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)
Jytdog - thanks for getting to these and doing valuable work. Would you believe the blood type diet article gets ~200 views/day!! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
took me way longer than i anticipated but i finally got there!  :) Jytdog (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW, if you're feeling like a big job, I've started chipping away at the paleo diet article (> ~ 2,000 views/day), but a lot of work is needed - not least a good number of strongers sources ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

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

MEDRS is awesome and so are you![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)

Merge discussion for Pit Bull[edit]


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes. 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, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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

Thanks. --Middle 8 (contribsCOI) 17:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I hear what you say. One of the trouble with the taint of COI is that it renders one less capable of judging accurately what one does and, to misquote Lady Bracknell, one mistake might be unfortunate – two begins to look like carelessness. I don't doubt your faith, but for whatever reason the pattern in your behaviour is there. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I hear you. When you posted that same diff at AE,were you aware that I'd explained to you earlier that it was accidental? --Middle 8 (contribsCOI) 18:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I just answered that as fully as I can. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand, and I don't do well with reading between the lines. It's a really simple question. Did you post that diff knowing that I'd earlier told you it was accidental? --Middle 8 (contribsCOI) 19:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


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

I didn't think any changes were particularly required, but I'll keep the article watchlisted in case anything of interest crops up ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I am genuinely sorry to hear that. Here is one more issue that I might have added to my original list: the Technique section cites this NHS source... but includes all of the negative information and very little that is neutral or positive. One would never guess that its conclusion is: "Once you get past the initial phase, the diet follows the basic principles of healthy eating and should provide the nutrients you need to stay healthy." I submit this is not a balanced use of the source. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The correct place to discuss article content is its Talk page, but in brief: we say (twice, in fact I added it) "Nevertheless, some aspects of the diet correspond with dietary advice which is recognized as sensible". The NHS source is for coverage of Stage 1 specifically, which is not otherwise covered in the article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic calendar[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Islamic calendar. 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) 00:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Your vandalism of Noopept article[edit]

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

We don't want primary sources for health information and we don't need a photo of an anonymous blister pack of pills (as has been said by another editor on the article Talk page). Removing poor content is not vandalism. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Please STOP LYING, for it is not an "anonymous" blister pack. The picture accurately shows both side of the blister pack, one of which has the product name. This is such a waste of time. Please also avoid subjective words such as "poor", "good", etc. It's sufficient to refer to the text as "MEDRS-nonconforming content". --IO Device (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The subjective words that you've used in your comments here include "very clearly informed," "a long time," "a useful purpose," "insolence," "waste of time," ...
...Sorry, couldn't resist. Sunrise (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) What about effing asshole? Should be spelled arsehole I feel. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, and I wonder if it's meant objectively. That thought, in combination with the username "IO Device", has me feeling distinctly worried. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


Dear Alexbrn,

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

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

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

"In the first article in a mainstream medical journal that critically summarizes the field of naturopathic medicine"[1] Kimball C. Atwood, an American Skeptic, conclude that "naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices"

Due and undue weight[edit]

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

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

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

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

Article structure[edit]

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

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

Opinions as facts[edit]

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

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

Nonjudgmental language[edit]

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

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

Anglo-American focus[edit]

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

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


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

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

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference atwood2003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Article content should be discussed on the article Talk page. In brief, a policy which applies particularly here is WP:PSCI and the fuller guidance in WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:73 (number)[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:73 (number). 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, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


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

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

Specific Carbohydrate Diet website link removed[edit]

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

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

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

Alternative cancer treatments[edit]

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

Speculating about editors, rather than helping improve the article content. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Alex - did you really not want to restore the Ernst quote in your edit earlier? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on the quote either way. It's a good quote, but it's a bit long. I'll leave it to other editors! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I favor its inclusion, but since I included it originally, I'll let others restore it. It's an extremely notable quote, coming from the first professor of alternative medicine, who was originally a true believer in Altmed, but whose research and examination of the evidence on all sides totally changed his POV. His statement sums up the situation quite accurately. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

re-editing of 'emu oil' entry.[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Start here - the purpose of Wikipedia is to reflect accepted knowledge, not to act as a secondary publication presenting primary material for the reader to process for themselves. Any comments specific to the Emu oil article should be on its Talk page, and not here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
(Add) Also be aware that if you have a conflict of interest in relation to your editing then our guidance on COIs is relevant. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit war on circ article[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. 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) 00:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Coenzyme Q10[edit]

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

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

my new favorite comment, ever[edit]

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

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

Page Protection[edit]

Hi Alexbrn,

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

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

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


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

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

Please comment on Talk:Ken Ham[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ken Ham. 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 feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)