User talk:Bon courage/Archive 8

Happy New New

My edsum said "handwaving". -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Cryptic as ever, Roxy - and a Happy New Year to you! Alexbrn (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hurry up. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 00:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Khabzela

Hello! Your submission of Khabzela at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: Your ping to me in your comment here

Hi Alexbrn! I'm so sorry! I received an email notifying me of your comment and your ping - I somehow allowed it to fall into the cracks and go unanswered for this long. If this is still an issue, please email me and let me know. I took a look at the page you linked to, but many edits were made to it around that time - if you could email me the diffs of the content that you believe I should review and redact, I'll take a look at it right away. Again, I owe you my apologies; I did not mean to let your ping and your comment go unanswered. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, No problems :-) That page made me despair so I left it but, looking back, the comments (about Facebook activity) seem to have be rendered less problematic by what participants said as the thread continued, so I don't think there's a problem any more. Alexbrn (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Cool deal, thanks for letting me know. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Khabzela: The Life And Times Of A South African

On 15 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Khabzela: The Life And Times Of A South African, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Khabzela, a 2005 bestselling biography by Liz McGregor, concerns a South African disc jockey who died of AIDS? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Khabzela: The Life And Times Of A South African), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Know of

sources that specifically brand Unani and Siddha as pseudoscience and/or quackery? ∯WBG^converse 17:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Unani is a new one to me. For Siddha, the Siddha medicine article has some (presumably sourced) content that may be relevant ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Carnivore diet

Regarding your revert, it was already discussed in Talk. See Talk:Carnivore_diet#Medsci. MEDRS is not exactly pertinent, as no general health claims is being made in factual sense in the article. BecomeFree (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I have responded there. Alexbrn (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tithonia diversifolia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bioactive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Grape therapy

Re your removal of "junk". I am feeling a bit frustrated because another editor wrote that The main problem with the grape therapy article is the absence of reliable sources ..to indicate it is in current common use (European spas, etc.). So I insert a couple of examples to comply with that reviewer's request and then you delete them as "junk". Looks like I can't win. The photo has been on the page since the article was first written: in fact the place was what inspired me to investigate the topic in the first place.Roundtheworld (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem (such as it is) is the absence of reliable sources. They just don't exist from what I can see, other than some we already use. Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

'Adverse Effects' Section on Circumcision 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.

---

Hi Alexbrn. Thank you for recently amending the circumcision webpage, by including information from the NHS website, after I submitted a request on the talk page. I believe the circumcision wikipedia article should also refer to the article by the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) as it was published in June 2017. This is because it is more up-to-date than the sources currently on the wikipedia website, other than of course the NHS’ findings.

I believe the first line in the paragraph under “sexual effects” (quoted below in bold) should be removed as it contradicts more recent evidence:

“The highest quality evidence indicates that circumcision does not decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction.[19][76][77]”

The BAUS’ article, published in 2017, disproves the above statement, which is based on outdated sources from 2010, 2012 and 2016. The BAUS article is a reliable source and based from a number of sources including the Department of Health in England, as mentioned on its article. The BAUS article states:

1. The “penis will feel a little less sensitive than before the operation”. This statement is on page 4 in the "what can I expect when I get home?" section of the article (bullet point 4). Thus, sensitivity will decrease after a circumcision. However the above line in bold states “circumcision does not decrease the sensitivity of the penis”.

2. Almost all patients (men) have reported “permanent altered or reduced sensation” after a circumcision. This statement is on page 3 in the "after-effect" section of the article (3rd risk). However the above line in bold states “circumcision does not… reduce sexual satisfaction”. The term "satisfaction" is a synonym of "pleasure", and "pleasure" is used interchangeably with "sensation".

Additionally, the term “sexual function” is used in the above line in bold, however, according to another wikipedia article regarding sexual function, “the aspects of sexual function defined as being relevant to the assessment include sexual desire, erection, orgasm and ejaculation”, all of which are already mentioned below in the sentence regarding the 2013 review. Thus, there is simply no need for the above line in bold.

I believe the paragraph should be changed to the following as it reads easier:

"A 2013 systematic review found that circumcision did not appear to adversely affect sexual desire, pain with intercourse, premature ejaculation, time until ejaculation, erectile dysfunction or difficulties with orgasm.[78] However, the study found that the existing evidence is not very good.[78] A 2017 review found that circumcision did not affect premature ejaculation.[80] Reduced sexual sensation is a possible complication of male circumcision.[79] Almost all men have reported permanent altered or reduced sexual sensation after a circumcision. The penis will also feel less sensitive than before the circumcision. When it comes to sexual partners' experiences, circumcision has an unclear effect as it has not been well studied.[81]"

Please let me know whether these amendments are possible. Thank you. Jas9777 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

References

The BAUS source is not great. Please continue any further discussion at Talk:Circumcision. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2020 (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.

Discretionary sanctions alert for Abortion

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

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

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

Doug Weller talk 13:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverting

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 refer from false spam accusations. 31.161.228.68 (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You have reverted my edit three times now (without providing a source). If you make it a fourth I will have to report you. Please stop using reverts to talk and use a TP instead. 31.161.228.68 (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD would have been better rather than trying to force your bad edit. Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2020 (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.

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

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2019 Cure Award

In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med 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 thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Circumcision revert "per talk"

What do you mean "per talk" when you reverted my edit to the circumcision article? I explained the problem in the talk page and then edited after I got no response. Then you revert it "per talk"?Madsenanders (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Your explanation was wrong, as I intimated. Please continue discussion about article content at Talk:Circumcision. Alexbrn (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Once more unto the breach

Hey there! Looking over Morgellons and delusional parasitosis, they aren't making use of the most recent reviews, and I propose to dive in for an update. But I want to take care with impact factor. What do you think of this article? There are other equally good recent reviews, but with low impact factors, and I don't want to open that door.

• Moriarty N, Alam M, Kalus A, O'Connor K (December 2019). "Current Understanding and Approach to Delusional Infestation". Am. J. Med. (Review). 132 (12): 1401–1409. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.06.017. PMID 31295443.

I'd also want to standardize citations to that format, since when I clean up an article, I want to clean up everything; do you think that will be a problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think impact factor is only really an issue here if a source is venturing into making WP:Exceptional claims, as the work of Marianne Middelveen often does. From a quick look, PMID 31295443 seems to be making entirely unexceptional statements about Morgellons. I can't imagine anybody making a fuss about citation formatting in a fairly undeveloped article like this, but it might be best to signal your intention on Talk beforehand to be sure. I would be happy to help get the article into better shape! Alexbrn (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

OK ... I am hoping to do a bit of updating first at dementia with Lewy bodies. Then I will work first at delusional parasitosis, updating to that review, leaving morgellons 'til last. Do you have the delusional article watchlisted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I've not got delusional parasitosis watchlisted, but then I blanked my watchlist a few weeks ago in a fit of wiki-ennui, and am slowly building it back up again with select articles. I shall add it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Morgellons is on my watchlist and I stalk this page, by way of explanation. I used to be an expert in fibre identification. Give me my old equipment and 48 hrs and I'll identify accurately any fibre snipping given to me of more than a cm or so. If its cotton, wool or silk for instance, they are easily identified microscopically in minutes rather than a couple of days. Hence my interest. Just sayin'.

PS. I could never blank my watchlist. I back it up in fact. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 20:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, I mostly cleaned out the old junk from DP, and in the process, found the answer to the Middleveen stuff, which I added to Morgellons. I'll stop for now, but the three new reviews I found on DP are FULL of good info for expansion, which I will continue to work on over the coming week. As always, the best defense is a good offense, and keeping the DP article in good shape will go a long ways for the Morgellons recurring issues. I'll keep at it, but enough for today. I kind of got into it and forgot about Mr. Lewy! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

PS, unsure about how to handle this; yay or nay. Feel free to revert me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Good stuff! I half wonder whether Morgellons should be folded in to DP where (per WP:NOPAGE) it might make better sense. There isn't much out there on the nature of Middelveen's research, apart from this Atlantic piece which we already (mis-)cite. Alexbrn (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I am liking the separate articles, because Morgellons is more ... non-MEDRS-y. We can delve into all the laysources and the history of it as a the kind of phenom it is. But I want to beef up DP better, so that the real meat is there. If we merged Morgellons into DP, the Morgellons stuff would pretty much have to go away, and I think it could be helpful. Going off to look at theatlantic now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Pending revisions?

I notice some of my edits have been flagged as pending revisions (e.g.[1]). As I recall, this didn't happen before. What gives? Alexbrn (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If there are unreviewed pending revisions, any further edits to the article are also put in the queue. This continues until the changes are finally reviewed. That is probably what happened. For what it's worth, the help desk will probably give you better and faster help when asking general questions about Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi Alexbrn! I would like to request you for reviewing my draft page Epos 257 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Epos_257). I know that it was already reviewed and unfortunately declined, nevertheless I have rewritten it and I would like to ask you very much to check the article if at least a little possible...Thank you very much! Regards Jiří Jiří Gruber (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to find somebody who understands Czech so they can evaluate the sources ... Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Reversion and "unreliable source"

Nice to know you're a circumcision fetishist wrt your sweeping reversions on Circumcision. Care to explain how the Journal of Epidemiological Biostatistics is an "unreliable source"? Zedtwitz (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS, then read WP:BLP and WP:ADVOCACY. And do not post here again. Alexbrn (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding 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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! MJV479 (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Bates method. Thank you. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Vitamin C

I saw that you removed content and references from the Vitamin C article. In your opinion, is the vitamin C and common cold information sufficiently covered in the History section as it was? Or should more detail be added there? David notMD (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:V was not being satisfied. Please continue any further discussion at the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Ketogenic

Thanks, Alex; after I mistakenly hit that blooming rollback button, I decided I had best leave it alone. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy

I mentioned you in the subpage of my arb evidence at this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Plant derived anti-cancer therapy

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30540593

Artemisinin and its derivatives: a potential treatment for leukemia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.178.22.63 (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

So the authors speculate. Alexbrn (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

POV edits: re Brian Morris. Again--take it to the talk page.

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

---

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Maybe look at WP:BRD? Alexbrn (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have, several times--I invite you to edit it. I'm perfectly open to Morris' claims, BTW, in favour of circumcision, but it is necessary to counterbalance his beliefs with the positions of the various learned academies and colleges of medicine, and I have continual trouble understanding where your objection lies, because you've refused a number of times to state them, at the talk page, as you are obliged to do if you want to play a role in determining where the consensus lay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techelon (talk • contribs) 08:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss article content on the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2020 (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.

Inflammatory bowel disease, paleolithic diet

“As of 2014 there was no evidence the paleo diet is effective in treating inflammatory bowel”. Can you explain to me why this study in 2017 does not contradict this sentence. In case you don’t have time to read the study, here is the conclusion “ In conclusion, our study demonstrates that dietary modification focused on elimination of potentially immunogenic or intolerant food groups has the potential to improve symptoms and endoscopic inflammation in patients with IBD. Dietary change can be an important adjunct to IBD therapy not only to achieve remission but perhaps improve the durability of response and remission.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5647120/ Tylotyler (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a primary source, so not WP:MEDRS. Please continue any further content discussion at Talk:Paleolithic diet. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on (very) old edits made by yours truly

Hey! Aaages ago I made some edits to the CFS wiki page, which you reverted for being biased. Given that i do in fairness have somewhat of a bias (I know multiple people with CFS) I thought I'd ask what particularly was the flaw with my edit, so I can avoid it in future edits (like the one I just made, which I hope was OK!) <3 --Starchify (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Starchify

Hi there! I see the content of your edits is being discussed at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome right now, and that is the correct forum (not here). I might contribute there, though I have not looked at the CFS article for many months. As always, I am concerned that we have content from high-quality sources, properly presented so that we provide an accurate summary of accepted knowledge on a topic. Alexbrn (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Bon courage, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Disulfiram Alexbrn

Why would you delete the research I pointed out about Disulfiram I don't get it ? I thought I linked to enough high standards links and research to justify it right? I wanted to put it in a section tho. Maybe put the sentence in another way but it's relevant ? Thanks to tell me Aguigal (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean there's literally clinical trials from Columbia University and Stanford on the matter. There's a section for cancer and HIV with the same level if not less evidence and interest ? Aguigal (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! Sources for health content need to be WP:MEDRS and we need to avoid material published by questionable publishers like MDPI. Further discussion of this should take place at Talk:Disulfiram so other interested editors can see. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Postural Integration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bodywork (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Alexbrn!

Thank you for the information about pages editing! She was helpful. I would also like to know how I can create a draft for editing an existing page that can be checked by the editor? NDenPT (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You could draft something in your sandbox (see link at top of page) and then solicit comments at the Talk page of the article in question. Alexbrn (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is section header of discussion.The discussion is about the topic McKenzie method. Thank you. NDenPT (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to RedWarn

Hello, Alexbrn! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 80 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 13:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Paleo 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.

---

I'm going to have another crack at being reasonable here. The article is supposed to be neutral in it;s presentation of the topic, criticism should be clearly delineated rather than embedded in the article as straw man arguments.It;s intellectually dishonest. Replying to accusation of non-neutrality with, 'yup' and ' policy to dubunk the daftness that is the Paleo diet.' is clearly bias.

Specifics:

1. "The digestive abilities of anatomically modern humans are different from those of pre-Homo sapiens humans, which undermines the diet's core premise." The Paleo Diet has no concern with pre-human diet. It relates purely to that period immediately before the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution i.e around 10,000 years ago. The citation leads to an opinion piece which lacks any citations from any authoritative source, such as Cordain. The assertion that it undermines the 'core premise' is pure uncited opinion.

2. "During the 2.6 million year-long Paleolithic era, the highly variable climate and worldwide spread of human populations meant that humans were, by necessity, nutritionally adaptable. Supporters of the diet mistakenly assume that human digestion has remained essentially unchanged over time" Another straw man argument. As above, the term Paleo - as used in reference to a specific historical window rather than the Palolithic period - only specifically relates to the period immediately before agriculture, not the entire Palaeolithic period reaching all the way back to first tool use (which would BTW make it 3.3 million years and not 2.6). The statement that 'Supporters of the diet mistakenly assume that human digestion has remained essentially unchanged over time' has no evidenced citation. It is merely a statement of opinion. There may well be some supporters who know nothing of the science behind it, but that most definitely does not include the authors of the source materials, and they say n such thing.

Cordain, the author of the actual Paleo Diet book makes the timeframe entirely clear:

"Seventy percent of the foods that comprise the modern diet—grain products, vegetable oils, dairy, refined sugar, and alcohol—were introduced in the past 10,000 years and are completely out of line with the center of the curve. Importantly, 10,000 years is not nearly enough time for evolution to shift the curve."

He also makes clear that he does not think that the dietry habits of our ancestors are static:

"At the center of the bell-shaped curve are the foods we evolved to eat. That doesn’t mean there is a single Paleo Diet—our Paleolithic ancestors ate different foods depending on where they lived. The optimal human diet is a range, not a point, and most of us sit within the two standard deviations of the peak of that curve." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerista (talk • contribs) 09:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You don't understand what "neutral" (see WP:NPOV) means for Wikipedia. We are required to contextualize fringe notions within the respectable mainstream context. We are not going to be airing stupidity like "Importantly, 10,000 years is not nearly enough time for evolution to shift the curve" without presenting readers with the reality-based context to debunk it because that is what policy requires. This is not negotiable. Alexbrn (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Writerista presented sound criticism but you chose to nitpick. You should check WP:SOURCE. It says:

"What counts as a reliable source

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

• The piece of work itself (the article, book)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)"

Loren Cordain is one of the creators, or at least popularizers, of paleo diets. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, he's a reliable source for claims on the paleo diet.

And do you realize that when talking about consensus claims about the paleo diet, you're talking about the history of it? Surprise, not all history is peer reviewed. And saying that you can't take claims from Cordain's books is almost equivalent to saying you can't know what christians think happened to Jesus because the New Testament is not a reliable source.

Sorry for this being on your user talk page. אקראי אחר (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

You need to understand WP:NPOV, and in particular WP:VALID. We only include fringe views through the lens of mainstream, respectable sources. Please continue any further discussion at the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2020 (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.

Interesting Shenqijing (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Alcoholic drinks

What was wrong with my inserted table? Not a good summary at the end of the article? 12akd (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Lots of links to www.pineridgenaturalhealth.com, which is an unreliable source and an undesirable link. The article already has a table of some drinks' ABV. Please continue any further discussion on the article's Talk page. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Thank you. 12akd (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Broken references on 5G

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 fix the references on your changes for 5G (e.g. scientists signature reference point to some unrelated swisscom article).--Escain (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

It works well I think, satisfying WP:V. Please discuss article content at its Talk page. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

It's pure sabotage to replace an official ref to an unrelated content.--Escain (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

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

DS Alert

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

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

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

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Apitherapy Edits

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

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

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.

war on Apitherapy article

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

You are wasting editors' time now. Alexbrn (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: Report was closed as malformed.[2]

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

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

I went ahead a reported the stalking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#The_beginnings_or_harassing/stalking_behavior

Your behavior is very creepy.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Now you're wasting even more people's time. Alexbrn (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: thread was closed as "No stalking or harassment has occurred".[3]

Your help desk question

Did you ever find the answer to this question? No one responded and I am way behind on the archives, though I wouldn't know the answer.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Maybe I was wrong in thinking the system had changed, but in any case I haven't noticed this happening recently ... Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Christian diets

Maker's Diet was listed as possible non-notable at WT:MED, so I looked into it. It turns out that there are some independent sources about it ([example), and it was on a Publishers Weekly bestsellers' list in 2004.

The article is a mess. I spent a bit cleaning it up, but it's verbose and has all the problems you'd expect.

But my discovery is that this diet/book/program is discussed in context with others in several sources (e.g., this one), and that got me wondering whether we could find others of its type and merge them into a single quasi-list article, with each independently source-able subject getting its own brief description. This one, for example, should say that it's a 40-day-long diet that emphasizes natural/whole/organic foods, incorporates Jewish dietary rules for animal products, a half-day weekly fast, and that the author makes money selling dietary supplements.

It'd take some work, but putting the content in one might make it easier to keep it encyclopedic. What do you think? (Please ping me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Sounds good! Another Christian one which springs to mind is the Hallelujah diet, which (as I see) you nominated for deletion five years ago.[4] There might be some difficulty about whether/if fasting would be covered, I suppose. Alexbrn (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Maybe restrict the list to "branded" diets? We can set just about any Wikipedia:List selection criteria that we want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Though I see we already have List of diets#Belief-based diets, which complicates things. I'm not sure that list article categorized things in a good way ... Alexbrn (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Christian wellness is one of the terms in the sources, but that would include things like yoga set to Christian music. List of Christian diet books might work, if we think it's safe to assume that all of them sell books. Christian-themed diet? Christian diet sounds like it would be a (single) real thing, and that's probably true for the Seventh-Day Adventists (in that list you linked – also, my, that looks similar to the Maker's Diet article), and the Catholics used to eat fish on Fridays, and the Orthodox still go approximately vegan and oil-less twice a week, I doubt that it's true in general. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at User:WhatamIdoing/Christian diet programs and let me know what you think. The first entry is the best developed.

I'm thinking about WP:LSC of only including a program if it's mentioned in the same article as another program (because compare-and-contrast means that we have a secondary source), and advocating for 100% independent sources. Do you think that could work? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Yay! That certainly looks viable. Rootling around, I came across:

• Kwan, Samantha; Sheikh, Christine (2011). "Chapter 10: Divine Dieting – A Cultural Analysis of Christian Weight Loss Programs". In Albala, Ken; Eden, Trudy (eds.). Food and Faith in Christian Culture. Columbia University Press. pp. 205–220. ISBN 978-0-231-14996-9.

which, to start with, would give us some authority to call the article List of Christian weight loss programs. I've only skimmed this source so far, but it looks fruitful, starting with a discussion of Charlie W. Shedd's bestselling 1957 book Pray your Weight Away, which the authors say was the start of it all (and which you list!) Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Because another source said that it was the start of it all! After a while, I started listing everything that I found in independent sources (using only sources that mention at least two programs for that purpose). We may decide to remove some of them later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

(Add) starting to pull at this thread, looking at the bibliography of the above source this seems super-relevant too (I see you have it in Further reading). Alexbrn (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

According to the Kwan & Sheikh source, the "big 5" are:

• Neva Coyle and Marie Chapian's Free to Be Thin diet
• George Malkmus's Hallelujah Diet
• Jordan Rubin's Maker's Diet
• Gwen Shamblin's Weigh Down Diet
• Carol Showalter's 3D Plan Diet.

But also, that there are "hundreds". Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I've got the rest of those five in the list now. I'm loving this source you found. I'd like to get something about the theology of all this. I've found small bits (vanity, anyone?), but I'm hoping we'll find something extensive.

I need to stop editing for a bit. Feel free to edit directly in my sandbox. We'll WP:MOVE the whole thing when we've got a decent draft, so the edit history will always be with us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You've made a great start - and this is an interesting topic. I'll chip in soon (nice weather here in the UK means I'm probably going to be spending some time outside!) Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's about ready. I took out a couple of names, and I added another one that I found (as a redirect) in the mainspace. I'd like to find a description of 'prayer walking' (or is that 'Prayer Walking™'?), because it's a little different from the others. As best as I can tell, from a passing mention, you get together with your diet buddies and go for a walk while praying.

What I haven't found:

• Sources that call them hypocrites for caring about their bodies. Instead, WP:DUE storyline is more like "trying to walk a fine line between secular and spiritual concerns".
• A clean comparison of gender in the religious and secular markets. Weight loss is heavily gendered, but I did see a source that these programs usually try to be gender-neutral. It's not clear to me how similar or different that is from the secular market.
• A clear statement about how American (or Anglophone) this phenomenon is. It seems to be a mostly Protestant phenomenon, and a mostly (but not exclusively) white phenomenon.

I don't know what else I don't know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I just moved this to Christian diet programs. It may not be the best title, but it'll do for now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting? Shenqijing (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting? Shenqijing (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice

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

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Александр Мотин (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You are again wasting editors' time, your own included. Alexbrn (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: thread was immediately closed with "No PA here".

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.

Gam-COVID-Vac

Hi Alex. As gently as possible, can I ask you not to re-revert challenged content as you did here. I am as annoyed about reverts without explanation as you are, but the article is under general sanctions, and I can't make use of them to restrain poor behaviour, if experienced editors like yourself don't scrupulously display best practice as an example for others. The moment that your addition is reverted, you need to go to talk and demand reinstatement because the revert was unexplained. If you legitimise back-and-forth reversions, you put the same tool into the hands of disruptive editors. I know it consumes more time to do things by the book, but it lets you take complaints of sub-standard behaviour to WP:AE where we can deal with that behaviour effectively (i.e. it's not ANI). Regards --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I hear you RexxS, and completely understand. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I here you also Shenqijing (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Resveratrol

Why were my edits removed that cited peer-reviewed studies involving Resveratrol? They're not "poorly sourced." If there's information from peer-reviewed studies, there is no legitimate or wholesome reason for removing those. Doing so is the suppression of evidence and forcing your opinion against the data. That's equivalent to imposing a POV. Also, to say, "no evidence exists," is one of the strongest claims a person can make, and it can easily be disproved with a counter-example, which I did. Also, it's totally absurd to avoid any mention of the evidence of benefits in animals. If animal evidence was useless, there would be no value behind ever performing animal testing for determining the safety or efficacy of any drug. However, there is a mountain of data (which I will not mention here) that shows that animal testing is extremely valuable when determining the safety and efficacy of drugs. Resveratrol is not an exception to that rule. Animal data is also extremely important when evaluating the effects of a drug on aging because animals have shorter lifespans. I should not need to explain why animal data is relevant or important. It should be allowed to be included on the Resveratrol page without being reverted. Devingbost (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello there! Please comment on article content at Talk:Resveratrol. Before doing so, you could usefully familiarize yourself with WP:MEDRS (particularly WP:MEDANIMAL), and you may find WP:WHYMEDRS useful. Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Another opinion for Talk:Discrete trial training#Effectiveness

Hi Alexbrn, 66.244.121.212's claims of DTT—the structured form of early applied behavior analysis (ABA) intervention for autism—not being evidence based because of one recent literature review by Cochran does not sound right. It's based on over fifty years of proven research and literature reviews, i.e. see here: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/120/5/1162. And saying that the technique is not effective in the O. Ivar Lovaas Wikipedia article doesn't seem correct either. It's well-established in the research literature for improving the intellectual performance of children with autism and for many, they have shown to make substantial gains in language, adaptive, and social skills, it outperforms other treatments including traditional speech therapy, and is recommended by the Surgeon General (1999), American Academy of Pediatrics (2007), and US National Research Council (2001). ATC ^{. Talk} 05:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked at those articles for a while, but a quick look now shows me some poor sourcing. On the other hand, a 2018 Cochrane Review is a gold standard source which Wikipedia will need to reflect. Alexbrn (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

User:ATC: This is your second attempt at canvassing. Please stop. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I smell socks; commented at ANI. Alexbrn (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Vitamin K

Just an FYI that I have started a process of improving this article before nominating it to be a Good Article. Notifying you because I see in the article history that you had made significant efforts to improve this article in the past. I have previously raised Vitamin C, Folate, Pantothenic acid and most recently Niacin to GA status. David notMD (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Best of luck! I've not been following this for a while. Alexbrn (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

RE:Talk:Discrete trial training#Effectiveness

Hey Alex, made a reply to your comment. ATC ^{. Talk} 00:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC) ATC ^{. Talk} 00:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

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

Points to note:

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

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

[5][6]--Александр Мотин (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Circumcision and HIV

Circumcision and HIV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hey, Alex. I think that this article could use your input. I don't watch it, but I had noticed it before. I recently came across it again and can see that it needs work and that there has been recent discussion on the talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought I'd escaped from this article!Looking now, I see SandyGeorgia has been a voice of reason on Talk there, but in general I find the problem with the circumcision "suite" is the wearing drip-drip of activism wanting to downplay any potential benefits and emphasize any potential harms. I'll watchlist and keep an eye out for anything alarming. Alexbrn (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I took a look at the minimal pageviews, the long history of POV pushing, and some haughty/nasty posts that came to my talk page, and decided not to let myself get too entrenched there. The sourcing there is dated throughout (as it is over at the main circumcision article), and I've always believed that the way to clean up POV-laden and dispute-riddled topics is to rewrite them to topnotch sources (a la delusional parasitosis and what I did years ago on MMR controversy when it was mired in talk page disputes). I unwatched HIV and circumcision, and just look in every few days. Right now, a less-than-the-usual-acrimonious tone is prevailing on talk, but the recent "consensus" addition is POV-loaded, as I've tried to kindly detail on talk. [7] I think it's OK to include positions of medical orgs, but the tone of the text added is that it is trying to convince with subtle (likely unrecognized by the author) language, rather than stating the facts. I outlined on talk a long list of why the text was POV (and questioned if it represented the sources) four days ago, and no one has done a thing. Maybe a POV-section tag on the recommendations [8] will prompt one of them to fix it, as in ... teach them to fish rather than doing it for them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for revisiting the article, Alex. Obviously, you don't need to get sucked back into the article just because I asked you to take a look. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen it's always a pleasure to help out with an issue - but in general I'm trying also to keep my watchlist under control :-) Alexbrn (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I certainly understand that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Guinea pig

I've just strolled through this talk page and realized something. Basically, you are dealing with something way more important than a mere pun of "guinea pig" phrase. Sorry for taking your time. Uchyotka (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

P.S. It was weird how you went down to basics, as if I am A2-B1 speaker. But! Upon seeing your talk page, I realized you deal with stubborness of that very "oh, you gotta explain it to me as if im 5" kind which requires going down to basics. Now I get it: you can use term "guinea pig" instead of "test subject" sometimes for the very illustrativeness I am also all about. I am really sorry for getting in your way with my non-medical questionins on speech, style etc. Uchyotka (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

P.P.S. On a side note... the "test subject" sounds scary to Portal fans, for example. It was a joke. Ha-ha. Fat chance.

Ayurveda article

Hi Alexbrn, I noticed that you reverted my one-word edit, "scientific evidence" back to "good evidence" (diff). My intention posting here on your talk page is to discuss, word-geek style, not to dispute. I'm fine leaving the sentence as it is.

I was thinking that "scientific" is a more precise adjective than "good". "Scientific" has a fairly well-understood, specific meaning, particularly when modifying "evidence", whereas "good evidence" has a variety of interpretations. For example: "My family has successfully used Ayurveda medicine for seven generations (if not more), which is pretty darn good evidence!" Such evidence—based on accumulated anecdotal accounts—might be deemed "good" evidence by many people, although it is not scientific evidence.

By looking at various definitions for "evidence" and "scientific", it seems to me that we need a precise adjective to modify "evidence", particularly about a practice that lacks an empirical foundation.

evidence:

• "something that furnishes or tends to furnish proof" - Merriam Webster, Unabridged

• "a thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment" - American Heritage

• "grounds for belief; facts or observations adduced in support of a conclusion or statement; the available body of information indicating whether an opinion or proposition is true or valid" - OED

scientific:

• "agreeing with or conducted or prepared strictly according to the principles and practice of or for the furtherance of exact science ... : characteristic or typical of a true scientist especially in perfect disinterestedness and absolute accuracy" - MW, Unabridged

• "of, relating to, or employing the methodology of science" - AH

• "of a process, method, practice, etc.: based on or regulated by science, as opposed to traditional practices or natural skill; valid according to the principles of science." - OED

I saw that your PhD is in English, which led me to an assumption that a word-nerd discussion would not turn you off. If I assumed incorrectly, please just let me know. Thanks! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 05:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! This very point was discussed on the article Talk page. The phrase "no good evidence" is preferred for the reasons given there. In medicine, "anecdotal evidence" is just that, outside of "good evidence" - anyone who confuses the two is making a basic error and we can't really correct for that. Any summary like this is going to lose nuance/meaning by its nature but what we have is the least worst solution I think. I sometimes wonder if I should write an essay on this. Alexbrn (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the reply. I somehow missed that specific discussion on the article's talk page. I'll find it and learn. :0) All the best - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting Shenqijing (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Revert on functional medicine

Hello recently I made a revert edit on the functional medicine page, without a explanation. Can you please explain, thankyou. Shenqijing (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

No. Alexbrn (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Revert on TCM Page,

Please explain your latest revert on the wiki page please . As you have no edditing history or input on this page, this is vandalism. Shenqijing (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Do not post to my Talk page again. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, you are still reverting the page with no real explanation. There is a topic on talk. You have a lot of edditing history please lead by example, if you could be constructive on the talk page that would be great, thankyou. Shenqijing (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Uninformed Editing

I would advise against referring to an article from a site run by experts in the field and backed up by multi-million-dollar research as "not a credible source". Henry Kingdon (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

What source do you mean? Alexbrn (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Dexamethasone

A discussion has been opened regarding one of your edits at Talk:Dexamethasone. 73.158.166.97 (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

BRD

Brief yourself on WP:BRD. Whilst it's not compulsory you would be well advised to study it, and try to avoid edit warring. Arcturus (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

BRD is not a suicide pact, and since your revert was based on a obvious misunderstanding in your edit summary (blog?) it was unjustified, no? Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No. It's a blog [9]. From the blog (my emphasis); "We deal with many controversial topics on this website, but even the idea of “science-based” medicine itself is often criticized by doctors and scientists, concerned that SBM is an unnecessary challenge to the idealism of EBM. This is a listing of most of the articles on ScienceBasedMedicine.org that explain SBM, its differences from EBM, and the reasons for the existence of the blog, in the order that they have appeared:". So, no. No misunderstanding. I invite you to self revert. Incidentally, your assignment of the COVID-denier category is ridiculous. COVID deniers are just that; people and organisations espousing the view that the virus doesn't exist. The GBD is a suggested response to the virus. I cannot imagine a more inappropriate category. Arcturus (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not a "blog" in the sense that matters to Wikipedia (i.e. it is not self-published). It's also not from a "pressure group". Denialism in any field doesn't mean outright negation, but include questioning of details (e.g. holocaust denial includes thinking the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust is much exaggerated as reported by mainstrea historians). Basically, we now know from the Gorski source that the GBD is politically-motivated quackery ... so that advances things. I suggest if you have anything further to add on this do it at the article Talk page, so other editors can see? Alexbrn (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

When is a blog not a blog? When it's used on Wikipedia to push POV. Laughable. Arcturus (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

When, for example, it's a WP:NEWSBLOG. Rather than being laughable, these distinctions are quite important. Alexbrn (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Controversial topic area alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Newslinger talk 15:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Roger Newslinger. Incidentally what is the topic code for triggering this warning? I wanted to do it myself recently and couldn't see a code at Template:Ds/alert? Alexbrn (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alexbrn, the code for the template is {{subst:Gs/alert|covid}}. Please note that the reporting procedure for general sanctions is different than the one for discretionary sanctions, and is explained in WP:GS § Community sanctions. — Newslinger talk 15:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thx. Alexbrn (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Be polite and welcoming to new users/Assume good faith

Please adhere to these wikipedia guidelines and stop bullying me. Let's respectfully avoid each other henceforth - interaction is closed and I will gladly steer clear of anything you feel passionately about, if I can discern that in advance. Cheers and vade in pace Miles Quest (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Raw animal food diets

Can you have a look at this article? It has some dodgy sources. I think it should be re-directed or merged to raw foodism. What do you think? Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

But it's November! Or should I be thinking about beer festivals? Alexbrn (talk) 07:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Feldenkrais Method

Bbachrac (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)What are your credentials for editing the Feldenkrais Method enrty? Bbachrac (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Please note the term Feldenkrais Method is trade marked.

(talk page stalker)The same as your own ... he has accepted the Wikipedia Terms and Conditions. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 23:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC) -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 19:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Bbachrac, welcome to Wikipedia. My personal advice to anyone editing is not to edit in areas they are closely involved in, as it is seldom productive or fun. But, if you insist, you need to read and understand WP:COI. Our content on Feldenkrais is governed by our WP:FRINGE guidance; in general, we are not interested in what Feldenkrais people say, but what in independent mainstream sources say about Feldenkrais, since the purpose of Wikipedia is to be a summary of accepted knowledge about topics. Wikipedia does not reproduce WP:TRADEMARK symbols in its text. (P.S. Your username makes me think of Burt Bacharach. Is this intentional? He is one of my favourite tunesmiths. Just now writing this, I have Raindrops keep falling on my head playing in my mind, and indeed it is a very rainy morning here in Cambridge ...) Alexbrn (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The name Bacharach originates from a village on the Rhine River in Germany. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacharach ) My Grandfather came to the US in 1905. I will prepare an edit with suitable sources during the week and seek to talk with editors about a consensus. Other than being a student, I have no conflict of interest with respect to the Feldenkrais Method. The IFF is a federation of Feldenkrais Guilds and Associations https://feldenkrais-method.org/iff/member-organizations/ Feldenkrais Guild of North America https://www.feldenkraisguild.com/ The FELDENKRAIS Guild UK Feldenkrais Method® is the registered trademark of the Feldenkrais Guild UK Ltd, Reg No. 1563759. http://www.feldenkrais.co.uk/index.php Feldenkrais Method® https://feldenkrais.com/. I will seek to remove the term Fringe which is this case is purely pejorative. For Guild certified practitioners, the methods are consistent with current understanding of the somatic nervous system. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_nervous_system ) As a physicist, the methods are consistent with understanding of body mechanics. For example, see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1607551X11001835 You might find interesting https://www.slideshare.net/dr_hetvi/biomechanics-of-stair-climbing. Bbachrac (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Naturopathy

I would be interested in your thoughts on this article:

a) Do you think the summary gives a clear idea of what Naturopathy is?

b) Do you think it could be written better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmjowett (talk • contribs) 11:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! The article is WP:ASSESSed as "B-class", which seems fair. So there's a way to go to make it better. Recently the (somewhat related) Homeopathy article reached WP:GA status - so there might be some examples in the history of that which might help to know how we can improve Naturopathy. Please make any suggestions for improvement at the article Talk page (not here) so other interested editors can see! Alexbrn (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

AfD notice

Hi. Please see this AfD following on from the RfC you commented on. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Bhakdi

That FTN discussion is headed off the rails, so i'll just respond here. It's just one citation, to an article in the "Argument" section of FP. It's my opinion that is not enough to meet the threshold for a BLP, but there are more German articles to slog through and other editors will have their views. Also there should be some good article text explaining why he can be called a conspiracy theorist, but that will be hard to do as the SPA's will probably start showing up and it will turn into an edit war. fiveby(zero) 14:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I think one source is fine if it's strong (as this is) - and especially if the case is clear. We also need to respect the NPOV need to be up-front about what is fringe. I expect if the SPA's try to get the article back to anywhere like where it was, there'll be bannings a'plenty, which might well solve some problems!

However, pending further discussion and since this is WP:BLP-territory, I have toned down the conspiracy theory description for now ... Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

From Der_Spiegel's online site: People like Bhakdi cannot be classified as conspiracy theorists per se, if one follows the explanations of the social psychologist Pia Lamberty..."Downplaying the risk of corona disease is not exactly a conspiracy narrative," says the social psychologist...deen from the machine translation. Tho i think the gist of the article is that the real conspiracy theories begin with those such as Bhakdi, so probably tread with care. I like "Für eine Verschwörungserzählung braucht es noch den bösen Plan", so Lamberty., but of course 'conspiracy theory' is being used much more widely these days. fiveby(zero) 15:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Good find. I think the label is relatively unimportant so long as it's clear (as is wasn't before) that the views in play are problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The version before it hit FTN was horrid. There's plenty to say he's spouting misinformation which conspiracy theorists are running with etc. Thanks, when those SPA's and drive-by IP's start showing up it's usually impossible to have a discussion. fiveby(zero) 16:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Apparently the giant notice requiring Gd123lbp to notify you went unnoticed. There is an ANI diatribe about you. Praxidicae (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have commented. Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: thread was closed as "as the accusations have not been proven". Filing party was admonished.

Decorum of Comments on Talk Pages

@ALEXBRN Please do not use obscene langage when writing comments to me on talk pages. specifically "how squirting coffee up your bum cures cancer" on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:McSly#Feldenkrais_Method Bbachrac (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not obscene. What's obscene is pushing the idea that such a method will be effective - and we have had many people arguing that Wikipedia say so, for "balance". I'd not put them in quite the same circle of Hell as Feldenkrais practitioners, but it's different ends of the same street. Alexbrn (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

My mistake

Sorry, no, I didn't mean to roll it back - not sure how I managed that. Having said that, it did look like a rash comment. Deb (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

NP! I think in the overall context the comment will turn out okay ... Alexbrn (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for any unnecessary words

Hi, I just wanted to say I do not have any personal feelings of animosity towards you. While we certainly disagree on a few things in the edits, I am sorry for any unkind things I may have said in moments of frustration. While I do continue to believe some edits you made were unjustified (as explained at length elsewhere) I want to make clear I want a mutual respect between us and mean nothing personal by anything I have said, I intend to make purely content based criticism. Thanks for understanding. Gd123lbp (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem - I'm sure we'll get there in the end ... Alexbrn (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

a bit too far

This is over stepping the mark [[10]], I get the frustration, but it only plays into their hands.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Is that not what "NPV should put both sides, or none at all" ends up with? (And in fact, have we not had this exact problem with David Irving?)Alexbrn (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

As I said I get why you said it, but its still not the way we should go about it. I am thinking it may soon be time for a not here ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I take your point and have partially deleted. This is already at ANI ... Alexbrn (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Greger talk page

I'm not sure I would have deleted that last comment. It wasn't useful or appropriate, but it wasn't inappropriate - it didn't contain insults or such. I think you may be over-policing things a bit. Brianyoumans (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious we're dealing with a career troll here (there's been something of a history of trolling in this topic space), and in any event their contributions are only damaging. The next step should probably be to protect the Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

bury the hatchet

You appear to be very knowledgeable about citation guidelines especially for medical articles, which I respect. So I'd just like to ask a layman question regarding sourcing for Bhakdi - I have changed my mind and think that his views should be described as "alternative" I think that is justified. However, I was just thinking, if an article is dedicated to "alternative" views, then might that justify the use of "alternative sources", since they would be the focus of the article? - I might add the above comment to the Bhakdi talk page (if it hasnt become to toxic yet!) regards Gd123lbp (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

In general, no. Sources need to be WP:FRIND, and per WP:GEVAL,

We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

In my experience, and per this policy, it is extremely rare for Wikipedia to relay alternative views, other than through the corrective lens of a mainstream source analysing them.

Burying the hatchet is good. As you have probably gathered, Wikipedia is generally extremely touchy about carrying medical misinformation. As I'm told, part of this stretches back in history to a time when Andrew Wakefield's work was popular and Wikipedia allowed itself to carry it too. Following from that disaster the medical sourcing guidelines were hugely tightened to ensure we carry only reputable, mainstream, accepted knowledge. Although Wikipedia does not give medical advice, it's one of the areas where bad articles have potential to do serious real-world harm. Alexbrn (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I see, that makes sense. Gd123lbp (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Why the reversion at Shiatsu?

Hi Alexbrn, just wondering why you reverted my edit to Shiatsu. I filled in more details from an existing source.AlexClwn (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The WP:LEDE is meant to be a summary of the body, not an expansion of it. Also, by omitting the detail in the source about how weak the evidence is, you introduced a WP:V problem. Please continue any further discussion at the article's Talk page. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Notification

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

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

I don't see you have an AP2 alert Springee (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

No, because I generally avoid AP2. There's enough insanity in the topics I do edit. Alexbrn (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I take COVID very seriously

Several times you have implied I don't take COVID seriously. That is absolutely not true. I worked on an emergency medical device to deal with shortages of respirators early on in the pandemic. Four family members have it right now (one had to go to the ER due to low oxygen levels). My sib described a patient who didn't make it due to COVID, "and there was terror in her eyes. Her eyes seemed to be saying "I am breathing as fast as humanly possible and it's not enough." I do not want to see that face ever again." Please do not presume to assume I want to downplay the severity of this virus. Springee (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say you were. However, you yourself were arguing in favour of using a source to "lend credibility" to someone who did. Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the problem with a discussion that goes for a while. As I said early in the discussion I agree with the original addition in that there is now evidence that the illness was here earlier than originally thought and it was exactly the same type of evidence used to originally dismiss the claim. Also, none of that would be relevant to the timeline removals. I also would 100% agree that this information does NOT prove the original claim, in fact it may further undermine it since heard immunity wouldn't occur if the virus had very limited distribution in the environment. Furthermore, if someone wants to object to the include as SYNTH etc I totally OK with that. My concern at the misinformation article is the same as at the timeline article. That is, this appears to be good information from a CDC study. I'm not sure I agree it implies much of anything in terms of the seriousness of the illness as the evidence says the virus was not wide spread early on and at this point we have plenty of data to say how serious, how transmissible etc. Being in the sciences myself I find information like this to add to my understanding and in my view makes for a better article. In the case of the timeline articles I would want the material in but with some type of qualifier to make it clear this is strong evidence of, not 100% proof. I apologies that you feel frustrated by this. That is not my intent. Springee (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is the evidence is not good in a normal scientific context, but in the context of what Wikipedia wants to convey ("accepted knowledge") it doesn't even move the needle. Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree this isn't good evidence in a normal scientific context. The blood samples are dated. Unless we question the custidy of the samples the only question seems to be the reliability of the anti-body test and how reliable an indicator it is for the virus. This evidence also correlates with a statistically significant uptick in ER visits with COVID like symptoms in December [[11]]. In searching for articles that support mid January as the earliest date all I've been able to find is that January was the first known case and most papers/article refer to it that way[[12]][[13]]. None of the sources I've found say it wasn't in the US earlier, only that mid January is the first known case and that was someone who got the virus in China. The only reference I've seen to say it was not (vs wasn't identified) are those in the misinformation media articles. They point to studies that would be, per MEDRS, primary. I think we will find this and other evidence will move the needle... but I acknowledge, and in fact have stated, Wikipedia doesn't say something is true until is is all but undeniable that saying the reverse is wrong. This is one of the issues with writing an encyclopedia about something that is happening in real time vs in the past. Springee (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, you seem to want to think it better evidence than the authors, who discuss a boatload of limitations before concluding "The findings of this report suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infections may have been present" (my emphasis). But this is beside the point, since it is not a usable source. Subsequent review might find it was fatally flawed in some way, as often happens. Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It was a failure to communicate on my part if you thought I was trying to say "the virus was in..." vs "there is evidence the virus was in". The former suggests beyond reasonable doubt certainty, the latter is a preponderance of evidence. I understand the guarded nature of making such claims and agree with their wording. Springee (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I added the references

Hi Alexbrn, I responded to your criticism of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement I added the references. Sincerely, Olgamatveeva (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to try to improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there appear to be some problems with your contributions - please see the discussion at WT:MED#Issues with out Antibody-dependent enhancement article. Alexbrn (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Turmeric

Hello. This is about Medical Research and Turmeric The cuuent wording that there is NO evidence of antiinflammatory effects is too strong, and the references given do not establish this "fact" especially as new evidence is now available. Even if this evidence turns out to be unconfirmed, it is still wrong to say there is NO evidence. I made the change to "little evidence" which seems far safer, dont you think? https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/jmf.2020.4778?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed& Garboard Strake (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No, because the dodgy source you cite probably doesn't amount to "scientific evidence", and in any case we follow more reliable sources. Please continue any further discussion on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Uyghur genocide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uyghur.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation

Hi. You have labelled Hitchens' views as "misinformation" when he says that lockdowns have destroyed the economy, which leads to huge increases in suicides (and a weakened healthcare system). He also has said that people have avoided going to hospital for treatment for heart attacks and other things and treatments for cancers has been put on hold (till it is too late). All these claims are provable, so labelling it all as "misinformation" is too broad a sweep. Yes, he does cite people like Bhakdi, whos claims are quite shocking sounding sometimes, but as John Ionannidis said, we are all just working to try to find the right answers. I believe your work in ensuring sources are reliable, especially in regard to medicine, is very important and I support the idea of discrediting dishonest people and spreaders of lies like David Icke. However, on covid and lockdowns, the picture is still developing and I think you should be a little more careful about labelling all of this criticism as "misinformation". It makes me curious to see someone defending the government narrative on this so completely, I just wonder, don't you question any of this? especially the sensationalist reports in the papers. Gd123lbp (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I did not label "everything" misinformation, and I did not mention the economy. If you want to believe anti-vaxxers, preposterous tabloid journalists, discredited scientists and blowhard pundits who have started believing their own-hype, that's your prerogative, as is your framing of the opposite to that as some kind of "government narrative". But Wikipedia is not the place to give oxygen to fringe views by (for example) showcasing dodgy Youtube videos. Alexbrn (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

To give things the label "misinformation" is to imply unidimensionality. I would love to know your opinion on what science the government has followed that has been wrong, if it isnt ALL misinformation. I do not believe anti-vaxxers, preposterous tabloid journalists, discredited scientists and blowhard pundits, I think people should think for themselves instead of being easily lead. Your characterisation there seems to suggest that you dont think there are any credible voices out there that have criticised the lockdowns or the science the government has followed - in which case you DO label it all as misinformation. By the way I appreciate discussing this with you, its nice to try to understand peoples points of view. Gd123lbp (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

What is done with the science is policy, which govts make well or badly, but the science is what it is - warts and all - and "lockdown skepticism" is rooted in a denial of the science. For information, the places to get your science are generally:

• Established major medical organizations (e.g. Australian Dept of Health, NHS)
• Medical text books (too early for COVID-19)
• Secondary medical literature in established journals (e.g. NEJM, The Lancet)
• For niche topics, specialised web sites with an established reputation for accuracy (e.g. Science-Based Medicine)

Where not to get your science:

• Social media (Facebook, Youtube etc.)
• Politicians (e.g. Donald Trump)
• The lay press in general, and tabloid newspapers in particular
• Primary medical research, unreviewed papers, and papers in fake and predatory journals
• Pop-sci and self-published books (e.g. [14])

The latter is merely for people who are invested in a particular kind of fantasy about reality and need to reinforce it to themselves. BTW, these tips are good for Wikipedia sourcing as well as for life. Alexbrn (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I notice that you didnt answer my question; "what science has the government followed that has been wrong". That, I suspect comes from the fact you believe in the phrase "THE science". I think that is the root of the problem here, it seems you tend to assume that the data is all in and everything is settled, hence government actions are merely following a script written by THE science and so any descent must be labelled as "misinformation". But research has been ongoing through this. The UK government has a particular set of scientific advisors that it has chosen (who have a conflict of interests as it turns out) some of whom such as Neil Ferguson and his imperial college team, have been discredited in their early modelling work on predictions (which the first lockdown decision was based on). The trouble with only listening to the NHS for instance, is that it of course has an agenda in supporting the governments virus response because it is a government organisation, so its objectivity in making a judgement over whether lockdowns are a good idea is questionable. There is also the way that cases have been recorded, the fact you can be diagnosed with covid and then get hit by a bus and be reported as a "covid death"; Japan doesnt do it like that, (and also other countries havent gone into lockdowns "based on the science") That of course would lead to a gross distortion of the figures. And the fact that you have to test for the virus, so as more testing happens, more cases appear (and then the papers sensationalise it and say that the figures show that the virus is going through the roof, and people get frightened and demand the government do more).

Dont you think that John Ioannidis' view on this is rather striking; the idea that the politicisation of the virus and the whole hysteria around it has damaged good quality scientific work and reporting (and the natural distorting effects of the mass media to make things sound worse than they are.) Thanks for your list but I was fully aware of all of that, I certainly think it is best to avoid lay press in general, and tabloid newspapers in particular opinion pieces when making serious scientific claims like "misinformation" and "conspiracy theorist" with stuff like this: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/02/germany-is-losing-the-fight-against-qanon/ best to be avoided if we want to be objective. Gd123lbp (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

"THE SCIENCE" is not a narrow monolith, but has shades to be found in the types of good sources I listed above, but there is strong consensus within that range about various aspects of this pandemic, and strong consensus about what constitutes misinformation (and no, that does not require scientific sourcing for obvious reasons, scientists have better things to do than expend huge amounts of effort debunking nonsense.). Good science is not determined in the types of poor sources I listed above. But sure, if you want to find sources to back up your world view you can believe David Icke (loony website) or Sucharit Bhakdi (self-published book / Fox News) or Peter Hitchens (Daily Mail) or ... whoever you want to play to your preferences; I think they all have similar stuff on COVID. Just don't try advocating that type of view on Wikipedia.

As for John Ionnidis - who has not so far as I know published anything on the pandemic in the types of good sources I mentioned -- his predictions perfectly exemplifies that continual process in science, "the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact", and it seems he is seen as having suffered a possibly terminal reputational blow as a consequence.[15]

Anyway, this is all unedifying. Please do not post to this talk page any more unless it is to discuss content from one of the high-quality types of sources I listed; I am not interested in debating crankery. Alexbrn (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Bon courage!!
	Hi Bon courage, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all you do--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ozzie - and to you and yours. Here's hoping 2021 will be more cheerful than 2020! Alexbrn (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

RNA Vaccine Censorship

Hello Alexbrn,

I would like to know why you are constantly censoring any info that addresses the very real concerns regarding mRNA vaccine. The latest example was: General Before 2020, no mRNA technology platform (drug or vaccine) had been authorized for use in humans, so there was a risk of unknown effects.[18] The 2020 coronavirus pandemic required faster production capability of mRNA vaccines, made them attractive to national health organisations, and led to debate about the type of initial authorization mRNA vaccines should get (including emergency use authorization or expanded access authorization) after the eight-week period of post-final human trials.[43][44]

The above is factual so I am not sure why you deleted it.

Also, I would like to request that the two topics, of Vaccine Hesitancy and Misinformation be separated, as they are not one and the same. I am hesitant to take a vaccine that does not have the safety trials as traditional vaccines do, but I am not spreading misinformation because of it.

My understanding was that wikipedia was neutral. However from what I have seen its very very biased and heavily censored.

Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donny1111 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo! Please discuss article content at the article's Talk page (i.e. Talk:RNA vaccine) so that other editors can see your comments too. But maybe before that please ensure you're familiar with Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

reverted edit on fluvoxamine use with COVID

i don't understand why my edits were reverted. every statement was verifiable from expert sources, including the study published in JAMA. This is potentially life saving information yet was reverted. Why? Stkirsch (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Alex stated that your source wasn't WP:MEDRS compatible in his edsum. That's why. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Tozinameran

We should be handing out the sanctions notice ASAP ... had we gotten it after the first copyvio, MER-C would be happier: [16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Anupam^Talk 20:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

On another note, I am firmly warning you for using the term "spamming" in your edit summary, twice now. I have been editing on the project much longer than you have and you should know better than to accuse an editor with much more decorations than you, of doing this. Anupam^Talk 21:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Haha. I'll leave it at that. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 21:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should have quotas here. Say, five spam links allowed for each barnstar received? – Uanfala (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Your great experience should mean you know it is WP:POINTy to do a "retaliation" template - an editor who templates you is obviously aware of its content. You should also have known that simply re-inserting challenged content is bad (which is why I warned you). Maybe something like WP:BRD might be of interest to you? In any case, stop it with the spammy links. Alexbrn (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Ivermectin Article Deletion

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 Reason to Gag

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcozzy (talk • contribs) 16:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

See the edit summary. Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33234158/ Jcozzy 17:59, 27 December 2020‎

Which is not a reliable WP:MEDRS source. Please continue any further dicsussion at Talk:Ivermectin. Alexbrn (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2020 (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.

Odd, that

One wonders how this editor got tools. So one investigates! Well, in spite of an unhelpful admin, the editor appears to have gotten the message, and seems to have stopped. Please ping me should you need help (per Spanish language). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Hola Sandy - is this meant for me? Alexbrn (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Oopsie !!! Brainfart ... Adrian J. Hunter ... !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ha, don't worry, I'm always getting confused with Adams and Andrews in real life. Just wait till you meet users Ahunt and JHunterJ.

Well I'm glad you think the problem was at the other end, and not with my explanations, which I thought were pretty clear.

Cheers Sandy! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)