Your article Quantum Kognition
Welcome, and thank you for
contributing the page
Quantum Kognition to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It currently has been listed at
Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you.
WadeSimMiser (
talk) 21:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Adaptogen, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Also be aware of
WP:COI.
Zefr (
talk) 22:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 | This account has been
blocked temporarily from editing for
sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans
may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to
make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by first reading the
guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
Alex Shih
Talk 11:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC) |
Anonymous.psy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I guarantee that I have not used multiple accounts and that I did not behave in any way that is in conflict with any of Wikipedias rules. I am a new Wikipedia member (a research scientists) and I added some information to the highly biased page titled "adaptogens". My account was almost immediately blocked (for no reason) after doing so. Again, I guarantee that I have not abused multiple accounts and that I only tried to contribute objective information extracted from the pertinent scientific literature
Decline reason:
So you're telling us it's entirely a coincidence that you, an IP editor and AlexanderPanossian added links to the same Panossian research paper (which does not meet the standards required of sources for medical content explained at WP:MEDRS)? That's difficult to believe. But even if that were true, in this edit you blatantly misrepresent the position of the FDA in order to present adaptogens as more established than they actually are. That's obviously a) not scientific literature and b) highly inappropriate. You're also not quite new; this account is several years old. Huon ( talk) 02:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Anonymous.psy ( talk)Anonymous.psy
Anonymous.psy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am not a sock puppet and I am not associated with anyone related to the article in question. Why am I still blocked after several months? P.S. I only used wikipedia several times as an "active" user, i.e., these were my versy first posts. Anonymous.psy ( talk) 10:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Whether this account is a sockpuppet or not, and whether you are "associated with anyone related to the article" or not, your editing has clearly been designed to promote a point of view about a concept and about a person. Moreover, in order to do so you have grossly misrepresented sources. In the very unlikely event that you honestly think that "Claiming that a product was in a class that is not recognizable to health care professionals or consumers as intended for use to diagnose, mitigate, treat, cure or prevent disease (e.g., an 'energizer,' a 'rejuvenative,' a 'revitalizer,' or an 'adaptogen') would not constitute a disease claim under this criterion" constitutes the FDA using the word "adaptogen" in such a way as to lend respectability to the term, as you implied, then you lack the competence to edit properly. Likewise, the paper from the European Medicines Agency to which you refer makes it explicitly clear that the authors do not consider the concept "adaptogen" to be sufficiently supported by evidence to be accepted for use, and citing that paper as support for use of the term is either incompetent or disingenuous. It doesn't make a lot of difference which of those two is the case, because unblocking an editor whose sole activity is to edit for promotional purposes, and who misrepresents sources in order to do so, would not benefit the project, whether the cause of the misrepresentation is lack of understanding or lack of good faith. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 21:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Dear JamesBWatson, many thanks for you response. I am very new to wikipedia and made less than 5 edits. You state that it does not matter if I am sockpuppet or not because I have "grossly misinterpreted sources". I think it does make a difference because interpretation is obviously subjective and being a sockpuppet is not. Moreover, it was not my interpretation but the statement about the DEA was adapetd from the following paper (with citation): http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.327.5902&rep=rep1&type=pdf Moreover, I recommend you have a look at the following scientific references which all explicitly utilize the disputed term "adaptogens" in the title. I do not claim that all articles meet the highest scientific standards but then one can ask the question about the fallibility of science and the probabilistic nature of its statistical methods. Moreover, one should not be biased towards "western" mainstream journals. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332217326240 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128021477000164 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0944711308002250 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2222180812602072 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378874106004223 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378874106004223 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123964540000345 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0944711311800255
I ask again: please unblock me. "Potential" misinterpretation of resources should not constitute a reason for an infinite ban... Many thanks! Anonymous.psy ( talk) 11:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Anonymous.psy
Anonymous.psy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I do not agree with the validity of the arguments. However, even if they were valid - will I be blocked forever for allegedly citing an unreliable resource? I'm a very unexperienced wikipedia user and would like to gain more experience! (and I'm definetly not a sockpuppet! I don't think the burden of proof is on my side). Please unblock my account... Anonymous.psy ( talk) 00:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Yes, you can be blocked for edits that promote a viewpoint while misusing sources even if you aren't a sockpuppet. See
"Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization", so unless you stop to promote the "adaptogen" concept we most likely won't unblock you.
And no, we don't want "unbiased" articles, we want articles that give
due weight to significant/mainstream viewpoints, which for the purpose of biomedical articles generally means
WP:MEDRS compliant sources. Experimental/empirical data on their own are often too unreliable for Wikipedia's medical articles,
Wikipedia:Why MEDRS? isn't a policy but it does explain many issues well.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
P.S. And please compare the German wikipedia page on the topic "adaptogens". It is much more substantial and unbiased than the English version: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptogen
I do not understand why you decline my request. I am not a sock puppet. This should be obvious and I do not carry the burden of proof. Moreover, I am in no relation whatsoever with Alexander Panossian. I came across his article by coincidence. It is well written and definitely meets scientific standards. He cites a lot of experimental/empirical data which has been published in scientific journals with high impact factors (have a look at the references section, it's quite intertesting). I agree that the term "adaptogens" might be a somewhat "fuzzy concept". However, have a look at the associated German Wikipedia page on adaptogens - it is much more detailed and less biased: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptogen However, this is all besides the point. The reason why I have been blocked is based on the assumption that I'm a sock puppet. This is clearly not the case. Therefore, please remove the block asap. Then we can have a informed discussion about the underlying science (e.g., BDNF, Neurogenesis, Synaptogenesis, ect. pp.). My intentions are good and I have not done anything wrong! Many thanks for you time. I wish you a nice day. Anonymous.psy ( talk) 10:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Anonymous.psy
I'm not a WP:DUCK! unblock please
Anonymous.psy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Your reason here Please unblock my account. The reason why Im blocked is "Abusing multiple accounts: WP:DUCK". This has nothing to do with the scientific validity of the concept "adaptogen". I am not a duck and therefore my block should be lifted. If the reason for the block is the misuse of the term or anything else related to the discussion than this should be mentioned as a reason (and not the wrong accusation of being a duck). Moreover, the term adaptogen is widely used in the scientific literature and the German wikipedia page contains a lot of valuable information on the underlying neuropharmacological mechanisms of action. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptogen (see the long list of pertinent scientific studies). Moreover, the German wikipeadia entry is much more objective and does not discredit the concept in a prejudiced and biased manner. Again, I am not a sock puppet and I have not done anything which would justify such a long block. Moreover, I provided countless scientific references. This looks to me as if the editors are trying to discredit the concept "adaptogens" without consulting the empirical evidence first. You are all familiar with the concept "edit wars" and the suspicion that the pharmaceutical industry is using wikipedia to discredit alternative non-patented natural pharmaceuticals and medicines which have been used for thousands of years (e.g., ayurveda, tcm). Especially the contemporary literature on neurochemistry is very rich and deserves to be mentioned in the article. For example see /info/en/?search=Withanolide or /info/en/?search=Schisandrin Further references which make explicit use of the term: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332217326240 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128021477000164 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0944711308002250 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2222180812602072 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378874106004223 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378874106004223 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123964540000345 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0944711311800255 Please unblock - I'm clearly not a duck and the burden of proof does rest on my side! I request an apology for the wrong accusation which is merely based on unfounded suspicion (or perhaps labelling someone as a duck is strategically used by admins to silence unwanted contributors.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I choose not to make a determination on your block, because I wish to comment on your sources, and doing both would lay me open to a charge of involvement.
- I have read all of the sources to which you refer, noting as I do that that are all from the same common source and to some extent demonstrate common authorship: to label them as being sound scientific sources does little more than to clarify that the opinion you hold regarding the validity of scientific sources does not accord with the opinion held by the large majority of reputable authorities in the field. Ignoring the fact that one reference is quoted twice in identical form, these references vary between been straightforward commercial advertisements for herbal products and presentations written in what I can only assume is intentionally almost impenetrable jargon. I agree that these articles use the word "adaptogen"; this does confer any validity to the concept, which is dismissed uniformly as non-meaningful by a large number of qualified and expert sources. As of course you know. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 14:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
When you say that the concept Adaptogen "is dismissed uniformly as non-meaningful by a large number of qualified and expert sources" you need to provide evidence for your strong claim.
Here is empirical evidence which falsifies your "uniformity-claim". The following publications all utilise the term Adaptogen (independent from their quality and results):
Bocharov, E. V., Ivanova-Smolenskaya, I. A., Poleshchuk, V. V., Kucheryanu, V. G., Il’Enko, V. A., & Bocharova, O. A. (2010). Therapeutic efficacy of the neuroprotective plant adaptogen in neurodegenerative disease (Parkinson’s Disease as an Example). Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine, 149(6), 682–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10517-010-1023-z
Shanely, R. A., Nieman, D. C., Zwetsloot, K. A., Knab, A. M., Imagita, H., Luo, B., … Zubeldia, J. M. (2014). Evaluation of Rhodiola rosea supplementation on skeletal muscle damage and inflammation in runners following a competitive marathon. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 39, 204–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2013.09.005
Abidov, M., Grachev, S., Seifulla, R. D., & Ziegenfuss, T. N. (2004). Extract of Rhodiola rosea radix reduces the level of C-reactive protein and creatinine kinase in the blood. Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine, 138(1), 63–64. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BEBM.0000046940.45382.53
Morozov, I. S., Ivanova, I. A., & Lukicheva, T. A. (2001). Actoprotector and adaptogen properties of adamantane derivatives (a review). Pharmaceutical Chemistry Journal. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011905302667
Khanum, F., Bawa, A. S., & Singh, B. (2005). Rhodiola rosea: A versatile adaptogen. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2005.tb00073.x
Grünwald, J., Stier, H., Bruhn, S., & Goyvaerts, B. (2011). Rhodiola rosea: Ein Adaptogen bei Burn-out. Zeitschrift Fur Phytotherapie, 32(4), 161–163. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1271340
Domene, A. M. (2013). Effects of adaptogen supplementation on sport performance. A recent review of published studies. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 8(4), 1054–1066. https://doi.org/10.4100/jhse.2013.84.15
Mendes, F. R., Tabach, R., & Carlini, E. A. (2007). Evaluation of Baccharis trimera and Davilla rugosa in tests for adaptogen activity. Phytotherapy Research, 21(6), 517–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.2080
Goepp, J. (2010). A new way to manage menopause: regain hormonal balance with cutting-edge adaptogen. Life Extension, 16(6), 26–32. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=2010655263&site=ehost-live%5Cnhttp://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=51236789&S=R&D=awh&EbscoContent=dGJyMNLe80Sep7I4y9f3OLCmr02ep7JSrqe4TbWWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMOzpsEm0rrNI
Kulakowski, D. M., Wu, S. B., Balick, M. J., & Kennelly, E. J. (2014). Merging bioactivity with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry-based chemometrics to identify minor immunomodulatory compounds from a Micronesian adaptogen, Phaleria nisidai. Journal of Chromatography A, 1364, 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2014.08.049
Abbai, R., Mathiyalagan, R., Markus, J., Kim, Y. J., Wang, C., Singh, P., … Yang, D. C. (2016). Green synthesis of multifunctional silver and gold nanoparticles from the oriental herbal adaptogen: Siberian ginseng. International Journal of Nanomedicine, 11, 3131–3143. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S108549
Singh, N., (Mrs.) Nath, R., (Miss) Lata, A., Singh, S. P., Kohli, R. P., & Bhargava, K. P. (1982). Withania somnifera (ashwagandha), a rejuvenating herbal drug which enhances survival during stress (an adaptogen). Pharmaceutical Biology, 20(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.3109/13880208209083282
Suthanurak, M., Sakpakdeejaroen, I., Rattarom, R., & Itharat, A. (2010). Formulation and stability test of BJ adaptogen tablets for cancer treatment. Planta Medica, 76(12), 160–163. Retrieved from http://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&from=export&id=L70447518http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1264400http://sfx.umd.edu/hs?sid=EMBASE&issn=00320943&id=doi:10.1055/s-0030-1264400&atitle=Formulation+and+stability+test+of+BJ+adaptogen+
Produis, P. A., Manukhina, E. B., Bulanov, A. E., Wikman, G., & Malyshev, I. Y. (1997). Adaptogen ADAPT modulates stress-induced HSP70 synthesis and improves organism’s resistance to heat shock. Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine, 123(6), 548–550.
Mendes, F. R., & Carlini, E. A. (2007). Brazilian plants as possible adaptogens: An ethnopharmacological survey of books edited in Brazil. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 109(3), 493–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2006.08.024
Suslov, N. I., Churin, A. A., Skurikhin, E. G., Provalova, N. V, Stal’bovskii, A. O., Litvinenko, V. I., & Dygai, A. M. (2002). [Effect of natural nootropic and adaptogen preparations on the cortex bioelectrical activity in rats]. Eksp Klin Farmakol, 65(1), 7–10.
Zini, E., Clamer, M., Passerotti, S., Vender, C., Vendramin, G. G., & Komjanc, M. (2009). Eight novel microsatellite dna markers in Rhodiola rosea L. Conservation Genetics, 10(5), 1397–1399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-008-9704-0
Panossian, A., Wikman, G., Kaur, P., & Asea, A. (2012). Adaptogens stimulate neuropeptidey and Hsp72 expression and release in neuroglia cells. Frontiers in Neuroscience, (FEB). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2012.00006
Kulkarni, S. K., & Dhir, A. (2008). Withania somnifera: An Indian ginseng. Progress in NeKulkarni, S. K., & Dhir, A. (2008). Withania somnifera: An Indian ginseng. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2007.09.011
Skopińska-Rózewska, E. (2009). Immunotropic and anti-tumor effects of plant adaptogens. I. Panax ginseng. Central-European Journal of Immunology.
Gospodaryov, D. V, Yurkevych, I. S., Jafari, M., Lushchak, V. I., & Lushchak, O. V. (2013). Lifespan extension and delay of age-related functional decline caused by Rhodiola rosea depends on dietary macronutrient balance. Longevity & Healthspan, 2(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-2395-2-5
Collisson, R. J. (1991). Siberian Ginseng (Eleutherococcus senticosus Maxim.). British Journal of Phytotherapy, 2(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4377-2333-5.00087-0
Lyle, N., Gomes, A., Sur, T., Munshi, S., Paul, S., Chatterjee, S., & Bhattacharyya, D. (2009). The role of antioxidant properties of Nardostachys jatamansi in alleviation of the symptoms of the chronic fatigue syndrome. Behavioural Brain Research, 202(2), 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2009.04.005
Gupta, V., Saggu, S., Tulsawani, R. K., Sawhney, R. C., & Kumar, R. (2008). A dose dependent adaptogenic and safety evaluation of Rhodiola imbricata Edgew, a high altitude rhizome. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 46(5), 1645–1652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2007.12.027
Rai, D., Bhatia, G., Palit, G., Pal, R., Singh, S., & Singh, H. K. (2003). Adaptogenic effect of Bacopa monniera (Brahmi). Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 75(4), 823–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0091-3057(03)00156-4
Khanna, K., Mishra, K. P., Ganju, L., & Singh, S. B. (2017). Golden root: A wholesome treat of immunity. Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2016.12.132
Vorob’eva, L. I., Khodzhaev, E. Y., Novikova, T. M., Mulyukin, A. L., Chudinova, E. M., Kozlova, A. N., & El’-Registan, G. I. (2013). Stress-protective and cross action of the extracellular reactivating factor of the microorganisms of the domains Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota. Microbiology, 82(5), 594–599. https://doi.org/10.1134/s0026261713050159
Choi, M. S., Kwon, K. J., Jeon, S. J., Go, H. S., Kim, K. C., Ryu, J. R., … Ko, K. H. (2009). Schizandra chinensis alkaloids inhibit lipopolysaccharide-induced inflammatory responses in BV2 microglial cells. Biomolecules and Therapeutics, 17(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.4062/biomolther.2009.17.1.47
Lyle, N., Gomes, A., Sur, T., Munshi, S., Paul, S., Chatterjee, S., & Bhattacharyya, D. (2009). The role of antioxidant properties of Nardostachys jatamansi in alleviation of the symptoms of the chronic fatigue syndrome. Behavioural Brain Research, 202(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2009.04.005
etc. pp.
- @ Anthony Bradbury: I think it may be time to yank TPA because the editor just does not appear to be getting it. Septrillion ( talk) 02:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
|
| This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks, then appeal to the
Unblock Ticket Request System or the
Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l lists.wikimedia.org.
Ad Orientem (
talk) 20:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC) |
Anonymous.psy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #21471 was submitted on May 09, 2018 13:11:13. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 13:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Anonymous.psy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #21697 was submitted on Jun 03, 2018 02:01:31. This review is now closed.
Your article Quantum Kognition
Welcome, and thank you for
contributing the page
Quantum Kognition to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It currently has been listed at
Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you.
WadeSimMiser (
talk) 21:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Adaptogen, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Also be aware of
WP:COI.
Zefr (
talk) 22:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
|
| This account has been
blocked temporarily from editing for
sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans
may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to
make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by first reading the
guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
Alex Shih
Talk 11:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC) |
Anonymous.psy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I guarantee that I have not used multiple accounts and that I did not behave in any way that is in conflict with any of Wikipedias rules. I am a new Wikipedia member (a research scientists) and I added some information to the highly biased page titled "adaptogens". My account was almost immediately blocked (for no reason) after doing so. Again, I guarantee that I have not abused multiple accounts and that I only tried to contribute objective information extracted from the pertinent scientific literature
Decline reason:
So you're telling us it's entirely a coincidence that you, an IP editor and AlexanderPanossian added links to the same Panossian research paper (which does not meet the standards required of sources for medical content explained at WP:MEDRS)? That's difficult to believe. But even if that were true, in this edit you blatantly misrepresent the position of the FDA in order to present adaptogens as more established than they actually are. That's obviously a) not scientific literature and b) highly inappropriate. You're also not quite new; this account is several years old. Huon ( talk) 02:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Anonymous.psy ( talk)Anonymous.psy
Anonymous.psy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am not a sock puppet and I am not associated with anyone related to the article in question. Why am I still blocked after several months? P.S. I only used wikipedia several times as an "active" user, i.e., these were my versy first posts. Anonymous.psy ( talk) 10:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Whether this account is a sockpuppet or not, and whether you are "associated with anyone related to the article" or not, your editing has clearly been designed to promote a point of view about a concept and about a person. Moreover, in order to do so you have grossly misrepresented sources. In the very unlikely event that you honestly think that "Claiming that a product was in a class that is not recognizable to health care professionals or consumers as intended for use to diagnose, mitigate, treat, cure or prevent disease (e.g., an 'energizer,' a 'rejuvenative,' a 'revitalizer,' or an 'adaptogen') would not constitute a disease claim under this criterion" constitutes the FDA using the word "adaptogen" in such a way as to lend respectability to the term, as you implied, then you lack the competence to edit properly. Likewise, the paper from the European Medicines Agency to which you refer makes it explicitly clear that the authors do not consider the concept "adaptogen" to be sufficiently supported by evidence to be accepted for use, and citing that paper as support for use of the term is either incompetent or disingenuous. It doesn't make a lot of difference which of those two is the case, because unblocking an editor whose sole activity is to edit for promotional purposes, and who misrepresents sources in order to do so, would not benefit the project, whether the cause of the misrepresentation is lack of understanding or lack of good faith. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 21:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Dear JamesBWatson, many thanks for you response. I am very new to wikipedia and made less than 5 edits. You state that it does not matter if I am sockpuppet or not because I have "grossly misinterpreted sources". I think it does make a difference because interpretation is obviously subjective and being a sockpuppet is not. Moreover, it was not my interpretation but the statement about the DEA was adapetd from the following paper (with citation): http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.327.5902&rep=rep1&type=pdf Moreover, I recommend you have a look at the following scientific references which all explicitly utilize the disputed term "adaptogens" in the title. I do not claim that all articles meet the highest scientific standards but then one can ask the question about the fallibility of science and the probabilistic nature of its statistical methods. Moreover, one should not be biased towards "western" mainstream journals. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332217326240 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128021477000164 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0944711308002250 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2222180812602072 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378874106004223 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378874106004223 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123964540000345 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0944711311800255
I ask again: please unblock me. "Potential" misinterpretation of resources should not constitute a reason for an infinite ban... Many thanks! Anonymous.psy ( talk) 11:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Anonymous.psy
Anonymous.psy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I do not agree with the validity of the arguments. However, even if they were valid - will I be blocked forever for allegedly citing an unreliable resource? I'm a very unexperienced wikipedia user and would like to gain more experience! (and I'm definetly not a sockpuppet! I don't think the burden of proof is on my side). Please unblock my account... Anonymous.psy ( talk) 00:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Yes, you can be blocked for edits that promote a viewpoint while misusing sources even if you aren't a sockpuppet. See
"Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization", so unless you stop to promote the "adaptogen" concept we most likely won't unblock you.
And no, we don't want "unbiased" articles, we want articles that give
due weight to significant/mainstream viewpoints, which for the purpose of biomedical articles generally means
WP:MEDRS compliant sources. Experimental/empirical data on their own are often too unreliable for Wikipedia's medical articles,
Wikipedia:Why MEDRS? isn't a policy but it does explain many issues well.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 20:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
P.S. And please compare the German wikipedia page on the topic "adaptogens". It is much more substantial and unbiased than the English version: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptogen
I do not understand why you decline my request. I am not a sock puppet. This should be obvious and I do not carry the burden of proof. Moreover, I am in no relation whatsoever with Alexander Panossian. I came across his article by coincidence. It is well written and definitely meets scientific standards. He cites a lot of experimental/empirical data which has been published in scientific journals with high impact factors (have a look at the references section, it's quite intertesting). I agree that the term "adaptogens" might be a somewhat "fuzzy concept". However, have a look at the associated German Wikipedia page on adaptogens - it is much more detailed and less biased: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptogen However, this is all besides the point. The reason why I have been blocked is based on the assumption that I'm a sock puppet. This is clearly not the case. Therefore, please remove the block asap. Then we can have a informed discussion about the underlying science (e.g., BDNF, Neurogenesis, Synaptogenesis, ect. pp.). My intentions are good and I have not done anything wrong! Many thanks for you time. I wish you a nice day. Anonymous.psy ( talk) 10:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Anonymous.psy
I'm not a WP:DUCK! unblock please
Anonymous.psy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Your reason here Please unblock my account. The reason why Im blocked is "Abusing multiple accounts: WP:DUCK". This has nothing to do with the scientific validity of the concept "adaptogen". I am not a duck and therefore my block should be lifted. If the reason for the block is the misuse of the term or anything else related to the discussion than this should be mentioned as a reason (and not the wrong accusation of being a duck). Moreover, the term adaptogen is widely used in the scientific literature and the German wikipedia page contains a lot of valuable information on the underlying neuropharmacological mechanisms of action. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptogen (see the long list of pertinent scientific studies). Moreover, the German wikipeadia entry is much more objective and does not discredit the concept in a prejudiced and biased manner. Again, I am not a sock puppet and I have not done anything which would justify such a long block. Moreover, I provided countless scientific references. This looks to me as if the editors are trying to discredit the concept "adaptogens" without consulting the empirical evidence first. You are all familiar with the concept "edit wars" and the suspicion that the pharmaceutical industry is using wikipedia to discredit alternative non-patented natural pharmaceuticals and medicines which have been used for thousands of years (e.g., ayurveda, tcm). Especially the contemporary literature on neurochemistry is very rich and deserves to be mentioned in the article. For example see /info/en/?search=Withanolide or /info/en/?search=Schisandrin Further references which make explicit use of the term: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332217326240 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128021477000164 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0944711308002250 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2222180812602072 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378874106004223 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378874106004223 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123964540000345 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0944711311800255 Please unblock - I'm clearly not a duck and the burden of proof does rest on my side! I request an apology for the wrong accusation which is merely based on unfounded suspicion (or perhaps labelling someone as a duck is strategically used by admins to silence unwanted contributors.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I choose not to make a determination on your block, because I wish to comment on your sources, and doing both would lay me open to a charge of involvement.
- I have read all of the sources to which you refer, noting as I do that that are all from the same common source and to some extent demonstrate common authorship: to label them as being sound scientific sources does little more than to clarify that the opinion you hold regarding the validity of scientific sources does not accord with the opinion held by the large majority of reputable authorities in the field. Ignoring the fact that one reference is quoted twice in identical form, these references vary between been straightforward commercial advertisements for herbal products and presentations written in what I can only assume is intentionally almost impenetrable jargon. I agree that these articles use the word "adaptogen"; this does confer any validity to the concept, which is dismissed uniformly as non-meaningful by a large number of qualified and expert sources. As of course you know. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 14:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
When you say that the concept Adaptogen "is dismissed uniformly as non-meaningful by a large number of qualified and expert sources" you need to provide evidence for your strong claim.
Here is empirical evidence which falsifies your "uniformity-claim". The following publications all utilise the term Adaptogen (independent from their quality and results):
Bocharov, E. V., Ivanova-Smolenskaya, I. A., Poleshchuk, V. V., Kucheryanu, V. G., Il’Enko, V. A., & Bocharova, O. A. (2010). Therapeutic efficacy of the neuroprotective plant adaptogen in neurodegenerative disease (Parkinson’s Disease as an Example). Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine, 149(6), 682–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10517-010-1023-z
Shanely, R. A., Nieman, D. C., Zwetsloot, K. A., Knab, A. M., Imagita, H., Luo, B., … Zubeldia, J. M. (2014). Evaluation of Rhodiola rosea supplementation on skeletal muscle damage and inflammation in runners following a competitive marathon. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 39, 204–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2013.09.005
Abidov, M., Grachev, S., Seifulla, R. D., & Ziegenfuss, T. N. (2004). Extract of Rhodiola rosea radix reduces the level of C-reactive protein and creatinine kinase in the blood. Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine, 138(1), 63–64. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BEBM.0000046940.45382.53
Morozov, I. S., Ivanova, I. A., & Lukicheva, T. A. (2001). Actoprotector and adaptogen properties of adamantane derivatives (a review). Pharmaceutical Chemistry Journal. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011905302667
Khanum, F., Bawa, A. S., & Singh, B. (2005). Rhodiola rosea: A versatile adaptogen. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2005.tb00073.x
Grünwald, J., Stier, H., Bruhn, S., & Goyvaerts, B. (2011). Rhodiola rosea: Ein Adaptogen bei Burn-out. Zeitschrift Fur Phytotherapie, 32(4), 161–163. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1271340
Domene, A. M. (2013). Effects of adaptogen supplementation on sport performance. A recent review of published studies. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 8(4), 1054–1066. https://doi.org/10.4100/jhse.2013.84.15
Mendes, F. R., Tabach, R., & Carlini, E. A. (2007). Evaluation of Baccharis trimera and Davilla rugosa in tests for adaptogen activity. Phytotherapy Research, 21(6), 517–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.2080
Goepp, J. (2010). A new way to manage menopause: regain hormonal balance with cutting-edge adaptogen. Life Extension, 16(6), 26–32. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=2010655263&site=ehost-live%5Cnhttp://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=51236789&S=R&D=awh&EbscoContent=dGJyMNLe80Sep7I4y9f3OLCmr02ep7JSrqe4TbWWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMOzpsEm0rrNI
Kulakowski, D. M., Wu, S. B., Balick, M. J., & Kennelly, E. J. (2014). Merging bioactivity with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry-based chemometrics to identify minor immunomodulatory compounds from a Micronesian adaptogen, Phaleria nisidai. Journal of Chromatography A, 1364, 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2014.08.049
Abbai, R., Mathiyalagan, R., Markus, J., Kim, Y. J., Wang, C., Singh, P., … Yang, D. C. (2016). Green synthesis of multifunctional silver and gold nanoparticles from the oriental herbal adaptogen: Siberian ginseng. International Journal of Nanomedicine, 11, 3131–3143. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S108549
Singh, N., (Mrs.) Nath, R., (Miss) Lata, A., Singh, S. P., Kohli, R. P., & Bhargava, K. P. (1982). Withania somnifera (ashwagandha), a rejuvenating herbal drug which enhances survival during stress (an adaptogen). Pharmaceutical Biology, 20(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.3109/13880208209083282
Suthanurak, M., Sakpakdeejaroen, I., Rattarom, R., & Itharat, A. (2010). Formulation and stability test of BJ adaptogen tablets for cancer treatment. Planta Medica, 76(12), 160–163. Retrieved from http://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&from=export&id=L70447518http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1264400http://sfx.umd.edu/hs?sid=EMBASE&issn=00320943&id=doi:10.1055/s-0030-1264400&atitle=Formulation+and+stability+test+of+BJ+adaptogen+
Produis, P. A., Manukhina, E. B., Bulanov, A. E., Wikman, G., & Malyshev, I. Y. (1997). Adaptogen ADAPT modulates stress-induced HSP70 synthesis and improves organism’s resistance to heat shock. Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine, 123(6), 548–550.
Mendes, F. R., & Carlini, E. A. (2007). Brazilian plants as possible adaptogens: An ethnopharmacological survey of books edited in Brazil. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 109(3), 493–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2006.08.024
Suslov, N. I., Churin, A. A., Skurikhin, E. G., Provalova, N. V, Stal’bovskii, A. O., Litvinenko, V. I., & Dygai, A. M. (2002). [Effect of natural nootropic and adaptogen preparations on the cortex bioelectrical activity in rats]. Eksp Klin Farmakol, 65(1), 7–10.
Zini, E., Clamer, M., Passerotti, S., Vender, C., Vendramin, G. G., & Komjanc, M. (2009). Eight novel microsatellite dna markers in Rhodiola rosea L. Conservation Genetics, 10(5), 1397–1399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-008-9704-0
Panossian, A., Wikman, G., Kaur, P., & Asea, A. (2012). Adaptogens stimulate neuropeptidey and Hsp72 expression and release in neuroglia cells. Frontiers in Neuroscience, (FEB). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2012.00006
Kulkarni, S. K., & Dhir, A. (2008). Withania somnifera: An Indian ginseng. Progress in NeKulkarni, S. K., & Dhir, A. (2008). Withania somnifera: An Indian ginseng. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2007.09.011
Skopińska-Rózewska, E. (2009). Immunotropic and anti-tumor effects of plant adaptogens. I. Panax ginseng. Central-European Journal of Immunology.
Gospodaryov, D. V, Yurkevych, I. S., Jafari, M., Lushchak, V. I., & Lushchak, O. V. (2013). Lifespan extension and delay of age-related functional decline caused by Rhodiola rosea depends on dietary macronutrient balance. Longevity & Healthspan, 2(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-2395-2-5
Collisson, R. J. (1991). Siberian Ginseng (Eleutherococcus senticosus Maxim.). British Journal of Phytotherapy, 2(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4377-2333-5.00087-0
Lyle, N., Gomes, A., Sur, T., Munshi, S., Paul, S., Chatterjee, S., & Bhattacharyya, D. (2009). The role of antioxidant properties of Nardostachys jatamansi in alleviation of the symptoms of the chronic fatigue syndrome. Behavioural Brain Research, 202(2), 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2009.04.005
Gupta, V., Saggu, S., Tulsawani, R. K., Sawhney, R. C., & Kumar, R. (2008). A dose dependent adaptogenic and safety evaluation of Rhodiola imbricata Edgew, a high altitude rhizome. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 46(5), 1645–1652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2007.12.027
Rai, D., Bhatia, G., Palit, G., Pal, R., Singh, S., & Singh, H. K. (2003). Adaptogenic effect of Bacopa monniera (Brahmi). Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 75(4), 823–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0091-3057(03)00156-4
Khanna, K., Mishra, K. P., Ganju, L., & Singh, S. B. (2017). Golden root: A wholesome treat of immunity. Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2016.12.132
Vorob’eva, L. I., Khodzhaev, E. Y., Novikova, T. M., Mulyukin, A. L., Chudinova, E. M., Kozlova, A. N., & El’-Registan, G. I. (2013). Stress-protective and cross action of the extracellular reactivating factor of the microorganisms of the domains Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota. Microbiology, 82(5), 594–599. https://doi.org/10.1134/s0026261713050159
Choi, M. S., Kwon, K. J., Jeon, S. J., Go, H. S., Kim, K. C., Ryu, J. R., … Ko, K. H. (2009). Schizandra chinensis alkaloids inhibit lipopolysaccharide-induced inflammatory responses in BV2 microglial cells. Biomolecules and Therapeutics, 17(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.4062/biomolther.2009.17.1.47
Lyle, N., Gomes, A., Sur, T., Munshi, S., Paul, S., Chatterjee, S., & Bhattacharyya, D. (2009). The role of antioxidant properties of Nardostachys jatamansi in alleviation of the symptoms of the chronic fatigue syndrome. Behavioural Brain Research, 202(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2009.04.005
etc. pp.
- @ Anthony Bradbury: I think it may be time to yank TPA because the editor just does not appear to be getting it. Septrillion ( talk) 02:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
|
| This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks, then appeal to the
Unblock Ticket Request System or the
Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org.
Ad Orientem (
talk) 20:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC) |
Anonymous.psy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #21471 was submitted on May 09, 2018 13:11:13. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 13:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Anonymous.psy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #21697 was submitted on Jun 03, 2018 02:01:31. This review is now closed.