User talk:Bon courage

New new Happy new new

I just love a virgin talk page four years in a row.

My best to you. Roxy the dog. wooF 03:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we can call it a tradition. Happy New Year to you too, and to all my lovely Talk Page watchers. Let's hope 2022 turns out better than 2021! Alexbrn (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Nirmatrelvir

Hello Alexbrn, could you please advise me If the changes citing peer-reviewed scientific journals can be kept? Thank you for your help. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nirmatrelvir&type=revision&diff=1063501789&oldid=1063500319 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exaltedyeti (talk • contribs) 12:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! Please see the welcome message on your page and WP:MEDRS (or WP:MEDFAQ for a quick start). In general, the English Wikipedia requires much more than just that a paper is peer-reviewed for it to be considered suitable as a source for biomedical content. Alexbrn (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for linking this resource. With this in mind, I will attempt another, smaller edit of the page, using review article content only!Exaltedyeti (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Psilocybin Microdosing (Safety)

Hello Alexbrn,

(1) Thank you for letting me know about the 'Sea of Blue' issue. I will make sure I correct the links.

(2) Could you please point to the unreliable sources that are making you redirect the page? I would like to fix the errors and provide proper sources for the article.

Thanks! R-Cal-L (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! Just picking one at random, PMID:30829033 is primary research on rats. In general, primary research is not suitable for use on Wikipedia for biomedical content — see the links I have posted on your talk page for guidance.

If you can find better sources (e.g. review articles, textbooks and statements from major medical bodies) then material on the the very niche topic you are writing about ("Psilocybin Microdosing Safety‎") should be added to the Psychedelic microdosing article and, if that gets too big, split out eventually. Because of WP:NOPAGE it is not a good idea to fragment a topic into many tiny fragment articles (which this would be, given the likely tiny amount of viable sourcing). Alexbrn (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions.

@WP:MEDRS: I have to say that initially I was surprised to find that Wikipedia doesn’t support providing primary sources but the more I read on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine), the more it makes sense. I will work on getting secondary sources for the data. However, since the page doesn’t exist because of the redirect, how can I make changes to improve it? Should I start another draft from one of the older versions from the history of it?

@WP:NOPAGE, I understand what you are saying. I have reviewed the redirect page. I could create a psilocybin microdosing safety subsection on it. The page I am trying to create is much more detailed. My goal is to provide a more specific safety-related page to the psychedelics community especially because of the anticipated review of psilocybin microdosing safety information by various legislative bodies across the world in the coming year. I imagine I could add this information to the psychedelics safety subsection but I feel that it would take away from the general psychedelics-based focus of that page. Please advise. Thank you and Happy New Year! R-Cal-L (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be better to expand the article as is, and if it gets to big then a WP:SPLIT might be warranted. In general articles tend to cover all aspects of a drug in one place, even for major ones like, say, Clozapine.

I see you have created/edited Psilocybin Microdosing and Psilocybin Microdosing Safety — I don't think having these as standalone articles is a good idea. Any sources for biomedical assertions in these articles which were not WP:MEDRS would almost certainly be considered unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will add the psilocybin microdosing safety content as subsections to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_microdosing after I take care of the WP:MEDRS issues with it. Quick question: I had two tables in the content. One with serotonin receptors binding affinity values and the second with dosage information of some compounds. I had cited the non-review papers for those experimentally determined values. Is it ok to do that? If not, what other way can experimental data be presented? My goal is to provide some experimental proof to the readers since lately it has been more difficult to convince readers about scientific facts. Thank you for all your help with this. Best, R-Cal-L (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If you can find MEDRS sources, your plan sounds good. I'd say the tbular detail detail you propose is not appropriate: Wikipedia is meant to be a summary for general readers, and in any case we are in no position to judge whether content in primary sources is correct (the kind of "accepted knowledge" Wikipedia is meant to be summarizing). P.S. in Talk page interactions, please use the conventions of WP:INDENT to keep conversations threaded. Alexbrn (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Hello, I'm Levivich. I noticed that you made a comment on the page WP:COIN that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. When I correctly identify and report a COI, and you repeatedly call what I'm doing a "witch hunt", you are personally attacking me, and attempting through bullying tactics to get me to stop reporting COI editing. This is unacceptable; please stop defending COI via these intimidation tactics. Levivich 14:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't be silly, it's not you personally that's the problem and I've been quite clear about seems questionable behaviour. COI-tainted editing is bad, but misguided zeal is as much a problem as we have seen in the past. Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who it's directed at, you shouldn't be saying it about anyone. I'm the one who started the COIN, I'm the one who is pursuing this. What I'm doing is not a witch hunt, so stop calling it that. You are trying to create a chilling effect -- to discourage people from pursuing this -- and that's not ok. You, personally, need to get on the right side of this issue or you're going to be a party to the inevitable arbcom case that's coming. They do in fact have a COI and they did in fact lie about it in the COIN thread ("I have never edited about myself" = flat lie, quickly disproven with diffs). This won't go away, and later, everyone's conduct will be examined. When the question is asked, "why couldn't the community handle this?," I will answer, "because Alex kept making personal attacks against whomever raised the issue." So stop creating the diffs that support that answer; stop accusing people who are concerned about an actual COI of being on a witch hunt. Levivich 14:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree it's a personal attack and if I see witch-hunting behaviour I will call it out. Alexbrn (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You'd better double check the definition of "witch hunt". I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. "Witch hunt" doesn't mean "ganging up on someone" or "false accusation". A "witch hunt" is the pursuit of people for holding unorthodox or unpopular views. Enforcing our COI policies isn't even analogous to pursuing people for their views. Nobody is even talking about these editors' views. By accusing the COIN I started of being a witch hunt, you're saying I filed it because I want to silence their views, meaning I am anti-skeptic or pro-woo. That's why it's a personal attack. Levivich 14:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Witch hunting is exactly hitting the nail on the head. It does mean false accusation. Good grief. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"By accusing the COIN I started" ← what does that even mean? The thread at COIN has diffused beyond your input and my concern is specifically behaviour which (yes) does accord exactly with the behaviour of a witch hunt: identifying and rounding up people for blame. In case you weren't aware there have also been mass deletions of articles attempted and nearly-block-worthy personal questions made by some of the posse ... all in an area where for some kinds of editing it is not even agreed by the community a COI is problematic (i.e. citing a publication with which one is associated, or encouraging people to cite one's RS works). I have no tolerance for problematic COI-tainted editing and a record to show that; equally I have seen misdirected zeal having bad consequences (and have been on the receiving end of dodgy COI accusations myself). You seem to be saying that everything that happens in a thread in which you posted first has to be by definition okay, which is absurd. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Slight edit to your comment

Some people get testy about minor formatting edits to their comments, so I just wanted to let you know I closed up your underline tag. There was a missed / in the closing tag. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

D'oh - silly me. Thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Just didn't want to step on toes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Whitewashing Paul Thacker's page

Your "good faith" edits removing the extremely well-documented facts that Paul Thacker is a dishonest, anti-GMO, anti-vaccine activist haven't gone unnoticed. 73.254.14.29 (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Does that mean I get a WP:Barnstar? Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. You and the other good faith editors at Wikipedia should be proud that you're helping promote a guy who is keeping the COVID pandemic going by spreading lies about vaccines. 73.254.14.29 (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

BLPN notification

There is a discussion occurring at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard that you may be involved with. ––FormalDude talk 09:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you ever get the feeling we're unpaid workers cleaning up somebody else's mess? Alexbrn (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Meh. It's the cost of an open encyclopedia. I like being a volunteer. ––FormalDude talk 09:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You're invited! January 29: COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon - Online via Zoom

COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon (January 29, 2022)

Hello Alexbrn! I'd like to invite you to a Covid-19 focused Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon, open to the public, via Zoom on Saturday - January 29th, 2022, 1pm-3pm E.S.T. We will be focusing our edits on the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic. Click the event page to read more. This event is hosted by Sure We Can, a recycling and community center in Brooklyn. This is the 4th Covid-focused Edit-a-thon that Sure We Can has hosted. Click here to see the last three COVID-19 focused edit-a-thons: Sept 6th, 2020 & Nov 21, 2020 & Feb 6th, 2021. In past events, we translated the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City article into Spanish, Yoruba, Malagasy, Hebrew, Swahili, Tagalog, Korean, Russian, Japanese, Portuguese, Polish, Greek, Haitian Creole, and wrote the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States article. We would love for you to join us. All experience levels welcome. COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon Saturday January 29, 1PM - 3PM E.S.T (18:00 - 20:00 UTC)

--Wil540 art (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Letting you know

Your name has come up in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia, where I've mentioned in my statement that you should be notified. You are not a named party or anything like that, but I felt that someone should let you know. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. So, it looks like there's going to be a case. Probably just as well, though it appears some people have unrealistic expectations about what Arbcom can/will do. Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Circumcision article

Hey, Alexbrn! I just wanted to give you a notice — so it's not misinterpreted as a form of edit warring — that I temporarily reverted the article back to the original version — until there's a consensus on what to do about it. I wrote about why I thought that the suggested changes made by Stix1776 were heavily problematic and a downgrade from the existing version here.

As for the Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, and Council on Foreign Relations citations, I agree with you that they're pretty excessive, and not at all crucial to the article, and I can see why they might raise problems related to WP:MEDRS, so free to delete them. I don't have an objection there. Best regards, KlayCax (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem, I haven't been paying much attention to the article (which, to be honest, is a bit of a chore because of the controversy). From a quick look now it seems a lot of the sources are getting a bit old. Alexbrn (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Misconfigured cluebot?

Hi, on the talk page for John Campbell, the cluebot you added is configured with an 'age' parameter of '14'. Did you intend that? It means threads are archived if they receive no further edits within 14 hours. That seems rather extreme. Typically it's set to something far more conservative like 720 for thirty days, or a slightly less conservative 360, for two weeks. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

D'oh! Mixed up my days/hours and bot behaviour! It should be - yes - 720 or something. Alexbrn (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Easy mistake to make, certainly. Shall I correct, or you? And should the aggressively archived stuff be restored, or just let sleeping dogs lie? I'm inclined neither way really. I'm tired of writing about it. :) Anastrophe (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to interact

Hi! I asked you to stop editing my talk page some months ago. See thread. I think enough time has passed since then, so feel free to interact in my talk page if you wish. I thought it was unnecessary to clarify it then as it would probably just increase the animosity, but I used the word "stalk" because you had used the {{stalker}} template IIRC, it wasn't an accusation or anything. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe I have ever used the {{stalker}} template, but I'm happy to move on. Alexbrn (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: it was the {{Buttinsky}} template linking to a page by that name. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, I do use that: that one's much more fun. Alexbrn (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I do like the template myself as well ^u^ A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-neutrality in the Vision Therapy article is a known problem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You keep undoing my edits. Gatekeeping is easy for you. But the article isn't up to snuff, and if you want to appoint yourself its' guardian, it needs to actually comply with the rules. --Horatio Von Becker

Agreed. Please make your case on Talk. And maybe learn about the correct use of the apostrophe. Alexbrn (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

At least two people have already made the case for it! Also the possessive apostrophe is entirely valid. -Horatio Von Becker 180.148.123.68 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Explain. -Horatio Von Becker 180.148.123.68 (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Horatio Von Becker sounds like the name of someone who offers you a million dollars to spend the night in his haunted mansion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Epastore (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability/falsifiability of real existence

Since Tryptofish asked us to take our discussion elsewhere, I'm coming to your talk page with it. I hope you don't mind. I'll also ping PaleoNeonate since they started the discussion, and I suspect they might be interested.

I'm happy that we moved from calling me pro-fringe to eccentric. I have spent a lot of time studying ancient and medieval philosophy, and I cannot deny that this has had some influence on my personal views, to the point of me becoming perhaps somewhat eccentric in my approach. I will note though that I'm not a proponent of the idea that we can't know anything. Like most modern philosophers, I regard the question of what we can and cannot know as depending on epistemological premises about which very legitimate discussion can be had. But, again like most contemporary philosophers, I do believe it justified to lay out such premises, and to call the propositions which result from them knowledge. For example, I believe the epistemological foundations of science to be sound, and I regard scientific inquiry as productive of knowledge.

I'm also just parroting mainstream philosophy of science when I say that inquiring into the real existence of something falls outside of the epistemological scope of science. To make claims about the real existence of things we need further epistemological premises, such as for example the premise that things for which there is no scientific evidence simply do not exist. As I've tried to explain in the other thread, this premise is not one that is near-universally held to be sound, like the epistemological foundations of science are. It's a specifically positivist view, which was never universally held, and which has in fact been largely abandoned by a large majority of philosophers since the 1970s. You just can't invoke this premise as something only eccentrics would disagree with. It's also not in any way a premise that non-philosophical reliable sources just take for granted, like they take the soundness of science for granted. It's really important to differentiate between these two things.

Finally, you wrote: If you think (in anything other than a school debate) that the non-falsifiability of something means it might be real, then good luck to you. Well yes, if something's existence cannot be falsified, that means that it is possible that it exists. This is just basic modal logic. It does not mean that it is necessary that it exists, nor even that it is likely that it exists. But it does mean that it is possible, by definition: that which cannot be shown to be false is not necessarily false, and that which is not necessarily false is possibly true.

So yes, if the existence of qi cannot be disproven, that means that it is possible it exists. But note that with the positivist premise outlined above, it does become possible to prove that qi does not exist. If there is not scientific evidence for the existence qi, and if things for which there is no scientific evidence do not exist, qi does not exist. This is as much as to state that Ernst, who says that the existence of qi cannot be disproven, does not share the positivist premise. He also affirms the possibility of qi's existence: even though we can't observe it directly in any way, it may still be there, in the same way that God may be there.

It really seems to me that you just have a hard time understanding these subtle philosophical points, which sound to you like the bogus reasoning of fringe-pushers, while they're actually entirely accurate and mainstream. I also think that if only you would trust a little more that I'm really not here to push or justify fringe in any way, you might more easily see that what I say is accurate and mainstream. I'm in fact entirely with you on most points, and IRL I'm actually regarded by my acquaintances as a skeptic and a defender of science. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't call you PROFRINGE, though your arguments seem to align with those that are. I think your arguments are insane. Please don't post here any more about them. Alexbrn (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry about that then. Won't happen again, I promise! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Bon courage. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 20:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-neutrality in the Bret Weinstein article

Forgive me, I'm new to the wikipedia editorial process. So the jargon is confusing for me.

You have reverted my change removing what I consider non-neutral commentary in the Bret Weinstein article.

I don't seen the benefit of framing Odysse as an "alternative/fringe" platform. "alternative" maybe, but "fringe" is definitely non-neutral.

You say "Rv. to good - take it to Talk, where this has been discussed before" where has this been discussed before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by F127635817 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

See here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Pine tar

As an expert on WP:FRINGE, would you take a look at the material in the Pine tar article inserted some time ago by Pjsaw (but still in the current article), and take any action you see fit? See Special:Diff/938078710. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

The Impartial Truth (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the question 'Is Kulldorff an epidemiologist?'. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Martin_Kulldorff".The discussion is about the topic Martin Kulldorff.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.C.Wright (talk • contribs) 02:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

AntiVegan

Alex, why are you anti vegan and against John McDougall? You know he is a Harvard trained doctor so he obviously knows what is what when it comes to diet and health. Do you not actually care about seeing Diabetes and heart disease gone from the planet? No? You want heart diseaes to go around the world? Wow... okay, someone clearly has an agenda to see bad health predominate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by a diet crazy (talk • contribs)

I love Wikipedia – it's the only place where I can be accused of being both "anti-vegan" (by diet crazies in one camp) and a "pro-vegan activist" (by the diet crazies in another camp). Of all the subjects I edit, diet has the most zealous true believers of all I think. Alexbrn (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

But are for or against antipasto? lol --ARoseWolf 16:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Pro-antipasto. How can that even be controversial? Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not, you are for it. I am waiting for the lamenting to begin. Why are you anti pasta? But seriously, or not, a controversy can be made out of anything. The reason I love Wikipedia is because I may edit within the sphere of my interests but I do not nor should I edit my opinions into mainspace. Many view that as constricting but I do not. It is freeing to an extent. You can believe what you want, I can believe what I want and there are cases where neither even makes it into the encyclopedia because what Wikipedia considers a reliable source says different from the both of us. What is freeing is that I don't have to care, only follow policy on reliable sources. --ARoseWolf 17:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it doesn't antimatter. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer RfC

Could you maybe chill? Your tone and words against me are completely disproportionate to the situation. JBchrch talk 15:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing against you personally, but I do take objection to snide attacks on groups of editors built on erroneous statements. That kind of thing won't do. Alexbrn (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Changes in article low carb diet.

Hello,

This is regarding the changes I made to the article Low carbohydrate diet that was reverted by you. I used a non-primary reliable source to back the added content.

I added that low carb diet tends to raise the blood LDL levels commonly known as bad cholesterol, which as per the lipid hypothesis is a risk for multiple heart/cardiovascular diseases. There is a well established scientific consensus which corroborates the lipid hypothesis as stated in the lipid hypothesis article.

Now it is well known that low carb diets tend to raise blood LDL which isn't mentioned in the low carb article currently. It is important to mention it, hence I made those changes.

So pls consider restoring my version that you reverted.

Thank you!!!2409:4071:E96:1D6:BD8C:CAF2:7368:F711 (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The article already said it. Please continue any further discussion at its Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Not reliable sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am curiois how you are determining if sources/references are "not reliable". You repeatedly remove peer reviewed journal articles as "fringe" sources. Your determinations seem arbitrary and not based upon criteria stipulated by wikipedia guidelines. Your editorial contributions do not appear to improve this article but just remove valid citations. Additionally you remove itens as "gobbledygook". Just because you lack an understanding of a concept dies not naje the concept gobbledygook, and if SE is based upon sonetging that sounds like gobblydygook to you, but is from a peer reviewed or secondary source, it is a valid inclusion. Please reverse you recent edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanguard666 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant for lay readers, so if something is gobbledegook outside its fringe milieu that it's bad. Please see WP:MEDRS for guidance on sourcing for biomedical content. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

you did not reply to my question. You personally believing something is gobbledygook is not a peer reviewed determination, especially when your assessment that it is such is not peer reviewed in a respected and well cited journal with a high impact score. You delete all articles from Frontiers in Psychology or Frontiers in Neuroscience despite being peer reviewed sources, with high impact scores AND meeting Wkipedia's source guidelines. Please cite how your deletion of material specifically does not meet specific criteria set by Wikipedia as i know of no guidelines that pertain to "gobbledygook". Vanguard666 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_in_Psychology

"Individual Frontiers journals have separate journal-level ratings. As of 2021, over 60 Frontiers journals are listed in the Norwegian Scientific Index, of which 2 have a rating of "level 2" (top 20% of all journals in their field), over 60 have a rating of "level 1" (standard academic) and 3 have a rating of "level 0" (not academic).

As of 2021, 9 Frontiers Media journals have been selected for inclusion in MEDLINE.

In broader databases, Frontiers Media has over 80 journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) with a DOAJ seal, over 40 journals listed in PubMed Central, and over 50 journals listed in Scopus and the Web of Science." Wikipedia Vanguard666 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm informing you what's gobbledegook, in case you can't tell yourself. You still need to read WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Campbell

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am unsure that your recent reason given for reversion will look good given the page is under some scrutiny. Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Only to people who aren't familiar with the matter. The source is of course "reliable" but trying to use it to imply the certificates show death-with-covid not death-by-covid is not good. Alexbrn (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

No true Scotsman, right? Alex, now that consensus is uncertain, I advise you to stop edit warring. If you believe your version is the consensus version, I point you to the quote at the top of my user page. MarshallKe (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

They do have a valid point, as that is the claim being made (by Cambel), that deaths were inflated (which no RS supports), thus it can be seen as supportive of a claim that the source in question does not make. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Norman Fenton

Dear Alex. Thank you for your recent attention to the article Norman Fenton. You say I should not write on your talk page about the content of an article, but how can I discuss Norman Fenton's merits as a teacher of writing skills when you have deleted the corresponding section. I see you are a venerable Wikipedian with more than 50,000 edits to your credit, whereas I have just enough to lose the leniency shown to newbies. You state that my contribution fails WP:V. However, it contained a citation linking to a website that is still alive. This citation, admittedly is a primary source, being the essay written by Professor Fenton, which allows the reader to verify that this essay exists. The website is RS as it is published by the Queen Mary University of London's School of Engineering and Computer Science. Could you please enlighten me about your reasons or, failing this, revert your deletion? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The place to discuss that would be Talk:Norman Fenton (an awful article BTW, as the banners indicate). The material in question did indeed fail WP:V, which is a core policy. Do you have a WP:COI in respect of Fenton? Alexbrn (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Good day Alex. Thank you very much for your reply. My only link to Professor Fenton and his university is that I read his essay "Improving Your Technical Writing Skills", which I found on the Internet at the indicated place. I found it very useful and well done. So when I discovered that there was a Wikipedia article on the professor, I added this paragraph about his essay, my only contribution to his article. So I think I have no COI. I will follow your suggestion and try to come up with some contribution to a possible discussion on the talk page. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is an attempt to address perceived disruptive editing of the biography for Martin Kulldorff. The diffs provided below indicate to me a pattern of disruptive, tendentious, and uncivil editing.

Failure to assume good faith

Repeatedly insinuating I have a conflict of interest: here, here, and here

Campaign to drive away productive contributors

Labelling editors "crazies"

Labelling disagreement with you as "disruptive"

Encouraging other editors “Time to ignore.”

Point-illustrating and Righting great wrongs

1. First inserted biased statement into lead here
2. Reinserted here
3. Inserted identical statement in body here

Followed up with a statement "But Wikipedia is going to be pointing-out that the bullshit behind the GBD is bullshit."[1]

Additional editing to prove a point (using biased language):

1. First stating: "Yeah it's fucked-up, but Wikipedia isn't going to shy away from calling it like it is,”[2]
2. Then inserted weasel words "making the false promise" here
3. and similar weasel words "made the false claim" here

Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability and Not accepting independent input

Despite lengthy discussions at both the talk page and the biographies of living persons noticeboard, reinserted unverified, original research here despite two other editors agreeing the statement is unsupported:

This context plays into the reasoning for the health risks of the GBD...But it is not saying that GBD will cause waves of COVID-19.
— Endwise

(source)

...the only question is that can this be rewritten to remove the alleged OR, the recurrent waves mention, and just simply focus on the counter, "the declaration’s approach would endanger Americans who have underlying conditions...
— Morbidthoughts

(source)

After reverting the content, you indirectly threatened sanctions (further Campaign to drive away productive contributors).

I request that you remove the following disputed and poorly sourced statement from the biography of Martin Kulldorff:

...warning that attempting to implement it could cause many unnecessary deaths with the potential of recurrent waves of disease spread as immunity decreases over time.

Per content policy regarding biographies:

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.

Open invitation to de-escalate

Lastly, my previous invitation to de-escalate the situation is still open.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 06:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DS Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Just a formality for the ayurveda page. I'm sure you know the drill.Cedar777 (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of John Campbell (YouTuber) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Campbell (YouTuber), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Campbell (YouTuber) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Blugeon

For forms sake I have to leave with this too, as the other user has already used a "but you didn't want the other user " defense. You need to read WP:BLUDGEON. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't parse that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I actually wondered about it too. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I left a warning at Michael Martinez's talk page. I felt it best to also ask you to stop too, as they have (previously) used the fact I did not wanr everyone about commenting on users to imply I was being unfair to them. Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, the sun is over the yardarm! Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Not that they are taking any damn notice. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."

"This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."

The segment that I added should not have been marked as a minor edit. I work with the typo team a lot, and often mark as minor, but that should not have been, and that aspect is entirely on me. As for the text being WP:OR that I added, I am completely unsure as to how that would qualify in the slightest. I can reword the segment then, though it is very neutrally written to only reflect the content from the RS as well as Prasad's views as presented therein, but it is from a secondary source and merely reflective of one particular interview (which I even annotated as coming from Reason magazine's Zach Weissmueller). Other than mislabeling the edit (which was a mistake, and right for you to call out), I do not see what else about this could possibly be construed as OR? Anyway, I will not revert again, as I do not wish any "edit-war", but I will reword with even more care this time... ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 13:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes it's obviously an essay. But it's wise. You are already edit-warring, having made your bad edit THREE times, which is poor behaviour. Maybe read WP:BRD (another wise essay). Alexbrn (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I took this to the talk page as you suggested. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 13:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pizza. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Calidum 18:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverting from ignorance is not helpful. You need to read WP:MEDRS. These primary sources are unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Low-carbohydrate diet - revert

Hi there, you seem to have removed a citation I added related with the article at hand. Rather than wholeheartedly reverting my edit, don't you think it would've been more productive to improve my version? Can I ask you put back citation you deleted? Thanks. --Zaurus (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! Your link is broken. It would probably be best to raise this at the article's Talk page so everyone involved can see! Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Ivermectin studies

Regarding your reversion of my edit changing “many” studies to “some.” I looked thru MEDMOS which u cited and didn’t see anything relevant. Pls let me know which part. Thanks. JustinReilly (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"Patient". But that's just part of the problem. Please take to article Talk. Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Need your advice

Hi, Alex - sorry to bother you, but you know more about this topic than anyone. I attempted to cite the International Journal of Livestock Research but was prevented from citing it because the doi triggered a list of predatory journals. I didn't know livestock journals would be included. Apparently, that means we're not supposed to use anything that was published in it, correct? Does a predatory journal mean the articles published in it are unreliable? What about the author of the article - are they banned, too or does the problem include the journal, and the Ardahan University which is relatively new, and perhaps not accredited? Atsme 💬 📧 23:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much. Although it's possible a "good" piece will get published in such a journal (if, say, a good faith academic gets duped into submitting) it is an inherently disreputable publication so can give no confidence that WP:V is satisfied in respect of reliability. If the author, or their colleagues, manages to get published in a bona fide journal, then that would be another matter. If the content for inclusion is truly accepted knowledge, it should be possible to find an alternative source. Alexbrn (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:African wild dog on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Precious

One year!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Glutathione precursors

What about this source for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research&diff=1086118345&oldid=1086118260?: https://www.bcm.edu/news/covid-19-patients-have-increased-oxidative-stress-oxidant-damage-and-glutathione-deficiency

Merry Christmas. --Bawanio (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It's churnalism. What do you mean "Merry Christmas"? Alexbrn (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I said "Merry Christmas" because I felt stressed by you since I was editing an article and it was interrupted the same minute by you. Perhaps you can wait for 10 minutes before you revert changes. What do you think about https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7263077/ --Bawanio (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

What would be the advantage of waiting? That is primary source from 2020. Alexbrn (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It gives the editor time to reflect over their own edits which may make them improve the sources for example. Well, glutathione covid-treatment is widely researched, please give it a shot. --Bawanio (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Your best bet is something like PMID:33336769, though interest in this seems to have evaporated since the early stages of the pandemic. Alexbrn (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think it's very likely to be WP:UNDUE to treat glutathione as being important in Covid. I think there would have to be a review of clinical studies before we should cover it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Experimental cancer treatment

You recently undid edits made to the Experimental Cancer Treatment article, citing "Lots of unreliable sourcing and a spot check finds copy-paste copyvios." While inadvertent copy-paste copyvios will be corrected, your must justify your assertion of "lost of unreliable sourcing" (which includes esteemed publications such as the journals Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics and the British Journal of Cancer, otherwise the edits will remain as-is. Please specify exactly which sources are "unreliable" (in your subjective opinion) so that this issue can be resolved. You cannot simply remove various subsections based on your obvious biased towards the pharmaceutical industry. as has been documented previously in other talk pages and web articles.