User talk:Alexbrn

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

Dispute resolution link re: Myofascial Release[edit]


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 thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Myofascial_release".The discussion is about the topic Myofascial release. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memtgs (talkcontribs) 07:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

removal of restructuring and additions regarding the article "Warburg effect"[edit]

Why were the changes removed, before they were completed, without any comment or discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellomino (talkcontribs) 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi! There was a comment: "sources fail WP:MEDRS". Please read WP:MEDRS. And please also continue any further discussion at the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Turmeric edits[edit]

Article content should be discussed on article talk pages. Alexbrn (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2018 (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.

May I ask why my latest edit on the article on turmeric was reversed? Thanks for your time. New to editing Wikipedia. (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

For deleting well-sourced content and making undue additions. You are also edit warring, which may lead to the article being protected. Kindly continue any further discussion on the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2018 (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.

Please comment on Talk:International System of Units[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International System of Units. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory's?[edit]

Closed. Alexbrn (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2018 (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.

You like photography? I have plenty of pics I would like your opinion on. Please how can I send them to you? DBLUF (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't. Alexbrn (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is that?DBLUF (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Oh cause you haven't a clue what your talking about. Gease for having a degree in philosophy you'd think your mind would be open to anything especially if you have an opinion on a subject. DBLUF (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC) So tell me oh wise one. I have all the time in the world to listen to you dumbing down chemtrails. Have you personally tested the air, water,and soil before and after it rains? Why don't you head out to the Central Valley CA before you put your opinion about this matter ever again. I'd love to see the look on your face when you see your own results for the first time. Stop misinforming people until you have conducted actual tests and investigated every aspect of this "conspiracy theory" DBLUF (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Huh oh someone knows better. DBLUF (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@DBLUF:Cloud seeding and chaff are real, but contrails are just water vapor produced by the burning of hydrocarbon jet fuel, like a large scale version of when you can see your breath on a cold day (it is always cold 30,000 feet up even in California). I don't know what you are testing, but the fact that rain can carry air pollution to the ground (or otherwise interact with or alter air pollution) is not evidence of some secret spraying. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please how do I upload lab results and endless photos I have personally taken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBLUF (talkcontribs) 21:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried Pinterest? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 22:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@DBLUF: Please do not post to my Talk page again. Alexbrn (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2018 (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.

Please comment on Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Military Sealift Command[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Military Sealift Command. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing my edit history[edit]

I noticed you're going through my edit history on other pages because we are having a disagreement about the Effectiveness section on the Atkins diet page. I'm actually a nice person :) I hope we can come to an agreement together about the Atkins diet page and not make this disagreement personal. Dbhall2 —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing's personal, but I am sure you agree that Wikipedia should be editing according to its WP:PAGs, by everyone. Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


Dear Alexbrn,

Thank you for your guidance. I kept losing my browser and re-entering the edits I had made. It was not an easy introduction, although it seemed like it would have been quite simple.

I will follow your advise and see if I can resolve the issues I have with the page I was editing. It just appears that the entire section on The Feldenkrais Method is missing current studies, from the National Institutes of Health and elsewhere, which I had researched and cited. Instead, it actually misconstrues the method entirely. Out of respect to the person who had already written about the method, I was careful not to eradicate his/her current research, while adding some balance to the extremely biased account currently available on the Feldenkrais Method.

As a High School Language Arts teacher, copy writer, and editor, I was disheartened to see that none of my edits remained.

Thank you for the education, and I'll see if I can learn how to use Wikipedia in line with the expectations of the system.

I imagine I am messaging you incorrectly, and probably publically. Oh well.

Best, HDMotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by HDMotion (talkcontribs) 00:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

HDMotion (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! Yup discuss article content on the article's Talk page. As ever, the WP:PAGs apply and for this particular topic WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE are important ones. Alexbrn (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

For your reference[edit]

Better at article Talk. Alexbrn (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2018 (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.

Hey Alexbrn, Feel free to delete this if you wish after reading as it's really for your reference: I've looked into the SSB organization and I believe their internal handbook/operations manual is available online somewhere, Further I know many people who have been part of their work - it's not really a cult because: -they do not solicit donations (even from their members) -they do not active proselytize for their group or Sai Baba -they do not require or push people to become members -they do not require/ask people to cut off ties with family/friends -they do not ask people to believe in Sai Baba over their own God (Jesus, Allah, Krishna, etc.) -they do not claim to have exclusive knowledge of the truth They do however do thousands of service projects every week all over the world.

As for the two articles Movement/Organization (also @Slatersteven:): Looking at the two articles - I think if done well, the two articles could likely be combined into one, though they are technically different things. Since WP:NOR does not apply to this space, I'll share some basic factual information: Generally with this group - people are not required to join or contribute to his organization, even those who join don't have to contribute and resultantly you have many people both believers and non-believers who are technically part of the "movement" he started (for example volunteers in the free hospitals and clinics, schools based on the human values model of his schools, charitable activities, etc.) some of these people are very committed to these activities, but are not members of his organization (some are not believers in Sai Baba as well) - they simply like the projects. The major endeavors are put on by his organization but in some cases they are not and do not bear his name (particularly the education modeling area). Objectiveap (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

You piqued my interest, so I did a library search. It seems a scholar who has written on this organization and published in strong RS is Lawrence A. Babb[1], who seems to take it as given that this is indeed a cult (see e.g. here). There also seem to be a lot of hits to news coverage about scandals around pedophilia and sexual molestation, which aren't really covered in our articles. So it looks as if the neutrality noticeboard has some work to do to sort this topic out. I shall prepare a post for it - please continue the discussion there. Alexbrn (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Babb is, in fact, the source we've been discussing from the beginning and the one cited in the article. It's 35 years old and who knows if he even still considers it a cult given the developments since then. The molestation allegations are certainly in the wiki article and have been debated over for years if you look at the history, no charges were brought and it was never proven, but some believe the testimony, others say that there are groups that will say or do anything to try to defame him, which they say easily includes lying and making up or twisting stories, and this argument is also plausible, because Sai Baba in their mind threatens their religious beliefs and/or they became angry with him. If you keep researching the organization/movement that has come up around him and dig deep enough you will eventually realize it is not a cult for the reasons I already mentioned to you. His organization's schooling system is being modeled by European and American schools 1, and have provided education with no tuition fees to 1000s of people (many who were too poor to afford it), his hospitals do I'm told 5,000 free heart surgeries every year, over 1000 of his centers worldwide do 1000s of service projects every week. His organization is responsible for the daily providing of clean drinking water to literally millions of people. Despite the criticism, he is fairly universally regarded (even by critics) as a great philanthropist and adored by millions, many of whom are very intelligent people, as a spiritual leader or even incarnation of God. It is quite the fascinating subject. A dismissive term like 'cult' doesn't apply here. Objectiveap (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Your personal view/speculation doesn't count; what matters is what sources say. Digging a little further we have Chryssides, George D.. Exploring New Religions, Bloomsbury Publishing, 1999.:

... the movement possesses a considerable number of characteristics that are associated with the notion of 'cult' in its sociological senses. Although the movement has its institutional structures, the wider following is loosely organized, and there is no one mandatory set of practices. It centres on a single guru who claims to be divine, and who is believed to have omniscience, offering definitive teachings and demanding obedience: by his clairvoyant powers he is believed to keep a watchful eye on all his followers, offering help, and meting out sanctions when he perceives lack of obedience.

We should be reflecting what strong RS (like this) says. Alexbrn (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm only giving you background information, so that you have some education level before trying to dictate policy about whether to call this group a cult in a main heading. What goes in the article is based on RS of course, I do not plan to violate WP|NOR in articles, however it's useful to be shared freely here where WP|NOR does not apply. I hope you are aware your digging is likely biased as I can tell you are using the word "cult" as a search term. When you do not use that word as a search term, you will not find much about it, it is not generally characterized that way in common parlance by relevant RS. Do you notice the language above, how he doesn't actually call it cult. Overall, it is a stretch (in my opinion completely uninformed) to call this organization a cult in the modern times and in common parlance for reasons I've already shared and a few more below - sharing characteristics with a cult but not having enough of them to outright call it one means it doesn't go in the heading - the heading is for objective undisputed facts - it goes in a more subtle section. As mentioned you could call Christianity a cult by many (if not all) of the same measures. Whether you believe in Sathya Sai Baba and want to say "He is believed by millions to be God" in the heading or if John Smith (or in this case an unnamed IP Address) does not believe and wants to call it a "cult" to defame him; while both can be ascribed to some kind of RS, it doesn't mean it goes in the HEADING, Can you find an RS factually saying "he is not 'believed by millions to be God'" because there are plenty of RS that do. Whatever our personal sense of what the phenomenon of Sai Baba is, wikipedia is about objectivity. This is one of the most major, fascinating, developments in modern times relating to people's views on religion/spirituality and framework of living and thinking - a boy born in a village there isn't even a drivable road to and doesn't even appear on postal maps - stays in that village (for the most part) and yet grows to become a figure who world leaders, highest level celebrities, supreme court justices, and people from all over the world have the highest respect for and many worship. These people are not rabbits they aren't idiot sheep, they've reached the highest spheres in the world and they have great respect for Sai Baba and his movement. Look at the CIA report on Sai Baba, their intel suggesting when it was written (who knows what they think now) his movement (they don't call it a cult) is set to become another major world religion. Do you get the point I'm making here? Best Regards. Objectiveap (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
We simply reflect what's in decent sources. You are writing lots of words but producing nothing useful for our purposes - more decent sources, particularly those considering the cult question, which are on point. So far as I can see, independent scholars see this movement as a cult, or at least as cult-like. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The CIA Document is not useful? The NY Times is not useful? The BBC is not useful? The Telegraph is not useful? The Times of India is Not useful? Time Magazine is not useful? etc. etc. etc. How many sources would you like? Do an unbiased (without the word cult in it) search on any source list and see what you come up with... majority do not refer to or regard it as a cult. I've done this on questia and on google and searched through all the things that came up (first 10 pages of google) and first ten relevant sources on questia. I posted those completely unbiased results on the talk page on the article. This is repeatable by you or anyone and NONE of them call it a cult. Objectiveap (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
University Press scholarly books are at the top of the quality tree. Other sources may be useful but you cannot base content on what they don't say. For the cult question we really need sources that weigh the matter, as the Chryssides source does above. Alexbrn (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Other sources most certainly are useful. And yes, people who weigh in on it in a scholarly way are definitely useful, those specifically addressing the criteria of what a cult is and whether particular organizations apply are hard to find, however. Headings must be handled with care. I just looked up the Thomas Jefferson article, nothing about him being a rascist in the heading, though many RS assert him as one. The bottom line is that it's not a majority RS opinion. It is not a fact. It's at best debatable, the passage you cited deliberately didn't call it a cult. It should not be in the heading. Objectiveap (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:OSE is never a good argument. Focusing on scholars specialising in NRMs, I see David C. Lane has written an essay.[2] Could maybe be useful as a self-published expert source per WP:SPS. Anyway the question is whether the movement is a cult, you seem over-focused on the dead leader. Alexbrn (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Two things to note here. He doesn't refer to it as a 'cult' in the article! But he does refer to Sai Baba as a "Spiritual Leader" (my contention of a good description, so he's agreeing with me). And two it's a skeptics website (self-published) not an RS in my opinion. Once again the source you are citing never actually calls it a cult; It's likely you can find some that do somewhere, but it is not generally done by RS and should not be done by Wikipedia in the heading. Objectiveap (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please make any further contribution on the articles' Talk pages. Alexbrn (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2018 (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.

Vegetarianism article[edit]

Hi, Alexbrn. I think you are still watching the Veganism article. But are you still watching the Vegetarianism article? I'm asking because I recently saw this edit and that no one seemed interested in reverting it. I do see that the addition was tweaked. You have been good at scrutinizing such edits and are a help on these matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I blanked my watchlist a few months ago in an effort to bring it to heel - I'll take a look. Alexbrn (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I've thought about blanking my huge watchlist instead of editing it, but there are so many articles that I need to keep on it. Anyway, thanks for taking a look. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

stop edit warring on kratom[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kratom. 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.
Stop taking ownership on kratom article. You and your three cohorts, if some of you are not socks, are now the minority. Next action will result in reporting.Ptb011985 (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing on Sathya Sai Baba Page[edit]

Not relevant here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2018 (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.

Your source to show that Sathya Sai Baba is a "cult leader" is not accurate as the new article is biased. Sathya Sai Baba is known as a spiritual leader and NOT a cult leader. His Organisations in India and around the world are spiritual organisations and NOT cult organisations. Refer to definition of cult: a religious group, often living together, whose beliefs are considered extreme or strange by many people. Sathya Sai Baba movement is NOT a religious movement, it is a spiritual movement which believes in the Unity of all faiths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyanaidu3715 (talkcontribs) 06:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at its Talk page - or in this case in the ongoing discussion at WP:NPOV/N. Please also be aware of WP:SPA and maybe WP:SOCK. Alexbrn (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2018 (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.


Not sure you meant this... Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Whoops no. Sorry must still be half asleep! Alexbrn (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Antipsychotics - long-term treatment in Schizophrenia[edit]

Discussion about article content belong on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2018 (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.

Alex, your way of keeping or removing references to the literature is very questionable: removing or leaving references without having read the papers and understanding their content and without knowing anything about the scientific debate surrounding them - but instead using some formal criteria which have nothing to do with the actual content of the paper but only where or by whom (ad hominem!) they were published is very unscientific and doesn't do the quality of wikipedia any good.

Are you actually aware of the debate surrounding the first RCT about long-term (7 years) outcome of antipsychotic treatment of schizophrenics (namely Wunderink L et al JAMA Psychiatry 2013)? You should probably keep your hands off topics you have no expertise in. Lucleon (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss article content on the article Talk page. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this won't solve the problem if people (like you for example) continue to edit pages without understanding the subject matter but instead applying criteria for good/bad references in a mechanistic way. It's not enough if an article ticks certain boxes (like meta-analysis or journal of high reputation) and at the same time it's not a criteria for exclusion if an article doesn't. After all it's the content of the article that counts. Then of course there will always be different views and different interpretations of the same results but that is how science is and it's not the case that a big meta-analysis by famous authors necessarily settles this issue (just look at the recent large meta-analysis on anti-depressants and the debate surrounding it). Therefore, there has to be certain level of understanding of the topic and a certain overview of the literature regarding that topic when writing or editing articles on (medical) science and I think everyone should be honest with himself and see his limits. Lucleon (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
You need to understand how an encyclopedia works, and knock off the presumption. A strong source is needed for a strong claim and sourcing sweeping asserted health claims to 14 year-old articles in Medical Hypotheses is a big no no. Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm talking about an article in PLoS Medicine from 2015. Which presumption? And btw, again you are not presenting any argument against the content of the article in Medical Hypotheses - which in my opinion is not so important anyway - but simply discredit the article by it's year of publication and where it was published. Lucleon (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucleon (talkcontribs) 19:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
An opinion piece in an iffy journal is similarly not useful. We have a decent source and it is now summarized without the spin you imparted. As I say, if you want to discuss article content take it to the article talk page. Please familiarize yourself with WP:MEDRS if you want to edit medical articles. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2018 (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.

PLoS Medicine an "iffy" journal?[edit]

If you really think PLoS Medicine is an iffy journal then you just demonstrated your complete incompetence about medical journals. I can only ask you to inform yourself. Lucleon (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

PLOS moved to bulk publishing a while ago to maintain revenues. In large part the journals these days are dumping grounds. Alexbrn (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
On which basis are you making these claims? PLoS is doing bulk publishing only in PLoS one and this is deliberate as it follows a different publishing model. The subject related PLoS journals have in general a good reputation but then again it's the content of an article that counts, not the packaging. The point of the publishing model of PLoS One is btw that the impact of a scientific article cannot be 'guessed' by a few reviewers and an editor at the time of publishing but only becomes clear years (if not decades) after publication. Therefore, this whole idea of rating articles before publishing and having journals of alleged higher quality is increasingly criticized and an increasing number of scientists suggest it should be abolished alltogether. Btw, did you know that there is data suggesting that in several fields the reliability of research may even be decreasing with increasing journal rank: (it's a review and it's from 2018). There is also the San Francisco Declaration of Research Assessment ( which partially goes in a similar direction (Stephen Curry, Provost at Imperial is the chair of the steering committee if that matters for you ...) Lucleon (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) the bigger issue is that PLoS piece is an essay, not a literature review;it fails MEDRS on that score alone.
Lucleon the way Wikipedia actually works is not intuitive, and if you keep being so combative instead of trying to actually understand how things work here, you are going to have a very unpleasant time here. Please have a look at User:Jytdog/How and try to get grounded in what Wikipedia actually is, and how it works. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, my point is, however, that I'm concerned with the way how this user judges the quality of scientific articles as I explained above. I'm even more concerned if he thinks PLoS Medicine is an iffy journal (while PLoS Medicine it's actually ranked 7th out 153 journals in the category "Medicine, General & Internal" regarding its citation statistics in 2014 as I just learned on wikipedia). Lucleon (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'm sorry if I offended someone; that was clearly not my aim. Please accept my apologies if I did. I don't see, however, in what way my above comment is combative. Calling PLoS Medicine an iffy journal demonstrates a lack of knowledge in the field of medical publishing. I'm worried if editors with such lack of knowledge are responsible for making judgments whether a paper is included or excluded in wikipedia pages on the medical sciences. The consequence is that most of my colleagues simply don't consider wikipedia a credible source and do not allow students to use references to wikipedia. My hope is that this can be changed because the idea of an online encyclopedia which is edited by everyone is just too good to be abolished and in there are indeed very good pages on wikipedia. But to do so, I'm simply asking everyone (incl. myself) to be a bit more modest here and make edits only where you have sufficient knowledge of the field. Lucleon (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Another (talk page stalker). But that would mean that I can only edit in the field of "Doggy Biscuits" so no. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 21:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Lucleon the editing community is actually very wary of people claiming great expertise and when someone shows up doing that, it raises eyebrows. See Essjay controversy. It really is true that on the internet nobody knows you are a dog.
Once you have been around a while and learn how things work (and I do hope you take the time and effort) you will see that when you edit in ways that are very strong under the policies and guidelines here, things go better. It is very common for new editors to make mistakes and be reverted. Just bumps in the learning curve. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I admit that my initial edit on the page wasn't good. It was made in a hurry and didn't reflect the controversy around that topic adequately. However, what is now there does neither. I also still believe this controversy should be on the wiki page and once I have time I will write a short paragraph. There is no final conclusion about this controversy but that is often the case in medicine and even in science: simply look at SSRI, they are used since >30 years and still people debate whether they are effective or not. If we only want to represent established knowledge we can stop after Newton - but wait - even that is only an approximation as we know since Einstein.... Lucleon (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your other (first) point: I think it should rather 'raise eyebrows' if someone demonstrates his incompetence (which we all have in many fields) but then makes bold claims which are not supported by facts; like this user at the beginning of this section. In contrast to that I have supported all my claims by additional material and references and I find it therefore rather weird to suggest I'm a fraudster. Lucleon (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
If you are saying that Alexbrn is incompetent, then you are demonstrating a total lack of understanding. I suggest you think again about what you are saying. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 22:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Please consider the whole discussion: What I'm saying is that Alexbrn is incompetent about medical journals. First, he says PLoS Medicine is an iffy journal. Then he claims PLoS moved to bulk publishing which is incorrect. Lucleon (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
You should consider that Alex has been an editor here for eleven years, and made about 35 thousand edits in that time. He knows our editorial policy very well. You have been here a couple of days and made perhaps a dozen edits, and haven't got a clue about how things work around here. You should stop this before you go too far. I don't think Alex will mind though. He's a reasonable chap. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 23:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
First of all I'm not talking about Alexbrn achievements as an editor and we are not discussing editorial policies here. I made clear in my previous comment that I'm talking about his statements about PLoS in general and PLoS medicine in particular. Those demonstrate a lack of knowledge of medical journals. Secondly, it's a critique of his knowledge in a certain field and it's not personal. I'm even saying "incompetence (which we all have in many fields)" to express that it's of course totally normal that we are not competent everywhere. Thirdly, Jytdog is saying on his page "the fundamental principle here that it doesn't matter who you are here - what matters is what you do here." and I couldn't agree more. Still, despite backing up all my claims I can be suggested to be a fraudster; nobody has a problem with that. At the same time when I express a justified critique of your long established editor Alexbrn - a critique to which no-one here as given any counter-argument yet (so I guess you know it's correct) - there is a problem. Fourth, I find a sentence like "You should stop this before you go too far" disconcerting because I'm not sure if I should take this as an implicit thread.Lucleon (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I've said all I intend to say. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 23:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes this is a complete waste of time. Lucleon if you become interested in learning let me know. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I actually found the discussion quite amusing. On the other hand it's worrying that people with so little knowledge about medical publishing and zero willingness to engage in a debate about it (there is not a single counter argument from you guys regarding the topic of this section), edit these pages with such over confidence. There are people who consult wikipedia for health advice. Lucleon (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Actually I see the journal was PLOS Medicine which unlike PLOS One, is one of the better journals in the PLOS stable. But the proposed source was still not useful. What we currently have (PMID 27802977) is fine, especially now it is not misrepresented. Alexbrn (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Alexbrn, that is a sign of greatness - hats off! Lucleon (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sex[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sex. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Atkins edit from 2016 Jun 23[edit]

I know it's been a while since you removed the Phases section on the Atkins diet page, but I just came across a page that points to one of the sub-topics in the Phases section: Low-carbohydrate diet. They were talking about ketogenics and referenced the Induction Phase. As it is no longer there, the link isn't as useful as it once was. Do you think we could put back a shortened version of the Phases? Not a complete revert as I agree that there is too much detail (How To), but at least some comments about the various Phases. That way the link will still be valid and useful.

Thanks, WesT (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably worth raising on the article Talk page. The nub, I think, will be whether there are some good secondary sources to establish weight. Alexbrn (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Outrageous revert warring[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Bacon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. GliderMaven (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly trying to force your edits is not following WP:BRD, now is it. Please take your outrage to the talk page and remember to WP:FOC. Alexbrn (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)