User talk:Bon courage

Nature Abhors a Vacuum

Sorry. Roxy the dog. bark 13:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year Roxy - I trust you'll be celebrating with a dog treat dunked in champagne. Alexbrn (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll toast your, and everybody else's, health, in a few hours. Roxy the dog. bark 15:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hijama Article

Dear Alexbrn, I've posted a couple of paragraphs to the Hijama Article on wikipedia. But you have reversed them because they fail to comply with "Identifying reliable sources (medicine)". All articles that I have cited are from PubMed, which is an authoritative source I believe. I'll be obliged if you can explain to me why my paragraphs have been deleted.

Thank you for your cooperation. Arabiah Arabiah (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Being in PUBMED does not mean a source is reliable. Please read WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background. Health claims like the ones you added need good secondary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Please remember to be civil to other editors, especially those who are new to Wikipedia, regardless of how much you disagree with them.

Your edit summaries here and here, and your warning here, are quite harsh. You would probably be much better off leaving a friendly note on the other editors talk page explaining why you disagree with their contribution. Bradv 18:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Not helpful. See WP:Randy's enablers. Alexbrn (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

One of these is an essay, the other is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Refusing to be civil is not an option. Bradv 19:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You are taking the side of an WP:SPA who is continually pushing crap into the encyclopedia. Templated messages are not "harsh": they reflect community consensus on how to warn about the WP:PAGs and do not suffer from the problems hand-crafted messages can. You are not being helpful in any respect. Alexbrn (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Cochear implant

Please stop revent this article. I have now research. It seems that the user have stolen article from wikipedia into infographical. But I have found older articles from wikipedia. it miss sources. I will added this sources. It need more time.Edwtie (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

rolfing mediation

Hi, I know you've been a part of discussions on the rolfing wiki in the past. == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==

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 for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Rolfing. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Cyintherye (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Acupuncture?

Please don't accuse me of promoting fringe theories as you did in this[1] edit summary. I am as far from this as possible. Removing attack websites and personal blogs as sources will give more credibility.

Please do not use "belief" for alternative medical systems. Medical systems (including the academic medicine) are largely based on beliefs and wild guesses; just we don't usually accept this and, by tradition, we don't term unproven theories as "beliefs". I invite you to a study of medical anthropology. Regards, — kashmiri ^TALK 17:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"Belief" is fine. Meridians are not an "unproven theory". Please discuss any further at the article Talk page. Add: Oh, you're edit-warring instead. Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, will do. Ah, summarily reverting my edits was impolite, shall I post you a nice notice about misusing reverts? — kashmiri ^TALK 17:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — kashmiri ^TALK 18:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for my tone here. I try not to let my frustration get the better of a situation but seem to have failed here. Ack! (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC))

Dear Olive, we all make mistakes: me too! Happy New Year. Alexbrn (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Rolfing source

Hi, Is this a creditable source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24989994 Thank you! - Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehenke (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

No, case reports in a junk journal - about as unreliable for health claims as it's possible to be. Alexbrn (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for undoing my accidental revert

Thanks for this; my revert must have been an accidental touch on my iPhone. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thought it was something like that ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Pattern of Edit Warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rolfing. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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.

Your user and Wiki talk pages and contributions contain comments by multiple editors feeling dismissed and bullied by your revisions. A common theme is the request that you take into account a broader perspective of research and scientific ethics. I urge you to reconsider the impact that your contributions have and could have on the community and the body of knowledge that Wiki represents. You may want to talk a closer look at WP:con and actually engage in the consensus process beyond simply stating and restating your opinion, while deriding others' contributions. Cyintherye (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

If you have a behaviour problem take it to WP:ANI. You received some sage advice about consensus at WP:DRN, I advise you take it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you contact me please

I need your help please, damaging edits were made to a page and I have tried to correct them but they have been removed 😰 I don't really know what I'm doing :( Kerrywerrywoo (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Start at WP:5P. You were removing well-sourced content at Cambridge Diet. Alexbrn (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

No absolutely incorrect. The information that was posted was out of date and incorrect. The Cambridge weight plan is used in hospitals, it's a medically supported diet, we have countless trials and links ...the information posted is outdated ...the lowest step is 800 cals and is medically supervised. It's not even called The Cambridge diet !? It's called The Cambridge Weight Plan. The links are only negative or outdated no links are there relating to the trials with evidential independent information regarding the use of CWP with diabetes and many other health conditions. You may not agree with the plan but it is very unfair to not allow other people to use the facts to make their own mind up. I am more than happy to provide you with relevant *independent* medical trails at different hospitals world wide. Please do not use your emotional feelings about CWP to cloud the facts :( Kerrywerrywoo (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You need to discuss article content on the article's Talk page, and you need to provide reliable sources to back any content. Also, it seems likely you were editing the article anonymously at the same time: that kind of behaviour will get you blocked/banned. Alexbrn (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Inside (video game)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Inside (video game). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Botlab

Dear Alexbrn, thank you for your kind involvement and concern related with the Botlab article. I see you had raised two flags, and I would like to work with you to resolve both of these issues. In terms of notability, there should be no doubt as Botlab has been one of the most significant contributors in the field of ad fraud research over the past two years. Actually very few research foundations ever get coverage on the cover of print Financial Times, Botlab did it three times in less than 2 years. The second point is that Botlab was the sole author of the World Federation of Advertisers Compendium of Ad Fraud Knowledge paper, which has now been translated in to 6 languages - no other paper on the topic has been translated to our knowledge even once. The third point for now is having Botlab work accepted to Hotnets, which is highly acclaimed academic conference and not typically accepting topics such as ad fraud but instead focus on cutting edge network innovation. In other words Botlab contribution has been duly noted in media, industry and academia. Could you please kindly let me know how I could make this more clear in the article. Botlab work has been even featured on TV, and in all significant advertising industry media. In the advertising industry it is widely acknowledged that Botlab has been the most significant contributor in the field of ad fraud research since it became a hot topic 2 years ago. I will address the other issue you had raised on talk page of the article itself, as it requested to do so there. Also I'm very sorry if I'm making some mistake, as I may not be accustomed to the ways of Wikipedia.

Thank you again, I very much appreciate in any support to make the article better to honor the global network of volunteers that have tirelessly contributed their time to Botlab's efforts to make the internet better for everyone.

Mikkokotila (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The topic would have to pass WP:N to survive a deletion discussion. Independent secondary sources are what Wikipedia values. The ft.com coverage looks promising but it's not clear exactly what it says, how relevant it is, and I can't get at this paywalled content to check: perhaps some quotations would help? Google search results and stuff on github are unlikely to be acceptable sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

MS article

You reverted an edit I made. I was just trying to make the distinction that the well-established geographical epidemiology of MS (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_sclerosis#Geography ) may or may not have anything to do with Vitamin D levels. You apparently misinterpreted my edit as a claim that Vitamin D levels are related to MS and I was trying to make clear that that is not established. I was still in the middle of editing the section to make that clearer.Tetsuo (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If it's well-established, provide a source, relating it to Vitamin D. Please continue any further discussion on the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Warrior diet

Have you read the book the page is based on? If not, what right have you to delete this on 7 days notice? Go read the book. Then see if there is a case to delete. (or not) 5.150.92.82 (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

No I haven't. I have initiated a thread at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The page has now been wrecked by "too many cooks spoiling the broth" in a way which reminds me Wikipedians are idiots and there's no point in involving yourself with editing Wikipedia at all because good work will be wrecked by people who don't do the work but simply come in to lazily spoil other people's work. For someone to initiate a deletion of a page about a book without reading the book or thinking they even need to is absurd. Other people now have their fingers in the pie, so the page, in the space of 7 days, is a shadow of its former self. It's a fair bet that no one who is meddling with the page has even read the book - the idiots just fight over their own idea of what weight loss is, and isn't. I rest my case for the fact that editing Wikipedia is pointless. Too many fools lurk in the shadows, wanting to impose, lazily, their own idea on things

[Submitted from a shared library computer] 5.150.92.82 (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The article is much improved. We base content here on secondary sources, so it's not necessary to be familiar with the primary material (sometimes, in fact, that can be a hindrance) but to know what the best sources say about that material. Please make any further comments about the article on its Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Reiki

No one is doubting here that reiki is criticized as pseudoscience. I think that is clear, and I even included your reference stating that. But I do not understand your objections to including information on current reiki usage as well as various medical studies supporting the benefits of reiki that can be found on Pubmed. Pretty sure there is a way we can provide balance to this page without warring back and forth. 216.81.94.70 (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Two things: Ledes summarize bodies and most only reflect material which is sourced in the article body; being in PUBMED does not make a source reliable, it needs to follow WP:MEDRS for WP:Biomedical information. Please make any further comments about the article at its Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Counterstrain page

Hello, my name is Tim Hodges. I recently updated the Counterstrain page with new, relevant information concerning the evolution of the technique. Here is a link to the Jones Institute site list of certified Instructors http://www.jiscs.com/Faculty.aspx and as you can see both Brian Tuckey and myself are certified instructors of Counterstrain. We represent the only Con-ed providers of Counterstrain in the world. We have also established the academy for mastery of the Counterstrain technique https://counterstrainacademy.com

The wiki page needs to reflect the current state of the technique and it doesn't really do that with such a limited explanation of Counterstrain. I would appreciate it if you would not revert this page back to the old version.

let me know if you think there is something I should add to what I have written to substantiate the claims. As the originators of the technique we are currently developing we remain the only source for its developmental history. Since these new developments are essentially 8 years old, the amount of relevant published information is limited to the course books that have been created. There are some additional soon to be published articles, but they are still in editing and won't be release for several months.

Thanks!

Tim Timatcounterstrain (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Please start at WP:5P. Content here needs to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (WP:PAGs) and be encyclopedic in nature. Everything non-trivial must be cited to a good source. Fascial counterstrain looks like a WP:FRINGE topic and any claims for its effects on health need to be backed by WP:MEDRS from non-fringe journals. Please continue any discussion of the article content on the article Talk page. Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

hi

WJM Poster (hyperlinked)

• if your interested, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Euphoria

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Euphoria. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

5:2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:5:2_diet#.22at_least_some_evidence_of_its_efficacy.22

61.90.62.218 (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Not ok

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.

---

That was a very Trumpish thing to do.Herbxue (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I hardly know how to respond to such shattering wit. A small voice reminds me however that Donald is quite the alt-med fan - and have you learned from this ? Alexbrn (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2017 (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.

Very funny, both the closure here and the link. I may dislike your hegemonic ways, but you are indeed clever. Dropping it for now, see you soon.Herbxue (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

the article cited at the Talk page is funny. "According to Liu, the first such copy (of a statue showing acu points that Liu gave to the head of the WHO) was reportedly made during the Song Dynasty (960-1279) as a testing tool for students. Acupuncture points were covered by wax in the test. If a student correctly inserted a needle into the points, mercury that was infused beforehand would spill out. " mercury spilling out. oh my. Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hsiung Feng III

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hsiung Feng III. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

your revert

Hi. Please look closely, the content of this article was essentially preserved before your edit. Would you please revert your revert? -- Kku 16:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss article content on its Talk page. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice if you paid some attention to what I was actually referring to. The redirect I introduced points to an overhaul of the original article that respects the neutrality that you would actually expect here. Your revert keeps the biased version. I do not assume that you are for any reason preferring biased information? -- 16:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You created a big fringey mess and destroyed good content. Please discuss on the article Talk page so others can see the discussion and consensus properly formed. Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Even from your rather incomplete sentence, I will assume a good faith edit here. But may I kindly ask for a little more restraint before producing ill-founded accusations? -- Kku 16:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is complete revert of several edits without constructive discussion by User:Alexbrn. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Alexbrn (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytochemical

Alexbrn,

I am new to Wikipedia I am becoming familiar with the established protocols. I apologize to you for what may be perceived to be an “edit war”. I assure you that my intention was not to create an “edit war”

The information of the cited page on the Wikipedia phytochemical page has been updated since the link was sited in 2014. As a result of this updated, I wanted to contribute to this Wikipedia page. The following information can be found on the cited link: “New experimental studies are emerging that demonstrate multiple effects of fruits and vegetables and their phytonutrients, suggesting that they may have a greater role than the already previous positive results seen to date.” The link is

I wish that this information be considered to update the phytochemical Wikopedia article. Please advise me of the correct protocol to recommend this change.

Sincerely, George Tacit1 (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexbrn&action=edit&section=new#

References

Hi there! Please discuss article change on the article talk page, but in brief fruitsandveggiesmorematters.org is not a good source for us to be using. Alexbrn (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Professional and personal bias

You work for a digital publishing company and are paid to optimise digital content for clients. You have not declared this as a conflict of interest.

You have personal bias against proven medical treatments, physiotherapy, nutritional therapy, acupuncture and homeopathy, declaring these "magik" in your personal blog.

You contribute significantly to argue against complementary cancer treatments, that aren't proven to be harmful, and snip quote organisations that promote complementary cancer therapies (Cancer research UK)

I've raised a topic with wiki administrators to assess your contributions to medical pages, against wiki standards of good practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny ko (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If nothing else, I'm glad somebody reads my blog! Alexbrn (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

That dastardly apostrophe

[2] I noticed that too, because it's one of the mistakes I make a lot and have to constantly correct myself on. So I understand your "argh" and sympathize fully. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, how many times do I long for that "unsend email" button ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nintendo Switch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nintendo Switch. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Vitamin D causing hypertension

Greetings,

May I know the reason for you to delete the things which I had written? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.37.110 (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Does not appear to be a WP:MEDRS (e.g. not included in PUBMED). Alexbrn (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Cureus is a pubmed indexed journal. The article will be uploaded on pubmed within a month. Kindly check the article and the name of the journal and also see whether its pubmed indexed or not. It will save time. Thanks. After finding out, please I would be grateful, if you can revert back to my changes. Thanks. I leave upto you then to include it or not. However, this article will be in pubmed soon (within a month). Cureus generally takes a month time to get it uploaded in pubmed. Thanks. Cureus website link: http://www.cureus.com/ the article link: http://www.cureus.com/articles/6257-does-vitamin-d-deficiency-lead-to-hypertension — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.37.110 (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I checked PUBMED and the article was not there. I see Cureus articles do generally get into PUBMED, but the journal is not MEDLINE-idexed so probably of insufficient quality to be of use for Wikipedia, especially for a topic like Vitamin D where there are ample high-quality sources. Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, no problem. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.37.110 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Infused Water

Alex,

Look, I get it. You are not a supporter of alternative medicine. Great, we are all entitled for our opinions. However infused water is one of the basic concepts of Ayurveda, from where I referenced to it and the article also states that it is not widely accepted by the Western medicine. Did you actually bother to read my edit and check if it made sense from alternative medicine point of view. Would you like to start referencing Sanskrit passages from Vedas a a reference or is that not reliable enough for you?

Are you going to delete also all information about ayurveda from Wikipedia? I am not sure what prompted you to redirect the whole article to drinking water? I get that people delete some sections, but a complete redirect? Please tell me what would you actually like to see on this page for you to approve with it? Did you not like me citing some recipes or did you believe the modifications contained too many links.

I will not start an edit war here, but since I am myself an ayurvedic practitioner, although new to Wikipedia editing, I would like to understand how I can make edits without you always disagreeing with them? I have understood that Wikipeda is an open project and allows also alternative, in this case eastern information.

Greetings, Mira

Wikipedia is not simply "for information". It reflects accepted knowledge from reputable sources, and does not indulge nonsenses. The best policies and guidelines to read if you're going to edit abut Ayurveda are probably WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, so I am telling you that infused water is one of the basic concepts of balancing the 3 doshas, which are a well accepted concept of Ayurvedic medicine, also according to the wikipedia.

Well maybe insert that belief into the Dosha article (which a very very bad article), if you can find a decent source (preferably independent, secondary and reliably-published) to support the mention. Alexbrn (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

For your information, the article was already existing, referring to some fruit water scams, not actual ayurvedic infused water, to which I added a reference from the Ayurveda and Doshas articles on Wikipedia. I expanded the article, made it more balance, made sure it referenced Ayurveda and the doshas several times. I see no reason for you redirecting it to drinking water. Beside, I DID quote a source:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15894139

Do you take Vedas as a good resource? Can you understand Sanskrit? Did you actually really read my edit and my references before you redirected the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mira.peltomaki (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Please learn to indent and sign your replies. The article you link is not a reliable source for health claims per WP:MEDRS; Vedas are not good sources generally as Wikipedia values WP:SECONDARY sources, on which articles must be based. Alexbrn (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

My claims are not medical. I clearly stated it was a question of alternative medicine, which Ayurveda classifies under. As far as I see, none of WP:MEDRS; applies. I have examined the articles about Ayurveda and must disagree with you on certain things. There are several ayurvedic treatments, which are part of ayurvedic medicine methods. Did you btw know that Ayurvedic medicine is a university study in India, which lasts generally 7 years including practice? It is hard to find English references to these methods, as you will see on the articles. Most of them are in Hindi, Tamil and Sanskrit. But in the end it all come down to the fact that I am not quoting Western medicine methods. mira.peltomaki (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of the background. Region-specific medicine is a hallmark of uselessness (think about it: if something worked it would spread pretty quickly to other regions). Ayurveda is pretty much entirely useless for medical purposes. If you want to insert claims about "infused water" into articles on Ayurveda, go ahead: just make sure the claims are backed by good sources and all should be well. Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Just seen that you have also reverted my chances to doshas into the old state. What exactly triggered that? I would like to understand your reasons? I expanded the article to include more details. WOW, so you are stating that Ayurvedic medicine, practiced by 1Billion people is useless? Interesting, mind if I quote you and this conversation as a reference why Ayurvedic medicine practise cannot be included in Wikipedia on the next conference I attend to at Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore in 2 months time? mira.peltomaki (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Your edits to Dosha were unsourced and introduced fringe concepts (e.g. about a "force that moves everything around the body") in Wikipedia's voice, which is bad. It would not be true to say Ayurvedic practices cannot be mentioned in Wikipedia, but Wikipedia will only reflect what good sources say about such practices. Check out our main Ayurveda article: it's in quite good shape. Alexbrn (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

According to the Ayurvedic medicine the concept edit I did is correct, the previous version was not. Please check it out before you get into argument with me on the principle Ayurvedic concept topic. I have checked it out, it is very narrow. mira.peltomaki (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Content should be well sourced and supported by citations. Please see WP:V. Wikipedia is not going to talk about nonsense ideas like a "force that moves everything around the body" it its own voice as that would violate WP:NPOV, another core content policy. Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

"The key to managing all doshas is taking care of vata, as it is the origin of the other two." This is simply wrong and not according to the ayurvedic teachings. According to the ayuvedic teachings the three doshas vata, pitta and kapha. Vata is considered the highest as the other forces cannot move without it. Hence Vata is NOT origin of the other two but rather the force that makes the other two to move. Ayurvedic concept, check it out. Take a look at the nr 5 in the dosha article: 5. Vyana Vata - Governs circulation, heart rhythm, locomotion. Centred in the heart and permeates through the whole body... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mira.peltomaki (talk • contribs) 22:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Our articles should report this kind of rubbish accurately if good sources deign to describe it too. Alexbrn (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Contact Improvisation

I have some difficulties understanding what you are doing, Alexbrn. I am adding as much references to the article as I can, quoting material from books and websites. In reaction to a comment by another wikipedia user, I deleted remarks made to me by Contact Improvisation's founder because they were not sourced. I have the feeling you are acting on impulse, without sourcing your edits on my edits. --Koyaanisqatsi12 (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi! It's a problematic article. Some things to bear in mind:

• Wikipedia is meant to summarize accepted knowledge. This is generally found in secondary sources.
• We are meant to paraphrase good sources, not copy large chunks.
• When providing a reference to a book, bear in mind the policy of WP:V; please provide a page number for text which verfies the claim you make - citing an entire book is not very unhelpful
• Do not link to websites which have copies of copyrighted content on them unless there is a clear statement of permission.
• Don't mark edits as "minor" unless they really are minor.

Alexbrn (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I see. But if we are meant to paraphrase, what's the point of "blockquote"? Anyway, I'll try to modify in accordance. Will take time. A recommandation: before putting the warning "fan" page, maybe have a discussion. I've been writing on Contact for 4 years as a scholar in US and French academia. I don't feel very generously welcomed in the wikipedia community by being labelled out as a fan. --Koyaanisqatsi12 (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The tag does not label "you" as a fan, but that's the effect of the text. If you're responsible for most of that text I can see you might take it personally. So maybe it's a just feeling of guilt: be aware of WP:PROMO/WP:ADVOCACY. Certainly things like apparently citing your own email exchanges is not good: you might also want to be aware of WP:COI. Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

appeal to nature

Okay, then how would you like the section written better? I deleted the blog entry. Does wikipedia really ban all blog links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcrusade (talk • contribs) 18:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on the article on its Talk page. The onus is on you to make your case. Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"Meridians are not real"

I have no desire to initiate an argument -- much less an edit war -- over this small issue. I don't even disagree with the opinion that meridians are not "real", in a physical sense. I just don't agree that WP:ASSERT applies here; this is not a self-evident truth, like "Mars is a planet", or "water is wet". Sources say there is no evidence, so we are concluding that there never will be any. Besides, "meridians are not real" has an unencyclopedic ring to it, and as far as I can tell in a quick review, none of the cited sources specifically say it. Perhaps we can come up with something better -- such as, "Meridians exist only as a concept; there is no known anatomic or physiologic equivalent." Thoughts? If you would prefer that I move this to the article talk page, I'll be happy to do so. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 01:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

And now, I see someone else has entered the fray -- so perhaps we should take it to the article talk page? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That language that you proposed above would be OK with me. not bad. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

With this same logic, you could try editing this page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God and proclaim that "God is not real!"

The point is a LOT of people are going to be outraged. It is the same with meridians and acupuncture. There is a global culture invovled in it, just as there is a religion, whereby many people are practising it as a profession. So then Wikipedia is calling them all charlatans, since when is this the truth? Isn't this just one perspective among many? A lot of people disagree with that perspective if it is pushed above others. I think a lot of people would agree that Wikipedia should be a place of intellectual tolerance, not just the promotion of what Steven Novella thinks.

Probrooks (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It has been there a long time. You are back to heading right over the TBAN cliff on alt med stuff, aren't you Pobrooks. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I actually have a life which keeps me very busy. I may be heading over the TBAN cliff, but you and User:Alexbrn can expect to hit a brick wall quite soon I should think. Probrooks (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

That is why I proposed replacing "Meridians are not real" -- which is patronizing, in addition to the other objections I voiced above -- with "Meridians exist only as a concept; there is no known anatomic or physiologic equivalent" -- which is a statement of fact, backed by sources, and therefore should not "outrage" anybody. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Low level laser therapy

Have disagreed with you in the past, present, and future on your diet page edits, but am coming by to ask if you can take a quick look at the Low level laser therapy page which you haven't edited in a few years. This concept is being used on pets and I'm not qualified to check on the adequacy of sources concerning this usage. Thanks. Randy Kryn 14:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we've agreed on some things too! I'm trying to slim-down my watchlist, but i'll take a look ... Alexbrn (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Didn't see anything terribly exciting - am I missing something? Alexbrn (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. My concern was that the use of this therapy on pets might be edging into fringe medicine and that, if true, that may have not been accurately covered or incorrectly covered on the page. As a non-medically trained editor it seems odd that shining lights on, for example, a rabbit, and then charging for it, would pass the fringe-bar, and thought you could judge the sourced or non-sourced material better than myself. Scratching my head over this, or more accurately, pointing low-level lasers at my head and letting them do the scratching. Thanks again. Randy Kryn 12:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure it's a load of nonsense, and our article is a bit polite in its wording ("insufficient evidence" etc) - but at least it's making no wild claims AFAICS. Alexbrn (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Alkaline diet

Alkaline diet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Frontiers

Hi there. Thank you for your message. I am not new to Wikipedia and am well aware of policy. My removal of the sentence in question is not a case of edit warring: my reasons for removing it were clear in the edit description. The sentence in question ("Since then, rather than improving the review process, Frontiers tries to discredit Beall at his employer") suffers two issues, grammatical problems aside. (1) it is unsupported by the source, a personal blog which provides no evidence of Frontiers not updating their review process (which in fact is constantly being updated and modified, as with any journal). (2) It violates Wikipedia's policy of Neutral Point of View, asserting that Frontiers attempted ad hominem attacks against Beall when the documents simply show they were stating the unsubstantiated nature of his claims and only contacting his employer because Beall refused to engage with them directly. Universities and their employees are regulated by strict rules of ethical research practice: it was correct to contact the employer in this case. In the letter cited, Frontiers made no reference to the quality of his work outside of the generation of his infamous list; there was no evidence of them trying to "discredit" him, they were simply engaging with the arguments and assertions that Beall himself made. Such a biased approach to describing the exchange does a disservice to wikipedia's discussion of the genuine controversy that surrounds Frontiers (and any scientific journal: none have a perfect record). If you feel the points in the sentence need to be made, please rewrite them in a NPOV style and/or find better sources to back them up. If it is unchanged by the weekend I will remove it again. geordie (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You removed it twice (and broke the markup in the process). Please continue discussion on the article talk page. Please also be aware of WP:COI. Alexbrn (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed it once and reverted your edit which was conducted without addressing the concerns raised. Based on this and your Frontiers in Psych edits I am sensing an anti-Frontiers bias. I am attempting to balance and neutralize the treatment of these pages by removing conjecture and adding objective, notable fact. I am well aware of Conflict of Interest policies, and resent the accusation. If you restrict any of the 1000s of scientists that engage with Frontiers then you are going to severely limit the population of those able to edit the page. I am not a Frontiers employee nor do I receive any financial compensation from them. geordie (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "engage with Frontiers"? Please clarify your position. I'm not biased against Frontiers, but Wikipedia is "biased" against poor-quality sources (including Frontiers publications). Alexbrn (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Frontiers in Psychology is objectively not a poor quality source. One simply has to scan the majority of its output to know this and the degree to which it is cited within the field. I have reviewed for the journal and published in the journal, as I have in other journals, as have 1000s of other scientists. You can look this up yourself as Frontiers publishes the names of the reviewers and review history of every paper it publishes, making the review process from both sides to be the among the most transparent and rigorous of any I have encountered. Again, no journal is without fault - the campaign against Frontiers is based on several isolated incidents and a general fear of open access publication. Your reversion several minutes ago can't be serious - a journal's objective impact factor and relative standing, sourced to the original third-party report by JCR, is beyond question. I even left the reference to the controversial Beall list for balance. NPOV is violated if you only keep the negative accusations from a single source and consistency remove positive evidence to the contrary. In addition, you can see Nature (journal) for even more hyperbolic language that cites their own journal blog. Will you be deleting their PROMO as well? Truly trying to understand your position here, Alexbrn. In what context will you allow verifiable, notable information from the most-respected third-party source on the topic be cited? geordie (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

/* Cancer prevention */ re revision

Please explain your reverted revision "unreliable add". If you read the quoted pubmed study, it's referenced links to studies the revision is accurate, informative and provides context and clarity to the findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanecl1 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources for such health content need to be WP:MEDRS. Please make any further comment at Talk:Vitamin C. 12:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

New to Contributing

Hi there, I am very new to contributing on articles but an expert in the field of equestrianism. Having read and researched equine assisted therapy I felt there were contributions to be made on this article. I see that my posts were taken down but can't seem to find a reason. As I would like to learn by my mistakes would you be so kind as to advise on this matter. Regards Horsesense44 (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Please start at WP:5P and particularlty see WP:V. Material added to Wikipedia should be cited to reliable sources (ideally, secondary independent publications). The content you added was mostly completely unsourced. Alexbrn (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Vitamic C?

A - I am not new to editing, but sometimes (often) mess up on reference revisions. I see that in Vitamin C, ref 44 and 103 are now the same document (this after I replaced a dead ref at 103 with the DRI chapter on vitamin C). 103 is used more than once. Would you please delete 103, but make sure that 44 covers all the 103 uses? David notMD (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I see this is playing-out on Talk - I'll let this happen there. Alexbrn (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Guidlines

"Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Vitamin C. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)"

Thanks for the post on my page, I am new at this and so your help is appreciated. I am somewhat confused though at the process you suggest. "Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page." Shouldn't this been the first step you had taken instead of reverting my edits?

Perhaps you can show me how this is supposed to work by starting a talk in the Vit C talk page about the reversion you did here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitamin_C&diff=next&oldid=771317041. (also, how do you notify someone about a talk you started regarding their revision on the talk page? Is it automatic or do you have to talk on their page first to tell them to go to the talk page of the article?)

Thanks for your help in showing me the ropes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanecl1 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)