User talk:Alexbrn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi Alexbrn,

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

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

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


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

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

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

Hello, yes, I think I've come across you wrt Monsanto? you work for the NSA or something ;-)) I am very familiar with altmed topics here and the demarcation issue for fringe/questionable science, with how the WP:PAGs apply to this area and how WP does (or sometimes does not) work in practice when it comes to fringe topics. I don't put stuff in articles that isn't sourced, chanting doesn't cut it. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Not at Monsanto, never did anything on that, but I was accused of working for the NSA so you're right there. You've done an awful lot of chanting on reiki, and your comments at RSN have honestly seemed pretty lacking in PAG support. They read like you're ranting because it's so obvious and you can't believe people would actually disagree with you. Take a moment to understand and consider your opponents' arguments, and then debunk them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
What may not be apparent to you if you're not often editing in this area is that a number of participants at RS/N know each other well and this is an oft-repeated and well-worn ritual. I believe at RS/N I quoted WP:RS and WP:PSCI; not sure how that's "ranting". WP:PSCI is a policy, BTW. Also be aware that WP:AC/DS apply to the Reiki article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 22:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) what is exasperating, is that anybody is WP is arguing that vitalism is not pseudoscience. for pete's sake. the need for extraordinary sourcing is the burden of those who want to say that reiki (or any other snake oil that has no valid mechanism of action) is effective for anything. Since scientists don't go around repeating themselves endlessly that quackery is quackery, we have WP:PARITY and sources like quackwatch are great, per that. PSCI is policy. FRINGE is the guideline that 'splains it. PAG. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
This is what I read from the comments posted by skeptics on this matter: Reiki makes no sense to me, therefore reiki is quackery, therefore reiki is obviously utter bollocks, therefore reiki is snake oil, therefore reiki is fringe. I don't have to support these views with reliable sources because because reiki is quackery and scientists don't go around saying that quackery is quackery. There's my RS-based argument. Anyone who disagrees with me is a lunatic charlatan and a POV pusher. Did I mention that reiki is quackery? Quackery quackery reiki quackery. What, I haven't convinced you? How exasperating! (In all seriousness, I don't know anything about vitalism, but I'm aware of at least one plausible "valid mechanism of action" for reiki.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
oh goodness. hm. you and A1 are fellow travellers. so.. what is the plausible MOA for reiki that you are aware of. do tell. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
How condescending! Cortisol and oxytocin release. The same mechanism that's been proven when you cuddle with your lover, your baby, or your dog. Here are some sources: [1], [2] And remember, I'm not saying this proves reiki works. I'm saying it's scientifically plausible and addresses the knee-jerk claim that there's no conceivable mechanism. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
i'm sorry you see it as condescending to ask you a question. ok, something akin to cuddling is not an intervention - is not an effective treatment for any disease or condition - it is just comfort. which is what i said. anyway, enough here. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Riiiiight. You just asked a question, no condescension. Anywaaaaay, you're not listening. I didn't say this proves reiki is an effective treatment. I said there is a plausible mechanism, the same mechanism that has been scientifically validated in other, non-therapeutic situations. So, please stop arguing that reiki is obviously fringe, utter bollocks, snake oil, etc. etc. because there is no plausible mechanism. That's ignorance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
DrFleischman let's step back a bit. the "pseudoscience" label is only relevant to claims that reiki is actually useful to treat some disease or condition. there is no evidence that it is useful to treat a disease or condition, and no plausible MoA by which it could treat a disease or condition. causing comfort (and we do have some undertanding of what comfort means, biochemically) is not a plausible mechanism of action for treating a disease or condition. Inhibiting protein X that is involved in inflammation, is a plausible MoA (salicylic acid). Holding a wound closed and keeping junk out of it, is a plausible MoA to improve wound healing (band aid), or propping open a closed artery (stent), is a plausible MoA. Moving some kind of "energy" around, by touching a person in a way that also causes comfort (which we can describe biochemically somewhat).. not a plausible MoA to treat any specific disease or condition. Why are you saying it is? i really don't get it. I don't think anybody would call a claim that reiki is relaxing or comforting, "pseudoscience". that only comes in, on the therapeutic claims. so i really don't understand where you are coming from. really i don't. Jytdog (talk)21:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

(exhale) so we share some common ground there. however, changing cortisol levels (in other words, the biochemical definition of comfort) is not a plausible mechanism for treating any disease or condition. that is just trying to dress this up in something science-y.... the very definition of pseudoscience. so we disagree with each other quite firmly there. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
That is just your personal opinion. You're not an endocrinologist, are you? Your accusation that "that is just trying to dress this up in something science-y" both ABF and grasping at straws. I could equally accuse you of just not liking it because you've been clinging to an anti-reiki ideology. Neither accusation would advance the project. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
and with that, i am laughing and walking away. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


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

I will tomorrow morning (GMT time zone). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
thanks, Bluerasberry, approved, #3 for GA, just look at it and close (if you have any questions I can answer, add info, references or whatever) thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Ozzie10aaaa errm, looks like I won't be available after all (see below). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 23:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Alexbrn (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

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

Accept reason:

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

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

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

Since November 2014, see Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 7#Update. You indicated here that you knew the subject had been the subject of controversy. I assumed you were referring to the ongoing restrictions at the article, and that you were also aware of this RfC. Was I mistaken? --John (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I was aware there had been discussion about 0RR at a noticeboard (I thought it was a bad idea); I had also discussed the pseudoscience aspect a lot as the result of a request at WP:FT/N as I recall. But I don't follow the ayurveda article closely and I didn't know about this detailed rule set of yours (which also strikes me as a very bad idea as it will achieve nothing more than a superficial peace at the expense of the article quality). I find this turn of events rather extraordinary. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 23:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Alexbrn I am sorry you got blocked. The key question from my view is whether or not (it is yes/no) you knew that the 0RR (for some reason, allowed to be archived) that was in place. If you did not know, then John should unblock you. If you knew, the block was righteous. Answer it straight, then. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I made one edit to the article, adding fresh material. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 23:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, the blocks were only intended to reduce disruption to the project. If my understanding of your intentions was flawed and you now understand and will follow the restrictions, I am happy to unblock you immediately with an apology. If you wish to discuss changing the restrictions I am open to that too, but they were put there for a reason and I feel they are still necessary at present, as these recent events seem to underline. --John (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
that is super decent of you John. fwiw I suggest you pull the notice out of the archive and place it, unarchivable, at the top of the talk page... Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Guys, I suspected 0RR may be in place but I did not know about this "Talk first" rule for edits. However, since I was sure I was bringing a fresh source to bear (not that I checked) I assumed I was not even in danger of breaching any 0RR since this was all-new material. John, yes please unblock me: the soluton AFAIAC is for me to unwatchlist this article: working in this environment is bonkers. I agree if these sort of special rules apply to an article, they should be displayed as an edit warning for editors initiating an edit. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 23:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Surely that would be distorting the history of what has happened. John, Alexbrn and Jytdog both have been edit-warring aginst me at Foie gras. May I suggest you take a look at recent events on the Foie gras talk page before you consider removing your block. These editors need an indication of how disruptive their approach is.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
that is really funny. as soon as he saw you were blocked, drcrissy edit warred content back into the Foie gras article! I wondered at the timing; now it is clear. hilarious. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
A move was made at Reiki too. Those jungle drums eh! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 23:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I have accepted your request and I unblock you, as promised, with an apology. I have clarified the editnotice on the relevant pages to try to prevent further collateral damage like this. --John (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Well thanks. There are several aspects to this incident I need to think about. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 23:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • John, since you're unblocking "with an apology", I'm sorry to see you didn't put anything like that in the permanent record (=the block log), which is what people will see going forward. You realize Alex had a clean block log before this incident. Please put in a one-second block to make a note that's a bit more apologetic than "unblock request accepted". Bishonen | talk 00:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC).
I'm sorry you got caught up in the side effects of this. Your block was I believe, an overreaction to something I initiated. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 01:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anybody will make that mistake again. i took a strange notice that was on the page, amended it, and moved it to the very top: here. Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Several experienced editors took the time to explain how John's rules were a catastrophically bad idea, but John is still enforcing the rules he wrote, and here we are: Another terrible outcome. Alexbrn did nothing wrong; these are good edits in line with what reliable sources say, but Alexbrn now has a stained block log, and John didn't even have the courtesy to say "Sorry, I shouldn't have blocked you" in the unblock. Alexbrn, I'm sorry you got caught up in this mess. I think the Ayurveda article would benefit from adult supervision. bobrayner (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
this farce is just more of the same crap from an admin I have crossed in the past. I de-watchlisted at Ayurveda some time ago for the reasons you can now see in this section. The admin is aware of the fact that I believe he is wielding his mop and broom like a cudgel, and I do not believe he actually watches the page at all. Such a shame for the project. I would not blame any mainstream editor for avoiding that toxic page totally. Civility warriors are as damaging as Pov pushers. I do hope that Alexbrn not being around the project ATM is not a direct result of this affair, and that he will rise above this nonsense. (I may well take a break too, not that it'll have any effect, (I'm not that naive), except on my own well-being)-Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @John: Would you please consider stepping away from the Ayurveda article? One can appreciate that you were trying to help, but there appears to be consensus that this is no longer helping. Alexbrn, who is (in my view) one of Wikipedia's most valuable contributors, got ensnared in this scheme and had his clean record needlessly tarnished. Alexbrn and tps: if these problems continue then as an uninvolved party I would be willing to contribute to an RFC/A on John. Manul ~ talk 12:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Alexbrn, I am sorry to take up your talk page with this as I am sure you have heard enough of this. Two things raised here I wish to respond to; Bishonen, no I won't be doing that as it is not called for. My block was not in error and my apology was a mark of sympathy, not an acknowledgement of wrongdoing on my part. I do feel sympathy for Alexbrn but they should really have made it their business to check out what the restrictions were before editing an article under enforcement. The unblock is the remedy for the block. Manul, no I will not be doing that either. You may feel free to take whatever action you deem appropriate. I request though that any further discussion of my actions take place at my talk page where it belongs, and not here. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks Bishonen for your intervention. I think John has issued a non-apology apology (I'm sorry for your error). This admin evidently thinks it's fine to expect editors to "make it their business" to search through Talk page archives to see if he's set up some special rules that might trip them up, which is – interesting. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I agree. Compare also this little effort of mine. Yes, I disagree with this block, and the others that were placed for the same reason. However, as for your record being "tarnished", I dunno. Isn't a clean block log a bit of a wimpy thing to have? I'm very proud of my own log, especially the item from 2009. Compare this page (search for "Bishonen"). Bishonen | talk 18:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC).
          • That's cool! I feel my block seems rather puny now ;-) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
      • You blocked somebody for violating your rules, even though they didn't know about it, and four months after you said you had withdrawn the 0RR.[3] It's not even clear which rules now apply, or who they apply to. Do you understand why this is needless, stupid, and counterproductive?
      • The best way forward is that these ridiculous rules are withdrawn. I don't mean the current situation, where you say you've lifted the rule but still make arbitrary blocks of positive contributors; I mean actually withdrawing your rules. Instead, any competent admin could enforce the universally-accepted wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:3RR, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and so on. Alexbrn's edits were in line with those policies, and I look forward to the day when such article improvements are permitted again. bobrayner (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

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

I would take a good look at John's edits before suggesting he is involved in alt med and using that point to go to ANI [4]And James should you be using your tools on medical articles.You do edit medical articles extensively.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC))
John has made a number of questionable blocks, Alex's the most ridiculous. He's also WP:INVOLVED with QG and myself, for the record, and wields the mop like a cudgel. What can I do? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 02:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes he has made a number of very questionable blocks of people editing in the area of alt med when these editors were upholding high quality referencing standards. QG has kindly provided an overview here [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2015 in spaceflight[edit]

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

Edits/vandalism of Noopept article[edit]

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

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

Hello! I must confess I'm not keen on rats, but am no Winston Smith. Start at WP:5P for an understanding of what we include in articles; WP:MEDRS expands on why we should make sure Wikipedia only carries accepted knowledge about biomedical subjects. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I know WP policies. You removed properly cited data and reverted a logical (unsourced, later sourced) correction of a logically-flawed unsourced generalization back to the lesser accurate logically-flawed generalization. In reverting, you're actually asserting the incorrect statement I removed follows WP policy which it doesn't, nor is it even a logical claim to make, apart from WP policy, confounded by sources posted in the aromatherapy article itself. It's clear of course, pending this post I made on your page, that you're going to go and watch my edits and snipe-revert all of them without even thinking about what you're standing for, and whether you're following your own rules. Emotional lability is not a trait a person in power should have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't be silly. If you want to discuss article content, do so at that article's Talk page. (BTW don't use the "cite pmid" template - it's been deprecated.) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors"

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

There are a very few cases where they're okay. Inserting primary research about oral lavender oil preparations into our aromatherapy article is however a no-no. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Fantastic that what I wrote was a no-no; did you think of what you were reverting back to, and whether it was correct? My edit had two purposes as described in the summary. Reverting to the bad claim is assurance you believe it is sound. Again, you aren't fit for editing as you've proven several times; please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Please be so good as to discuss article content on article Talk pages. If there's a "bad claim" somewhere, flag it up or fix it! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm discussing your qualifications. Please be so good as to follow the subject of a conversation accurately.
"INTPs can often become far less objective than they think they ought to be: precisely at those times when the under-developed Feeling gnaws at his being."
Alexbrn, drink a bottle of tea tree oil and tell me that it has no effect beyond placebo. You've reverted a disambiguating clarification I made to a totally false generalization on a page, and when I added it back with a citation, you remove the sentence altogether, returning the page's meaning back to its original misleading POV. Why not remove all the others on the page of equal magnitude in importance? You removed it because you must feel right; there was no way you'd let yourself be seen losing what could appear to be an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, Myers Briggs - it's a heady mix of common sense and BS you know. I'm not really sure what you're on (about), but if you want to discuss article content do it at the article; if you want to complain about me do it at WP:AN/I (but in that case I suggest wearing your flame-proof undewear though)! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Who made this last edit please?__DrChrissy (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Me! No him! Who? What? Crazy stuff going on here. The edit history tells all. When the IP gets blocked I'll tidy up ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The edit history says it was Jytdog__DrChrissy (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
So it was. How kind of them. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Cite pmid template[edit]

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

Sorry, what's this is relation to? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
It is in relation to two points:
  • You recently asking a user to not use the cite pmid template because it is deprecated.
  • The fact that the cite pmid template is deprecated is insufficient motivation to use alternatives if adequate alternatives don't even exist. In this context, I find it bad enough that the cite pmid autofilling bot was made to stop working.
--IO Device (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

I am absolutely not that IP, although I can see how it would be convenient for you if I was the only user who has run into issues with you. Regarding the templates, it is basically very inconvenient to edit an article in which huge portions of text have been taken up by inline references. I think a fresh solution, potentially one based on wikidata, is warranted. --IO Device (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, so it's pure coincidence that your enthusiasm for the pmid template is shared with this morning's IP, along with an interest in certain articles. Well, these things happen - thanks for putting me right. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Behavioural optometry[edit]

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

The "Techniques" section? Yes, pretty much - which is why I attributed it. But since the formatting has changed from inline list to wikilist, not sure if it's a quotation. What do you think? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh. I thought I'd heard of all of these magic therapies. Gets to you sometimes, all this woo. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd paraphrase to be safe, or show as a quotation with [formatting altered] or some such, but it really shouldn't stay as is. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, these are the section headings in the article and so this is equivalant to a ToC and so okay I'd have thought ... still to be safe, I've done it as a verbatim quotation for now. Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thank you. In case of doubt, I'd ping @Moonriddengirl:, who seems to have the best grasp of such issues, for input. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Howdy. :) This area is a little soft. Titles are not copyrightable.[6] However, that specifically refers to titles of works, and sections are not independent works. I am not aware of any legal precedent in this area, but back in 2011 three attorneys contributing to the website "Law QA" opined that they would be ([7]). "Three guys on the internet" isn't much to build on. :) But until the court weighs in, folks on the internet (reasonably educated folks) is about all we have. While policy does require that we use quotation marks when copying from copyrighted sources, my inclination would be to think that the WP:INTEXT attribution is sufficient in this case. If we were offering these up as some kind of universal standard, it would be more of an issue, I think, but as it is specifically and explicitly identified as his headers, I think there is an expectation that it is verbatim. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

EBCAM fringe journal?[edit]

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

Hello! Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (ECAM) is notorious fringe journal.[8] The article you added, PMID 25821485, does not appear to be MEDLINE indexed and in any case would fall afoul of WP:FRIND. Discussion about article content should take place on article talk pages so if you want to continue, see you there! Alexbrn (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
MEDLINE indexing is not a requirement for fringe vs. not fringe, only that it "may" be a reliability indicator, which is why impact factor and Beall's list would be important. The journal does have a good impact factor (2.175) which is very high in its field (ranking first or second every year amongst CAM journals), and as Everymorning said, it is not on Beall's list. Edzard Ernst's opinion on a blog post doesn't negate a journal's credibility; if that were the case, then the William Morris article I posted a week ago criticizing Ernst would negate his credibility and we would have to remove Ernst's citations. Some editors only seem to want to allow journals like Nature or JAMA on the acupuncture article, but what does MEDRS have to say about that? Journals may be credible in their area of specialty, but if "its content being outside the journal's normal scope (for instance, an article on the efficacy of a new cancer treatment in a psychiatric journal or the surgical techniques for hip replacement in a urology journal)" it might not be. So should we remove JAMA sources because they're credible for Western medicine, but maybe not acupuncture, from the acupuncture article? I've always believed to err on the side of "more is better" and be more liberal with what we allow in. If we begin to take a hard line approach to an article that's already a WP:BATTLE hotbed, we're only going to escalate tensions and end up with an article nobody is pleased with. LesVegas (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) here is a thread i opened about a different but related journal, Acupuncture in Medicine. That thread provides some useful context for what Alexbrn is saying. It maybe worth while to open a discussion about the journal in question, along the same lines. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Jytdog! I appreciated reading all the discussion there. What's interesting to me is that there wasn't exactly a consensus either way about that journal then, with WhatamIdoing supporting it, at least in principle. Middle 8 also supported it, but withdrew his support when he found out the editorial board was made up of acupuncturists. And I agree, that makes it more of an advocacy journal than a scientific one and therefore, it could be less reliable. I wonder if that's the case for this journal? Is its editorial board nothing but CAM advocates? If so, I think it could only be useful for non-controversial claims. Thanks for bringing this thread to my attention LesVegas (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, I just looked into eCAM's editorial board and saw a pretty diverse group of people. I don't see that their board is made up entirely of CAM advocates. Actually, most or all of the people on the board are university employed folks and many have been published in some prestigious journals. I also looked at Acupuncture in Medicine's editorial board and saw that they are not all acupuncturists. In fact, Andrew Vickers of Sloane Kettering happens to sit on their editorial board. I don't know if changes to this journal's editorial board were made recently, or if Middle 8 was given false information, but it doesn't now appear to be an unreliable journal on that regard. I could be missing something, but to me both of these journals are reliable and certainly might even be more reliable than other sources are for acupuncture claims. LesVegas (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Would that be the same Andrew Vickers who chairs the Acupuncture Triallists' Collaboration? Alexbrn (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this the thread where we select the most unreliable sources in wikipedia, and try to pretend they are reliable? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Alexbrn, yes, but as I understand it, the Acupuncture Triallists Collaboration is a purely research based group. It's not an acupuncture advocacy group. I would guess that it was Vickers's expertise in the field of acupuncture research that led to his placement on the board. Vickers publishes on many topics, mostly cancer. LesVegas (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
But your "guess" is not really a counter to the claim that the editorial board of Acupuncture in Medicine lacks independent members. In general, we don't use iffy journals for anything other than mundane claims. Alexbrn (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm guessing that because he's not an acupuncture advocate, that's for certain. But you haven't proven it unreliable otherwise, and that's the most important thing. It's published by BMJ, afterall. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you haven't shown that either of these journals are unreliable according to MEDRS. I've even argued that they are closer to MEDRS reliability than something like JAMA or Nature because they're closer to the subject matter, acupuncture, which is certainly within these journal's scope. Yet again, I don't say we should consider JAMA unreliable for acupuncture claims because I think we should always err on the side of inclusion, especially in hotly argued topic areas. I'm just saddened you don't see it that way. LesVegas (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Vickers is sufficiently independent in my book because CAM is not (by a long shot) the only thing he does (and he's not reflexively supportive of it [9]). IIRC the problem with Acupunct. Med. was that CAM was the primary specialty of most of its editors. --Middle 8 (contribsCOI) 05:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure he's a great guy in every way, but it would be nice to have a substantial number of Board members who were not attached to the world of acunpuncture; as it is the WP:FRIND problem applies. Alexbrn (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
You're talking about the EBCAM board? --Middle 8 (contribsCOI) 05:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
No the other one. Alexbrn (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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

It seems so[10] (I think I wasn't watching the article then). Alexbrn (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Journal is cited in 84 different articles[11], obviously global consensus (which is determinative, not Ernst's opinion) is that it's adequate. (High impact factor too[12] FWIW, but that may not matter) --Middle 8 (contribsCOI) 05:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Something's reliable because it's used on Wikipedia?! That's a new one! We can reject it because it's not MEDLINE-indexed, or because it's obviously a pay-to-play festival of fringe that runs against WP:FRIND, but reject it we shall. (Add: Oh I see M8 is trying to force it back into the article: the problematic pattern of editing grows.) Alexbrn (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for knocking down that straw man; I'm talking about global consensus about whether it's reliable. And you're edit-warring now? [13][14] --Middle 8 (contribsCOI) 05:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
That is fatuous. You're not a newbie, so should understand that reliability is determined for a source in respect of the content it supports - there's no such thing as a "blanket" reliable source. I'm sure ECAM could be useful for supporting many uncontentious statements. However, as a non-newbie you should also know that medical claims here need strong sourcing, and so it is striking that you are trying to force in a non-MEDLINE indexed article (which would be frowned on at WT:MED whatever the medical field). Smacks of WP:ADVOCACY. I will help resist that, especially if it involves the insertion of fringe/bogus health content. Alexbrn (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
It's used elsewhere for evidentiary claims. But I'd missed the not-in-Medline part, thanks for that. --Middle 8 (contribsCOI) 06:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
“It's used elsewhere for evidentiary claims” ← With your newly-enlightened view of its worth, perhaps you could now help remove these bad uses then? Alexbrn (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't there some discussion to the effect that it went downhill when Hindawi took it over? --Middle 8 (contribsCOI) 09:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
and you wonder, M8, why I consider you hopelessly conflicted in this topic area. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Wonder why Cochrane doesn't consider practicing acu'ists conflicted? --Middle 8 (contribsCOI) 12:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, looking back at the discussion, I see the publisher switch (among other things) definitely didn't help. :-) That said, the last issue published under OUP appears to be December 2009 (at least according to my university's archive indexing), so at this point anything it published under OUP wouldn't pass MEDDATE. Sunrise (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
2010 sure doesn't seem like 5 years ago; time flies -- thanks! --Middle 8 (contribsCOI) 12:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Alexbrn Sure, I'll look at EBCAM citations; the pay-to-play aspect (per end of lede) is egregious. Speaking of things that need attention: could you look at this? Scroll to my comment containing "in context, one sees..." for brief summary. See my comment at bottom of section [15]. Kww's take is correct (imho: I'd love to hear why I'm wrong about this, if indeed I am). --Middle 8 (contribsCOI) 15:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)ce 21:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC), 04:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@Middle 8: I don't think my view on that has changed since it was discussed (to death?) at WT:MED last year. Alexbrn (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@Middle 8:Pay-to-play is pretty common in the open access world. Since many don't use a subscription based model, many OA journals (by very prestigious publishers, like Nature) charge their authors. It's today's unfortunate reality of a non-subscription based model, it seems. Here's a list of just some big publishers who do this. LesVegas (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course, but there's a difference between defraying a publishers' cost with the noble aim of putting high-quality research out under a permissive license, and vanity publishing of any-old-crap. Since ECAM isn't taken seriously (outside its self-communing constituency anyway) it's easy to see which side of the fence it falls. Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
ECAM isn't taken seriously but then how do you explain its relatively high impact factor? And you said, it's involved in vanity publishing of any-old-crap, but eCAM has a 60% rejection rate which puts it in line with many excellent journals, such as Neuropsychology, published by the APA. Of course, even though they have a healthy rejection rate, MEDRS says nothing about acceptance rate as far as I'm aware. And if "more rejections equaled more prestige", this one would be the greatest of all. LesVegas (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Not taken seriously outside its self-communing constituency; the non-indexing by MEDLINE is a tell. In general, some surprising stuff gets accepted for publication these days. It's good the Wikipedia has high standards, particularly for important health-related topics, and we must all be vigilant in not letting these standards slip. Alexbrn (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Jytdog, I agree. In the future, it's probably not a good idea for us to battle on talk pages, even article talk pages as much as we do and for as long as we do. It's much better to take things elsewhere to get a broader point of view. The one difficulty with that approach is that, sometimes, we only get a much larger two sided fight. Perhaps the best approach would be this: if Alexbrn can successfully convince MEDRS folks to change something like lack of Medline indexing from "could be unreliable" to "is absolutely unreliable" in WP:MEDRS, or even "is unreliable, except in cases of A,B,C" then I will personally remove every eCAM citation on the article myself and revert anyone who adds it back. But without more black-and-white criteria, we editors will always fall prey to fighting over the reliability of sources because of personal biases on anything that doesn't fall between those lines. LesVegas (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
so much of what we do, is about judgement, and about the scholarly activity of finding the best sources. "best" meaning: most recent, and providing the clearest overview of where a given field stands (hence reviews and statements by major bodies). on any alt-med topic it is going to be really hard for people to agree on "best", especially when some editors come to the table already wanting everything to be valid, and some others, everything invalid, and there are reviews showing both perspectives. the article will suck until the end of the time... or until the editors working on it step back from the fray, and agree on a scope that is workable and each "side" keeps their own more vociferous advocates at bay from adding stuff about off-scope matters (it is stupid that the article evens mentions acupuncture to treat fertility disorders. stupid and embarrassing. as if our article on, oh.. ) it would take an explicit, negotiated deal, though, and each side sticking to it. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverting my addition of a study to Vitamin D[edit]

Mr. Brown,

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

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

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

Walks like a duck[edit]

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

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

Urine Therapy[edit]

Hi Alexbrn,

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

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

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



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

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

Please comment on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Acupuncture[edit]

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

Merger discussion for Behavioral optometry[edit]


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

Notice of ANI[edit]

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

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion[edit]

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

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


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

Please discuss article content on the article's talk page and - don't edit war. Your source is an old primary, replacing a more recent secondary with it is a big no-no. Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
A single revert is not "edit warring", but happy to move discussion to Article's talk page. Recency of a source is secondary to quality, but finding a secondary for that (and other corroborating sources) is trivial - superβεεcat  18:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, repeatedly forcing your favoured version (as you have done) is edit warring. You are misrepresenting the current state of medical knowledge on this topic and article is now misleading our readers. But I'll not edit-war too, and let others weigh in ... Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Under that logic any SINGLE REVERT would be an edit war. wp:3rr, which you mistakenly invoked, specifically states that three is the number for good reason; I haven't even hit TWO reversions. A single reversion is not a war. You are assuming bad-faith, and misrepresenting my intent. - superβεεcat  19:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Read the policy WP:EW. You seem to think it's okay simply to re-assert your dodgy edit without even any Talk page discussion. Why are you inserting old primary sources and erasing up-to-date secondary ones? Alexbrn (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Example for discussion[edit]

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

Have trimmed/watchlisted, but at first glance the article looks reasonably sensible ATM. Alexbrn (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a huge improvement. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Eating live animals
  • "Oysters are the most common animal often eaten raw and alive. They are considered healthiest when eaten raw on the half shell." (health claim sourced to "mother nature network")
Snake soup
  • "Scientifically, snake meat itself is "credited with unusual nutritional properties".[1] (Would you be surprised to find that this quote and statement isn't supported by the cited source?)

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

Virgin boy egg
  • "Supposed health benefits. Dongyang residents believe "the eggs decrease body heat, promote better blood circulation and just generally reinvigorate the body."[2] According to a practitioner of Chinese medicine, urine crystals are like ren zhong bai. "It can treat yin deficiency, decrease internal body heat, promote blood circulation and remove blood stasis."[5] One doctor said that urine has no beneficial health properties as it is simply a waste product while another labelled it unsanitary but did not object to the practice of consuming the eggs.[5][6]
Blood as food
  • " Raw blood is not commonly consumed only by itself, but may be used as an addition to drinks or other dishes. One example is the drinking of seal blood: "Inuit food generates a strong flow of blood, a condition considered to be healthy and indicative of a strong body."[3] After the consumption of seal blood and meat, one could look at their veins in the wrist for proof of the strength that Inuit food provides.[3] The veins would expand and darken and, as Kristen Borré observed, "the person's blood becomes fortified and improves in color and thickness."[4] Seal blood is "seen as fortifying human blood by replacing depleted nutrients and rejuvenating the blood supply, it is considered a necessary part of the Inuit diet."[4]
Viriditas Yeah some problems with all of those. I've poked them a bit. Alexbrn (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! It was interesting to read about your position on anti-corporate POV, particularly the use of so-called "shit lists", etc. Is there a guideline that you can point to so you don't have to explain this again? If not, have you thought about creating one (or an essay)? Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm not really interested in articles on corporations, but the policy in question would be plain old NPOV: I'd expect to see content here mirror that is good RS (the best financial, business & general press, independent scholarly & historical academic studies, etc.) That would never resemble what we have in the Criticism of Tesco article! Alexbrn (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit wars[edit]

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

Anyway, how did you get involved?

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

You aren't following WP:BRD at Circumcision, ergo, you are edit warring. Your attempt to reinstate an edit which had been deleted was the first shot in an edit war. You should have gone to the talk page and started a discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I got "involved" using my WP:WATCHLIST. Alexbrn (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"Looks iffy-article with no title"[edit]

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

Ermmm Guys. Check again. Not all molluscs live underwater. Those gorgeous helical gastropods called "land snails" are molluscs. As are land slugs. Last time I checked, they did not live underwater. Rather, they live on land and are bombarded by RF every day. Are you perhaps going beyond your areas of expertise in trying to debunk papers?DrChrissy (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way, the giant axon of the squid (a mollusc, albeit an underwater one), is the the cornerstone of research on neurology...including humans.DrChrissy (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Magneto (generator)[edit]

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

Edit wars[edit]

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


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

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

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

Please be more careful in the future.

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

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

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

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