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)

In light of your COI, you should not be editing the article. Please discuss the article's content on its Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 17:56, 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)

Edmund Storms

I noticed you have deleted a citation to an important Canadian Government Report (2013) which discusses the 25 models of Cold Fusion being studied and funded in a massive mainstream science effort world wide. Ed Storms discovery and confirmation of Tritium, was significant back in 1989 and is still the main mystery at the core of all 25 model research. I argue strongly this new information be accepted to be used in both Cold Fusion and Edmund Storms pages.

Blair, Bromley (26 February 2013). "Compendium of Information on International Activities pertaining to the Topic of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)". Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Énergie atomique du Canada limitée : R&D General Report. Ottawa, On, Canada: Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. AECL (153-102300-REPT-001): G10 (Appendix G.1.14). Retrieved 20 March 2017.

https://1drv.ms/b/s!ArHNcNHy9UNJjcspZyOJbDbuiKolMw

BSmith821 (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article's talk page. In general, secondary sources are preferred. Alexbrn (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Reiki reversion

Hi... You reverted my parenthetical edit to a quotation which was done to make it clear. As written it was too easily misunderstood to mean the opposite of its intention. (I had just read the line to folks and everyone went "huh?") Is there a more acceptable way to do that then? RobP (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you can't quote something and then change it. If there's a real ambiguity it is best to reword (though square brackets may sometimes be acceptable to denote text that isn't part of the original). Alexbrn (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

OK then... I'll add it back that way. RobP (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Proposed change to text in lede at Mobile phone radiation and health that you created

Hello, Bon courage. You have new messages at Talk:Mobile phone radiation and health.
Message added by papageno (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please comment on Talk:American Pekin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:American Pekin. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Curcumin found to be an MAOI (e.g. in mouse brain studies)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=curcumin+monoamine returns 30 results. Do any of those satisfy you as being major enough journals to include my reverted statement in Curcumin that it's an MAOI? Thanks. --Dan Harkless (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Search results are not reliable sources. Please the discuss article content on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Bon courage. You have new messages at Bri's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please comment on Talk:Microscope

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Microscope. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

saw palmetto extract

Updated references, including to more recent Cochrane. Conclusion still the same: no benefit. Re-wrote the Surgery and bleeding risk section. Refs are now one case study and one clin trial (hence primary), because there is no secondary lit on this topic. I removed the Medscape ref because the link was no longer functional. There is no Medscape or other NIH website that includes identifying saw palmetto as a bleeding risk. I did add Wang, a review that states as a general rule, dietary supplements should be discontinued prior to scheduled surgery. David notMD (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'm busy IRL at the moment so mayn't be able to check it out properly for a while ... Alexbrn (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Transcranial random noise stimulation

I don't understand what is wrong with this article, why did you remove the text twice?! References are already mentioned below and they are 4 reliable books in neuroscience!! --Brainist (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:V for starters. Everything non-trivial in articles needs supporting citations from reliable sources. Not convinced there is anything of merit here. Alexbrn (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

if the problem is with the references, I can manage that by entering more specific inline citations but I'm sure there is nothing wrong with the text itself to be removed twice! --Brainist (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:V is a policy; it's not optional. Alexbrn (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

please don't cite wikipedia pages, I need an explanation from you. The page you are citing says: "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.". If you read my references, they are already books citing peer-reviewed academic publications! That means my references are reliable sources!! --Brainist (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:V: "... any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" [my bold]. Alexbrn (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

ok, user:Onel5969 in this version has already tagged the article to be cited with inline sources. I think tagging or making a notice is much better than removing the whole text twice. It's not non-sense or my own ideas, it is correct scientific text which needs improvement regarding citation. I completely understand that my way of citations was not 100% right and I intended to fix this soon but I think making a notice is enough! --Brainist (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You can think what you like; I'm quoting (and acting on) policy, which is how things work around here. If you want an article the burden is on you to come up with something decent in line with our WP:PAGs rather than a wodge of dubious text and some URLs from Google Books. Alexbrn (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alexbrn, hope you don't mind my two cents, but since I was tagged above... Anyway, Brainist - either tagging or redirecting is appropriate in this instance. A request to delete would have been incorrect. I actually considered redirecting, since as the article stood it really does appear to be original research, which is a no-no. And in retrospect, Alexbrn's action is the more appropriate. I've reviewed quite a few of your pages of late, and have come to trust you on your redirects, but once an editor had reverted back to the redirect, you should have asked the question you asked after the second removal. And vandalism has a very specific usage on WP, and shouldn't be used lightly. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope you find it now adherent to the policies. --Brainist (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Much better! Alexbrn (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John A. McDougall. 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. DCEvoCE (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

coenzyme Q

Yo, Mr Alex, i feel that the article on coenzyme quinone should say that its also present on bacteria because it has a heavy bias on eukaryotic organisms even though they are a fundamental part on the respiratory systems on several microorganisms (even in archea). Still,im too busy to make a complete edit Ill hand you some citations on standard format, mendeley

Crofts, A. R., Rose, S. W., Burton, R. L., Desai, A. V., Kenis, P. J. A., & Dikanov, S. A. (2017). The Q-cycle Mechanism of the bc1 Complex: a Biologist’s Perspective on Atomistic Studies. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, acs.jpcb.6b10524. http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.6b10524 Szundi, I., Kittredge, C., Choi, S. K., McDonald, W., Ray, J., Gennis, R. B., & Einarsdóttir, Ó. (2014). Kinetics and intermediates of the reaction of fully reduced escherichia coli bo <inf>3</inf> ubiquinol oxidase with O<inf>2</inf>. Biochemistry, 53(33), 5393–5404. http://doi.org/10.1021/bi500567m Yildiz, A. A., Knoll, W., Gennis, R. B., & Sinner, E. K. (2012). Cell-free synthesis of cytochrome bo 3 ubiquinol oxidase in artificial membranes. Analytical Biochemistry, 423(1), 39–45. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ab.2012.01.007 Choi, S. K., Lin, M. T., Ouyang, H., & Gennis, R. B. (2017). Searching for the low affinity ubiquinone binding site in cytochrome bo3 from Escherichia coli. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics, 1858(5), 366–370. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbabio.2017.02.008 Abramson, J., Riistama, S., Larsson, G., Jasaitis, A., Svensson-Ek, M., Laakkonen, L., … Wikström, M. (2000). The structure of the ubiquinol oxidase from Escherichia coli and its ubiquinone binding site. Nature Structural Biology, 7(10), 910–917. http://doi.org/10.1038/82824 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrisBioQ (talk • contribs) 17:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Your edit was daft[3], possibly as a result of you using some broken software?. Please discuss content on the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:W56

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:W56. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

specific carbohydrate diet

Alexbrn, a single revert is not an edit war. I was trying out different wording in previous edit, cf [4]. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You are repeatedly inserting the same text over the objections of others. You have been warned. Alexbrn (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Waking the Tiger

Thank you for maintaining Wikipedia integrity. I found decent sources. I will be restoring the article and incrementally adding the sources. For your information.--Jondel (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I shall watch with interest; suspect it will be tricky to meet WP:N/WP:NBOOK, in which case deletion may be the best option. Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

No derete prease, sankyu sankyu vLv --Jondel (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Now , ahem, 'cured'.(?)--Jondel (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

No, the sources are junk or irrelevant. Nominated for deletion. Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Kindly define the junk or irrelevancy constructively. Allow me to provide more sources. The book provides a crucial knowledge in the field of Somatic medicine.--Jondel (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Anusara School of Hatha Yoga

If this interests you, you are welcome to help revive WikiProject Skepticism (WP:SKEPTIC) by joining its participants. The Anusara School of Hatha Yoga article has been added on that project's to-improve list. Of course, improving the article does not require joining the project, this is only an invitation. The project attempts to provide central resources like watchlist, to-do list, talk page, etc. Thank you, — PaleoNeonate — 03:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is SRT-501 cited in the salvestrols article?

Please explain to me why you put all of that SRT-501 stuff into the article about salvestrols. That stuff is all totally irrelevant. Do you not know the difference between CYP1B1 and SRT-501? Obviously, the person who originally put all of the SRT-501 stuff into the article had no idea what he/she was doing. That stuff is totally irrelevant! MQMagoo (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article's Talk page. Also be aware of WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop reverting with no edit summary

I took the time to explain my edit on the talk page and you revert with the summary "Well, no".

Please stop this extremely discourteous behaviour. Great floors (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop damaging the encyclopedia with bad edits. Alexbrn (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Pharmacological definition v. chemical definition

The following statement appears on the back cover of Salvestrols: Nature’s Defence Against Cancer: Linking Diet and Cancer: "Salvestrols are a new class of natural compounds that have a pharmacological definition rather than a chemical definition. They are defined by the action of the metabolites produced when they are metabolized by the CYP1B1 enzyme in cancer cells".

The drug SRT-501 is not metabolized by CYP1B1 so SRT-501 cannot be defined as a member of the class of compounds named "salvestrols". SRT-501 does not belong in the article about salvestrols. Please take all of the SRT-501 stuff out of the article about salvestrols. MQMagoo (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

An unreliable source. Alexbrn (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification

The text does not pass V. The other text with a tag is also OR. QuackGuru (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems okay to me. If you want to re-word it around "meat" rather than "protein" go ahead, but just removing "high protein" as the other editor did wasn't representing the source right. (Add: actually, looking at the source again you're right - the whole sentiment here is a bit of a stretch. I've just removed that sentence). Alexbrn (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The part "Like other..." FV. The lead and that section contains too much OR. It can be fixed if you and all other editors agree to stop reverting me if I replace OR with sourced content. QuackGuru (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The source does not say "some" evidence. That is an unsupported weasel word. QuackGuru (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Some" is a fair paraphrase I think - and we are meant to be paraphrasing for a general audience. Alexbrn (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The word "some" is listed as a weasel word. See WP:WEASEL: "Words to watch: ...some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, scientists claim, it is often said..." You did not paraphrase and you will not provide verification for the change because the source did not say "some" evidence. Weasel words must be sourced. You added an unsupported attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Honestly what nonsense. While "Some people say" is weaselly (as it says) the solo word "some" is just a quantifier. However if you want to offer something alternative ("limited evidence") then go ahead - it's not a biggie so long as we're in broad alignment with the sources. QG, I think you sometimes can't see the wood for the tree. Alexbrn (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Many people think policy on Wikipedia is nonsense. The part "some" evidence is not found in the source. It is an unsupported qualifier.

Would you like me to provide you with many diffs of you replacing sourced content with OR? You replaced the content with "insufficient evidence" in quotation marks, among other things. Where is "insufficient evidence" found in the source?[5] QuackGuru (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

When ones paraphrases, words in the paraphrase generally do not occur in the source. Our job is to convey meaning for general readers and avoid WP:CLOP. I think I'm quite good at it, and I don't think you are. No doubt you disagree. However, in the grand scheme of things I'm not sure it's worthwhile splitting hairs on precise shades of meaning, when medical topics are under constant assault from people pushing stuff which is completely out-of-kilter with reality. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You adding "insufficient evidence". That was not a paraphrase. It was in quotation marks, but the source does not mention "insufficient evidence". Because you put it in quotations marks the source must state the exact wording. The source says the exact opposite of you were claiming. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you're right. Can't see "insufficient evidence" in the source. Probably just a brain fade on my part (2 years ago) adding the quotation marks. The sense is right though! Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The current wording using the same source is still original research in the article. It is going to be very difficult trying to replace OR with sourced content. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, why not propose something on the Talk page? I'm honestly not seeing a big problem with our article but am willing to be convinced otherwise ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I propose to restore only the part that passed V. The first part did not pass V, but the other part did pass V. QuackGuru (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, I thought you were objecting to that text! A Talk page proposal would seem to be the way forward here ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Part of the claim you deleted passed V. Only the first part failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

2nd misuse of 3RR warning, please be more careful or accurate

Dear Alexbrn,

I noticed that you've now twice put "warnings" on my Talk page (one, two) where you claim "repeated reverting" of edits. In both instances I had only made a single revert, and each was to revert what appeared to be an error (someone reverted one of my edits without giving any reason, so I undid their revert; my edits were explained in the edit summary and on the Talk page before making my edit).

You're warning me about a behaviour that I patently have not engaged in. Please be more careful. Or if you think I have done something wrong, please say what it is instead of misusing the 3RR warning. My edits are good faith, always explained in the edit summary and often also explained on the Talk page before I make the edit. That's team work and respect. Great floors (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You made a bad change, and then you repeated it. You should now be aware that's not a good idea, especially on topics governed by discretionary sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I made a good faith edit, with explanations in the edit summary and on the talk page. When it gets reverted without any explanation, I can only conclude an error, possibly a bot or someone using an automated tool that misfired. Great floors (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Your "warnings" are getting weird, please explain or stop

Alex, I just now saw this edit by you: [6]

Really?

Something's up. I find it unlikely that anyone could treat everyone this way, so it makes me wonder why you treat me this way.

I explained my edit before making it, I gave a detailed description in the edit summary. If you disagree, then say so and give your reasoning instead of telling me again and again that you're "warning" me (twice for things I didn't do and once with a link to a guideline which I'll now read).

What am I doing that makes you revert and warn me so much? Great floors (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Warnings are merely routine notices to make editors aware of policy. As you note, I explained the problem with your edit on the article's Talk page at the time. Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Sweden EHS at Electromagnetic hypersensitivity - reopened discussion

I would appreciate your comments at Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#Reopening Sweden EHS matter --papageno (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Nootropic#B vitamins (eom)

It's a weird problem with that source, man. I couldn't believe my eyes at first, either. The subject in the conclusion of the abstract doesn't match the subject covered in the body of their article. Like a typo or something. It's vague, like the title of their article, which is way more general than the actual subject too. Check it out, and let me know what you think. The Transhumanist 09:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Voting method

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Voting method. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

I do not know what you mean by "repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions". I only did it once because you did not follow WP:PRESERVE when I added new sourced material to the article. I hope in the future that will not be an issue again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaisyFig (talk • contribs) 01:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Further information requested

Please, provide more information. Occurring (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

On what topic? Alexbrn (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You posted on my talk page a notice. The notice refers to nothing obviously relevant to our discussion on an article's talk page. The notice closes, "Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions".

Despite your accusations on the talk page, the evidence there does not show that I have been disruptive, gamed the system, or violated the aim of Wikipedia, which is not a soapbox for only majority views and making significant minority views look wholly baseless. Please, evidence with specifics and differentials the notice's relevance. Occurring (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody says you have. A notice is just that - to make you aware of the discretionary sanctions which apply to antivax content. Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Your edit

Hey Alexburn, I noticed your amendment to the lead of Chemtrail conspiracy theory and feel it slightly misses the mark. The theory is the claim, not based on a claim. I suggest the opening of the intro should read "The chemtrail conspiracy theory claims that...." . What do you think? Moriori (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

A theory cannot claim, so that is not great. Alexbrn (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

A theory most certainly can claim something, or postulate or hypothesise or assert or propose or posit etc etc. No mind, I seen the edit has already been reverted. Moriori (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It can contain a claim, but it does not itself claim. Proponents of the conspiracy theory might "claim". I wish ledes were better written. Alexbrn (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe an RFC would be enlightening. Moriori (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

An RFC for a mere detail of wording might be viewed (rightly IMO) as disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You need to read WP:DISRUPT. Moriori (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It would be disruptive behaviour rather than disruptive editing. But if you want to start an RfC on a matter of minor wording, which is not in serious dispute and which has had ZERO Talk page discussion, don't say you weren't warned about how that might be taken. Alexbrn (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

On edit warring (homeopathy, Lumosity)

Thanks for your comments w.r.t. my edits. My initial edit on homeopathy (many months ago) was substantiated but was reverted by an editor who simply stated the opposite. My reversion of today was reverted very quickly, which is okay, because how I know not to bother with improving the homeopathy article -- the current article guardians have a very narrow view of what homeopathy is, and we can't change it until they're all dead :-).

I don't think my edit on Lumosity was edit warring -- I simply complied with the instruction of the bot that said that I must substantiate my edit, which I then did. --leuce (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly trying to force an edit - one which rather skews the POV of the article as it happens. Maybe try WP:BRD? Alexbrn (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Will do. -- leuce (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"ABC hypothesis" TALK page: are meta-analyses primary sources, or secondary?

RE: "Meta-analyses are secondary sources (if they're of others' data, which they almost always are)." which you wrote on the "ABC hypothesis" TALK page

I can understand thinking that, but I'm not sure it's true. Seems to me that if you author a meta-analysis by pooling data from several primary papers, and then analyzing the pooled data in a way which the original primary papers which published the data did not do, then your new analysis of the pooled data would be your own original interpretive work, which would make your meta-analysis a primary source. In contrast, a review article would list the original primary articles, including their conclusions, and synthesize a "big picture" summary from the collected primary articles, without going and re-analyzing the data in those articles. Anyway, that's how I see it. Does Wikipedia have any official policy on meta-analyses and whether Wikipedia considers them to be primary or secondary sources? Please advise, if you know. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup, see my reply there. Of course there are many bad meta-analyses, but they're secondary in nature. You may be interested in the discussion here though Alexbrn (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Xbox One

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Xbox One. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Your approval for an edit I'm considering

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.

---

Hi Alex,

I'm sick of putting work into stuff and having you delete it and send me your warnings etc., so please let me know what you think of this:

The oil pulling article says there's no evidence it works and the intro quotes a 2014 post in a science blog to this effect. I found a 2016 journal published meta analysis which concludes it "may" work:

• Effect of oil pulling in promoting oro dental hygiene: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials

So I'd like to change the article to say it "may" work. I'm not sure what to do with the citations from the blog post. Maybe remove references to it?

I've also raised this on the Talk page: Talk:Oil_pulling#There.27s_a_meta_study_saying_it_might_work_-_ok_to_add.3F

I understand you can't promise not to revert me (since I haven't said exactly what I'm going to write), but if you could give me some indications that might help me avoid wasting my time and getting frustrated about Wikipedia's treatment of non-admins, that would be great. Thanks. Great floors (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Edits don't need any editor's "approval" and as it happens I had unwatched this article a while ago. Looking at it again: shit! it is full of rubbish. I'll remove the obviously problematic, and see where we're at. Please continue discussion at the article talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 23 June 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.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for jumping in an improving the diet article :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Audio converter

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Audio converter. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Proof that a book was written

So the ability to buy a book does not prove that it was written? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlsanford (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

That's not the point - we are meant to be reflecting accepted knowledge about topics. Wikipedia is not a miscellany of factoids. Alexbrn (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Charlie Gard's article editing

Dear Alexbrn,

Please do not remove again the scientific section about Charlie Gard's case, all the sources cited come from the medical literature (PubMed: EMBO journal, Nature Reviews, etc) and provide key information to understand the scientific aspects of the case. I have seen you have an ORCID but no biomedical background. I am an MD-PhD as you can deduce from my edits, so please respect the scientific evidences about nucleoside therapy that are of relevance to understand this controversy from an objective point of view. The facts indicate that nucleosides do cross the blood-brain barrier, are innocuous, and have been proved in animal models and humans. This information is relevant and based on peer-reviewed articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorBiochemistry (talk • contribs) 18:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:MEDRS - we do not use primary research on Wikipedia for health info. Furthermore, article content need to be directly related to the topic, not riffing on it. You are edit-warring and in danger of getting blocked if you continue. Alexbrn (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

NLP AFD

Hi, as somebody who has contributed occasionally to articles on neuro-linguistic programming I wondered if you could have a look at this AfD, which is not getting much attention. Famous_dog (c) 07:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Churnalism

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 revert is a 1RR violation. There is an ongoing discussion here, here and here. Please use talk pages before deleting. An WP:3O was already requested on the subject. I urge you to self-revert. 83.54.140.34 (talk)

1RR applies? Says who? And since I have made just one revert I cannot have exceeded 1RR. I saw the 3O opinion - I don't agree with aspects of it, but in any event it in no way supported your enormous promo effort. Also I am not obliged to use the Talk page before editing, and demanding this is trademark WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Alexbrn (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You have reverted to the version that has false claims. I personally think that jargon term 'churnalism' should not be used in any article, especially as the only description. Please provide your own edit, if you believe my version was no good. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You did not answer my question about 1RR. Are you making it up? Please discuss article content on its Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog has made an edit, I've tried to improve it - he reverted it back. I requested the 3O, and based on the suggestions made new edits (both for ScienceDaily and Phys.org). Now you simply reverted it again! Are you acting on jytdog behalf? 83.54.140.34 (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I now assume you invented the "1RR" restritction. The version I reverted to is fine and that is my view. Alexbrn (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The reversion is not ok in my opinion, and also according to the 3O provided. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

What exactly do you consider as 'promo' in the text? 83.54.140.34 (talk) 11:50, 19 July 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.

What is a 3O ?

This has arisen in my wiki reading today. I know I should know, but I'm getting old and addled in the head. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It's WP:3O! Alexbrn (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yea, after I typed that, I thought to type it in the search box. need more protein. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Dental personalities

Hi Alex~

Any chance we can quit this attempt at purging the dental articles of notable personalities just because you can't find something about them in Google? These are real scholars from before the internet and they are from a very small and select group (periodontal academics and researchers), which explains why you can't find much online about them. What do you say? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If they are notable the AfDs will fail. We seem to have a bit of a walled garden of pages for minor dental figures. Why do you assume I only did a Google search? Alexbrn (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Truthinnutrition

...has made a 10,000 byte addition to the article. Since I'm not too sure about WP:MEDRS, it's your take here. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't help thinking Wp:CGTW#15. Alexbrn (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Never seen a good one with such a username. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 11:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It's all going down on User talk:Nina Teicholz. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthinnutrition. Alexbrn (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Not-dave, this is not super helpful. The person has flat out denied having anything to do with the other account, twice now, and their denial is not credible. In my view you are giving them fodder for spinning drama, and we need less, not more, of that. Jytdog (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I was concerned I was being a bit naive with those comments. At the end of the day, Jytdog, you are way ahead of me and most people in understanding these editors. I apologise for these comments. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Saturated fats and cardiovascular disease controversy

Hello Alexbrn,

I have been trying to flesh out this page to document the genuine controversy that exists. In order to represent a controversy, one must document both sides of that controversy, correct? This page is current one-sided, showing only the opinion of establishment sources. There is another side to this controversy, published in peer-reviewed journals by scientists around the world, which is what I am trying to bring to light. Can you let me know the problem with these edits?

thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthinnutrition (talk • contribs) 10:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Our job is to find sources which specifically address "the controversy", not to describe the controversy ourselves by deciding what it is. This is fundamental to the nature of the encyclopedia. Before charging ahead further, please take some time to read the links on your Talk page. Also please learn how to sign your posts. Any further discussion on this topic should take place at Talk:Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy‎, and not here on my user page. I advise doing this before editing the article further. Alexbrn (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, again, I will take your suggestion and continue the conversation over on the page you suggest. I'm new to this, but isn't it true that you are obligated to provide a reasons for deleting the text that I added? I didn't see one, but perhaps I missed it. And I'm wondering if it's considered a bit aggressive to send me a warning after I revert one time? I'm not sure of your role, but I hope it is in the spirit of genuinely promoting the truth on this important topic. If the job of this page is to address the "controversy" on saturated fats and CVD, then by that standard many of the entries on the page should probably be deleted, since the majority are simply a list of authorities who endorse one side of the controversy. Why not apply the same standards to all these entries and delete them? My contribution highlighted the fact that there actually IS a controversy, which is otherwise not mentioned in the introduction of this page. I hope you will allow this page to be a bit more balanced. I have been following this specific controversy for many years and can justifiably say that in its current state it is quite one-sided. Thanks. TruthinNutrition

Hello, again, I see you've just undone all my contributions based on the fact that they are "tertiary" sources. How is a pub med citation of a peer-reviewed journal a "tertiary" citation any more than any of the other entries on the page, which are also from medical journals? Also, the newspaper/magazine articles were all reporting directly on the "controversy," which is what you stated in your earlier message that you wanted to cover. The standards for this page do not seem to be at all clear. Why is it allowed to cite the peer reviewed literature in favor of the one side of the controversy but not the other side? Please explain. Thanks. TruthinNutrition

Please continue discussion at the article talk page. Also you might want to read WP:RGW, in addition to the other links I posted to your Talk page (which I once again recommend). Alexbrn (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Pritikin diet

Dear Akexbrn,

I wish to take "fad" diet out of the first line of copy of the "Pritikin Diet" page. How can a diet be considered a "fad" when it's been implemented worldwide for four decades and Medicare has now approved its use for cardiac rehabilitation?

I wish to change the copy to the following copy (see below). I am happy to state on the Wikipedia page that I am a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Center.

As you will see below, I have included many citations from scientific journals to establish copy that is solid and evidence-based.

The Pritikin Program for Diet and Exercise is an eating and exercise plan for heart health originally created by Nathan Pritikin. The 1979 book based on the diet became a best-seller and was titled "The Pritikin Program for Diet and Exercise."[1]

In several studies published since 1975, scientists at UCLA and other research institutions have found the Pritikin Program effective in preventing the major diseases that afflict modern society, such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. The Pritikin Program has been documented to improve cholesterol profiles better than cholesterol-lowering drugs like statins, and has also been found to lower blood sugars, normalize blood pressure, and shed excess weight.

• A meta-analysis of 864 type 2 diabetics found that 74% on oral medications left the Pritikin Longevity Center within three weeks free of these drugs, their blood sugars in normal ranges, and 44% on insulin left insulin-free.

• In this same article, another meta-analysis of 1,117 hypertensives found that 55% normalized blood pressure and no longer required anti-hypertensive drugs within three weeks of starting the Pritikin Program. The people in this study were not initially following the diet at home; they were studied before and after several weeks of a residential course where their meals were prepared. However, follow-up revealed that they had continued to follow the diet on returning home. While they had been suggested candidates for bypass surgery before the intervention, five years later the likelihood of their requiring coronary bypass had dramatically decreased.[2]

• Studies tracking people following the Pritikin Program of diet and exercise for an average of 3 weeks found that total cholesterol fell on average 23%, LDL (bad) cholesterol decreased 23%, and triglycerides fell 33%.[3]

• Research has also found that the Pritikin Program reduces blood glucose about 20% within 3 weeks.[4]

• For the majority of people, the Pritikin Program also eliminates the diagnosis of the Metabolic Syndrome, a cluster of biomarkers like high glucose levels and hypertension that significantly increases heart disease risk.[5]

The Pritikin Diet has been categorized as a fad diet [6]

However, the focus of the Pritikin Diet - whole, fiber-rich, plant foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and beans - has been the focus of the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans since their inception in 1980. In the late 1970s, Nathan Pritikin consulted several times with Senator George McGovern, the senator chairing the Select Committee that established the Dietary Guidelines, wrote Tom Monte in his biography of Nathan Pritikin: "Pritikin: The Man Who Healed America's Heart," published by Rodale Press in 1988.[7]

So strong is the evidence linking the Pritikin Program with reduced heart disease risk that the Centers For Medicare and Medicare has approved the Pritikin Program for Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation, which permits the Pritikin Program to be taught in hospitals nationwide.[8]

1. McFadden, Robert D. (23 February 1985). "Nathan Pritikin, whose diet many used against heart ills". The New York Times 2. Roberts, Christian; Barnard, R. James (Jan 2005). "Effects of exercise and diet on chronic disease". Journal of Applied Physiology. 98 (1): 3–30. ISSN 8750-7587. PMID 15591300. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00852.2004. Retrieved 2007-08-23. 3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2064490 4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15591300 5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16357066 6. Alters S, Schiff W (22 February 2012). Chapter 10: Body Weight and Its Management. Essential Concepts for Healthy Living (Sixth ed.). Jones & Bartlett Publishers. p. 327. ISBN 978-1-4496-3062-1. 7. https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-87857-732-3 8. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-General-Information/MedicareApprovedFacilitie/ICR.html

Please discuss article content on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi Alexbrn,

You put a note on my page reminding me of the guidance on flagging edits as minor. I can't figure out which edit(s) I've thus flagged that you might think would merit reminding me of said rule. Would you clarify? Mikalra (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

this for example - adding refs - is something an editors might want to be aware of and is not by WP's definition a minor edit. Alexbrn (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Editing War notification

I removed a comment which I found to be vague and subjective. The line "does not appear" is hardly academic and the sources referenced were biased and low quality in presentation.

Then make your case at Talk:Circumcision; don't just keep reverting. Alexbrn (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Vegan flag

Hello Alexbrn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Vegan flag, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Inverse Warburg Effect

The immediate redirection from 'Inverse Warburg Effect' to 'Warburg Effect' is scientifically unsound and muddies the issue. It ignores the fact that the two notions are related, but refer to fundamentally distinct phenomena. Both are examples of metabolic reprogramming: The Warburg Effect pertains to the up-regulation of g l y c o l y s i s; the Inverse Warburg Effect, however, pertains to the up-regulation of o x i d a t i v e p h o s p h o r y l a t i o n. References to empirical support for the Inverse Warburg Effect is explicitly documented in the article. - I urge you to respect the reinstallation that has been made and will be redone. - Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasperasperagus (talk • contribs)

The article's sources fail WP:MEDRS, there are licensing problems with the images, the whole thing smells of plagiarism and it is improperly formatted. What is the connection between your account and RobertCumming ? Alexbrn (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleting DANGER! warnings

Hi and thanks for welcoming me to wikipedia. I am contacting you regarding the deletion of a danger warning on the hashish page. It seemed a bit harsh; however, in due time I can learn how to cite legal codes of different countries and states, penal codes, ICD 10 medical billing codes, and police reports for the safety of the readers. Thanks for the encouragement to create better content. CharlesMJames (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fighter aircraft

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fighter aircraft. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Cryonics Talk page

In keeping with your suggestion "If you are here to discuss something about an article's content then please, to promote centralized discussion and maximize consensus, comment on that article's Talk page and not here." I've put comments and opened a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cryonics so that constructive discussions may be had which avoids deletion sans clear explanation (as happened to my one sentence addition linking to peer reviewed journal article) should you wish to provide more constructive input, on that or more broadly on the article, over at that Talk page. This note to make sure you are a notice from the system. Interesting reading your own Talk page, by the way. Kind regards. Harelx (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Martha G. Welch page

Hello AlexBrn! Thank you for the many helpful edits you and your fellow Wiki editors have made to the Martha G. Welch, MD page. I am hoping you can provide some clarity and guidance on a few issues that have occurred in the past few months: My first question is regarding its classification as a “fringe theory” page. I am unsure of what this means, why it’s been tagged this way, and how to ensure the page is giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view it needs to regain its original status. The info I’ve garnered from Wikipedia on this subject has been a great starting point, but I am still unclear and would appreciate any additional information or clarity you can provide to address this concern. Cnmc2016 (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The template is there because Welch's notions need more contextualization within the mainstream, which appears to reject them. I notice you have also started articles on Nurture Science Program and Calming Cycle Theory which look similarly problematic. Also, do you have a WP:COI to declare? Please continue any further discussion about the article's content at its Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Neurologic Music Therapy (NMT)

Hi Alexbrn, I just checked your comments regarding the Neurologic Music Therapy (NMT) that this article needs more medical references. For NMT Wikipedia pages, earlier contributors had many factual errors that need to be corrected. Therefore, I am working on editing on behalf of the NMT Advisory Council to ensure that we provide accurate information about NMT to the public. The information is all based on the previous research definitely. Could you give me more specific information that you are concerned about? Thank you so much, Kyurim1 (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have a WP:COI you shouldn't be editing the page; if you are WP:PAID you need to make declaration on your user page. Any health information needs to be backed by WP:MEDRS sources and WP:FRINGE may apply. I see another editor has detected a lot of copyright violations too. Alexbrn (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"Card marked"

In the hopes of providing constructive feedback: please check yourself. Just going from your talk page, you have a history of serial edit-warring and using the 3RR as a bludgeon instead of trying to find compromise and engage. That and asking me to self-censor, then making vague threats at me are not very Wikipedian behaviours, and are part of why Wikipedia has a reputation of being exclusive and unwelcoming, especially to experts. Anyway, I'm not really interested in engaging further -- I have plenty to keep me busy on Wikipedia without having to cross paths with you. Just, please, take some time for reflection. -Kieran (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you to "self-censor", I was asking you not to tell malicious lies. Anyway you have shown your colours: kindly do not post here again. Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Apitherapy

Hello! I find your behavior impolite. Would you like to talk? --Мит Сколов (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Please post about article content on its Talk page, not here. Note that WP:V is a policy. Alexbrn (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

User: Prof. Lindsay Falvey

Looks like we're reviewing Prof. Lindsay Falvey (talk · contribs)'s past contributions, along with @Clean Copy: as well. Do you see any reason to retain [7]? I'll leave it to you and Clean Copy. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

No. Clean Copy^talk 00:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed not. Alexbrn (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox scientist

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox scientist. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Ad hominem

Honest question as to how I'm drifting into ad hominem on that most recent reply. Not trying to be inflammatory, I just don't want to be banned for explaining my points. If I am to guess it's because I'm using the word "you", but that seems like an awfully weak reason to say I'm personally attacking people, because I'm only using the word to describe an event that already happened. Just trying to get some insight into why you're giving me the (friendly) warning! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "Despite your belief ...". Best not to claim to know what editors' "beliefs" are and then use it to argue a point - what we base articles on are good sources (which sometimes are necessarily at odds with editors' "beliefs"). Alexbrn (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Follow up then. You explicitly stated it's quackery which is why I knew it was your belief, that's still not allowed? In truth I wasn't assuming anything you didn't already tell me. To be safe I'll change my choice of words though. Frankly I didn't even catch that on a re-read so thanks for the explanation. And apologies if I brought any offense - this isn't personal and I'm surely not trying to make it personal! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If Alex stated it was quackery, you can bet it was sourced. Stop making assumptions about editors. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I've already apologized for my accidental ad hominem phrasing, and I've already stopped making assumptions. Now I'm just trying to get my second question answered in a very respectful way. I know everyone is just playing by the rules of the site so I don't get angry or annoyed when I'm told "no" because I'm aware that I don't know all of its rules yet. But I do like making sure I learn from these experiences so they aren't repeated. I have no interest in making enemies here because at the end of the day it's just fun to contribute! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yup: and discussion of the article content should continue on its Talk page ... Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

wrong twinkle action

Highya your twinkle made a mistake. [8]

Please correct this as the discussion is not in violation of Wikipedia guidelines as it purpose is to shape the content of the article.

--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 10:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It is, but I'll not remove it again since you seem insistent on it - be warned though you are being disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Morgellons

The last source met the requirements. Not sure why this was removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameronbrooks (talk • contribs) 14:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yous sources fail WP:MEDRS and your formatting is broken. You are damaging the encyclopedia by edit warring now. Please discuss this on the article Talk page before making further edits. Alexbrn (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Morgellons warning

Hello, I'm Cameronbrooks. I noticed that you recently removed content from Morgellons without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Cameronbrooks (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

See above. Alexbrn (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

intranasal light therapy

Hello, Alexbrn,

ist seems You removed my yesterday additions to the article "light therapy".

What was the reason for this ? regards MacSeagull — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacSeagull (talk • contribs) 14:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello! All our content should be sourced and health content should be backed by WP:MEDRS sources. Alexbrn (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

The request for arbitration in which you were named as a party has been declined by the committee and closed.

For the arbitration committee,

GoldenRing (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Plimpton 322

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Plimpton 322. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Apitherapy for you

Hi, Alexbrn. Apitherapy is not quackery. See. "Bee venom therapy is based on the fact that these crude extracts exhibit a wide variety of pharmacologically active molecules." This is also true for honey and propolis. "Honey and other bee products were subjected to laboratory and clinical investigations during the past few decades and the most remarkable discovery was their antibacterial activity." "The healing capacity of bee venom has been rediscovered under laboratory-controlled conditions using animal models and cell cultures." "In fact, 12 European countries have officially recognized bee venom solution as a drug." You can ask me and I will help you. --Мит Сколов (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Apitoxin. Alexbrn, see. I added all from Index Medicus (Medline), special reviews about bee venom & cancer. But Zefr deleted it and add not Medline & .. please, read it, compare and enjoy.. You say again: you do not understand?.. I'm not offended but I find it's funny. --Мит Сколов (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Please discuss other peoples' edits on the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Stornoway black pudding

Hi, Alexbrn I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and fix the accessdates. Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars!  ;-)

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. Diego (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

.

If you were more of a regular you'd know this doesn't apply to DS notifications ;-) They are required to be given before an editor can be subject to any DS action. Alexbrn (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn:, my intersest in Meg Patterson has nothing to do with defending pseudoscience, merely with having a proper WP:NPOV-written article. You'll agree that the reference is woefully inadequate as a general analysis of how mainstream science has studied and rebuked the NET therapy, no? Diego (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a good source, and if we don't call this quackery what it is, we're in violation of WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Diego Moya:(talk page stalker)Also, a DS notice does not on it's own imply any wrongdoing. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of films based on actual events

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of films based on actual events. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC CBD

Hi can you please comment here: [9]

Thanks! 184.100.60.20 (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Prolotherapy

The billing code for prolotherapy was delisted on January 01, 1996, should we still be showing it, it gives the impression that it is a recognized medical therapy. Perhaps this data belongs in Wikidata where we can show that it is deprecated. I will remove, you can restore if disagree. --RAN (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You jumped in :-)

Thanks for your note. Its funny because you just jumped into a conversation I was having with DocJames about that page and edits I had made originally. I put in some great and well referenced edits (see a few versions previous) and he undid my work because he said that only review papers were allowed to be cited. I looked into this and it is in fact not true. Although they are preferred review papers are not required as per the wiki guidelines for references. As a matter of fact, on the baby colic article there is a ratio of about 3:1 in terms of non-review references and books versus review references. After a number of back and forth messages on his talk board I agreed to re-edit by adding only review references. Sure enough five minutes later you came in and undid those references. Honestly I just volunteered to participate in this because I have deep science knowledge I'd like to share (having worked in biotech/life sciences for over 25 years) but if this is the kind of friction I will get every time I write something it is definitely not worth my time. Djkoutdoors (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Wiley links

Hi, could you please explain this URL removal? [10] --Nemo 08:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It's redundant as the DOI resolves there. Alexbrn (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

revision to carnosine page

Alexbrn,

My citations only added relevant support from peer-reviewed studies archived by the National Institutes of Health website, and some of my citations were of articles by researchers who were already recognized as being lead researchers on the subject in the references on the Carnosine Wiki page - my additions merely filled in omissions.

Summary of my concerns about your revert:

1. My edits didn't vandalize what was already printed on the page, they merely augmented and supported it.

2. The citations filled in missing relevant peer-reviewed studies on the topic, including some by researchers already recognized in previous citations as having expertise in the topic.

3. My edits followed WP:MEDRS guidelines.

4. Your revert was a wholesale action that did not examine my contributions on a per-case basis.

Thank you very kindly, 71.185.215.82 (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually I did examine them all; it appeared only one was a secondary source and didn't adequately support the claim made. Please continue with any further discussion on the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Red panda

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Red panda. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Alexbrn. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Julian day

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julian day. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

What's the deal?

Hi Alexbrn, can I ask what is going on on the MSG page? Why are you stonewalling me? I'd really like to find a solution that we can both live with.FFN001 (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The solution is for you to acknowledge you're not going to get the change you want. I am satisfied the article text currently is good, as is - it seems - every other editor. Maybe see if there's some other topic area where you might usefully contribute? Alexbrn (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

So you're opinion is more important than mine? Consensus means everyone.FFN001 (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)