User talk:Bon courage

I forgot, till now.

Could have lost my crown at any time. The very best to you. - Roxy the dog 01:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

And to you Roxy! Hope you didn't find the fireworks too scary (my cat did not approve). Bon courage (talk) 08:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with the source?

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.

---

According to a study published in January 2023, markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein unbound by antibodies was found in people who developed postvaccine myocarditis (vs. controls that remained healthy).

That's a recent publication in the esteemed peer-reviewed medical journal Circulation that demonstrates that markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein unbound by antibodies is associated with the development of myocarditis. That is remarkable and demonstrates that myocarditis post-vaccination and post-infection may have a common cause: the spike protein. Myosci (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

References

As you have been repeatedly told, by multiple editors, in multiple locations, WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical content and primary sources should not be used like this. Yet you appear to be on some kind of crusade to insert primary research about vaccines and myocarditis. If it continues I shall take you to WP:AE and ask that you be banned. Bon courage (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The articles are full of "primary research". What counts is the quality of the article. A 08/15 meta-analysis is inferior to a good research article. So your argument is void. So again, what discounts this article in your eyes? --Myosci (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

If there are other badly used sources they should be removed; it is not an excuse to make the article even worse. You have expressed your view many times about primary research, yet it against community consensus as expressed in WP:MEDRS. This is why I think if you continue you will need to be sanctioned. You have already been alerted to the discretionary sanctions in effect for COVID-19 topics. Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You fail again to explain why. Again, on what grounds do you disqualify the source?--Myosci (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:MEDRS and WP:WHYMEDRS and WP:MEDFAQ and you will see why. You have no standing to evaluate primary research and insert it into an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source and NOT a secondary one. Bon courage (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

So you consistently reject all sources that do not contain the label "review" or "meta-analysis" as source for Wikipedia for medical articles?--Myosci (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The community generally does reject primary sources for WP:BMI. Bon courage (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

But you're not neutral. From the interactions I've in memory your deletions/reverts occur when a study is somehow critical of Covid vaccination. What's in my memory is one very telling example is where you deleted an article that was already in the wiki-article after I realized (and wrote it into the wiki-article) that it contained further information. All of a sudden the article was primary research. And I've tried to confront you and what you said was: "Dunno, probably still working out what to do and looking at sourcing. I cleaned it out later."[1] You're partisan and should refrain from lecturing others. Especially those who do not delete the information of others. I never deleted one of your edits (or of others) even if I don't agree with them. Only in the case of defamation I delete text.--Myosci (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I specialize in fringe content, and I respect the WP:PAGs. You have been warned about what will happen if you continue to flout them in seeming pursuit of an agenda. Bon courage (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.061025 IS NOT FRINGE CONTENT! Please read it, be more scientific. --Myosci (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

No thanks. I'm not going to delude myself I have the expertise to evaluate primary medical research. Meanwhile, I notice this paper has strong currency in antivax circles. Writing Wikipedia is not doing "science", it is merely summarizing accepted knowledge as found in good sources. Bon courage (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The Mass General Brigham is not an antivax thinktank. Then read at least the supporting press article: Researchers Study Immune Response, Proteins in Blood of Young Adults Who Develop Rare Complication After COVID Vaccination

• Risk of severe COVID-19 continues to outweigh rare risk of post-vaccination myocarditis
• Among adolescents and young adults who developed this rare complication, researchers found no differences in antibody production, auto-antibodies, T cell profiles, or prior viral exposures, but detected elevated levels of spike protein
• Findings point to potential treatment to prevent or reverse post-vaccine myocarditis

How's that "antivax"? --Myosci (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking more of twitter. In any case, this is beside the point: Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources and we shall not be using primary sources in the way you want. Bon courage (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The article is already mentioned in a non-English medical magazine, for instance in the Deutsches Ärzteblatt, see English translation --Myosci (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

If it's mentioned or cited as a source in another primary research article, it still fails Wikipedia's requirements. It has to be evaluated as noteworthy in a peer-reviewed review article, with the review article as what gets cited as a source here. (Based on that English translation, that might be enough to satisfy our requirements for secondary notice, but I'm not sure about it.) Please understand, Myosci, that this isn't about what you think about what makes a good source, or what Bon courage thinks, or what I think. According to the way that Wikipedia does things, what matters is what WP:MEDRS says, and that's not up for debate here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

This magazine (Deutsches Ärzteblatt) is the journal of the Bundesärztekammer and the Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung that informs the physicians in Germany about (current) topics in medicine: Deutsches Ärzteblatt is published by the Deutscher Ärzte Verlag, which is co-owned by the German Medical Association (Bundesärztekammer) and the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung). It is the official journal of these two bodies, distributed to all physicians in Germany. --Myosci (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

And the rejection stems from this notion: Meanwhile, I notice this paper has strong currency in antivax circles. To even mention this "reasoning" is non-Wikipedian. Wikipedia is not here to take a stand whether one should get a vaccine or not but should report the scientific results. Some editors may be more in favor (or disfavor) of vaccines and therefore they typically find more positive (resp. negative) articles than the others - to a certain extent. Wikipedia rests on the assumption that the community as a whole will get to a unbiased article that mentions both sides according to the merits.

But for editors like him it's a thing for power-plays like "If it continues I shall take you to WP:AE and ask that you be banned." Because of content that is published in a peer-reviewed main journal of the American Heart Association and that is published in a medical journal like Deutsches Ärzteblatt??

Only because he thinks that this would be a battle between pro and anti-vax!? If he would actually read the article then he would realize that this specific article isn't one-sided. That the vaccines can cause myocarditis is already a established fact. The problem is what's the mechanism. And the results suggest that it's more likely not an auto-antibody problematic but the S-protein itself. That would actually be good news for the mRNA-vaccines: If it's the spike protein that caused this condition then people must only avoid future contact with the spike protein (in the booldstream) to avoid a recurrent condition. That would imply for these people to take extra caution to avoid (future) infections and perhaps take anti-viral medicine early when infected. Is that really what the Covid-is-harmless-but-the-vaccines-are-bad-as-hell community wants to hear? I don't think so. (And if it were then one would have to accept that, too. But here by chance it seams to br right in the middle of the anti-vax and the pro-vax position.)

To be clear: What I've written is only:"According to a study published in January 2023, markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein unbound by antibodies was found in people who developed postvaccine myocarditis (vs. controls that remained healthy)." That's the established fact that the Deutsches Ärzteblatt also finds worthy to communicate to the physicians in Germany. The further conclusion that one draws is up to the readers of the actual article. Wikipedia's readers have their own minds! --Myosci (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

When we have WP:MEDRS, then it will be worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Until then you're just wasting editors' time, not least your own. Wikipedia's purpose it to reflect accepted knowledge, not to put information out there and let people make up their own minds. Bon courage (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There might perhaps be a quite a lot of editors that share the viewpoint that Wikipedia's purpose it to reflect accepted knowledge, not to put information out there and let people make up their own minds but the one major problem is: Who decides what knowledge is accepted? Some elected experts (by vote in Wikipedia?) or simply editors who think that they're up to the task? Is a publication in a highly regarded peer-reviewed scientific journal up for them to meta-decide? And I doubt that the majority of the ordinary editors and readers agree with that viewpoint since it's one of Wikipedia's main purposes to display the knowlege in science edited in Wikipedia by non-experts and read by non-experts, with the use of good sources (scientific journals). Wikipedia is not Nupedia! --Myosci (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

From WP:NOTEVERYTHING (policy):

A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.

Accepted knowledge is published in the WP:BESTSOURCES and articles must be based on secondary sources (WP:PSTS), where the criteria for establishing what are reliable sources are decided by the relevant guidelines: WP:MEDRS in this case. Everything rests on consensus. If you want to change the way Wikipedia works you will need to change the WP:PAGs. You can check (again) at WT:MED if you think I lack WP:CLUE. Bon courage (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Who speaks of a complete exposition. It's only the sentence According to a study published in January 2023, markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein unbound by antibodies were found in people who developed postvaccine myocarditis (vs. controls that remained healthy) in the text and a longer quotation in the reference. The quotation (Extensive antibody profiling and T-cell responses in the individuals who developed postvaccine myocarditis were essentially indistinguishable from those of vaccinated control subjects, [...] A notable finding was that markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein (33.9±22.4 pg/mL), unbound by antibodies, were detected in the plasma of individuals with postvaccine myocarditis, [...] (unpaired t test; P<0.0001). is likely too large, it can very well be shortened. --Myosci (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. I have nothing more to add. Bon courage (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2023 (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.

Warning

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.

---

If you keep deleting citations from reliable sources you will be viewed as engaging an edit war and will be reported to an Admin to be blocked from editing Wikipedia, before you engage in an edit always cite other sources to start a conversation page, or else removing sources will be viewed as an edit war, therefore your previous uncited edit would be reverted. CtasACT (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

In fact it is you who are edit warring, by repeatedly inserting your preferred text. You need to discuss this on the article Talk page. Try to follow WP:BRD maybe? Bon courage (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I have cited objective facts from again as i stated Cambridge university and two other publications, if that in fact is starting as you say and edit war by simply adding missing data backed up by my citations than Wikipedia itself is an edit war, this is a legitimate warning do not edit without giving other sources which contradict my previous edit. CtasACT (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2023 (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.

“this guy's antics”

Obv there’s more latitude on a talk page, but we should beware appearing POV ;) Best wishes, Springnuts (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, in general Wikipedia is not going to pretend that any "vocal figure for hesitancy about Covid vaccines" is anything other than what they are. That's NPOV folks! Bon courage (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Wholesale reversions with minimal explanation

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.

---

Your recent reversions are not acceptable as they were multiple and your explanations were dismissive and inaccurate. Please seek consensus on the talk page of the relevant article and desist from viewing yourself as having the last word on the matter.Budgewoi (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2023 (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.

Edit warring: Circumcision

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Prcc27 (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Err, since I just templated you with this I am obviously aware of it, so it looks like you're trolling. Also, aren't you at 5RR or something? Bon courage (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Your persistent personal attacks are truly pathetic. I was under the impression, that you always give a user a warning, if they are engaged in edit warring. If I’m wrong, please lead me to where it says not to warn users that are already aware of policy. Prcc27 (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I have seen editors sanctioned in the past for retaliation templating. Use your common sense, if you were to report me for edit warring would a defense of "I didn't know about that!" wash, when I'd just issued the template myself? Your evidence-free accusation of "persistent personal attacks" is pretty serious. It's what you getting for focusing on content in the circumcision space, I suppose. Bon courage (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ll keep this in mind in the future. But honestly never heard about retaliation templating in all my years as a Wikipedia editor. If you want evidence for your behavior, feel free to peruse the article talk pages. But I digress. Prcc27 (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You accusations about personal attacks are false. Bon courage (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Carnivore diet

I have just been looking at the carnivore diet on Wikipedia and its history, I have never seen so many sock-puppets get banned on such a silly diet. The thing is, the diet does have some history well before the modern internet trend and history of diets is what interests me. I just noticed that science-based medicine covered the diet recently [2] so we have reliable sources for its modern version. I would like to create the carnivore diet article and add the history. Do you think that is a good idea? I have checked over the history of the carnivore diet article on Wikipedia it has never really existed in good detail, one sock-puppet tried to re-create it a few times but was blocked. I am not seeing any consensus on the original talk-page not to keep the article. This all might be a bit controversial so thought I would ask your opinion but I think an article would be better than keeping it at monothropic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

As you say, it's been a magnet for crazies (and one WP:LTA in particular). I have no objection to an article being created for the CD; just so long as everything is kept NPOV - which I'm sure you'll be good at ensuring  ! Bon courage (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cryonics. 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. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Hi,

I saw that you have reverted my edits in the COVID-19 vaccine clinical research and Methotrexate articles. Was the problem that is is cited primary research? I thought that because COVID-19 is a relatively new topic and there are less reviews available, larger primary research could be mentioned and I think there are many already in the article. Also NIHR Evidence articles go through a round of selection based on their importance and I let the Wikiproject Medicine community know that I'll be using them in medical articles. What do you think?

Best,

Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I think for COVID it's more important that we're strict about WP:MEDRS (and there are plenty of sources). I was intrigued by the NIHR source as although it's of course reputable it was apparently "just" a lay-language reflection of a primary source, without any of the analysis, synthesis or evaluation which would make it meaningfully WP:SECONDARY. I'm actually not sure that this is a good idea from a medcomms perspective for NIHR - but by all means raise at WT:MED for discussion - I'd be interested to see what other editors think. Bon courage (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

CT notices

The new setup confuses people a lot. [3] should have been used Template:Contentious topics/alert/first. Do you want to fix it or should I? Doug Weller talk 10:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, noticed that - it's from the alert template which used to give a DS notice. I assumed some discussion somewhere had determined the wording needed to be softer. What is the fix? Bon courage (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Delete the old one, give them a first alert. Doug Weller talk 21:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Bon courage (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tor Phone 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 17:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

RE opinion pieces

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 said that "Generally I don't think SBM articles are opinion pieces, a concept largely from news media; they are more analysis, synthesis and commentary on a topic like you'd find in review articles." and I found this a little disturbing given the fact that analysis and commentary are in fact opinion pieces.

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

I take it there's some cleanup that needs to be done? Presumably you've used a lot of opinion pieces for statements of fact without realizing it, if you could identify to the best of your ability those instances and we can begin working on the cleanup. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

No. If a review article analyses the state of research in a topic and states drug X does (or does not) have effect Y then that is not 'opinion' but knowledge. Attributing knowledge can have a WP:YESPOV problem. Bon courage (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

A review article would probably not make that statement, they would say that previous research suggests that drug X does (or does not) have effect Y. An absolute statement would be something more along the lines of an opinion and we would most likely choose to attribute that statement to the authors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm So if a review article surveys a field and says 'The most common side effects of opioid usage are constipation' you think that's just an 'opinion'. And you have the temerity to suggest other editors need to check their work. Sheesh. Bon courage (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say overall this conversation with HEB is going nowhere. They do not have consensus in favor of their preferred changes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"The most common" would be a qualified statement based on the field (I assume based on the plural "effects" that its a sentence fragment and not a complete statement), you really don't find such absolute statements in review article most of the time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2023 (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

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Endwise (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your cleanup of EMDR, I encourage you to continue. I'm not a topic expert but there's been like four decades of pseudoscience promoting EMDR, and the smidgin of effectiveness studies shouldn't outweigh the mountain historic redflags. It seems (to my uneducated eyes) that a few otherwise-reputable folks practice it, whie some clients may enjoy the extra doodads in the way an infant enjoys distraction before an injection but the current article does NOT go far enough in warning readers against unscrupulous practitioners who make pseudoscientific claims. I don't know enough to help you fix it, but you're clearly on the right track. Thank you. Feoffer (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I am just amazed how viewed that page is. I thought maybe it was to do with the Prince Harry stuff but no, it's been a high-traffic page for years. Shame it was so FRINGEPOV for all that time! Bon courage (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Loki (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather 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 23:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

POV pushing

This revert[4] raises concerns about civil POV pushing by you. The description you reverted was paraphrased from the Washington Post. The WaPo is far from WP:FRINGE. Furthermore, please don't delete references. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

How to characterize DRASTIC has been discussed already, and you just went ahead and watered it down to sanitize their aggressive side. So yeah, POV pushing. I'll delete any reference which is not helping the article thanks! Bon courage (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please refrain from making personal attacks, as you did here[5] and here[6]. Personal attacks in edit summaries are particularly troublesome. And instead of "borderline illiterate", why not say that the clarity could be improved. It gets the point across in a more helpful manner. Thanks! Adoring nanny (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Those are not personal attacks. WP:CLUE is a thing and so is WP:DE. The trouble with your "borderline illiterate" suggestion is that you have offered it as a final option. The time for wordsmithing would have been WP:RFCBEFORE (even assuming this RfC was worthwhile, which I doubt). It's also pretty interesting you're not templating the user who did make a personal attack. Makes it look like you're playing games. Bon courage (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You both did. I'm getting to it. Multiple things are going on for me in RL. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, Adoring nanny, since you're here, I've been meaning to raise this for a while - to ensure WP:SCRUTINY answer me this: have you ever edited Wikipedia with one or more other accounts? Bon courage (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

No. I did some ip editing before I made my account. I have also accidentally edited logged out on occasion, which once led to some phone calls I would prefer not to have received, so I try hard to avoid it. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for being crystal clear you have never edited with another account. Bon courage (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Roswell incident up for GA

Roswell incident up for GA, Talk:Roswell incident/GA1 § Lingzhi (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Roswell

Thanks for the input! If you aren't already (I haven't checked), you should consider being a GA reviewer. Or FAC. Cheers. § Lingzhi (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop describing material sourced to mainstream news organizations as WP:FRINGE.

As I'm sure you are aware, neither the Washington Post nor ABC News is a WP:FRINGE organization. Describing material sourced to them as WP:FRINGE is inappropriate and disruptive. Please stop. Thank you.[7][8] Adoring nanny (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but the politicians are pushing fringe nonsense, and you're parroting it, which is bad. Bon courage (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Closing discussions at articles where you are WP:INVOLVED

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.

---

Closures like this[9] are not appropriate. I suggest you revert your close. Per WP:INVOLVED, Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards; editors closing such discussions should not have been involved the discussion itself or related disputes. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not comment on that thread and I wasn't "assessing consensus". These off-topic posts on that article Talk page are getting disruptive. If you want to discuss a category of sourcing in general, RSN is the place as we all know. Bon courage (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be highly involved in the discussion on that talk page. You may not have commented on that particular thread but there doesn't appear to be many more involved in related disputes than you... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2023 (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.

Third Opinion on Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis#Intro relevance

I intend to offer a third opinion on the above-topic per the request for one, but it wold be helpful if you could please crystalize your main points on the talk page here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Not applicable as there are already more than two editors discussing this, but thanks anyway. Have hatted this on the Talk page. N.B. This has also been raised at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I will formally decline the third opinion request and note that involved editors should seek dispute resolution. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND

Hi! please note that I am not your enemy, and I do not appreciate being subjected to stuff like this over a mere word choice dispute. Thank you for your understanding. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Correct it's not a battleground, but I think your edits here are very bad for a number of reasons and will say why with those reasons given. Arguing against your editing is not arguing against you (and, ironically, thinking so would be a bit battleground-y). By the way, the question in that diff was a genuine not a rhetorical one: from what the source says how can you think the text you reverted is not justified to the extent it warrants complete removal? You have read the source right? Bon courage (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

See my reply on FTN --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I am none the wiser as to whether you've read the source or not. You know, this WP:CTOP thing ... you signal you're aware of it and you template other with it. It's got meaning:

Editing a contentious topic

Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

You should err on the side of caution if you are unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations.

Bon courage (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Nordic diet

I just read over the AHA new statement on dietary patterns [10] and they rate the Nordic diet the highest. We do not have a page on the Nordic diet, but I noticed there is this New Nordic Cuisine.

A few sources I found on the Nordic diet [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. It comes up in the medical literature (two reviews) [16], [17], [18], [19]. Is it worth do you think me creating an article for the Nordic diet? You may know more than me about this. I am confused to what the New Nordic Cuisine article is. It reads the same as the Nordic diet, so is it worth just expanding that article? Based on what I have seen the Nordic diet seems similar to the Mediterranean diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Talk page stalker Nordic Bishonen is a little surprised. Those sources don't seem to mention the three mainstays of Nordic eating: burgers, pizza, and princess cake. We're supposed to eat venison, rabbit, and bison? And to avoid alcoholic beverages, lol?[20] Amazing. Bishonen | tålk 20:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC).

That's interesting. The original Mediterranean diet was actually white bread and white pasta with little olive oil. They changed it to become more healthy when it became famous in the 70s and 80s. The same has probably happened with the Nordic diet. I will probably create an article on the Nordic diet. The diet is supposed to mimic what Nordic populations eat but like the repackaged Mediterranean diet it has clearly been updated with modern ideas about healthy eating. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I've never princess cake and now realise m life is lacking! Bon courage (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you haven't lived, Bon Courage. Bison is no substitute! Bishonen | tålk 08:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC).

You haven't lived until you've eaten reindeer steak and reindeer meatballs (frikadeller). (I have shot 16 of them while living in Greenland. The reindeer hunt is the high point of the year.) Because it's very lean meat, fat must be added: butter, cream, red wine, salt, pepper, garlic, and juniper berries, all in a roasting bag to keep it moist. Then use that to make the gravy, which is "to die for"! Eat with cranberry sauce. A recipe. Read more about reindeer in my article Reindeer hunting in Greenland. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Santa says you're naughty. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

LMAO! Here's another. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I recently saw a documentary (Noma: My Perfect Storm), about the restaurant Noma, which is at the center of the New Nordic Cuisine. It was very interesting, and well worth watching. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, it's closing.[21] Bon courage (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, particularly what it says about unhappy workers there. The documentary largely makes René Redzepi look like a nice guy to work for, but also has scenes that seem to go the other way. Often, we just don't know what really goes on inside some workplaces. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2023 (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 a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. 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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Theanine".

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

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

You edited the article. Your participation in the discussion is invited but not required. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks as ever for your efforts Robert, but in this case I shall decline - I already noticed this raised at WT:MED and have just contributed there. Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Your recent editing history at Theanine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Reflecktor (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Please join active discussion instead of unilaterally reverting

Hi. On 04:35, 13 May 2023 you reverted my edit, which was made after the discussion had ended for some time. I had even linked the discussion in the edit summary; therefore, it would have been good practice to join the discussion instead of reverting unilaterally. If editors just revert when there is an active discussion then it destabilize pages and become edit wars. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

No. Especially for a change to core policy a WP:NOCON situation urges caution. Trying to lock in a bad change on the basis that there's "active discussion" is a no-no. Bon courage (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. If you see the discussion I simply followed editors advice and seeming consensus. Also, I waited a week after there was no further input. If you had concerns why didn't you jump in to discuss instead of imposing your personal view without discussion? That action seems to be against the WP:CONSENSUS policy. And if you notice you got reverted by another editor, precisely the scenario I warned about. Let's avoid edit wars. Thinker78 (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

If I can make an edit to improve things, I do it. There obviously is not "consensus" for the change you made. Bon courage (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Check the discussion and my edit. I discussed the issue, took in the feedback of the other editors, and edited attempting to reflect what I perceived was a consensus in the discussion. I even waited at least a week to make sure there was no further input in the short term before I implemented the change. You instead just edited without waiting for anyone's input, disregarding the link to the discussion I had attached to the edit summary. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Why do you assume I disregarded it? It was a bad (even nonsensical) edit and so I reverted it. I don't regard a handful of people deciding on such a bad 'tweak' to policy as having any kind of "consensus" that can override the need for decent quality policy text. Consensus is not a vote. Bon courage (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You unilaterally decided it was not consensus instead of discussing the issue in the relevant discussion. That's not how consensus works at all. At least I attempted to reflect what I perceived was consensus and if you notice the participants of the discussion did not revert me but rather either accepted the edit or offered new input. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Certainly can be how consensus works. Bon courage (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

I let you know you are about to violate the 3 revert rule of edit warring. No idea why you are deciding to do this instead of continuing the discussion. Thinker78 (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

You need to understand what a revert is, and to understand what "instead of" means. Bon courage (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Thinker78 (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I was asleep in the 31 minutes since your "warning" above. What happened? Bon courage (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not an incremental thing but rather I analyzed the situation further and decided to report. Sorry it came to this but I was perplexed why a senior editor would ignore requests to join a discussion instead of engaging in what I perceived was edit warring and in essence undoing edits borne out of consensus. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

How did I "ignore requests to join a discussion"? I was in the discussion. Bon courage (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

One revert is not an edit war.

Don't template me, pal. I've been editing WP a very long time. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Considering in just a short time you've managed to edit war, add BLP-problem content, and get confused about what self-published means, this is not welcome news. Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please strike your personal attack here.[22] I was quite clear that ethnicity was not the issue. Thank you. Adoring nanny (talk) `18:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

No PA. But anybody doing what I described is a problem. Bon courage (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

At the risk of being a buttinsky, I looked at it and it certainly looks like Bon courage is on the side of consensus. However, "racist fuckwittedness" is a really, well, unstrategic way to word it. You can be right on the merits, but nobody is going to look past how rude that is. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Buttinskies always welcome. Granted, that is robust language I wrote. But (and this reflects on previous discussions) removing sources because authors have Chinese-y names would be really not on. I really hope/assume this was not the case in this instance. I have amended my comment hopefully to de-dramatize. Bon courage (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that much, but you're still only partway there. You said I acted based on whether or not someone "sounds Chinese". You even said something similar above ("Chenese-y names"). But I never said that, and I've been quite clear that's not the issue. When I state motive A, and you repeatedly say I had motive B, which would be an unacceptable motive, that's a personal attack too. I'd ask you to go to both places and strike any claim that I acted based on how someone's name sounds. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't comment on motive, but I can see what's happened. Bon courage (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I just want to be sure the following are correct:

1) You are declining to strike your statement above that I was removing sources because the authors have "Chinese-y" names[23].

2) And you are also declining to strike your statement on the talk page that I was removing sourced content because the authors "sound Chinese".[24]

3) Furthermore, you have failed to supply any diff in which I made any such claim.

Any errors in the this? Am I missing something? Adoring nanny (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Those are incorrect. I don't want there to be a situation in which sources are removed (for whatever reason, which might just be by mistake) because sources have Chinese names. This is not focused on you, it's about the meta-discussion which has taken place in various venues over the months: as the diff you give says "I really hope/assume this was not the case in this instance." Bon courage (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to WP:AGF in regards to your statement that it was not focused on me. Your outburst came immediately after a removal by me. There was the obviously inappropriate part, and then there was the incorrect statement of the reason (from law to name). Obviously, removal of a source based on a name would be racist. Doing so based on a belief that it is not WP:RS because the author is required to follow certain law is not racist. You have only partly de-dramatized -- you've struck the obviously inappropriate part, while keeping the repeated false statement that the authors' names have something to do with this. And the part that you are not striking tends to suggest the truth of the part you did strike. That's the problem. If you strike the two statements I've identified, I'll gladly drop the whole thing. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You're over-reading it. I have in mind that failed RfC.[25] which did pose the risk that Chinese-sounding names would be targeted (and it happened). I don't want that coming back in through the back-door via on-the-hoof policy making. However if it will stop this pointless exchange I'll happily strike the lot! Bon courage (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The unresolved question on COVID-19 virus origin

Think you might want to look to something else than "The unresolved question on COVID-19 virus origin: The three cards game?" for best sources. This is probably a case where we should question papers and research from China. Look at Authors concluded that further research should be done to determine whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in China. from "A comprehensive survey of bat sarbecoviruses". That preprint only made it to National Science Review and is very questionable.

I dislike the "most scientists believe" and "consensus" language in the article, in some ways it probably supports the conspiratorial thinking behind lab leak. But that damn article is so screwed up i don't think there is any real fix, and best that can be done is try and keep the crap sources out of the article. fiveby(zero) 14:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes I agree with considering any paper that poses the possibility of non-China origin as pretty FRINGE, given how massive the consensus of a Wuhan or Hubei origin is (both lab leakers and zoonosis people agree on this). So the paper shows pretty clearly it isn't operating from a shared scientific scholarship, and should be ignored as unreliable imo. We also have better quality papers which say most of the other non-FRINGE things that it it says, so it isn't going to give us much anyway.

But I will also say, some of the issue here is that there is actually some limited sero-study evidence that there were antibodies out in the public against SARS-CoV-2 in Italy and elsewhere in Europe really early in the fall of 2019, before anyone had ever heard of COVID. I think that evidence is ultimately flawed and very inconclusive (easy to get false positives, for example). But it is a legitimate question some have posed, at least as legitimate as the lab leak theory: could it have been circulating at a low level outside China, before it erupted in Wuhan? This is also where the most scientifically-based argument from Frutos ("There is no origin, it was circulating at low levels and continually passing back and forth before the pandemic") comes in.

The nuance is understanding that even if that any of these things were true, the evidence that the pandemic started in Wuhan is overwhelmingly there, the evidence that the Chinese govt failed to act during the new year celebration is massive and damning, and all of this cannot be ignored even though the Chinese government would like us to ignore it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree the non-CN origin idea is pretty fringe-y, but by all the usual metrics this is a solid source especially for an unsurprising claim like saying that yeah the consensus is it's probably natural zoonosis. Personally, I think this push to say what the consensus is (or is not) is a distraction as it's only adjacent to LL itself (rather than squarely on-topic). Bon courage (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. We straight up do not even use the word "consensus" in that article text. And we don't need to. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yup, but if people insist let's at least use something peer-reviewed in a respectable journal, rather than Politifact, the Daily Torygraph or whatever ... !! Bon courage (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd still disagree that is a solid source, it's 2021 and i think too accepting of the possibility of a man-made origin, but absolutely agree this whole thing is a distraction. This is a mistake i made when first approaching fringe topics (and probably continue to make). Anything you say on a talk page, Afd, etc. is glommed by editors with an agenda. Point out that "Anywhere but Here" article? well it's ammunition for excluding all Chinese sources, and think i probably owe an apology for that. Just creating more work for everyone. Wish FRINGE were less of a guideline in trying to explain how to edit topics, and more a policy for booting editors from topics where they obviously cannot do that. fiveby(zero) 16:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same source? Borsetti A, Scarpa F, Maruotti A, Divino F, Ceccarelli G, Giovanetti M, Ciccozzi M (April 2022). "The unresolved question on COVID-19 virus origin: The three cards game?". J Med Virol. 94 (4): 1257–1260. doi:10.1002/jmv.27519. PMID 34897750. Bon courage (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Right now, we still do not know enough whether SARS-CoV-2 is human-made or not..., i believe that statement is at least dated and would think more assertive language would be more appropriate today. But i could be wrong of course as i'm just going by what our most trusted voices are saying when they write for a general audience, such as "remaining viable scenarios indistinguishable from lab leak" etc. fiveby(zero) 16:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing. Bon courage (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Warning about edit warring June 2023

Your recent editing history at EMDR shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. GreatBigCircles (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I've seen some silly templating, but it isn't supposed to be the one doing the edit warring that issues them to the righteous. Very bad form Circles. stoppit. - Roxy the dog 07:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Its bad form, its also Bon Courage's preferred form so it only seems fair that what is good for the goose is good for the gander... See User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2023/May#May 2023 for a recent example of "the one doing the edit warring that issues them to the righteous" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Retaliation templates are just silly. If I've just templated somebody with an EW warning it's obvious I'm aware of it. Anyway, NBD. Bon courage (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

HEB, there's a difference between issuing a template warning in order to alert an editor of a potential problem, and giving the same template back to the editor who first issued it. The former is an accepted method of communication here, whereas the latter is a bad move. Yes, I get it that you thought that you were "righteous" and Bon courage was at fault, and you had the right to dispute the template at your talk page as you did, but I also trust that you did not react by putting the same template back here on Bc's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

This community has a long history of accusing others of what we do ourselves. Edit warriors accuse others of edit warring; POV pushers accuse others of POV pushing, rude people accuse other editors of being rude... WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

An example of why I no longer build content

Bon courage, real life, for health reasons, has been quite a mess lately, and I'm barely keeping up, yet I picked up this hunk of junk at WT:MED and tried to turn it into an article simply to appreciate the work that XOR'easter has done at FAR and CCI. As the only editor to clean up and completely rewrite after a student editor chunked in rubbish sources, now I've got an ENGVAR issue that I don't know how to fix, as I don't BrEng. Might you be able to run through and convert any Americanisms to whatever English version is indicated by the talk discussion? If you are able, most appreciated (it's a very short article); I don't even know what else to look for, but I seem to have upset Johnbod. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hiya! Yes, I noticed this topic being discussed at WT:MED but didn't dare look. I'll drop by. (IRL in my work I used to co-author English documents for international consumption with American colleagues. To resolve the endless disputes about English versions us Brits adopted a policy of always using American English with the rationale that this was the only way to stop the Americans going on about it. In this way both camps felt they had 'won' the argument, but for different reasons .) Bon courage (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

In this case, it's not the American going on about it :) I can't pretend to write in different varieties, appreciate the help, and wish I had also ignored the article ... it is so not worth getting hollered at over. I would hope an editor I've worked with and gotten along with for almost two decades would simply say, "hey, SG, thanks for cleaning this article up, now let me help clean up the ENGVAR situation". Thanks for any cleanup you can do. I was planning to finish the article, but have lost interest now; it's still a bit of a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, SandyGeorgia I hope your real-life health problems are resolving themselves: all power to your elbow! Bon courage (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Question on FRINGE

Hey, so my impression of FRINGE is that a fringe idea must be contextualized with how it is received by the mainstream, and if a mainstream perspective in RS cannot be found the idea should not be discussed on Wikipedia (in articles on mainstream topics). This would imply that if the uncontextualizable fringe idea is the article topic, then the article should not exist. I'm drawing this from the FRINGE guidance that sources situating the fringe idea with the mainstream must be independent, verifiable in RS, and not from proponents (The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources and notability guidelines for fringe topics are stricter than general notability guidelines: the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents).

However, the structure of the latter sentence suggests (or assumes? prescribes?) that any source from an adherent is automatically unreliable (because obviously for any topic to be notable it must meet the criteria in the second clause, so the only way the first clause distinguishing it from the GNG would make sense would be if the third clause placed additional restrictions on what is considered RS). This makes it really murky when an adherent publishes something in an otherwise reliable but not necessarily mainstream place, and also forces editors to make judgment calls on "who is an adherent" (which can get into BLPVIO territory quickly). The guidance also does not make it clear whether the notability of the topic can be achieved with mainstream sources that don't actually contextualize it but merely describe it. Would it make more sense to explicitly require that for a fringe idea to be notable, multiple mainstream RS must give it significant coverage AND contextualize it with the mainstream perspective? Or if we don't want to be that strict, we could just require SIGCOV of the topic in multiple mainstream RS + contextualization by at least one mainstream RS. JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah you've touched on (what I see as) one of the big unclosed fissures in Wikipedia policy, the disconnect between notability and neutrality. It's entirely possible for an topic to be "notable" but then impossible to write a neutral article about it. I don't know the answer but I've sometimes thought the answer might be to couch a policy addition in terms of ends (rather than means): "If it is impossible to write a NPOV article about a topic, that article should not exist". Bon courage (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Fascinating, I had thought that it wasn't possible. What are a few topics which are notable but impossible to write a neutral article about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Can't remember specifics, but think we've had cases of dodgy health things which get breathless coverages in newspapers, but for which there were no good sources. If you insist I can dig back and find what. I think it's pretty rare. Bon courage (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Not insisting at all, just fascinated by cases which are at the edge of existing policy+guideline because I think that edge cases are really helpful in refining policies and guidelines. Would be excellent to be able to link an example if we do change the wording. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I have vague memories about this.[26] An interesting question there is the one (not from me) about what we do in the case of the obvious fringe topic that gets coverage, but which "no expert has bothered to refute"? I get the impression this is an issue for UFO stories, where there's a ton of coverage in "RS" but nobody could be arsed to push back specifically. Perhaps ජපස (jps) could comment? Bon courage (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should make it explicit that significant coverage of fringe issues must include relevant expert opinion in order to be significant? UFOs seem like a tricky one because there is both a non-fringe angle (unknown but almost certainly human made flying objects) vs the fringe angle ("Aliens" - Giorgio A. Tsoukalos). In the case of the second I think I would go back to my first step mentioned on JoelleJay's talk page... If a source is only addressing the issue from the Fringe position without providing mainstream context I would question the reliability of the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

As it happens, I came upon a variation of this question just the other day, in the context of conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with science or medicine, but which are squarely in the area of fringe. It was a discussion about John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, and I said this: [27]. My view was that (1) we must not mislead readers into thinking something is true when it isn't, and (2) we should include the information only if there have been enough reliable sources to indicate significant interest – but if those two requirements are met, it's appropriate to describe fringe material in content that clearly identifies it as such. I also feel that, for areas like living persons, where we have WP:BLP, and health-related content, where we have WP:MEDRS (and similarly for WP:SCIRS), those more stringent requirements should also apply. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"If it is impossible to write a NPOV article about a topic, that article should not exist". I think this is the logical conclusion from NPOV and its intersection with notability/NOT, and while it should be obvious (not least from PAG) it clearly needs to be made explicit that NPOV overrides notability. Besides the obvious area of FRINGE, in my experience this has also been a problem in athlete bios where plenty of details from routine match/transactional reports exist, but including such coverage would lend undue weight to minor WP:ASPECTs (this also follows from NOTNEWS, which excludes routine sports coverage). If the only material that can be found on a subject is from routine news, surely an article shouldn't be created, and yet we get editors arguing NBASIC allows one to cobble together all "non-trivial" mentions in IRS to create "significant coverage". JoelleJay (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:NOPAGE already cover this for editors who actually try to understand policies such as NPOV instead of using them to wikilawyer and ignore feedback from others? fiveby(zero) 18:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

NET

O God, I remember what it was now: NeuroElectric Therapy™ At one time Wikpedia did have an article on this.[28] and the conjunction of extensive newspaper coverage (e.g.[29]) and "Eric Clapton" made it a surefire WP:N survivor, but nobody has bothered to write about the therapy in any sensible detail. There was also the whole doing-down-a-woman-scientist thing got added to the mix. Anyway, can't have been too bad as the article is now a redirect, but this struck me as an interesting case. Bon courage (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thats a very interesting case, what strikes me is that something which "nobody has bothered to write about ... in any sensible detail" should not be a surefire WP:N survivor (at least today, we do seem to have been more accepting of fringe in our deep past). It is immensely frustrating when people who don't understand WP:N chime in on notability discussions, maybe I'm a pessimist but I think that some editors will substitute their own opinion about notability and argue from there no matter what our policies and guidelines actually say (its not the wording they don't care about after all, its the entire set of policies and guidelines) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: a similar sort of thing is happening with The Quiet Epidemic. How's it possible to write an article about this (other than a meagre stub?) Bon courage (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be coverage which calls it a medical fraud and the article does too, this is not at all what you described. You said when there is no coverage of the subject other than from a fringe POV and this is not that. Overall I would question whether its over the notability bar GNG wise but the issue you describe isn't present in this case. Also note that there is no prohibition against meager articles, the standard is WP:N and there is no "but will the article be super long?" part of the standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the very invocation of "chronic lyme disease" is fringe. Sure there are plenty of source we can use to make that point for WP:FRINGESUBJECTS reasons. The coverage of the film itself is however credulous - see that Variety piece. Bon courage (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against adding any "balancing" sources to an article that is going to AfD, people are likely to interpret that as coverage (this is one of the primary issues with the "add any source you like to a fringe page" approach, it makes subjects which aren't notable appear notable). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the sources again and GNG does not appear to be met at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

An AfD would be interesting. Bon courage (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Would it? Is there more significant coverage out there beyond what we have now? Because with current sourcing a pass is impossible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd note that if significant coverage does exist there's always the option of merging it into chronic lyme disease where it would be properly contextualized. IMO we have an array of tools at our disposal, what we lack is creativity. The fringe pushers are very very good at innovation and creativity, they will throw a million things against the wall. The fringe fighters (and especially out own militant fringe the skeptics) are often more dogmatic and orthodox taking the position that there is but one path and one procedure by which all topics should be addressed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe an article on Films about CLD? Bon courage (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Merging into a new article that doesn't exist is orders of magnitude harder than merging into an existing article. Maybe a subsection on Films about CLD at chronic lyme disease and we can move it from there to a full article if there is sufficient coverage? Again though, not super convinced that there actually is a notable topic here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not. Bon courage (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: the discussion on my TP that prompted this thread, there's also an interesting situation regarding fringe journals themselves, which are apparently allowed to exist without meeting any valid notability criterion at all, sourced only to indexing services and their own websites. JoelleJay (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Kary Mullis Talk page

Pls see Kary Mullis talk page re “sole inventor of PCR.” Was unable to tag you for some reason. JustinReilly (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Replied there. Bon courage (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Removed content on AMR

Hi,

You have removed three of my edits from the anitmicrobial resistance article. These were not spam but reliable medical sources on tools used in clinical practice. Could you reinsert them? Also, perhaps it would be better to discuss before removing a large part of my edits.

Best, Adam Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! My concern is the poor sourcing. What you described as a NIHR "review" for example[30] is just a plain-language summary of a RCT. You added a NIHR "case study", which is a weak source (paired, again, with a RCT). In view of your conflict of interest I'm not sure you should be adding NIHR citations, particularly in an incautious manner. Bon courage (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

You are right about the NIHR case study, I shouldn't have added that. Saying review was a poor choice of wording but it is still something used in practice so I think the text describing its existence and use fits and improves the article. Being a Wikipedian in residence is not the same as having a COI but it's all disclosed on my profile. I also informed WikiProject Medicine community about my role and that I will be using articles from the NIHR Evidence website as they represent a second evaluation of primary sources (which of course does not mean they are secondary research). Please see the intro here. I'm happy to discuss any potential problems with my edits and admit if I'm wrong but please do rather discuss than immediately remove. Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It might be worth continuing the discussion there. If there are genuine NIHR secondary publications they could be useful for WP:BMI, and some non-secondary publications useful no doubt for WP:NOTBMI. Bon courage (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Essay critique

I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:

• User:Valjean/Wikipedia's credibility

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

Hi Bon courage, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around — ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 22:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Raydann when you use div tags, pls remember to close them with a /div SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Book access ?

Can you access the Fred Volkmar book at Autistic meltdown? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Springer content is meant to be accessible via the WP:WL but this isn't (though a "service issue" is reported at the moment with this subscription). Recently I've been finding that although WP:WL nominally gives full access to various collections, some of the juicier content is often not included in the subscription. Bon courage (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I've succeeded in getting some quotes at autistic meltdown now ... thanks for looking, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, the quote is or example, anger outbursts in ASD have been described as “immature” with labels such as “meltdowns” being used to reflect the uncontrollable nature of these behaviors. Earlier in same entry: Historically, the term irritability was used in ASD literature as an umbrella category for severe disruptive behaviors including temper tantrums, aggression, and non- compliance. There are a few usages throughout in other articles but used as description, not a term and often quoted. Let me know if you need more, or you can always ask at WP:RX for a reputable way of getting a few pages from a work. fiveby(zero) 17:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Fiveby thanks so much! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

subst:DRN-notice

Bokidam (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2023 (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 a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. 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.

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

Bokidam (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverts to my edit on the "John Campbell (YouTuber)" article

Hi Bon courage! I noticed you reverted[31] my edit on the "John Campbell (YouTuber)" article where I added the capitalization of 'T' in "Tube" on several instances of "YouTube" with the edit summary citing "MOS:TM". "YouTube" appears to be a CamelCase. Per the MOS, "Trademarks in 'CamelCase' are a judgment call; the style may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable; however, usage should be consistent throughout the article." "YouTube" is used elsewhere in the article (including in the infobox formatting); therefore, per MOS:TM, I feel "YouTube" should be used. Also, the MOS notes, "however: PlayStation only (camelcase preferred because Playstation is not widely used)". "YouTube" is by far the most used styling, both on Wikipedia and in outside media. For both of these reasons, I feel that MOS:TM supports my use of "YouTube" in the article. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I tend to prefer it without Camel case, but OTOH the article title being as it is, would support your approach - so have at it! Bon courage (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Unprofessional user, should not be allowed to approve/reject edits

Rejected a well-sourced edit on circumcision page (with detailed scientific study) with no explanation other then the word "junk". This is not someone who should be editing any encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stistrash (talk • contribs) 15:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry, they left a similarly nonsensical comment on my page. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Journal of Cosmology 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 18:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Please observe BRD

Bon_courage, please observe BRD. The change in question has been disputed. Get consensus on the talk page first. Springee (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

No thanks. Wikipedia doesn't indulge fringe crap. Bon courage (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Your recent editing history at Naloxone shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Hi Bon courage! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Biological effects of high-energy visible light several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Biological effects of high-energy visible light, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Curran919 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Curran919 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm There isn't, but if you believe 2RR is sanctionable you'll need to ask to have yourself banned too. Bon courage (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If you keep running into 2RR, Bon courage, eventually the community will believe you are following the letter but not the spirit of the guideline. Try to engage with dispute resolution processes rather than tit-for-tat reverts as I'd hate to see you get broomed off the site. Not that I expect that to happen soon, but nothing to lose in a friendly push towards civil mediation ^u^ enjoy the rest of the week. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 20:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a question of what's less disruptive. Sometimes "mediation" processes on Wikipedia (DRN/RfC etc.) are a huge time sync whan an editor is pursuing an obviously futile course, and suck-up valuable time from multiple people. Ultimately the community values editor time and quality of content more than WP:BURO, I think. Bon courage (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't overestimate the community's common sense. Sometimes, satisfying the bureaucratic checklist is a safe protection against getting walloped by users who are looking for an excuse to get the upper hand, and are willing to use the drama boards to get it. Also ArbCom recently closed a case with the adoption of a new principle that says that being right about content is not an excuse for bad behavior. And multiple Arbs have since said that this is going to be an important principle going forward. So I would say that playing it close to the line on 3RR while arguing that you are right on the content issues (I'm not talking here about the "usual exceptions" noted in the 3RR policy), has a real potential to turn sour. That's my take on where the community is at. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You are wise, Tryptofish. As always, it's a question of judgement and that can be tricky sometimes. Bon courage (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. Don't overestimate me, either. I just wouldn't want someone I value as an editor to get caught in something. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining my view better than I have, Tryptofish. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Trypto, which arbcase is that ? (Just curious, as I haven't kept up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It's the "Smallcat" case (as in, small categories), and the principle is called "Being right isn't enough". Here's the link: [32]. And for connoisseurs of cheese, there's now a shortcut to it, in the expectation that it will be linked to frequently: WP:BRIE. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Holy moly ... there's a lot a territory covered in there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Premature removal of ref error on Feldenkrais page

Thanks for your diligence on correcting errors. Please look at the date & time before removing other people’s work. You removed my edit while I was making it (nothing to do with covid :) I will re-add the ref using correct format. Best regards. D1doherty (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I know what you were trying to link: this.[33] It a re-review the Aus people were intending to do. But it never appeared (presumably because of COVID). So, please don't re-add saying it happened. Bon courage (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Got it. And there were no Feldenkrais research papers listed in the summary of submissions. D1doherty (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You're like a sewer...

...except humans will occasionally make physical contact with a sewer on purpose. 142.126.146.27 (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)