User talk:Bon courage

Please comment on Talk:Acupuncture

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Acupuncture. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Creatine

Hi Alexbrn, could you give me more details about the reason why you reverted my changes in this article? - I am a relatively new contributor so I am not sure why you did that. I found quite a few reliable sources so in my oppinion that section should be added. Totocol (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there - yes, Wikipedia sets the bar very high for sourcing on matters of human health - see WP:MEDRS. A primary study and WebMD aren't really good enough for our purposes. WebMD is sometimes okay but not here in my view. If you want to discuss further please drop a note on the Creatine Talk page so everyone can join in! Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the primary study is good enough, and less than this is used as citation in millions of places on Wikipedia, where nobody removes it because it's fantastic and beneficial information for everybody else to work off of. Alex removed it because he has personal agendas and beliefs he loves to push on people to steer their potential for taking control of their own health care into the gutter.

Here's an experiment you can try: start an edit war with him and a bit of a flame war on his talk page, and then find that he will follow you to every single page you edit for the next few months, even where you just correct some punctuation, noticing he will then systematically destroy three quarters of a well written and useful article, while proving that it is justified with Wikipedia rules. 99.235.168.199 (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genetically modified food

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genetically modified food. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

Please see Wikipedia:AN3#User:Jytdog and User:Alexbrn reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: ). I think you are already aware, but this means anyone can clearly see you were notified. I have no opinion on the report and haven't looked into it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - yes, I was aware. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Friendly request to stop edit warring

Your sourced material is inaccurate as proven via WP:V so please do not revert the properly cited information with the inaccurate information. If you feel your information is factually accurate, then provide the reasons at the TP. An RfC will then follow. Atsme^📞📧 16:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You have now repeatedly inserted your preferred version, so it is you who is edit warring - and edit warring in poor content too. After the amygdalin episode I wonder if you're being deliberately disruptive or if you really just lack clue. Alexbrn (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your relentless and unwarranted hammering over the Griffin incident is tiresome and proves nothing. It's actually a form of harassment. I suppose it doesn't really matter since I can't be baited by such childish nonsense, especially considering the extent of disruption you've been involved in one way or another. Regarding the Kombucha article - extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources which is exactly what I provided. I'm somewhat surprised that you can't see the blatant factual inaccuracy of the cited book's claim in the lead. It is not supported by the source that was cited. Oh my, have I been giving you too much credit for knowing such things? There is clearly a pattern of rather disruptive behavior whenever you are involved in editing articles that are evenly remotely associated to CAM. It may seem exaggerated to me right now because of your battleground behavior and edit warring; I'm not sure. Curious - do you consider yourself a CAM-hater? --Atsme^📞📧 17:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not post on my talk page any more. Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Alecbrn is a real shit-disturber. 99.235.168.199 (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 June

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

• On the Saw palmetto extract page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of TW

It appears you abused the rollback feature when you reverted my GF edits. [1]

ABUSE of TW Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's account blocked. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. Not good. Atsme^📞📧 14:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been asked not to post comments here. Do it again and I'll raise this at AN/I. Alexbrn (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You cannot prevent me or any other editor from posting warnings to your TP. Atsme^📞📧 14:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Official/required notices are exempted. However, "Abuse of TW" is something you made up. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Medicinal Cannabis for Cancer Sub-section

"Still undue" does not make any sense as to why this section keeps getting reverted back to the original form. The information being added is in the link that has been used to cite the text that still remains. Please explain further the need to remove this section. ThoHug (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Hi! Mentioning animal research is undue in an article summarizing substances' reasons for being classified as ineffective cancer cures (worse, it implies somehow the animal research has bearing on the effectiveness question). If you want to discuss further, please do so at the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Defecation Postures

Hi Alex, could you give me more details about the reason why you removed a major part of this article? - I am a relatively new contributor so I am not sure why you did that. There was a lot of interesting information and now there is nothing. Furthermore, I added the references to useful articles all of which you dropped, which I don't understand. (From Wikipedia policy I get that a literature review is better than a primary source. However, when there are no literature review, than a primary source should be of course better than nothing?) HereAndThereNowAndThen (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! If there is no secondary coverage then it's unlikely the content they have has risen to the level of "accepted knowledge" which is what Wikipedia deals in. Happy to discuss further on the article's talk page ... Alexbrn (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Steve Jobs

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Steve Jobs. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

thank you

Dear alexbrn .., In the editing there are any book about water fasting and You delete books for Amazon about water fasting Can you but it again please FREEDOM77 (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Wikipedia is not for hosting collections of commercial links to low-quality popular health books, but an encyclopedia. Such a list of links is inappropriate here. Alexbrn (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear alexbrn .., Thank you to help me ;) FREEDOM77 (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Kratom

Hi Alexbrn. Kratom doesn't appear to be listed on the DEA's current list of fact sheets. One can go to the current list by going to the Current DEA list of Fact Sheets. One can confirm this is the latest list by going to the current DEA website and clicking Drug Info/fact sheets. While not a reliable source, this link may be able to help shed light. I am sure this wouldn't be the first time a government agency didn't clean up its website once changes were made. Would you be willing to agree to language that states that Kratom is not listed on the current list of "Drugs of Concern," while noting that a fact sheet appears to have been issued in 2013 that contradicts the current DEA site? Let me know if you have a better idea on how we can address this confusion. Thank you. Journalist1983 (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This is best continued at the article's Talk page, but in brief I want to ensure we mirror RS and don't make statements about what the DEA has done which might be only a misinterpretation of a web site SNAFU. Alexbrn (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

CFS

Hi, is there a reason why you posted this on my talk page only? That does't seem very constructive. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It is what it says it is, a warning about edit warring. You've being doing a lot of reverts recently and are near or beyond 3RR (I didn't count closely). Edit warring risks getting you blocked. Take heed. Alexbrn (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Policy requires that, if you perceive editwarring, you must look at all sides. Please do so in the future. The Jolly Bard (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing Ramadan health section

Hi, I would like to thank you for your reviewing of that section, and also I would like to ask if this bit could be added there by the same standards :

There are some health issues involving Ramadan fasting. It has been suggested that although Ramadan fasting is safe for all healthy individuals, those with various diseases should consult their physicians and follow scientific recommendations. Fasting on Ramadan may cause a change in weight. One study concludes that the observers of Ramadan lose on average about a kilogram of weight over 4 weeks, and the lost weight is quickly regained.

Darwinian Ape ^talk 20:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This is better discussed on the article's Talk page; the first source is potentially okay, the second fails WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I added them since the section seemed a bit sad after your trimming. The cautionary tale, I guess, that the articles that are not about health should not make health claims.:) Sorry for bringing this to your talk page, feel free to move it into the article's talk page or remove it altogether. Thanks again, cheers! Darwinian Ape ^talk 02:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, it's just it's better if we're discussing article content that all the article's editors get to see what we're saying. I've made some more edits. Alexbrn (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you! Be sure to eat it after the iftar.

For your helps in Ramadan article, a favorite dessert of Ramadan feasts Darwinian Ape talk 03:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

One of my favourites, thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Your templates on Racz

If you're going to challenge an article that has received a GA rating, and has also been through a DYK review, you need to be more specific about the sources you have an issue with, otherwise I will consider this hounding in light of our past interactions. Atsme^📞📧 20:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

As has been said by others, that GA rating is a joke. In general, when arguing it's a good idea to pay heed to this. Alexbrn (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Vitamin D

Can we find a way to improve this section rather than just revert each other's edits! Jrfw51 (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That pre-supposes it needs "improvement". Anyway, you're edit-warring poor content in now. I shall post on the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I would appreciate hearing why these articles are poor content and if you could use the Talk page rather than Twinkle! Jrfw51 (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You've been told before by others we don't use primary sources in that way - and in any case it's a good idea, when reverted, to discuss (maybe abiding by WP:BRD) rather than mashing the revert button again: that's edit warring. Alexbrn (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Having spent time picking a review and a high quality article to support my 12:12 edit, and giving a justification, your immediate reversion at 12:16 as I was expanding this on the Talk page seemed premature. But clearly you have much more expertise on Wikipedia editing and manners (if not on vitamin D) so I stand chastised. Jrfw51 (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for apologising and showing GF! Jrfw51 (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Cannabis!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Cannabis! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 559 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in the subject of cannabis.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring at Gabor B. Racz

You have been warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 06:09, 11 July 2015‎

I am not. Please read WP:EW for a description of what edit-warring is. Alexbrn (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Racz is a BLP subject to DS as with all BLPs. You have done nothing but edit war. You have been reminded. Atsme^📞📧 06:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

In fact the editor who is "repeatedly restoring his or her preferred version" is you, since you have now undone both mine and DGG's attempts to improve the early life section, reverting to "your" text (which also fails WP:V incidentally). Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason some (not all) were restored is because the changes were not an improvement. What makes you think you can go in and change a GA per your POV? The reviewer stood by the initial assessment and the fact that you may not like how it is worded doesn't change that fact. If you want to make changes, get consensus on the TP first. As for DGG's attempts, he butchered the article by adding back mistakes, leaving gaps and spaces, changing the meaning of sentences, leaving out defining information, etc. so please don't try to make it appear as though his attempts were an improvement. I highly recommend that you focus on articles that actually do need improvement, like David Gorski. DGG provided a list for you to work from so you can make those improvements. Your work there would be far more productive than the disruption you're creating at Racz. I would be happy to collaborate on Gorski, but between the disruption you're causing at Racz and final preparations for my case at ARBCOM, I just don't have the time. Atsme^📞📧 16:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I've asked that you don't post to my Talk page (though emergencies are excepted). I don't see anything productive coming out of this exchange so it's probably best we stop here. Alexbrn (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

COI tags and COIN

Perhaps you would prefer to make the announcement at COIN regarding your edits to various articles where a COI is rather evident and allow a proper investigation to take place which should include your creation of the unassessed article, Information Technology Task Force, and edits at [Office_Open_XML], and ISO/IEC_JTC_1, to name a few. I do find it rather ironic under the circumstances. To say you have nothing to do with ITTF when the article includes ISO/IEC 29500 Office Open XML File Formats in its publishing activities, and your COI declaration states "the Standardization of Office Open XML article, since I was a key participant in that controversial process" is, well, conflicting (and you mentioned a controversial process nonetheless). There's also your involvement with [2]. It's a bit inconceivable to think you are still denying a COI and reverted the templates. Oh well, things always have a way of working out in the end. Atsme^📞📧 18:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't stay off my Talk page eh! I may have a COI with International Standards I've edited or presided over, or committees and panels I sit on (albeit on a voluntary basis, so some people might say meh anyway). But ITTF is an adminstrative group in Geneva I have no connection with. Please feel free to raise this at WP:COIN if necessary. Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

No, they don't say "meh" anyway. You might want to see what a COIN investigation colonoscopy looks like for volunteers using my case as a reference. Anyway, I'll stay off your page and if you will please, show me the same courtesy and stay off mine. Atsme^📞📧 19:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind conflicts of interest enquiries. As has been said, having conflicts of interest shows one's doing something in life! The problem on WP comes from editors editing who are afflicted by a conflict of interest (and yes, in my early editing I was a sinner - so I know what it looks like). But at least let COIs be accurately assigned: ITTF is rather above my pay grade. Alexbrn (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of COIN

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)

WP:TALK#FACTS

A lot of material on this page, gathered by several users around the world, in now missing, deleted by you.

You've also inserted a lot of incorrect information about the symbols used in the name of Reiki, as identified in my edits which you removed.

I think you're abusing Wikipedia here, on this page, as you are erasing information by users which conflicts with your agenda about how Reiki is perceived, that is, that you believe it is not effective and are concerned that vulnerable people with illnesses may be abused by Reiki practitioners who purport it to be a cure for their illness.

I think you've gone off topic on this page - there is space for "debunking" on this page, but it would be against the wikipedia philosophy for it to ALL be that. I think you need to allow some other editors onto this page, relax your grip a bit. I know that might be a bit confronting to read, but I just want the knowledge that I have about Reiki to be shared with the world rather than being deleted by someone who shows fear of the practice.

I'm new to Wiki but I'm a published academic. I understand a lot of information about Reiki is hearsay, that's why a Reiki wikipedia page is important, it gathers and balances knowledge from practitioners of the last generation so as to get concensus about divergence and variation. It can also function as a way for the public to get some basic information about the practice. Please share the Reiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrishApps (talk • contribs) 08:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! I don't believe I've added any material on "symbols" to the Reiki article. Material added must be well-sourced and verifiable (see WP:RS and WP:V). Please continue any further discussion about the article content at the article's Talk page. Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Abuse of COIN arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Graphology July 2015

I really dont know, what your problem is. I search for new studies and insert them on wikipedia, new metaanalysis that graphology does not correlate with personality questionnaire. You do not read it but always delete it. This is edit war.

Your recent editing history at Graphology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Err, it's you who is reverting reversions! You removed good material and inserted poorly-sourced claims e.g. that graphology can "predict cancer". Happy to discuss further on the article's Talk page; please do not keep simply reinserting your favoured material. Alexbrn (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Read the reference before you delete anything. My references are recent research articles in psychological peer-reviewed journals! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wicky media (talk • contribs) 11:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Peer reviewed is not enough. For health information we need WP:MEDRS and for this topic WP:NPOV (and particularly WP:FRINGE) are also in play. Please continue any discussions on the articles' Talk pages. Furthermore, the graphology content at Projective test should be in WP:SYNC with the lede of Graphology. Alexbrn (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Tartrazine July 2015

Please visit the talk page of "Tartrazine" to resolve this issue. Sunpoint (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sunpoint: Hi! I have commented there. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Which sources are not reliable?

Why did you revert my edits in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anavex_Life_Sciences? I even added 3 sources. Which links would you dispute, and why? --Agamemnus (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of forestry journals

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of forestry journals. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Kudos

…for your conciliatory outreach to the new editor Jrf51. It is noteworthy here at WP. Look in on his PBS Foundation matter some time if you have the time. (He is, by the way, quite knowledgable about matters, at the molecular level.) Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Tweaking prose...

It is not edit warring when we're tweaking prose. Stop placing unwarranted templates on my TP whenever you disagree with something I've done. You might also want to read up on edit warring and tag-teaming. Atsme^📞📧 15:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The "prose tweak" doesn't matter. You reverted a revert[3] to re-assert your preferred text. As you should know by now that is the beginning of edit warring. The warning is issued to prevent it getting worse. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

NOTICE: Discussion that involves you at WP:COIN

Sorry for the delay. I should have initiated the WP:COIN investigation earlier but was tied up with other issues. Atsme^📞📧 16:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, a reprise of some of the WP:POINTy behaviour which was aired at Arbcom, eh! Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

DRN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Ubiquinol.23Therapeutic_Uses_of_Ubiquinol_discussion Notification, because the OP didn't do it. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why I bothered !!! -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 16:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/List

This is excellent but it leaves out a large number of articles which are pseudo-archaeology. See Category:Pseudoarchaeology. The category needs to be fixed however. It should not be a subcategory of pseudoscience as it isn't a science, it's a social science or a humanities subject according to the country (English-speaking countries, Germany calls the social sciences sciences). Nor should pseudohistory be related to it. History's a different subject. Anyway, can we add the articles in the category to the list? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed the category problem. Doug Weller (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You probably know better than I how to drive this! It strikes me that this WikiProject had a lot of effort put into it an one time, but is now rather quiet. Alexbrn (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

And I've been reverted, see Category talk:Pseudoarchaeology. Doug Weller (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Deworming controversy?

Hi - it seems to me that it's worthwhile to discuss the development economist side of this and the randomized controlled trials that show various effects - maybe in a section on education effects. The evidence of the effects of deworming isn't just Cochrain - there are a number of other single studies and meta analyses not included in Cochrain that shed light on this matter and not to include them really does not do justice to the topic for the reader. Right now the entry is misleading at best by focusing exclusively on the medical review that inadequately shows long-term effects as those studies are not included in it. To leave out the recent debate about the efficacy of deworming is misleading. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.212.127 (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This'd be better at the article's Talk page. I suspect there may be more economic sources, but for medical evidence we should rely on up-to-date secondary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Mate (beverage)

It's not clear why the sources are not valid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS - we need secondary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

They're medical journals and were actually vetted by an editor who gutted all of the other sources leaving only these are RSes. Please take the point, precisely explaining your concerns on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a bunch of "health effects" sourced to a confection of primary sources ("medical journals" is not enough) and oh - you've put it back twice. I have posted on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Race and genetics

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Race and genetics. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate

Wondering why my recent amendments to the glyphosate page have been removed?JGZ 09:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johann Zaller (talk • contribs)

Hello there! Most material on Wikipedia, and scientific information in particular, should come from WP:SECONDARY sources. See WP:SCIRS for some science-specific sourcing recommendations. Happy to discuss further on the glyphosate article's Talk page ...

guidelines for submission

I received your response to my recent submission on the Naturopathy/Naturopathic entry. You mentioned that my edit did not adhere to the guidelines, but I am unclear which part of my submission was unacceptable. The edits I included were from the Journal of American Medical Association, a public government report from the US Office of Technology Assessment, and two peer reviewed published medical journals. I'm not sure what criteria is used for determining legitimate sources, but I can not imagine that these sources would not be considered legitimate or reliable.

Are you the person that authorizes editions to the entries? If so, please provide specific details regarding which of my edits you consider to be unacceptable.

Thank you, Wdnelsonnmd (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! All edits are ultimately decided by WP:CONSENSUS, not by individuals. Please start at WP:5P to get a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. Your edit had many problems, including lack of sourcing, poor sourcing, and making points not directly supported by the sources. Also, article introductions are supposed only to mirror the article body and should contain no distinct content. I suspect another editor will reverse your edit shortly. Naturopathy is a controversial article and possibily not the best place to start learning how Wikipedia works. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Alexbrn, are you stating, categorically, that you have no professional relationship with Cochrane Collaboration or their publisher, Wiley? Wiley is a client of Griffin Brown, according to the Griffin Brown website: http://www.griffinbrown.co.uk/client.asp. This qualifies you for a conflict of interest, especially given how aggressively you have edited the CES page and promoted the Cochrane Collaboration content. This strikes me as something I should submit to the Wiki board and request that you are banned from editing the CES page and any other content on Wiki related to CES.

ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Wiley has been a client of my company (as indeed has the Cochrane Collaboration, in common with many of the World's publishers), but since the work done is focussed exclusively on production technology, and has no intersection with the published content, there is no conflict of interest - unlike for you. Feel free to take to WP:COIN if in doubt, but be warned you'll be wasting people's time. Alexbrn (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn Given that you admit to having Cochrane Collaboration and Wiley as clients, and given the amount of time and effort you spend editing Wikipedia pages during weekday business hours (not only the CES page, but many other pages), I find it hard to believe that you are not paid, at least in part, to edit and influence Wikipedia pages on behalf of Wiley and Cochrane Collaboration (which are your clients). If you are going to assert that you are not paid to do so, please explain these profound contradictions. Regardless of whether it can be proved that you are paid to edit Wikiedpia in particular, you still have a very clear COI given the fact you have a financial relationship with these organizations. In my view, it is inappropriate that you are both compensated by these clients, and at the same promote their products (in the case of CES, the Cochrane Collaboration lit review published by Wiley) on Wikipedia. Your Conflict should be clearly stated and considered by other editors. ColumbiaLion212 (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no COI. As I said, feel free to take to WP:COIN if in doubt, but be warned you'll be wasting people's time. I have nothing more to add. Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagreement

Unless you are a medical expert, which I am by the way, it would be beneficial if you stopped trying to prevent the addition of actual legitimately referenced scientific material to articles. If you would like to come to a compromise let me know otherwise I think we will have to possibly revert to arbitration. Setanta Saki (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Setana please read WP:MEDRS; the content you added is not OK. I'll add the template to the Talk page that helps editors find sources that comply with MEDRS. But this is a conversation that should be happening at Talk:Soursop, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay as a medical professional I totally understand the concern, however those are expressed guidelines not hard rules nor were any actual medical claims being put forth just expressed interest in ongoing "potential" areas of as seen in scientific/cancer research. There should be logical flexibility, also literature/Systematic reviews are classed as the absolute ideal understandably. But to expect that in this relativity new case especially when it is natural compounds being recently examined is far too hard line frankly, to not reflect or even mention some or any of the primary source areas of research which will form the basis of those future reviews is frankly a little extreme. Graviola was included in an overall natural products review in a cancer treatment review journal one of the references.

Also is this ideal literature/systemic review reference requirement being imposed on the the unproven "potential" neurotoxicity claim outlined in the article many of the links are broken and are primary source or open letters?. Lastly I did not edit war as claimed, I started another new heading to separate any implied medical/health claims ad wanted to reflect current areas of in the natural compounds, I wrote a totally different introduction and added different referenced links to some well known cancer journals. AS suggested I will discuss on talk page and get some differing known administrator views as to the overall application of the guidelines on the article. Setanta Saki (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)