User talk:Alexbrn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Nature Abhors a Vacuum[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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)

Information icon 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)


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[edit]

Hi, Is this a creditable source Thank you! - Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehenke (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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)


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 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[edit]

You reverted an edit I made. I was just trying to make the distinction that the well-established geographical epidemiology of MS (see ) 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[edit]

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) (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] (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)


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. (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[edit]

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 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

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.


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)


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

Please comment on Talk:Euphoria[edit]

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[edit] (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Not ok[edit]

Not likely to be a productive exchange. Alexbrn (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


Information icon 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 :[edit]


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 [1]

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)


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

Professional and personal bias[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

[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[edit]

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[edit]


May I know the reason for you to delete the things which I had written? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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: the article link: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Infused Water[edit]


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:

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for all the work you do :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"Meridians are not real"[edit]

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. 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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?[edit]

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)


"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: (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 (talkcontribs) 11:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Edmund Storms[edit]

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.!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[edit]

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[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Alexbrn. 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[edit]

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)[edit] 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)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Alexbrn. 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrisBioQ (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg 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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)