|
User talk:Bon courage/Archive 4
Notice of ANI
Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussionHello, Alexbrn. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. __DrChrissy (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
YohimbineCurious about your reversion. The Institute of Sports Medicine, Serbia is not, as you put it, a "crap source". The Serbian Journal of Sports Sciences is an oft-cited, peer-reviewed journal. The study I linked to is also cited frequently. See http://www.corpuscompendium.com/2014/01/yohimbine-hcl-fat-loss-aid.html and elsewhere with a simple gsearch. Other studies corroborate the findings with a high p value. I'm reverting again, and ask that you more vigorously check sources before reverting again - superβεεcat 18:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Example for discussionAlexbrn, if you aren't a zombie, could you take a look at Brain (food)? There's a false narrative setup playing off the "benefits" of eating brains vs. the "risks". However, when one takes a look at the sources in the article, one finds little to no support for the "nutritional benefits of eating brains", just original research and cherry picked data. My guess is that this argument supporting the eating of brains comes primarily from culturally-specific manufacturers and marketers who target certain ethnic groups. For example, there is big money behind promoting the eating of beef brains in the latino community in the US. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No hurry on any of this, just curious on how you would respond to it:
This next several examples are a bit more difficult. It's hard to know what to do:
Edit warsYou have it wrong. I am not engaged in an edit war, but it appears that someone else is. Anyway, how did you get involved? Sugarcube73 (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
"Looks iffy-article with no title"It was definitely iffy. Found it at doi:10.3109/15368378.2012.701190. It's a primary paper, studying molusk neurons. Last time I checked mollusk neurons don't normally get exposed to intense RF, living underwater and all. In any case, mollusk neurology does not seem like the best possible model for human neurology. Good catch. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Snail or oyster, it's not RS for a human health claim at Electromagnetic radiation and health - thanks for confirming, LeadSongDog! Alexbrn (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Magneto (generator)The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Magneto (generator). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Edit warsI would like to call your attention to the rule against edit wars. WP:EW There is a three revert limit. You are getting close to it. You need to be careful about what you edit. You are making unintended deletions of work. If you don't like what someone else has done, you need to discuss it on the talk page. Please be more careful in the future. Sugarcube73 (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussionHello, Alexbrn. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Rose (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Changes to breathwork entryCould you please explain why you removed the history of breathwork and other changes I made to this entry. Thnaks you.
Please comment on Talk:AcupunctureThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Acupuncture. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Hi Alexbrn, could you give me more details about the reason why you reverted my changes in this article? - I am a relatively new contributor so I am not sure why you did that. I found quite a few reliable sources so in my oppinion that section should be added. Totocol (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3Please see Wikipedia:AN3#User:Jytdog and User:Alexbrn reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: ). I think you are already aware, but this means anyone can clearly see you were notified. I have no opinion on the report and haven't looked into it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Friendly request to stop edit warringYour sourced material is inaccurate as proven via WP:V so please do not revert the properly cited information with the inaccurate information. If you feel your information is factually accurate, then provide the reasons at the TP. An RfC will then follow. Atsme📞📧 16:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 14 June
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Abuse of TWIt appears you abused the rollback feature when you reverted my GF edits. [1] ABUSE of TW Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's account blocked. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. Not good. Atsme📞📧 14:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Medicinal Cannabis for Cancer Sub-section"Still undue" does not make any sense as to why this section keeps getting reverted back to the original form. The information being added is in the link that has been used to cite the text that still remains. Please explain further the need to remove this section[1]. ThoHug (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC) References
Hi Alex, could you give me more details about the reason why you removed a major part of this article? - I am a relatively new contributor so I am not sure why you did that. There was a lot of interesting information and now there is nothing. Furthermore, I added the references to useful articles all of which you dropped, which I don't understand. (From Wikipedia policy I get that a literature review is better than a primary source. However, when there are no literature review, than a primary source should be of course better than nothing?) HereAndThereNowAndThen (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Steve JobsThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Steve Jobs. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC) thank youDear alexbrn .., In the editing there are any book about water fasting and You delete books for Amazon about water fasting Can you but it again please FREEDOM77 (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear alexbrn .., Thank you to help me ;) FREEDOM77 (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC) KratomHi Alexbrn. Kratom doesn't appear to be listed on the DEA's current list of fact sheets. One can go to the current list by going to the Current DEA list of Fact Sheets. One can confirm this is the latest list by going to the current DEA website and clicking Drug Info/fact sheets. While not a reliable source, this link may be able to help shed light. I am sure this wouldn't be the first time a government agency didn't clean up its website once changes were made. Would you be willing to agree to language that states that Kratom is not listed on the current list of "Drugs of Concern," while noting that a fact sheet appears to have been issued in 2013 that contradicts the current DEA site? Let me know if you have a better idea on how we can address this confusion. Thank you. Journalist1983 (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
CFSHi, is there a reason why you posted this on my talk page only? That does't seem very constructive. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing Ramadan health sectionHi, I would like to thank you for your reviewing of that section, and also I would like to ask if this bit could be added there by the same standards :
There are some health issues involving Ramadan fasting. It has been suggested that although Ramadan fasting is safe for all healthy individuals, those with various diseases should consult their physicians and follow scientific recommendations.[1] Fasting on Ramadan may cause a change in weight. One study concludes that the observers of Ramadan lose on average about a kilogram of weight over 4 weeks, and the lost weight is quickly regained.[2]
Darwinian Ape talk 20:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Some baklava for you! Be sure to eat it after the iftar.
Your templates on RaczIf you're going to challenge an article that has received a GA rating, and has also been through a DYK review, you need to be more specific about the sources you have an issue with, otherwise I will consider this hounding in light of our past interactions. Atsme📞📧 20:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Vitamin DCan we find a way to improve this section rather than just revert each other's edits! Jrfw51 (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Introducing the new WikiProject Cannabis!Greetings!  I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Cannabis! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 559 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in the subject of cannabis.
Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Stop edit warring at Gabor B. RaczYou have been warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 06:09, 11 July 2015
COI tags and COINPerhaps you would prefer to make the announcement at COIN regarding your edits to various articles where a COI is rather evident and allow a proper investigation to take place which should include your creation of the unassessed article, Information Technology Task Force, and edits at [Office_Open_XML], and ISO/IEC_JTC_1, to name a few. I do find it rather ironic under the circumstances. To say you have nothing to do with ITTF when the article includes ISO/IEC 29500 Office Open XML File Formats in its publishing activities, and your COI declaration states "the Standardization of Office Open XML article, since I was a key participant in that controversial process" is, well, conflicting (and you mentioned a controversial process nonetheless). There's also your involvement with [2]. It's a bit inconceivable to think you are still denying a COI and reverted the templates. Oh well, things always have a way of working out in the end. Atsme📞📧 18:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Abuse of COINYou are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use. Thanks,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) WP:TALK#FACTSA lot of material on this page, gathered by several users around the world, in now missing, deleted by you. You've also inserted a lot of incorrect information about the symbols used in the name of Reiki, as identified in my edits which you removed. I think you're abusing Wikipedia here, on this page, as you are erasing information by users which conflicts with your agenda about how Reiki is perceived, that is, that you believe it is not effective and are concerned that vulnerable people with illnesses may be abused by Reiki practitioners who purport it to be a cure for their illness. I think you've gone off topic on this page - there is space for "debunking" on this page, but it would be against the wikipedia philosophy for it to ALL be that. I think you need to allow some other editors onto this page, relax your grip a bit. I know that might be a bit confronting to read, but I just want the knowledge that I have about Reiki to be shared with the world rather than being deleted by someone who shows fear of the practice. I'm new to Wiki but I'm a published academic. I understand a lot of information about Reiki is hearsay, that's why a Reiki wikipedia page is important, it gathers and balances knowledge from practitioners of the last generation so as to get concensus about divergence and variation. It can also function as a way for the public to get some basic information about the practice. Please share the Reiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrishApps (talk • contribs) 08:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration case request declinedThe Arbitration Committee has declined the Abuse of COIN arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Graphology July 2015I really dont know, what your problem is. I search for new studies and insert them on wikipedia, new metaanalysis that graphology does not correlate with personality questionnaire. You do not read it but always delete it. This is edit war.  Your recent editing history at Graphology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Read the reference before you delete anything. My references are recent research articles in psychological peer-reviewed journals! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wicky media (talk • contribs) 11:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Tartrazine July 2015Please visit the talk page of "Tartrazine" to resolve this issue. Sunpoint (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Which sources are not reliable?Why did you revert my edits in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anavex_Life_Sciences? I even added 3 sources. Which links would you dispute, and why? --Agamemnus (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:List of forestry journalsThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of forestry journals. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Kudos…for your conciliatory outreach to the new editor Jrf51. It is noteworthy here at WP. Look in on his PBS Foundation matter some time if you have the time. (He is, by the way, quite knowledgable about matters, at the molecular level.) Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Tweaking prose...It is not edit warring when we're tweaking prose. Stop placing unwarranted templates on my TP whenever you disagree with something I've done. You might also want to read up on edit warring and tag-teaming. Atsme📞📧 15:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
NOTICE: Discussion that involves you at WP:COINSorry for the delay. I should have initiated the WP:COIN investigation earlier but was tied up with other issues. Atsme📞📧 16:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
DRNhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Ubiquinol.23Therapeutic_Uses_of_Ubiquinol_discussion Notification, because the OP didn't do it. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
This is excellent but it leaves out a large number of articles which are pseudo-archaeology. See Category:Pseudoarchaeology. The category needs to be fixed however. It should not be a subcategory of pseudoscience as it isn't a science, it's a social science or a humanities subject according to the country (English-speaking countries, Germany calls the social sciences sciences). Nor should pseudohistory be related to it. History's a different subject. Anyway, can we add the articles in the category to the list? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Deworming controversy?Hi - it seems to me that it's worthwhile to discuss the development economist side of this and the randomized controlled trials that show various effects - maybe in a section on education effects. The evidence of the effects of deworming isn't just Cochrain - there are a number of other single studies and meta analyses not included in Cochrain that shed light on this matter and not to include them really does not do justice to the topic for the reader. Right now the entry is misleading at best by focusing exclusively on the medical review that inadequately shows long-term effects as those studies are not included in it. To leave out the recent debate about the efficacy of deworming is misleading. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.212.127 (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Mate (beverage)It's not clear why the sources are not valid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
GlyphosateWondering why my recent amendments to the glyphosate page have been removed?JGZ 09:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johann Zaller (talk • contribs)
guidelines for submissionI received your response to my recent submission on the Naturopathy/Naturopathic entry. You mentioned that my edit did not adhere to the guidelines, but I am unclear which part of my submission was unacceptable. The edits I included were from the Journal of American Medical Association, a public government report from the US Office of Technology Assessment, and two peer reviewed published medical journals. I'm not sure what criteria is used for determining legitimate sources, but I can not imagine that these sources would not be considered legitimate or reliable. Are you the person that authorizes editions to the entries? If so, please provide specific details regarding which of my edits you consider to be unacceptable. Thank you, Wdnelsonnmd (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
August 2015Alexbrn, are you stating, categorically, that you have no professional relationship with Cochrane Collaboration or their publisher, Wiley? Wiley is a client of Griffin Brown, according to the Griffin Brown website: http://www.griffinbrown.co.uk/client.asp. This qualifies you for a conflict of interest, especially given how aggressively you have edited the CES page and promoted the Cochrane Collaboration content. This strikes me as something I should submit to the Wiki board and request that you are banned from editing the CES page and any other content on Wiki related to CES. ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Alexbrn Given that you admit to having Cochrane Collaboration and Wiley as clients, and given the amount of time and effort you spend editing Wikipedia pages during weekday business hours (not only the CES page, but many other pages), I find it hard to believe that you are not paid, at least in part, to edit and influence Wikipedia pages on behalf of Wiley and Cochrane Collaboration (which are your clients). If you are going to assert that you are not paid to do so, please explain these profound contradictions. Regardless of whether it can be proved that you are paid to edit Wikiedpia in particular, you still have a very clear COI given the fact you have a financial relationship with these organizations. In my view, it is inappropriate that you are both compensated by these clients, and at the same promote their products (in the case of CES, the Cochrane Collaboration lit review published by Wiley) on Wikipedia. Your Conflict should be clearly stated and considered by other editors. ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
DisagreementUnless you are a medical expert, which I am by the way, it would be beneficial if you stopped trying to prevent the addition of actual legitimately referenced scientific material to articles. If you would like to come to a compromise let me know otherwise I think we will have to possibly revert to arbitration. Setanta Saki (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
References
Which source ?Alexbrn, you did revert my request for citation needed, claiming that I should read the source. You are still reverting faster than checking the sources. Which source ? The link to the source is not valid anymore. Paulmartin357 (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Resistant StarchThe Nutrition Bulletin is published by the British Nutrition Foundation and is one of the most credible sources there is. Dr. Anne Nugent is highly respected and did a great job of evaluating the health benefits of resistant starch - she's a nice lady besides. This reference is available free online, which goes to show that Medline and Pubmed are NOT the only sources for credible science. If you are relying on these search engines as credibility screens, you're not doing a good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSWitwer (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Throwing around words like "edit war" on my talk page is not keeping proposed improvements to the article on its Talk page. I advise you to take your own advice.RSWitwer (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Attention deficit disorderThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Attention deficit disorder. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Note to self This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Waldorf education, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AstronomyThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
honeyHi Alex, would you be so kind as to let me know what lead you to reverting my edit, and [4] claiming it is a poorly sourced copyright violation? I would be most grateful for a reasonably detailed reasoning, as I don't really see it. I used two academic journal articles, and in no way directly quoted any of them. If the revert was just by mistake, I understand - we all push buttons too quickly sometimes :) Pundit|utter 20:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Alexbrn: would be grateful for your input on the new discussion at Talk:Honey about the use of reviews on in vitro research to infer health effects. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussionThere is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Anmccaff (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Faith healingThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Faith healing. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Crop circlesThat was pretty funny though :-) Guy (Help!) 16:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Genetically modified organisms arbitration case openedYou may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Paid or EditNo I did not get paid but just interested in saving this page because I got benefit from this technology and do not want to see this page gone. It may help many others. Indepentten (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC) InvitationYou are invited to join in a dispute discussion about the article through the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request. Indepentten (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Greenfield SPAsAny thoughts on what to do about the ongoing parade of COI/SPA accounts who edit the Susan Greenfield article to claim that she actually totally rebutted that autism thing? (The most recent SPI I raised - against someone who said they "work alongside" Greenfield - was tossed out on insufficient behavioural evidence.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration caseYou are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:
For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))
Edward Tobinick pageDear Alex, A strange response from you regarding new information I am adding regarding the outcome of a verifiable, high relevant, court case. By your reasoning nothing new, however germane, could, or will, have ever be added to a Wikipedia page if some unidentified person doesn't want it to be. Put simply, I am not changing the information that is already there, but providing additional relevant information. So it is not I, the bearer of unwelcome news, who should be censured, but the person who keeps removing this new, legitimate addition. Verifiable, high relevant, court case outcomes should, in an honest world, be sacrosanct, and welcomed. If not, surely the whole Wikipedia ship is unseaworthy, having been corrupted. Please advise.Strathfieldcattle (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Disruptive editing at medrsDisruptive editing, please stop
Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. The consensus reading said, yes, this very change was warranted. I am restoring it. If you continue having a problem with the reading, you might consider going about it a different way. LesVegas (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC) ANI
ANI
ReikiHello, I see your revert on Reiki but I can assure that the thermal view are not a forgery. I don't know if Reiki is a placebo or not and I'm an atheist. I see you appreciate the selfish gene so as me and I would add E.T Hall in the balance ;-). Source is not dubious, it is just a collection of thermal view of the world, no more, no interest about other interest, just the crude thermal print of the universe in place of the visible light. How could we work together for improving the truth? I have the rough of the thermal file if you want, they are not forced maybe my manner to express was incorrect? Regards --Hcrepin (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Gluten-free dietI left a message at talk page: [5] Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
DeletionCommented at talk:broccoli sprouts. LeadSongDog come howl! 01:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC) chronic fatigue syndromehello, can you please explain why you consider my contribution, which included four sources, was "poorly sourced". thank you. Dailyshampoo48 (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Functional medicineYour information about functional medicine is outdated and factually incorrect. I have tried to delete inaccurate information, but you appeared to add it back in . May I ask where your information is coming fronm, and why you choose to include this information only? Specifically the anti vaccine information and reference to pseudoscience and unproven science. Are you familiar with the institute for functional medicine and how they operate as of late? Everything is deeply scientific and heavily referenced .This wiki page is outdated. Please allow others to edit the page accurately so that it can be a real"common knowledge" source for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:198:102:B218:451C:8DE4:98B9:5686 (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision postedHi Alexbrn. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
edit warringHello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Chronic fatigue syndrome. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page. If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dailyshampoo48 (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted your removal of a redlink to Bristol Homeopathic Hospital in the homeopathy article. Hospitals are inherently notable, and this one is of particular interest, as it's notable for being one of the last in the UK, prior to its closure. Please see WP:REDLINK for the rationale behind red links in articles. If you disagree, please take this to Talk:Homeopathy instead of merely reverting again.-- The Anome (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC) please waitYou deleted a section I added to Ginkgo biloba while I was inserting citations, but before I saved the page. I am actively editing this section/article, please withhold your changes until I an done.Sbalfour (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Organic Foods Article (user deleting valuable information)Hello, I'd like to ask you to stop deleting verified and valuable information from the "Organic Foods" section here on Wikipedia. All the information posted there comes from the article already mentioned on the section. I'm just complementing with information that has been (intentionally) hided. Therefore I'd like to ask you to stop removing valuable content and stop hiding information to the public. Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTruthSeeker1 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 2
Astral ProjectionHi Alexbrn. You reverted my entire edit here with an edit summary "Supported by sources; best not to edit war over the lede - maybe WP:BRD?" Ironically, you reverted twice while mentioning edit warring; re-added new content without consensus while citing BRD; and you claimed supported by sources which I dispute. I've opened a talk page discussion which I hope you will join.- MrX 13:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC) POV pushing and WP:V violations; likely sockHello. You reverted all of the changes I made to the Anthroposophic medicine, and left these comments/notes: Rv. POV pushing and WP:V violations; likely sock. Besides POV, I don't know what they mean, including "POV pushing", and you don't identify any specific examples to support your reversion and comments. What is particularly concerning is that the NIH article which I cited to support the research on a specific mistletoe extract was deleted, even though it included research much more recent than that you cite (from 2006 and 2009). I also don't know why you didn't discuss with me your concerns/criticisms before stripping them out. This is particularly curious given the prominent display of "Be nice to newcomers" or some such on your talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookerT-MG (talk • contribs) 08:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Llod Pye editsWhy is it when i have tried to update thei page with factula dta and remove some sarcasm and unflattering wording i am now being mugged by 3x different users who will not allow me to post factual information. I am now in dialogue with 3 individuals becasue i wanted to do what Wikipedia was built for - update and edit a page with information. And now i am being accused of vandalism whilst trying to edit the site with some truth and different wording The guy is dead - why should his Wiki page be allowed to slander him? Am i not allowed to change wording to better portray his views? And add factual information about the DNA results? If its peer review i need then i will ink to the Genome database that shows these results - is that factual enough? The worldwide genome database is not peer reviewed though - so will i be allowed to post factual data from there? Will that be acceptable? Haggisnneeps (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
please cite from journals re K2
The question becomes: have you read the reliable sources page@Alexbrn: The information your marking as poorly sourced is biographical. News articles are acceptable for this type of information in a medical article. "the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article." So please self-revert as I do not want to start edit warring with you. If you want to clean up the information I would welcome that, but the fact that certain teams or players use yoga is not medical information and can, according to wiki policy, be used in this article. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Functional Medicine@Alexbrn: Why did you undo my neutral and source-based edit of Functional Medicine in its entirety without explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cawjac (talk • contribs)
Zephrs?I don't know if I'm dealing with Alexbrn or Zephr but the overly brief and meaningless comment of "poorly sourced" hardly applies to peer reviewed medical literature that I referenced. Edit what I did instead of reverting (censoring?) it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Merry Christmas/New Year! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas! Spread the WikiLove by adding {{subst:User:The Utahraptor/Christmas tree}} to any editor's talk page with a friendly message. --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
RespectUntil yesterday I had some respect for you and your scholarship above many of the so called skeptical or pseudo skeptical editors. You attempted to bait and discredit in the cmts that I made, you attempted to twist everything I said and in effect created a dishonest picture of the discussion all of which was a surprise given my initial premise. And sure I kick myself for allowing my time to be wasted, as I initially assumed good faith and tried to clarify my very honest attempts to create a fair bit of content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC))
ALA and MDMA reversionCan there be clarification on why the article at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619665 was reverted? Research shows that ALA can prevent MDMA induced toxicity and is relevant to this article. All but one note under clinical research was also sourced from the same medical library I sourced and cite from. (Timbudtwo (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC))
www.NutritionFacts.orgIn the Swank diet article talk you said that www.nutritionfacts.org looks dodgy. I don't know. The site has a staff of twelve researchers who review about 6,000 papers annually. The articles and videos provide both reductionist and big picture information on the latest in nutrition science without having to read 6,000 articles a year oneself. The reviewers also read the sources of a paper being presented and also the papers that cite that paper to evaluate the legitimacy of the paper. Although it presents information from research papers, which do not qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia medical articles, it also presents quotations from and references to literature reviews, systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognized standard textbooks by experts in the relevant field, and medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies - all of which qualify as sources for Wikipedia medical articles. If you have the time, please watch some videos on the site and let me know what you think.David H. Barr (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
declaring COI in Anthroposophic medicineHi Alex, user Chickpecking has twice ignored my reminder to have him WP:DECLARE his COI on talk page Talk:Anthroposophic medicine. I thought it was a requirement? AadaamS (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Knee-jerk revertingPlease try not to revert every change with lame justifications that refer to one small part of the modification. Modify what needs changing, keep what is valuable. If you can't find anything valuable in others' changes, perhaps review WP's style of editing. HGilbert (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Apology and RequestDear Alex, firstly, please accept my apology. I removed templates you placed on some of my articles, mistaking them for those placed by a BOT, after also misinterpreting what that BOT does and its instruction for ignoring it. This was not meant to be disrespectful or even directed towards you or any of your responses. If and when you have time, I wondered if you might help me interpret and respond appropriately to your assessment of two articles: 'Creative visualization' and 'Brainwave entrainment'. In the case of 'Creative visualization', after significant time spent on research - possibly way beyond that necessary for what was a several sentence article prior to my re-write, I faced a major problematic, in that the term is used in evidence-based disciplines adjuvant to medicine, such as cognitive approaches to psychology and psychotherapy, but also in fields based upon pseudoscience and the derivatives of New Thought, and New Age paradigms. The latter is particularly disturbing - by which I confess a bias - because there are some whose claims for it include the curing of cancer and the attainment of wealth. 'Creative visualization' is also used in design. I therefore split the subject into three: Creative visualization Creative visualization (New Age) Creative visualization (Design) In the light of the templates you placed on Creative Visualization, I have clearly not done a sufficiently good job, and I have no problem at all in accepting that, nor with working further with humility to improve it, based upon your assessment. If I do not do it, I believe, based on the length of time the previous article, or rather sentences, existed without editing, probably nobody will do it. And if not for the importance of the subject, which no doubt you will empathize as someone with a specific interest in sorting fact from fiction in relation to subjects such as cancer, I am sure you will agree. I have spent a long time going through the article today and I need your help in simply drilling down and identifying: 1. The sections you believe require more medical references. 2. The sections you believe rely too much on primary sources Then, if I am unable to find additional sources, I can pair the article down to include only those sections that do exhibit the aforementioned deficits. I have also looked carefully at the 'Brainwave entrainment' article and would very much appreciate the same input, though I do believe I might have a hunch, which perhaps you could refute or confirm. You have placed two templates. Regarding Fringe Theories, the only section I can identify that might be construed as 'Fringe' is the one entitled ' The rhythmic nature of human activity'. All the others are well established and seem sourced accordingly. If you disagree, could you please name the sections so I can either improve or remove them. Lastly, could you please identify the sections that require more 'medical references', so that I can also amend their deficits, removing them if no such sources exist for their claims. I can of course simply leave both articles, and if they were the subject of regular consistent editing by others I would. But having worked so hard on the two subjects I would like the self-satisfaction of knowing I have left them in an acceptable state of clarity and without unsupported claims, so that my responsibilities are fulfilled. I reiterate my apology by way of closure. Many thanks in advance. Prolumbo (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
naturopathy edit you performed.how was any of the truth i claimed "silly" that was your only response. are you as stupid as the admins who are against natural medicine? is that why you removed it without a valid reason good work there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.23.43.212 (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Silybum marianumHi Alex, thanks for correcting my error - I thought Pubmed was an accepted source for reporting medical research. Is it acceptable to link to the same trial published in Clinical Nutrition, which I understand is a peer-reviewed and highly respected Elsevier journal? Clarella (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Yo Ho Ho _(14586469407).jpg) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages. Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC) To all my talk page stalkers ...Wishing you a skeptical Xmas and an enlightened New Year! Alexbrn (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC) ProbioticsHi Alexbrn, I saw that you were one of the lead editors in the Probiotics section. Perhaps this article would be useful? Quite often these companies target consumers with deceptive ads. Thank you. --Bluezell (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Mis-clickThanks. I didn't know I'd done that. Should I explain what must have happened somewhere? (Fat paws on an iPad) Roxy the dog™ woof 14:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Edit WarLet me be very clear Alex, you cannot just simply revert my post and supply a non-substantive reason and expect me not to revert. I've supplied very detailed reasons in order to seek consensus yet your behavior is very similar to that of KingofFaces and Jps where you provide non-explanatory reasons mixed with insults for reverting my submission. I will assume in good faith that although your behavior is very similar to KoF and Jps, you aren't addressing this issue with them as a unified block. 16:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)
Alexbrn you underhandedly undid a compromise wording on the Rolfing Rolfingarticle, refusing to acknowledge the compromise, and stubbornly edit warring with those that tried nicely to point out that you were vandalizing the rolfing page by using the perjorative "quackery". Using that description is kind of like calling a person a "whore" or "sadist" or other similarly ultimately non-descriptive, but inflammatory terms. That has no business in Wikipedia, if you want to say that some people\doctors\philosophers\doubters, doubt the efficacy of something, go ahead, but name calling (especially since you insist on doing it both at the beginning and the end of the article) should be something not allowed. You vandalized a page and got away with it for a long time.
Animal therapiesAlex, you can't just delete a bunch of sourced material and replace it with a mere meta-analysis of 14 poor studies and reach the conclusions you are reaching. Let's collaborate here and improve these articles, not treat them as a fringe theory to be debunked. Montanabw(talk) 18:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that you discuss the content and article and do not muddy discussion with references to an RfA. Such red herrings always suggest that real arguments are thin, while this not so subtle slap at an editor is pretty low.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC))
WP:CIV "Present coherent and concise arguments, and refrain from making personal attacks; encourage others to do the same." A discussion of content that veers off to an editor's failed RfA and uses that RfA to bolster a position in an argument is an incivility and undermines one of our behavioural policies. So yes, I clearly support our policies and guidelines when I call editors on behaviours that fall outside our civility guidelines. Further, a talk page does not provide immunity from compliance with our policies and guidelines. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC))
For the multiple articles we are discussing, I found this, which I think may meet everyone's need for NPOV and analysis... they provide the research and the summary. We can't copypaste, obviously, and it doesn't cover everything, but it seems to be the most comprehensive review I've seen. I can live with its conclusions (beats "bogus pseudoscience" which one person called it) Montanabw(talk) 00:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Here: I have been trying to take time out from arguing to actually look up some more material and found this: [14] A literature review of 47 articles and if this isn't comprehensive, then I invite you to dig on your own. I also finally obtained a full text of the Anestis study and what struck me is that several of the 14 studies they looked at were the EAGALA model, which I personally find to be problematic. Even so, even Anestis stated, "we believe that research concerning ERT and other experimental treatment modalities should continue. At the same time, the quality of that research needs to improve..." They clearly are taking a very conservative approach, but I would not read their conclusions to say that Equine therapies are "bogus pseudoscience" -- their conclusion was that the 14 studies they looked at basically sucked in terms of various design elements. Montanabw(talk) 06:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Séralini affairThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Séralini affair. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
December 2015
2016
Who are you to threaten me?You place OPINION on pages, and then get pissy when they are changed? Not going to tolerate that. Dear Alexbrn, These changes are not correct, according to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) "Another useful grouping of core medical journals is the 2003 Brandon/Hill list, which includes 141 publications selected for a small medical library[Hill DR, Stickell H, Crow SJ (2003). "Brandon/Hill selected list of print books for the small medical library" (PDF). Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. Archived from the original on June 15, 2011. Retrieved 2008-09-16.] (although this list is no longer maintained, the listed journals are of high quality)" and please come to the talk page before editing, best regards - Jdontfight (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Pilates health benefits?Even a cursory glance at the scientific research on Pilates shows that the statement "There is no good medical evidence that Pilates confers any health benefits" is clearly untrue, not to mention the basic commonsense fact that all forms of exercise confer health benefits. Even if it weren't flagrantly false, however, this preposterous statement would not belong in the introduction to the article. It's simply not the place for it. Your edits are ideologically driven, and they are objectively false. Revert again and I will get an admin involved. A basic scan of the peer reviewed literature shows that Pilates provides health benefits. Here are some examples. You did not read (or understand) the reference you cited. You have a responsibility to remove your false statements from this page http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26473443 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26578458 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26435334 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26004043 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22397236 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.122.39 (talk • contribs)
UPDATE 05/04/2016. Alexbrn, I totally agree with the above contributor whose points are absolutely valid against your edits and censorship of our voice. I can only conclude you qualify as a biased editor, who seems to have a specific view of certain areas in the health industry, and to ensure they spread across the globe, you use the tactic of reverting perfectly justified edits that could go against your interests, and in doing so you give no coherent, reasonable justification. As such , the article gets endlessly stuck in your definition of how it should be. Several valued contributors to the Pilates page are trying to clean the articles every now and then from content unrelated to the Pilates discipline, normally written with malice and quoting dubious sources. You are not even allowing correction of grammar or restructuring of certain sections, or removal of duplicate content. What is this about? I am afraid I have enough evidence and will have to take it further with the administrator team if you don't come to reason and stop reverting justified edits.
@Alexbrn I wish someone in Wikipedia administrative team could see your replies do not make sense. You keep writing true statements that are not connected to the topic. It is an evasive technique old as sugar, but I know Wikipedia Administrators will spot what you have been doing. You also do edits and reversions quoting and linking Wikipedia's guidelines usually used in medicine and medical research to justify your edits, and you extend that criteria to whatever you want, in this case, Pilates. Health topics and health industry is not the same as medicine and alternative medicine.
Welsbech gases US pat 5003186Good day. I think the Patent is very significant to the topic of chemtrails. Its a patent describing the method and chemicals involved. How can it be that it is irreleveant ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark gungal (talk • contribs)
KE DietHello. I'm a new Wikipedian and ask for help in bringing attention a scientific article that supports a basis for using a ketogenic feeding tube diet in medically supervised weight loss. This is the link to the peer-reviewed medical article: http://medcraveonline.com/AOWMC/AOWMC-01-00005.php . Thank you.
I think you missed a FRINGE edit marked as minor. Have undone it. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Alex, I will get back to yo in a few days to sort ot Family Constellation text. Best regards, Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.14.185.48 (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Better hereI found this to be a "problematic" comment. Your accusations of edit-warring and POV-pushing are getting quite tedious, given that you have a problem not seeing the log in your own eye. I am going to graciously suggest that you assume a little more good faith on my part; I have no idea what your background is with animals or animal therapies (do you own a pet?), but I can assure you that while even I find many animal theapies to be on the flakey side, there are also some very promising findings. The trick is looking objectively at the positive as well as the negative and teasing out the stands of each. If you are on a campaign to debunk all animal therapies as pseudoscience or somehow "bogus", that is as surely an extreme position as those who believe in miracle cures. I hope that is not your position. Montanabw(talk) 20:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Human spaceflightThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Human spaceflight. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Letting you knowI want to make sure that you are aware of User:Elvey/sandbox/User talk:Alexbrn, for obvious reasons. Please let me know if you would like me to put it up for deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Alexbrn, if you have the time, the Effects of pornography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article could really use a medical editor like you, Anthonyhcole, Yobol or Jytdog helping out with it and watching it. It's a contentious topic with POV-pushing going on at the article (from both sides) from time to time, and it's prone to poor sources. While it's not a well-researched topic, and, as I noted at the article talk page, can be subject to the "and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published" aspect of WP:MEDDATE, it can also do better when it comes to sourcing. I've tried to get WP:Med to help with the article...but to no avail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussionHello, Alexbrn. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Rose (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AstronomyThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Stupid spammer is stupidJohntucker28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - life is so much simpler when people are too dim to even try to cover their tracks :-) Guy (Help!) 12:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Family ConstellationsHello Alexbrn, Please note some of the opinions on the page were unsupported hearsay. Some links were dead and needed to be updated. So why not stick with a neutral unbiased version? Anupapa (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Please don't make threats for daring to voice honest (and evidence-based) views that contradict yoursYour calling my edits on the Roswell page "disruptive editing" with threat to block strikes me as extremely ironic. My edit did not add "commentary and your personal analysis", it was an attempt to add the very balance and NPOV that was conspicuously absent - as I stated very clearly in my edit summary, and as abundantly attested on the discussion page by several individuals. Dismissing any contrarian perspective as ipso facto "fringe" is in my view intellectually dishonest. To call the military that led the US into war in Iraq on the basis of positive WMD's definitively "credible," with not even mention of the alternative perspective and history in the lead, as the current version does, is comical, and there is abundant substantive evidence favoring the alternative sources by substantive researchers, for which I have finite time. You don't have to agree with me, - but to instantly shoot down anything violating your dogmatic perspective is in my view exactly the same kind of fundamentalist-like arrogance that chained Copernicanism centuries ago. Negative barnstar for that. Recognizing even the mere existence of alternative beliefs which ARE well known and which DO have strong evidence in their favor is exactly what NPOV is all about in the first place. Would it really need threatening you in turn with decertification for abuse of editorial powers to make you step back and weigh the possibility that others not only might mean well but could even be right? I'd love to think not. Both the dogmaticism and the certitude you evidenced are fatally hurting WP, and are anathema to what it is really about. And looking at your talk page here, it appears I am not alone in this observation :-( Chris Rodgers (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Naprapathic medicineWhy have you been linking the Naprapath page to the Chiropractic page? They are completely different fields and you are providing misleading information to anyone curious about Naprapathy. Why would you be doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebeck999 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Bioavailable GlutathioneDear Alexbrn, I noticed that you deleted the page "bioavailale glutathione" that I published on Wikipedia on the 13 January 2016. I would appreciate to know the reasons behind your decision, so that I can work on my publication in order to improve it and publish it again. Thanks for your collaboration Kind regards, ViolaC16 (talk)15 February 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Climate change denialThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Climate change denial. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Youth Time pageHello Alexbrn, I would appreciate if you stop taking away the content and replacing it with irrelevant information such as linking two public figures together and to the organization for no apparent reason. Can we agree to leave the page as it is now, i.e. unbiased introduction, logo and organization's manifesto. I strongly disagree that publishing organization's manifesto constitutes self-promotion. It is a relevant information, and ultimately it is for a reader to interpret it, not a single abusive editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programsyt (talk • contribs) 08:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Edit Warring Warning You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Feldenkrais Method. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tapered (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
YogaHi, can You tell me please, why did You delete the subsection with Jiří Vacek from the article Yoga? I do not want to do something bad there, I would like to make the site better... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueKarel (talk • contribs) 15:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Talkback Message added 14:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. BlueStove (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:History of IBM CKD ControllersThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of IBM CKD Controllers. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC) I've started a discussion about your editing at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Please comment there. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC) March 2016
Please comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivityThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Well that took a shorter than expected time......before the 'there is no consensus' turned up. I dont think it is as bad as homeopathy though as that has multiple separate and distinct eternal discussions. Paleo only has one or two. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Scientists open letter on CryonicsHello, I see that you just reverted to remove the Scientists Open Letter on Cryonics from the "Cryonics" page. Most people (statistically likely to include you), are not familiar with cryonics, or the specific premises on which the possibility of cryonic resuscitation is based. I don't expect anyone else to think that cryonics itself is reputable or that the possibility of resuscitation for cryonics patients is likely (or possible). However, I do respectfully request that you follow your own policies, and allow the point of view of respected cryonicists to be represented on a page that is... Well... about cryonics. The point of view you deleted is not only held by those 69 scientists, but it is also (probably the only) common belief held by the cryonics community as a whole. In other words, you would be hard-pressed to find a single person who calls themselves a "cryonicist" who does not agree with the contents of that open letter. (I know at least a few hundred of these people personally.) The "status quo" of the page is that it has many negative comments about cryonics from single individuals. The open letter which you just reverted, contains the positive opinion of 69 respected scientists who work in cryonics related fields, almost every one of those scientists has a PhD in a related science discipline. You typed the word "silly" in your edit comment, but is it silly to include the point of view of the cryonicists which the article is written about? As I stated, I don't expect you to agree with cryonicists, but I do ask you to allow the opinion this group of scientists to be represented. Their viewpoint meets all NPOV and RS rules. It is certainly a minority point of view (as is cryonics as a whole), but according to NPOV, (all) published minority points of view related to a topic are supposed to be described in the topic. It easily meets the RS citation criteria, as the open letter has been referenced by the National Institute of Health, a few printed books, and numerous news organizations. Thank you, -- Nome77 (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
This had passed AfD I will be expanding it shortly. Valoem talk contrib 14:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong with this source? I notice you removed that one. Valoem talk contrib 19:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Biodynamic AgricultureHi there- I am wondering why all of my edits to the biodynamic agriculture page were rejected? The citations, especially for the effectiveness section, were very strong and that was hours of work on my part (for a class assignment at my university). If there is something else I should do to get my edits accepted to the page, please let me know. Thank you, Samantha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snl223 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
We can discuss the sources after AfD, I believe those are reliable and secondary. Removing sources mid AfD, may cause bias. Valoem talk contrib 17:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Collaborating on the Biodyamic Agriculture pageThank you for the information you provided. Would you be able to more clearly direct me on how to collaborate with the page's authors in order to get my revisions accepted? I have started in the sandbox but am not sure how to go from there. Snl223 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Samantha, Masters Candidate, NYU Alternative Agriculture and Food Systems
HoneyHey Alexbrn, you reverted my edits on the Honey article. Let's talk about it on Talk:Honey. Fnordware (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Exponential functionThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Exponential function. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Need some coaching helpHello, I'm new at attempting to contribute here, and I just posted a paragraph you said was irrelevant. I thought my gov. document source applied to medical use of cannabidiol and cannabinoids. Please help! Thank you. Listenforgood (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The cannabis articles are generally in a bit of a mess, but any biomedical claims in them need to have the strongest WP:MEDRS sourcing. The Charlotte's Web article is about one product and its area of treatment (epilepsy). More general content on cannabidiol would belong in the cannabidiol article. I haven't looked for a while but our cannabis articles had some intense scrutiny for a number of medical editors in 2013/2014 and the health information at the time was improved a lot. Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
References NCGSPlease let me finish this editing in steps. Come back with your views in 1h! Jrfw51 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
"Activated" phenolicsWould appreciate your review and comments on the dispute over the new Activated phenolics article being discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Alexander techniqueYour edit war warning really escalated things. Along with a threat to block. OMG, after all these years on Wikipedia without such a complaint. It does not appear that you read my points: This is an RCT, and neither the in-vitro or animal study which WP:MEDRS warns against. It is in a reputable journal. While the disputed para. could be cut in size a bit, it does not give undue emphasis. I will try another edit that cuts the para. down in size. And if you are still insistent on removing it entirely, I will go to WP:ANI. OK? Bellagio99 (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Warning are not threats, and Wikipedia has a number of formalized warnings which are useful, for example when an editor is unaware of what "edit-warring" is. A threat is when an editor says something like "And if you are still insistent on removing it entirely, I will go to WP:ANI". Bellagio99 I do so insist: so either go to ANI or accept that is a good policy-based outcome. Alexbrn (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect claim on "doctor of osteopathic medicine " pageThis sentence needs work: "notable difference between D.O. and M.D. training is that D.O. training adds 300 – 500 hours studying pseudomedical" Please correct this article. A peer-reviewed study's conclusion is "Despite some preliminary evidence, it is still largely unknown whether osteopathic manipulative treatment improves preterm clinical outcomes." Here is the study~ A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment on Preterms Many MD programs now include “complementary and alternative medicine,” that also have "unknown effects" according to the literature, yet this mis-characterization of MDs isn't mentioned near the top of their Wiki page. It is a disservice to the public to give them the impression that DOs are engaging in any less scientifically rigorous practices than MDs when: A. Few DOs practice OMT in clinical settings, and the efficacy of this practice is still being evaluated B. MDs also engage in complementary and alternative medicine which has just as questionable efficacy still being evaluated.Yodaflame6 (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Since MDs don't have complementary/alternative medicine mentioned at the top of the page, for clarity's sake this sentence is more appropriate in the education section of the article.
This practice is not in widespread use by DOs in modern medical practice, and therefore should not be mentioned in ledes but has appropriately been relegated to the Education section. Yodaflame6 (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the Journal of Urology not considered a good enough source? Not fighting to have the edit go back, just curious? --FeldBum (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AstronomyThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Adrenal fatigueHi Alexbrn, I hope you are doing well. I noticed that a lot of my content was being removed from the Wikipedia page on "adrenal fatigue". I am creating edits as part of my Chemistry class, and I posted in various spots about my intentions. I did not mean to engage in an "editing war". I simply thought my edits were not going through because of bad connection or something of that sort. I saw that users said that my resources were unreliable; however, I thought my resources were very reliable because they came from pharmacology textbooks, government sources, medical journals, etc. How would you recommend that I improve my sources? In addition, I think the edits that I am providing will serve the page well. I find a middle ground between supporters and those in opposition of adrenal fatigue as a medical diagnosis, creating neutrality. Overall, I believe my edits could benefit this Wikipedia page greatly, especially since very little content exists on the page now. Best, 208.75.19.2 (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Jmagas208.75.19.2 (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Electromagnetic hypersensitivityHi, You just deleted an article section which is currently under discussion and the subject of an open RfC, without bothering to engage in that discussion yourself but instead expressing in your edit comment an opinion for which no consensus has yet been established. Could you please remind me how this can be useful? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
ToneThis edit summary was inappropriate. It was fine if you had good enough reasons to revert the edit, but a summary such as "unreliable sourcing" or "posible spamlink" is more accurate and a lot less rude than "garbage." We can be sure that IP will hesitate to ever edit wikipedia again. I really think you need to tone this down. Montanabw(talk) 21:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC) Editor of the Week : nominations needed!The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful. The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations? Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today! Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC) April 2016
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversyThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MMR vaccine controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Great jobThe Probiotics article is better because of you. Best Regards, Please comment on Talk:YouTubeThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:YouTube. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Sock et alThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. No Alexbrn, I'm not a sock, and I don't believe you have any prior reason to suspect that, if not the fact that I (legitimately) choose to edit as a IP to avoid some of the interpersonal unpleasantness that sullies many individuals' experience of editing Wikipedia. Fyi, after being asked to contribute to TALK:Feldenkrais Method I openly declared (here) that I am an experienced WP:MED editor with a background in evidence-based medicine. (And it's scarcely my fault if two other experienced editors - ping, ping - seem not to have actually read my post, raising blatantly strawman issues such as the need to follow "WP:MEDRS, ... and other relevant policies/guidelines".) Also, when reverting here I believe the onus is on you to participate on the talk page to explain why you think it appropriate for a reliable source (even if an 'ideal' MEDRS) to be recruited as the basis for a ==Criticism== section when the full text does not once mention the actual person who is the subject of the page (as distinct from the Feldenkrais Method he created). And anyway, in what way would it be appropriate for the bare results/interpretation of an objective study of the efficacy of a clinical intervention to be construed as personal "criticism" of its namesake? 81.129.188.226 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Don't feed the troll. -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Help on article for creation: Britt Marie HermesHi Alexbrn, I noticed you edit the naturopathy page often. I have written a draft article for Britt Marie Hermes, who is a former naturopath/now whistle blower and I could use your help shaping it up. It was originally rejected due to not meeting GNG and being too promotional. I've added recent sources, but I am not sure how to reduce the promo as it seems to be neutral to me. I think the article now meets WP:BASIC. Thank you. Medicalreporter (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:GiraffeThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Giraffe. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC) BreathworkI undid your changes, at the request of one of the leaders in the Holotropic BW community. I'd like to work with you towards a better solution, which is to create a new entry for Holotropic Breathwork, and have the Breathwork entry change into a more accurate description of breathwork as a generic term, with references to the different kinds of breathwork that want an individual entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdlong03 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
You know what violates policies?Your blatant tag team editing with Jytdog. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 05:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Alkaline DietPlease explain why you are undoing my changes of 14 June 2016 as poorly sourced when each line is linked with a journal article. JacquelineNH (talk) JacquelineNH —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Eat This, Not That changesHello, As a new Wikipedia user, I am trying to add new book titles and their descriptions to the Eat This, Not That page, which is currently incomplete and in the wrong order. After you flagged it, I have deleted any promotional language and have simple descriptions of the books. But the most recent iteration was also rejected. Can you please let me know what I'm doing wrong? I'm happy to comply. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeddyTedson123 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Health Australia Party.You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Health Australia Party. How can I change wrong entries? How come someone is allowed to add "Anti-Vaccination" if that is not the case.. .. most of the Health Australia Party's edit's seem to be by critics of Natural Therapy. .. most entries are biased opinions or innuendos ... text like >> " The party has been criticized for its support of pseudoscientific alternative medicine " .. is clearly biased.... alternative medicine is a general term, and pseudoscientific is therefore an opinion. text liek > Steven Novella has written that the party subscribes to the Big Pharma conspiracy theory .. .. is clearly hearsay .. and how can Steven Novella make an "opinion" anyhow .. ? He is American as far as I can see. He is simply accusing the HEP of somehting they are not ... ... to sum up ... how can all those opinions be defended .. without being accused of repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions ??? D-Bessmann (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Eidetic memoryThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eidetic memory. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Society and culture cut?Hello, I'd like some explanation of your undo of my latest contribution. How about give me some guidance, please. What do you look for when we're in the society and culture section? What I wrote led up to - and left in - the previous Denver Post article source about growers lowering CBD content in marijuana. THAT source IS patchy because 99% of that Denver Post article is about a child recovering from epilepsy due to INCREASED CBD, not lowered. The context of how CBD has come to the forefront via the publicity of Charlotte's Web is very relevant, and so is the rise of hemp cultivation and breeding for increased levels of CBD. That's historic, not off-topic. Listenforgood (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
UndoHi. You think it's "unreliabe/dubious/undue" information? Seriously? Public Library of Science and Discover Magazine are not reliable sources? Can you explain your point of view? On 2015, Dr. Amen and the Amen Clinics research team, in collaboration with researchers from UCLA, Thomas Jefferson University, and University of British Columbia published brain imaging study, showing brain SPECT imaging can significantly distinguish posttraumatic stress disorder from traumatic brain injury.[1] Discover Magazine named this research as 19th of the Top 100 Stories in Science for 2015.[2]
27century (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Please stop unserious biasing of articlesYou just deleted a huge section. Just stop it. All my sources are published in peer-reviewed media. The only non-peer reviewed source I used was the Oxford University blog and the writer is a Researcher at the institution. You are clearly trying to bias an article. Just stop it.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC) July 2016Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hat TrickShall we go for three? I'll report you if you want, but please can you do some real edit warring for me? -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
CFS treatments Mycoplasma additionHi Alex, I am new to Wikipedia editing. Could you please explain why my changes were reverted? I referred only to published medial papers and kept my summary to the point. This is information is already being used by a number of GP's I am aware of to treat CFS patients. SomeoneTurning (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
July 19 2016 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rolfing. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. You really should try practicing what you preach. Please comment on Talk:Extraterrestrial atmospheresThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Extraterrestrial atmospheres. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Why did you edit the chaga mushroom (Inonotus obliquus)?Why did you remove my addition to the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inonotus_obliquus It had citations for every statement that I made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdent1298 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
FeldenkraisHi Alex, I have a couple of queries about the current Feldenkrais page. It starts off by referring to it as a form of exercise therapy, but the basic 4 year training is not in any way a therapist training course. The Feldenkrais Method is more a form of self exploration & self development, practitioners who complete the basic 4 years part time work like a teacher/coach using mainly traditional Moshe Feldenkrais lesson material. They are not as working as therapists treating ailments, illness, disease. So more like an Alexander Tech teacher, and as far as I am aware AT is not referred to as a therapy. Reference the 4 year part time training course, among those people round the world who have completed a training are a fair few Physiotherapists, Medical Doctors and other HC professionals. However most of these HC professionals take principles of Moshe Feldenkrais' work and integrate some of these into packages of care,mainly creating their own new material. This is not the same as classic Feldenkrais Method work, which is what Moshe Feldenkrais did himself. (July2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.133.115 (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Research on meditation pageHi Alex I don't have the resources to do this; but I know you love wiki, and grasp the point that the current 'research in meditation' page has been hijacked by some mindfulness 'cuckoos in the nest'. Go well, JCJC777 Please do not vandalise the page for Berberine.You are welcome to add more information but please do not vandalise the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogiecutiepie (talk • contribs) 08:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi I'm reading about all the possible stuff about berberine please don't remove all the content from this page, they are very useful information. Thank you.Hello, I'm reading about berberine and it's very interesting. Although, I noticed you deleted a rather large portion of the page, the page may not be well written but you are welcome to improve and add to the information, please don't delete it all that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penicilian (talk • contribs) 09:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
July 2016
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist)The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Template during RfC processYou and I are both interested in the Rolfing article and you are much more experienced editor than me. Perhaps we can engage in constructive conversation that will result in improvements in that article. If I communicating in the wrong way about this, please let me know. An editor placed this template on the Rolfing page:
When you reverted this change, you mentioned that it is unnecessary since the article is in RfC process. Doesn't it make sense that the article have some indication for readers that there is lack of agreement between interested editors about the tone? Since it is a goal of WP to reach consensus and the templates should not be removed until consensus is reached, it seems that keeping the template is more likely to facilitate the discussion needed. I am unaware of how the RfC would achieve this same result. Thatcher57 (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand how that relates to the Template that you removed from the page. I am trying to discuss that with you rather than simply reverting your revert. 174.31.134.33 (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC) Sorry I wasn't signed in for some reason when I made this comment. Thatcher57 (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
TalkbackMessage added 16:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Woodstop45 (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Cannabis Cancer Treatmenthttp://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq#link/ - 6 Studies in mice and rats have shown that cannabinoids may inhibit tumor growth by causing cell death, blocking cell growth, and blocking the development of blood vessels needed by tumors to grow. Laboratory and animal studies have shown that cannabinoids may be able to kill cancer cells while protecting normal cells. A study in mice showed that cannabinoids may protect against inflammation of the colon and may have potential in reducing the risk of colon cancer, and possibly in its treatment. A laboratory study of delta-9-THC in hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer) cells showed that it damaged or killed the cancer cells. The same study of delta-9-THC in mouse models of liver cancer showed that it had antitumor effects. Delta-9-THC has been shown to cause these effects by acting on molecules that may also be found in non-small cell lung cancer cells and breast cancer cells. A laboratory study of cannabidiol (CBD) in estrogen receptor positive and estrogen receptor negative breast cancer cells showed that it caused cancer cell death while having little effect on normal breast cells. Studies in mouse models of metastatic breast cancer showed that cannabinoids may lessen the growth, number, and spread of tumors. A laboratory study of cannabidiol (CBD) in human glioma cells showed that when given along with chemotherapy, CBD may make chemotherapy more effective and increase cancer cell death without harming normal cells. Studies in mouse models of cancer showed that CBD together with delta-9-THC may make chemotherapy such as temozolomide more effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exerdoph (talk • contribs) 08:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
New to editing - advice pleaseDear Alexbrn, you sent me a message :- You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Chronic fatigue syndrome treatment I am new to this process so would be grateful of any help. My posts have simply factually reported the findings of First tier tribunal and the release of treatment advice from a US government body. Both of which I believe are new and significant pieces of information to help people understand the issues. Every thing has been fully referenced. Would it possible for you to read through my edits and advise me if there is anything not keeping with the requirements / spirit of Wikipedia. I could then make any changes needed to be inline with Wikipedia before discussing with the other editors of the page. I understand the philosophy of Wikipedia is not to have unbalanced articles and part of my edit quoted the Judge who said :- "assessment of activist behaviour was,in our view, grossly exaggerated and the only actual evidence was that an individual at a seminar had heckled Professor Chalder" and "there could be legitimate concerns that they wish to suppress criticism and proper scrutiny of their trial" which I think add balance to the paragraph above my edit :- Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet, aggressively defended the trial. In a radio interview, he called the critics 'a fairly small, but highly organized, very vocal and very damaging group of individuals who have, I would say, actually hijacked this agenda and distorted the debate so that it actually harms the overwhelming majority of patients.'"[48]
I have been suffering from ME/CFS for over a decade but am not part of any organised activist group - this is the first time I have felt that I should make public comments on the subject.
User:C7762 (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Miniature Australian ShepherdThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Court Judgements are considered reliable referencesDear Alexbrn, You have failed to reply to my message sent yesterday. I notice you are repeatably removing my whole post without good reason. This post contains significant information that gives a different view point to yours. It is simple the factual reporting of a court judgement - a court has sat can heard all the evidence and come to a fair judgement - Court judgements are reliable sources. The judgement is significant and should be included in Wikipedia because :- 1. Once the data is released, for the first time independent researchers scrutinise the results and can accept or reject the original findings - putting the controversy of the PACE trail to bed once and for all. 2. The Judgement states that "assessment of activist behaviour was,in our view, grossly exaggerated and the only actual evidence was that an individual at a seminar had heckled Professor Chalder" - which disproves the narrative communicated by supporters of the PACE Trial and as you posted throughout Wikipedia "he called the critics 'a fairly small, but highly organized, very vocal and very damaging group of individuals who have, I would say, actually hijacked this agenda and distorted the debate so that it actually harms the overwhelming majority of patients.'" . which I note had only one source - some radio program. It also falls under one of the pillars - that of "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" - I am adding the voice of a court judgement which adds balance to the article. If you for some reason need a secondary source (which is not needed !!! and you do not seem to do), I can add the press statement from your friends at QMUL which accepts that they lost the case. I will also add references to the many websites that are reporting the judgement - many of which are going into great detail on the scathing judgement:- http://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/news/major-breaktn-pace-trial/00296.html This is the second time I have tried talking with you to reach a solution - I will be re-posting my contribution and if you significantly change or delete it again I will raising a complaint against you. If you have a problem communicate with me. Your actions mirror the appellants in trying to suppress important relevant information. It is only a matter of time before the data is released and we will know one way or other. I see from your talk stream you have a long history of editing wars !!! Do you have a conflict of interest ? Mine is that I suffered from CFS for over a decade.
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Michael Greger#Removal_of_sourced_content". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 11:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:1The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC) For your considerationhttp://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/12/familienaufstellung-germanys-group-therapy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.26.240 (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Reversion on Calorie Restriction PageHi, You reverted my edit on the basis of "material based on non-WP:MEDRS. I would like to undo this reversion. With the exception of the "Austad and Kristan, 2003" paper, which is primary source, the other citations all meet MEDRS criteria. Additionally, the reversion also reversed edits to material that clarified findings without changing sources from status quo ante. Do you agree or shall we discuss further on the talk page?Mikalra (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Transferring to talk page.Mikalra (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Category talk:Violence against menThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Violence against men. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Isolation TankWhere is it that isolation tanks are listed as a CAM? Can you please reference that claim? otherwise it need not be there. In my re-edits, I referenced 3 very esteemed publications, (did you get a chance to inform yourself and read these articles btw?) which gave very precise and mainstream views on the present day science and reasons why people use flotation tanks. No medical or health information is given except why people float. No biomedical advice is given, therefore it is my view that Wikipedia:MEDRS need not apply! I believe my edits actually improve the article with new information and insight, yours only make an unsubstantiated claim, putting floating into a category that doesn't really mean anything to most readers! Can we find a middle ground here to actually communicate about why people float and reference these very good articles? Probrooks (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Clear Aligners pageDear Alexburn, The last contribution I've made to Clear Aligners was quite correct, there is no actual difference with ClearCorrect paragraph in the amount of correct cites and links. My changes are not promotional, I've expanded the list of manufacturers on the page and removed "Invisalign" mention that was leading to the same page. Invisalign is not the only manufacturer of clear aligners, so if you think my contribution was "promotional", please correct the paragraph, not delete it with this vague reason of "soapbox" mention. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katramarketing (talk • contribs) 08:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
credible sources removed wrongly claiming they are weakly sourced, while weakly sourced articles remain to prevent the page from being impartialThe article states little research has been done into kratom, this is incorrect, I changed it to Until recently, little research has been been made into kratom ..and linked to the following links from the The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association and the American Chemical Association http://jaoa.org/article.aspx?articleid=2094342&resultClick=1 and the American Chemical Association http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b00748 the links were removed so fast (within minutes) that it is not possible the person who removed them had time to look at them to ascertain whether they were credible or not. They clearly are credible links. Meanwhile untrue claims about kratom remain on the page, with the only citation being the DEA. It is obvious this page is heavily biased and censored to tell lies and hide scientific truth, which goes against every single principle that wikipedia was founded on. Christopherbrian (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
ExplanationHi, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain on the article talk page why you think the Wall Street Journal is a "POV source" in an article that's been tagged as containing "churnalism". It seems to me the WSJ source is reliable. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Impact of the privatisation of British RailThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Impact of the privatisation of British Rail. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Request for reassessmentHi Alex: I was hoping you would reassess your recent Delete recommendation on the Gerald Gurian article, in light of the re-wording it has just undergone to be neutral in tone and certainly not "wildly promotional". Kind Regards. Tosresearcher (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Update ... I just saw your remarks on the talk page. No need to worry about this request, you've already demonstrated your bad faith. My username certainly identifies me as one of the over 40 million Star Trek fans estimated to exist, so that OBVIOUSLY proves a connection to the article's subject matter. Have a nice day! Tosresearcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC) NaturopathyHi, you just reverted my edit for the second time on the Naturopathy page. Why would you not even take the time to read what I wrote, check my sources and compare it to the very, very biaised previous version. A quick look at the article and the pictures gives the strong impression that the author is trying to remove all credibility to this subject. I'm accused of "white washing" when I'm only deleting wrong statements written using out of context bits of sentences as justifications. Why wouldn't you try and read what I wrote? Why does the previous editor have the right to lie when I'm not even granted a read? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OllieB (talk • contribs) 17:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Your revert on Gilles-Éric SéraliniHello Alexbrn and thanks for your message on my page. I'm rather surprised that your criticise me for "repeatedly" reverting or undoing other editors' contributions on Gilles-Éric Séralini when 1) I reverted only once and 2) this was a revert of your own revert which you did without explanation (you just provided a WP:GEVAL for which I could have responded WP:BALANCE). In my initial edit (not a revert) I had taken the time to explain the reason of the change, but maybe it was not clear enough and I'm sorry for that. Here is another attempt to correct a false claim in the current article. The article about Gilles-Éric Séralini currently says "With a few exceptions, the scientific community dismissed the Séralini study and called for a more rigorous peer-review system in scientific journals." and refers to a short article by Martinelli et al. In this article, there is one sentence which says: "Scientific community – with few exceptions (21) – replied with a quantity of opinions and response letters from top scientists, where the Seralini study was dismissed and a more solid peer-review system in scientific journals was claimed for (22)." The first reference is to an official statement of ENSSER, while the other is an opinion by Hirt and some other scientists of EPSO. Nowhere the article gives figures that could help establish that the statement of ENSSER is indeed an exception. How many scientists were supporting Séralini, how many were not? Without an answer to that very simple question, I don't see how Wikipedia could claim what you have put back in the article. Taking the claim of Martinelli et al. at face value is not good enough. At the very least, the Wikipedia article should say "According to Martinelli et al. ...". The current version, by simply reusing Martinelli's claim and putting a reference at the end that most people won't read, brings the claim a level of truth that is not justified. The version I proposed was more objective but it seems that it does not fit "your preferred version of a page". --Fabienpe (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Mediterranean dietThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please explain what you mean by original research & poorly-sourced health content. I have not added a single new sentence to the article. Ghirla-трёп- 06:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MEDRS ? RIGVIRHi, you reverted my "==Clinical trials== A multicentre retrospective clinical study on melanoma patients was run until 2014; 52 study participants received Rigvir.<ref" Why do you think it fails WP:MEDRS ? - Rod57 (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
List of unproven and disproven cancer treatmentsHi, Alexbrn. I'd like to discuss your reversion of my edits to List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments. I'll accept you reverting this edit, but can you point me to a source that has the correct editor(s)? My main reason for the edit was that the references use the discouraged |editors= parameter. In reverting my edits, you also reverted this one. As a result, there are 80 errors about invalid date values (specifically, no day listed in access-dates). If you are going to revert this, will you fix these date errors? Or can that edit be restored? - Paul2520 (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I just think it's funny...That the person who wrote that incredibly revertable edit used a computer -the product of what could be well described "quantitative rationalism" which works based on a principle that could well be described as "quantitative rationalism"- to write it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC) eurocentrism - Are these bodies reputable?what makes you think that these medical societies are disreputable? these societies hold medical authority to over 3 billion people on this planet. are they too non-western for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.136.227 (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Diabetic retinopathyDear Alexbrn, Firstly thank you for taking the time to edit the posts I modified. I'm of course new to Wikipedia (I've made a few edits over the years but nothing major). In my edits to the "Light Therapy" page I've added some references to peer reviewed work such as Eye (Lond). 2011 Dec;25(12):1546-54. doi: 10.1038/eye.2011.264. Epub 2011 Oct 21. In these references its shown that light therapy is an effective treatment in humans for Diabetic Retinopathy and DME. I also referenced a web page written by the authors which is a detailed review article which discusses the pathology of DR and DME and how light therapy can treat this. This referencing shows results of an early clinical trial. Light therapy is being sold for treatment for DR worldwide and there are over 65,000h of patient data available (not freely on the internet so its impossible to reference this). How do I go about making an edit which includes references you'll be happy with. I'm satisfied the references I used follow the guidance you linked to. I don't want to be carrying out edit tennis, although I have a phd and work directly in the area I'm commenting on, I'd be keen to understand what you feel is acceptable Kind Regards Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northernalex (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Vegan nutrition cleanupThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hi Alexbrn, That article needs a lot more work. The stuff about calcium is also outdated. More recent research shows the acidification isn't counteracted by leaching calcium from bones and suggests it's probably leached from muscle tissue.[23] There's a lot of mistakes. It also wrongly implies that vegans get certain deficiencies and meat eaters don't, when it's more accurate to say that some deficiencies are more common in vegans. It also ignores the people on a vegan junk food diet (animal lovers who live on crisps, biscuits and fizzy drinks). Great floors (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please comment on Category talk:Seyfert galaxiesThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Seyfert galaxies. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Red meat articlesYou accused me of "spin" for simply making the funding sources of two studies apparent, and for providing context from one of the authors of one of those studies, where he essentially said that the study shouldn't be used in the way that it was being used in the wikipedia article. Why did you feel the need to start an edit war over this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.67.48 (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
It is not for you to take it upon yourself to decide that a reputably-published piece of work is tainted by COI, and signal this to readers, when those involved in the peer-review and publication process have deemed it fit for publication. We merely follow reliable sources. We don't undercut them with press releases, either. In any case this is all moot since the article is now evidently undergoing a much-needed update with newer sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
About a reversionRecently in the article of Homeopathy , you reverted one of my edits without explaining anything for your actions.Please take a look a the entire article and search for the redundancy when the cause for the removal has been mentioned in my edit summary,before incorporating a "Rv. to good." comment!For the time, I have undone your edits.Please inform(ping) me, if I am wrong. Cheers!Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 12:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The section which was reincorporated by you reads-----
BCAA articleThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please justify your edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Branched-chain_amino_acid&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=746402769&oldid=746402308 You have added a link to what appears to be a spam site selling supplements, and have significantly muddied the connection between linked papers and what those linked papers state, while not actually changing which papers are linked to. You have justified your changes with "unreliably-sourced biomedical content". Do you have a commercial affiliation with the supplement-selling website you've introduced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.223.127.242 (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why did you revise all my correct content?Dear Alexbrn You have revised the article back to the original that was clearly outdated scientifically - you claim that it was more neutral before. There are actually diagnoses regarding EHS and the phonomenon is not regarded as in the old article, so a lot of new information is lost when you make a CTRL+A delte like that. It is a handicap recognized by the authorities in several countries as I state. And I make serious sources and scientific papers from the Austrian doctor's dianogsis among others. Let's not get Wiki a bad reputation. I hope that your deletion of my article was a mistake? As the original article states it is an alternative medical diagnosis, so my info and all the scientific papers that I added as sources are enough in my opinion to make it neutral. I have added my article here so everyone openly has the info. Leksi Jensen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leksijensen (talk • contribs) 06:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Kombucha Tea: Number of Reported DeathsYou've been reverting some minor changes to the article about the number of documented deaths tied to kombucha drinking. Although one secondary source cited (American Cancer Society Complete Guide to Complementary and Alternative Cancer Therapies (2nd ed.)) refers to "occasional deaths" in the plural, it and all other sources, including a comprehensive study also cited in the article (Ernst E (2003). "Kombucha: a systematic review of the clinical evidence". Forschende Komplementärmedizin und klassische Naturheilkunde.) cite exactly one case from 1995 reported by the CDC. This is not POV-pushing, but an honest attempt to render facts accurately and not rely on secondary sources for information. Please feel free to review and read the cited articles, and I will happily concede I'm in error if any other documented cases of death can be found. - Andrew B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.87.102 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC) [Sorry, I'll move this to the article talk page]
Cannabis SchizophreniaWhat was wrong with what was cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergstrom (talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:NorepinephrineThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Norepinephrine. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC) Rox's Awful Pune of the Day In An Edsum AwardYou have won. I'm still groaning. -Roxy the dog™ bark 21:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Edit s to Lead on GraphologyHi, thanks for your argument on leaving in the term 'pseudoscience'. However, I would like to point out that Graphology is not presented as a hard science and acknowledges that there are aspects of handwriting that cannot be accurately assessed. These include: the chronological age of the writer; the physical sex of the writer or even whether the writer is right-handed or left-handed. This information must be obtained whenever possible. However, there are aspects of Graphology which can lend objectivity to the assessment of a person - for example there is no indication of: race, religion, gender or physical appearance and this can be of help in making an unbiased decision about a person's inner qualities. In this regard Graphology may be better described as a 'study' of human character rather than linking it to a field of knowledge in which it cannot compete (i.e. Science). For this reason I feel that dismissing Graphology as a 'pseudoscience' is redundant in the Lead. By definition the 'Lead' serves as an introduction to the topic to allow the reader to explore the matter further. There is already reference to and some elaboration of the deficiencies of Graphology's in the 'Professional Status' section on the page. I submit the above comments in good faith. Regards, Geeveraune (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Reversion CommentThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hi, I'm hoping to work together. Can you help me understand this reversion diff:? I know that particular page gets a lot of BS edits to it but please check the source and or discuss your concern prior to unnecessarily reverting properly verified edits. Thanks in advance. John Johnvr4 (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ANI notice Comment
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! Hello, Alexbrn. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) CFS controversies "contrasting viewpoints" sectionThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Alexbrn, I see you reverted some of my edits. I have a few concerns about the existing text here, and I thought it might be useful for me to set those out, so we can come to some sort of agreement. My edit says: A UK survey published in 2013 found that 89% of patient organisations thought the illness to be physical, compared with 58% of newspaper articles and 24% of medical authorities. [1] It is unclear whether these figures would generalise to other countries, such as the US, where medical authorities place less emphasis on psychosocial approaches to CFS, and more on biomedical approaches.[2] Your preferred version says: A survey published in 2013 found that 89% of patient organisations thought the illness to be physical, compared with 58% of newspaper articles and 24% of medical authorities. The authors of the report think that this might explain the gulf between patients and doctors, and why many patients are reluctant to engage in behavioural treatments.[3] My edit adds important international context - which is much needed given that the WP CFS page is currently focussed almost entirely on the UK. Can you explain why you don't think those additions would be of value? Perhaps you have a good reason, and we could discuss it, either here or on the article talk page. --Wilshica (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Wilshica References
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please comment on Talk:Stevo TodorčevićThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stevo Todorčević. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Health Effects of Tea Conduct
Please desist from edit warring on the Michael Greger articleThank you for your truly extensive contributions to Wikipedia. On the Michael Greger article you have recently engaged in edit warring. Desist from this behaviour and allow the appropriate tagging of the text to reflect the outcomes of the RfC and enable future expansion of the article. My edit has nothing to do with the tone nor content of the article and simply structures the article better. You could usefully contribute to the article byon providing additional sources for Hall's work as it currently consists of only one source (it does have several to establish her credability which is good but this does not add to useful content). Please don't be a trenchy on this one por vavor :) Have a nice morning! AlwaysUnite (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
new WP:RS noticeboard topic where you are an involved editorI hope I did it correctly. Please help me out if I did not. Topic: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Guardian_labeled_as_a_.22blog.22_with_author_credit Johnvr4 (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation DebateThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC) You are playing with fireThis is your last warning to cease automatically reverting legitimate edits unless you are able to articulate a valid concern. This behavior is WP:disruptive and WP:tendentious editing. You know full well what the purpose of the edit and the concern is about since you already discussed it at length in your own words. I have discussed my concern about this behavior and am glad that on this one occasion you've governed your actions accordingly. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Heads up of edit warring reportNotice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Criteria for alertsHi, remember to check WP:ACDSLOG before giving an alert. LesVegas has been sanctioned in the area of CAM and is therefore permanently alerted. I worry about the line "Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned" in WP:AC/DS. It seems inevitable that one day someone issuing an alert in good faith will get sanctioned because they forgot to look at the log. Despite WP:BUREAU being a policy, we have DS which seems like the epitome of bureaucracy. Manul ~ talk 04:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
ANI discussion
Please comment on Talk:Deepak ChopraThe feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC) To all my followersWishing you a verifiable Xmas, and a neutral New Year! Alexbrn (talk) 12:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Water FastingInstead of deleting all my edits, can you please tell me what I did wrong and I'll correct it? It's really unhelpful to have someone come along and delete all your work. Please engage rather than deleting all my work. --Jwslubbock (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Yo Ho Ho  Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
Dave AspreyHi, I'm new to Wiki and have tried to add a sentence to Dave Asprey's page about Alitura. We actually got permission from Asprey to add about him being a shareholder. Would you like proof of it? What can I add to the sentence to validate it so it stays on his page? Thank you so much for your help.Markawitiz (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all of this informative info. I don't personally know Asprey. I got his email on his site. Will try and find a more reliable source on the internet to show this fact is true. Happy holidays.Markawitiz (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful. The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations? Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today! In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
