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 ( talk • contribs) 07:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Why were the changes removed, before they were completed, without any comment or discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellomino ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 5 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. 99.33.66.112 ( talk) 19:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Please how do I upload lab results and endless photos I have personally taken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBLUF ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
HDMotion ( talk) 00:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
... 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.
Please make any further contribution on the articles' Talk pages. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 06:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Not sure you meant this... Jytdog ( talk) 05:38, 5 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)
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)
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)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sex. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Atypical antipsychotics". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 March 2018.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
08:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Atypical antipsychotics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
17:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lists of earthquakes. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Apache OpenOffice. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Next time, you should better read the changes, then delete what's wrong and leave in peace what's good - rather than removing 7,200 bytes at once. The reader should know what actually happened to this mentioned Jeanna Giese (I did not retrieve the whole old version - maybe you haven't noticed that). The last paragraph was complying with the current view on the matter, and had New England Journal of Medicine as one of the sources. BasileusAutokratorPL ( talk) 12:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello Alexbrn--You often seem to know what is going on around here, especially with the alt. med. articles. I was looking at Nascent Iodine and find that patents are used as references for a variety of statements. Can you please direct me to where this would be best asked about or discussed? Thanks. Desoto10 ( talk) 03:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
May I ask kindly for You to elaborate on why You consider this source and the reference on pre - clinical findings as unreliable. The article is found on EBSCO and PubMed: https://www.dovepress.com/oncolytic-virotherapy-including-rigvir-and-standard-therapies-in-malig-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-OV.
Thank You! DRJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Richard Jones ( talk • contribs) 12:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The 2017 Cure Award |
In 2017 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 03:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sci-Hub. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed your deletion of my paragraph and would like a chance to argue for its reasonableness and accuracy. BSmith821 ( talk) 18:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Alexbrn. I responded to your note on sanctions at Talk:Functional medicine, but I also wanted to reach you on your Talk page. I started editing Wikipedia in December, so I'm still new and finally beginning to learn what is a surprisingly intricate set of rules, standards, and community norms. I'm taking this seriously, as all Wikipedia editors should, and many do.
As I noted at Talk:Functional medicine, if you could explain the discretionary sanctions to me, or offer any advice as to how I can constructively edit Wikipedia in this area, I would appreciate it. I know functional medicine is a controversial article, and edits to it shouldn't be taken lightly. However, there are problems with the article that, in my opinion, need to be addressed. I am trying to work with the Wikipedia community to make those changes, not work against other volunteers or force changes that don't meet the community's standards or guidelines. This isn't just about content in the functional medicine article. I've developed an appreciation for how Wikipedia is made. I want it to be the best resource that it can be for its readers. How do we make this happen? Dr. Bob in Arizona ( talk) 20:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Ref the mindfulness research; you mean Lancet not acceptable to wiki? thanks actually I see from /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/draft#Avoid_over-emphasizing_single_studies,_particularly_in_vitro_or_animal_studies you probably mean only a single study, with no secondary source back up. thanks . JCJC777
--Allforrous 11:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
NightHeron (
talk •
contribs)
14:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
NightHeron (
talk)
21:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Open access in Italy. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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.
Sorry but it seems that edit warring is ok for some but not others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breachdyke ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I was moving some stuff about to impose some kind of structure, but got an edit conflict and your edit was better so you win :-)
Applying MEDRS is an excellent first step, and will also reduce the incidence of Kaptchuk's dodgy studies, so have at it. Gøtzsche's an interesting guy, I sat with him and David Colquhoun at a Health Watch dinner. He really doesn't like psychotropics! Guy ( Help!) 08:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Fresh off his block, rtc has started reverting again. What's to be done? Guy ( Help!) 22:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I reverted to an older version of Negative-calorie food which means some of your recent changes got reverted too because they were made to a version of the article that I think had problems. Can you please have a look and see if you think any of your edits should be redone? Thanks. Deli nk ( talk) 22:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vitamin B3. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Just to say that the deluded ravings of the crankosphere
made my day. —
Paleo
Neonate –
06:47, 5 July 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.
Quite a fan of tu quoque, I see... since you were the one reverting (without satisfying the edit summary rationale) and I was the one who opened the talk-page discussion.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Atkins Diet. 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.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. TP ✎ ✓ 12:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trypophobia. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Alex,
Several years ago you did some deleting to an entry I created for Expertscape, a website that I have an interest in. We would like to be included in Wikipedia, if possible. But while I've created a new entry for submission, we would prefer it if someone not affiliated with the site did so instead. Would you be able to review what I've posted and make it acceptable to Wikipedia standards?
/info/en/?search=Draft:Expertscape
Thanks for any help you can provide.
Brendan B4chex11 ( talk) 14:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by B4chex11 ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
For /info/en/?search=Draft:Expertscape, trying very hard not to have WP:COI so would appreciate editing/guidance on what else is needed. The site is frequently referenced by major health institutions and medical experts, who have asked us to post a Wikipedia page that they can refer to. B4chex11 ( talk) 14:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dressed to Kill (book). Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Please open an AfD to request merge. I will gladly accept the outcome. The only participates were from WP:FRINGE please open AfD. Valoem talk contrib 18:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- 89.243.179.116 ( talk) 06:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anesthesiologist. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey! I think you misclicked here or misjudged. I was undoing censorship and possibly COI edits. HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 06:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time series database. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I saw that you put a notice about discretionary sanctions on my page about the Royal Rife article. While I totally understand why you reverted the edits of the other editor who was trying to promote his pseudoscience as science and was filling the article with POV information, I was just doing routine editing, and was actually improving the quality of the article. I fixed poorly formatted citations, added information about his influences, and was adding references. I also took POV and other inappropriate parts out of the lead. I'm curious to know why you reverted those edits. It seems to imply that the article can no longer be edited. And it's not in great condition.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I reverted Pol098, it included an explicit statement that the placebo effect is real based on fMRI, which of course cannot distinguish from classical conditioning and can find that desd fish think. Guy ( Help!) 06:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
In your edit in 2015 [3] you added a ref to the sentence Germanium is not considered essential to the health of plants or animals, but the reference does not include the statement. -- Stone ( talk) 10:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Alexbrn,
please could you comment on your edit here. I found that the link to one of the webpages is slow loading but not a deadlink (WHO one), the other link loads quicker. The summary lets readers know that there might very well be harms and that is my honest opinion which is backed up by numerous reseach also mentioned in the two sources. I know more sources or a better summary is possible. Please let me know what you meant.
Regards from Canada, Kmw2700 ( talk) 16:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of missing aircraft. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The article Adipose tissue is classified as an article within the Project Biology and has in its reference list a mix of reviews and primary sources. Your removal of the information referring to a primary article of a study in mice arguing that it doesn't fit the referencing rules in Project Medicine is somewhat strange to me https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Adipose_tissue&oldid=864464136. Why would this particular reference not fit when roughly half of the references are primary sources? Olle Terenius (UU) ( talk) 15:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Alexbrn. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Alexbrn. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a prolific editor on Wikipedia but I do try to occasionally add fully referenced materials about notable Australian women (primarily writers). I'm an academic and so I have nothing personal to gain by fleshing out and correcting such articles. I recently added a number of edits and corrections to Sarah Wilson's entry and it looks like you took them off? As I was trying to improve the credibility of the entry, I'm not sure why? Anyway, I will try to add some more robust references to back up my changes but if you can provide some helpful feedback it would be appreciated. Thank you. Writingtask — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writingtask ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
18:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you removed a signed talk page post based on a credible source by an established editor rather than simply replying to it. Perhaps you made a mistake & thought it was the article page rather than the talk page?-- Philologia ( talk) 21:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
[4], I have never seen anything like this on Wikipedia before. Skeptic from Britain ( talk) 12:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Could we take disagreements about edits to Abortifacient to the talk page? I very much hope that we can reach agreement or compromise, perhaps with input from other editors. If we can't, and if other editors don't come in, then we can try RfC.
Please note that Abortifacient, like all abortion-related articles, is RR1-protected. You reverted the sentence sourced to John Riddle twice in less than 4 hours. My edit summary when I restored the sentence suggested taking this to the talk page, which would really be preferable. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 12:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I would just like to understand your reasoning behind the recent reversals of edits to this page.
Thanks, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMArmstrong97 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 6 December 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.
It is unhelpful for you to revert edits 2x in a row without offering any explanation. If you review WP:DONTREVERT you will see "for a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edited must actually make the article worse". You claim it wasn't an improvement without specifying why, but that in and of itself is not enough to justify a reversion. Thanks 2604:2000:E0CF:5100:C571:7F7A:8095:E3FF ( talk) 05:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
At Talk Vitamin C, questioned your removal of ref and text about vitamin C and lung cancer. My opinion - meets MEDRS. Please reply there. David notMD ( talk) 22:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Alex,
I would like you to reconsider your deletion.
I understand that you have deleted this because you say Diabetes Australia is a patient advocacy group and is therefore not a reliable source of medication information.
(1) The article already includes positions from the American and Australian Heart foundations. These are very similar patient advocacy groups. (2) In Australia, Diabetes Australia sets the medical advice for diabetes management. It is the co-author with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) for that. That sets the trusted advice used by all doctors in Australia for diabetes management. [1] You will note the Diabetes Australia logo on the cover. (3) By formally recognising the use of low carbohydrate diets for T2DM management in this position statement, that option is effectively added to the official medical advice for T2DM in Australia. There is no higher or better authority for medical advice for T2DM in Australia. No other governmental or medical authority supercedes that advice.
On that basis I do not believe your deletion reason is valid and respectfully request that you restore my edits which are valid and correct.
MetabolicMadness ( talk) 15:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
References
Greetings,
I have recently received the following from yourself...it appears to be a sort of 'form letter':
" Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at John A. McDougall. 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) 10:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)"
Pardon me, but I believe that the only "war" being waged here is by yourself!
May I ask why you are so vehemently adamant that the article on John A. McDougall should remain so patently biased and critical? After all - it's supposed to be an ENCYCLOPAEDIC entry - not a platform for such assertions as "fad diet" and "boring food choices" - which are OPINION, and not fact (see edit history notes.)
Sincerely, MCCV — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCCV ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
You accused me of using sock puppets. Did you have any evidence or good reason to believe that was the case? (I'm assuming the accusation was made in good faith). Is it because my signature doesn't always match my username? A low-carb high fat dieter ( talk) 21:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why it's different. I changed my username years ago and don't see anywhere in my profile or settings where the low-carb high fat dieter name is. I can assure you I only have one account and haven't used any others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarbShark ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
You are biased against low-carb diets Alexbrn, I have written about this on twitter to Jimmy Wales [5] Angela A Stanton ( talk) 15:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey, this article was recently created F-Factor (diet). As you are an experienced editor in this area, I wanted to ask your advice. I personally think it is a good first article creation attempt and certainly should not be deleted as some reliable sources exist. Problem is, the diet is newish so there hasn't really been much of a reception. Any ideas what to do? MatthewManchester1994 ( talk) 17:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Wrt your edit here. I don't think that is accurate. The article is about the KD treatment for epilepsy, which has nearly 100 years of usage as a clinical therapy. The other possible treatments for some other neurological issues are all very much at the research stage, with none I know of even approaching wide use never mind official clinical guidelines anywhere. The "other applications" is a short paragraph in a long feature article that comprehensively covers the epilepsy treatment and is completely focussed on the epilepsy treatment (e.g. efficacy, indications, induction, etc). Would you please consider reverting? -- Colin° Talk 17:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Good afternoon - I see that you have disputed and reversed my edits on this page under the justification "Still unreliable". Why exactly? I also would like to make a number of changes to the "Research" section but decided to start with the first section for now (which you responded to) DNA0089 ( talk) 23:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC) - DNA0089
I don't understand why you consider unrealiable this study on 190.000 patients:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)-- Skyfall ( talk) 00:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
Hello Alexbrn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Low-carbohydrate diet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortality ( 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) 09:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Just a heads up that someone posted claiming to be you on Malcolm Kendrick's blog. If it wasn't you, you might want to ask to get it removed. - Bilby ( talk) 15:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey Roxy, now "you" are posting too. [7] Alexbrn ( talk) 12:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 07:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Why were the changes removed, before they were completed, without any comment or discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellomino ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 5 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. 99.33.66.112 ( talk) 19:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Please how do I upload lab results and endless photos I have personally taken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBLUF ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
HDMotion ( talk) 00:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
... 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.
Please make any further contribution on the articles' Talk pages. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 06:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Not sure you meant this... Jytdog ( talk) 05:38, 5 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)
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)
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)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sex. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Atypical antipsychotics". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 March 2018.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
08:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Atypical antipsychotics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
17:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lists of earthquakes. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Apache OpenOffice. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Next time, you should better read the changes, then delete what's wrong and leave in peace what's good - rather than removing 7,200 bytes at once. The reader should know what actually happened to this mentioned Jeanna Giese (I did not retrieve the whole old version - maybe you haven't noticed that). The last paragraph was complying with the current view on the matter, and had New England Journal of Medicine as one of the sources. BasileusAutokratorPL ( talk) 12:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello Alexbrn--You often seem to know what is going on around here, especially with the alt. med. articles. I was looking at Nascent Iodine and find that patents are used as references for a variety of statements. Can you please direct me to where this would be best asked about or discussed? Thanks. Desoto10 ( talk) 03:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
May I ask kindly for You to elaborate on why You consider this source and the reference on pre - clinical findings as unreliable. The article is found on EBSCO and PubMed: https://www.dovepress.com/oncolytic-virotherapy-including-rigvir-and-standard-therapies-in-malig-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-OV.
Thank You! DRJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Richard Jones ( talk • contribs) 12:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The 2017 Cure Award |
In 2017 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 03:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sci-Hub. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed your deletion of my paragraph and would like a chance to argue for its reasonableness and accuracy. BSmith821 ( talk) 18:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Alexbrn. I responded to your note on sanctions at Talk:Functional medicine, but I also wanted to reach you on your Talk page. I started editing Wikipedia in December, so I'm still new and finally beginning to learn what is a surprisingly intricate set of rules, standards, and community norms. I'm taking this seriously, as all Wikipedia editors should, and many do.
As I noted at Talk:Functional medicine, if you could explain the discretionary sanctions to me, or offer any advice as to how I can constructively edit Wikipedia in this area, I would appreciate it. I know functional medicine is a controversial article, and edits to it shouldn't be taken lightly. However, there are problems with the article that, in my opinion, need to be addressed. I am trying to work with the Wikipedia community to make those changes, not work against other volunteers or force changes that don't meet the community's standards or guidelines. This isn't just about content in the functional medicine article. I've developed an appreciation for how Wikipedia is made. I want it to be the best resource that it can be for its readers. How do we make this happen? Dr. Bob in Arizona ( talk) 20:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Ref the mindfulness research; you mean Lancet not acceptable to wiki? thanks actually I see from /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/draft#Avoid_over-emphasizing_single_studies,_particularly_in_vitro_or_animal_studies you probably mean only a single study, with no secondary source back up. thanks . JCJC777
--Allforrous 11:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
NightHeron (
talk •
contribs)
14:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
NightHeron (
talk)
21:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Open access in Italy. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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.
Sorry but it seems that edit warring is ok for some but not others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breachdyke ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I was moving some stuff about to impose some kind of structure, but got an edit conflict and your edit was better so you win :-)
Applying MEDRS is an excellent first step, and will also reduce the incidence of Kaptchuk's dodgy studies, so have at it. Gøtzsche's an interesting guy, I sat with him and David Colquhoun at a Health Watch dinner. He really doesn't like psychotropics! Guy ( Help!) 08:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Fresh off his block, rtc has started reverting again. What's to be done? Guy ( Help!) 22:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I reverted to an older version of Negative-calorie food which means some of your recent changes got reverted too because they were made to a version of the article that I think had problems. Can you please have a look and see if you think any of your edits should be redone? Thanks. Deli nk ( talk) 22:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vitamin B3. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Just to say that the deluded ravings of the crankosphere
made my day. —
Paleo
Neonate –
06:47, 5 July 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.
Quite a fan of tu quoque, I see... since you were the one reverting (without satisfying the edit summary rationale) and I was the one who opened the talk-page discussion.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Atkins Diet. 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.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. TP ✎ ✓ 12:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trypophobia. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Alex,
Several years ago you did some deleting to an entry I created for Expertscape, a website that I have an interest in. We would like to be included in Wikipedia, if possible. But while I've created a new entry for submission, we would prefer it if someone not affiliated with the site did so instead. Would you be able to review what I've posted and make it acceptable to Wikipedia standards?
/info/en/?search=Draft:Expertscape
Thanks for any help you can provide.
Brendan B4chex11 ( talk) 14:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by B4chex11 ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
For /info/en/?search=Draft:Expertscape, trying very hard not to have WP:COI so would appreciate editing/guidance on what else is needed. The site is frequently referenced by major health institutions and medical experts, who have asked us to post a Wikipedia page that they can refer to. B4chex11 ( talk) 14:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dressed to Kill (book). Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Please open an AfD to request merge. I will gladly accept the outcome. The only participates were from WP:FRINGE please open AfD. Valoem talk contrib 18:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- 89.243.179.116 ( talk) 06:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anesthesiologist. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey! I think you misclicked here or misjudged. I was undoing censorship and possibly COI edits. HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 06:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time series database. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I saw that you put a notice about discretionary sanctions on my page about the Royal Rife article. While I totally understand why you reverted the edits of the other editor who was trying to promote his pseudoscience as science and was filling the article with POV information, I was just doing routine editing, and was actually improving the quality of the article. I fixed poorly formatted citations, added information about his influences, and was adding references. I also took POV and other inappropriate parts out of the lead. I'm curious to know why you reverted those edits. It seems to imply that the article can no longer be edited. And it's not in great condition.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I reverted Pol098, it included an explicit statement that the placebo effect is real based on fMRI, which of course cannot distinguish from classical conditioning and can find that desd fish think. Guy ( Help!) 06:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
In your edit in 2015 [3] you added a ref to the sentence Germanium is not considered essential to the health of plants or animals, but the reference does not include the statement. -- Stone ( talk) 10:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Alexbrn,
please could you comment on your edit here. I found that the link to one of the webpages is slow loading but not a deadlink (WHO one), the other link loads quicker. The summary lets readers know that there might very well be harms and that is my honest opinion which is backed up by numerous reseach also mentioned in the two sources. I know more sources or a better summary is possible. Please let me know what you meant.
Regards from Canada, Kmw2700 ( talk) 16:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of missing aircraft. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The article Adipose tissue is classified as an article within the Project Biology and has in its reference list a mix of reviews and primary sources. Your removal of the information referring to a primary article of a study in mice arguing that it doesn't fit the referencing rules in Project Medicine is somewhat strange to me https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Adipose_tissue&oldid=864464136. Why would this particular reference not fit when roughly half of the references are primary sources? Olle Terenius (UU) ( talk) 15:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Alexbrn. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Alexbrn. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a prolific editor on Wikipedia but I do try to occasionally add fully referenced materials about notable Australian women (primarily writers). I'm an academic and so I have nothing personal to gain by fleshing out and correcting such articles. I recently added a number of edits and corrections to Sarah Wilson's entry and it looks like you took them off? As I was trying to improve the credibility of the entry, I'm not sure why? Anyway, I will try to add some more robust references to back up my changes but if you can provide some helpful feedback it would be appreciated. Thank you. Writingtask — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writingtask ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
18:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you removed a signed talk page post based on a credible source by an established editor rather than simply replying to it. Perhaps you made a mistake & thought it was the article page rather than the talk page?-- Philologia ( talk) 21:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
[4], I have never seen anything like this on Wikipedia before. Skeptic from Britain ( talk) 12:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Could we take disagreements about edits to Abortifacient to the talk page? I very much hope that we can reach agreement or compromise, perhaps with input from other editors. If we can't, and if other editors don't come in, then we can try RfC.
Please note that Abortifacient, like all abortion-related articles, is RR1-protected. You reverted the sentence sourced to John Riddle twice in less than 4 hours. My edit summary when I restored the sentence suggested taking this to the talk page, which would really be preferable. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 12:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I would just like to understand your reasoning behind the recent reversals of edits to this page.
Thanks, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMArmstrong97 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 6 December 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.
It is unhelpful for you to revert edits 2x in a row without offering any explanation. If you review WP:DONTREVERT you will see "for a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edited must actually make the article worse". You claim it wasn't an improvement without specifying why, but that in and of itself is not enough to justify a reversion. Thanks 2604:2000:E0CF:5100:C571:7F7A:8095:E3FF ( talk) 05:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
At Talk Vitamin C, questioned your removal of ref and text about vitamin C and lung cancer. My opinion - meets MEDRS. Please reply there. David notMD ( talk) 22:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Alex,
I would like you to reconsider your deletion.
I understand that you have deleted this because you say Diabetes Australia is a patient advocacy group and is therefore not a reliable source of medication information.
(1) The article already includes positions from the American and Australian Heart foundations. These are very similar patient advocacy groups. (2) In Australia, Diabetes Australia sets the medical advice for diabetes management. It is the co-author with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) for that. That sets the trusted advice used by all doctors in Australia for diabetes management. [1] You will note the Diabetes Australia logo on the cover. (3) By formally recognising the use of low carbohydrate diets for T2DM management in this position statement, that option is effectively added to the official medical advice for T2DM in Australia. There is no higher or better authority for medical advice for T2DM in Australia. No other governmental or medical authority supercedes that advice.
On that basis I do not believe your deletion reason is valid and respectfully request that you restore my edits which are valid and correct.
MetabolicMadness ( talk) 15:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
References
Greetings,
I have recently received the following from yourself...it appears to be a sort of 'form letter':
" Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at John A. McDougall. 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) 10:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)"
Pardon me, but I believe that the only "war" being waged here is by yourself!
May I ask why you are so vehemently adamant that the article on John A. McDougall should remain so patently biased and critical? After all - it's supposed to be an ENCYCLOPAEDIC entry - not a platform for such assertions as "fad diet" and "boring food choices" - which are OPINION, and not fact (see edit history notes.)
Sincerely, MCCV — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCCV ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
You accused me of using sock puppets. Did you have any evidence or good reason to believe that was the case? (I'm assuming the accusation was made in good faith). Is it because my signature doesn't always match my username? A low-carb high fat dieter ( talk) 21:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why it's different. I changed my username years ago and don't see anywhere in my profile or settings where the low-carb high fat dieter name is. I can assure you I only have one account and haven't used any others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarbShark ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
You are biased against low-carb diets Alexbrn, I have written about this on twitter to Jimmy Wales [5] Angela A Stanton ( talk) 15:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey, this article was recently created F-Factor (diet). As you are an experienced editor in this area, I wanted to ask your advice. I personally think it is a good first article creation attempt and certainly should not be deleted as some reliable sources exist. Problem is, the diet is newish so there hasn't really been much of a reception. Any ideas what to do? MatthewManchester1994 ( talk) 17:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Wrt your edit here. I don't think that is accurate. The article is about the KD treatment for epilepsy, which has nearly 100 years of usage as a clinical therapy. The other possible treatments for some other neurological issues are all very much at the research stage, with none I know of even approaching wide use never mind official clinical guidelines anywhere. The "other applications" is a short paragraph in a long feature article that comprehensively covers the epilepsy treatment and is completely focussed on the epilepsy treatment (e.g. efficacy, indications, induction, etc). Would you please consider reverting? -- Colin° Talk 17:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Good afternoon - I see that you have disputed and reversed my edits on this page under the justification "Still unreliable". Why exactly? I also would like to make a number of changes to the "Research" section but decided to start with the first section for now (which you responded to) DNA0089 ( talk) 23:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC) - DNA0089
I don't understand why you consider unrealiable this study on 190.000 patients:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)-- Skyfall ( talk) 00:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
Hello Alexbrn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Low-carbohydrate diet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortality ( 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) 09:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Just a heads up that someone posted claiming to be you on Malcolm Kendrick's blog. If it wasn't you, you might want to ask to get it removed. - Bilby ( talk) 15:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey Roxy, now "you" are posting too. [7] Alexbrn ( talk) 12:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)