User talk:Bon courage

“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

Regarding removal of science study

Hi, here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosemary&diff=prev&oldid=570218997) your recent article edit reason is: "improperly-sourced biomedical content". Though it appears the "url" is missing from the ref tag. I looked the study up and foudn it under this url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12690999. Would the addition of this url be considered properly sourced? If not please show me an example what you consider "Properly sourced", thanks. Prokaryotes (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi - for a biomedical effect we need something that complies with the guidance in WP:MEDRS. The study in Int J Neurosci is a piece of primary research (the authors did an experiment that generated data, and wrote-it-up themselves), and so not suitable. We would need a secondary source that verifies the finding. Since the claim about Rosemary is not very extraordinary, a review article might suffice. In general the best sources for this kind of thing are systematic reviews or (or a metaanalysis) or statements by established medical bodies like the NHS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

But why did you revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_plants_used_in_herbalism&diff=prev&oldid=570219122 which cites a primary and secondary source, however you also gave the reason that it is improperly sourced. Prokaryotes (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The Science Daily piece isn't a high-quality secondary source in a way which would satisfy WP:MEDRS - it is really just a news piece reporting on the primary study (in fact, if you look at the 'story source' you'll see it's just picking-up material that the journal publisher fed to them). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS states that "Peer reviewed medical information resources such as WebMD is a acceptable source" here is the study from that source - http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20120224/can-the-scent-of-rosemary-make-you-smarter Prokaryotes (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes! that might do - but we'd need something a lot more tentative than the claim I removed (that it was "shown to improve cognitive performance") ... "an intriguing concept, but very preliminary" maybe? But we're then into the question of whether something this speculative is notable enough for inclusion; I have no strong view about that either way ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I like to include just the findings and what is generally said in a study. Maybe we can include from study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12690999 this line = "Findings indicate that properties of the oil can produce objective effects on cognitive performance" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokaryotes (talk • contribs) 09:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be going back to the primary source, which is a no-no. The only expert peer-review we have (from WebMD) gives us a steer to the line Wikipedia must adopt if it's going to mention this, that "the findings could be due to chance or something else besides the fragrance." Although this isn't a very important case, the general principal is that since Wikipedia is a "widely used source of health information", editors must be scrupulous in not making articles contain things that are not published in reliable sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

But the study source is a governmental source - this ought to be considered reliable. Also i would rather use the original research rather than a secondary, although this is not clear that one should only use the content from the secondary source. But in this instance i have np with using the secondary source. Though can we include something along the lines of "The Scent of Rosemary Oil May Improve Speed and Accuracy During Mental Tasks" (via WebMD).Prokaryotes (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a governmental source, it's from a group of reseachers at Northumbria University and published in a neuroscience journal[1] (the electronic version of the abstract is then hosted on PubMed - an indexing and hosting service - as happens for many/most medical journal articles these days). It may seem counter-intuitive but for biomedical content we need to go through the secondary layer, as that is providing the validation via peer-review that gives some assurance of the quality of the information. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. But it is still from a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.gov domain. Ok, so can you add that sentences i gave above or do you want me to do it? Prokaryotes (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added something - it's important we follow the somewhat tentative tone of the WebMD piece. Their main title ends with a question mark, after all! Right, now I'm going to sniff some rosemary; I have a big bush of it in the garden :-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

:D Prokaryotes (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Addict ! --Roxy the dog (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've put some in my shirt pocket. It's ... rather nice ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Related? a13ean (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Rosemary, third opinion requested

I have requested third opinions, or additional input, on the Rosemary edit. Please feel free to discuss here even though you have given your opinions elsewhere. Thanks. --AfadsBad (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bon courage. You have new messages at Talk:American Cancer Society.
Message added MrBill3 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello Alexbrn, Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I opened a discussion on the removal of the embezzlement scandals at American Cancer Society. I am not objecting to your edit just think it might be worth discussion and that the information should be preserved on the talk page for possible re inclusion if the article is substantially expanded and balanced. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your ongoing efforts to improve medical topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much sir! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

you're guilty of an edit war too

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Talkback

Hello, Bon courage. You have new messages at Talk:Deepak Chopra.
Message added 04:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 04:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, thanks much! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 05:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Again ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 05:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Again. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 06:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Again. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 06:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

For editing the article of Clinical trials on Ayurvedic drugs. It gives a confidence that it is really need of time and that I am heading in the right direction. You may also like to have a look at blog of mine which I have dedicated for this cause. You can see the blog over here. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Happy to receive your response very fast.

I am really really very happy to see your fast response. I just cant tell you how happy I am feeing right now. Please do have a look at the blog as you will get time. And please keep guiding for the article. Wikipedia is really a wonderful place! --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for your dedicated sense of collaboration and compromise at Vacuum Bell. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So nice! but not good for my diet ;-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Zoetron therapy

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Zoetron therapy. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – List_of_ineffective_cancer_treatments. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List_of_ineffective_cancer_treatments – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Caffeyw (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It was I who added the material to List_of_ineffective_cancer_treatments after creating Zoetron therapy, so there is no (unintended) duplication. List_of_ineffective_cancer_treatments is a list article that summarizes a number of others we have, providing a small WP:SYNC'd summary. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

vit c and cancer

The pharmacokinetic study and the reviews all suggest that intravenous vitamin c has effects that oral does not and should thus be reevaluated. This is noted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine#Vit_C

My edit was not promotional, but it reflected the actual content of the articles, from notable sources, the conclusions of which specifically stated the view that intravenous vitamin c in the treatment of cancer be reevaluated.198.189.184.243 (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It's nonsense, and you're trying to edit-war it in. At the very least, take your proposal to Talk now your edit has been rejected (not just by me). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The proposal has been taken to talk. You state that it is a "non-neutral" edit, but, again, the 2004 NIH study "Vitamin C pharmacokinetics: implications for oral and intravenous use." published in the Annals of Internal Medicine specifically concludes: "Oral vitamin C produces plasma concentrations that are tightly controlled. Only intravenous administration of vitamin C produces high plasma and urine concentrations that might have antitumor activity. Because efficacy of vitamin C treatment cannot be judged from clinical trials that use only oral dosing, the role of vitamin C in cancer treatment should be reevaluated.": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15068981198.189.184.243 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we agree that the actual content of these two reviews states that vit c in cancer should be reevaluated because of differences between oral and intravenous administration? Also, the content of these reviews is justified because of that very pharmacokinetic study, as well as other evidence.198.189.184.243 (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is the article talk page, not here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine#Vit_C198.189.184.243 (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Multiple people Editing my edits...

I'd like to know why I'm "speculating" since that was your reason for removing my edit... I have sources and I'm wondering why you think my research is violating wikipedia standards, or is it the content that you do not like? You are the 3rd in the last 12 hours that has removed my edits. I have complied with your request to cite and produce research. What's up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms.Lola B (talk • contribs) 16:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You need to make a case for your edits on the article's Talk page, per WP:BRD perhaps. See you there ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of ineffective cancer treatments, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain what was wrong with my modification of "Expanding Earth"?

Expanding Earth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndwelsh (talk • contribs) 09:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Just about everything, I'm afraid. Content on Wikipedia needs to be sourced to verifiable, reliable, published sources. What is more, it seems you are adding your own work here, which is definitely frowned as as it raises WP:COI conflict-of-interest issues. I will post some more on your talk page. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Mass transforming into gravity

Hello Alexbrn. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Mass transforming into gravity to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Update - the article author removed my PROD and in doing so restored your speedy, which another admin then accepted. I have explained WP:NOR on the author's talk p. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I wasn't sure a PROD would be right as it was likely to be contested. Perhaps a better CSD category would be G11, because this article is just for promotion of a point of view. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I would have agreed with G11 either - that is really for promotional text rather than promotional intent. These articles about somebody's new theory are not really speediable, IMO, and PRODs aren't always contested if the reason is explained clearly. I like to quote the key sentence from WP:NOR: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery" which makes it fairly clear. JohnCD (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

American vs. British English

Nothing against British English, but I thought I should inform you of Wikipedia policy regarding your addition of the word "practise" instead of "practice" in the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine article. Here is what Wikipedia: Manual of Style says: "While Wikipedia does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently. exceptions are: quotations (do not alter the quotation to match the variety used in the main text; but see typographic conformity, below); proper names (use the original spelling, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force); titles of works such as books, films, or songs (use the spelling of the edition consulted); and explicit comparisons of varieties of English." The article was consistently written in American English and according to MOS, should consistently use that. Your edit meets none of the criteria for an exception. It would be great if you could correct that. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoops. I try, I really do, but sometimes lose track of all the different errors American English has - and it's not helped by my being slightly dyslexic. So please tidy up anything you see! Thanks, Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deepak Chopra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quantum theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest==

Alex you have declared a conflict of interest on the Chopra page and according to WP:COI should not make controversial edits yourself. You can discuss them but should not make them. You can make general edits. This is the second time your COI editing has been mentioned, but your controversial editing persists, and even increased. It is disruptive and needs to end. Vivekachudamani (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC) I have made no such declaration, and I have no such conflict. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 01:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)