User talk:Alexbrn

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

Happy New New[edit]

My edsum said "we dont speculate" Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at MDPI shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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 you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on MDPI. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. I am not 'hypocritical', however you really ought to look at your own behaviour, especially reverting when i specifically asked to go to the talk page. twice. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Your continually just mashing the revert key while saying this should be on Talk does make you a hypocrite. I do not question your good faith. Alexbrn (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Banana Flour[edit]

Thanks for your comments about primary references for banana flour. I'll re-write the section using the numerous review articles shortly. RSWitwer (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)RSWitwer

Great - but appears to be only one secondary source on PUBMED, and it isn't about human health. So I suspect there may be no accepted knowledge on this topic we can relay. Alexbrn (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


Hello - I messaged you a few weeks ago about your undoing my edits to the curcumin page but have not received a response. Did you receive this message? As mentioned before, I disagree with the present wording on this page claiming no medicinal benefit from curcumin since successful human studies from independent labs refute this. I selected peer reviewed journal articles to support my edits. I believe a cautious tone regarding curcumin human benefit is more accurate that the dismissive one now present. Can we discuss this on the Talk page?

Below were my comments on the changes back then, which I still prefer. Please note that I I also plan to edit the "Research" section consistent with the above

Biologically, curcumin has been found to possess numerous desirable activities including anti-oxidation, anti-inflammation, anti-microbial and others and so has significant potential in treating various human pathologies and conditions (Mehta, Tasneem, Jamwal, Ramirez, Tabrizi, Khurana). However, “Curcumin has unclear medical use in spite of efforts to find one via both laboratory and clinical research. It is difficult to study because it is both unstable and not bioavailable. It is unlikely to produce useful leads for drug development.[3]“

From the sentence ““Curcumin has unclear (no confirmed) medical use in spite of efforts to find one via both laboratory and clinical research”, I removed “no confirmed” from this second line and replaced with “unclear” as successful human studies from independent labs refute the “no confirmed”. From the next sentence, I also removed “not” and replaced it with “poorly” bioavailable since curcumin has some bioavailability.

DNA0089 (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I replied but this has now been archived. You can find it here. Alexbrn (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Your Reversion of My Edits on Timothy Noakes and the Central Governor[edit]


Please discuss; I am genuinely baffled.Mikalra (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anthroposophic medicine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conception (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Foreskin article[edit]

Alexbrn, I know that you and Doc James watch the circumcision articles. And that Jytdog did when he was here. The Circumcision is on my watchlist, although I usually don't need to weigh in on anything there because you and Doc have everything handled there. Regarding the Foreskin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, though, Jytdog and I were the only WP:Med editors watching it. Well, Zad68 was as well, but Zad68 has been missing in action. And now that Jytdog is not here, I'm the only one watching it. The article seems to have been on Doc James's watchlist at one point, but that seems to no longer be the case. So because of this and other stuff I've seen with GenoV84's edits and those who edit like he does, I'm wondering if you and Doc wouldn't mind watching the Foreskin article as well. I know that you both already have enough articles on your watchlist. So do I. So I'll understand if you'd rather not watch this one. I can always drop a message at WP:Med and WP:Anatomy and see if anyone else is willing to help watch the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It's also worth looking into whether or not GenoV84 is Sugarcube73 (talk · contribs). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: The AAP's 2013 critical review of the 2012 circumcision policy and the Aktuelle Urologie review of both the AAP articles are both secondary sources, not primary sources, therefore i think that those two references should be restored; i'm aware of the WP:MEDRS but i couldn't find any secondary source for the BJU Int. 1996 and 2013 studies, so i decided to add them anyway because it's a high quality, peer-reviewed medical journal. Perhaps you could help me by telling me where to look and how to find secondary sources that are suitable for the WP:MEDRS.
By the way, the answer to your question is No, i'm not a sock-puppet, but you are free to check if you want.--GenoV84 (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
GenoV84, no need to ping me. There is no reason to add that old material. Why are you looking to add material from 1996? See WP:MEDDATE, which is a section of WP:MEDRS. As for you adding secondary sources (reviews or otherwise), one issue has been your distortion of the material and cherry picking. Jytdog noted this on your talk page. Did you decide to show back up to the Foreskin article because you know that Jytdog is no longer editing? As for you not being a sock, going by your edit history, you likely are not a sock of Sugarcube73, but your edit history very much indicates that you are a sock. Whose sock is the question. New editors generally don't even know about our WP:Sock terminology. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
And, yes, I consider your account new. It's new enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: I ping you because i'm talking with you, very simple. Sock-puppet is a common term used on the internet, not a big deal. As i said before, i'm not one, but you can check that out if you want. Also, i have to say that i've seen some cherry picking based on the material that was already on that page before i even started to edit that. I just tried to improve the page by adding reliable sources, as i always do. If you think that i misrepresented the informations that those references report, then i would suggest you to read them and write down what needs to be on that page.--GenoV84 (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
It matters not why you've pinged me when I've stated that I do not need to be pinged. Alexbrn's talk page is currently on my watchlist. And even if it wasn't, I'd check back for replies. As for sockpuppet, you state that and yet many of our new editors are clueless about that term. Listen, from your first substantial edit made as GenoV84 to this site, it's clear to anyone with significant experience editing here that you were no newbie when you showed up. Your early edits show that you knew that our internal links are called wikilinks. You knew of other things that our newbies almost always never know. I'm not interested in hearing the usual explanations that obvious non-new users give, such as "I used to edit as an IP." I'm not interested in reading any denials from you.
As for your editing, it has been problematic. Because of that, I do not trust any edits you make on the foreskin or circumcision topics. Your cherry picking has been demonstrated. You have not demonstrated that others have cherry picked. Also, not all journals and other sources are created equal. Some journals can be WP:Fringe, predatory open-access publishing, or simply WP:Undue with their primary sources or reviews. So you coming across a journal's review article doesn't automatically mean it should be used. The undue aspect is partly why WP:MEDDATE states, "While the most-recent reviews include later research results, this does not automatically give more weight to the most recent review (see recentism)." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: So, basically there's no way to determine whether a source is reliable or not? I'm sorry but now i'm very confused: those sources are both reliable, high quality and peer-reviewed medical articles, the one published by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the one published by the Thieme Medical Publishers, and yet we can't rely on them? I understand what you're trying to say, to keep my eyes open, but i don't think that this is the case.

Also... regarding the accuses of distortion and cherry picking on sources, i think it should be pointed out that the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision is a primary source, not a secondary source, therefore it shouldn't even be there, and yet it's used as a source! Can't you see the blatant cherry picking and violation of the WP:MEDRS right there? Let's be honest here... you've been pointing your finger at me from the very beginning, accusing me of anything, while there are other people than are allowed to write whatever they want on the Foreskin article and cite anything they want to, as long as it supports a pro-circumcision stance.--GenoV84 (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Not even Jytdog removed that source, quite the contrary... he didn't do anything about it and just continued to ignore the fact that the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report was a primary source, a blatant violation of the WP:MEDRS, therefore it couldn't be used on Wikipedia, but he didn't care because he was totally fine with that. You wanted a demonstration of cherry picking? Here you go.--GenoV84 (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Have you even taken the time to read WP:MEDRS? All of it? To comprehend it? I think not. You would not be confused if you took the time to understand WP:MEDRS. For example, WP:MEDRS is a guideline, not a policy, and primary sources are not banned. It's just that with regard to medical topics, their use is strongly discouraged. Per WP:MEDRS, they should generally be avoided for medical topics and biomedical topics (with few exceptions, such as society and culture matters). I did not state or imply that "there's no way to determine whether a source is reliable or not." But it is the case that WP:Fringe, predatory open-access publishing, WP:Undue and WP:Recentism matter. It is the case that context matters. Position statements by authoritative sources are absolutely allowed per WP:MEDRS. Let's be honest, you say? I have been. I have been "pointing [my] finger at [you] from the very beginning, accusing you of [things]" (not "anything") for valid reasons. The edit history of the Foreskin article and talk page history of that article do not support your claim that other people "are allowed to write whatever they want on the Foreskin article and cite anything they want to, as long as it supports a pro-circumcision stance." Your claim (in addition to your editing) also shows that, like Sugarcube73, you are here to push an anti-circumcision viewpoint. I am not about going by my personal views on Wikipedia. I'm about following the literature with WP:Due weight and accurately reflecting what reliable sources state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Good morning everyone! As it happens, I had taken this article off my watchlist. I'll take a look later today ... Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The 2018 Cure Award
In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 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 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


Hi Alexbrn -- at the in-progress RfC on COI for CAM practitioners, you said that COI was ruinous for a consensus-based collaborative project such as WP (in contrast to, e.g., Cochrane, where it's not as bad). Question, not as dumb as it may sound: how exactly does following COIADVICE address this problem? --Middle 8 (tc | privacyacupuncture COI?) 21:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It alerts the participants in the consensus-forming process to the fact that any point at issue has a tainted participant, and input from that participant can be viewed accordingly. Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
But wouldn't simple declaration -- as opposed to following COIADVICE, which pertains only to mainspace edits -- work just as well for that? --Middle 8 (tc | privacyacupuncture COI?) 08:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Practically, no, since the default Wikipedia practice is that edits are "nodded through". If I start watching a page on internet privacy and see an edit by an editor named xyz, how I am to know they are a Google employee (say)? Flagging up their edits on the talk page would make the COI aspect of their edit apparent. Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Equally, one could infer their profession if, say, they disclosed it every time they signed an edit. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyI haz acupuncture COI?) 09:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be unreasonable to put the onus onto every other editor to scour the talk page (archives even) to determine if a participant had a COI. Alexbrn (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

(Reverted to revision 880993860 by Benbest (talk): Rv. primary research; need WP:MEDRS (TW))[edit]

Further discussion belongs at the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2019 (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.

On the 30th of January you reverted my edit to the intestinal permeability article on the above grounds. I have been traveling, and have only just returned to respond to your reversion. The justification of your reversion seems a little obscure to me, but it seems to me you are claiming that the two citations I gave lack scientific merit, or that I am engaging in "original research". Both of the citations I gave were to peer-reviewed journal reviews cited in PubMed. Did you look at either of those reviews? Causal Relationship between Diet-Induced Gut Microbiota Changes and Diabetes: A Novel Strategy to Transplant Faecalibacterium prausnitzii in Preventing Diabetes mentions "leaky gut" four times. Probiotics, prebiotics and amelioration of diseases not only contains "leaky gut" four times, but one of those references are in the keywords section. Please either give a reasonable justification for your reversion, or undo the reversion. --Ben Best:Talk 17:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article's Talk page. We need decent sources, not flimsy Chinese research and/or stuff from predatory journals. Alexbrn (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2019 (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.


Hi, just a quick note that MEDRS applies exclusively to biomedical information. No need to insist on MEDRS compliance when sourcing a doctor's career. — kashmīrī TALK 08:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Depends on how much biomedical content is in the "career" description: so if we're going to convey the fact in Wikipedia's voice that there was a "successful head transplant between two human cadavers" (whatever the fuck that is meant to mean), then MEDRS does apply. Articles should be based on secondary sources in any case - undue use of fringe/primary content is bad: there was too much of this at Sergio Canavero. Alexbrn (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, fully agree here. Still - the mention of his earlier publication was undue and self-promo and you rightly deleted it, but not a medrs issue IMHO. BTW, I am also extremely sceptical of the guy's claims. — kashmīrī TALK 09:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi Alexbrn - I'm relatively new here, thanks for your comments on the revision. I'd be grateful for your input - here are some of the issues that I see with the page now:

Neutral point of view •The assertion that “there is no evidence that it is beneficial to health, and it may be harmful”, forces one particular point of view over another, the use of the word ‘may’ implies an opinion, not a fact. And this statement has not allowed for the inclusion of opposing prominent views which can be referenced.

Verifiability •The second reference does not verify or support the statement that it references and conflates the efficacy (or lack thereof) of Essiac with an entirely different product, Flor Essence. •Reference 4, is referencing the formulation and ingredients for Flor Essence, not Essiac •“However, this has never been substantiated” This is stating an opinion as fact. It has been substantiated by Rene Caisse’s memoir and referenced in Clinic of Hope, The Story of Rene Caisse , Written by Donna Ivey, who managed information research in business libraries in Toronto. Can reference. •Reference 3 – it’s well documented, including support in reference 2 that the formulation does not use Turkey Rhubarb, it uses Indian rhubarb – all of those ingredients grow and have been widely available in north America for a long time. •‘Killed test animals’- no reference is made to this apparent statement of fact •Reference 5 – “Essiac may interact with some types of cancer treatment so it is very important to tell your doctor if you are thinking of taking Essiac” This quote is found nowhere in the referenced material. •‘Increased cancer growth’, reference 6, this is referring to Flor Essence, not Essiac. •Looser regulation – The tone here is biased, the FDA does indeed regulate dietary supplements as food, not drugs and forces the manufacturer to ensure the product is safe and effective, similar to any food product. •‘Fake cancer cures the FDA should avoid’ – reference 7 link not working.

Basically, there are a number of statements that not supported by proper references. Should we send a request for administer attention based on unreliable and unsupported sources? Thanks for your expertise. Gerald.T.Munro (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article's Talk page, where I will reply. For incidents that require administrator attention, use WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Gua sha[edit]

Hi. I saw you added the sources banner after I completed a major re-write. Why add this now? RobP (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! As it currently stands there's primary medical sources that fail WP:MEDRS - this notes that. If nobody gets there earlier, I'm planning to take another look at the article tomorrow. Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Baking soda cancer cure[edit]

I still don't understand what I did wrong. I'm new on english wikipedia and I'm not used to your "jargon", yet. But I'm editing in good faith. I'm an expert in oncology (see my page), my "reverters" aren't, so I insist. Sorry for the troubles. MedecinMadinina (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

You are editing a list article which is meant to be a summary of content which exists in other articles on Wikipedia - so Sodium bicarbonate is the principal article. More particularly, we are not going to use some primary rat experiments to imply that baking soda has any therapeutic potential for cancer. Please discuss further at Talk:Sodium bicarbonate. If you continue edit-warring, you will get blocked. Alexbrn (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for your prompt action on Treatments for PTSD! Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! There's still a heap wrong with Treatments for PTSD though! Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


Would you mind elaborating on the issues with my edits to the Protandim page.

It currently states "unsupported claims", which I would argue to be bias as there is some support in certain claims.

I was also trying to add some relevant studies, nothing that should be bias just some information I gathered from an NIA study.

If you have any relevant information to disprove my information please share! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how this is useful. Wikipedia's stance against medical advice is one of the reasons I made my edit. Wikipedia should simply be a non-biased source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
You were adding unreliably-sourced material. Please discuss article content at the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Things you learn about yourself on Wikipedia[edit]

Today I discovered I am a "fan of altmed"![1] Damn - my cover's blown! Alexbrn (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ralph Northam[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ralph Northam. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Restless legs syndrome[edit]

Hello, I saw that you reverted my addition to this article citing WebMD as a source. Why do you say thath WebMD is unreliable? If so, shouldn't the rest of the sentence (which also cites WebMD) also be deleted? jej1997 (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably. Please discuss on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Curcumin page edits[edit]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sarah Wilson (journalist)[edit]

Hi Alexbrn. Thank you for your message. I don't have a WP:COI in relation to this page. I don't know Sarah Wilson. I added information after reading about this issue from blog entries and I believe my changes/additions did not seek to present information in a biased way (I tried to write only about what had been published "according to..." etc) or promote the living person. Teratix ₵ trimmed back my additions which must have been too wordy. Thank you for adding a link that leads to the Twitter exchanges. I didn't see them before and see your point entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fransplace (talkcontribs) 06:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back! Alexbrn (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

PTSD treatments sourcing questions[edit]

Hello, Thanks for your work on this page. I just have a question about your assessment of the sources used for this article / page: the alternative treatment sources are all from scholarly journals / and or university secondary articles. Given this fact, can the sources used be described as unreliable?

Here is one example of a source used:

Grodin, Michael; et al. (2008). "Treating Survivors of Torture and Refugee Trauma: A Preliminary Case Series Using Qigong and T'ai Chi". Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 14 (7): 801–806. doi:10.1089/acm.2007.0736. PMC 2745908. PMID 18803491.

Thank you, J

Depends what use is intended. For claims of therapeutic worth, a fringe journal won't do. Please discuss content questions at the article talk page. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis[edit]

Hello. You have recently !voted 'oppose' under my proposal on Talk:Answers in Genesis, justifying your !vote by stating that, "the proposed version is unclear and its English a bit wonky". Can you please explain why you believe the version is unclear and what exactly made you conclude that "its English is a bit wonky"? Furthermore, I would advise you to look carefully into the current version, whose English is also questionable, as it contains a confusing dangling modifier in 'which'. Finally, if English and lack of clarity are your only concerns, consider my initial proposal, which simply adds "on the basis that the Bible, unlike science, is infallible" to the existing version.OlJa 12:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


Could you explain a little more why you thought my sources were unreliable and reverted the change? Ten Beard (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ten Beard, have you reviewed WP:MEDRS yet? Can you explain whether or not the sources you included met the requirements of WP:MEDRS? I would pay particular attention to the WP:MEDDATE and WP:MEDASSESS sections. Jayjg (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

1st warning[edit]

Please stop Alex - there is no reason for you to be edit warring at Cherry juice. Everything I've added is cited to RS - one of which is a literature review and study review. You removed all the sources except one which was uncalled for and unnecessary. Atsme Talk 📧 14:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Kindly discuss at the article talk page. WP:BRD can be a civilized way to proceed, rather than repeatedly trying to force your edits - particularly when it's being suggested there is a WP:V problem with your text. Alexbrn (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rigel[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rigel. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Grammatical question[edit]

Would you say "more critically endangered than any other group of species" or "more critically endangered than any other species group"? Atsme Talk 📧 17:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

They're both fine, but if forced I'd choose the first because it's probably clearer to non-native English speakers. Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
☑Y TY Atsme Talk 📧 17:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rocket Lab[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rocket Lab. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Chemtrail conspiracy theory edits[edit]

Although I understand you may not agree with my changes to the Chemtrail conspiracy theory article, I would appreciate you providing a reason for undoing my edits rather than reverting without comment. This is part of the guidelines given here

Thank you ahpook (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I did leave a comment. For the avoidance of doubt, we're not going to caption a photo as being of "chemtrails" because chemtrails do not exist. Alexbrn (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dental dam[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dental dam. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome[edit]

Hi Alex, can you please elaborate on how my edit was marked as "unreliable/spam"? PNAS is a reputable source, and the result of the research groundbreaking and of high interest.

Hello there! Primary research is generally not reliable for medical content - see WP:MEDRS. Please continue any further discussion at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


Hello Alexbrn Regarding the Turmeric wikipedia page, are you the editor? Respectfully, when I wrote the part of the article I added, I used a neutral voice throughout and did remind readers that the research I was presenting was still preliminary and was still in the very early stages of clinical trials/pilot trials. I do not understand what it is about my work that comes off as biased or not neutral. In my view, I am simply stating what I have read in my sources. As I put in the editing comments, six of my eight sources are primary literature sources. Doesn't that mean anything? Also, thank you for reaching out! I am new here and that was a kind gesture that is much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turmericiscool (talkcontribs) 15:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! The page has hundreds of editors. Primary sources are not considered reliable for biomedical information per WP:MEDRS. Please continue any further discussion on this at Talk:Turmeric. Alexbrn (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Placebo[edit] Hey Alexbrn, I am curious why you reverted the edit? I have provided a more accurate description of potential biases in studies investigating placebo effects. Why is the source poor? It is an article in a peer-reviewed journal. It proposes new ways to overcome methodological problems in researching the placebo effect. As Hróbjartsson has pointed out in his meta-analyses, there is a lack of blinding in previous studies examining placebo effects. Thus, it was not possible to disentagle different biases (e.g. patient-practicioner) from possible placebo effects. This new approach proposes a way to actually disentagle these effects. Have you actually read the study? Borkert (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Journals from Frontiers Media have a poor reputation, and are generally not considered reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Wikipedia also has a poor reputation with a lot of people. Whereas this might be true for some topic pages on Wikipedia, others might be very valid and reiable. There is variation. The same is true for articles on Frontiers. In my opinion, rejecting all of the articles in Frontiers right from the bat without reading them (and assessing their quality) is a simple but not a useful way of moving forward. After all, the journals are peer-reviewed and the most reputable researcher can publish there. Regarding the article I cited, I see no problems. Borkert (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source either. Sources are required to have a good reputation. If some claim really is the "accepted knowledge" we are meant to be reflecting, it should be easy to find a good source that supports it. Alexbrn (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning. And I agree that this is true for old information thas has been around for some time. However, regarding new developments and solutions this might not be true. Regarding my edit: I think it is fairly straightforward that using mobile apps for investigating placebo effects can be a solution for several methodological problems in placebo research, as many biasing factors associated with the face-to-face interaction can be controlled and disentagled. I am convinced that this information is very important for advancing progress in this area of research. However, as I see it, a lot of individuals (I am not implying that you are part of them - but now after your reverting of my edit, I have seen the edit wars that are going on here) don't like this area of research to progress and would rather see it remaining at the current stage. This topic seems to be substantially ideologically charged. This is very unfortunate. Borkert (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
But you haven't got a reliable source to support that in an article. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
(talk page gnome) ... don't like this area of research to progress and would rather see it remaining at the current stage Or not being a journal to advance such research, Wikipedia usually only reports about what is already mainstream. —PaleoNeonate – 12:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey Roxy the dog, thanks for joining the fun. To both of you: is there any official recommendation by the Wikimedia Foundation to not cite articles published in Frontiers' journals?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Borkert (talkcontribs) 12:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

──────────── "is there any official recommendation by the Wikimedia Foundation" ← of course not, such matters are not their business. Alexbrn (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Are there any other consensus recommendations not to include Frontiers articles in Wikipedia? Borkert (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
You might want so search WP:RS/N or WT:MED or see this recent RfC or consult WP:CRAPWATCH. Another disqualifying issue with the source is that it is not secondary, so would fall afoul of WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV even if it appeared in a decent journal. Alexbrn (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thanks Alexbrn for providing me with the links. I think the following quote is interesting:

Linked above are two related noticeboard sections; in both I endeavored to suss out the perceived problems or reliability issues that caused the text to be deleted. In both sections, the reactions were wide ranging, with the only consensus being that Frontiers journals are not blacklisted across Wikipedia. The "open access" journals were for a time added to "Beall's list", controversially, which you can read about in this Nature article. A comparison of Frontiers Media and The Lancet articles shows that controversy and retractions are not uncommon, and don't necessarily speak to the overall quality of content.

— petrarchan47คุก 09:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the secondary source issue: the article in my edit is not an empirical paper - it is a methodological paper. As such it is not a primary source using empirical data. Secondly, even if it was a primary source, the use of primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources. This is not the case in my original edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Borkert (talkcontribs) 13:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
It is billed as a "Hypothesis and Theory" article. If the authors' "hypothesis and theory" gets traction in reputable secondary sources (to establish WP:WEIGHT) then it might have a place in Wikipedia. Until then, it does not. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I am happy that you actually took a look at the article. Borkert (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
A lot of the information discrediting Frontiers seems to be outdated. Also Beall's list is not being updated any more. Furthermore, there are also other quality indicators. Frontiers in Psychiatry has an impact factor of 2.9. Borkert (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
As detailed in our Frontiers Media article, the dodginess continues. You have your answer about this source, I don't think any further discussion here will be fruitful. Alexbrn (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I think the problem with such discussions is that facts don't matter as much as they should because people are gridlocked and are afraid of losing face (or being perceived as having less "power" on Wikipedia if they yield). Confirmation bias might also have a big effect on both sides. Having said that I appreciate your time and your relatviely constructive approach. However, I continue to think that the edit would be a great improvement for the Wikipedia article. Borkert (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if you have actively participated in the peer-review and publishing process so far. Journals are no homogeneous entities. Quality varies depending on the editors and the peer reviewers. Thus, if a journal has independet peer review, the validity of articles published in it should not be rejected right from the bat.Borkert (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The problem is if a journal is "hit and miss" how does one know what is what? It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to perform such expert sifting which is why WP:RS requires reputable sources, and readers can be assured our content is WP:verifiable. There is such a universe of great sources Wikipedia isn't using, I always wonder at editors arguing to use comparatively weak ones. Alexbrn (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Let's hope that both of us learned something out of this discussion. Borkert (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:5G[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:5G. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting edits just because you don't like them.[edit]

Better at article talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2019 (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.

Dear Alex, this is the second time that you reverted an edit by me calling it unreliable. The last time it happened was in the circumcision article. The source clearly indicates that neonates develop heighthened pain response if circumcised *without adequate pain relief*. In the previous text of the Wikipedia article it was not clear that this happens only after inadequate pain relief. You can read the sources and come to the same conclusion. I would like to ask you to READ first and then, if you still think that something is unreliable, please give a reason before you revert anyone's edit. Yuri7474 (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article's Talk page. Please be aware of our WP:MEDRS sourcing guidance, and remember that WP:EWing is naughty. Alexbrn (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

My main point is that you revert edits without adequate explanations. That is why I talk to you here and not at the talk pages of the articles where it happened. My sources are ok, and again, if you think they are not, you should give reasons - just referring to the sourcing guidance is not good enough, Alex. And concerning edit wars. I don't believe I started one. I am a reasonable person and if a person gives a valid reason for a revert, I have no problem with it. Yuri7474 (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Please learn to WP:INDENT your posts. I gave a reason, you just don't agree. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor seeking inclusion. In such situations, WP:BRD offers one reasonable way to proceed. I note you have initiated no discussion of the disputed edits, but are edit warring instead; that will not end well for you. Alexbrn (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You did not give a reason at all. You need to understand that just saying that a source is not reliable without saying why,is not giving a reason at all. If there is an edit war at all, you started it by doing this, namely reverting an edit without giving a reason. Don't worry, discussions have been initiated. Yuri7474 (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2019 (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.

Sahaja Yoga article[edit]

Hi Alex, just wondering why you reverted my change to the "Role of Women" section of the Sahaja Yoga article. I had added some material and provided a better context for that first quote which also appears in Judith Coney's book on the subject. I also provided a good rationale on the talk page. You have reverted the change without any explanation. Could you please discuss this on the talk page because I believe my changes were an improvement and I have not removed any sourced material. Freelion (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Sahaja Yoga. 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. Freelion (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @Freelion: Where was the evidence of talk page consensus before restoring per WP:BRD? —PaleoNeonate – 02:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The edits I made were constructive, with plenty of notes made on the talk page inviting discussion. Alexbrn has merely been reverting the page back to his version without engaging in any discussion. His edit summaries have consisted of "gobbledygook" and false accusations about misrepresentation. He's effectively shutting down the discussion and is displaying "ownership of Wikipedia" traits. Freelion (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
At some point this is going to need to go to WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I have made three changes to the article today which I believe comply with Wikipedia rules. My reasoning is also laid out on the talk page. If you disagree with any of the changes, please discuss them individually on the talk page instead of reverting everything as you keep doing. Your behaviour has so far been obstructive and tendentious and I will have no choice but to report you if this goes on. Freelion (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Please discuss content on the article's Talk page, and strive for consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Freelion: I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talkcontribs) 11:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, again you are reverting my edits which have been discussed fully on the talk page. Again you are accusing me of edit warring when you are the one reverting and not addressing numbered points on the talk page. Freelion (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I have addressed the points, you just don't like the answers. In contrast, while you are continuing to try and force your edits, you have failed to pursue dispute resolution by responding to questions at WP:FT/N, where there is an open thread on Sahaja Yoga. Alexbrn (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
You have not addressed the points. There are 7 numbered points and you have given 4 flippant one word answers. You are mocking the process! I've answered the question at WP:FT/N and since there is nothing happening there, I've suggested continuing the discussion on the article talk page. Your recent edit summary "edit-warring/whitewash & excessive quotation" is nonsense and here is why:
  1. The edits were discussed on the talk page with no adequate reply from yourself, so it's not an edit war.
  2. It's not whitewashing because there was no unsourced material added, nothing was rephrased, only some contentious material was removed as discussed on the talk page – again where you have not adequately addressed many numbered points.
  3. It's not excessive quotation because no quotes were added. They were only reformatted as quotes to add clarity. Freelion (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Edit warring isn't justified by a WP:CPUSH on the talk page. You are continuing to remove the text you "don't like" (as other have said), while failing to pursue dispute resolution as you said you would. I have raised this at WP:FT/N to see if we can get a wider consensus: the Abgrall material needs to be in the article in one form or another. Alexbrn (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Freelion (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You should have listened to Doug Weller. Alexbrn (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Bates method woo[edit]

The neutral point of view article states that the content of the article in question must be represent fairly and proportionately all significant views published, without editorial bias. The article in question has very little or inaccurately transcribed information that cites the author's book, and is composed mostly of other sources which are biased in nature. "Quackery Watch" is not going to be neutral with respect to this article. At best, the edits made introduces more content by the author into the article, to proportionately offset the majority of biased sources. As per the second point "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." this was not met in the article. Most of the few points that exist with respect to the author's book are stated as opinions, most of what editorials say are stated as direct facts. The introduction very little says anything about the doctor's research and more about criticism, misguiding for new readers on the subject starting with the first sentence. It can not be called "ineffective" based on one biased article. Perhaps this conversation belongs in the talk page of the article I'm not sure.

Keysandbridges (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! We must base articles on secondary sources; pseudoscience and fringe theories are clearly identified as such. Please continue any further discussion on the article's Talk page. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sharyl Attkisson[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sharyl Attkisson. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kundalini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing Yoga articles.[edit]

Can I ask why you are going through many Yoga articles and editing them when you don't appear to be involved in any sort of Yoga practice?

How can you be qualified to write and edit on a subject you know very little about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwin3881 (talkcontribs) 01:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a good thing to avoid editing on topics where was has no one has a conflict of interest. Also see WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC); amended 23:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is like a large book on many subjects. An author who knows nothing about Neuroscience cannot write a book on Neuroscience can he/she? I still don't understand how you can think yourself qualified to write on Yoga unless you practice or study some form of it. While I have practiced both Yoga and Pranayama (old Indian term for Breathwork) I do not consider myself biased as I have made no material gain from the practice. Also I am not qualified nor do I seek to be qualified to teach either of the above. Darwin3881 (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is a summary of accepted knowledge as found (generally) in secondary sources. Editors require little or no understanding of the underlying subject matter to edit - they require the ability to understand and summarize these applicable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page gnome) The WP:EXPERT essay, while not policy, also has relevant information. —PaleoNeonate – 01:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)