User talk:Alexbrn

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

“The thing that it's about for me – what it's really about, is just ... really sweet people, er, there are all these really sweet people who are ... they just get online and they are typing and instead of yelling at each other or just having a conversation or reading about gossip or whatever, they're trying to build something that everybody else will find useful. I just think it's really sweet. Really nice people.” — Jimbo Wales

Please comment on Talk:Metacompiler[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metacompiler. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

A naturopath asks ...[edit]

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

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

if you could only answer one simple question:

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

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

Dispute resolution re McNeill for Electronic cigarette article[edit]

I requested dispute resolution with respect to this here:

Please join the discussion. Mihaister (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there some kind of prize for non-neutrally worded DR filings? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Month parameter has been deprecated in citation templates[edit]

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

Aha thanks. I nearly always use tools for generating these so hope they'll catch up too (who puts months in citations in real life anyway!?) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
A note to the developer/maintainer of the tools is probably in order. I haven't posted anything to the tools I use yet. I DO! I change year to date and add month. I makes it easier when looking through archives of some journals. But I am a big advocate of maximizing the details/info in citations. I do a fair amount of verification and use multiple databases so the more breadcrumbs the easier to pin down a ref. BTW drop a note on my talk page for help with research if needed. The WP Library has given me access to a number of databases and I have several fairly decent library memberships. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Aha thanks. I have fairly good library access but run up against the occasional "blind spot" - for example just now this article which could help the Red meat article (which is a mess). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page comment portion without notification[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. EllenCT (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Homeopathy - Irrational[edit]

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

I think it's sort of necessary here because it's Hood's argument that people are driven irration beliefs. Still, let's see what happens .... :-) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I suspect it's sometimes a rational belief, but a very poorly informed one. Having become a high school teacher ten years ago in a mature age career change, I have taught Science to many students. Unfortunately, some just avoid learning at that stage, and wait until they truly need such knowledge, when crackpot nonsense is fed to them by snake oil salesmen. HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You, sir, are the biased one.[edit]

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

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

Your removal of credible citations at Calcium and cancer[edit]

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

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


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

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

South Beach Diet request[edit]

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

It's a good, informative & neutral description and there is consensus for it. Don't you think this is something your COI renders you incapable of addressing neutrally? You never addressed the point that "diet fads" is a MeSH category for this diet, which gives us impeccably-sourced grounds for the use of the term. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 02:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree across the board. The phrase "fad diet" is not as informative as explaining up front what the diet recommends. LaMona disagreed very specifically with the phrase, and Doc James expressed general support for my list of criticisms of this version, including the introduction. While the Harvard Health Letter does include "Diet fads" in its list of MeSH terms, to say this phrase should appear, let alone serves as an adequate introduction to the topic, is the very definition WP:SYNTHESIS. It's also worth considering that WP:MEDRS favors review of studies, and this is not one. Finally, from one editor who includes a COI link in his signature to another, surely you know it is reason to proceed with caution, not to avoid the subject entirely. While I wish we could find agreement here, I will be looking for assistance from others. Thanks for your time, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
"Fad diet" is not (on its own) "an adequate introduction to the topic", but it is a general accurate description as used by independent expert indexers which we can usefully use. We have to use the best medical sources for this topic we have, and the Harvard Health Letter one is adequate - certainly better than newpaper articles gushing about how Bill Clinton lost weight from the diet! On your last point, as of two years ago or so I completely avoid any article for which I have a potential COI as in my view COI-tainted editing corrupts the consensus-forming process. In that light, I shall follow your quest for "assistance" with interest. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Couple of points: 1) I did not object to the use of the term "diet fad" or "fad diet" but I did object to it being linked to the Food faddism page which I consider to be highly flawed, covering everything from odd food fetishes to weight-loss diets that are all the rage. (I really think that page needs serious work.) 2) Although the MeSH heading is used on one article that was cited here, there are many other articles in the PubMed database that include the South Beach Diet in their text and do not use that subject heading. A search on South Beach Diet alone retrieves over 900 items. A search on South Beach Diet + MeSH: (Diet fad | Diet fads) yields 21. I'm not arguing that it isn't a fad diet, but the argument that a MeSH subject heading somehow clinches the term isn't borne out by the numbers. There needs to be support for the "diet fad" term, and it would be in the history of the diet's rise in attention in popular media. Information like the number of books sold, the use of celebrities to advance the diet, any estimates on how many people have gone on the diet, the number of articles in popular magazines -- all of these would be facts that tell the story of the diet as a popular phenomenon, completely separate from any medical claims, but would support the claim that it is a "fad diet", which is not currently demonstrated in the article. 3) There is now a great discrepancy between the South Beach Diet article and the Atkins diet article, which is very long and expository. It seems only fair that the Atkins article also be looked in terms of its medical (or pseudo-medical) claims. LaMona (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I can agree that those other articles need work. As to "fad diet" from looking at the sources it seemed like an obvious categorisation to me. I've added another source just to confirm. We should continue any discussion of the SBD on that article's Talk page ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Peter Gale[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Robert Peter Gale. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Cabbage & hypothyroidism[edit]

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

Feingold diet[edit]

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

O Lordy - that's in a state. Sigh. Thanks (I think) for the tip! ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thank you soooooooo much for the all the cleanup you do! Jytdog (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! (I feel I do very little compared to you). Wikipedia has a huge QA problem with its health content, for sure. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
fwiw i came at this very sideways... from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#Vani_Hari_and_Drmies to Vani_Hari#Kraft_Foods to Tartrazine and Sunset Yellow FCF (and the other four dyes in the southampton study) to Diet and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and that led me smack into the mess of Feingold diet where I said whoo ee. you will find the the articles i listed there more or less cleaned up if you want recent sources on dye/ADHD Jytdog (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. One thing I'm seeing straight away is that this article wants to dwell on the general questions, rather than just on the Feinberg diet in particular. It should be a lot tighter to its subject. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thanks for doing that!Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Jytdog, repaying the favour, have you seen:

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

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

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

Blacklight Power[edit]

hey hello!

First you pretend that venturebeat is not a reliable source to describe investors.[1] Now you are referring to the Journal of Molecular Structure and the Journal of Applied Physics as primary sources.[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your revert at G. Edward Griffin[edit]

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

Yours edits are not sacrosanct - that would smack of WP:OWNERSHIP. The consensus at BLPN seems fairly clear that (per policy) there is no big problem with this article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Your accusations are ridiculous. For one thing, BLP violations are not about consensus. Secondly, I recently started editing the article because of the BLP violations. As a result, I've been attacked by POV pushers like yourself. Your edits smack of POV, obviously a supporter of conventional medicine who stays busy shooting down CAM articles. Your position is quite evident right here on your talk page. The Griffin article uses antiquated sources to associate him with quackery, and violates BLP with its inadequate sources, pejorative terminology, and contentious labeling. The fact that you and the other POV pushers don't think there is a problem with the article IS the problem. AtsmeConsult 14:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Whether there's a policy violation or not needs to be determined ultimately by consensus. It's being discussed at BLPN - the right place - and your strong view of the matter does not appear to be mirrored by the other folks there. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Atsme, for what it is worth, I suggest you strike the personal attacks above. If you do want to bring an action at ANI, your case will have the best chance of succeeding if you have shown that you have acted really calmly and deliberately and other editors are acting badly. If there is stuff like the above, where you have shown that you are concentrating more on contributors instead of content, and it is clear that you have barely used the article Talk page (both of which are the case so far), your action will have a small chance of succeeding, and a high likelihood of boomerang. So take it slow, address specific concerns on the article Talk page, and focus on content, not contributors. That way we can all try to be productive instead of spending time on drama boards. You will of course do as you see fit. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog, I just wanted to include the following regarding actions that should be taken when there is a BLP violation - Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. AtsmeConsult 16:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I hear you on that. The thing is, your first edit added a bunch of content, edited other content, and deleted some, as did your second edit. You cannot use that clause to justify adding or editing a bunch of stuff. Right? It is about removing. Please focus and work on bits. Small bites. This will go a lot more smoothly if you do so. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:SupremeSAT(Pvt.)[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:SupremeSAT(Pvt.). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

my new 2nd favorite article![edit]

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

I've got one of those. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 04:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmmmmmm. Yes, I saw that mentioned at WP:FT/N. Do you ever feel like King Cnut? Increasingly, I do. (BTW, I wonder if this is a candidate for "worst medical article": Experimental treatment of androgenic alopecia. Its opening is "The experimental treatment of androgenic hair loss is vast ..." !) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
holding back the waves indeed! and let me just say "emu oil". rofl! Jytdog (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS is evil and so are you[edit]

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

People are here expecting to find an encyclopedia (i.e. a tertiary source), which is something subtly different from "sourced information" which has been inexpertly compiled. MEDRS protects WP from becoming a ropey secondary source and so is actually rather valuable. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Elitist snobbery at work again. I overheard this in the ivory tower: "We can't have minions adding from mere primary sources. Where is the exclusivity in that! They must adhere to adding only from reviews. While we're at it, let's pretend and believe that review sources actually exist for esoteric topics. Perhaps this shall elevate Wikipedia to a more respectable stature among the literary clique, or we must surely raise the bar further: hereforth only Nobel prize winning publications may be permissible." --IO Device (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh no. Wikipedia doesn't require elites. It does however require competents. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
It is because of people like you that successful offshoot sites such as exist. It was created by someone for exactly this reason, namely that Wikipedia places undue restrictions on biomedical content. And it won't be the only one. I will, however, do my best to evaluate Jytdog's argument. --IO Device (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC) - what's that? Let's see ... hmmm ... "Learn about how you can combine supplements to help reach your health goals". Right. Spot check one article (Vitamin D), and find "Supplementation can also reduce the risks of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and multiple sclerosis". Well, that's just false information ... but fortunately it's not my problem! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Alexbrn is wise. bobrayner (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS is awesome and so are you![edit]

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

My dear fellow, and to you too! I've just watched The Grand Budapest Hotel which has - yes - put me in a holiday mood ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Here Here! - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)