE edit marked as minor. Have undone it. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Super, thanks. Bit of a full-time job, this ... Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I will get back to yo in a few days to sort ot Family Constellation text. Best regards, Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.14.185.48 (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Better here

I found this to be a "problematic" comment. Your accusations of edit-warring and POV-pushing are getting quite tedious, given that you have a problem not seeing the log in your own eye. I am going to graciously suggest that you assume a little more good faith on my part; I have no idea what your background is with animals or animal therapies (do you own a pet?), but I can assure you that while even I find many animal theapies to be on the flakey side, there are also some very promising findings. The trick is looking objectively at the positive as well as the negative and teasing out the stands of each. If you are on a campaign to debunk all animal therapies as pseudoscience or somehow "bogus", that is as surely an extreme position as those who believe in miracle cures. I hope that is not your position. Montanabw^(talk) 20:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think personalising is helpful. I am on no campaign, and I have no pre-conceived view as you appear to. I simply want to represent the best sources accurately, no matter whether they come out "positive", "negative" or somewhere in-between. I don't see Equine-therapy as needing any different treatment than any of the other hundred of mainstream and altmed therapies on my watchlist. You don't appear to get what makes a good source, and you don't appear to be able to comprehend and summarise the sources we do have faithfully, but are very aggressive in inserting your preferred text - sorry, but WP:CIR. Alexbrn (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That is where we disagree; you ARE personalizing ("don't appear to be able to comprehend" - wow, that's a wee bit condescending). You perhaps genuinely think you are being neutral, but in reality you are ignoring anything that disagrees with your POV and attacking the person. You are not a person with a doctorate in science, neither am I (our educational levels are roughly equivalent, based upon your userboxen and mine). We simply have a disagreement on the weight and interpretation of the evidence. Equine therapies are not well-studied and I think it's fine to make a case in the article for the strengths and weaknesses of the three existing meta-analyses. But making a lot of "you" statements and assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid is merely WP:BAITing and bullying. I am trying to separate your behavior from the article discussion, and your behavior is quite incivil and not assuming good faith. Montanabw^(talk) 19:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems really clear to me. I believe this: Your personal beliefs are of no consequence, and in fact WP:MEDRS explicitly says that personal objections count for nothing - so arguments based on "I believe" are a non-starter is WP:BAITing and bullying. I believe it's nasty. If I were tell you that your personal beliefs are of no consequence, and in fact WP:MEDRS explicitly says that personal objections count for nothing - so arguments based on "I believe" are a non-starter, that'd be OK? If I were tell you you are of no consequence and count for nothing? That's how your choice of language comes across. You've never started a sentence with "I believe"? And I believe I've not looked at anything beyond the linked to edit, so I take no stand on whether there's evidence for the rest of the objected-to comment. I believe it's generally fine for me, Montanabw, anyone to start sentences with "I believe," as I've done often in this comment. Please try to disagree without being disagreeable. I don't think you lose anything by apologizing for the nasty language. It would put you on moral high ground, and be very civil. --Elvey^(t•c) 15:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't post to this talk page again. Alexbrn (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Human spaceflight

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Human spaceflight. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Letting you know

I want to make sure that you are aware of User:Elvey/sandbox/User talk:Alexbrn, for obvious reasons. Please let me know if you would like me to put it up for deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Tryptofish, I'm not even sure what Elvey is trying to accomplish there - probably yet more WP:NOTHERE of some kind. Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

All you need to do is read or AGF. (hist) From the edit summary: "How did https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexbrn&diff=prev&oldid=677215214 happen? ... a signature non-expansion glitch." Obviously, I was investigating the signature non-expansion glitch. How is there any ambiguity? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Elvey/sandbox/User_talk:Alexbrn&diff=prev&oldid=700720355 shows this (archived at https://archiveDOTis/RMZSc). It added this" Aha, the cause was this edit which had a missing '>' closing a ref tag." Speedied. --Elvey^(t•c) 15:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever else, the page has been deleted at Elvey's own request, so thank you for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Effects of pornography

Alexbrn, if you have the time, the Effects of pornography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article could really use a medical editor like you, Anthonyhcole, Yobol or Jytdog helping out with it and watching it. It's a contentious topic with POV-pushing going on at the article (from both sides) from time to time, and it's prone to poor sources. While it's not a well-researched topic, and, as I noted at the article talk page, can be subject to the "and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published" aspect of WP:MEDDATE, it can also do better when it comes to sourcing. I've tried to get WP:Med to help with the article...but to no avail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I've watchlisted it, but am a bit short of time for WP just now ... Alexbrn (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for helping. As you may have seen, Jytdog has stepped up to do the heavy duty editing there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Alexbrn. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Rose (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Stupid spammer is stupid

Johntucker28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - life is so much simpler when people are too dim to even try to cover their tracks :-) Guy (Help!) 12:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha! - there's a lot of it about at the moment. Alexbrn (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

life is not so simple that you are assumed because some time people take time to be sure of their action, and calling some one stupid doesn't make you an intelligent, it only show that an idiot is responding, anyway i don;t waste time on idiots.

Biofield treatment is also an alternative treatment just like Massage therapy, Acupuncture , Music therapy as it is already mention in Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_medicine the link http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12529-009-9062-4 is cite with keyword "biofield energy healing" the link which i had mentioned you have not seen the data, the data has been tested and scientifically approved, go through it and read the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntucker28 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Family Constellations

Hello Alexbrn,

Please note some of the opinions on the page were unsupported hearsay. Some links were dead and needed to be updated. So why not stick with a neutral unbiased version? Anupapa (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article's Talk page. In general, a dead link does not mean a source is to be removed. Also be aware of WP:EW. Alexbrn (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please don't make threats for daring to voice honest (and evidence-based) views that contradict yours

Your calling my edits on the Roswell page "disruptive editing" with threat to block strikes me as extremely ironic. My edit did not add "commentary and your personal analysis", it was an attempt to add the very balance and NPOV that was conspicuously absent - as I stated very clearly in my edit summary, and as abundantly attested on the discussion page by several individuals. Dismissing any contrarian perspective as ipso facto "fringe" is in my view intellectually dishonest. To call the military that led the US into war in Iraq on the basis of positive WMD's definitively "credible," with not even mention of the alternative perspective and history in the lead, as the current version does, is comical, and there is abundant substantive evidence favoring the alternative sources by substantive researchers, for which I have finite time. You don't have to agree with me, - but to instantly shoot down anything violating your dogmatic perspective is in my view exactly the same kind of fundamentalist-like arrogance that chained Copernicanism centuries ago. Negative barnstar for that. Recognizing even the mere existence of alternative beliefs which ARE well known and which DO have strong evidence in their favor is exactly what NPOV is all about in the first place. Would it really need threatening you in turn with decertification for abuse of editorial powers to make you step back and weigh the possibility that others not only might mean well but could even be right? I'd love to think not. Both the dogmaticism and the certitude you evidenced are fatally hurting WP, and are anathema to what it is really about. And looking at your talk page here, it appears I am not alone in this observation  :-( Chris Rodgers (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Please discuss the content of the Roswell article at its Talk page. If you check the archives there you'll see this kind of thing has been discussed at length in the past. Alexbrn (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "decertification". oh dear. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to be certified to edit here, but it helps ... Alexbrn (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Naprapathic medicine

Why have you been linking the Naprapath page to the Chiropractic page? They are completely different fields and you are providing misleading information to anyone curious about Naprapathy. Why would you be doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebeck999 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:Naprapathy. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Bioavailable Glutathione

Dear Alexbrn, I noticed that you deleted the page "bioavailale glutathione" that I published on Wikipedia on the 13 January 2016. I would appreciate to know the reasons behind your decision, so that I can work on my publication in order to improve it and publish it again. Thanks for your collaboration Kind regards,

ViolaC16 (talk)15 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at WP:FT/N. Please also be aware of WP:COI, if it applies. Alexbrn (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Climate change denial

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Climate change denial. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Youth Time page

Hello Alexbrn, I would appreciate if you stop taking away the content and replacing it with irrelevant information such as linking two public figures together and to the organization for no apparent reason. Can we agree to leave the page as it is now, i.e. unbiased introduction, logo and organization's manifesto. I strongly disagree that publishing organization's manifesto constitutes self-promotion. It is a relevant information, and ultimately it is for a reader to interpret it, not a single abusive editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programsyt (talk • contribs) 08:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:5P for our core policies. Unsourced and self-sourced promotional text is not wanted. Also, assuming the "yt" in your user name stands for Youth Time please see WP:COI. Any further discussion of the article's content should take place on the article's Talk page. Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Please, instead of undoing my changes, provide some relevant information. I agree some of my changes violate wiki policy (which i promise to familiarize myself with more closely follow in the future), however you just remove content completely, without providing any reasonable alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programsyt (talk • contribs) 12:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warring Warning

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

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. Tapered (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

IMO, your initial reversion assumed personal authority w/ no hint of citing a ref, or anything else. That's why it was reverted. Thanks for the latest "Alexander" edit: I'm going to replicate it @ "Feldenkreis." Regards Tapered (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Please continue discussion about article content at the articles' talk page. Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added another point to the Talk: Feldenkrais Method linguistic discussion. Tapered (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yoga

Hi, can You tell me please, why did You delete the subsection with Jiří Vacek from the article Yoga? I do not want to do something bad there, I would like to make the site better... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueKarel (talk • contribs) 15:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! It seems undue, particularly since there were no secondary sources to lend WP:WEIGHT to the inclusion. Please continue discussion of the article content at its Talk page - Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

What are the secondary sources please? What should I exactly do to be allowed to write that link to this page? I believe, it is very important to link these pages together because of better orientation of others in this topic. Thanks. --BlueKarel (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

See WP:SECONDARY. We really need good secondary (and also WP:INDEPENDENT) sources to know Vacek is truly noteworthy. Alexbrn (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I would be very glad, if I can link Jiří Vacek with this page. Jiří Vacek is well-known in our country and abroad. He wrote over 100 own works and acts as a spiritual teacher over 50 years. Some authors lean on his teaching, see please for example the encyclopedia book of Josef Sanitrák Dějiny české mystiky 1-3 díl (History of Czech Mysticism, Part 1-3) as a reference on the wikipedia page of Jiří Vacek. Are eventually these references on the page Yoga sufficient for You? Thanks--BlueKarel (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss this at the article Talk page. To make a case, I think you would need a good book on Yoga which specifically dealt with the importance of Vacek to this discipline. I do not believe he is important to Yoga considered generally, so such a source would convince me otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bon courage. You have new messages at Talk:Deepak Chopra.
Message added 14:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BlueStove (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

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

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

I've started a discussion about your editing at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Please comment there. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Please do not attack other editors as you did by referring to "them" as "randy's enablers". Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well that took a shorter than expected time...

...before the 'there is no consensus' turned up. I dont think it is as bad as homeopathy though as that has multiple separate and distinct eternal discussions. Paleo only has one or two. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Scientists open letter on Cryonics

Hello, I see that you just reverted to remove the Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics from the "Cryonics" page. Most people (statistically likely to include you), are not familiar with cryonics, or the specific premises on which the possibility of cryonic resuscitation is based. I don't expect anyone else to think that cryonics itself is reputable or that the possibility of resuscitation for cryonics patients is likely (or possible). However, I do respectfully request that you follow your own policies, and allow the point of view of respected cryonicists to be represented on a page that is... Well... about cryonics. The point of view you deleted is not only held by those 69 scientists, but it is also (probably the only) common belief held by the cryonics community as a whole. In other words, you would be hard-pressed to find a single person who calls themselves a "cryonicist" who does not agree with the contents of that open letter. (I know at least a few hundred of these people personally.)

The "status quo" of the page is that it has many negative comments about cryonics from single individuals. The open letter which you just reverted, contains the positive opinion of 69 respected scientists who work in cryonics related fields, almost every one of those scientists has a PhD in a related science discipline. You typed the word "silly" in your edit comment, but is it silly to include the point of view of the cryonicists which the article is written about?

As I stated, I don't expect you to agree with cryonicists, but I do ask you to allow the opinion this group of scientists to be represented. Their viewpoint meets all NPOV and RS rules. It is certainly a minority point of view (as is cryonics as a whole), but according to NPOV, (all) published minority points of view related to a topic are supposed to be described in the topic. It easily meets the RS citation criteria, as the open letter has been referenced by the National Institute of Health, a few printed books, and numerous news organizations.

Thank you, -- Nome77 (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss the article's content on its Talk page. Like others, I don't agree this poorly-sourced content is wanted. If it has been referenced by true RS, you need to provide that. Alexbrn (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The National Institute of Health referenced the open letter, in a news brief. That's probably the most reputable link of the many that I listed in the talk page. National Institute of Health (NIH), News Briefs, "Deep freeze Down Under": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3414624/ Is this a true RS? I'm not sure how much more reliable you get than the NIH. Is there something I am missing? I read the RS page.

Two regular editors think the content should be included (me and "Cryobiologist"). Only one regular (not admin) editor has stated that they are against it (David Gerard). I've discussed the content on the talk page much, I'm talking to you because of your administrative revert decision. -- Nome77 (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it's just press release churn. But as I say, this discussion should be on the article Talk page - I won't respond here further on article content. Alexbrn (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Fire needle acupuncture

This had passed AfD I will be expanding it shortly. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It surprises me it did, I think a wider consensus may be helpful - but I'll watch the article to see if evidence of notability emerges, thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

In the light of this odd decision, would either of you wonderful editors help me write The Whiskey Cancer Cure -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you'd face strong opposition from the Whisky Cancer Cure adherents ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Koren Specific Technique I reverted you edit here, I am look for page protection. This is notable quackery, if you looked at the history you will see User:Teddkoren has edited the article. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Started discussion here. It important to note that even the chiropractic community has not accepted this technique so a redirect may be improper. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru:, Also just curious I assume you have a science background, if that is the case why would you not want this article in this current neutral state (I know you were looking at a vandalized version by Tedd Koren's edits)? If we present what the quack claims and then present the actual scientific views which is that is this nothing more than quackery and its creator being under repeated investigation, then the causal viewer well understand the dubious nature of this "technique". Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with this source? I notice you removed that one. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Biodynamic Agriculture

Hi there-

I am wondering why all of my edits to the biodynamic agriculture page were rejected? The citations, especially for the effectiveness section, were very strong and that was hours of work on my part (for a class assignment at my university). If there is something else I should do to get my edits accepted to the page, please let me know.

Thank you, Samantha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snl223 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Wikipedia material needs to be based on high-quality sources. For this topic we'd ideally be looking at independent academic reference works and secondary material. Your edits were largely based on web sites and primary research - and a lot of it was not referenced at all. Please continue any further discussion on the Biodynamic Agriculture Talk page. Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Koren Specific Technique

We can discuss the sources after AfD, I believe those are reliable and secondary. Removing sources mid AfD, may cause bias. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

And adding them won't? Alexbrn (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources are used to determine notable. The nomination alone is saying those sources are not valid, if consensus agrees the article will be delete. However, if other editors believe the sources are valid then the article would be kept. Removing those sources does not allow editors to neutrally judge the article. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, good sources in the world at large that may be used. The current state of the article not relevant. Loading it up with bilge is in no way helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Collaborating on the Biodyamic Agriculture page

Thank you for the information you provided. Would you be able to more clearly direct me on how to collaborate with the page's authors in order to get my revisions accepted? I have started in the sandbox but am not sure how to go from there.

Snl223 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Samantha, Masters Candidate, NYU Alternative Agriculture and Food Systems

The page doesn't have authors as such - Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. For revisions to be accepted they have to be in line with the WP:PAGs and note that for this topic WP:FRINGE also applies. The article already has some good sources: academic reference works and secondary journal literature: more of this would be good. Alexbrn (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Honey

Hey Alexbrn, you reverted my edits on the Honey article. Let's talk about it on Talk:Honey. Fnordware (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Exponential function

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Exponential function. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Need some coaching help

Hello, I'm new at attempting to contribute here, and I just posted a paragraph you said was irrelevant. I thought my gov. document source applied to medical use of cannabidiol and cannabinoids. Please help! Thank you. Listenforgood (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It did, but wasn't really relevant to Charlotte's Web. It didn't really sum up accepted knowledge in this area well either: our current Medical Cannabis article does a better job at that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Medical uses/Evidence text states, "There is little evidence about the safety or efficacy of cannabinoids in the treatment of epilepsy.[7][10]"

Just because CW Botanicals (and CNN/NBC etc.) doesn't publicize benefits of CBD other than treating epilepsy doesn't mean other clinical evidence about cannabidiol isn't relevant. Reviews discuss a wide range of effective properties of CBD. Leaving out information about CBD research does a disservice to the reader. My mother uses CW for pain relief, I use it as an antidepressant, and another family member uses it for psychological mood stabilization. We're real users. Don't censor real benefits.

Would you help me understand how to contribute proper clinical sources about cannabinoids that will be properly relevant. Thank you! Listenforgood (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I understand your frustration Listenforgood, but unfortunatly you haven't understood how wikipedia works yet. You say above "dont censor real benefits" and yet you haven't described any real benefits in wikipedia editing policy terms. I have a similar issue with my whisky cure for cancer, and I too am a real user of whisky, (and I'm certain it put my illness into remission). As in your example of real people using real things to help them, wikipedia needs real evidence according to policy in order to say such things. Testimony such as mine and yours isn't reliable enough. To call it "censoring" is to do wikipedia and Alex a disservice. I hope Alex doesn't mind my addition here. -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You're exactly right! I'm new here. I'm eager to learn and post reliable accurate information. Thank you for your comment! Listenforgood (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The cannabis articles are generally in a bit of a mess, but any biomedical claims in them need to have the strongest WP:MEDRS sourcing. The Charlotte's Web article is about one product and its area of treatment (epilepsy). More general content on cannabidiol would belong in the cannabidiol article. I haven't looked for a while but our cannabis articles had some intense scrutiny for a number of medical editors in 2013/2014 and the health information at the time was improved a lot. Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Fludarabine and Cyclophosphamide had nothing to do with it of course. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right - there is some confusion and I'll try to help add clarity and comply with Wiki guidelines!

"The Charlotte's Web article is about one product and its area of treatment (epilepsy)." -Alexbrn

I believe some of the confusion is that this page, Charlotte's Web (cannabis) covers some aspects of medical treatment, but the treatment info should be redirected (less ambiguous) to Charlotte's Web Hemp Extract. That's the real name. It's real classification is hemp as granted by the Colorado Department of Agriculture. It complies with U.S. law as legal hemp, similar with many already legal hemp products. Here's a giant image: For me to create a Charlotte's Web Hemp Extract page, would I just copy/paste the full edited Charlotte's Web (cannabis) text into a new page?

To be more clear, a separate Charlotte's Web (cannabis strain) would distinguish between the actual cannabis/hemp commercial product created by the Stanleys. Then the plant/cannabis info wouldn't be confused with the hemp-classified medical remedy. Thank you for your time and assistance. Listenforgood (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

References

NCGS

Please let me finish this editing in steps. Come back with your views in 1h! Jrfw51 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

WTF! You are pushing your POV against a balanced view and not allowing me to complete this. There is no reason to keep one NHS Choices page and not the other. Look at your comment to me user talk:jrfw51#Apologies. Are you doing this again? Jrfw51 (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Please discuss article content on its Talk page, and read WP:LEDE and WP:NOR. You can't invent a dispute within the NHS within an article's lede without sourcing for that dispute. Alexbrn (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you properly compare the two sources? There are two relevant pages with differing conclusions which were there until you rapidly reverted to a single POV. Jrfw51 (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"Activated" phenolics

Would appreciate your review and comments on the dispute over the new Activated phenolics article being discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Alexander technique

Your edit war warning really escalated things. Along with a threat to block. OMG, after all these years on Wikipedia without such a complaint.

It does not appear that you read my points:

This is an RCT, and neither the in-vitro or animal study which WP:MEDRS warns against.

It is in a reputable journal.

While the disputed para. could be cut in size a bit, it does not give undue emphasis.

I will try another edit that cuts the para. down in size. And if you are still insistent on removing it entirely, I will go to WP:ANI.

OK?

Bellagio99 (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A RCT (an old one at that) is a primary source, which is not a WP:MEDRS, especially when we have recent secondary sources. Continue edit warring and you face a block. You have been warned. If you don't get WP:MEDRS maybe read WP:WHYMEDRS for background. Alexbrn (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. I have disagreed with you. Your threats are disrespectful, and until this response you have not even responded substantively with my points. I may refer this to Arbitration just so your behaviour in wielding threats can be noted.Bellagio99 (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You were edit warring. You have three experienced medical editors disagreeing with you. We do not cite an older primary source when we have more recent reviews, ever. You are pretty inexperienced in health topics and clearly haven't dealt with arbcom before; it is very unwise to start mounting major battles when you don't know what you are doing, as it will blow up in your face. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I am amused that you accused me of being "pretty inexperienced", but then checked further and took this comment down. As you are more experienced, to where do you think I should refer your lack of WP:CIVIL which includes coming down heavily on banning someone who politely disagreed with you and gave reasons? Bullying is not a Wikipedia custom. I note too that User:Jytdogwas banned by ArbComm for "Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case." Please learn from that and from this episode. Yours in WikiCivility, and recalling WP:OWN Bellagio99 (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Warning are not threats, and Wikipedia has a number of formalized warnings which are useful, for example when an editor is unaware of what "edit-warring" is. A threat is when an editor says something like "And if you are still insistent on removing it entirely, I will go to WP:ANI". Bellagio99 I do so insist: so either go to ANI or accept that is a good policy-based outcome. Alexbrn (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

To my mind, a threat is without discussion, you threaten me without warning. That's bullying Sounds like there are complex issues to discuss on ANI, when I have time. That's not a threat, but a statement that there is lack of clarity to be resolved.

BTW, I see you wrote WP:WHYMEDRS: Is it kosher then to self-cite yourself as The Authority in an editorial discussion. Is WhyMEDRS now official Wikipedia policy? Bellagio99 (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually I mostly wrote that. More sloppiness from you. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect claim on "doctor of osteopathic medicine " page

This sentence needs work: "notable difference between D.O. and M.D. training is that D.O. training adds 300 – 500 hours studying pseudomedical" Please correct this article. A peer-reviewed study's conclusion is "Despite some preliminary evidence, it is still largely unknown whether osteopathic manipulative treatment improves preterm clinical outcomes." Here is the study~

A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment on Preterms

Many MD programs now include “complementary and alternative medicine,” that also have "unknown effects" according to the literature, yet this mis-characterization of MDs isn't mentioned near the top of their Wiki page.

It is a disservice to the public to give them the impression that DOs are engaging in any less scientifically rigorous practices than MDs when:

A. Few DOs practice OMT in clinical settings, and the efficacy of this practice is still being evaluated

B. MDs also engage in complementary and alternative medicine which has just as questionable efficacy still being evaluated.Yodaflame6 (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary research in PLOS one isn't reliable for much. The DO content has been much discussed and is well-sourced and due. I don't edit the MD page but if it is faulty that is no reason to alter other articles is it. Please discuss any proposed content changes on the MD article page and not here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Since MDs don't have complementary/alternative medicine mentioned at the top of the page, for clarity's sake this sentence is more appropriate in the education section of the article.

It should be in both places: ledes summarize bodies (see WP:LEDE) and should summarize key criticism. Your edit has the effect of whitewashing the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(Add) by the way, are you editing logged-out? Please be aware of WP:SOCK policy. Alexbrn (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This practice is not in widespread use by DOs in modern medical practice, and therefore should not be mentioned in ledes but has appropriately been relegated to the Education section. Yodaflame6 (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss article content on its Talk page. I won't respond here again. Alexbrn (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Circumcision

Is the Journal of Urology not considered a good enough source? Not fighting to have the edit go back, just curious? --FeldBum (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

We need secondary sources for biomedical information; see WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Would an article like this, from UPI, suffice? --FeldBum (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it's just a press release. Alexbrn (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Adrenal fatigue

Hi Alexbrn,

I hope you are doing well. I noticed that a lot of my content was being removed from the Wikipedia page on "adrenal fatigue". I am creating edits as part of my Chemistry class, and I posted in various spots about my intentions. I did not mean to engage in an "editing war". I simply thought my edits were not going through because of bad connection or something of that sort. I saw that users said that my resources were unreliable; however, I thought my resources were very reliable because they came from pharmacology textbooks, government sources, medical journals, etc. How would you recommend that I improve my sources? In addition, I think the edits that I am providing will serve the page well. I find a middle ground between supporters and those in opposition of adrenal fatigue as a medical diagnosis, creating neutrality. Overall, I believe my edits could benefit this Wikipedia page greatly, especially since very little content exists on the page now.

Best,

208.75.19.2 (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Jmagas208.75.19.2 (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what the point of doing a "class project" on this if when the resulting edits fall so far short of what Wikipedia expects. A lot of people's time is being wasted because of these futile educational jollies. Wikipedia is one of the most read websites in the world and its health content needs to be good. If you really want to help, start at WP:5P and steer clear of these very controversial articles until you grok how things work here. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Hi, You just deleted an article section which is currently under discussion and the subject of an open RfC, without bothering to engage in that discussion yourself but instead expressing in your edit comment an opinion for which no consensus has yet been established. Could you please remind me how this can be useful? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

RfCs do not suspend the normal process of editing articles. Alexbrn (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

That's right. But note also for example at WP:DR that "Uninvolved editors who are subsequently invited into the dispute will be confused and alarmed if there are large numbers of reverts or edits made while discussion is ongoing." Thank you for contributing to the latest discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Tone

This edit summary was inappropriate. It was fine if you had good enough reasons to revert the edit, but a summary such as "unreliable sourcing" or "posible spamlink" is more accurate and a lot less rude than "garbage." We can be sure that IP will hesitate to ever edit wikipedia again. I really think you need to tone this down. Montanabw^(talk) 21:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

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

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't be a WP:DICK. Alexbrn (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For Your comment on FT/N "And with the section heading "Animate beings subject to skepticism" (which includes "ghost") I hereby declare we have achieved peak stupid for the week here on Wikipedia. I shall now retire for a few days to consider whether the Internet is really a good thing." ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Great job

The Probiotics article is better because of you. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:YouTube

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:YouTube. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sock et al

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.

---

No Alexbrn, I'm not a sock, and I don't believe you have any prior reason to suspect that, if not the fact that I (legitimately) choose to edit as a IP to avoid some of the interpersonal unpleasantness that sullies many individuals' experience of editing Wikipedia.

Fyi, after being asked to contribute to TALK:Feldenkrais Method I openly declared (here) that I am an experienced WP:MED editor with a background in evidence-based medicine. (And it's scarcely my fault if two other experienced editors - ping, ping - seem not to have actually read my post, raising blatantly strawman issues such as the need to follow "WP:MEDRS, ... and other relevant policies/guidelines".)

Also, when reverting here I believe the onus is on you to participate on the talk page to explain why you think it appropriate for a reliable source (even if an 'ideal' MEDRS) to be recruited as the basis for a ==Criticism== section when the full text does not once mention the actual person who is the subject of the page (as distinct from the Feldenkrais Method he created). And anyway, in what way would it be appropriate for the bare results/interpretation of an objective study of the efficacy of a clinical intervention to be construed as personal "criticism" of its namesake? 81.129.188.226 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

So you were editing these articles with two identities. Socking. And no, the onus is not on me. Please see our WP:PSCI policy and make any further comments on this topic on the Talk page of the relevant article. Alexbrn (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

IP, if you are on an experienced WP:MED editor, where are the diffs showing your edits? By actually claiming to be an experienced WP:MED editor you have opened this wide up. You did that. And as it stands, it appears you are editing from an IP address to avoid scrutiny and that is not a valid reason to edit while logged out. See Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Editing_while_logged_out. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope, Jytdog. Not at all.... Just an ex regular contributor to MED and other parts of Wikipedia who stopped editing years ago as a registered user in order to protect his health from the interpersonal nastiness flying around the WP environment. I think both you and Alexbrn really need to question your assumptions before making serious accusations of sockpuppetry to a perfectly legitimate and transparent IP contributor (gf retired editor) without any reasonable cause for suspicion. 81.129.188.226 (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Again you brought this in by disclosing editing under a past account and claiming some kind of authority based on that. If you will not disclose your prior accounts then you are simply evading WP:SCRUTINY and we should treat this IP like a SOCK; it is violating policy. Read the link above about editing while logged out. Done here. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Uhm, I have to question your understanding of WP:LOGOUT. In the past, have been reliably reassured verbally many times (including while helping to bring the Pancreatic cancer page to FA [16] - disclaimers here) by admins and respected senior editors that by continuing to contribute transparently as an IP I am not violating any policy. By contrast, I believe your proposal to treat me "like a SOCK" is completely against one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia.

For the record, I should add that I was not claiming any kind of authority based on past editing, but rather explaining where I was coming from, and trying to reassure other editors such as yourself that I had no possible interest in POV pushing. 81.129.188.226 (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes you tried to re-assure us that you are an "experienced WP:MED editor" - so show us those edits. Again you brought this up. So show us. If you will not, then you are exactly evading SCRUTINY. Exactly. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

"transparently" - except it's not is it? Alexbrn (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

In stead of all these pretextual sock accusations/insinuations, I think it would be far better to address the genuine content issues I quite legitimately raised on the article talk pages (i.e. the message/content rather than the messenger/user) in genuinely Wikipedian spirit. But, hey, I'm afraid it's pretty much par for the course here, and one reason why contributors like myself, tend to retire, stop using their registered account, or leave Wikipedia altogether :-( 81.129.188.226 (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Points about article content can be raised on those articles' Talk pages. To date, much of your contributions there have been light on substance and heavy on you trying to big up what a great editor you are. Better to WP:FOC. Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

...uhm, before all these "sock" allegations I was able to focus on content, (e.g. here) - not the stuff of a "great editor" perhaps, but an improvement perhaps to that page, imo, none the less.

Succinctly pointing out on the article talk page [17] that an entire ==Criticism== section [18] (WP:CRITS) did not directly regard the actual person who is the subject of the biographical page in question and was inappropriately sourced to a study that does not even mention that person as such scarcely seems to me to be "light on substance". Before my last post above (i.e. the one marked 14:10, 28 May 2016) your only response had been to revert my initial edit to the article page with the edit summary "Rv. deletion of well sourced content (by sock?)" [note: the content sourced to the "good" MEDRS was was completely inappropriately framed]. I see that following my last post here, you have reinstated the content, now somewhat more appropriately framed [19]. While this is indeed constructive, I feel your use of edit summaries such as this one is not. 81.129.188.226 (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• There is no point continuing this. IP, you opened this by claiming to be an experienced medical editor. When asked to back that up, you refused, so you are evading WP:SCRUTINY. There is nothing more to say here, and I won't be responding further and I doubt Alexbrn will either. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • That's fine by me, actually Jytdog. Since you and Alexbrn have seriously disputed here my freedom to contribute to Wikipedia as a logged-out 'retired' editor (e.g. [20]), I am considering the possibility of writing by email to ARBCOM to request authoritative guidance on this point. (Please note that I wish to avoid the drama boards - also because I know that you personally do much valuable work with the MED project, and I would not wish to disrupt that.)

    Just for the record, I did mention above [21] that I had helped - as a logged-out 'retired' editor to bring Pancreatic cancer to FA [working between June 2014 and January 2015] - I think it's quite clear from the context that I cited this example of my work as an IP contributor not to show that I was a "great editor", but rather in direct response to your requests to demonstrate that I had some MED-project experience (and also reveal some information regarding my long-term editing patterns). Of course, I could produce further evidence, but as well as being time-consuming I believe that would be quite beyond the spirit of WP:SCRUTINY. 81.129.188.226 (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Why you would jump all the way to Arbcom is beyond me. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll. -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog™Please AGF (do you have ANY REASON AT ALL to make this personal attack?? btw, this is arhetorical question - I have no intention in getting caught up in discussion over this sort of provocation)

(edit conflict)@Jytdog:As I tried to explain above: 1) Because of the serious character of the policy issue/interpretation you raised; 2) to avoid unhelpful drama. 81.129.188.226 (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2016 (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.

Help on article for creation: Britt Marie Hermes

Hi Alexbrn, I noticed you edit the naturopathy page often. I have written a draft article for Britt Marie Hermes, who is a former naturopath/now whistle blower and I could use your help shaping it up. It was originally rejected due to not meeting GNG and being too promotional. I've added recent sources, but I am not sure how to reduce the promo as it seems to be neutral to me. I think the article now meets WP:BASIC. Thank you. Medicalreporter (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

She's an interesting figure for sure but with the coverage there is this flirts with the boundary of notability. In particular it would help to have really strong sources analysing her views; using pieces simply to relay her views (correct though they are) raises questions of due weight. I'd like to see this aspect of the draft scaled back. Alexbrn (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Giraffe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Giraffe. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Breathwork

I undid your changes, at the request of one of the leaders in the Holotropic BW community. I'd like to work with you towards a better solution, which is to create a new entry for Holotropic Breathwork, and have the Breathwork entry change into a more accurate description of breathwork as a generic term, with references to the different kinds of breathwork that want an individual entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdlong03 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, you need to follow our WP:PAGs - notably for this topic WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. Trying to "force" your version against policy is not a good idea and is likely to end up with you having a bad experience here. Maybe start at WP:5P? Alexbrn (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You know what violates policies?

Your blatant tag team editing with Jytdog. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 05:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It's called a "watchlist". Many editors disagree with cranky POV-pushing, not just Jyt ... Alexbrn (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2016 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alexbrn reported by User:The Master (Result: ). Thank you. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 05:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Learn to count. BTW, you're at 5RR. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Alkaline Diet

Please explain why you are undoing my changes of 14 June 2016 as poorly sourced when each line is linked with a journal article. JacquelineNH (talk) JacquelineNH —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS; commercial web sites and primary research articles are not reliable sources. Please make any further comment on article content at the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Eat This, Not That changes

Hello, As a new Wikipedia user, I am trying to add new book titles and their descriptions to the Eat This, Not That page, which is currently incomplete and in the wrong order. After you flagged it, I have deleted any promotional language and have simple descriptions of the books. But the most recent iteration was also rejected. Can you please let me know what I'm doing wrong? I'm happy to comply. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeddyTedson123 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

We need independent secondary sources discussing the books (if they exist; if they don't this material is likely undue). Book reviews in reputable publications might be a source of these. Perhaps start at WP:5P? Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh well, TeddyTedson123 you are now editing warring crappy/promotional content into Wikipedia. I'll see what others have to say and come back in a bit. Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Health Australia Party.

You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Health Australia Party. How can I change wrong entries? How come someone is allowed to add "Anti-Vaccination" if that is not the case.. .. most of the Health Australia Party's edit's seem to be by critics of Natural Therapy. .. most entries are biased opinions or innuendos ...

text like >> " The party has been criticized for its support of pseudoscientific alternative medicine " .. is clearly biased.... alternative medicine is a general term, and pseudoscientific is therefore an opinion.

text liek > Steven Novella has written that the party subscribes to the Big Pharma conspiracy theory .. .. is clearly hearsay .. and how can Steven Novella make an "opinion" anyhow .. ? He is American as far as I can see. He is simply accusing the HEP of somehting they are not ...

... to sum up ... how can all those opinions be defended .. without being accused of repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions ??? D-Bessmann (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources and must abide by the WP:PSCI policy which requires us to be up-front about the rubbish this political party spouts. As a example of the mainstream (and so neutral), Novella's piece makes a fine source. Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eidetic memory

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eidetic memory. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Society and culture cut?

Hello, I'd like some explanation of your undo of my latest contribution. How about give me some guidance, please. What do you look for when we're in the society and culture section? What I wrote led up to - and left in - the previous Denver Post article source about growers lowering CBD content in marijuana. THAT source IS patchy because 99% of that Denver Post article is about a child recovering from epilepsy due to INCREASED CBD, not lowered. The context of how CBD has come to the forefront via the publicity of Charlotte's Web is very relevant, and so is the rise of hemp cultivation and breeding for increased levels of CBD. That's historic, not off-topic. Listenforgood (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This would be better discussed at the article's Talk page, but in general stuff about Charlotte's Web belongs in its article, and stuff about the cultivation of CBD-heavy strains of hemp maybe briefly at Medical cannabis#Physical and chemical properties. The Cannabidiol article should be focused on that chemical. Alexbrn (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Undo

Hi.

You think it's "unreliabe/dubious/undue" information? Seriously? Public Library of Science and Discover Magazine are not reliable sources? Can you explain your point of view?

On 2015, Dr. Amen and the Amen Clinics research team, in collaboration with researchers from UCLA, Thomas Jefferson University, and University of British Columbia published brain imaging study, showing brain SPECT imaging can significantly distinguish posttraumatic stress disorder from traumatic brain injury. Discover Magazine named this research as 19th of the Top 100 Stories in Science for 2015.

27century (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Any discussion of content needs to follow you making a proper declaration of your "employer, client, and affiliation" as required by WP:PAID (You put "Rachel G" as employer, but this is not identification of who is paying you, but a nickname). You should not be editing the Daniel Amen page directly. Alexbrn (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I know nothing about client and affiliation. I told (on my talk page) that communication was via email. Rachel Grand as employer. And now, please tell me why did You delete my contribution?--27century (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Who is Rachel Grand? Is there a company? If you cannot make the declaration, you cannot edit. I shall raise your case at WP:COIN. Alexbrn (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop unserious biasing of articles

You just deleted a huge section. Just stop it. All my sources are published in peer-reviewed media. The only non-peer reviewed source I used was the Oxford University blog and the writer is a Researcher at the institution. You are clearly trying to bias an article. Just stop it.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2016 (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. Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hat Trick

Shall we go for three? I'll report you if you want, but please can you do some real edit warring for me? -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The night is young yet ... Alexbrn (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this counts as a fail. -Roxy the dog™ woof 22:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

CFS treatments Mycoplasma addition

Hi Alex, I am new to Wikipedia editing. Could you please explain why my changes were reverted? I referred only to published medial papers and kept my summary to the point. This is information is already being used by a number of GP's I am aware of to treat CFS patients. SomeoneTurning (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Please see WP:MEDRS (and WP:WHYMEDRS for background, if necessary). We shouldn't be using primary sources for this kind of health content on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

July 19 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rolfing. 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. You really should try practicing what you preach.
AaronMFeld (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Extraterrestrial atmospheres

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Extraterrestrial atmospheres. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Why did you edit the chaga mushroom (Inonotus obliquus)?

Why did you remove my addition to the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inonotus_obliquus

It had citations for every statement that I made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdent1298 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi! As I put in my edit summary, we need WP:MEDRS for these kinds of claims. Please put any further comments on this matter on the article's Talk page.Alexbrn (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Feldenkrais

Hi Alex, I have a couple of queries about the current Feldenkrais page. It starts off by referring to it as a form of exercise therapy, but the basic 4 year training is not in any way a therapist training course. The Feldenkrais Method is more a form of self exploration & self development, practitioners who complete the basic 4 years part time work like a teacher/coach using mainly traditional Moshe Feldenkrais lesson material. They are not as working as therapists treating ailments, illness, disease. So more like an Alexander Tech teacher, and as far as I am aware AT is not referred to as a therapy. Reference the 4 year part time training course, among those people round the world who have completed a training are a fair few Physiotherapists, Medical Doctors and other HC professionals. However most of these HC professionals take principles of Moshe Feldenkrais' work and integrate some of these into packages of care,mainly creating their own new material. This is not the same as classic Feldenkrais Method work, which is what Moshe Feldenkrais did himself. (July2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.133.115 (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of this kind needs to happen on the article Talk page, and I'd be happy to discuss there. In general we follow the sources, and if there is some new kind of "lite" Feldenkrais then we'd need good independent sources for that too. Alexbrn (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Research on meditation page

Hi Alex I don't have the resources to do this; but I know you love wiki, and grasp the point that the current 'research in meditation' page has been hijacked by some mindfulness 'cuckoos in the nest'. Go well, JCJC777

Please do not vandalise the page for Berberine.

You are welcome to add more information but please do not vandalise the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogiecutiepie (talk • contribs) 08:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You need to read WP:MEDRS and WP:EW as I indicated. And then maybe WP:NOTVAND. Alexbrn (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi I'm reading about all the possible stuff about berberine please don't remove all the content from this page, they are very useful information. Thank you.

Hello, I'm reading about berberine and it's very interesting. Although, I noticed you deleted a rather large portion of the page, the page may not be well written but you are welcome to improve and add to the information, please don't delete it all that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penicilian (talk • contribs) 09:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Also be aware of WP:SOCK. Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

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

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Template during RfC process

You and I are both interested in the Rolfing article and you are much more experienced editor than me. Perhaps we can engage in constructive conversation that will result in improvements in that article. If I communicating in the wrong way about this, please let me know.

An editor placed this template on the Rolfing page:

This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

When you reverted this change, you mentioned that it is unnecessary since the article is in RfC process. Doesn't it make sense that the article have some indication for readers that there is lack of agreement between interested editors about the tone? Since it is a goal of WP to reach consensus and the templates should not be removed until consensus is reached, it seems that keeping the template is more likely to facilitate the discussion needed. I am unaware of how the RfC would achieve this same result. Thatcher57 (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Because of the RfC the WP software sounds out alerts to a wide range of interested editors. Alexbrn (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how that relates to the Template that you removed from the page. I am trying to discuss that with you rather than simply reverting your revert. 174.31.134.33 (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC) Sorry I wasn't signed in for some reason when I made this comment. Thatcher57 (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Because the assumption seemed to be that the templates would somehow cause new editors to come to the Talk page to comment. They won't. They jut sit there like a "badge of shame" that one side uses to try and get their way. Alexbrn (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh. It seemed to me that it was intended to inform readers about the conflict, but I am new and don't understand all the ins and outs. The alert pointed to a RfC on the Acupuncture page, but didn't mention anything about the Rolfing page, so I don't understand how that affects editing on the page. Perhaps being new makes me naive, but I think that if we work in good faith we can come up with a version that does not strike people as biased, but that still meets WP guidelines about pseudoscience and fringe. I believe articles should reflect the sources (I think we agree on that), so I've been gathering sources before suggesting edits. I intend to back up my edits by posting a summary of the pertinent sources on the Talk page, so all editors an hopefully discuss them in good faith. Thatcher57 (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Edits backed by sources are a good thing, but heed the sourcing requirements of WP:FRINGE. "Badge of shame" tagging is generally a bad thing, and is often used by a side in a dispute as a kind of ransom demand. Generally such tags don't get seen except by people actively seeking them out. An RfC will generate invitations (from the system) to editors' talk pages to contribute, so is much better I think. The WP:Discretionary sanctions notification is another thing entirely, just a heads-up that these special rules apply to this topic area: it's linked with acupuncture for purely historical reasons.

(Add) And looking now, I see the RfC wasn't properly set up, so none of these mechanisms will have worked and the thing will not get formally closed; meanwhile the new editor has added an RfC at the top of the article, which is just wrong. What a mess! Alexbrn (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bon courage. You have new messages at Bwtranch's talk page.
Message added 16:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Woodstop45 (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Cannabis Cancer Treatment

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq#link/ - 6

Studies in mice and rats have shown that cannabinoids may inhibit tumor growth by causing cell death, blocking cell growth, and blocking the development of blood vessels needed by tumors to grow. Laboratory and animal studies have shown that cannabinoids may be able to kill cancer cells while protecting normal cells. A study in mice showed that cannabinoids may protect against inflammation of the colon and may have potential in reducing the risk of colon cancer, and possibly in its treatment. A laboratory study of delta-9-THC in hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer) cells showed that it damaged or killed the cancer cells. The same study of delta-9-THC in mouse models of liver cancer showed that it had antitumor effects. Delta-9-THC has been shown to cause these effects by acting on molecules that may also be found in non-small cell lung cancer cells and breast cancer cells. A laboratory study of cannabidiol (CBD) in estrogen receptor positive and estrogen receptor negative breast cancer cells showed that it caused cancer cell death while having little effect on normal breast cells. Studies in mouse models of metastatic breast cancer showed that cannabinoids may lessen the growth, number, and spread of tumors. A laboratory study of cannabidiol (CBD) in human glioma cells showed that when given along with chemotherapy, CBD may make chemotherapy more effective and increase cancer cell death without harming normal cells. Studies in mouse models of cancer showed that CBD together with delta-9-THC may make chemotherapy such as temozolomide more effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exerdoph (talk • contribs) 08:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Once again. I suggest WP:WHYMEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the cool read. This may not mean much to you over the internet but i am a bioinformaticists and have studied THC's potential to induce apoptosis in certain types of cancer cells. While the source I included is a very generalized review and It still cites the ability of cannabinoids to improve the outcomes of chemotherapy. Plus the NCI formulates its statements in a layman's friendly way. In 24 hours I will update the page again with more thorough an relevant research. The notion that cannabis is an ineffective cancer treatment has changed a lot in the last decade. Its not curative but that's not what the page is about. Its about treatment and cannabis is certainly an useful tool in directly treating cancer. Exerdoph (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Exerdoph. I have taken the liberty of formatting your reply above to make it conform to standard practise. I would suggest that this discussion take place on the article talk page, where Alex has already opened a section, and you have responded. This will ensure maximum attention to your points, and enable other page watchers to contribute. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ bark 09:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

New to editing - advice please

Dear Alexbrn,

you sent me a message :- You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Chronic fatigue syndrome treatment

I am new to this process so would be grateful of any help. My posts have simply factually reported the findings of First tier tribunal and the release of treatment advice from a US government body. Both of which I believe are new and significant pieces of information to help people understand the issues. Every thing has been fully referenced.

Would it possible for you to read through my edits and advise me if there is anything not keeping with the requirements / spirit of Wikipedia. I could then make any changes needed to be inline with Wikipedia before discussing with the other editors of the page.

I understand the philosophy of Wikipedia is not to have unbalanced articles and part of my edit quoted the Judge who said :-

"assessment of activist behaviour was,in our view, grossly exaggerated and the only actual evidence was that an individual at a seminar had heckled Professor Chalder" and "there could be legitimate concerns that they wish to suppress criticism and proper scrutiny of their trial"

which I think add balance to the paragraph above my edit :-

Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet, aggressively defended the trial. In a radio interview, he called the critics 'a fairly small, but highly organized, very vocal and very damaging group of individuals who have, I would say, actually hijacked this agenda and distorted the debate so that it actually harms the overwhelming majority of patients.'"[48]

To me it appears there is an attempt to suppress the information in my edits which ironically was the theme of the tribunal case.

I have been suffering from ME/CFS for over a decade but am not part of any organised activist group - this is the first time I have felt that I should make public comments on the subject.

thank you

User:C7762 (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Court Judgements are considered reliable references

Dear Alexbrn,

You have failed to reply to my message sent yesterday. I notice you are repeatably removing my whole post without good reason.

This post contains significant information that gives a different view point to yours. It is simple the factual reporting of a court judgement - a court has sat can heard all the evidence and come to a fair judgement - Court judgements are reliable sources.

The judgement is significant and should be included in Wikipedia because :-

1. Once the data is released, for the first time independent researchers scrutinise the results and can accept or reject the original findings - putting the controversy of the PACE trail to bed once and for all.

2. The Judgement states that "assessment of activist behaviour was,in our view, grossly exaggerated and the only actual evidence was that an individual at a seminar had heckled Professor Chalder" - which disproves the narrative communicated by supporters of the PACE Trial and as you posted throughout Wikipedia "he called the critics 'a fairly small, but highly organized, very vocal and very damaging group of individuals who have, I would say, actually hijacked this agenda and distorted the debate so that it actually harms the overwhelming majority of patients.'" . which I note had only one source - some radio program. It also falls under one of the pillars - that of "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" - I am adding the voice of a court judgement which adds balance to the article.

If you for some reason need a secondary source (which is not needed !!! and you do not seem to do), I can add the press statement from your friends at QMUL which accepts that they lost the case. I will also add references to the many websites that are reporting the judgement - many of which are going into great detail on the scathing judgement:-

http://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/news/major-breaktn-pace-trial/00296.html

This is the second time I have tried talking with you to reach a solution - I will be re-posting my contribution and if you significantly change or delete it again I will raising a complaint against you. If you have a problem communicate with me.

Your actions mirror the appellants in trying to suppress important relevant information. It is only a matter of time before the data is released and we will know one way or other.

I see from your talk stream you have a long history of editing wars !!! Do you have a conflict of interest ? Mine is that I suffered from CFS for over a decade.

C7762 (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss on the articles' Talk pages. This content needs secondary sources (reliable ones, not self-published web sites), in part to establish due weight. Alexbrn (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Michael Greger#Removal_of_sourced_content". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 11:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, have commented. Alexbrn (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

For your consideration

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/12/familienaufstellung-germanys-group-therapy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.26.240 (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Reversion on Calorie Restriction Page

Hi,

You reverted my edit on the basis of "material based on non-WP:MEDRS. I would like to undo this reversion. With the exception of the "Austad and Kristan, 2003" paper, which is primary source, the other citations all meet MEDRS criteria.

Additionally, the reversion also reversed edits to material that clarified findings without changing sources from status quo ante.

Do you agree or shall we discuss further on the talk page?Mikalra (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there were MEDRS. For example, take the first paper you cite[22] - a piece of primary research. In general, that article is in really bad shape. I think most of the existing "Research" section can be deleted as it's a collection of primary material. Would be happy to discuss on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

That's an example of my second point. I didn't add the JAP citation, and your reversion didn't undo therefore remove it from the page: I edited the text of that section without changing the sources. My new sources wre in the section I retitled "Obese controls" which you reverted to "Critique."

Transferring to talk page.Mikalra (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Violence against men

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Violence against men. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Isolation Tank

Where is it that isolation tanks are listed as a CAM? Can you please reference that claim? otherwise it need not be there. In my re-edits, I referenced 3 very esteemed publications, (did you get a chance to inform yourself and read these articles btw?) which gave very precise and mainstream views on the present day science and reasons why people use flotation tanks. No medical or health information is given except why people float. No biomedical advice is given, therefore it is my view that Wikipedia:MEDRS need not apply! I believe my edits actually improve the article with new information and insight, yours only make an unsubstantiated claim, putting floating into a category that doesn't really mean anything to most readers! Can we find a middle ground here to actually communicate about why people float and reference these very good articles?

Probrooks (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I assume (in good faith) the CAM classification is somewhere within the cited document collection (I didn't originally supply the ref). Have you checked? MEDRS doesn't just apply to medical "advice" (which Wikipedia never gives) but to information in the realm of biomedicine. In particular saying what conditions people seek tanks for is implication-heavy without any reliable discussion of effectiveness. Alexbrn (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"somewhere within the cited document collection" just isn't good enough, assuming in good faith means you just didn't check! If you cannot provide a linked reference, then it is not valid and your argument that flotation is CAM does not float, and therefore you have no reason to revert my edits. Indeed I did look at your link to the CAM information site, and it is just gobbledygook, and I tried to do a search for flotation tank and found nothing comes up! I would suggest the onus is on you to do this search and provide the correct reference.

What you are saying about what you are terming biomedicine, would then apply to biofeedback based on this logic. Now go and look at the biofeedback page. (which is by the way not categorised as CAM) Notice there is a list of research that has occurred with biofeedback. Flotation tank has over 200 studies. I do believe the reader deserves to know that A) scientific studies have occurred B) what they have shown so far. This does not represent medical advise. I was clear to represent mainstream views as represented in some of the most esteemed publications in the world (The New York Times, Vogue, Esquire) Which I originally summarised by saying, there have been a lot of studies, but should not be considered conclusive. As far as I can ascertain, this is the MAINSTREAM scientific view which wikiepedia attempts to communicate.

Probrooks (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Right so you've decided to edit war, which is not good. Please make any further comments on this topic on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Clear Aligners page

Dear Alexburn, The last contribution I've made to Clear Aligners was quite correct, there is no actual difference with ClearCorrect paragraph in the amount of correct cites and links. My changes are not promotional, I've expanded the list of manufacturers on the page and removed "Invisalign" mention that was leading to the same page. Invisalign is not the only manufacturer of clear aligners, so if you think my contribution was "promotional", please correct the paragraph, not delete it with this vague reason of "soapbox" mention. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katramarketing (talk • contribs) 08:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

A company name as a heading, a primary source for venture funding material, and unsourced medical claims: all bad. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting coroporations. Alexbrn (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

credible sources removed wrongly claiming they are weakly sourced, while weakly sourced articles remain to prevent the page from being impartial

The article states little research has been done into kratom, this is incorrect, I changed it to Until recently, little research has been been made into kratom ..and linked to the following links from the

The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association and the American Chemical Association http://jaoa.org/article.aspx?articleid=2094342&resultClick=1 and the American Chemical Association http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b00748

the links were removed so fast (within minutes) that it is not possible the person who removed them had time to look at them to ascertain whether they were credible or not. They clearly are credible links. Meanwhile untrue claims about kratom remain on the page, with the only citation being the DEA. It is obvious this page is heavily biased and censored to tell lies and hide scientific truth, which goes against every single principle that wikipedia was founded on. Christopherbrian (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

They first is a 2012 pharmacology review, which is already cited in the article, the second is a primary sources, which we don't use for biomedical content: see WP:MEDRS. Neither source supports the "Until recently ..." formulation, which appears to be original research. Please make any further comments on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Explanation

Hi, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain on the article talk page why you think the Wall Street Journal is a "POV source" in an article that's been tagged as containing "churnalism". It seems to me the WSJ source is reliable. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If was your other sources that were particularly bad. Please make any further comments on the article's Talk page (as I have). Alexbrn (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Impact of the privatisation of British Rail

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Impact of the privatisation of British Rail. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for reassessment

Hi Alex: I was hoping you would reassess your recent Delete recommendation on the Gerald Gurian article, in light of the re-wording it has just undergone to be neutral in tone and certainly not "wildly promotional". Kind Regards. Tosresearcher (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Update ... I just saw your remarks on the talk page. No need to worry about this request, you've already demonstrated your bad faith. My username certainly identifies me as one of the over 40 million Star Trek fans estimated to exist, so that OBVIOUSLY proves a connection to the article's subject matter. Have a nice day! Tosresearcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Naturopathy

Hi, you just reverted my edit for the second time on the Naturopathy page. Why would you not even take the time to read what I wrote, check my sources and compare it to the very, very biaised previous version. A quick look at the article and the pictures gives the strong impression that the author is trying to remove all credibility to this subject.

I'm accused of "white washing" when I'm only deleting wrong statements written using out of context bits of sentences as justifications. Why wouldn't you try and read what I wrote? Why does the previous editor have the right to lie when I'm not even granted a read? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OllieB (talk • contribs) 17:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Please start at WP:5P and make any further discussion on the article's Talk page. Be aware special sanctions apply to the Naturopathy page, so proceed with due caution. Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Your revert on Gilles-Éric Séralini

Hello Alexbrn and thanks for your message on my page. I'm rather surprised that your criticise me for "repeatedly" reverting or undoing other editors' contributions on Gilles-Éric Séralini when 1) I reverted only once and 2) this was a revert of your own revert which you did without explanation (you just provided a WP:GEVAL for which I could have responded WP:BALANCE).

In my initial edit (not a revert) I had taken the time to explain the reason of the change, but maybe it was not clear enough and I'm sorry for that. Here is another attempt to correct a false claim in the current article.

The article about Gilles-Éric Séralini currently says "With a few exceptions, the scientific community dismissed the Séralini study and called for a more rigorous peer-review system in scientific journals." and refers to a short article by Martinelli et al. In this article, there is one sentence which says: "Scientific community – with few exceptions (21) – replied with a quantity of opinions and response letters from top scientists, where the Seralini study was dismissed and a more solid peer-review system in scientific journals was claimed for (22)." The first reference is to an official statement of ENSSER, while the other is an opinion by Hirt and some other scientists of EPSO. Nowhere the article gives figures that could help establish that the statement of ENSSER is indeed an exception. How many scientists were supporting Séralini, how many were not? Without an answer to that very simple question, I don't see how Wikipedia could claim what you have put back in the article. Taking the claim of Martinelli et al. at face value is not good enough. At the very least, the Wikipedia article should say "According to Martinelli et al. ...". The current version, by simply reusing Martinelli's claim and putting a reference at the end that most people won't read, brings the claim a level of truth that is not justified. The version I proposed was more objective but it seems that it does not fit "your preferred version of a page". --Fabienpe (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You can't just force your contested (and, frankly, bad) change though by repeating it. Maybe follow WP:BRD. Please make any further comments on the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Mediterranean 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.

---

Please explain what you mean by original research & poorly-sourced health content. I have not added a single new sentence to the article. Ghirla^-трёп- 06:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss article content on the article Talk page. Remember sources must directly support content cited to them, and biomedical information must be sourced to WP:MEDRS. Maybe think about following WP:BRD to keep things orderly? Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I prefer to discuss your sterile revert warring on this page. Please provide a single source or tidbit of "biomedical information" that I am supposed to have added to the article. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not about you. I am concerned about the heart attack content which came from I don't know where. Alexbrn (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

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

MEDRS ? RIGVIR

Hi, you reverted my "==Clinical trials== A multicentre retrospective clinical study on melanoma patients was run until 2014; 52 study participants received Rigvir.<ref" Why do you think it fails WP:MEDRS ? - Rod57 (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Because it's a clinical trial - a primary source. Alexbrn (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The journal seems a reliable one (do you know different?), and the source seems a good reference for what I actually said. I wasn't reporting any conclusions. (The WP article should surely give some idea of what clinical studies have actually taken place.) ... anyway would you accept Therapeutic Use of Native and Recombinant Enteroviruses. (a review) as MEDRS ? - Rod57 (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

MDPI is a controversial publisher. Please discuss changes to content on the article's Talk page, not here. Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments

Hi, Alexbrn. I'd like to discuss your reversion of my edits to List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments. I'll accept you reverting this edit, but can you point me to a source that has the correct editor(s)? My main reason for the edit was that the references use the discouraged |editors= parameter.

In reverting my edits, you also reverted this one. As a result, there are 80 errors about invalid date values (specifically, no day listed in access-dates). If you are going to revert this, will you fix these date errors? Or can that edit be restored? - Paul2520 (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, look at the physical book. Ideally all these refs should be updated to use that as it's current, whereas ACS pulled all their web content in this area. Alexbrn (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I just think it's funny...

That the person who wrote that incredibly revertable edit used a computer -the product of what could be well described "quantitative rationalism" which works based on a principle that could well be described as "quantitative rationalism"- to write it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

eurocentrism - Are these bodies reputable?

removal of The Japanese Society of Medical Oncology, Chinese Medical Association or the Infectious Disease Society of America), Ghana Health Service, National Health Mission of India

what makes you think that these medical societies are disreputable?

these societies hold medical authority to over 3 billion people on this planet.

are they too non-western for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.136.227 (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I asked a question. What's the answer? Alexbrn (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Diabetic retinopathy

Dear Alexbrn,

Firstly thank you for taking the time to edit the posts I modified. I'm of course new to Wikipedia (I've made a few edits over the years but nothing major).

In my edits to the "Light Therapy" page I've added some references to peer reviewed work such as Eye (Lond). 2011 Dec;25(12):1546-54. doi: 10.1038/eye.2011.264. Epub 2011 Oct 21. In these references its shown that light therapy is an effective treatment in humans for Diabetic Retinopathy and DME. I also referenced a web page written by the authors which is a detailed review article which discusses the pathology of DR and DME and how light therapy can treat this. This referencing shows results of an early clinical trial. Light therapy is being sold for treatment for DR worldwide and there are over 65,000h of patient data available (not freely on the internet so its impossible to reference this). How do I go about making an edit which includes references you'll be happy with. I'm satisfied the references I used follow the guidance you linked to. I don't want to be carrying out edit tennis, although I have a phd and work directly in the area I'm commenting on, I'd be keen to understand what you feel is acceptable

Kind Regards

Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northernalex (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

For WP:Biomedical information we should stick to using WP:MEDRS. If things are mentioned in these (strong) sources it's likely their inclusion in Wikipedia would be WP:UNDUE. Please continue any discussion on this on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Alexbrn, thank you - discussion moved to talk page Northernalex (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Vegan nutrition cleanup

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,

That article needs a lot more work. The stuff about calcium is also outdated. More recent research shows the acidification isn't counteracted by leaching calcium from bones and suggests it's probably leached from muscle tissue.[23] There's a lot of mistakes.

It also wrongly implies that vegans get certain deficiencies and meat eaters don't, when it's more accurate to say that some deficiencies are more common in vegans. It also ignores the people on a vegan junk food diet (animal lovers who live on crisps, biscuits and fizzy drinks). Great floors (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Please ensure this kind of health information is sourced to WP:MEDRS, and that content in general is verifiably sourced to reliable sources. Please continue any further discussion on the article's talk page and avoid trying to force your edits - this is edit warring which is not good. Alexbrn (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You (re)inserted information into the article which contradicted the sources and which attributed statements to people who did say such things. I reverted once and you send me a warning for "repeated" edit warring.

Do you think this makes Wikipedia a friendly place and will help grow the community? Great floors (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe try followig WP:BRD. The goal is good articles. Please discuss content on the article's Talk page not here where it will not be seen. Alexbrn (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I could say the same to you. My edits fixed facts (as sourced) and fixed an attribution error. You made a mistake in reverting me. I'm not asking for you to acknowledge this or rectify, but at least try not to repeat it and please treat other new editors as first-class wikipedians. Great floors (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2016 (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.

Please comment on Category talk:Seyfert galaxies

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Seyfert galaxies. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Red meat articles

You accused me of "spin" for simply making the funding sources of two studies apparent, and for providing context from one of the authors of one of those studies, where he essentially said that the study shouldn't be used in the way that it was being used in the wikipedia article. Why did you feel the need to start an edit war over this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.67.48 (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello anonymous. See WP:MEDRS: don't object to sources because of the funding, and don't use non-MEDRS to qualify what such sources say. Also see WP:EW and maybe abide by WP:BRD. You have edit warred on Beef and Red meat now. Alexbrn (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you're trying to use that page to explain your EWing. The references were kept in the edit, but their conflicts of interest were made apparent. WP:MEDRS doesn't say you shouldn't be transparent about funding sources. I'll repeat my second point again as well so you can answer that this time around: "and for providing context from one of the authors of one of those studies, where he essentially said that the study shouldn't be used in the way that it was being used in the wikipedia article." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.67.48 (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Without other sources discussing funding, it's your original research to pluck this primary information out and use it to 'queer the pitch' for what the source says. Alexbrn (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The source itself discusses funding; its own funding. If you can't cite its declared conflict of interest, how can you cite anything else from it? I don't understand why you don't believe people should be allowed to know who funded the study they're reading about, or, again, to have the study put into context, even by its own author. I'll repeat this again because I really would like your answer: "and for providing context from one of the authors of one of those studies, where he essentially said that the study shouldn't be used in the way that it was being used in the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.67.48 (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The source contains a COI statement (as usual), but this is of course primary. We'd need secondary sources to know it was significant. BTW, the relevant part of the statement is "NCBA and the National Pork Board did not contribute to the writing, analysis, or interpretation of the research findings". Our assumption is that for reputably-published papers the peer-review and publication process will have dealt with untoward COI slanting. Essentially you're undermining the good source to push a POV and against out WP:PAGs. Wikipedia summarizes what such good sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "to know it was significant." Ignoring your playing dumb of the fact of the existence of funding bias and how funding is reported by researchers, just making the funding source transparent is not in any way "pushing a POV." Now again, I have to post this because you keep stepping around it: "and for providing context from one of the authors of one of those studies, where he essentially said that the study shouldn't be used in the way that it was being used in the wikipedia article." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.67.48 (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

References

It is not for you to take it upon yourself to decide that a reputably-published piece of work is tainted by COI, and signal this to readers, when those involved in the peer-review and publication process have deemed it fit for publication. We merely follow reliable sources. We don't undercut them with press releases, either. In any case this is all moot since the article is now evidently undergoing a much-needed update with newer sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a fact of the science that funding sources create a conflict of interest. You can't not know that if you're at all familiar with health sciences. Disclosures exist for a reason. You're arguing that people should be kept in the dark about where the information they're reading is coming from. If you feel guilty about using a particular source such that you can't even admit where its funding came from, it may not be a suitable reference. Your refusal to acknowledge my second point tells me you understand you were wrong to revert at least that part of my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.67.48 (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Obviously, and it's up to the publication process to manage COI. By cherry-picking an element from a COI statement as if to say "but look, ooooh, tainted!" is to insert you own spin into the article in a way not warranted by the source. Alexbrn (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The journal is not required to investigate the possible role of funding bias, only to ensure the information isn't fabricated. You're again mistaking transparency and the basic right to disclosure as "spin." Is it not "spin" to fail to disclose a conflict of interest? Whether it influenced the research or not, to not state the funding source is inappropriate if you're citing the research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:6558:4D4C:D591:C99B (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Well no, which is why Wikipedia isn't full of "according to a paper funding by x ... " wording. Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Because, fortunately, not all of wikipedia's references to the effects of food on health are funded by their respective industries. If you've run out of objections, let's go ahead and reinstate those edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:683E:7F66:2501:397F (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

My objections stand, and I doubt there'd be consensus to restore your text. Alexbrn (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• last night i removed the 2010 source you all are arguing about per WP:MEDDATE. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

About a reversion

Recently in the article of Homeopathy , you reverted one of my edits without explaining anything for your actions.Please take a look a the entire article and search for the redundancy when the cause for the removal has been mentioned in my edit summary,before incorporating a "Rv. to good." comment!For the time, I have undone your edits.Please inform(ping) me, if I am wrong. Cheers!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 12:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Your change removed good content. Please discuss further on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The section in the "Government level reviews" sub-sub-section of the "Efficacy" sub-section of the article in"Evidence and Efficacy" section reads(as corrected by me)---

"The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council completed a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of homeopathic preparations in 2015, in which it concluded that "there were no health conditions for which there was reliable evidence that homeopathy was effective. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness. No good-quality, well-designed studies with enough participants for a meaningful result reported either that homeopathy caused greater health improvements than placebo, or caused health improvements equal to those of another treatment.""

The section which was reincorporated by you reads-----

In March 2015, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia issued the following conclusions and recommendations:

• There is no reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective for treating health conditions.
• Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious.
• People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness.
• People who are considering whether to use homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health practitioner. Those who use homeopathy should tell their health practitioner, and should keep taking any prescribed treatments.'

Sir,can you please explain what major difference exists between these two versions or whether it does not constitute redundancy or whether my choosing of section was wrong?? Can't you have added the remaining 2 points from the section to the mentioned paragraph rather than undoing my edit completely as a bad revision?Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 12:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't want to lose information - your latest go looks okay! Alexbrn (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers!(I understand your concern in articles of this type where a single removal of reliable sourced material can be costly!)Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 13:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

A particular editor again reverted my edits back to your's.It would be helpful if you could keep a watch on the article and please justify my stand!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

BCAA article

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.

---

Please justify your edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Branched-chain_amino_acid&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=746402769&oldid=746402308

You have added a link to what appears to be a spam site selling supplements, and have significantly muddied the connection between linked papers and what those linked papers state, while not actually changing which papers are linked to. You have justified your changes with "unreliably-sourced biomedical content". Do you have a commercial affiliation with the supplement-selling website you've introduced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.223.127.242 (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss article content on the Talk page, and stick your silly ABF where the sun don't shine. Alexbrn (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2016 (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.

Why did you revise all my correct content?

Dear Alexbrn You have revised the article back to the original that was clearly outdated scientifically - you claim that it was more neutral before. There are actually diagnoses regarding EHS and the phonomenon is not regarded as in the old article, so a lot of new information is lost when you make a CTRL+A delte like that. It is a handicap recognized by the authorities in several countries as I state. And I make serious sources and scientific papers from the Austrian doctor's dianogsis among others. Let's not get Wiki a bad reputation. I hope that your deletion of my article was a mistake? As the original article states it is an alternative medical diagnosis, so my info and all the scientific papers that I added as sources are enough in my opinion to make it neutral. I have added my article here so everyone openly has the info. Leksi Jensen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leksijensen (talk • contribs) 06:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello - please discuss article content on that article's Talk page. In this case also be familiar with WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE beforehand - thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Kombucha Tea: Number of Reported Deaths

You've been reverting some minor changes to the article about the number of documented deaths tied to kombucha drinking. Although one secondary source cited (American Cancer Society Complete Guide to Complementary and Alternative Cancer Therapies (2nd ed.)) refers to "occasional deaths" in the plural, it and all other sources, including a comprehensive study also cited in the article (Ernst E (2003). "Kombucha: a systematic review of the clinical evidence". Forschende Komplementärmedizin und klassische Naturheilkunde.) cite exactly one case from 1995 reported by the CDC. This is not POV-pushing, but an honest attempt to render facts accurately and not rely on secondary sources for information. Please feel free to review and read the cited articles, and I will happily concede I'm in error if any other documented cases of death can be found. - Andrew B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.87.102 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC) [Sorry, I'll move this to the article talk page]

We follow secondary sources, rather than re-legislating the research in an inexpert way. Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Cannabis Schizophrenia

What was wrong with what was cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergstrom (talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

See Frontiers Media. Anything from this publisher is suspect. Also see WP:MEDRS – we don't use primary sources for this kind of health content. Alexbrn (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Norepinephrine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Norepinephrine. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Rox's Awful Pune of the Day In An Edsum Award

You have won. I'm still groaning. -Roxy the dog™ bark 21:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit s to Lead on Graphology

Hi, thanks for your argument on leaving in the term 'pseudoscience'. However, I would like to point out that Graphology is not presented as a hard science and acknowledges that there are aspects of handwriting that cannot be accurately assessed. These include: the chronological age of the writer; the physical sex of the writer or even whether the writer is right-handed or left-handed. This information must be obtained whenever possible. However, there are aspects of Graphology which can lend objectivity to the assessment of a person - for example there is no indication of: race, religion, gender or physical appearance and this can be of help in making an unbiased decision about a person's inner qualities. In this regard Graphology may be better described as a 'study' of human character rather than linking it to a field of knowledge in which it cannot compete (i.e. Science). For this reason I feel that dismissing Graphology as a 'pseudoscience' is redundant in the Lead. By definition the 'Lead' serves as an introduction to the topic to allow the reader to explore the matter further. There is already reference to and some elaboration of the deficiencies of Graphology's in the 'Professional Status' section on the page. I submit the above comments in good faith. Regards, Geeveraune (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss the article on its Talk page, not here where editors won't be watching. Alexbrn (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Reversion Comment

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'm hoping to work together. Can you help me understand this reversion diff:? I know that particular page gets a lot of BS edits to it but please check the source and or discuss your concern prior to unnecessarily reverting properly verified edits. Thanks in advance. John Johnvr4 (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Content must be directly supported by sources. Citing a book that discusses chemtrails to support an assertion that there are no books on chemtrails is nonsensical and unsupported. Please make any further comments on the article at its Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the source prior to either one of the reversions that you made or your comments above?

You had disengaged from the conversation at articles Talk page-which is your right to do anytime but your reversions of my edits are getting disruptive and with repeated the warring and now the warning you have issued me, these actions are something that needs to be verified and discussed. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2016 (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.

ANI notice Comment

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Alexbrn. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

CFS controversies "contrasting viewpoints" section

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

---

Alexbrn,

I see you reverted some of my edits. I have a few concerns about the existing text here, and I thought it might be useful for me to set those out, so we can come to some sort of agreement.

My edit says:

A UK survey published in 2013 found that 89% of patient organisations thought the illness to be physical, compared with 58% of newspaper articles and 24% of medical authorities. It is unclear whether these figures would generalise to other countries, such as the US, where medical authorities place less emphasis on psychosocial approaches to CFS, and more on biomedical approaches.

Your preferred version says:

A survey published in 2013 found that 89% of patient organisations thought the illness to be physical, compared with 58% of newspaper articles and 24% of medical authorities. The authors of the report think that this might explain the gulf between patients and doctors, and why many patients are reluctant to engage in behavioural treatments.

My edit adds important international context - which is much needed given that the WP CFS page is currently focussed almost entirely on the UK.

Can you explain why you don't think those additions would be of value? Perhaps you have a good reason, and we could discuss it, either here or on the article talk page.

--Wilshica (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Wilshica

References

I'll reply if you raise this on the article talk page. But in a nutshell, WP:NOR. Alexbrn (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2016 (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.

Please comment on Talk:Stevo Todorčević

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stevo Todorčević. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Health Effects of Tea Conduct

@Alexbrn:, you know full well that using words like "bad", "nonsense", and "silly" is unnecessary and inflammatory toward other editors. There are more neutral terms to use to avoid this issue. In any case, I'm glad to see it's calmer over here. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I know full well, as you do, that article Talk pages are meant to be for improving article content and are not a general peanut gallery. Not for the first time you are trying to personalize a dispute when there is absolutely no need to do so. If you want to continue, do it in a way which doesn't further disrupt this article Talk page please. Alexbrn (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not personal, merely an observation of a troublesome pattern of behavior you've exhibited. It's clear this is why you have frequent editor conflicts. There is nothing disruptive. If you choose to take it as such, that's your prerogative and I don't appreciate your insinuation that I've "personalized" things in the past. If anyone has that tendency, it's certainly you. It's perfectly obvious to anyone objective who reads those discussions. I'll ask you to kindly refrain from further accusations of "disruptiveness" and remain focused on content. Thank you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

You were being disruptive to that page, and so another editor quite properly collapsed the disruption. Calling things what they are - whether it's "bad style", "disruption", or - for things like CST/OMT - "quackery" is not problematic, it's in pursuit of a better more accurate encyclopedia and saves times working through wordy evasions. So far as I can see you have some personal problem with this, and post bizarrely personal comments at me as a consequence. Please don't disrupt article Talk pages in that way again, and accept that Wikipedia can accommodate different ways of doing things. Alexbrn (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

To be fair that specific behavior is prevalent in many of this editors edits and talk interactions. I also feel that the observation of the "troublesome pattern" as described is accurate. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course you do: it's as obvious as a chemtrail. But then others might like to consider the reality of your repeated bad behaviour and the sanctions you have rightly got for it. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Wasn't that an edit war with you in 2014 or at least many years ago over some nonsense that you were reverting and reinserting into that article that I would not allow? Wasn't that episode very similar to this weeks episode where you displayed the exact same behavior? I feel that it would be highly beneficial to take some of these comments about your behavior to heart, to read the sources you edit, cite, revert, or comment on and to not make further repeated bogus arguments or stonewall the talk pages (bad behavior). Many of the concerns on your talk page are very similar concerns and they are from many different editors and many pages. Please think about that and what that very likely means. I can supply the diffs in the event of a memory lapse. The handling of these concerns is also apparently an issue. [24] Johnvr4 (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you stating that you did not reinsert material from the Chemtrail update personal website into that article? repeatedly?? [25]16:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If you see edit-warring happening on Wikipedia, you can report it at WP:AN3 where it will be dealt with by an admin. Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That does not sound like much of a denial. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This is "Silly." Stop! [26] Johnvr4 (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Not as silly as an Orgonite ChemBuster ;-) 16:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Please desist from edit warring on the Michael Greger article

Thank you for your truly extensive contributions to Wikipedia. On the Michael Greger article you have recently engaged in edit warring. Desist from this behaviour and allow the appropriate tagging of the text to reflect the outcomes of the RfC and enable future expansion of the article. My edit has nothing to do with the tone nor content of the article and simply structures the article better. You could usefully contribute to the article byon providing additional sources for Hall's work as it currently consists of only one source (it does have several to establish her credability which is good but this does not add to useful content). Please don't be a trenchy on this one por vavor :) Have a nice morning! AlwaysUnite (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

You are repeatedly trying to force your (unwise) change in. Maybe try WP:BRD. Alexbrn (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

new WP:RS noticeboard topic where you are an involved editor

I hope I did it correctly. Please help me out if I did not. Topic: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Guardian_labeled_as_a_.22blog.22_with_author_credit Johnvr4 (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You are playing with fire

This is your last warning to cease automatically reverting legitimate edits unless you are able to articulate a valid concern. This behavior is WP:disruptive and WP:tendentious editing. You know full well what the purpose of the edit and the concern is about since you already discussed it at length in your own words. I have discussed my concern about this behavior and am glad that on this one occasion you've governed your actions accordingly. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Gosh. Roxy the dog. bark 17:18, 11 December 2016 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alexbrn_reported_by_User:Earflaps_.28Result:_.29. Thank you. Earflaps (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

You are repeatedly trying to force your change, against the long standing consensus as hashed out in Talk. Being at 3RR is not normally regarded as a violation of EW policy, especially in the face of your problematic edits. Maybe try WP:BRD in future rather than edit-warring yourself. Alexbrn (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for alerts

Hi, remember to check WP:ACDSLOG before giving an alert. LesVegas has been sanctioned in the area of CAM and is therefore permanently alerted. I worry about the line "Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned" in WP:AC/DS. It seems inevitable that one day someone issuing an alert in good faith will get sanctioned because they forgot to look at the log. Despite WP:BUREAU being a policy, we have DS which seems like the epitome of bureaucracy. Manul ~ talk 04:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I checked the log and saw his last alert was 2014. I thought the DS alert always "expired" after 12 months? Alexbrn (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:ACDSLOG isn't the alert log. I used the wrong jargon; it would be better to say that LesVegas is permanently aware. From here: An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed). I've proposed clarifying that section. Manul ~ talk 12:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Aha yes, a wrinkle I wasn't aware of. WP:ACDS is rather unclear about this. Alexbrn (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW, when was LesVegas sanctioned? Found it! [27] Alexbrn (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

But the purpose of WP:ACDSLOG is to make it easy to find a previous sanction. Just go there and search for a user. Manul ~ talk 14:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Earflaps (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

To all my followers

Wishing you a verifiable Xmas, and a neutral New Year! Alexbrn (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Humbug. Harrumph etc. Roxy the dog. bark 13:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Water Fasting

Instead of deleting all my edits, can you please tell me what I did wrong and I'll correct it? It's really unhelpful to have someone come along and delete all your work. Please engage rather than deleting all my work. --Jwslubbock (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

See my edit summaries. For health claims like this we need WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh well, you've just added a load of poorly-sourced stuff back again ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Likewise, Doug - hope you had a good one! Alexbrn (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Dave Asprey

Hi,

I'm new to Wiki and have tried to add a sentence to Dave Asprey's page about Alitura. We actually got permission from Asprey to add about him being a shareholder. Would you like proof of it? What can I add to the sentence to validate it so it stays on his page? Thank you so much for your help.Markawitiz (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Blogs are almost never permitted as sources for this kind of content. We need WP:RS and coverage needs to be WP:DUE. Additionally if you know Asprey you need to be aware of WP:COI. I hope you can find a way to add good content - welcome! Alexbrn (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of this informative info. I don't personally know Asprey. I got his email on his site. Will try and find a more reliable source on the internet to show this fact is true. Happy holidays.Markawitiz (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)