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:Violet (color)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Violet (color). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week[edit]

Editor of the week barnstar.svg Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for tireless article development and safeguarding contentious articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Editor Jytdog submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Editor Alexbrn as Editor of the Week for diligent, careful, and civil work on contentious articles, especially for removing quackery from health-related articles and keeping fringe content out of many articles.

  • You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Project editor retention.svg
Editor of the week.svg
This editor enjoys photography
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning June 22, 2014
A WikiDragon, an active editor at keeping fringe content out of a multitude of health-related articles.
Recognized for
diligent, careful, and civil work on contentious articles
Nomination page

Thanks again for your efforts! ```Buster Seven Talk 14:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Congrats Alexbrn on becoming Editor of the Week. Jim Carter (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Very well deserved award, particularly for the seemingly bottomless reserve of patience on difficult articles with troubled editing environments. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks guys! What can I say other than awwwww shucks? I'm not sure how "tireless" I am since just recently, feeling tired of Wikipedia, I cleared my watchlist. However - this award is an encouragement to keep my hand in so ... thanks again! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

5:2 Diet[edit]

Hi Alexbrn,

I saw your edits on 5:2 diet. They looked good!

I kind of republished one of your edits. You can see it here I think : Let me know what you think. I added the guy suggesting it's name. He's one of the creators of the diet. I personally don't see why this wouldn't be pertinent to the topic. In fact it seems like the more info we could get about how this guy thinks about and describes the diet on the page the better. Let me know if there's a problem or whatever, you've probably been around the Wikipedia editing block longer than I have, but I would still like to contribute!

I wanted to ask your advice. You removed some material I added to the page, in the lede, about how intermittent fasting has been tested in animal models. I agree with you that what I wrote could be improved upon and would be better to include in the body of the page and then summarize in the lede.

My question is how do you think I should go about doing this? It seems like the NHS article claiming that there has not been much research done on the health effects of the 5:2 diet did not include a review of the research, did mention testing of intermittent fasting in animals, and did mention two studies done on the 5:2 diet (but the author of the article admits he or she didn't even do an exhaustive search for studies on the diet). I feel strongly that it is unfair to the diet to say contrary to the benefits claimed by the authors of the diet, there is little evidence for the diet. I feel like it would be more fair to say somehow that research is ongoing, or saying that there have been some research showing benefits but that more is needed to be conclusive. That's how I hear the NIH summarizing research in some cases, "supportive but not conclusive research supports the claim that..." I wanted to ask your opinion about how to approach this topic. Editing on Wikipedia about scientific studies is important but can be tricky. Do you have any suggestions about how to discuss this topic? I think your edits were of a good quality so I thought maybe you'd have some advice. Thanks! makeswell (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! The issue here is that Wikipedia has ultra-strict guidelines for biomedical content in WP:MEDRS - and advice from Mosely or inclusion of animal studies (primary research) both fail to meet its requirements. If we want more medical content, we need to wait for better sources to emerge. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@Makeswell – Ah, I see you've added Moseley's medical advice and the mouse study back in: this is not good content because of the WP:MEDRS guideline I mentioned. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks[edit]

Please do not launch any personal attacks, like you did here, or I will request for an administrator to intervene. You are, of course, always free to provide constructive feedback anytime. Thank you. -A1candidate (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something I don't see how that 4 word post in the diff cited above could be construed as a personal attack.-- KeithbobTalk 23:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree - I don't see how it is a personal attack either. A1candidate, to be honest I read your post and I had a hard time figuring out your tone... it seemed kind of sarcastic or ironic to me at points as well. Was it? Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Keithbob - He first tried to prevent editors from answering to my post by incorrectly referring to WP:DFTT. Then, he directly accused me of sacarsm. After someone pointed out that there was no sacarsm, he continued to call me out instead of discussing the issues I brought up. It felt like a weak (but annoying) attempt to distract from a serious discussion.

@Jytdog - Even if there was a tinge of sarcasm in my post, everyone else was discussing the issues that I've brought up instead of making personal accusations. Why couldn't Alexbrn do the same? I feel that many of the scientific papers that I've recently read may not have a very strong empirical basis and I wanted to hear the opinions of more experienced editors. I'm against all forms of quackery and pseudoscience promotion, so except for the paragraph on acupuncture, my posts aren't meant to be sarcastic at all.

I only wanted to ensure that Alexbrn stops distracting other editors from the points I've brought up. He could have discussed the issues I highlighted, just like what other editors did, and he is still welcome to do so anytime. -A1candidate (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


A1candidate – please do not post on my Talk page again. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gliese 581[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gliese 581. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Have you a moment to take a look? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That does look interesting. bobrayner (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yup, this was a victim of my watchlist clearing; I'll re-add it. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It is educational to examine a series of edits like that. For me, all I could see was a sledgehammer approach, due to a pit of the stomach feeling that occurred when I saw the page. Thanks guys. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
If one of you is watching the page, then I'll take it off my watchlist, as I know it's in safe hands (and there are so many other things to watch). bobrayner (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter[edit]

Medical translation.svg

Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Stetho book.jpg

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 1, June/July 2014
by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery

Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg

This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice.

note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

IEG grant
CFCF - "IEG beneficiary" and editor of this newsletter.

I've (CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.

Wikimania 2014

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.

Integration progress

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish.
What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.

  • Swedish
    Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that.
    Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
  • Dutch
    Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
  • Polish
    Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article.
    (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
  • Arabic
    The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.
Integration guides

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [3]

News in short

To come
  • Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
  • Proofreading drives

Further reading

Thanks for reading! To receive a monthly talk page update about new issues of the Medical Translation Newsletter, please add your name to the subscriber's list. To suggest items for the next issue, please contact the editor, CFCF (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine/Translation Taskforce/Newsletter/Suggestions.
Want to help out manage the newsletter? Get in touch with me CFCF (talk · contribs)
For the newsletter from Wikiproject Medicine, see The Pulse

If you are receiving this newsletter without having signed up, it is because you have signed up as a member of the Translation Taskforce, or Wiki Project Med on meta. 22:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil[edit]

Your diff shows a covert hostility. Please be civil. - - Technophant (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not write on my Talk page again. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kozyrev mirror[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kozyrev mirror. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Circumcision and HIV[edit]

Hey Alex, a relatively new editor has been proposing some new content at Circumcision and HIV. I pulled the latest proposed content change out of the article and put in on the Talk page for discussion here. You recently did some cleanup of the sourcing for the article so would love to have your input. Thanks... Zad68 14:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Zad, I'll take a look ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mensuration[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mensuration. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

ubiquinol and liver health revision[edit]

Dear Alexbrn,

It appears you removed the entire Liver Health section on the basis that you were reverting an edit done by RonZ.

This is incorrect. RonZ never edited the Liver Health section. Only Dr Pixie had a comment, and if you read her talk page, you can see that I followed instructions to add another reference.

Thank you for reviewing, but I wanted you to have an informed basis for the reason for undoing your edit.


Committed molecules (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I was simply removing poorly-sourced content - have commented on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

ubiquinol and liver health[edit]

Dear Alexbrn,

Hello and thank you again.

Please note that there is not a policy that states primary studies can not be used.

As it says, "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."

Therefore, I will adjust the text to include that text should not be used to support a conclusion, particularly in relation to human health.

Sincerely, Committed molecules (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken - please read WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
And now you've added the content for a third time, without discussion: this is edit-warring (as you have been warned) and could lead to a block. Other editors will no doubt want to comment so I shall check back later to see. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Medcan Clinic#Notability[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Medcan Clinic#Notability. Cheers!

P.S. I appreciate the input you have provided at Talk:Medcan Clinic already. Thanks. —Unforgettableid (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)