|
User talk:Bon courage/Archive 8
Happy New NewMy edsum said "handwaving". -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Khabzela
Re: Your ping to me in your comment hereHi Alexbrn! I'm so sorry! I received an email notifying me of your comment and your ping - I somehow allowed it to fall into the cracks and go unanswered for this long. If this is still an issue, please email me and let me know. I took a look at the page you linked to, but many edits were made to it around that time - if you could email me the diffs of the content that you believe I should review and redact, I'll take a look at it right away. Again, I owe you my apologies; I did not mean to let your ping and your comment go unanswered. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Khabzela: The Life And Times Of A South African On 15 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Khabzela: The Life And Times Of A South African, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Khabzela, a 2005 bestselling biography by Liz McGregor, concerns a South African disc jockey who died of AIDS? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Khabzela: The Life And Times Of A South African), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Know ofsources that specifically brand Unani and Siddha as pseudoscience and/or quackery? ∯WBGconverse 17:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your revert, it was already discussed in Talk. See Talk:Carnivore_diet#Medsci. MEDRS is not exactly pertinent, as no general health claims is being made in factual sense in the article. BecomeFree (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 17An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tithonia diversifolia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bioactive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC) Grape therapyRe your removal of "junk". I am feeling a bit frustrated because another editor wrote that The main problem with the grape therapy article is the absence of reliable sources ..to indicate it is in current common use (European spas, etc.). So I insert a couple of examples to comply with that reviewer's request and then you delete them as "junk". Looks like I can't win. The photo has been on the page since the article was first written: in fact the place was what inspired me to investigate the topic in the first place.Roundtheworld (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
'Adverse Effects' Section on Circumcision 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. Hi Alexbrn. Thank you for recently amending the circumcision webpage, by including information from the NHS website, after I submitted a request on the talk page. I believe the circumcision wikipedia article should also refer to the article by the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS)[1] as it was published in June 2017. This is because it is more up-to-date than the sources currently on the wikipedia website, other than of course the NHS’ findings. I believe the first line in the paragraph under “sexual effects” (quoted below in bold) should be removed as it contradicts more recent evidence: “The highest quality evidence indicates that circumcision does not decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction.[19][76][77]” The BAUS’ article, published in 2017, disproves the above statement, which is based on outdated sources from 2010, 2012 and 2016. The BAUS article is a reliable source and based from a number of sources including the Department of Health in England, as mentioned on its article. The BAUS article states: 1. The “penis will feel a little less sensitive than before the operation”. This statement is on page 4 in the "what can I expect when I get home?" section of the article (bullet point 4). Thus, sensitivity will decrease after a circumcision. However the above line in bold states “circumcision does not decrease the sensitivity of the penis”. 2. Almost all patients (men) have reported “permanent altered or reduced sensation” after a circumcision. This statement is on page 3 in the "after-effect" section of the article (3rd risk). However the above line in bold states “circumcision does not… reduce sexual satisfaction”. The term "satisfaction" is a synonym of "pleasure", and "pleasure" is used interchangeably with "sensation". Additionally, the term “sexual function” is used in the above line in bold, however, according to another wikipedia article regarding sexual function[2], “the aspects of sexual function defined as being relevant to the assessment include sexual desire, erection, orgasm and ejaculation”, all of which are already mentioned below in the sentence regarding the 2013 review. Thus, there is simply no need for the above line in bold. I believe the paragraph should be changed to the following as it reads easier: "A 2013 systematic review found that circumcision did not appear to adversely affect sexual desire, pain with intercourse, premature ejaculation, time until ejaculation, erectile dysfunction or difficulties with orgasm.[78] However, the study found that the existing evidence is not very good.[78] A 2017 review found that circumcision did not affect premature ejaculation.[80] Reduced sexual sensation is a possible complication of male circumcision.[79] Almost all men have reported permanent altered or reduced sexual sensation after a circumcision. The penis will also feel less sensitive than before the circumcision[3]. When it comes to sexual partners' experiences, circumcision has an unclear effect as it has not been well studied.[81]" Please let me know whether these amendments are possible. Thank you. Jas9777 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC) References
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discretionary sanctions alert for Abortion This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Sorry for bothering you, but...
RevertingThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please refer from false spam accusations. 31.161.228.68 (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Circumcision revert "per talk"What do you mean "per talk" when you reverted my edit to the circumcision article? I explained the problem in the talk page and then edited after I got no response. Then you revert it "per talk"?Madsenanders (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Once more unto the breachHey there! Looking over Morgellons and delusional parasitosis, they aren't making use of the most recent reviews, and I propose to dive in for an update. But I want to take care with impact factor. What do you think of this article? There are other equally good recent reviews, but with low impact factors, and I don't want to open that door.
I'd also want to standardize citations to that format, since when I clean up an article, I want to clean up everything; do you think that will be a problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Arbitration case openedIn 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case. The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Pending revisions?
I notice some of my edits have been flagged as pending revisions (e.g.[1]). As I recall, this didn't happen before. What gives? Alexbrn (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Request for reviewHi Alexbrn! I would like to request you for reviewing my draft page Epos 257 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Epos_257). I know that it was already reviewed and unfortunately declined, nevertheless I have rewritten it and I would like to ask you very much to check the article if at least a little possible...Thank you very much! Regards Jiří Jiří Gruber (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Reversion and "unreliable source"Nice to know you're a circumcision fetishist wrt your sweeping reversions on Circumcision. Care to explain how the Journal of Epidemiological Biostatistics is an "unreliable source"? Zedtwitz (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! MJV479 (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
Vitamin CI saw that you removed content and references from the Vitamin C article. In your opinion, is the vitamin C and common cold information sufficiently covered in the History section as it was? Or should more detail be added there? David notMD (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
KetogenicThanks, Alex; after I mistakenly hit that blooming rollback button, I decided I had best leave it alone. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC) CourtesyI mentioned you in the subpage of my arb evidence at this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Plant derived anti-cancer therapyhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30540593 Artemisinin and its derivatives: a potential treatment for leukemia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.178.22.63 (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
POV edits: re Brian Morris. Again--take it to the talk page.The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Inflammatory bowel disease, paleolithic diet“As of 2014 there was no evidence the paleo diet is effective in treating inflammatory bowel”. Can you explain to me why this study in 2017 does not contradict this sentence. In case you don’t have time to read the study, here is the conclusion “ In conclusion, our study demonstrates that dietary modification focused on elimination of potentially immunogenic or intolerant food groups has the potential to improve symptoms and endoscopic inflammation in patients with IBD. Dietary change can be an important adjunct to IBD therapy not only to achieve remission but perhaps improve the durability of response and remission.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5647120/ Tylotyler (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Requesting feedback on (very) old edits made by yours trulyHey! Aaages ago I made some edits to the CFS wiki page, which you reverted for being biased. Given that i do in fairness have somewhat of a bias (I know multiple people with CFS) I thought I'd ask what particularly was the flaw with my edit, so I can avoid it in future edits (like the one I just made, which I hope was OK!) <3 --Starchify (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Starchify
Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice Hi Bon courage, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer. Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer. To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process! Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Disulfiram AlexbrnWhy would you delete the research I pointed out about Disulfiram I don't get it ? I thought I linked to enough high standards links and research to justify it right? I wanted to put it in a section tho. Maybe put the sentence in another way but it's relevant ? Thanks to tell me Aguigal (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC) I mean there's literally clinical trials from Columbia University and Stanford on the matter. There's a section for cancer and HIV with the same level if not less evidence and interest ? Aguigal (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 5An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Postural Integration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bodywork (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Hello, Alexbrn!Thank you for the information about pages editing! She was helpful. I would also like to know how I can create a draft for editing an existing page that can be checked by the editor? NDenPT (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Invitation to RedWarn Hello, Alexbrn! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience. RedWarn is currently in use by over 80 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 13:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Paleo 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. I'm going to have another crack at being reasonable here. The article is supposed to be neutral in it;s presentation of the topic, criticism should be clearly delineated rather than embedded in the article as straw man arguments.It;s intellectually dishonest. Replying to accusation of non-neutrality with, 'yup' and ' policy to dubunk the daftness that is the Paleo diet.' is clearly bias. Specifics: 1. "The digestive abilities of anatomically modern humans are different from those of pre-Homo sapiens humans, which undermines the diet's core premise." The Paleo Diet has no concern with pre-human diet. It relates purely to that period immediately before the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution i.e around 10,000 years ago. The citation leads to an opinion piece which lacks any citations from any authoritative source, such as Cordain. The assertion that it undermines the 'core premise' is pure uncited opinion. 2. "During the 2.6 million year-long Paleolithic era, the highly variable climate and worldwide spread of human populations meant that humans were, by necessity, nutritionally adaptable. Supporters of the diet mistakenly assume that human digestion has remained essentially unchanged over time" Another straw man argument. As above, the term Paleo - as used in reference to a specific historical window rather than the Palolithic period - only specifically relates to the period immediately before agriculture, not the entire Palaeolithic period reaching all the way back to first tool use (which would BTW make it 3.3 million years and not 2.6). The statement that 'Supporters of the diet mistakenly assume that human digestion has remained essentially unchanged over time' has no evidenced citation. It is merely a statement of opinion. There may well be some supporters who know nothing of the science behind it, but that most definitely does not include the authors of the source materials, and they say n such thing. Cordain, the author of the actual Paleo Diet book makes the timeframe entirely clear: "Seventy percent of the foods that comprise the modern diet—grain products, vegetable oils, dairy, refined sugar, and alcohol—were introduced in the past 10,000 years and are completely out of line with the center of the curve. Importantly, 10,000 years is not nearly enough time for evolution to shift the curve." He also makes clear that he does not think that the dietry habits of our ancestors are static: "At the center of the bell-shaped curve are the foods we evolved to eat. That doesn’t mean there is a single Paleo Diet—our Paleolithic ancestors ate different foods depending on where they lived. The optimal human diet is a range, not a point, and most of us sit within the two standard deviations of the peak of that curve." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerista (talk • contribs) 09:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Interesting Shenqijing (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Alcoholic drinksWhat was wrong with my inserted table? Not a good summary at the end of the article? 12akd (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: Thank you. 12akd (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Broken references on 5GThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Please fix the references on your changes for 5G (e.g. scientists signature reference point to some unrelated swisscom article).--Escain (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
DS AlertThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Apitherapy Edits Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Jeffrey Walton (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Note: Report was closed as malformed.[2]
I went ahead a reported the stalking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#The_beginnings_or_harassing/stalking_behavior Your behavior is very creepy. Jeffrey Walton (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Note: thread was closed as "No stalking or harassment has occurred".[3]
Your help desk questionDid you ever find the answer to this question? No one responded and I am way behind on the archives, though I wouldn't know the answer.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Christian dietsMaker's Diet was listed as possible non-notable at WT:MED, so I looked into it. It turns out that there are some independent sources about it ([example), and it was on a Publishers Weekly bestsellers' list in 2004. The article is a mess. I spent a bit cleaning it up, but it's verbose and has all the problems you'd expect. But my discovery is that this diet/book/program is discussed in context with others in several sources (e.g., this one), and that got me wondering whether we could find others of its type and merge them into a single quasi-list article, with each independently source-able subject getting its own brief description. This one, for example, should say that it's a 40-day-long diet that emphasizes natural/whole/organic foods, incorporates Jewish dietary rules for animal products, a half-day weekly fast, and that the author makes money selling dietary supplements. It'd take some work, but putting the content in one might make it easier to keep it encyclopedic. What do you think? (Please ping me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Interesting? Shenqijing (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Interesting? Shenqijing (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC) ANI noticeThe 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.
Note: thread was immediately closed with "No PA here".
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Gam-COVID-VacHi Alex. As gently as possible, can I ask you not to re-revert challenged content as you did here. I am as annoyed about reverts without explanation as you are, but the article is under general sanctions, and I can't make use of them to restrain poor behaviour, if experienced editors like yourself don't scrupulously display best practice as an example for others. The moment that your addition is reverted, you need to go to talk and demand reinstatement because the revert was unexplained. If you legitimise back-and-forth reversions, you put the same tool into the hands of disruptive editors. I know it consumes more time to do things by the book, but it lets you take complaints of sub-standard behaviour to WP:AE where we can deal with that behaviour effectively (i.e. it's not ANI). Regards --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I here you also Shenqijing (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC) ResveratrolWhy were my edits removed that cited peer-reviewed studies involving Resveratrol? They're not "poorly sourced." If there's information from peer-reviewed studies, there is no legitimate or wholesome reason for removing those. Doing so is the suppression of evidence and forcing your opinion against the data. That's equivalent to imposing a POV. Also, to say, "no evidence exists," is one of the strongest claims a person can make, and it can easily be disproved with a counter-example, which I did. Also, it's totally absurd to avoid any mention of the evidence of benefits in animals. If animal evidence was useless, there would be no value behind ever performing animal testing for determining the safety or efficacy of any drug. However, there is a mountain of data (which I will not mention here) that shows that animal testing is extremely valuable when determining the safety and efficacy of drugs. Resveratrol is not an exception to that rule. Animal data is also extremely important when evaluating the effects of a drug on aging because animals have shorter lifespans. I should not need to explain why animal data is relevant or important. It should be allowed to be included on the Resveratrol page without being reverted. Devingbost (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Another opinion for Talk:Discrete trial training#EffectivenessHi Alexbrn, 66.244.121.212's claims of DTT—the structured form of early applied behavior analysis (ABA) intervention for autism—not being evidence based because of one recent literature review by Cochran does not sound right. It's based on over fifty years of proven research and literature reviews, i.e. see here: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/120/5/1162. And saying that the technique is not effective in the O. Ivar Lovaas Wikipedia article doesn't seem correct either. It's well-established in the research literature for improving the intellectual performance of children with autism and for many, they have shown to make substantial gains in language, adaptive, and social skills, it outperforms other treatments including traditional speech therapy, and is recommended by the Surgeon General (1999), American Academy of Pediatrics (2007), and US National Research Council (2001). ATC . Talk 05:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
User:ATC: This is your second attempt at canvassing. Please stop. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Vitamin KJust an FYI that I have started a process of improving this article before nominating it to be a Good Article. Notifying you because I see in the article history that you had made significant efforts to improve this article in the past. I have previously raised Vitamin C, Folate, Pantothenic acid and most recently Niacin to GA status. David notMD (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey Alex, made a reply to your comment. ATC . Talk 00:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC) ATC . Talk 00:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC) September 2020
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. [5][6]--Александр Мотин (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Circumcision and HIV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hey, Alex. I think that this article could use your input. I don't watch it, but I had noticed it before. I recently came across it again and can see that it needs work and that there has been recent discussion on the talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Guinea pigI've just strolled through this talk page and realized something. Basically, you are dealing with something way more important than a mere pun of "guinea pig" phrase. Sorry for taking your time. Uchyotka (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC) P.S. It was weird how you went down to basics, as if I am A2-B1 speaker. But! Upon seeing your talk page, I realized you deal with stubborness of that very "oh, you gotta explain it to me as if im 5" kind which requires going down to basics. Now I get it: you can use term "guinea pig" instead of "test subject" sometimes for the very illustrativeness I am also all about. I am really sorry for getting in your way with my non-medical questionins on speech, style etc. Uchyotka (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC) P.P.S. On a side note... the "test subject" sounds scary to Portal fans, for example. It was a joke. Ha-ha. Fat chance. Ayurveda articleHi Alexbrn, I noticed that you reverted my one-word edit, "scientific evidence" back to "good evidence" (diff). My intention posting here on your talk page is to discuss, word-geek style, not to dispute. I'm fine leaving the sentence as it is. I was thinking that "scientific" is a more precise adjective than "good". "Scientific" has a fairly well-understood, specific meaning, particularly when modifying "evidence", whereas "good evidence" has a variety of interpretations. For example: "My family has successfully used Ayurveda medicine for seven generations (if not more), which is pretty darn good evidence!" Such evidence—based on accumulated anecdotal accounts—might be deemed "good" evidence by many people, although it is not scientific evidence. By looking at various definitions for "evidence" and "scientific", it seems to me that we need a precise adjective to modify "evidence", particularly about a practice that lacks an empirical foundation. evidence:
scientific:
I saw that your PhD is in English, which led me to an assumption that a word-nerd discussion would not turn you off. If I assumed incorrectly, please just let me know. Thanks! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 05:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Interesting Shenqijing (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Revert on functional medicineHello recently I made a revert edit on the functional medicine page, without a explanation. Can you please explain, thankyou. Shenqijing (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Revert on TCM Page,Please explain your latest revert on the wiki page please . As you have no edditing history or input on this page, this is vandalism. Shenqijing (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, you are still reverting the page with no real explanation. There is a topic on talk. You have a lot of edditing history please lead by example, if you could be constructive on the talk page that would be great, thankyou. Shenqijing (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Uninformed EditingI would advise against referring to an article from a site run by experts in the field and backed up by multi-million-dollar research as "not a credible source". Henry Kingdon (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Talk:DexamethasoneA discussion has been opened regarding one of your edits at Talk:Dexamethasone. 73.158.166.97 (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC) BRDBrief yourself on WP:BRD. Whilst it's not compulsory you would be well advised to study it, and try to avoid edit warring. Arcturus (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Controversial topic area alert
— Newslinger talk 15:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Be polite and welcoming to new users/Assume good faithPlease adhere to these wikipedia guidelines and stop bullying me. Let's respectfully avoid each other henceforth - interaction is closed and I will gladly steer clear of anything you feel passionately about, if I can discern that in advance. Cheers and vade in pace Miles Quest (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Can you have a look at this article? It has some dodgy sources. I think it should be re-directed or merged to raw foodism. What do you think? Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC) Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tyson Foods on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for commentYour feedback is requested at Talk:Carrier wave on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC) October harvest
thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Feldenkrais MethodBbachrac (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)What are your credentials for editing the Feldenkrais Method enrty? Bbachrac (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Please note the term Feldenkrais Method is trade marked.
Thanks for your note. The name Bacharach originates from a village on the Rhine River in Germany. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacharach ) My Grandfather came to the US in 1905. I will prepare an edit with suitable sources during the week and seek to talk with editors about a consensus. Other than being a student, I have no conflict of interest with respect to the Feldenkrais Method. The IFF is a federation of Feldenkrais Guilds and Associations https://feldenkrais-method.org/iff/member-organizations/ Feldenkrais Guild of North America https://www.feldenkraisguild.com/ The FELDENKRAIS Guild UK Feldenkrais Method® is the registered trademark of the Feldenkrais Guild UK Ltd, Reg No. 1563759. http://www.feldenkrais.co.uk/index.php Feldenkrais Method® https://feldenkrais.com/. I will seek to remove the term Fringe which is this case is purely pejorative. For Guild certified practitioners, the methods are consistent with current understanding of the somatic nervous system. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_nervous_system ) As a physicist, the methods are consistent with understanding of body mechanics. For example, see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1607551X11001835 You might find interesting https://www.slideshare.net/dr_hetvi/biomechanics-of-stair-climbing. Bbachrac (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC) NaturopathyI would be interested in your thoughts on this article: a) Do you think the summary gives a clear idea of what Naturopathy is? b) Do you think it could be written better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmjowett (talk • contribs) 11:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
AfD noticeHi. Please see this AfD following on from the RfC you commented on. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC) BhakdiThat FTN discussion is headed off the rails, so i'll just respond here. It's just one citation, to an article in the "Argument" section of FP. It's my opinion that is not enough to meet the threshold for a BLP, but there are more German articles to slog through and other editors will have their views. Also there should be some good article text explaining why he can be called a conspiracy theorist, but that will be hard to do as the SPA's will probably start showing up and it will turn into an edit war. fiveby(zero) 14:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
ANIApparently the giant notice requiring Gd123lbp to notify you went unnoticed. There is an ANI diatribe about you. Praxidicae (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Note: thread was closed as "as the accusations have not been proven". Filing party was admonished.
Decorum of Comments on Talk Pages@ALEXBRN Please do not use obscene langage when writing comments to me on talk pages. specifically "how squirting coffee up your bum cures cancer" on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:McSly#Feldenkrais_Method Bbachrac (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
My mistakeSorry, no, I didn't mean to roll it back - not sure how I managed that. Having said that, it did look like a rash comment. Deb (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for any unnecessary wordsHi, I just wanted to say I do not have any personal feelings of animosity towards you. While we certainly disagree on a few things in the edits, I am sorry for any unkind things I may have said in moments of frustration. While I do continue to believe some edits you made were unjustified (as explained at length elsewhere) I want to make clear I want a mutual respect between us and mean nothing personal by anything I have said, I intend to make purely content based criticism. Thanks for understanding. Gd123lbp (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
a bit too farThis is over stepping the mark [[10]], I get the frustration, but it only plays into their hands.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Greger talk pageI'm not sure I would have deleted that last comment. It wasn't useful or appropriate, but it wasn't inappropriate - it didn't contain insults or such. I think you may be over-policing things a bit. Brianyoumans (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
bury the hatchetYou appear to be very knowledgeable about citation guidelines especially for medical articles, which I respect. So I'd just like to ask a layman question regarding sourcing for Bhakdi - I have changed my mind and think that his views should be described as "alternative" I think that is justified. However, I was just thinking, if an article is dedicated to "alternative" views, then might that justify the use of "alternative sources", since they would be the focus of the article? - I might add the above comment to the Bhakdi talk page (if it hasnt become to toxic yet!) regards Gd123lbp (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I see, that makes sense. Gd123lbp (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Why the reversion at Shiatsu?Hi Alexbrn, just wondering why you reverted my edit to Shiatsu. I filled in more details from an existing source.AlexClwn (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
NotificationThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. I don't see you have an AP2 alert Springee (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I take COVID very seriouslySeveral times you have implied I don't take COVID seriously. That is absolutely not true. I worked on an emergency medical device to deal with shortages of respirators early on in the pandemic. Four family members have it right now (one had to go to the ER due to low oxygen levels). My sib described a patient who didn't make it due to COVID, "and there was terror in her eyes. Her eyes seemed to be saying "I am breathing as fast as humanly possible and it's not enough." I do not want to see that face ever again." Please do not presume to assume I want to downplay the severity of this virus. Springee (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I added the referencesHi Alexbrn, I responded to your criticism of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement I added the references. Sincerely, Olgamatveeva (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
TurmericHello. This is about Medical Research and Turmeric The cuuent wording that there is NO evidence of antiinflammatory effects is too strong, and the references given do not establish this "fact" especially as new evidence is now available. Even if this evidence turns out to be unconfirmed, it is still wrong to say there is NO evidence. I made the change to "little evidence" which seems far safer, dont you think? https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/jmf.2020.4778?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed& Garboard Strake (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 18An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Uyghur genocide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uyghur. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC) MisinformationHi. You have labelled Hitchens' views as "misinformation" when he says that lockdowns have destroyed the economy, which leads to huge increases in suicides (and a weakened healthcare system). He also has said that people have avoided going to hospital for treatment for heart attacks and other things and treatments for cancers has been put on hold (till it is too late). All these claims are provable, so labelling it all as "misinformation" is too broad a sweep. Yes, he does cite people like Bhakdi, whos claims are quite shocking sounding sometimes, but as John Ionannidis said, we are all just working to try to find the right answers. I believe your work in ensuring sources are reliable, especially in regard to medicine, is very important and I support the idea of discrediting dishonest people and spreaders of lies like David Icke. However, on covid and lockdowns, the picture is still developing and I think you should be a little more careful about labelling all of this criticism as "misinformation". It makes me curious to see someone defending the government narrative on this so completely, I just wonder, don't you question any of this? especially the sensationalist reports in the papers. Gd123lbp (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
To give things the label "misinformation" is to imply unidimensionality. I would love to know your opinion on what science the government has followed that has been wrong, if it isnt ALL misinformation. I do not believe anti-vaxxers, preposterous tabloid journalists, discredited scientists and blowhard pundits, I think people should think for themselves instead of being easily lead. Your characterisation there seems to suggest that you dont think there are any credible voices out there that have criticised the lockdowns or the science the government has followed - in which case you DO label it all as misinformation. By the way I appreciate discussing this with you, its nice to try to understand peoples points of view. Gd123lbp (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I notice that you didnt answer my question; "what science has the government followed that has been wrong". That, I suspect comes from the fact you believe in the phrase "THE science". I think that is the root of the problem here, it seems you tend to assume that the data is all in and everything is settled, hence government actions are merely following a script written by THE science and so any descent must be labelled as "misinformation". But research has been ongoing through this. The UK government has a particular set of scientific advisors that it has chosen (who have a conflict of interests as it turns out) some of whom such as Neil Ferguson and his imperial college team, have been discredited in their early modelling work on predictions (which the first lockdown decision was based on). The trouble with only listening to the NHS for instance, is that it of course has an agenda in supporting the governments virus response because it is a government organisation, so its objectivity in making a judgement over whether lockdowns are a good idea is questionable. There is also the way that cases have been recorded, the fact you can be diagnosed with covid and then get hit by a bus and be reported as a "covid death"; Japan doesnt do it like that, (and also other countries havent gone into lockdowns "based on the science") That of course would lead to a gross distortion of the figures. And the fact that you have to test for the virus, so as more testing happens, more cases appear (and then the papers sensationalise it and say that the figures show that the virus is going through the roof, and people get frightened and demand the government do more). Dont you think that John Ioannidis' view on this is rather striking; the idea that the politicisation of the virus and the whole hysteria around it has damaged good quality scientific work and reporting (and the natural distorting effects of the mass media to make things sound worse than they are.) Thanks for your list but I was fully aware of all of that, I certainly think it is best to avoid lay press in general, and tabloid newspapers in particular opinion pieces when making serious scientific claims like "misinformation" and "conspiracy theorist" with stuff like this: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/02/germany-is-losing-the-fight-against-qanon/ best to be avoided if we want to be objective. Gd123lbp (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
RNA Vaccine CensorshipHello Alexbrn, I would like to know why you are constantly censoring any info that addresses the very real concerns regarding mRNA vaccine. The latest example was: General Before 2020, no mRNA technology platform (drug or vaccine) had been authorized for use in humans, so there was a risk of unknown effects.[18] The 2020 coronavirus pandemic required faster production capability of mRNA vaccines, made them attractive to national health organisations, and led to debate about the type of initial authorization mRNA vaccines should get (including emergency use authorization or expanded access authorization) after the eight-week period of post-final human trials.[43][44] The above is factual so I am not sure why you deleted it. Also, I would like to request that the two topics, of Vaccine Hesitancy and Misinformation be separated, as they are not one and the same. I am hesitant to take a vaccine that does not have the safety trials as traditional vaccines do, but I am not spreading misinformation because of it. My understanding was that wikipedia was neutral. However from what I have seen its very very biased and heavily censored. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donny1111 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
reverted edit on fluvoxamine use with COVIDi don't understand why my edits were reverted. every statement was verifiable from expert sources, including the study published in JAMA. This is potentially life saving information yet was reverted. Why? Stkirsch (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
TozinameranWe should be handing out the sanctions notice ASAP ... had we gotten it after the first copyvio, MER-C would be happier: [16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC) December 2020Your recent editing history at Circumcision controversies shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Ivermectin Article DeletionThe 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.  See the edit summary. Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Odd, thatOne wonders how this editor got tools. So one investigates! Well, in spite of an unhelpful admin, the editor appears to have gotten the message, and seems to have stopped. Please ping me should you need help (per Spanish language). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
|
|||||||||||||||||
