User talk:Bon courage/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

writing gifts

You changed my "rhetorical abilities" in the sentence to "writing gifts." It's obvious that you have some vested interest in this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinnytony1 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think both "rhetorical skills" and "writing gifts" are overly personalized and unwarranted by the source. The rewrite by Jytdog looks good to me. User:Pontificator, 16:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC).

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

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Please elaborate

What fixes are needed in Daniel Fast? I'll remove the Bloomer et al sentence speaking of fiber ect. That's a vague medical claim being made by other than the analysis of Biblical passages. Other than that, there's no medical information for a review. I'll buy two recently published books on the Daniel Fast. Note that the existing book reference (White) alone supports much of the current text in the article.32cllou (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

PS I'm going to leave out any health claims not supported by the Biblical interpretation references.32cllou (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged the sources. Of the four, two are primary medical sources (do not use these for medical claims); one is self-published, and the other is a student essay (?). Not, in other words, WP:RS. Unless there's much stronger sourcing, I have serious doubts over whether this topic is notable enough to sustain an article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

But I didn't use them for medical claims, rather interpreting the Bible.32cllou (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC) The White reference is a re-publication of the original works, now on ePub at the request of her Estate. Someone removed ePub, and I forgot to put it back in.32cllou (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC) I removed the primary research article and text saying the diet could be healthy because it had fiber ect.32cllou (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC) And I moved the last paragraph into the first, leaving the text almost exclusively about the passages.32cllou (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't an accepted and University (as "research") published works of a college senior is not usable in this article? It's not required for the text, but supports it very well in several places.32cllou (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What is it? Who is the publisher? There seems to be a few journal articles out there, so no need for student work I'd have thought. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Someone else wanted more references, so I added the undergraduate senior project paper.[[1]]. Also see [[2]]. I could also pull from those two new books on the subject, and I'll buy and read them. Nothing isn't supported by the White or Bloomer references. I tried to remove it from Categories, but couldn't figure out how, thanks.32cllou (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Can I please remove the main tag? What about the tag on that senior paper? Or, should I remove that reference?32cllou (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It's probably best not to use it; looking around, this diet seems to get a fair few mentions in the literature, so I withdraw my grumble about notability. Thanks for creating an article! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me clean it up.

Isn't it OK if there's your tag saying potentially unreliable? It is well written and referenced, published, local (University practicing the Fast periodically), and adds wonderful religious dimensions to the fast. It does a better job than White speaking of the Spirit, mind, and body aspects of the fast. I also think it's good to give credit to the author for their contribution to the Daniel Fast article. I'll remove it if you insist.32cllou (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to read the "mentions in the literature" you found!!32cllou (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing particularly usable (more primary studies mainly) - but mentions in e.g. this NYT article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm not so sure I need to buy those two books. Interesting article, Thanks again.32cllou (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Cancer Immunotherapy

Hi Alexbrn, You removed some content on the cancer immunotherapy article regarding new information by the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health, and Science Magazine/Journal, with the stated reason that WP:MEDRS was violated. These sources are very reliable, and many more sources on the subject are available with a quick google search. You seem to be a valuable member of the wikipedia community, have edited many articles, and I believe I saw that you are a cancer survivor yourself. My family has been affected by cancer as well. I'm confused why you wouldn't want information regarding one of the most promising avenues of cancer immunotherapy treatment added to the cancer immunotherapy article. Thx Whodat2112 (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll answer on the Talk page there, but it's important to bear in mind that very many things that seem promising turn out not to be - and Wikipedia has to be very careful not to "jump the gun" and overstate the proven potential for treatment in the same way that the news media habitually does. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Alex, I think your suggestion is reasonable. I'll continue this discussion on the talk page there as well. Whodat2112 (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

"POV edits" to intestinal permeability?

I added in five journal citations to support the role of zonulin in intestinal permeability, as well as a PR release about a drug (Larazotide acetate) that successfully completed phase IIb trials that targets intestinal permeability. Can you explain why you believe these edits are POV? And which citation(s) do you believe are not from a reliable source? The discovery of TJ regulator zonulin in 2000 during research into cholera, and the development of Larazotide acetate seem like very important info to include on a stub-quality article on intestinal permeability. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! The place to discuss this is the article talk page, but in brief sourcing things to primary sources gives undue weight to their POV. For biomedical content sources should conform to WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, perhaps you're new here (well, newer than me, it seems), but the place to discuss rude behavior is on the talk page of the respective editor. You made a wholesale revert, including a journal review article (not a primary source), which you likely didn't even look at since your revert was 5 minutes after my commit. You also threw out the baby with the bathwater on phase IIb trial completion on a drug targeting this mechanism, as well as some clarifying changes in the lede, which should have been 100% uncontroversial. Please be more careful in the future. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Pro crast in a tor your edits could not stand as they were; and Alexbrn's revert and edit note were fine and not over any line. He is one of the good guys, keeping loads of FRINGE crap out of WP. The next step for you should have been to discuss on the article Talk page as per WP:BRD - not to come here. Contentwise your edits did blur the line a bit b/n leaky bowel and IP, and the primary sources you brought were not going to stick. Even beyond that, there is nothing that is "100% uncontroversial" in a truly democratic place like Wikipedia. If you take umbrage at little things like this and complain you are going to burn out very quickly here and get caught up in drahma instead of spending your time improving articles - please get a bit thicker skin (and I hope you do!) so you and others can be happier here and can focus on article content. You did introduce some good stuff that was salvageable -- your edit has contributed to Wikipedia, through the back and forth process that everything goes through. That is great! Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I believe that Alexbrn's wholesale revert 5 minutes after the edit, saying it was POV even though I had review source backing, could be interpreted as an intentional attempt to dissuade another editor's involvement in the page. You indirectly acknowledge this when you suggest I should "grow a thicker skin", implying that not all are welcome here. I'll call him/her out on this rude behavior, and I'll do so on their talk page, as it's not about the article but about the particular editor's behavior. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

alexbrn did nothing wrong. if you really think that it was bad - worth all the fuss you are making - you have not been around here very long and seen the things that actually are bad. my advice that you not take offense so easily. take it or leave it! Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I tried to make my reverting edit summary as informative as possible. Pro crast in a tor did too: their edit summary said "'leaky gut' is becoming non-alternative medicine theory", and in the context of how these terms are used in our articles, this is an unsupported POV we need to avoid. The thought that reverting a bold edit is "rude" is ... interesting! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Co-mentoring

Hi Alexbrn. I am grateful for the opportunity to work with you on Wikipedia, and look at this as an opportunity for "co-mentoring", given your experience and expertise with Wikipedia and whatever of value I may be able to offer back. I noticed that when I made some edits to a controversial article you undid my edits and tagged another unrelated article I have been working on. Thank you for helping me to understand the importance of sync with a primary article, attending to appearances that relate to neutral point of view, and minimizing or eliminating use of primary sources. I encourage us to use this as an opportunity to develop rapport and open communication for future work on Wikipedia. Sincerely, TheProfessor (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

Please don't edit war, Alexbrn. The sources listed are primary sources and you're making misleading edit summaries. I've started a discussion at the talk page. See you there. DVMt (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In point of fact, you are the one repeatedly attempting to modify established lede text which has been the subject of extensive discussion and represents a strong consensus. A better was to proceed is set out at WP:BRD. Notice the "D" follows the "R". You are mistaken about these being primary sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Move request of Melancholia

A discussion is taking place on the title of this article at Talk:Melancholia#Requested_move. All input welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Chopra

I see multiple parts that are not compliant with WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE now. For instance even the New Republic article was removed, a textbook violation of WP:PSCI resulting in a whitewashing. In order to avoid the "too many cooks in the kitchen" phenomenon, my preference would be to let you jump in before I (or FTN, or anyone) gets involved. It's disappointing that SlimVirgin didn't substantially respond to my points on the talk page. vzaak 17:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I have been rather disengaged from WP recently, but have been keeping an eye on this article. Looking now, I do think there are neutrality problems, though not sure if I have the stomach/time to take them on. Perhaps FT/N might be the right venue for a widened consensus after all ... ?

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Health Effects of Honey

Hello sir! Thanks for monitoring this page; however you reverted the content for inappropriate reasons. Here is the quote describing the revert: "Rv to neutral, restore information about botulism, remove poor sources." The information about botulism was still present in my changes. Moreover that information is more thoroughly discussed elsewhere in the article. Also you reverted to "remove poor sources" - would you consider Cochrane reviews poor sources? Cochrane Reports are some of the best evidence available used to determine medical treatments (http://www.cochrane.org/about-us/evidence-based-health-care). I put a lot of time and effort into researching my contributions to that page because the current page is very threadbare and appears misleading or even biased towards the pharmaceutical industry. I would appreciate it if you would revert back. If there are any specific changes you would like to make, feel free to edit the content, but please don't wipe these changes entirely. Thanks. Dryphi (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

We are citing the most recent Cochrane reviews, I believe. You added some primary sources - we really shouldn't use these when we have good secondary sources, as set out in WP:MEDRS. On botulism, you are right: that information was present in both your version and the one I reverted to. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the right thing

Hello Alexbrn, User:SueDonem has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! SueDonem (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Health Effects of Honey: Cough

Thanks for monitoring this page; however you reverted the content for inappropriate reasons. Here is the quote describing the revert: "Rv to neutral, restore information about botulism, remove poor sources." The information about botulism was still present in my changes. Moreover that information is more thoroughly discussed elsewhere in the article. Also you reverted to "remove poor sources" - would you consider Cochrane reviews poor sources? Cochrane Reports are some of the best evidence available used to determine medical treatments (http://www.cochrane.org/about-us/evidence-based-health-care). Also in regards to the re-edit: "Rv poorly sourced & too much direct quotation - kindly raise on Talk before reverting. (TW))." I understand that this page has been recommended for edits as part of the medicine project because there was too much info on alternative medicine. However the page, as currently written, appears biased the other way - i.e. towards the pharmaceutical industry. As an MD I have come to understand that reality is more likely somewhere in the middle. Stating that there is "no good evidence" is just plain false when clearly literature on the topic exists. I put a lot of time and effort into researching my contributions to that page because the current page is very threadbare and appears misleading or even biased towards industry. I will revert the page back. If there are any specific changes you would like to make, feel free to edit the content, but please don't wipe these changes entirely. Thanks. Dryphi (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! We shouldn't use primary sources, especially to question the high-quality secondary ones we cite. This conversation would be better taking place on the article's Talk page - see you there. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials are level I evidence. Also even the Cochrane reviews report some potential benefit and superiority over diphenhydramine. As written the page is misleading. Users go to Wikipedia for information; hence all available information should be plainly presented.Dryphi (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Also the Cochrane reviews were for two different topics: one was for honey as a lozenge, the other was for honey versus OTC meds +/- antibiotics. These are very different presentations and treatment modalities (i.e. acute vs. chronic cough). Both reviews should be included. While I appreciate your contributions and monitoring of this page, your edits are excessively terse. This appears biased and misleading. We should present all available evidence (for and against) in a succinct, fair, non-partial manner.Dryphi (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Aquatic therapy - Professional training and certification

Thank you for your interest in the Aquatic therapy article. Recently you deleted content from the section on Professional training and certification. Please discuss appropriate content and offer help editing this section at Talk:Aquatic_therapy#Professional_training_and_certification. Thanks again. TheProfessor (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello again! I responded at the article's Talk page - we should try and keep discussion about content there ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of good work

Dear Alexbrn,

Why did you feel the need to efface my recent contribution to macrobiotic brown rice diet please?

Know that the only reason I posted that, was to help people who wish to lead a healthier lifestyle, and in doing so avoid the risk of death which you emphasise. Is this to do with the sale of processed food perhaps?

Yours sincerely,

Anglyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anglyn (talk • contribs) 09:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Content added to Wikipedia needs to be sourced to a reliable source. I'm a recent convert to brown rice, BTW, but I don't wash it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for tireless article development and safeguarding contentious articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Editor Jytdog submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Editor Alexbrn as Editor of the Week for diligent, careful, and civil work on contentious articles, especially for removing quackery from health-related articles and keeping fringe content out of many articles.

• You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

This editor enjoys photography

Alexbrn

Editor of the Week for the week beginning June 22, 2014

A WikiDragon, an active editor at keeping fringe content out of a multitude of health-related articles.

Recognized for

diligent, careful, and civil work on contentious articles

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ```Buster Seven Talk 14:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Congrats Alexbrn on becoming Editor of the Week. Jim Carter ^(talk) 14:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Very well deserved award, particularly for the seemingly bottomless reserve of patience on difficult articles with troubled editing environments. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys! What can I say other than awwwww shucks? I'm not sure how "tireless" I am since just recently, feeling tired of Wikipedia, I cleared my watchlist. However - this award is an encouragement to keep my hand in so ... thanks again! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

5:2 Diet

Hi Alexbrn,

I saw your edits on 5:2 diet. They looked good!

I kind of republished one of your edits. You can see it here I think : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=5%3A2_diet&diff=615788592&oldid=615247424 Let me know what you think. I added the guy suggesting it's name. He's one of the creators of the diet. I personally don't see why this wouldn't be pertinent to the topic. In fact it seems like the more info we could get about how this guy thinks about and describes the diet on the page the better. Let me know if there's a problem or whatever, you've probably been around the Wikipedia editing block longer than I have, but I would still like to contribute!

I wanted to ask your advice. You removed some material I added to the page, in the lede, about how intermittent fasting has been tested in animal models. I agree with you that what I wrote could be improved upon and would be better to include in the body of the page and then summarize in the lede.

My question is how do you think I should go about doing this? It seems like the NHS article claiming that there has not been much research done on the health effects of the 5:2 diet did not include a review of the research, did mention testing of intermittent fasting in animals, and did mention two studies done on the 5:2 diet (but the author of the article admits he or she didn't even do an exhaustive search for studies on the diet). I feel strongly that it is unfair to the diet to say contrary to the benefits claimed by the authors of the diet, there is little evidence for the diet. I feel like it would be more fair to say somehow that research is ongoing, or saying that there have been some research showing benefits but that more is needed to be conclusive. That's how I hear the NIH summarizing research in some cases, "supportive but not conclusive research supports the claim that..." I wanted to ask your opinion about how to approach this topic. Editing on Wikipedia about scientific studies is important but can be tricky. Do you have any suggestions about how to discuss this topic? I think your edits were of a good quality so I thought maybe you'd have some advice. Thanks! makeswell (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! The issue here is that Wikipedia has ultra-strict guidelines for biomedical content in WP:MEDRS - and advice from Mosely or inclusion of animal studies (primary research) both fail to meet its requirements. If we want more medical content, we need to wait for better sources to emerge. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Makeswell – Ah, I see you've added Moseley's medical advice and the mouse study back in: this is not good content because of the WP:MEDRS guideline I mentioned. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks

Please do not launch any personal attacks, like you did here, or I will request for an administrator to intervene. You are, of course, always free to provide constructive feedback anytime. Thank you. -A1candidate (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something I don't see how that 4 word post in the diff cited above could be construed as a personal attack.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree - I don't see how it is a personal attack either. A1candidate, to be honest I read your post and I had a hard time figuring out your tone... it seemed kind of sarcastic or ironic to me at points as well. Was it? Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Keithbob - He first tried to prevent editors from answering to my post by incorrectly referring to WP:DFTT. Then, he directly accused me of sacarsm. After someone pointed out that there was no sacarsm, he continued to call me out instead of discussing the issues I brought up. It felt like a weak (but annoying) attempt to distract from a serious discussion.

@Jytdog - Even if there was a tinge of sarcasm in my post, everyone else was discussing the issues that I've brought up instead of making personal accusations. Why couldn't Alexbrn do the same? I feel that many of the scientific papers that I've recently read may not have a very strong empirical basis and I wanted to hear the opinions of more experienced editors. I'm against all forms of quackery and pseudoscience promotion, so except for the paragraph on acupuncture, my posts aren't meant to be sarcastic at all.

I only wanted to ensure that Alexbrn stops distracting other editors from the points I've brought up. He could have discussed the issues I highlighted, just like what other editors did, and he is still welcome to do so anytime. -A1candidate (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Enough

A1candidate – please do not post on my Talk page again. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Orthopathy

Have you a moment to take a look? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That does look interesting. bobrayner (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup, this was a victim of my watchlist clearing; I'll re-add it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It is educational to examine a series of edits like that. For me, all I could see was a sledgehammer approach, due to a pit of the stomach feeling that occurred when I saw the page. Thanks guys. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If one of you is watching the page, then I'll take it off my watchlist, as I know it's in safe hands (and there are so many other things to watch). bobrayner (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil

Your diff shows a covert hostility. Please be civil. - - Technophant (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not write on my Talk page again. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Circumcision and HIV

Hey Alex, a relatively new editor has been proposing some new content at Circumcision and HIV. I pulled the latest proposed content change out of the article and put in on the Talk page for discussion here. You recently did some cleanup of the sourcing for the article so would love to have your input. Thanks... Zad68 14:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Zad, I'll take a look ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

ubiquinol and liver health revision

Dear Alexbrn,

It appears you removed the entire Liver Health section on the basis that you were reverting an edit done by RonZ.

This is incorrect. RonZ never edited the Liver Health section. Only Dr Pixie had a comment, and if you read her talk page, you can see that I followed instructions to add another reference.

Thank you for reviewing, but I wanted you to have an informed basis for the reason for undoing your edit.

Sincerely,

Committed molecules (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I was simply removing poorly-sourced content - have commented on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

ubiquinol and liver health

Dear Alexbrn,

Hello and thank you again.

Please note that there is not a policy that states primary studies can not be used.

As it says, "The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors."

Therefore, I will adjust the text to include that text should not be used to support a conclusion, particularly in relation to human health.

Sincerely, Committed molecules (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken - please read WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

And now you've added the content for a third time, without discussion: this is edit-warring (as you have been warned) and could lead to a block. Other editors will no doubt want to comment so I shall check back later to see. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Medcan Clinic#Notability

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Medcan Clinic#Notability. Cheers!

P.S. I appreciate the input you have provided at Talk:Medcan Clinic already. Thanks. —Unforgettableid (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Honey

Dear User:Alexbrn, unless you can provide specific evidence of why my edits were "non-neutral", I will lodge a complaint against you for deliberate vandalism. Very trivial (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Where to start? One example is calling a 2013 Cochrane review that considered 45 trials "one study", and then howevering it with a citation from a fringe journal. Please ensure any health-related content you add to Wikipedia is in line with WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dubious flag

Don't come up with your "edit war" accusations. There is currently a debate over a source that I believe to be dubious. You are not entitled to remove this tag. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please self-revert?

Edit-warring is not the way to win content disputes. Can you please self-revert and discuss this on the article talk page, please? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Errrm, I can hardly be edit warring when I have made zero substantive edits to the lede previously. Discussion is in progress, and reverting your bold edit is quite conventional ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to urge you to self-revert, or revert to the original version. There is no reason why we can't arrive at a consensus wording by calm discussion and compromise on the talk page. Edit warring is not the solution, no matter how right you think you are.- MrX 12:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not sure if you understand how WP:BRD works. Someone else made the bold edit, which I reverted. At that point, you're supposed to discuss the change until consensus is reached. What you did is WP:BRRD. So, can you please self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read the policy. I am not edit warring: that requires repeated edits. I have made exactly one substantive edit to the lede. I agree discussion may further improve the lede - please continue. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of policy and a group edit-war is still an edit-war. Again, I'm asking you to follow WP:BRD. Would you be willing to do that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe "group edit-war" is a novel term; I don't see that in policy! No, I think we need to keep the article in line with policy, and it seems a new consensus is emerging against some rather fringey POV-pushing that's held sway. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It's explained in the very first sentence of Wikipedia:Edit warring: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion." Note that "editors" is plural. I also believe that we should keep the article in line with policy and I'm all for removing any fringey slant that exists in the article. But the bold edit wasn't an improvement and we should still follow WP:BRD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Note the word "repeatedly", I have not repeatedly done anything (whereas you restored your own deleted content I now notice). If you think I'm edit warring report me to the appropriate noticeboard; I believe that doing so would however be tendentious. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it so unreasonable to roll back to the original version so that we can collaboratively address the issues? I struggle to see the downside to that. There is a reason why WP:BRD is so often mentioned in disputes like this. It's the fairest way to approach resolving a content dispute.- MrX 13:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I didn't say that you did anything repeatedly. What I am saying is that we should be following WP:BRD. This is how BRD is supposed to work:

• Editor A makes bold edit.
• Editor B reverts bold edit.
• Editors discuss on article talk page.

This is not BRD:

• Editor A makes bold edit.
• Editor B reverts bold edit.
• Editor C reverts editor B
• Editor D reverts editor C.
• Editor E reverts editor D.:

Do you see the difference? In the second scenario, there's clearly an edit-war going on although no single editor reverted more than once. The problem with BRD is that it only works if everyone agrees to follow it.

No, I'm not going to report anyone. I'd rather work this out through talk page discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

To quote WP:BRD: "BRD is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed" (my bold). Let the discussions continue ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Most editors interpret BRD to apply collectively to all editors of an article. I'm not sure when that was added to BRD, but if it's encouraging editors to edit-war rather than discuss, it probably needs to be changed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Also from WP:BRD: "There is ... no requirement that 'the consensus version' or 'the long-standing version' or any other version of the page be visible during discussion". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, that's not how most editors interpret BRD. And logically speaking, if everyone follows the BRD cycle, the version before the bold edit is restored by default. The only way the previous version is not restored is if editors aren't following the BRD cycle. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Not my problem if most editors are mistaken (which isn't my experience anyway). In any case, my revert here was not consciously a WP:BRD step, it was done - as the edit summary said - for reasons of neutrality. I merely mentioned WP:BRD as an example of how bold reverting can be considered okay. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an incredibly unhelpful and arrogant attitude. This project is based on collaboration and cooperation, not self-appointed arbiters of the truth.- MrX 14:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm Yes, "collaboration and cooperation" but within the framework of the WP:PAGs. Inventing rules and insisting on them might (allow me to suggest) be something that's really "unhelpful and arrogant" ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If editors "interpret" a guideline other than how it is written they are mistaken. Alexbrn did not provide an interpretation he gave a verbatim quote from BRD. Interpretations at variance from what the guideline actually states are obviously mistaken. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that this energy would be better spent on improving the article. I have made a wording proposal and would like to hear everyone's thoughts. Thanks.- MrX 14:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"If editors "interpret" a guideline other than how it is written they are mistaken." On Wikipedia, policies/guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Leonard Orr

Hi Alex, it seems from your "interventions" to the Leonard Orr page and Rebirthing-Breathwork page that you are trying to protect the general public from the quakery of rebirthing. Although this is a noble sentiment, I wish you could achieve your objectives without destroying many hours of my work. The controversies that you brought up are relevant and should be included in the page on Rebirthing-Breathwork (the method); however, they do not justify deleting the whole biographical page on Leonard Orr.

This article, not quite finished, although relying mostly on the sources close to Leonard Orr, gave quite objectively the basic facts of his life. It also presented, in an objective manner, some of his views, even those that seem quite irrational for many people. All of this was well referenced, and represented much progress comparing to the initial article.

This article should, by all means, address some controversies regarding Leonard Orr as a person - I would encourage you to post them if you have any relevant information. However, controversies about the METHOD I would rather see expressed in the article on Rebirthing-Breathwork. Again, these controversies do not justify deleting the work of the previous contributors.

Also, I would like to point out that using "expert opinions" of Singer and Lalich, or even Norcross, J.C., Koocher, G.P., & Garofolo, A. (2006), contains a popular logical fallacy. Because some experts say something, it does not mean that this is true.

Also your use of the reference: Radford B (2000). "New Age 'Rebirthing' Treatment Kills Girl". Skeptical Inquirer 24 (5): 6., seems to suggest that you confuse two different methods: Attachment Therapy, unfortunately also known as Rebirthing, that led to the death of a Colorado girl (this involved putting the girl under the blanket and requesting that she frees herself by force), and Orr's mehod of Rebirthing-Breathwork.

In other words, Alex, I would kindly request that you restore the article on Leonard Orr to the latest version I authored, and let me work on it.

Kind regards, Piotr Rajski. Prajski (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! It's true I boldly merged the Orr article into Rebirthing-breathwork, but transparently so, leaving a clear edit summary in the article and at WP:FT/N to ensure many eyes saw it. In my view the article was so blatantly adrift of Wikipedia's WP:PAGs that this was the sensible course of action. On your particular points about sourcing we are bound to follow reliable sources. I am aware that Attachment Therapy is a different thing to Orr's stuff, but nothing in our content here suggests otherwise. I suggest if you wish to pursue this, either commenting at WP:FT/N or on the Talk page of Rebirthing-breathwork requesting a split. There is no point pursuing it here, and I will not revert my edit as I think that would damage Wikipedia. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) holy cow that was some cleanup! thank you for that. i've watchlisted it. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

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

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Blippy (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Middle8

This user seems to be in denial about his COI (see the essay linked from his sig). I have looked long and hard but cannot find any comparable debate about whether giving measurable doses of pharmacologically active substances can cause objectively measurable effects on the body. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In my view the linked essay does not properly reflect the community consensus expressed at WP:COI/N - and its text embodies (yes) a denial. More generally I think there is a neutrality problem for the acupuncture article, but the problematic editing there (of all kinds) has driven me away and I don't see any clean solution in prospect. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The community consensus is actually at WP:COI, isn't it? And isn't COI/N a forum for discussion based on those guidelines?

It might help if I explain my though processes some more. While you may not agree, I hope you can at least see that I take the issue seriously and have specific ways of self-monitoring.

It's important to realize that started the discussion at COI/N not knowing that WP:COI had in fact retained the "profession is not sufficient to create COI" criterion; I only found out about that partway through (see here and here), and while the "instruction" I received at COI/N weighs, the simple fact is that much of that instruction came from editors simply ignorant of what WP:COI actually says. Additionally, and this may be hard to hear, most of the participants at my COI/N were scientific skeptic types, a couple of them quite annoyed with my over a concurrent RfC/U, and their guidance on COI was far more "hardcore" than other guidance I've seen on WP (coincidentally, some via Guy Macon with whom I was just e/c'd below -- thus proving psi [joke]). Don't misunderstand me: my COI/N weighs, considerably, but it's far from representative of other guidance I've seen, including RfC's on the far-more-COI-ish issue of paid advocacy that were not conclusive, and the ArbCom case involving TimidGuy and Will Beback that said that WP"s COI guidelines are vague and even contradictory. All these things factor in, and ultimately I believe the right thing is to follow WP:COI and hold myself to objectively high standards (more on which in a sec).

I'll post more at Guy's user talk, but take strong issue with the idea that I'm "in denial" and that one can't possibly recognize one's biases. My essay makes clear, I hope, that I've engaged and considered the issue, that I recognize the argument for my having a COI (potentially profiting from unduly positive depiction of acu), and that I have identified and acted on ways to hold my editing to high standards. How to deal with one's biases? One's edits are objective entities and can be compared to reasonably objective yardsticks. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 14:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

These points were covered in some detail at COIN. Apparently you've made up your mind and will rationalize away any discordant view. I don't see in that case there's any point in my adding more. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see my view in that light. I'd hoped you would at least take away from the discussion that I am serious about the issues of editorial bias and accountability. Another way to put it would be that I do agree that I have a COI or elements of it, but that on WP it is subthreshold, given WP:COI. I've given the issue a lot of consideration and continue to, and I know that I am not exactly clueless or obtuse about it; see Jytdog's comment on my user talk page. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 17:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I specifically mentioned other sources of information besides COI/N, and those points weren't covered at COI/N at all. They too weighed, and weigh, in my consideration. Although you don't acknowledge it, our views aren't wholly discordant, far from it. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 20:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

My new essay

...differs considerably from my old one, and incorporates some of what we've discussed, as well as material from my COI/N, etc. User:Middle_8/COI regards, --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 07:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

That looks a lot more candid, however I still think you wrongly apply WP:COI to your own circumstances because you equate being an acupuncturist as simply "having a profession". It's not equivalent, as it entails subscribing to an irrational belief system and is bound to selling one specific "product" only. This was aired at COIN and you yourself wrote of your "committment" to acupuncture. BTW, there is nothing wrong in itself with having a COI; I've heard it said that the more COIs one has, the more evidence there is one's doing something in life. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I like that comment about COI. I don't remember whatever I said about "commitment". My investment in the profession is that I hold a license and have done some teaching (both TCM and natural sciences) but have been on indefinite sabbatical for awhile, handling other life matters.

I notice you said "subscribing" to an irrational belief system, which isn't a bad term to use, because it's distinct from "adopting" a belief system. That is, one doesn't have to believe in TCM to practice it; one can (and many if not most, IME, do) relate to its ideas as "clinically useful metaphors". (For example "Damp Heat", capitalized to indicate that it's a TCM-specific term of art, connotes signs and symptoms that overlap significantly with inflammation and frequently purulence.)

We've talked about "product" before; that concern is imo alleviated when one practices more like massage therapists do, e.g. especially to help one relax and help loosen muscle tension, and sans the TCM diagnostics (although those are important for herbs, a whole 'nuther matter). Lots of people come for acupuncture as a periodic, nonspecific "tune-up" and know exactly what they want and what they're getting. In fact that's many acu'ists bread and butter (and is primarily how I have practiced it) and I don't see ethical problems with that. OTOH, there are patients who swear by acu (or homeopathy or whatever) for alleviation of particular conditions for which it's almost certainly a placebo, but they're habituated, so it's an interesting question, for the disinterested observer, whether to intervene and tell them their imaginary friend isn't real. Cf. "foma" (Bokononism). --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 01:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at BlackLight Power. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Whose sock are you?

Just wondering...because of not showing comments like this in your archive: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexbrn&diff=prev&oldid=603416935 --178.197.224.9 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

i reckon your comments are deleted because you are not saying anything worth responding to or keeping. If you have a specific concern about a specific edit, you should make it. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

And in fact this is preserved in my archive #2 - in general I archive everything except bot notifications. Not that there's anything worth preserving in this particlar exchange! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding Slimming World article

Hi Alexbrn,

Thank you for your contributions to the Slimming World article.

I notice that you added an efficacy suggestion which said: 'In common with most other weight loss programmes, Slimming World's regime does not help achieve weight loss any better than increasing exercise levels alone,' citing a study in the British Medical Journal. While the study did include an exercise comparator, it did not control for diet among this group so it cannot be concluded that the participants lost weight through 'exercise alone' as participants may have made dietary changes too. In addition, the conclusion of the study was that 'commercially provided weight management services are more effective and cheaper than primary care based services led by specially trained staff, which are ineffective.' It would be excellent if this point could be added in order to give a more balanced view of the effectiveness of the programme. There was also a follow-up study by the same authors in the British Journal of General Practice in 2014 that compared weight losses of the different commercial providers at 12 months that might be of interest. It concluded that 'at 12 months Slimming World led to greater weight loss but the differences between commercial programmes was small and of minor clinical importance'.

Thank you for starting the efficacy section in the Slimming World article. There is a good deal of published evidence demonstrating the programme's effectiveness at helping people to lose weight that could be included within the Wikipedia article to give a more balanced picture of the evidence. Below are links to published evidence demonstrating Slimming World's effectiveness at 12 weeks, 6 months and for people across BMI's, when patients are referred by the NHS.

Referral to SW achieves clinically safe and effective weight lossStubbs, J., Pallister, C., Whybrow, S., Avery, A. and Lavin, J. (2011). Weight outcomes audit for 34,271 adults referred to a primary care/commercial weight management partnership scheme. Obesity Facts, 4(2): 113-120

Stubbs, R. J., Brogelli, D. J., Pallister, C. J., Whybrow, S., Avery, A. J. and Lavin, J. H. (2012), Attendance and weight outcomes in 4754 adults referred over 6 months to a primary care/commercial weight management partnership scheme. Clinical Obesity, 2: 6–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1758-8111.2012.00040.x

Stubbs, J., Brogelli, D., Allan, J., Pallister, C., Whybrow, S., Avery, A. and Lavin, J. (2013) Service evaluation of weight outcomes as a function of initial BMI in 34,271 adults referred to a primary care/commercial weight management partnership scheme. BMC Research Notes, 6:161 doi:10.1186/1756-0500-6-161

There is also evidence for the effectiveness of the programme for self-funding members. Below is a link to published abstracts looking at 1.2 million self-funding Slimming World members - the largest ever audit of a lifestyle-based weight management programme. These posters were presented at the European Congress on Obesity (ECO) 2013 and demonstrate Slimming World's effectiveness at 12 weeks, 6 months and for people across BMI's. All three abstracts can be found in Obesity Facts' supplementary journal for ECO at this link on page 189.

Stubbs, J., Whybrow, S., Avery, A., Pallister, C. and Lavin, J. (2013). Weight outcomes in 1.2 million Slimming World members during their initial 3 months’ membership. Obesity Facts 6(1):189

Stubbs, J., Morris, L., Pallister, C., Avery, A., Horgan, G., and Lavin, J. (2013). Weight outcomes as a function of BMI in 1.2 million members of a commercial weight management programme. Obesity Facts 6(1):189

Pallister, C., Stubbs, J., Morris, L., Avery, A. and Lavin, J. (2013). 12 month weight outcomes in 45,395 high-engagers with the Slimming World weight management programme. Obesity Facts 6(1):189

Finally, here is a link to evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of the Slimming World programme in helping people to develop healthy lifestyle behaviours.

Pallister, C., Avery, A., Stubbs, J. and Lavin, J. (2009). Influence of Slimming World’s lifestyle programme on diet, activity behaviour and health of participants and their families. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 24(4): 351-358

Please let me know whether this information might be of interest to you in order to update and add to the efficacy section that you created. Like you, I am keen to produce a balanced, objective and informed article so please do let me know if I can be of any help or assistance. Thank you for your time and interest in the organisation.

Best Regards

Leigh Greenwood

Senior Press Officer

LeighGreenwood (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! It's been a while since I worked on that article, and I haven't been watching it. In general we don't need to (in fact shouldn't) "balance" anything, but just reflect what the best sources say. For any information about diet effectiveness we need a good WP:MEDRS source. You mention PMID 24567651 which looks like a good candidate - it seems from this the SW diet is about the same as the others assessed (and a bit better than the NHS offering). The article should probably be updated to reflect that. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alex! Thanks for the fast reply! And thank you for pointing me to the WP:MEDRS article which is really helpful. It would be excellent if you would be able to update the article as an independent party to reflect the finding that commercial weight loss programmes like Slimming World have been found to be more effective than primary care based services. Thanks again for your time and appreciate your quick response.

LeighGreenwood (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@LeighGreenwood: okay, looking at this some more PMID 24567651 is in fact a cohort study (my mistake) and so not really good enough quality to be usable. I'll take another look at the secondary sources and wording and see if we're up-to-date here ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Hi Alex, hope you are well. No problem. Looking again at the WP:MEDRS article I notice that it lists 'medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies' as an ideal source. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recently updated its advice for managing overweight and obesity in adults and recommends Slimming World as an effective weight loss solution at point 12 in its guidance. You can view the guidance here. Just thought that might be of interest if you make an update. Many thanks again. LeighGreenwood (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Phosphatidylserine

Why did you remove cancer research on Phosphatidyslerine page? The reference was more than adequate. I am considering adding it back. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phosphatidylserine&diff=623565508&oldid=623354166 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edcpf (talk • contribs) 10:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! It's primary biomedical research and so fails WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello Alexbrn, You may be interested in a new discussion on the Extraterrestrial life Talk page. Your comment/input would be welcome. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Gokhale Method Page -- Suggestion for Deletion

Hi Alexbrn! I noticed that you suggested the page I recently created about the Gokhale Method for deletion. I am rather new to Wikipedia, but having listened and learned from your criticisms and the criticisms of another user, Ronz, I have substantially revised the article I wrote. I made special efforts to include notable, independent, unbiased, and reliable sources as the basis for the article. I also included a section about notable patients who have studied the Gokhale Method, which I found in a reliable source. I removed any explicit references in the text to the website for the Gokhale Method, and I kept references to Gokhale's own work and presentations to a minimum. The bulk of the article now relies on secondary sources. I found additional independent, unbiased sources and included them in the further reading section. I was also able to find criticisms of the Gokhale Method from a notable source, for which I created a new section in the article. Please come and take a look at the new version of the page when you get a chance. Thanks! Cheers, Dandem1 (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

French fries and cancer

Hi there, I've found the following references to support the research conducted by the University of Maastricht. The original reference, a newspaper article, was indeed very flimsy.

• 1. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/December/05120703.asp
• 2. http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/11/2304.full

The reference that you use for your edit (http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/acrylamide) actually uses the same Dutch research(es) in its own list of references. It is very disconcerting, to read about the significantly higher risk of certain types of cancer that were found in the Dutch research, in connection with the intake of acrylamide. Concluding text from #2: If the associations we have observed in this study were found to be causal, acrylamide in food today could prove to be a relevant health hazard. Therefore, we encourage other researchers to prospectively investigate the association between dietary acrylamide intake and cancer in hormone-sensitive organs. As such, I find the statement that is now in the French fries article -"it is not clear, as of 2013, whether acrylamide consumption affects people's risk of getting cancer"- a bit too general. Perhaps something along the lines "high amounts of acrylamide in foods such as French fries have been found to correspond with certain forms of cancer, although direct links still have not been determined." - Takeaway (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) the current statement you quote is exactly accurate. we do not know. please do not push the evidence harder than it will bear. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Discussion of the article content should take place on its Talk page but in brief I think that since the multiple sources on this topic have been reviewed by the American Cancer Society and they conclude from them the picture is still uncertain, Wikipedia is bound to follow that (as a high-quality WP:MEDRS source). We could say more, but not based on primary research like the Dutch study. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ref #1 from the Royal Society of Chemistry is a secondary source, and a reliable one. It states: "A study has for the first time confirmed the proposed link between dietery intake of acrylamide and cancer - five years after the suspected carcinogen was detected in cooked food." - Takeaway (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions - the RSC article is not a secondary source per MEDRS. This discussion should not be continued here but on the relevant article Talk page. You have my permission to copy my comments there.Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to copy mine too. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean Jytdog. I think where we mainly differ is how it is formulated, and not the genera conclusion. Why I raised the issue here and not directly at the article talk, is that it has been my experience that that can sometimes work counter-productive. Apparently many editors find it confrontational which isn't very good for a discussion. To eventually move it to the article talk page is easily done. - Takeaway (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

i went ahead and started a discussion there... it is just useful to have these things be in the article Talk page, as especially with health related content, the same concerns tend to come up over and over as people over-react to media reports hyping scientific research results... thanks for talking!!! Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The gun

Before my reply to your comment on User talk:BullRangifer, I had already created a section making the same point on Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. -- PBS (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States

Hi, Alexbrn. Could you please take a look on Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States#Health effects? Beagel (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked, and then I quicky unlooked; it's a POV mess. Maybe once the content in the global article is settled down it will be worth trying to harmonize the content ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richard O'Dwyer

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Richard O'Dwyer. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Dubious welcome template

Hi Alex. I noticed you used a welcome template which has some dubious content. It seems to encourage the writing of autobiographies COI content. We need to fix that template! Where is it located? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh! TBH I didn't pay much attention to the content, trusting it would "do the job". This is one of the standard welcomes offered by Twinkle: Template:welcome-COI. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) i am all curious, bullrangifer. what do you see that encourages autobiographies? Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That was clumsily written, and I have tweaked it! In the context of COI, these words jumped out at me: "you might like to draft your revised article before submission" If it were an autobiography (now stricken above), we wouldn't want to encourage someone with a COI to write such an article. If they have a COI about another type of article, we still need to be careful about encouraging them to write such an article, although that's not forbidden. Now that my clumsy wording is fixed, I'm not sure if or how to fix this. What do you think? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

i see. thank you. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Scottish Herbal Remedies

I found a few sources Googling "herbal remedies" + scotland. These are good sources. The article ought to be moved to another name, possibly Herbal remedies in Scotland, and rescued, rather than deleted outright. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The short article could also be merged into Folk medicine or traditional medicine. Bearian (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not convinced - the first source may be for "celtic folk medicine", the second is about a shop which happens to be in Scotland, and the third about the prevelance of herbal product use in Scotland. What makes a herbal remedy "Scottish" ? If we moved this article to "Herbal remedies in Scotland" is that really a topic? (How about "Herbal remedies in Northern Ireland/Wales/Cornwall"?) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Trimming non medrs refs

Hi Alex, I appreciated your recent cleanup on aisle sulforaphane, but it may have been a bit beyond the line.. Looking at [3] there seem to be ample secondary sources available. Care to take a second look? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi - yes there's quite a bit there. I'll have a go at re-inflating ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

External links at Shiatsu

Hello, Bon courage. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi! Thanks for the email - I'll address the substance of it at Talk:Shiatsu in case other editors have a view ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Textbook of Natural Medicine not a valid guideline

Hello Alex, as I mentioned in my edit on the Naturopathic Medicine page under Treatments and Practices, the Textbook of Natural Medicine is not a valid yardstick by which to measure doctors' training in naturopathic medical schools, as it is not one of the primary texts used, and in fact it would be impossible to summarize all of four to five years of medical training into one textbook. Therefore, I would like the relevant text omitted, as it is implying and coming to new, inappropriate conclusions based on inappropriate assumptions. Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on using secondary RSs at "List of scientists opposing maintream assessment of global warming"

In the most recent AFD of a particular article, you made a comment that referenced "original research" or "WP:OR". I am sending this same message to every non-IP editor who metioned either character string in that AFD. Please consider participating in a poll discussion about adding secondary RSs to the listing criteria at that talk page. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A naturopath asks ...

alex, were you harmed by natural medicine or are you on big pharma's payroll? your bias does not belong on wikipedia.

ghost writers at the Lancet? big pharma GSK paying billions in fines? skyrocketing cancer and diabetes? looks like your allopathic allies are dropping the ball pretty hard….

if you could only answer one simple question:

if allopathic medicine works so great, why does it not exist anywhere in the world without subsidization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.106.35 (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Good morning! Well, for information about me you can always read my blog. I don't know where you live, but round here doctors are very keen on dispensing free healthcare, like saying: take exercise, eat sensibly and lose weight! For enlightenment on some of the topics you raise maybe see this useful piece from Cancer Research UK. And for an understanding of how Wikipedia works, start here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Month parameter has been deprecated in citation templates

Just a heads up, the month parameter has been deprecated in citation templates. For month and year just place both in the date parameter, |date= March 2011. I'm pretty sure a bot is fixing this in many instances. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Aha thanks. I nearly always use tools for generating these so hope they'll catch up too (who puts months in citations in real life anyway!?) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A note to the developer/maintainer of the tools is probably in order. I haven't posted anything to the tools I use yet. I DO! I change year to date and add month. I makes it easier when looking through archives of some journals. But I am a big advocate of maximizing the details/info in citations. I do a fair amount of verification and use multiple databases so the more breadcrumbs the easier to pin down a ref. BTW drop a note on my talk page for help with research if needed. The WP Library has given me access to a number of databases and I have several fairly decent library memberships. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Aha thanks. I have fairly good library access but run up against the occasional "blind spot" - for example just now this article which could help the Red meat article (which is a mess). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page comment portion without notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Homeopathy - Irrational

I actually agree with you. I was just trying to keep the peace. Such strong adjectives aren't always a good choice in Wikipedia. But I certainly won't be reverting your edit. HiLo48 (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's sort of necessary here because it's Hood's argument that people are driven irration beliefs. Still, let's see what happens .... :-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect it's sometimes a rational belief, but a very poorly informed one. Having become a high school teacher ten years ago in a mature age career change, I have taught Science to many students. Unfortunately, some just avoid learning at that stage, and wait until they truly need such knowledge, when crackpot nonsense is fed to them by snake oil salesmen. HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You, sir, are the biased one.

You tell me to have a Neutral Stance, yet your edit is as biased as any. If you're going to make such post you best have some darn good sources to back it up because it sounds like a personal opinion instead of professional and scientific fact. So either edit that sentence to make it sound neutral or the edits will still keep coming because in no way is that last line about Naturopathy true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theworldsjester (talk • contribs) 03:47, November 21, 2014‎ (UTC)

We have darn good sources. If you continue to edit war you will probably soon be blocked for disruption. If you have a concern, raise it on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Your removal of credible citations at Calcium and cancer

Please respond at Talk:Calcium about your removal of credible citations on the relationship between calcium and cancer, including citations from the New England Journal of Medicine. You removed all reference to these areas of research, deleting someone's concise work in its entirity, rather than simply giving them a more fitting characterization. Ajobin (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I recommend this essay to you. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 02:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Lunasin

Why has the lunasin article been reduced. It is very out of date. I work in this area but am not sure how to edit. Thanks Biotecher622/Keith

@Biotecher622: Sorry I only just noticed this question. The article had a lot of primary research in it; anything health related really needs WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. It would be great if you could expand the article with such sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

South Beach Diet request

Hi Alexbrn. A few weeks ago, I posted a list of new problems that had crept into the South Beach Diet article since its major overhaul in late October. One of the items listed was the use of the term "fad diet" in the introduction and Health effects section. I know LaMona had also taken issue with the term and Doc James seemed to support its removal (albeit vaguely). Since conversation has stalled on the Talk page in the last few weeks, I'm planning on bringing the issue to editors in another forum to see if there is anyone there who wants to get involved. In the meantime, would you be willing to revert the "fad diet" edit—just the intro then—while it is being discussed, considering it isn't clearly described as a "fad diet" in any of the sources? I'm likely to take the request elsewhere if I don't hear back from you soon, but figured best to ask you first. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a good, informative & neutral description and there is consensus for it. Don't you think this is something your COI renders you incapable of addressing neutrally? You never addressed the point that "diet fads" is a MeSH category for this diet, which gives us impeccably-sourced grounds for the use of the term. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 02:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree across the board. The phrase "fad diet" is not as informative as explaining up front what the diet recommends. LaMona disagreed very specifically with the phrase, and Doc James expressed general support for my list of criticisms of this version, including the introduction. While the Harvard Health Letter does include "Diet fads" in its list of MeSH terms, to say this phrase should appear, let alone serves as an adequate introduction to the topic, is the very definition WP:SYNTHESIS. It's also worth considering that WP:MEDRS favors review of studies, and this is not one. Finally, from one editor who includes a COI link in his signature to another, surely you know it is reason to proceed with caution, not to avoid the subject entirely. While I wish we could find agreement here, I will be looking for assistance from others. Thanks for your time, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"Fad diet" is not (on its own) "an adequate introduction to the topic", but it is a general accurate description as used by independent expert indexers which we can usefully use. We have to use the best medical sources for this topic we have, and the Harvard Health Letter one is adequate - certainly better than newpaper articles gushing about how Bill Clinton lost weight from the diet! On your last point, as of two years ago or so I completely avoid any article for which I have a potential COI as in my view COI-tainted editing corrupts the consensus-forming process. In that light, I shall follow your quest for "assistance" with interest. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Couple of points: 1) I did not object to the use of the term "diet fad" or "fad diet" but I did object to it being linked to the Food faddism page which I consider to be highly flawed, covering everything from odd food fetishes to weight-loss diets that are all the rage. (I really think that page needs serious work.) 2) Although the MeSH heading is used on one article that was cited here, there are many other articles in the PubMed database that include the South Beach Diet in their text and do not use that subject heading. A search on South Beach Diet alone retrieves over 900 items. A search on South Beach Diet + MeSH: (Diet fad | Diet fads) yields 21. I'm not arguing that it isn't a fad diet, but the argument that a MeSH subject heading somehow clinches the term isn't borne out by the numbers. There needs to be support for the "diet fad" term, and it would be in the history of the diet's rise in attention in popular media. Information like the number of books sold, the use of celebrities to advance the diet, any estimates on how many people have gone on the diet, the number of articles in popular magazines -- all of these would be facts that tell the story of the diet as a popular phenomenon, completely separate from any medical claims, but would support the claim that it is a "fad diet", which is not currently demonstrated in the article. 3) There is now a great discrepancy between the South Beach Diet article and the Atkins diet article, which is very long and expository. It seems only fair that the Atkins article also be looked in terms of its medical (or pseudo-medical) claims. LaMona (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree that those other articles need work. As to "fad diet" from looking at the sources it seemed like an obvious categorisation to me. I've added another source just to confirm. We should continue any discussion of the SBD on that article's Talk page ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Cabbage & hypothyroidism

Alexbrn: as an editor frequently supporting WP:MEDRS, could you provide input on the Cabbage Talk page debate and yesterday's article revisions for hypothyroidism under WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDRS please? I feel it's an example qualifying case where one editor, AliMD7176, appears to be a physician with a clinical opinion about preliminary research applying as MEDRS. Appreciate your point of view, with thanks.--Zefr (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Feingold diet

here is an article right down your alley that is sorely lacking the attention of someone like you! :) Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

O Lordy - that's in a state. Sigh. Thanks (I think) for the tip! ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

thank you soooooooo much for the all the cleanup you do! Jytdog (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! (I feel I do very little compared to you). Wikipedia has a huge QA problem with its health content, for sure. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

fwiw i came at this very sideways... from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#Vani_Hari_and_Drmies to Vani_Hari#Kraft_Foods to Tartrazine and Sunset Yellow FCF (and the other four dyes in the southampton study) to Diet and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and that led me smack into the mess of Feingold diet where I said whoo ee. you will find the the articles i listed there more or less cleaned up if you want recent sources on dye/ADHD Jytdog (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. One thing I'm seeing straight away is that this article wants to dwell on the general questions, rather than just on the Feinberg diet in particular. It should be a lot tighter to its subject. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks for doing that!Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, repaying the favour, have you seen:

• Zone diet - POV problems, lots of exposition of the diet's "theory" not framed with independent commentary
• Blood type diet - no real POV problem, but bloated
• Rice diet - from reading Wikipedia, I think this one may work!

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

i have not! will work on those tonight...Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog - thanks for getting to these and doing valuable work. Would you believe the blood type diet article gets ~200 views/day!! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

took me way longer than i anticipated but i finally got there!  :) Jytdog (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, if you're feeling like a big job, I've started chipping away at the paleo diet article (> ~ 2,000 views/day), but a lot of work is needed - not least a good number of strongers sources ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Blacklight Power

hey hello!

First you pretend that venturebeat is not a reliable source to describe investors.[4] Now you are referring to the Journal of Molecular Structure and the Journal of Applied Physics as primary sources.[5]

Whatever perhaps nonsensical claims BLP makes, these are the publications that describe them and we both know what the edit guidelines say about peer reviewed literature. There is sufficient criticism on the page.

I understand you are gazing over edits looking for mistakes. Keep up the good work! If you see something wrong with my contributions, suggestions are always welcome. It is obvious that censorship of peer reviewed literature should be discussed on the article talk page before you jump to action, not the other way around.

Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.11.117 (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about the article's content should be confined to the article's Talk page, but for WP:SCIRS we find:

In general, scientific information in Wikipedia articles should be based on published, reliable secondary sources, or on widely cited tertiary and primary sources. Sources that are robust in methodology, published in high quality venues, and authored by widely cited researchers are preferred. Especially for surprising or extraordinary results, the description should adhere closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors or by reliable secondary sources.

Since Mills's emissions are, to put it mildly, "surprising or extraordinary" it is advisable to use secondary sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Your revert at G. Edward Griffin

There is currently a discussion at BLPN regarding the BLP violations in Griffin. Do not revert my edits. If you want to discuss them, please do so on the articles talk page. Atsme☯^Consult 13:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yours edits are not sacrosanct - that would smack of WP:OWNERSHIP. The consensus at BLPN seems fairly clear that (per policy) there is no big problem with this article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Your accusations are ridiculous. For one thing, BLP violations are not about consensus. Secondly, I recently started editing the article because of the BLP violations. As a result, I've been attacked by POV pushers like yourself. Your edits smack of POV, obviously a supporter of conventional medicine who stays busy shooting down CAM articles. Your position is quite evident right here on your talk page. The Griffin article uses antiquated sources to associate him with quackery, and violates BLP with its inadequate sources, pejorative terminology, and contentious labeling. The fact that you and the other POV pushers don't think there is a problem with the article IS the problem. Atsme☯^Consult 14:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether there's a policy violation or not needs to be determined ultimately by consensus. It's being discussed at BLPN - the right place - and your strong view of the matter does not appear to be mirrored by the other folks there. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Atsme, for what it is worth, I suggest you strike the personal attacks above. If you do want to bring an action at ANI, your case will have the best chance of succeeding if you have shown that you have acted really calmly and deliberately and other editors are acting badly. If there is stuff like the above, where you have shown that you are concentrating more on contributors instead of content, and it is clear that you have barely used the article Talk page (both of which are the case so far), your action will have a small chance of succeeding, and a high likelihood of boomerang. So take it slow, address specific concerns on the article Talk page, and focus on content, not contributors. That way we can all try to be productive instead of spending time on drama boards. You will of course do as you see fit. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I just wanted to include the following regarding actions that should be taken when there is a BLP violation - Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Atsme☯^Consult 16:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I hear you on that. The thing is, your first edit added a bunch of content, edited other content, and deleted some, as did your second edit. You cannot use that clause to justify adding or editing a bunch of stuff. Right? It is about removing. Please focus and work on bits. Small bites. This will go a lot more smoothly if you do so. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

my new 2nd favorite article!

The Hum Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I've got one of those. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 04:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmm. Yes, I saw that mentioned at WP:FT/N. Do you ever feel like King Cnut? Increasingly, I do. (BTW, I wonder if this is a candidate for "worst medical article": Experimental treatment of androgenic alopecia. Its opening is "The experimental treatment of androgenic hair loss is vast ..." !) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

holding back the waves indeed! and let me just say "emu oil". rofl! Jytdog (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS is evil and so are you

MEDRS is evil. Please quit destroying biomedical article using it as an excuse. Your edits are quite harmful. People are here to learn from sourced information. The fact that some information in articles is based off of original sources doesn't make it bad. Get off your high horse and stop editing in broad strokes. --IO Device (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

People are here expecting to find an encyclopedia (i.e. a tertiary source), which is something subtly different from "sourced information" which has been inexpertly compiled. MEDRS protects WP from becoming a ropey secondary source and so is actually rather valuable. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Elitist snobbery at work again. I overheard this in the ivory tower: "We can't have minions adding from mere primary sources. Where is the exclusivity in that! They must adhere to adding only from reviews. While we're at it, let's pretend and believe that review sources actually exist for esoteric topics. Perhaps this shall elevate Wikipedia to a more respectable stature among the literary clique, or we must surely raise the bar further: hereforth only Nobel prize winning publications may be permissible." --IO Device (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh no. Wikipedia doesn't require elites. It does however require competents. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It is because of people like you that successful offshoot sites such as Examine.com exist. It was created by someone for exactly this reason, namely that Wikipedia places undue restrictions on biomedical content. And it won't be the only one. I will, however, do my best to evaluate Jytdog's argument. --IO Device (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Examine.com - what's that? Let's see ... hmmm ... "Learn about how you can combine supplements to help reach your health goals". Right. Spot check one article (Vitamin D), and find "Supplementation can also reduce the risks of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and multiple sclerosis". Well, that's just false information ... but fortunately it's not my problem! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn is wise. bobrayner (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

That's nice to hear. I did play one of the kings in a nativity play about 40 years ago. That may have been a high point. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS is awesome and so are you!

Couldn't resist. Happy holidays - a13ean (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

My dear fellow, and to you too! I've just watched The Grand Budapest Hotel which has - yes - put me in a holiday mood ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Here Here! - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Pit Bull

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pit Bull, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Onefireuser (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

FODMAP

You removed my source linking to evidence that showed a reduction in FODMAP consumption led to an improvement in IBS symptoms. Your only reason given was "removed addition of primary research." Why? This happened an astonishing two minutes after my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wookieeditor (talk • contribs) 07:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Sources for health info. should comply with WP:MEDRS, which primary research doesn't. I've added one such source on IBS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification. Btw, you make edits at a remarkable speed. I feel like I'm cruising through these pages in a Model S, but you're piloting a 747...I mean, how did you manage to scoop up a source AND and a comment about it so quickly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wookieeditor (talk • contribs) 07:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the source on PUBMED, you can see how it's categorized and this will tell you if it's primary or secondary, so it was easy to see the added source wasn't quite suitable. I also happen to have been working on the FODMAP article recently, so had some familiarity with the topic and was feeling fresh! Welcome to Wikipedia by the way - don't forget to sign your posts on Talk pages with four tildes ("~~~~"). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I will note here for the record that a low FODMAP diet is nutritionally very inadequate and damaging. It is asinine that it gets any attention at all. Resistant starch is quite health promoting, and the diet effectively shuns it. This doesn't have sufficient attention in the article. For as long as this is true, there is no way in hell that this diet can be an established treatment for anything - it'll create many more problems than it'll solve. As an alternative, if someone has IBS, they can work on improving their microbiotic profile by means of appropriate probiotics and time-restricted feeding. --IO Device (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Noted. But you shouldn't have removed material from the article that was well-sourced on the basis you personally disagree with it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Questions

You asked me in September about several diffs of my edits that you thought problematic, and I responded at that time. Within the last day or so you again posted them at AE. Two questions:

Granting that you are familiar with my edits, do you believe this edit (where I delete a MEDRS without explanation) is truly representative, part of a "pattern"?

When you posted that same diff at AE, where you portrayed it as part of a pattern, were you aware that I'd explained to you earlier that it was accidental?

Thanks. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 17:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I hear what you say. One of the trouble with the taint of COI is that it renders one less capable of judging accurately what one does and, to misquote Lady Bracknell, one mistake might be unfortunate – two begins to look like carelessness. I don't doubt your faith, but for whatever reason the pattern in your behaviour is there. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I hear you. When you posted that same diff at AE,were you aware that I'd explained to you earlier that it was accidental? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 18:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I just answered that as fully as I can. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand, and I don't do well with reading between the lines. It's a really simple question. Did you post that diff knowing that I'd earlier told you it was accidental? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

SBD

Hello Alexbrn, I'm likely to return to the topic of South Beach Diet again soon. Although we disagree on some key issues, I wonder if you had the chance to review some of the points I had made about errors and omissions in the current article. If it's possible to find areas of agreement and focus on those, I'd like to. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think any changes were particularly required, but I'll keep the article watchlisted in case anything of interest crops up ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I am genuinely sorry to hear that. Here is one more issue that I might have added to my original list: the Technique section cites this NHS source... but includes all of the negative information and very little that is neutral or positive. One would never guess that its conclusion is: "Once you get past the initial phase, the diet follows the basic principles of healthy eating and should provide the nutrients you need to stay healthy." I submit this is not a balanced use of the source. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss article content is its Talk page, but in brief: we say (twice, in fact I added it) "Nevertheless, some aspects of the diet correspond with dietary advice which is recognized as sensible". The NHS source is for coverage of Stage 1 specifically, which is not otherwise covered in the article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Your vandalism of Noopept article

Why did you remove the picture in the Noopept article? You were very clearly informed what you were doing. The picture has been around for a long time; it has been serving a useful purpose. You will now be reported to an admin and will pay the price for your insolence. --IO Device (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't want primary sources for health information and we don't need a photo of an anonymous blister pack of pills (as has been said by another editor on the article Talk page). Removing poor content is not vandalism. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please STOP LYING, for it is not an "anonymous" blister pack. The picture accurately shows both side of the blister pack, one of which has the product name. This is such a waste of time. Please also avoid subjective words such as "poor", "good", etc. It's sufficient to refer to the text as "MEDRS-nonconforming content". --IO Device (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The subjective words that you've used in your comments here include "very clearly informed," "a long time," "a useful purpose," "insolence," "waste of time," ...

...Sorry, couldn't resist. Sunrise (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What about effing asshole? Should be spelled arsehole I feel. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and I wonder if it's meant objectively. That thought, in combination with the username "IO Device", has me feeling distinctly worried. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathy

Dear Alexbrn,

Thanks for opening a Talk on my page. I am not yet very familiar with this process. May I ask you why you are writing that the following sentence is neutral: "Naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices." ?

This sentence is a quotation from the abstract of an article written in 2003 by Kimball Atwood. Let's review together how well it does align to Wikipedia principles.

Let's also review together the reasons why my proposal could be more appropriate:

"In the first article in a mainstream medical journal that critically summarizes the field of naturopathic medicine" Kimball C. Atwood, an American Skeptic, conclude that "naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices"

Due and undue weight

Wikipedia says that: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."

The author, Kimball Atwood, is writing in the last paragraph of his article: ""This is the first article in a mainstream medical journal that critically summarizes the field of "naturopathic medicine." and that "...if the only articles on CAM that most physicians read are uncritical". This is clear confirmation by the author himself of the minority of his opinion. This undue weight shall be removed by at least quoting his minority: "In the first article in a mainstream journal that critical summarize the field of naturopathic medicine...".

Or, this undue weight could simply be removed due to his "tiny minority", because it is the first (and only ?) article on this topic published in a reliable source.

Or, this undue weight could be balanced by a quotation of the opposing opinion, from the same published reliable source, such as: "Naturopathic medicine is indeed legitimate, effective, and wanted., Peter Bongiorno, Pina Giudice, Medscape general medicine 02/2004; 6(1):41."

Article structure

Wikipedia says that: "The internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight."

Quoting a minority opinion in the first paragraph is a structural issue. This quotation would be better located in the section dedicated to Evidence basis.

Opinions as facts

Wikipedia says to "Avoid stating opinions as facts.(...) opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources"

The author, Kimball Atwood, is a member of the American NGO Skeptic. As such, he is an activist, not a neutral observer of the situation. This is why I am proposing to explicitly attribute his quote and to mention his membership to Skeptik.

Nonjudgmental language

Wikipedia says to "prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject".

The word "replete" is a judgmental language. A neutral wording would be "contains".

Anglo-American focus

Wikipedia says that we "should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them".

The author, Kimball Atwood, is writing that his article is "a summary of the current state of naturopathic medicine", based only on documents published by Anglo-American sources. It does not reflect the current state of naturopathic medicine worldwide. It is neglecting the fact that naturopathy is largely used, recognized and integrated in the national health system in German culture countries, such as Germany, Holland and Switzerland. This cultural bias shall be removed by at least disclosing the nationality of the author: "... an American..."

Conclusion

I am staying at your disposal for discussing the neutrality of this sentence and of my proposal. I am not discussing the validity of the sentence, but the way it is included into this Wikipedia article. I believe it is far from being neutral.

I would also like to understand why you are writing that the word “claim” is neutral in this instance: “Naturopaths claim the ancient Greek "Father of Medicine", Hippocrates, as the first advocate of naturopathic medicine”.
I am open to listen and to learn from you on these issues, but I am also willing to reach a real neutral statement.
Best regards,
(Paulmartin357 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC))

References

Article content should be discussed on the article Talk page. In brief, a policy which applies particularly here is WP:PSCI and the fuller guidance in WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Phytochemical

Hello--I made an edit to Phytochemicals correcting the FDA's position on "qualified health claims" for lycopene, which seemed to be what the paragraph was about (not tomatoes). You had tagged the original quote about tomatoes. Do you still consider this undue weight. I read the FDA position piece and they seemed to have put a reasonable amount of work into this conclusion. Thanks, Desoto10 (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I wondered why we were discussing Lycopene in the context of phytochemicals (in general) at all, if sources didn't. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Specific Carbohydrate Diet website link removed

Can I please ask why the link to SCD Daily was removed from the page? It is a credible website created for those who are starting the diet, a help website where they can find recipes/shopping lists to help when searching for products in supermarkets.

It is NOT spam. Its a supportive website for those of us who suffer with Crohns and Coeliac diseases.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.215.121 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)82.42.215.121 please note that a) there are many things WP is not, including a how-to guide (see WP:NOTHOWTO) and please note that along those lines, we do not give medical guidance here. Also please note that there are guidelines for sourcing health content in WP - please see WP:MEDRS. I'll copy this to the article Talk page, where this belongs. The conversation should continue there. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternative cancer treatments

So what was it on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines that I violated? —Kri (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Speculating about editors, rather than helping improve the article content. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alex - did you really not want to restore the Ernst quote in your edit earlier? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the quote either way. It's a good quote, but it's a bit long. I'll leave it to other editors! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I favor its inclusion, but since I included it originally, I'll let others restore it. It's an extremely notable quote, coming from the first professor of alternative medicine, who was originally a true believer in Altmed, but whose research and examination of the evidence on all sides totally changed his POV. His statement sums up the situation quite accurately. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

re-editing of 'emu oil' entry.

Hello! I'm curious as to your reasoning for removing legitimate published, peer reviewed article citations on the 'emu oil' entry. Information, especially scientific data (i.e. studies done by doctors & scientists and published in peer reviewed publications), would normally be considered a plus one would think? Thanks~ ~blinky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinkypoet (talk • contribs) 01:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS for guidance on what are good medical sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the response, anyway. I have some questions: Has the emu association, or perhaps more accurately, each and every company fraudulently promoted emu oil dietary supplements? Also, I see NO mention of emu oil's use in the cosmetic industry and the potentially fraudulent promotion of it from Hollywood

Your statement below seems rather judgmental and seems based on little evidence. Is not one purpose of Wikipedia articles to offer information and let the reader draw their own conclusions from (hopefully) non-biased information? The only conclusion to be drawn from your statement below is that it is a fraud, which may or may not be the case.

"Emu oil has been fraudulently promoted as a dietary supplement with the false clam it can treat a variety of human ailments, including cancer and arthritis.[4] However, little is known about its risks and benefits.[5]"

Also, you might wish to look at a gas chromatograph of emu oil and update your listing of emu oil components. It is incomplete. Stearic, Palmitic and Palmitoleic are all components of emu oil.

~blinky Blinkypoet (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Start here - the purpose of Wikipedia is to reflect accepted knowledge, not to act as a secondary publication presenting primary material for the reader to process for themselves. Any comments specific to the Emu oil article should be on its Talk page, and not here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(Add) Also be aware that if you have a conflict of interest in relation to your editing then our guidance on COIs is relevant. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

-Again, thanks for the response and pertinent links. ~blinky Blinkypoet (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit war on circ article

I need to inquire over this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cirflow (talk • contribs) 09:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:EW. If you continue to edit war you risk being blocked. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I am edit warding because you are erasing my edits for no reason. I added a link to "controversies of circumcision", reworded a few things to be more specific, and added some clarification, so what? You are impeding the development of the article by simply erasing people's edits, If you disagree with my edit, instead of rudely erasing it, how about you tell me what I can do to adjust it to be more agreeable and unbiased, as I am attempting to do now? Don't say it's fine how it is either, because there are others who do even minor edits and have them stamped down all the time and there is lots of talk on it, so that shows the current form is disagreeable. Tell me what is wrong with my edits and ill work with you on it. I only want neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cirflow (talk • contribs) 09:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It's up to you to make your case on Talk. But doing things like adding redundant links to already-linked articles isn't going to get much support. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough I suppose, I don't understand why it "isn't considered needed" though. all it was was a link. it originally said "ethical and moral questions",and I put a link for that word to circ controversies, as that what it described, so I don't see how it is fair to completely revert my entire edit. If you were to revert an edit I did that added innacurate information or omitted a detail/fact that is significant that would be understandable, but I did a minor edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cirflow (talk • contribs) 09:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edit was bad in many ways (undue wording principally), and you've edit warred it in against multiple editors. If you want to discuss the article, you need to do so on its Talk page. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Last thing ill say here, and thank you for the info-

I feel you and perhaps the other administrators (doc james,sepi333 etc) are overly critical when accepting new edits for this article, compared to other articles ive edited I've never had to deal with even close to this much difficulty with adding, part of that may of been why I edit warred, I even stated in the summary that if you gave me time I would be willing to adjust it. I suppose ill do it in chat tmrw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cirflow (talk • contribs) 10:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Circumcision is a controversial article which has been brought to WP:GA status with much discussion and policy-basedconsensus-forming. The lede has been fought over and highly honed through extended discussion, so there needs to be a good case for change. In any event WP:EW is never a good approach. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Coenzyme Q10

Dear Alexbrn, I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I edited a page yesterday on Coenzyme Q10 under the 'Heart failure' section with a more recent reference, and discovered today that you had reverted to the earlier version. Could you please tell me why? My proposed edit was: "However, an article published December 2014 showed that a cohort of 420 patients who took CoQ10 for two years showed an improvement in symptoms, a reduction in the number of hospitalisations and reduced overall mortality and mortality related to heart and circulation.[19]". The reference being to: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25282031 Xenophanep (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)XenophaneP

Hi there! Please see WP:MEDRS - we shouldn't use primary sources for biomedical information. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

my new favorite comment, ever

User_talk:Doc_James#Maggot_therapy Jytdog (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

LOL! That's perfect. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Page Protection

Hi Alexbrn,

I am dealing with another editor who has twice overridden my edits. How can I seek to have my edits put back in and then have the page protected?

Thanks DeDe4Truth (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Instead you need to stop edt warring and listening to what Doc James is telling you. Please read and absord WP:MEDRS and you'll see we are generally prohibited from using primary sources for health-related content. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Unless I misunderstand the {{cite book}} template, your "fix ref"s are in exactly the reverse order. For a book, it's "chapter" within "title", rather than "title" within "work". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the docs, I think you're right. I just wanted to make the red error messages in the reflist go away! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Fix the naturopathy article please!

Alexbrn, please remove the sentence "Naturopathy is replete with pseudo-scientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices." Oh, and note the AANP is a naturopathic group. Here is a link to the AANP's website. 67.80.218.118 (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC) --

If I may interject here. There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with that sentence, are there any policy based reasons you want the sentence removed? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The specific sentence I quoted was obviously against W:NPoV, if you noticed. 67.80.218.118 (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC) --

No, it's doesn't. See the WP:PSCI subsection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Other Non-Neutral Edits

First Off, you should rename the links to drug-related medicine to "conventional medicine".

Alexbrn, You probably should note this.

Naturopathy is not pseudoscience, which you may find out under the stinging nettle article. SERIOUSLY?! --67.80.218.118 (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Unwelcome discussion on my Talk page

You recently left several messages on my talk page. Some of these are clearly discussion that belongs on the Talk page at foie gras so that other concerned editors will see them. Please do not use my Talk page for these types of discussion.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi! As I said, since one aspect of my comments was editing behaviour I didn't want to risk putting the on the Foie gras Talk page. But if you're comfortable with it being there you have my permission to copy it over ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Circumcision article

Kindly explain the problem to me. The section is adverse effects of circumcision. I found a statement about that in a very very reliable source. It is not English, but I guess that should not be a problem. Lucentcalendar (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The source being in German is not a problem. But the source is lay press and we should use medical sources for medical conent. Also the source only gives the figure you quote as something attributed to one guy, so putting this in Wikipedia's voice is nicht cool. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

That is not "one guy" but a renowned surgeon at an excellent South African university, talking about a local South African topic. If that is not a trustworthy source, I don't know what.Lucentcalendar (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, raise this on the article's Talk page then! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No, why do you get to decide this? Either you have some objective reason to leave it out, or it goes in.Lucentcalendar (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I've given my view, you've given yours. Time to widen the consensus. Hence - aus article Talk Page! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've opted for edit-warring instead. That's not likely to end well. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

(There isn't a verdammt link to the article here) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

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

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

I hope you want to resolve the dispute on the Talk page. Alternately, I will be happy to go for a formal dispute resolution process. kashmiri ^TALK 12:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. Since consensus is firmly against your edits I don't reckon DR is needed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion hardly has 24 hours and you are talking about "consensus"??? Unless you mean the "consensus" of you and Roxy. kashmiri ^TALK 12:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's just say when it comes to consensus, my antennae are finely-tuned ;-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A similar lack of engagement in the Talk process is being shown by this editor at Foie gras. This editor is also claiming "consensus" has been reached when there is only one other editor agreeing with them. Furthremore, this editor is moving entire, lon-standing sections without even discussing them on the Talk page. A pattern of behaviour is becoming apparent here.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

{ping|DrChrissy}} Somehow not surprised to hear that. For now, I am only observing this user's POV pushing and their disparaging attitude towards fellow Wikipedians, but might have to take the matter further in spare time because that's against the spirit of this project. kashmiri ^TALK 19:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) yes Kashmiri, if you think you have an actionable case to bring about Alexbrn's behavior, please bring it, or else cease your personal attacks. That is an ugly, WP:BLUDGEON post you just left. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Lawks! It appears all the dunces are in confederacy against me ;-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

False accusation of plagiarism

You have accused me of plagiarism on the Foie gras Talk page. I take this public accusation extremely seriously. You must expand on your accusation on that page.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article Talk page comment about an edit (by an anonymized editor) is hardly a public accusation, and I said the edit "took us into WP:PLAGIARISM territory" which is about as tentative & gentle a way as it could be expressed. I hope you take plagiarism and copyright violation as seriously as you take this "accusation". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:South Beach_Diet".The discussion is about the topic South Beach Diet. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Food Faddism

(Reverted to revision 651596279 by Alexbrn (talk): An established medical textbook is solid WP:MEDRS, as has been 
discussed on the SBD Talk page - check it out. (TW))

Several points. To begin with, this is not a "medical textbook" in the stricter sense; it's an introductory dietician's text for everything except a certification program or an associate's degree, no? That implies a certain level of rigor, and it doesn't disappoint: the section a page or two down, comparing "popular" diets, has nothing at all bad to say about the SB except that the short-term introductory period is not suited for long-term use. (It's also at least one...no, two printings out of date, a common wikifailing, and one rather relevant to whether something is a "fad.")

Next, it explicitly adopts the common, mainline meaning of "fad" -something that is by definition ephemeral- for something that appears to be, in its present form, in clinical use for a score of years, and published, subject to peer review and criticism, for 15. Most "fad diets", in the strict sense, last long enough for the bubble to pop, or the first-run printing to run through, or Oprah to stop returning their phone calls.

Finally, it would appear that the initial book has acquired clinical respectability. Mayo doesn't endorse things lightly. What, if anything, that means for follow-on works or for co-branded products is, I think, not relevant.Anmccaff (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Adding an even older source hardly strengthens the position, but rather weakens it. Perhaps it was justifiable to use the term in 2006; but is it now? More importantly, this again looks like a cite selected off a cursory, tendentious websearch.Anmccaff (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Best if we just follow these good sources rather than inventing reasons for not liking them - in any case discussion of article content should take place on its Talk page. If a book has been reprinted only, its content won't change; are you saying there are later editions (with different content)? Feel free to raise this at WT:MED if you want to widen the consensus. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

These are hardly "invented reasons," but rather mainstays of scholarship. Evaluating the value of sources for particular applications goes well beyond Wiki's elementary RS standards. It's possible to find sources with impeccable credentials that are flat out wrong, especially if one seeks out the conclusion wanted, rather than the mainstream consensus.

Yes, there are two revisions of the book since; whether this section is changed is something neither of us knows, which is telling.Anmccaff (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the latest edition number? And have you an ISBN? I may be able to get access to this from a library here ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

1305110404 ISBN-13: 9781305110403 9th Edition; appears to have been some changes between editions, with the the e-book being "8&1/2". That said, there are probably 10 similar texts; how does googling out one that agrees with you demonstrate a consensus among experts?Anmccaff (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay: this has a copyright date of 2016 and doesn't seem to be available yet, so I can't get at it. It still has a "Fad diets" section ... are you thinking the SBD was been dropped from that section? Certainly, for the edition we cite that description is good enough for the experts that wrote the book and the review panel that reviewed it. Sounds like you're the one with an axe to grind; I have no opinion on this diet (which I have no experience of, nor of any of its "rival" diets) but am concerned we neutrally reflect the sources and don't act as a distorting instrument for information about SBD, about which the scientific literature seems fairly scathing. But this discussion really belongs on the article Talk page, not here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It does appear to be available here; perhaps it's a Pondial difference? More to the point, though, I have no idea whether that section is changed, any more than you do. I do know, however, that you selected it posthaste after an an unsupported section was removed from a wiki page you were citing elsewhere. Leaving aside for a moment the use of Wiki as an authority, and passing over the fact that you restored it, without a thought to how authoritative an article which repeatedly cites a wine review as an authority on diet fads is, you are taking as a given that it reflects mainstream scholarly consensus. As I've said, there are about 10 similar books in English, at minimum, at least one even has the same name. Why pick this one, except to plug a hole in an article?

"Scathing?" and "scientific?" The only piece cited I'd call "scathing" was written by a social worker, explaining why it was rude to tell people, especially minority people, that they were obese. It did not enter into any particular criticism of SB as a diet, merely that it was a diet, and that, in itself, was somehow wrong. Several of the issues raised by focused criticisms were legitimate, but might, or might not, be overcome by events. Pointing out that a therapy is unproven at its inception is vital; citing that 15 years later , when the jury should be in elsewhere, is frankly silly.

Yes, this might be best elsewhere; any objections to moving it in toto?Anmccaff (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason I'm "up" on this topic is that it has been discussed (to death) at the SBD article, at noticeboards and in a RfC; I recommend consulting these previous discussions to avoid re-hashing. I've no objection to all/some of this conversation being copied anywhere ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry!

Hi Alexbrn,

I apologize for removing the comments you made on the naturopathy page. This was an accident. I am new to Wikipedia and I am not sure what I did to remove the comments. Should I not edit a post once comments are made? Again, I'm sorry for this accidental removal,

Solomonmorris (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Solomonmorris

Hi! To be honest, I missed that even happening. FYI, the guidelines for using Talk pages are at WP:TPG -- these cover commenting etiquette. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Reiki

Re this edit, in the spirit of collaboration, please avoid edit warring and let the discussion about the proposed content run its course. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A single edit is not an "edit war"; also WP:DRNC (which seemed to be your rationale). Your edit is not in accord with how we neutrally present nonsense medical claims here (add: this is an interesting thread on this topic). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel the need to make a brief introduction since we haven't edited together much. I generally stay away from these sorts of subjects. However I want to let you know that while I very rarely weigh in, I'm almost always on the skeptics' side of these debates. The question is, as a skeptic, how do you (we) (1) distinguish between fringe theories and questionable science, and (2) avoid overstating the reliable sources? These two questions must be intertwined. Of course you are free to your own personal opinions about reiki and similar subjects, but if you are hoping to convince the community of your views and create credible articles you're going to have to find reliable sources that support your views and do more than say reiki is fringe ipso facto all sources that support that view must be reliable, or chant "quackery quackery quackery obviously utter bollocks." Believe it or not there are scientifically plausible explanations for why many people report positive outcomes from reiki that go beyond placebo effects. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, yes, I think I've come across you wrt Monsanto? you work for the NSA or something ;-)) I am very familiar with altmed topics here and the demarcation issue for fringe/questionable science, with how the WP:PAGs apply to this area and how WP does (or sometimes does not) work in practice when it comes to fringe topics. I don't put stuff in articles that isn't sourced, chanting doesn't cut it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Not at Monsanto, never did anything on that, but I was accused of working for the NSA so you're right there. You've done an awful lot of chanting on reiki, and your comments at RSN have honestly seemed pretty lacking in PAG support. They read like you're ranting because it's so obvious and you can't believe people would actually disagree with you. Take a moment to understand and consider your opponents' arguments, and then debunk them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What may not be apparent to you if you're not often editing in this area is that a number of participants at RS/N know each other well and this is an oft-repeated and well-worn ritual. I believe at RS/N I quoted WP:RS and WP:PSCI; not sure how that's "ranting". WP:PSCI is a policy, BTW. Also be aware that WP:AC/DS apply to the Reiki article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) what is exasperating, is that anybody is WP is arguing that vitalism is not pseudoscience. for pete's sake. the need for extraordinary sourcing is the burden of those who want to say that reiki (or any other snake oil that has no valid mechanism of action) is effective for anything. Since scientists don't go around repeating themselves endlessly that quackery is quackery, we have WP:PARITY and sources like quackwatch are great, per that. PSCI is policy. FRINGE is the guideline that 'splains it. PAG. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This is what I read from the comments posted by skeptics on this matter: Reiki makes no sense to me, therefore reiki is quackery, therefore reiki is obviously utter bollocks, therefore reiki is snake oil, therefore reiki is fringe. I don't have to support these views with reliable sources because because reiki is quackery and scientists don't go around saying that quackery is quackery. There's my RS-based argument. Anyone who disagrees with me is a lunatic charlatan and a POV pusher. Did I mention that reiki is quackery? Quackery quackery reiki quackery. What, I haven't convinced you? How exasperating! (In all seriousness, I don't know anything about vitalism, but I'm aware of at least one plausible "valid mechanism of action" for reiki.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

oh goodness. hm. you and A1 are fellow travellers. so.. what is the plausible MOA for reiki that you are aware of. do tell. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

How condescending! Cortisol and oxytocin release. The same mechanism that's been proven when you cuddle with your lover, your baby, or your dog. Here are some sources: [6], [7] And remember, I'm not saying this proves reiki works. I'm saying it's scientifically plausible and addresses the knee-jerk claim that there's no conceivable mechanism. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

i'm sorry you see it as condescending to ask you a question. ok, something akin to cuddling is not an intervention - is not an effective treatment for any disease or condition - it is just comfort. which is what i said. anyway, enough here. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Riiiiight. You just asked a question, no condescension. Anywaaaaay, you're not listening. I didn't say this proves reiki is an effective treatment. I said there is a plausible mechanism, the same mechanism that has been scientifically validated in other, non-therapeutic situations. So, please stop arguing that reiki is obviously fringe, utter bollocks, snake oil, etc. etc. because there is no plausible mechanism. That's ignorance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

DrFleischman let's step back a bit. the "pseudoscience" label is only relevant to claims that reiki is actually useful to treat some disease or condition. there is no evidence that it is useful to treat a disease or condition, and no plausible MoA by which it could treat a disease or condition. causing comfort (and we do have some undertanding of what comfort means, biochemically) is not a plausible mechanism of action for treating a disease or condition. Inhibiting protein X that is involved in inflammation, is a plausible MoA (salicylic acid). Holding a wound closed and keeping junk out of it, is a plausible MoA to improve wound healing (band aid), or propping open a closed artery (stent), is a plausible MoA. Moving some kind of "energy" around, by touching a person in a way that also causes comfort (which we can describe biochemically somewhat).. not a plausible MoA to treat any specific disease or condition. Why are you saying it is? i really don't get it. I don't think anybody would call a claim that reiki is relaxing or comforting, "pseudoscience". that only comes in, on the therapeutic claims. so i really don't understand where you are coming from. really i don't. Jytdog (talk)21:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment. Regarding the first part, I agree that this pseudoscience debate only applies to claims that reiki is useful to treat diseases or conditions. Reiki, as I understand it, is also a spiritual practice and a means of providing comfort, and I'm not aware of any reliably serious position that it doesn't provide spiritual valid or that it doesn't provide comfort. So in that sense, the organization of our lede (and in particular the blanket statement that reiki is pseudoscience) obfuscates the multipurpose nature of reiki and overstates the sources. All of the stuff about medical efficacy and pseudoscience should be consolidated in its own paragraph.

As for what I think is the main point of your comment, the sources I provide do point to a real, non-hocus pocus and scientifically plausible mechanism for how reiki might (MIGHT) actually provide some unproven medical benefit. It isn't about moving some kind of energy around, which is how reiki practitioners describe it. I'm comfortable saying that's bogus. The plausible, but unproven theory would go something like this, reiki affects cortisol levels, cortisol levels affect all sort of metabolic and disease pathways. Perhaps reiki's affect on cortisol levels is inconsequential, or perhaps it provides no benefit beyond cuddling. I don't know and it's not the point. The point is that this is a scientifically plausible mechanism, not some sort of wacky voodoo magic like you and others have described it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(exhale) so we share some common ground there. however, changing cortisol levels (in other words, the biochemical definition of comfort) is not a plausible mechanism for treating any disease or condition. that is just trying to dress this up in something science-y.... the very definition of pseudoscience. so we disagree with each other quite firmly there. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That is just your personal opinion. You're not an endocrinologist, are you? Your accusation that "that is just trying to dress this up in something science-y" both ABF and grasping at straws. I could equally accuse you of just not liking it because you've been clinging to an anti-reiki ideology. Neither accusation would advance the project. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

and with that, i am laughing and walking away. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Dyslexia

hi, Alexbrn do you have a minute--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I will tomorrow morning (GMT time zone). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks, Bluerasberry, approved, #3 for GA, just look at it and close (if you have any questions I can answer, add info, references or whatever) thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa errm, looks like I won't be available after all (see below). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda

To enforce an arbitration decision and for Breach of editing restrictions at Ayurveda, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

--John (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Bon courage (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard and administrators' noticeboard.

Accept reason:

Editor was unaware of editing restriction and has undertaken to follow it in future. John (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Errrrrr, what?! Since when is it necessary to get consensus of the talk page before making an edit, and this was a good one in line with our WP:PAGs particularly policy WP:PSCI. The way we are encouraged to do things here is to be bold to test connsensus. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Since November 2014, see Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 7#Update. You indicated here that you knew the subject had been the subject of controversy. I assumed you were referring to the ongoing restrictions at the article, and that you were also aware of this RfC. Was I mistaken? --John (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I was aware there had been discussion about 0RR at a noticeboard (I thought it was a bad idea); I had also discussed the pseudoscience aspect a lot as the result of a request at WP:FT/N as I recall. But I don't follow the ayurveda article closely and I didn't know about this detailed rule set of yours (which also strikes me as a very bad idea as it will achieve nothing more than a superficial peace at the expense of the article quality). I find this turn of events rather extraordinary. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn I am sorry you got blocked. The key question from my view is whether or not (it is yes/no) you knew that the 0RR (for some reason, allowed to be archived) that was in place. If you did not know, then John should unblock you. If you knew, the block was righteous. Answer it straight, then. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I made one edit to the article, adding fresh material. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the blocks were only intended to reduce disruption to the project. If my understanding of your intentions was flawed and you now understand and will follow the restrictions, I am happy to unblock you immediately with an apology. If you wish to discuss changing the restrictions I am open to that too, but they were put there for a reason and I feel they are still necessary at present, as these recent events seem to underline. --John (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

that is super decent of you John. fwiw I suggest you pull the notice out of the archive and place it, unarchivable, at the top of the talk page... Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Guys, I suspected 0RR may be in place but I did not know about this "Talk first" rule for edits. However, since I was sure I was bringing a fresh source to bear (not that I checked) I assumed I was not even in danger of breaching any 0RR since this was all-new material. John, yes please unblock me: the soluton AFAIAC is for me to unwatchlist this article: working in this environment is bonkers. I agree if these sort of special rules apply to an article, they should be displayed as an edit warning for editors initiating an edit. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Surely that would be distorting the history of what has happened. John, Alexbrn and Jytdog both have been edit-warring aginst me at Foie gras. May I suggest you take a look at recent events on the Foie gras talk page before you consider removing your block. These editors need an indication of how disruptive their approach is.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

that is really funny. as soon as he saw you were blocked, drcrissy edit warred content back into the Foie gras article! I wondered at the timing; now it is clear. hilarious. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

A move was made at Reiki too. Those jungle drums eh! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have accepted your request and I unblock you, as promised, with an apology. I have clarified the editnotice on the relevant pages to try to prevent further collateral damage like this. --John (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Well thanks. There are several aspects to this incident I need to think about. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• John, since you're unblocking "with an apology", I'm sorry to see you didn't put anything like that in the permanent record (=the block log), which is what people will see going forward. You realize Alex had a clean block log before this incident. Please put in a one-second block to make a note that's a bit more apologetic than "unblock request accepted". Bishonen | talk 00:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC).

I'm sorry you got caught up in the side effects of this. Your block was I believe, an overreaction to something I initiated. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 01:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anybody will make that mistake again. i took a strange notice that was on the page, amended it, and moved it to the very top: here. Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Several experienced editors took the time to explain how John's rules were a catastrophically bad idea, but John is still enforcing the rules he wrote, and here we are: Another terrible outcome. Alexbrn did nothing wrong; these are good edits in line with what reliable sources say, but Alexbrn now has a stained block log, and John didn't even have the courtesy to say "Sorry, I shouldn't have blocked you" in the unblock. Alexbrn, I'm sorry you got caught up in this mess. I think the Ayurveda article would benefit from adult supervision. bobrayner (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

this farce is just more of the same crap from an admin I have crossed in the past. I de-watchlisted at Ayurveda some time ago for the reasons you can now see in this section. The admin is aware of the fact that I believe he is wielding his mop and broom like a cudgel, and I do not believe he actually watches the page at all. Such a shame for the project. I would not blame any mainstream editor for avoiding that toxic page totally. Civility warriors are as damaging as Pov pushers. I do hope that Alexbrn not being around the project ATM is not a direct result of this affair, and that he will rise above this nonsense. (I may well take a break too, not that it'll have any effect, (I'm not that naive), except on my own well-being)-Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• @John: Would you please consider stepping away from the Ayurveda article? One can appreciate that you were trying to help, but there appears to be consensus that this is no longer helping. Alexbrn, who is (in my view) one of Wikipedia's most valuable contributors, got ensnared in this scheme and had his clean record needlessly tarnished. Alexbrn and tps: if these problems continue then as an uninvolved party I would be willing to contribute to an RFC/A on John. Manul ~ talk 12:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• • Alexbrn, I am sorry to take up your talk page with this as I am sure you have heard enough of this. Two things raised here I wish to respond to; Bishonen, no I won't be doing that as it is not called for. My block was not in error and my apology was a mark of sympathy, not an acknowledgement of wrongdoing on my part. I do feel sympathy for Alexbrn but they should really have made it their business to check out what the restrictions were before editing an article under enforcement. The unblock is the remedy for the block. Manul, no I will not be doing that either. You may feel free to take whatever action you deem appropriate. I request though that any further discussion of my actions take place at my talk page where it belongs, and not here. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks Bishonen for your intervention. I think John has issued a non-apology apology (I'm sorry for your error). This admin evidently thinks it's fine to expect editors to "make it their business" to search through Talk page archives to see if he's set up some special rules that might trip them up, which is – interesting. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree. Compare also this little effort of mine. Yes, I disagree with this block, and the others that were placed for the same reason. However, as for your record being "tarnished", I dunno. Isn't a clean block log a bit of a wimpy thing to have? I'm very proud of my own log, especially the item from 2009. Compare this page (search for "Bishonen"). Bishonen | talk 18:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC).
        • That's cool! I feel my block seems rather puny now ;-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• • • You blocked somebody for violating your rules, even though they didn't know about it, and four months after you said you had withdrawn the 0RR.[8] It's not even clear which rules now apply, or who they apply to. Do you understand why this is needless, stupid, and counterproductive?
    • The best way forward is that these ridiculous rules are withdrawn. I don't mean the current situation, where you say you've lifted the rule but still make arbitrary blocks of positive contributors; I mean actually withdrawing your rules. Instead, any competent admin could enforce the universally-accepted wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:3RR, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and so on. Alexbrn's edits were in line with those policies, and I look forward to the day when such article improvements are permitted again. bobrayner (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes this is not the first questionable block I have seen from User:John in this topic area. IMO much of there are involved involvement in alt med has not been useful and thus should not be using there admin tools in this area to make controversial blocks. Would be a good idea to bring this to ANI I think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I would take a good look at John's edits before suggesting he is involved in alt med and using that point to go to ANI [9]And James should you be using your tools on medical articles.You do edit medical articles extensively.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC))

John has made a number of questionable blocks, Alex's the most ridiculous. He's also WP:INVOLVED with QG and myself, for the record, and wields the mop like a cudgel. What can I do? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 02:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes he has made a number of very questionable blocks of people editing in the area of alt med when these editors were upholding high quality referencing standards. QG has kindly provided an overview here [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2015 in spaceflight

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 in spaceflight. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits/vandalism of Noopept article

You're arguing against the consensus of a dozen individuals on what does or doesn't belong on the noopept article.

Listen, just because you work on government standards, doesn't mean you're always right. What's your hard interest in noopept? Do you even have a background in nootropics or pharmacology? You removed properly-sourced sections because it was rat data, citing the reason "rats!" on both removals. How is that at all appropriate? Are you phobic? Why not just delete the entire page on rats then? You also repeatedly removed entirely appropriate and useful images from the article, with your edits reverted a dozen times by several users. It seems you have a strong bias as to what should appear or not, rather than just allowing all correct data, especially on a lesser-known topic. I petition for you to be knocked off your high horse because you've achieved your status through loudmouthing and force. I would definitely not want standards defined by your "standards". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.168.199 (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I must confess I'm not keen on rats, but am no Winston Smith. Start at WP:5P for an understanding of what we include in articles; WP:MEDRS expands on why we should make sure Wikipedia only carries accepted knowledge about biomedical subjects. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I know WP policies. You removed properly cited data and reverted a logical (unsourced, later sourced) correction of a logically-flawed unsourced generalization back to the lesser accurate logically-flawed generalization. In reverting, you're actually asserting the incorrect statement I removed follows WP policy which it doesn't, nor is it even a logical claim to make, apart from WP policy, confounded by sources posted in the aromatherapy article itself. It's clear of course, pending this post I made on your page, that you're going to go and watch my edits and snipe-revert all of them without even thinking about what you're standing for, and whether you're following your own rules. Emotional lability is not a trait a person in power should have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.168.199 (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't be silly. If you want to discuss article content, do so at that article's Talk page. (BTW don't use the "cite pmid" template - it's been deprecated.) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors"

WP:MEDRS doesn't say you must only use secondary sources. They are preferable but when none exist, primary sources ARE NOT WRONG TO CITE and you keep removing all of them; the scant data available on the compound, which is described and cited appropriately without making extensible claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.168.199 (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a very few cases where they're okay. Inserting primary research about oral lavender oil preparations into our aromatherapy article is however a no-no. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic that what I wrote was a no-no; did you think of what you were reverting back to, and whether it was correct? My edit had two purposes as described in the summary. Reverting to the bad claim is assurance you believe it is sound. Again, you aren't fit for editing as you've proven several times; please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.168.199 (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be so good as to discuss article content on article Talk pages. If there's a "bad claim" somewhere, flag it up or fix it! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm discussing your qualifications. Please be so good as to follow the subject of a conversation accurately.

"INTPs can often become far less objective than they think they ought to be: precisely at those times when the under-developed Feeling gnaws at his being."

Alexbrn, drink a bottle of tea tree oil and tell me that it has no effect beyond placebo. You've reverted a disambiguating clarification I made to a totally false generalization on a page, and when I added it back with a citation, you remove the sentence altogether, returning the page's meaning back to its original misleading POV. Why not remove all the others on the page of equal magnitude in importance? You removed it because you must feel right; there was no way you'd let yourself be seen losing what could appear to be an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.168.199 (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Myers Briggs - it's a heady mix of common sense and BS you know. I'm not really sure what you're on (about), but if you want to discuss article content do it at the article; if you want to complain about me do it at WP:AN/I (but in that case I suggest wearing your flame-proof undewear though)! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Who made this last edit please?__DrChrissy (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Me! No him! Who? What? Crazy stuff going on here. The edit history tells all. When the IP gets blocked I'll tidy up ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The edit history says it was Jytdog__DrChrissy (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

So it was. How kind of them. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Cite pmid template

I will keep using the cite pmid template until I am blocked for doing so, and there is nothing you can do about it. After all, https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi supports cite pmid and it doesn't support cite doi or whatever. Now if you want real reform, and I certainly do, all such references from the entirely of Wikipedia must probably be moved to Wikidata or such. It's ugly as hell right now with references taking up so much space in articles. Moreover, once a ref is then compactly specified in a Wikipedia article, a convenient bot or trigger must then autofill the relevant data on Wikidata. --IO Device (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what's this is relation to? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It is in relation to two points:

• You recently asking a user to not use the cite pmid template because it is deprecated.
• The fact that the cite pmid template is deprecated is insufficient motivation to use alternatives if adequate alternatives don't even exist. In this context, I find it bad enough that the cite pmid autofilling bot was made to stop working.

--IO Device (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh so you're that IP? makes sense. The pmid (and doi) templates suck from a maintenance perspective, because when editing the source there's no indication what it is. They also don't generate refs in the style of MOSMED. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I am absolutely not that IP, although I can see how it would be convenient for you if I was the only user who has run into issues with you. Regarding the templates, it is basically very inconvenient to edit an article in which huge portions of text have been taken up by inline references. I think a fresh solution, potentially one based on wikidata, is warranted. --IO Device (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so it's pure coincidence that your enthusiasm for the pmid template is shared with this morning's IP, along with an interest in certain articles. Well, these things happen - thanks for putting me right. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Behavioural optometry

Alex, it looks as if your quote from the Brendan T. Barrett abstract appears verbatim. Am I missing something? LeadSongDog come howl! 06:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The "Techniques" section? Yes, pretty much - which is why I attributed it. But since the formatting has changed from inline list to wikilist, not sure if it's a quotation. What do you think? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh. I thought I'd heard of all of these magic therapies. Gets to you sometimes, all this woo. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd paraphrase to be safe, or show as a quotation with [formatting altered] or some such, but it really shouldn't stay as is. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, these are the section headings in the article and so this is equivalant to a ToC and so okay I'd have thought ... still to be safe, I've done it as a verbatim quotation for now. Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

thank you. In case of doubt, I'd ping @Moonriddengirl:, who seems to have the best grasp of such issues, for input. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Howdy. :) This area is a little soft. Titles are not copyrightable.[11] However, that specifically refers to titles of works, and sections are not independent works. I am not aware of any legal precedent in this area, but back in 2011 three attorneys contributing to the website "Law QA" opined that they would be ([12]). "Three guys on the internet" isn't much to build on. :) But until the court weighs in, folks on the internet (reasonably educated folks) is about all we have. While policy does require that we use quotation marks when copying from copyrighted sources, my inclination would be to think that the WP:INTEXT attribution is sufficient in this case. If we were offering these up as some kind of universal standard, it would be more of an issue, I think, but as it is specifically and explicitly identified as his headers, I think there is an expectation that it is verbatim. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

EBCAM fringe journal?

I noticed you undid my edit to Acupuncture in which I added an overview of systematic reviews published in Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. You said in your edit summary that this was a "fringe journal," yet the article on acupuncture cited a number of other papers published in this journal including this one multiple times in the lead. Do you think all citations to papers published in this journal are unacceptable for Wikipedia articles, or just some of them? Also, this journal does have an impact factor, and Hindawi is not on Beall's list of predatory publishers. Everymorning talk 14:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (ECAM) is notorious fringe journal.[13] The article you added, PMID 25821485, does not appear to be MEDLINE indexed and in any case would fall afoul of WP:FRIND. Discussion about article content should take place on article talk pages so if you want to continue, see you there! Alexbrn (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

MEDLINE indexing is not a requirement for fringe vs. not fringe, only that it "may" be a reliability indicator, which is why impact factor and Beall's list would be important. The journal does have a good impact factor (2.175) which is very high in its field (ranking first or second every year amongst CAM journals), and as Everymorning said, it is not on Beall's list. Edzard Ernst's opinion on a blog post doesn't negate a journal's credibility; if that were the case, then the William Morris article I posted a week ago criticizing Ernst would negate his credibility and we would have to remove Ernst's citations. Some editors only seem to want to allow journals like Nature or JAMA on the acupuncture article, but what does MEDRS have to say about that? Journals may be credible in their area of specialty, but if "its content being outside the journal's normal scope (for instance, an article on the efficacy of a new cancer treatment in a psychiatric journal or the surgical techniques for hip replacement in a urology journal)" it might not be. So should we remove JAMA sources because they're credible for Western medicine, but maybe not acupuncture, from the acupuncture article? I've always believed to err on the side of "more is better" and be more liberal with what we allow in. If we begin to take a hard line approach to an article that's already a WP:BATTLE hotbed, we're only going to escalate tensions and end up with an article nobody is pleased with. LesVegas (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) here is a thread i opened about a different but related journal, Acupuncture in Medicine. That thread provides some useful context for what Alexbrn is saying. It maybe worth while to open a discussion about the journal in question, along the same lines. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jytdog! I appreciated reading all the discussion there. What's interesting to me is that there wasn't exactly a consensus either way about that journal then, with WhatamIdoing supporting it, at least in principle. Middle 8 also supported it, but withdrew his support when he found out the editorial board was made up of acupuncturists. And I agree, that makes it more of an advocacy journal than a scientific one and therefore, it could be less reliable. I wonder if that's the case for this journal? Is its editorial board nothing but CAM advocates? If so, I think it could only be useful for non-controversial claims. Thanks for bringing this thread to my attention LesVegas (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I just looked into eCAM's editorial board and saw a pretty diverse group of people. I don't see that their board is made up entirely of CAM advocates. Actually, most or all of the people on the board are university employed folks and many have been published in some prestigious journals. I also looked at Acupuncture in Medicine's editorial board and saw that they are not all acupuncturists. In fact, Andrew Vickers of Sloane Kettering happens to sit on their editorial board. I don't know if changes to this journal's editorial board were made recently, or if Middle 8 was given false information, but it doesn't now appear to be an unreliable journal on that regard. I could be missing something, but to me both of these journals are reliable and certainly might even be more reliable than other sources are for acupuncture claims. LesVegas (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Would that be the same Andrew Vickers who chairs the Acupuncture Triallists' Collaboration? Alexbrn (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this the thread where we select the most unreliable sources in wikipedia, and try to pretend they are reliable? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, yes, but as I understand it, the Acupuncture Triallists Collaboration is a purely research based group. It's not an acupuncture advocacy group. I would guess that it was Vickers's expertise in the field of acupuncture research that led to his placement on the board. Vickers publishes on many topics, mostly cancer. LesVegas (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

But your "guess" is not really a counter to the claim that the editorial board of Acupuncture in Medicine lacks independent members. In general, we don't use iffy journals for anything other than mundane claims. Alexbrn (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm guessing that because he's not an acupuncture advocate, that's for certain. But you haven't proven it unreliable otherwise, and that's the most important thing. It's published by BMJ, afterall. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you haven't shown that either of these journals are unreliable according to MEDRS. I've even argued that they are closer to MEDRS reliability than something like JAMA or Nature because they're closer to the subject matter, acupuncture, which is certainly within these journal's scope. Yet again, I don't say we should consider JAMA unreliable for acupuncture claims because I think we should always err on the side of inclusion, especially in hotly argued topic areas. I'm just saddened you don't see it that way. LesVegas (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Vickers is sufficiently independent in my book because CAM is not (by a long shot) the only thing he does (and he's not reflexively supportive of it [14]). IIRC the problem with Acupunct. Med. was that CAM was the primary specialty of most of its editors. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure he's a great guy in every way, but it would be nice to have a substantial number of Board members who were not attached to the world of acunpuncture; as it is the WP:FRIND problem applies. Alexbrn (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You're talking about the EBCAM board? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No the other one. Alexbrn (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't EBCAM the same journal we already discussed a few months ago at the acupuncture talk page? Sunrise (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems so[15] (I think I wasn't watching the article then). Alexbrn (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Journal is cited in 84 different articles[16], obviously global consensus (which is determinative, not Ernst's opinion) is that it's adequate. (High impact factor too[17] FWIW, but that may not matter) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Something's reliable because it's used on Wikipedia?! That's a new one! We can reject it because it's not MEDLINE-indexed, or because it's obviously a pay-to-play festival of fringe that runs against WP:FRIND, but reject it we shall. (Add: Oh I see M8 is trying to force it back into the article: the problematic pattern of editing grows.) Alexbrn (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for knocking down that straw man; I'm talking about global consensus about whether it's reliable. And you're edit-warring now? [18][19] --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That is fatuous. You're not a newbie, so should understand that reliability is determined for a source in respect of the content it supports - there's no such thing as a "blanket" reliable source. I'm sure ECAM could be useful for supporting many uncontentious statements. However, as a non-newbie you should also know that medical claims here need strong sourcing, and so it is striking that you are trying to force in a non-MEDLINE indexed article (which would be frowned on at WT:MED whatever the medical field). Smacks of WP:ADVOCACY. I will help resist that, especially if it involves the insertion of fringe/bogus health content. Alexbrn (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It's used elsewhere for evidentiary claims. But I'd missed the not-in-Medline part, thanks for that. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 06:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

“It's used elsewhere for evidentiary claims” ← With your newly-enlightened view of its worth, perhaps you could now help remove these bad uses then? Alexbrn (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't there some discussion to the effect that it went downhill when Hindawi took it over? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 09:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

and you wonder, M8, why I consider you hopelessly conflicted in this topic area. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wonder why Cochrane doesn't consider practicing acu'ists conflicted? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, looking back at the discussion, I see the publisher switch (among other things) definitely didn't help. :-) That said, the last issue published under OUP appears to be December 2009 (at least according to my university's archive indexing), so at this point anything it published under OUP wouldn't pass MEDDATE. Sunrise (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

2010 sure doesn't seem like 5 years ago; time flies -- thanks! --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Alexbrn Sure, I'll look at EBCAM citations; the pay-to-play aspect (per end of lede) is egregious. Speaking of things that need attention: could you look at this? Scroll to my comment containing "in context, one sees..." for brief summary. See my comment at bottom of section [20]. Kww's take is correct (imho: I'd love to hear why I'm wrong about this, if indeed I am). --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 15:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)ce 21:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC), 04:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Middle 8: I don't think my view on that has changed since it was discussed (to death?) at WT:MED last year. Alexbrn (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Middle 8:Pay-to-play is pretty common in the open access world. Since many don't use a subscription based model, many OA journals (by very prestigious publishers, like Nature) charge their authors. It's today's unfortunate reality of a non-subscription based model, it seems. Here's a list of just some big publishers who do this. LesVegas (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but there's a difference between defraying a publishers' cost with the noble aim of putting high-quality research out under a permissive license, and vanity publishing of any-old-crap. Since ECAM isn't taken seriously (outside its self-communing constituency anyway) it's easy to see which side of the fence it falls. Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

ECAM isn't taken seriously but then how do you explain its relatively high impact factor? And you said, it's involved in vanity publishing of any-old-crap, but eCAM has a 60% rejection rate which puts it in line with many excellent journals, such as Neuropsychology, published by the APA. Of course, even though they have a healthy rejection rate, MEDRS says nothing about acceptance rate as far as I'm aware. And if "more rejections equaled more prestige", this one would be the greatest of all. LesVegas (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Not taken seriously outside its self-communing constituency; the non-indexing by MEDLINE is a tell. In general, some surprising stuff gets accepted for publication these days. It's good the Wikipedia has high standards, particularly for important health-related topics, and we must all be vigilant in not letting these standards slip. Alexbrn (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

fwiw i don't think it is productive going toe to toe like this. maybe the question of this journal to WT:MEDRS or WT:Wikiproject Medicine? Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I agree. In the future, it's probably not a good idea for us to battle on talk pages, even article talk pages as much as we do and for as long as we do. It's much better to take things elsewhere to get a broader point of view. The one difficulty with that approach is that, sometimes, we only get a much larger two sided fight. Perhaps the best approach would be this: if Alexbrn can successfully convince MEDRS folks to change something like lack of Medline indexing from "could be unreliable" to "is absolutely unreliable" in WP:MEDRS, or even "is unreliable, except in cases of A,B,C" then I will personally remove every eCAM citation on the article myself and revert anyone who adds it back. But without more black-and-white criteria, we editors will always fall prey to fighting over the reliability of sources because of personal biases on anything that doesn't fall between those lines. LesVegas (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

so much of what we do, is about judgement, and about the scholarly activity of finding the best sources. "best" meaning: most recent, and providing the clearest overview of where a given field stands (hence reviews and statements by major bodies). on any alt-med topic it is going to be really hard for people to agree on "best", especially when some editors come to the table already wanting everything to be valid, and some others, everything invalid, and there are reviews showing both perspectives. the article will suck until the end of the time... or until the editors working on it step back from the fray, and agree on a scope that is workable and each "side" keeps their own more vociferous advocates at bay from adding stuff about off-scope matters (it is stupid that the article evens mentions acupuncture to treat fertility disorders. stupid and embarrassing. as if our article on, oh.. ) it would take an explicit, negotiated deal, though, and each side sticking to it. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverting my addition of a study to Vitamin D

Mr. Brown,

I see you are a highly experienced Wikipedian. Could you please expand a bit upon your reversal of this edit I made that added a peer-reviewed large-scale longitudinal study published in the JCEM?

Thank you, Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 06:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Yes, the issue here is that Wikipedia has particularly stringent requirements for sources to support biomedical information (see WP:MEDRS) and these generally preclude the use of primary research, such as the study you included. Are there any good reviews which consider this study? Those would be usable.Alexbrn (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Walks like a duck

Pay no heed to John, his comments clearly suggest an undisclosed paid editing relationship with Ducks Unlimited. Sadly, the duck lobby has grown into a pernicious force here that undermines even the simplest of taxonomy discussions. :>) Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 13:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel so ashamed. I'm meant to have a conflict of interest over foie gras and I can't even tell these two types of fowl apart. (Or am I ... just pretending to be confused ... !) Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Urine Therapy

Hi Alexbrn,

I see you deleted all of my recent edits on urine therapy. While I appreciate your skepticism, the only problem is that the research is legitimate, well sourced and clearly explains the mechanism of urine therapy. Here is a recent exchange with a glycobiologist/PhD on the subject:

"Urine drinking is not a big deal and is probably less taboo in some cultures than kissing. The whole issue of the efficacy of auto-urine therapy seems to be whether the necessary antigen/antibody complexes are present in the urine. If they aren't present, it is relatively easy to produce human antibodies to antigens associated with any tumor to make commercial Ag/Ab complexes for oral presentation. That would be a simple vaccine and it may bypass poor immunogenicity of protein that don't normally raise adequate antibodies. It may be the case that urine could be used repeated to increase antibody production. It is such an obvious approach, that I would be surprised that it isn't broadly used, if it worked, but that logic would also say that fecal transplants should be available OTC. Urine also contains members of the urine microbiota, which may be no big deal. I think this is a minimal risk. Urine is simple to filter sterilize. It is also simple to isolate Ag/Ab complexes, if present in urine. I think that this approach to enhance antigen presentation to dendritic cells addresses only half the issue, attack but not suppression/tolerance. The gut microbiota/immune system development determines both attack and suppression, so it is important to make sure that the attack is favored over suppression in the gut to mount an immune attack on cancer. I think this is the dichotomy of immune states that determines the outcome (reversed) in leprosy. Fingers fall if suppression fails; save the nose if suppression shows. The gut microbiota/diet determines the immune state."

I'm at a loss as to how explain this "obvious" mechanism without it being automatically tossed aside by skeptics, such as yourself, that aren't willing to investigate the clear science and hypotheses behind (auto)urine therapy. Any suggestions? And given the clear explanation of the mechanism of (auto)urine therapy, would you consider re-instating my contributions on the mechanism?

Cheers,

James.

Hi James! (I somehow wish you hadn't signed-off with "cheers"!) Urine therapy is, as you know, an altmed therapy and any content we include needs to be directly related to that. If the content is biomedical in nature then WP:MEDRS must be met for the sourcing, and in general our WP:FRINGE guidance applies to the whole article. The stuff you were adding did not seem directly related to urine therapy and/or was not well-sourced. Discussion about article content is better conducted at its Talk page, so if you want to continue I'll see you there ... Alexbrn (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Alexbrn. I've gone ahead and outlined my points on the article's talk page. Ready for your comments there. I realize that Urine Therapy is classified as "pseudoscience" but we are talking about a practice that is still followed by millions of Asians and now has a simple scientific explanation/hypothesis for its underlying mechanism. Surely there is some way to explain the hypothesis to the public using high quality citations. That was my goal in my original edits. JamesPem (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Acupuncture

Hey this is just a friendly reminder that you've been edit warring on acupuncture. You do not have consensus to delete the source, and, in fact, contunially removing it could even be seen as disruptive. Anywho, I know you know the rules, but I figured I'd just remind you. LesVegas (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Behavioral optometry

An article that you have been involved in editing, Behavioral optometry , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Lou Sander (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)