I just love a virgin talk page four years in a row.
My best to you. Roxy the dog. wooF 03:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Alexbrn, could you please advise me If the changes citing peer-reviewed scientific journals can be kept? Thank you for your help. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nirmatrelvir&type=revision&diff=1063501789&oldid=1063500319 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exaltedyeti ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Alexbrn,
(1) Thank you for letting me know about the 'Sea of Blue' issue. I will make sure I correct the links.
(2) Could you please point to the unreliable sources that are making you redirect the page? I would like to fix the errors and provide proper sources for the article.
Thanks! R-Cal-L (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Levivich. I noticed that you made a comment on the page WP:COIN that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. When I correctly identify and report a COI, and you repeatedly call what I'm doing a "witch hunt", you are personally attacking me, and attempting through bullying tactics to get me to stop reporting COI editing. This is unacceptable; please stop defending COI via these intimidation tactics. Levivich 14:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
"By accusing the COIN I started"← what does that even mean? The thread at COIN has diffused beyond your input and my concern is specifically behaviour which (yes) does accord exactly with the behaviour of a witch hunt: identifying and rounding up people for blame. In case you weren't aware there have also been mass deletions of articles attempted and nearly-block-worthy personal questions made by some of the posse ... all in an area where for some kinds of editing it is not even agreed by the community a COI is problematic (i.e. citing a publication with which one is associated, or encouraging people to cite one's RS works). I have no tolerance for problematic COI-tainted editing and a record to show that; equally I have seen misdirected zeal having bad consequences (and have been on the receiving end of dodgy COI accusations myself). You seem to be saying that everything that happens in a thread in which you posted first has to be by definition okay, which is absurd. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Some people get testy about minor formatting edits to their comments, so I just wanted to let you know I closed up your underline tag. There was a missed / in the closing tag. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Your "good faith" edits removing the extremely well-documented facts that Paul Thacker is a dishonest, anti-GMO, anti-vaccine activist haven't gone unnoticed. 73.254.14.29 ( talk) 06:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion occurring at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard that you may be involved with. –– FormalDude talk 09:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon (January 29, 2022) | |
---|---|
Hello Alexbrn! I'd like to invite you to a Covid-19 focused Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon, open to the public, via Zoom on Saturday - January 29th, 2022, 1pm-3pm E.S.T. We will be focusing our edits on the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic. Click the event page to read more. This event is hosted by Sure We Can, a recycling and community center in Brooklyn. This is the 4th Covid-focused Edit-a-thon that Sure We Can has hosted. Click here to see the last three COVID-19 focused edit-a-thons: Sept 6th, 2020 & Nov 21, 2020 & Feb 6th, 2021. In past events, we translated the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City article into Spanish, Yoruba, Malagasy, Hebrew, Swahili, Tagalog, Korean, Russian, Japanese, Portuguese, Polish, Greek, Haitian Creole, and wrote the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States article. We would love for you to join us. All experience levels welcome. Saturday January 29, 1PM - 3PM E.S.T (18:00 - 20:00 UTC) |
-- Wil540 art ( talk) 17:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Your name has come up in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia, where I've mentioned in my statement that you should be notified. You are not a named party or anything like that, but I felt that someone should let you know. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey, Alexbrn! I just wanted to give you a notice — so it's not misinterpreted as a form of edit warring — that I temporarily reverted the article back to the original version — until there's a consensus on what to do about it. I wrote about why I thought that the suggested changes made by Stix1776 were heavily problematic and a downgrade from the existing version here.
As for the Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, and Council on Foreign Relations citations, I agree with you that they're pretty excessive, and not at all crucial to the article, and I can see why they might raise problems related to WP:MEDRS, so free to delete them. I don't have an objection there. Best regards, KlayCax ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, on the talk page for John Campbell, the cluebot you added is configured with an 'age' parameter of '14'. Did you intend that? It means threads are archived if they receive no further edits within 14 hours. That seems rather extreme. Typically it's set to something far more conservative like 720 for thirty days, or a slightly less conservative 360, for two weeks. cheers. Anastrophe ( talk) 20:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I asked you to stop editing my talk page some months ago. See thread. I think enough time has passed since then, so feel free to interact in my talk page if you wish. I thought it was unnecessary to clarify it then as it would probably just increase the animosity, but I used the word "stalk" because you had used the {{ stalker}} template IIRC, it wasn't an accusation or anything. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:46, 19 January 2022 (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 keep undoing my edits. Gatekeeping is easy for you. But the article isn't up to snuff, and if you want to appoint yourself its' guardian, it needs to actually comply with the rules. --Horatio Von Becker
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
— Epastore ( talk) 21:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Since Tryptofish asked us to take our discussion elsewhere, I'm coming to your talk page with it. I hope you don't mind. I'll also ping PaleoNeonate since they started the discussion, and I suspect they might be interested.
I'm happy that we moved from calling me pro-fringe to eccentric. I have spent a lot of time studying ancient and medieval philosophy, and I cannot deny that this has had some influence on my personal views, to the point of me becoming perhaps somewhat eccentric in my approach. I will note though that I'm not a proponent of the idea that we can't know anything. Like most modern philosophers, I regard the question of what we can and cannot know as depending on epistemological premises about which very legitimate discussion can be had. But, again like most contemporary philosophers, I do believe it justified to lay out such premises, and to call the propositions which result from them knowledge. For example, I believe the epistemological foundations of science to be sound, and I regard scientific inquiry as productive of knowledge.
I'm also just parroting mainstream philosophy of science when I say that inquiring into the real existence of something falls outside of the epistemological scope of science. To make claims about the real existence of things we need further epistemological premises, such as for example the premise that things for which there is no scientific evidence simply do not exist. As I've tried to explain in the other thread, this premise is not one that is near-universally held to be sound, like the epistemological foundations of science are. It's a specifically positivist view, which was never universally held, and which has in fact been largely abandoned by a large majority of philosophers since the 1970s. You just can't invoke this premise as something only eccentrics would disagree with. It's also not in any way a premise that non-philosophical reliable sources just take for granted, like they take the soundness of science for granted. It's really important to differentiate between these two things.
Finally, you wrote: If you think (in anything other than a school debate) that the non-falsifiability of something means it might be real, then good luck to you. Well yes, if something's existence cannot be falsified, that means that it is possible that it exists. This is just basic modal logic. It does not mean that it is necessary that it exists, nor even that it is likely that it exists. But it does mean that it is possible, by definition: that which cannot be shown to be false is not necessarily false, and that which is not necessarily false is possibly true.
So yes, if the existence of qi cannot be disproven, that means that it is possible it exists. But note that with the positivist premise outlined above, it does become possible to prove that qi does not exist. If there is not scientific evidence for the existence qi, and if things for which there is no scientific evidence do not exist, qi does not exist. This is as much as to state that Ernst, who
says that the existence of qi cannot be disproven, does not share the positivist premise. He also affirms the possibility of qi's existence: even though we can't observe it directly in any way, it may still be there, in the same way that God may be there
.
It really seems to me that you just have a hard time understanding these subtle philosophical points, which sound to you like the bogus reasoning of fringe-pushers, while they're actually entirely accurate and mainstream. I also think that if only you would trust a little more that I'm really not here to push or justify fringe in any way, you might more easily see that what I say is accurate and mainstream. I'm in fact entirely with you on most points, and IRL I'm actually regarded by my acquaintances as a skeptic and a defender of science. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 20:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Forgive me, I'm new to the wikipedia editorial process. So the jargon is confusing for me.
You have reverted my change removing what I consider non-neutral commentary in the Bret Weinstein article.
I don't seen the benefit of framing Odysse as an "alternative/fringe" platform. "alternative" maybe, but "fringe" is definitely non-neutral.
You say "Rv. to good - take it to Talk, where this has been discussed before" where has this been discussed before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by F127635817 ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
As an expert on WP:FRINGE, would you take a look at the material in the Pine tar article inserted some time ago by Pjsaw (but still in the current article), and take any action you see fit? See Special:Diff/938078710. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 19:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
The Impartial Truth ( talk) 22:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the question 'Is Kulldorff an epidemiologist?'. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " Martin_Kulldorff".The discussion is about the topic Martin Kulldorff.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.C.Wright ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Michael.C.Wright ( talk) 02:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Alex, why are you anti vegan and against John McDougall? You know he is a Harvard trained doctor so he obviously knows what is what when it comes to diet and health. Do you not actually care about seeing Diabetes and heart disease gone from the planet? No? You want heart diseaes to go around the world? Wow... okay, someone clearly has an agenda to see bad health predominate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by a diet crazy ( talk • contribs)
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Could you maybe chill? Your tone and words against me are completely disproportionate to the situation. JBchrch talk 15:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
This is regarding the changes I made to the article Low carbohydrate diet that was reverted by you. I used a non-primary reliable source to back the added content.
I added that low carb diet tends to raise the blood LDL levels commonly known as bad cholesterol, which as per the lipid hypothesis is a risk for multiple heart/cardiovascular diseases. There is a well established scientific consensus which corroborates the lipid hypothesis as stated in the lipid hypothesis article.
Now it is well known that low carb diets tend to raise blood LDL which isn't mentioned in the low carb article currently. It is important to mention it, hence I made those changes.
So pls consider restoring my version that you reverted.
Thank you!!! 2409:4071:E96:1D6:BD8C:CAF2:7368:F711 ( talk) 17:27, 1 March 2022 (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.
I am curiois how you are determining if sources/references are "not reliable". You repeatedly remove peer reviewed journal articles as "fringe" sources. Your determinations seem arbitrary and not based upon criteria stipulated by wikipedia guidelines. Your editorial contributions do not appear to improve this article but just remove valid citations. Additionally you remove itens as "gobbledygook". Just because you lack an understanding of a concept dies not naje the concept gobbledygook, and if SE is based upon sonetging that sounds like gobblydygook to you, but is from a peer reviewed or secondary source, it is a valid inclusion. Please reverse you recent edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanguard666 ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 7 March 2022 (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.
I am unsure that your recent reason given for reversion will look good given the page is under some scrutiny. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Dear Alex. Thank you for your recent attention to the article Norman Fenton. You say I should not write on your talk page about the content of an article, but how can I discuss Norman Fenton's merits as a teacher of writing skills when you have deleted the corresponding section. I see you are a venerable Wikipedian with more than 50,000 edits to your credit, whereas I have just enough to lose the leniency shown to newbies. You state that my contribution fails WP:V. However, it contained a citation linking to a website that is still alive. This citation, admittedly is a primary source, being the essay written by Professor Fenton, which allows the reader to verify that this essay exists. The website is RS as it is published by the Queen Mary University of London's School of Engineering and Computer Science. Could you please enlighten me about your reasons or, failing this, revert your deletion? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade ( talk) 10:02, 17 March 2022 (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.
This is an attempt to address perceived disruptive editing of the biography for Martin Kulldorff. The diffs provided below indicate to me a pattern of disruptive, tendentious, and uncivil editing.
Repeatedly insinuating I have a conflict of interest: here, here, and here
Labelling editors "crazies"
Labelling disagreement with you as "disruptive"
Encouraging other editors “Time to ignore.”
Followed up with a statement "But Wikipedia is going to be pointing-out that the bullshit behind the GBD is bullshit." [1]
Additional editing to prove a point (using biased language):
Despite lengthy discussions at both the talk page and the biographies of living persons noticeboard, reinserted unverified, original research here despite two other editors agreeing the statement is unsupported:
( source)This context plays into the reasoning for the health risks of the GBD...But it is not saying that GBD will cause waves of COVID-19.
— Endwise
( source)...the only question is that can this be rewritten to remove the alleged OR, the recurrent waves mention, and just simply focus on the counter, "the declaration’s approach would endanger Americans who have underlying conditions...
— Morbidthoughts
After reverting the content, you indirectly threatened sanctions (further Campaign to drive away productive contributors).
I request that you remove the following disputed and poorly sourced statement from the biography of Martin Kulldorff:
...warning that attempting to implement it could cause many unnecessary deaths with the potential of recurrent waves of disease spread as immunity decreases over time.
Per content policy regarding biographies:
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
Lastly, my previous invitation to de-escalate the situation is still open.
Michael.C.Wright ( Talk/ Edits) 06:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Just a formality for the ayurveda page. I'm sure you know the drill. Cedar777 ( talk) 07:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Campbell (YouTuber), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Campbell (YouTuber) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
For forms sake I have to leave with this too, as the other user has already used a "but you didn't want the other user " defense. You need to read WP:BLUDGEON. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
"This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community
. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."
The segment that I added should not have been marked as a minor edit. I work with the typo team a lot, and often mark as minor, but that should not have been, and that aspect is entirely on me. As for the text being WP:OR that I added, I am completely unsure as to how that would qualify in the slightest. I can reword the segment then, though it is very neutrally written to only reflect the content from the RS as well as Prasad's views as presented therein, but it is from a secondary source and merely reflective of one particular interview (which I even annotated as coming from Reason magazine's Zach Weissmueller). Other than mislabeling the edit (which was a mistake, and right for you to call out), I do not see what else about this could possibly be construed as OR? Anyway, I will not revert again, as I do not wish any "edit-war", but I will reword with even more care this time... ♥ Th78blue ( talk)♥ 13:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pizza. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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. Calidum 18:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, you seem to have removed a citation I added related with the article at hand. Rather than wholeheartedly reverting my edit, don't you think it would've been more productive to improve my version? Can I ask you put back citation you deleted? Thanks. -- Zaurus ( talk) 17:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your reversion of my edit changing “many” studies to “some.” I looked thru MEDMOS which u cited and didn’t see anything relevant. Pls let me know which part. Thanks. JustinReilly ( talk) 18:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Alex - sorry to bother you, but you know more about this topic than anyone. I attempted to cite the International Journal of Livestock Research but was prevented from citing it because the doi triggered a list of predatory journals. I didn't know livestock journals would be included. Apparently, that means we're not supposed to use anything that was published in it, correct? Does a predatory journal mean the articles published in it are unreliable? What about the author of the article - are they banned, too or does the problem include the journal, and the Ardahan University which is relatively new, and perhaps not accredited? Atsme 💬 📧 23:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:African wild dog on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
One year! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
What about this source for https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research&diff=1086118345&oldid=1086118260?: https://www.bcm.edu/news/covid-19-patients-have-increased-oxidative-stress-oxidant-damage-and-glutathione-deficiency
Merry Christmas. -- Bawanio ( talk) 08:23, 4 May 2022 (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 recently undid edits made to the Experimental Cancer Treatment article, citing "Lots of unreliable sourcing and a spot check finds copy-paste copyvios." While inadvertent copy-paste copyvios will be corrected, your must justify your assertion of "lost of unreliable sourcing" (which includes esteemed publications such as the journals Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics and the British Journal of Cancer, otherwise the edits will remain as-is. Please specify exactly which sources are "unreliable" (in your subjective opinion) and how exactly so, so that this issue can be resolved. You cannot simply remove various subsections based on your obvious biased towards the pharmaceutical industry. as has been documented previously in other talk pages and web articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.217.91.34 ( talk) 14:13, 6 May 2022 (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.
The added source is the primary pharmacokinetic literature from which the claims in the other cited source, which is a review, derive. Careful examination of the source, particularly with respect to the cited review, reveal that they are from the same group, and this study has been widely cited and produced throughout the literature.
Hi,
What POV problems are there for the recent edits on the page? Thanks Altanner1991 ( talk) 18:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Btw I was also gonna add https://goop.com/wellness/health/understanding-diabetes/
Also this https://www.goodhormonehealth.com/2020/02/03/3ss-2/ Machinexa ( talk) 08:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
What? Machinexa ( talk) 08:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For your work on medical content, especially your close attention to sourcing. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 13:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC) |
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:OpenSearch (software) on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the check, I wasn't aware of this. I just found the publisher on WP:CITEWATCH. CarlFromVienna ( talk) 08:56, 23 May 2022 (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.
I have lodged a dispute about this article. StN ( talk) 03:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd recommend not engaging with the IP trolls on VPP further. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 10:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Palpable ( talk) 05:19, 29 May 2022 (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.
Hi Alexbrn. Here is a link to a study from Harvard University published in Current Developments in Nutrition ( https://academic.oup.com/cdn/article/5/12/nzab133/6415894) regarding the Carnivore Diet. The Wikipedia section on the Carnivore Diet states, "There is no clinical evidence that a carnivore diet is safe or provides any health benefits". Due to the fact that there are some reputable studies (this one from Harvard for example) which dispute that claim, stating there is "no clinical evidence" is incorrect, and the term "limited clinical evidence" should instead be used. I know there are some politically motivated, bad actors on this page. I'm hoping you're not one of them. ReadingRiot ( talk) 03:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)ReadingRiot
@ ReadingRiot: I am aware of the "study". A survey in a low-quality journal does constitute evidence of anything much (other than the delusions of various food faddists), and it certainly does not constitute clinical evidence of anything. Please raise any further discussions on the article's Talk page, and expect further personal nastiness to earn you sanctions. Thanks. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
"please strike your personal attack" What personal attack? I have not made any personal attack. I asked him to make an argument to back up what he was saying. It is important to debate and make arguments and provide evidence. Stating that I will personally think of them as malicious if they refuse to make arguments is not an attack, just a statement of my own viewpoint. I'm willing to hear his argument, but he refuses to make one. Until he does, my edit will stand. The term "no clinical evidence" means there is not a single piece of evidence; and any evidence, even supposedly low quality evidence, makes the use of the term "no clinical evidence" incorrect. "Limited clinical evidence" is the correct wordage. ReadingRiot ( talk) 00:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)ReadingRiot
Linking the Apocrypha. [3] Readers must be able to find the entire Holy Writ! Bishonen | tålk 19:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC).
I'd like to apologize for edit-warring in the GBD article with possibly unreliable sources. I'm not very experienced with MEDRS, so I'll stop editing the GBD article for now. X-Editor ( talk) 19:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Your edit summary here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&curid=66692273&diff=1093872785&oldid=1093871692 mentions "plagiarism". I'm not sure what you're referring to. Please clarify. Le Marteau ( talk) 09:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Alexbrn You removed my edit on Havana Syndrome page as unreliable. However, it was supported by statements by one of the leading experts in the field of neuroweapons, Dr Giordano of Georgetown University at a medical symposium organized by UT Southwest. Judging by the expediency with which you removed the edit, you didn't have time to review two videos from the symposium I posted as substantiation. I would hardly call a statement from the leading expert in the field at a medical symposium unreliable. Please, correct the situation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenbermd ( talk • contribs) 09:32, 22 June 2022 (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.
Hi Alexbrn. Thanks for reviiewing this article. If you check the history of this article it has been given as notable for main space. Can you please reinstate it. Thanks. Gardenkur ( talk) 15:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Alexbrn. It was discussed with Wikipedia Administrator.Thanks. Gardenkur ( talk) 16:14, 26 June 2022 (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. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
50.45.170.185 ( talk) 18:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Glossary of areas of mathematics on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 7 July 2022 (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.
Hi, I appreciate your attention to the Isolation Tank article. However, I was wondering why you have flagged and deleted material on neuroimaging in the article as unreliable? It is properly cited with references to recent work in the journal Human Brain Mapping. Thanks in advance for your time. Kleinhern ( talk) 08:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Are you working up Sylvain Lesné? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The Medicine Barnstar | ||
Duly awarded to the gatekeeper of all medical knowledge. jps ( talk) 14:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC) |
Bravo - Roxy the English speaking dog 14:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SmolBrane ( talk) 16:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
26 Jul 2022 research article in Science: The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic
Key quote: "Our analyses indicate that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred via the live wildlife trade in China, and show that the Huanan market was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic." -- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 07:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Considering your expertise with this, I thought I'd just leave a note in case you'd like to evaluate these claims and sources. There's a claim of randomised controlled trials but the idea that listening to a sound effect could replace anaesthesia still appears extraordinary to me. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 21:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Dear Alexbrn, I have made an edit to the page of John Campbell (YouTuber) for which you are the contributor. I have left my reasoning at it's talk page ( Talk:John_Campbell_(YouTuber)#Monkeypox_parallels) but wish to notify you and give an opportunity for discussion in case it is not within your watchlist. SuperiorWalrus (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The user in question is "Smaricic". If you look at their user page part of the text there is just a advertisement asking people to go to a certain website. I believe trying to convince the person to remove the text over the "talk section" won't work at all. I have no idea what official channel to go through for something like this (that's not trying to convincing a user through their talk page). 2601:443:47F:2130:29E1:CFFE:3736:BA4D ( talk) 00:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I see that you did some work on the Placebo article, there's a long standing mis-reference dating to:
Revision as of 11:15, 22 August 2019 (edit) (undo) Anywikiuser (talk | contribs) (Restructured lede, moving effects and non-effects to a higher paragraph; various other tweaks.)
which puts reference (4) as supporting the text "In general, placebos can affect how patients perceive their condition and encourage the body's chemical processes for relieving pain" - the given reference doesn't in fact support that. I'm unclear how to unpick this particular problem, so just alerting you as a possibly interested editor. In Vitro Infidelium ( talk) 12:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
In
this edit, you changed your comment and inserted the phrase maybe even to the point of
WP:BLUDGEONING
. I believe that my edits in that RfC were civil, that I responded to comments directly, and that I did not engage in the sort of repetitive thumping of one's own arguments that constitutes bludgeoning. Please do not hedge on this—if you mean to suggest that I was bludgeoning, please say so directly. But, if you do not believe that I was bludgeoning the discussion, please strike that comment so as to not cast
WP:ASPERSIONS. —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest) 06:29, 22 August 2022 (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.
Hello Alex, I do no understand a) why you remove my edits which include sourced infos about the substance Berberine and its possible use, and b) why you consider this an edit-war at this stage and treaten me with a lock. I included only information which has been in the cited source for years, and I included some other sources which are reliable. Please be detailed why you are going against this. Not only the possible negative effects should be mentioned in such kind of article. Thank you -- Chris 2003:CB:2F02:AAF2:B410:5A48:C024:10ED ( talk) 15:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Recreational use of nitrous oxide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relaxation.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
...what if I don't agree to my email address being made public? Cabayi ( talk) 10:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Note to my Talk Page stalkers: I have changed my Username in an attempt to reduce the risk of further outing and off-wiki harassment. Bon courage ( talk) 10:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Gotta wait a bit, still not actually open. Someone else is supposed to add a co-nom, but they're very busy. I'll be opening it up in 6 or so hours if they haven't added their nomination statement by that point. Thanks for the vote of confidence as well. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
I mentioned you in an existing edit warring complaint, for your violation of this Arbcom ruling.
Michael.C.Wright ( Talk/ Edits) 15:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I just want to say that I appreciate your patience. I'm willing to learn and listen. TheWandering ( talk) 02:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello @ Bon courage, you've gone thru and reverted all my edits from the past couple days, I think I'm doing the right thing, can you explain what the problem is? Lead's commonly have a sentence or two about health affects of the article's topic. For example, the meat article already had health information about raw meat in the lead, in a single sentence, medical information about overcooked meat should work as well? Brian Shaposky ( talk) 17:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Chris Ducat Also dealing with this behavior from this account, they're being banned from accessing my email. I have pointed out specific examples of phrases that are not NPOV and their only response is "it's good". No, the summary of Low-carbohydrate diet needs to reflect phrasing that is NPOV. The diet has been practiced, in some form or another, since the 19th century and has mountains of research behind it. Reducing carbohydrates and sugars is not "extreme". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Ducat ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 October 2022 (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.
I noticed you removed all of the research of the scientist, Krista Varady, even though each statement was supported by a scientific article. The page simply outlines her research contributions to the field of intermittent fasting. It is interesting that you chose to target a female scientist and call her "self-promotional", while you chose not to target any male scientists. This behavior seems overtly sexist. Also, I believe what you did is considered vandalism, since you "removed encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition". Please stop removing content from this page or these actions will be reported. It seems like others are complaining about similar behavior from you (Keto article above). Ejacobs8990 ( talk) 02:34, 5 October 2022 (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.
Hi Bon New to Editing and I won’t repeat my reasons for the edits here since I think you read them. I liked your Bio and I think we’d agree on most things given the bit of hand tipping you did by adding the additional notes about why Heather is wrong about her use of Ivermectin. Could you address my concern though? Is a Bio a place to take issue with the subject? I appreciate that I don’t agree with her because I don’t either but I think that is for readers to determine without our help. Thank you for the guidance for editing here I truly appreciate what you’ve said and I apologize for my clumsy landing. I’ll learn the right way to do this. Best, Jonathan Jonathan94596 ( talk) 16:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello there, there is an important topic which you removed to do with the miscateogization of the AT; see below:
The Select Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Lords included 44 recommendations in its comprehensive report on “Complementary and Alternative Medicine” (CAM) released in November. Many of the recommendations refer to a classification scheme used in the report to organize therapies into three groups.
Group 1, called “Professionally Organised Alternative Therapies” contains acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal medicine, homeopathy, and osteopathy. The Lords report says: “Each of these therapies claims to have an individual diagnostic approach and are seen as the ‘Big 5’ by most of the CAM world.”
Group 2, called “Complementary Therapies” contains Alexander technique, aromatherapy, Bach and other flower remedies, body work therapies including massage, counselling stress therapy, hypnotherapy, meditation, reflexology, Shiatsu, spiritual healing, Maharishi Ayurvedic Medicine, nutritional medicine, and Yoga. Therapies in this group “are most often used to complement conventional medicine and do not purport to embrace diagnostic skills.” 68.129.197.221 ( talk) 12:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL ( talk) 15:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
This is an attempt to address perceived disruptive editing of the biography for Martin Kulldorff.
WP:BLP states the following:
All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
WP:RSP states the following:
Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation.
This edit is an unsourced statement that you made after you participated in a discussion on the talk page specifically about it being unsourced and factually inaccurate. In that discussion, you acknowledged that the SBM article's "wording is imprecise" and that this new version is what you think "the "two years" comment means." This is WP:OR.
WP:OR states the following:
A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of this policy against original research.
Poorly sourced and contentious material are not acceptable in a biography. This is core policy, as quoted above. This biography and the statement itself is also in context of WP:ARBCOVID, of which I'm sure you're aware.
WP:TE states the following:
Tendentious editing is a manner of editing that, when taken as a whole, is partisan, biased, or skewed. It does not conform to neutral point of view, and it fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content, or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions.
Because the statement as currently written is unsourced, it should be removed from the biography as original research without further discussion.
Michael.C.Wright ( Talk/ Edits) 01:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
flu killed just one childto the CDC site which provides the clarity necessary to state 2021/2022. We have a secondary source providing the context and linking it to the article subject and then another source, specifically called out by a secondary source, that gives the exact data. That isn't an OR issue. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 02:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
"if an editor said 'what Kulldorff really meant was not what he said, but this...'"← if Kulldorff had written something vague but it was 100% obvious from the context what was meant then yes, we would respect the obvious meaning and certainly not propagate a wrong interpretation. And (unlike this case) that might actually have a BLP aspect to it. Bon courage ( talk) 03:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Michael.C.Wright ( Talk/ Edits) 16:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Why are you deleting correctly cited and referenced text regarding the 'Origins of Cannabidiol. What authority do you have to delete factual information cited correctly?? Qualitative CBD Researcher ( talk) 10:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I was not aware that one was not allowed to remove incorrect & opinion-based information without replacing it. This seems counterproductive to supplying accurate information but I will be happy to gather the correct research and *current* information since I have access to it. Veritst1.6 ( talk) 21:32, 9 November 2022 (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.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your uncouth comments on Mr. Malhotra's character. The thread is Personal attack against article subject on talk page. Thank you. Nutez ( talk) 21:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On what grounds did you close this talk page discussion after only a single comment? That appears to be a violation of Wikipedia policy and norms. Without some explanation, that appears to be a closure that will have to be reverted. Rossami (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd categorised you as a new good chap, and have just now discovered your secret identity. - Roxy the dog 08:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to carve up lasting content on an article with (my count) fourteen edits in a three hour span? Including the renaming? It's a bit over the top. This is a collaborative project... SmolBrane ( talk) 15:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Male expendability on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
See User:Shibbolethink/Sandbox. I think my personal position is "generally reliable except science/data reporting".— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Endemic COVID-19 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Crossroads -talk- 09:21, 2 December 2022 (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.
In light of the fact that you're on record as suggesting that I should be sanctioned [6], you're not neutral with regards to discussions I've started. This makes you unsuitable as a closer of discussions I'm involved in, and especially of ones I started. I suggest you self revert your close here: [7]. Adoring nanny ( talk) 17:14, 4 December 2022 (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.
Could you please underscore your decision to not include credible cited sources that were included on the page to show updated academic consensus in the scientific literature about naturopathic medicine?
I welcome your input. SP1111 17:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenpeters ( talk • contribs)
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 Bon. Could you please let me know your decision to not include credible cited sources that were included on the Naturopathic Medicine page to show updated academic consensus in the scientific literature about naturopathic medicine?
Looking forward to hearing back. SP1111 23:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GR8M8 ( talk • contribs)
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.
Have you investigated the claims I made today, that the way macrobiotics is being used in 2022 is far different from what the current article says? The "rice diet" cited in that article was something one of the macrobiotic founders suggested many decades ago as a temporary measure; it was never intended to be used long term. I am not myself practicing macrobiotics, and I recognize that there were some outrageous health claims made by certain individuals in the past. My claim is that the macrobiotic community: (1) has not died out, and thus was never a "fad", and (2) is no longer "officially" making any outrageous health claims, and (3) contains within its body of advice information on cooking and healthy eating that might be beneficial to people with heart disease and other conditions requiring a low-salt, low-oil diet. It is not easy to cook that way. My hope is that this article could be revised in such a way as to include the appropriate warnings (it does not cure cancer, prevent infections, etc; and being mostly vegan, people eating that way require a B12 supplement) but also include the potential benefits. There are a number of articles in the medical literature that support what I say here. If you are willing, I will look some of those up and write a draft in my sandbox of some possible revisions to the article as it stands now. Would you be willing to look over such a draft if I write it? You may of course reject it, but would you at least look? Harborsparrow ( talk) 19:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Don't know if any admins are watching, but having trouble at User talk:World Carnivore Tribe with that user stirring things and wanting to riff on my real-world identity. Bon courage ( talk) 13:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Bon courage,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—
Moops ⋠
T⋡ 22:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
I just love a virgin talk page four years in a row.
My best to you. Roxy the dog. wooF 03:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Alexbrn, could you please advise me If the changes citing peer-reviewed scientific journals can be kept? Thank you for your help. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nirmatrelvir&type=revision&diff=1063501789&oldid=1063500319 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exaltedyeti ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Alexbrn,
(1) Thank you for letting me know about the 'Sea of Blue' issue. I will make sure I correct the links.
(2) Could you please point to the unreliable sources that are making you redirect the page? I would like to fix the errors and provide proper sources for the article.
Thanks! R-Cal-L (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Levivich. I noticed that you made a comment on the page WP:COIN that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. When I correctly identify and report a COI, and you repeatedly call what I'm doing a "witch hunt", you are personally attacking me, and attempting through bullying tactics to get me to stop reporting COI editing. This is unacceptable; please stop defending COI via these intimidation tactics. Levivich 14:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
"By accusing the COIN I started"← what does that even mean? The thread at COIN has diffused beyond your input and my concern is specifically behaviour which (yes) does accord exactly with the behaviour of a witch hunt: identifying and rounding up people for blame. In case you weren't aware there have also been mass deletions of articles attempted and nearly-block-worthy personal questions made by some of the posse ... all in an area where for some kinds of editing it is not even agreed by the community a COI is problematic (i.e. citing a publication with which one is associated, or encouraging people to cite one's RS works). I have no tolerance for problematic COI-tainted editing and a record to show that; equally I have seen misdirected zeal having bad consequences (and have been on the receiving end of dodgy COI accusations myself). You seem to be saying that everything that happens in a thread in which you posted first has to be by definition okay, which is absurd. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Some people get testy about minor formatting edits to their comments, so I just wanted to let you know I closed up your underline tag. There was a missed / in the closing tag. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Your "good faith" edits removing the extremely well-documented facts that Paul Thacker is a dishonest, anti-GMO, anti-vaccine activist haven't gone unnoticed. 73.254.14.29 ( talk) 06:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion occurring at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard that you may be involved with. –– FormalDude talk 09:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon (January 29, 2022) | |
---|---|
Hello Alexbrn! I'd like to invite you to a Covid-19 focused Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon, open to the public, via Zoom on Saturday - January 29th, 2022, 1pm-3pm E.S.T. We will be focusing our edits on the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic. Click the event page to read more. This event is hosted by Sure We Can, a recycling and community center in Brooklyn. This is the 4th Covid-focused Edit-a-thon that Sure We Can has hosted. Click here to see the last three COVID-19 focused edit-a-thons: Sept 6th, 2020 & Nov 21, 2020 & Feb 6th, 2021. In past events, we translated the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City article into Spanish, Yoruba, Malagasy, Hebrew, Swahili, Tagalog, Korean, Russian, Japanese, Portuguese, Polish, Greek, Haitian Creole, and wrote the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States article. We would love for you to join us. All experience levels welcome. Saturday January 29, 1PM - 3PM E.S.T (18:00 - 20:00 UTC) |
-- Wil540 art ( talk) 17:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Your name has come up in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia, where I've mentioned in my statement that you should be notified. You are not a named party or anything like that, but I felt that someone should let you know. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey, Alexbrn! I just wanted to give you a notice — so it's not misinterpreted as a form of edit warring — that I temporarily reverted the article back to the original version — until there's a consensus on what to do about it. I wrote about why I thought that the suggested changes made by Stix1776 were heavily problematic and a downgrade from the existing version here.
As for the Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, and Council on Foreign Relations citations, I agree with you that they're pretty excessive, and not at all crucial to the article, and I can see why they might raise problems related to WP:MEDRS, so free to delete them. I don't have an objection there. Best regards, KlayCax ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, on the talk page for John Campbell, the cluebot you added is configured with an 'age' parameter of '14'. Did you intend that? It means threads are archived if they receive no further edits within 14 hours. That seems rather extreme. Typically it's set to something far more conservative like 720 for thirty days, or a slightly less conservative 360, for two weeks. cheers. Anastrophe ( talk) 20:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I asked you to stop editing my talk page some months ago. See thread. I think enough time has passed since then, so feel free to interact in my talk page if you wish. I thought it was unnecessary to clarify it then as it would probably just increase the animosity, but I used the word "stalk" because you had used the {{ stalker}} template IIRC, it wasn't an accusation or anything. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:46, 19 January 2022 (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 keep undoing my edits. Gatekeeping is easy for you. But the article isn't up to snuff, and if you want to appoint yourself its' guardian, it needs to actually comply with the rules. --Horatio Von Becker
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
— Epastore ( talk) 21:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Since Tryptofish asked us to take our discussion elsewhere, I'm coming to your talk page with it. I hope you don't mind. I'll also ping PaleoNeonate since they started the discussion, and I suspect they might be interested.
I'm happy that we moved from calling me pro-fringe to eccentric. I have spent a lot of time studying ancient and medieval philosophy, and I cannot deny that this has had some influence on my personal views, to the point of me becoming perhaps somewhat eccentric in my approach. I will note though that I'm not a proponent of the idea that we can't know anything. Like most modern philosophers, I regard the question of what we can and cannot know as depending on epistemological premises about which very legitimate discussion can be had. But, again like most contemporary philosophers, I do believe it justified to lay out such premises, and to call the propositions which result from them knowledge. For example, I believe the epistemological foundations of science to be sound, and I regard scientific inquiry as productive of knowledge.
I'm also just parroting mainstream philosophy of science when I say that inquiring into the real existence of something falls outside of the epistemological scope of science. To make claims about the real existence of things we need further epistemological premises, such as for example the premise that things for which there is no scientific evidence simply do not exist. As I've tried to explain in the other thread, this premise is not one that is near-universally held to be sound, like the epistemological foundations of science are. It's a specifically positivist view, which was never universally held, and which has in fact been largely abandoned by a large majority of philosophers since the 1970s. You just can't invoke this premise as something only eccentrics would disagree with. It's also not in any way a premise that non-philosophical reliable sources just take for granted, like they take the soundness of science for granted. It's really important to differentiate between these two things.
Finally, you wrote: If you think (in anything other than a school debate) that the non-falsifiability of something means it might be real, then good luck to you. Well yes, if something's existence cannot be falsified, that means that it is possible that it exists. This is just basic modal logic. It does not mean that it is necessary that it exists, nor even that it is likely that it exists. But it does mean that it is possible, by definition: that which cannot be shown to be false is not necessarily false, and that which is not necessarily false is possibly true.
So yes, if the existence of qi cannot be disproven, that means that it is possible it exists. But note that with the positivist premise outlined above, it does become possible to prove that qi does not exist. If there is not scientific evidence for the existence qi, and if things for which there is no scientific evidence do not exist, qi does not exist. This is as much as to state that Ernst, who
says that the existence of qi cannot be disproven, does not share the positivist premise. He also affirms the possibility of qi's existence: even though we can't observe it directly in any way, it may still be there, in the same way that God may be there
.
It really seems to me that you just have a hard time understanding these subtle philosophical points, which sound to you like the bogus reasoning of fringe-pushers, while they're actually entirely accurate and mainstream. I also think that if only you would trust a little more that I'm really not here to push or justify fringe in any way, you might more easily see that what I say is accurate and mainstream. I'm in fact entirely with you on most points, and IRL I'm actually regarded by my acquaintances as a skeptic and a defender of science. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 20:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Forgive me, I'm new to the wikipedia editorial process. So the jargon is confusing for me.
You have reverted my change removing what I consider non-neutral commentary in the Bret Weinstein article.
I don't seen the benefit of framing Odysse as an "alternative/fringe" platform. "alternative" maybe, but "fringe" is definitely non-neutral.
You say "Rv. to good - take it to Talk, where this has been discussed before" where has this been discussed before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by F127635817 ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
As an expert on WP:FRINGE, would you take a look at the material in the Pine tar article inserted some time ago by Pjsaw (but still in the current article), and take any action you see fit? See Special:Diff/938078710. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 19:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
The Impartial Truth ( talk) 22:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the question 'Is Kulldorff an epidemiologist?'. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " Martin_Kulldorff".The discussion is about the topic Martin Kulldorff.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.C.Wright ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Michael.C.Wright ( talk) 02:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Alex, why are you anti vegan and against John McDougall? You know he is a Harvard trained doctor so he obviously knows what is what when it comes to diet and health. Do you not actually care about seeing Diabetes and heart disease gone from the planet? No? You want heart diseaes to go around the world? Wow... okay, someone clearly has an agenda to see bad health predominate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by a diet crazy ( talk • contribs)
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Could you maybe chill? Your tone and words against me are completely disproportionate to the situation. JBchrch talk 15:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
This is regarding the changes I made to the article Low carbohydrate diet that was reverted by you. I used a non-primary reliable source to back the added content.
I added that low carb diet tends to raise the blood LDL levels commonly known as bad cholesterol, which as per the lipid hypothesis is a risk for multiple heart/cardiovascular diseases. There is a well established scientific consensus which corroborates the lipid hypothesis as stated in the lipid hypothesis article.
Now it is well known that low carb diets tend to raise blood LDL which isn't mentioned in the low carb article currently. It is important to mention it, hence I made those changes.
So pls consider restoring my version that you reverted.
Thank you!!! 2409:4071:E96:1D6:BD8C:CAF2:7368:F711 ( talk) 17:27, 1 March 2022 (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.
I am curiois how you are determining if sources/references are "not reliable". You repeatedly remove peer reviewed journal articles as "fringe" sources. Your determinations seem arbitrary and not based upon criteria stipulated by wikipedia guidelines. Your editorial contributions do not appear to improve this article but just remove valid citations. Additionally you remove itens as "gobbledygook". Just because you lack an understanding of a concept dies not naje the concept gobbledygook, and if SE is based upon sonetging that sounds like gobblydygook to you, but is from a peer reviewed or secondary source, it is a valid inclusion. Please reverse you recent edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanguard666 ( talk • contribs) 15:48, 7 March 2022 (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.
I am unsure that your recent reason given for reversion will look good given the page is under some scrutiny. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Dear Alex. Thank you for your recent attention to the article Norman Fenton. You say I should not write on your talk page about the content of an article, but how can I discuss Norman Fenton's merits as a teacher of writing skills when you have deleted the corresponding section. I see you are a venerable Wikipedian with more than 50,000 edits to your credit, whereas I have just enough to lose the leniency shown to newbies. You state that my contribution fails WP:V. However, it contained a citation linking to a website that is still alive. This citation, admittedly is a primary source, being the essay written by Professor Fenton, which allows the reader to verify that this essay exists. The website is RS as it is published by the Queen Mary University of London's School of Engineering and Computer Science. Could you please enlighten me about your reasons or, failing this, revert your deletion? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade ( talk) 10:02, 17 March 2022 (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.
This is an attempt to address perceived disruptive editing of the biography for Martin Kulldorff. The diffs provided below indicate to me a pattern of disruptive, tendentious, and uncivil editing.
Repeatedly insinuating I have a conflict of interest: here, here, and here
Labelling editors "crazies"
Labelling disagreement with you as "disruptive"
Encouraging other editors “Time to ignore.”
Followed up with a statement "But Wikipedia is going to be pointing-out that the bullshit behind the GBD is bullshit." [1]
Additional editing to prove a point (using biased language):
Despite lengthy discussions at both the talk page and the biographies of living persons noticeboard, reinserted unverified, original research here despite two other editors agreeing the statement is unsupported:
( source)This context plays into the reasoning for the health risks of the GBD...But it is not saying that GBD will cause waves of COVID-19.
— Endwise
( source)...the only question is that can this be rewritten to remove the alleged OR, the recurrent waves mention, and just simply focus on the counter, "the declaration’s approach would endanger Americans who have underlying conditions...
— Morbidthoughts
After reverting the content, you indirectly threatened sanctions (further Campaign to drive away productive contributors).
I request that you remove the following disputed and poorly sourced statement from the biography of Martin Kulldorff:
...warning that attempting to implement it could cause many unnecessary deaths with the potential of recurrent waves of disease spread as immunity decreases over time.
Per content policy regarding biographies:
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
Lastly, my previous invitation to de-escalate the situation is still open.
Michael.C.Wright ( Talk/ Edits) 06:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Just a formality for the ayurveda page. I'm sure you know the drill. Cedar777 ( talk) 07:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Campbell (YouTuber), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Campbell (YouTuber) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
For forms sake I have to leave with this too, as the other user has already used a "but you didn't want the other user " defense. You need to read WP:BLUDGEON. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
"This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community
. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."
The segment that I added should not have been marked as a minor edit. I work with the typo team a lot, and often mark as minor, but that should not have been, and that aspect is entirely on me. As for the text being WP:OR that I added, I am completely unsure as to how that would qualify in the slightest. I can reword the segment then, though it is very neutrally written to only reflect the content from the RS as well as Prasad's views as presented therein, but it is from a secondary source and merely reflective of one particular interview (which I even annotated as coming from Reason magazine's Zach Weissmueller). Other than mislabeling the edit (which was a mistake, and right for you to call out), I do not see what else about this could possibly be construed as OR? Anyway, I will not revert again, as I do not wish any "edit-war", but I will reword with even more care this time... ♥ Th78blue ( talk)♥ 13:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pizza. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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. Calidum 18:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, you seem to have removed a citation I added related with the article at hand. Rather than wholeheartedly reverting my edit, don't you think it would've been more productive to improve my version? Can I ask you put back citation you deleted? Thanks. -- Zaurus ( talk) 17:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your reversion of my edit changing “many” studies to “some.” I looked thru MEDMOS which u cited and didn’t see anything relevant. Pls let me know which part. Thanks. JustinReilly ( talk) 18:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Alex - sorry to bother you, but you know more about this topic than anyone. I attempted to cite the International Journal of Livestock Research but was prevented from citing it because the doi triggered a list of predatory journals. I didn't know livestock journals would be included. Apparently, that means we're not supposed to use anything that was published in it, correct? Does a predatory journal mean the articles published in it are unreliable? What about the author of the article - are they banned, too or does the problem include the journal, and the Ardahan University which is relatively new, and perhaps not accredited? Atsme 💬 📧 23:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:African wild dog on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
One year! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
What about this source for https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research&diff=1086118345&oldid=1086118260?: https://www.bcm.edu/news/covid-19-patients-have-increased-oxidative-stress-oxidant-damage-and-glutathione-deficiency
Merry Christmas. -- Bawanio ( talk) 08:23, 4 May 2022 (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 recently undid edits made to the Experimental Cancer Treatment article, citing "Lots of unreliable sourcing and a spot check finds copy-paste copyvios." While inadvertent copy-paste copyvios will be corrected, your must justify your assertion of "lost of unreliable sourcing" (which includes esteemed publications such as the journals Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics and the British Journal of Cancer, otherwise the edits will remain as-is. Please specify exactly which sources are "unreliable" (in your subjective opinion) and how exactly so, so that this issue can be resolved. You cannot simply remove various subsections based on your obvious biased towards the pharmaceutical industry. as has been documented previously in other talk pages and web articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.217.91.34 ( talk) 14:13, 6 May 2022 (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.
The added source is the primary pharmacokinetic literature from which the claims in the other cited source, which is a review, derive. Careful examination of the source, particularly with respect to the cited review, reveal that they are from the same group, and this study has been widely cited and produced throughout the literature.
Hi,
What POV problems are there for the recent edits on the page? Thanks Altanner1991 ( talk) 18:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Btw I was also gonna add https://goop.com/wellness/health/understanding-diabetes/
Also this https://www.goodhormonehealth.com/2020/02/03/3ss-2/ Machinexa ( talk) 08:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
What? Machinexa ( talk) 08:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For your work on medical content, especially your close attention to sourcing. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 13:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC) |
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:OpenSearch (software) on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the check, I wasn't aware of this. I just found the publisher on WP:CITEWATCH. CarlFromVienna ( talk) 08:56, 23 May 2022 (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.
I have lodged a dispute about this article. StN ( talk) 03:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd recommend not engaging with the IP trolls on VPP further. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 10:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Palpable ( talk) 05:19, 29 May 2022 (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.
Hi Alexbrn. Here is a link to a study from Harvard University published in Current Developments in Nutrition ( https://academic.oup.com/cdn/article/5/12/nzab133/6415894) regarding the Carnivore Diet. The Wikipedia section on the Carnivore Diet states, "There is no clinical evidence that a carnivore diet is safe or provides any health benefits". Due to the fact that there are some reputable studies (this one from Harvard for example) which dispute that claim, stating there is "no clinical evidence" is incorrect, and the term "limited clinical evidence" should instead be used. I know there are some politically motivated, bad actors on this page. I'm hoping you're not one of them. ReadingRiot ( talk) 03:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)ReadingRiot
@ ReadingRiot: I am aware of the "study". A survey in a low-quality journal does constitute evidence of anything much (other than the delusions of various food faddists), and it certainly does not constitute clinical evidence of anything. Please raise any further discussions on the article's Talk page, and expect further personal nastiness to earn you sanctions. Thanks. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
"please strike your personal attack" What personal attack? I have not made any personal attack. I asked him to make an argument to back up what he was saying. It is important to debate and make arguments and provide evidence. Stating that I will personally think of them as malicious if they refuse to make arguments is not an attack, just a statement of my own viewpoint. I'm willing to hear his argument, but he refuses to make one. Until he does, my edit will stand. The term "no clinical evidence" means there is not a single piece of evidence; and any evidence, even supposedly low quality evidence, makes the use of the term "no clinical evidence" incorrect. "Limited clinical evidence" is the correct wordage. ReadingRiot ( talk) 00:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)ReadingRiot
Linking the Apocrypha. [3] Readers must be able to find the entire Holy Writ! Bishonen | tålk 19:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC).
I'd like to apologize for edit-warring in the GBD article with possibly unreliable sources. I'm not very experienced with MEDRS, so I'll stop editing the GBD article for now. X-Editor ( talk) 19:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Your edit summary here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&curid=66692273&diff=1093872785&oldid=1093871692 mentions "plagiarism". I'm not sure what you're referring to. Please clarify. Le Marteau ( talk) 09:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Alexbrn You removed my edit on Havana Syndrome page as unreliable. However, it was supported by statements by one of the leading experts in the field of neuroweapons, Dr Giordano of Georgetown University at a medical symposium organized by UT Southwest. Judging by the expediency with which you removed the edit, you didn't have time to review two videos from the symposium I posted as substantiation. I would hardly call a statement from the leading expert in the field at a medical symposium unreliable. Please, correct the situation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenbermd ( talk • contribs) 09:32, 22 June 2022 (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.
Hi Alexbrn. Thanks for reviiewing this article. If you check the history of this article it has been given as notable for main space. Can you please reinstate it. Thanks. Gardenkur ( talk) 15:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Alexbrn. It was discussed with Wikipedia Administrator.Thanks. Gardenkur ( talk) 16:14, 26 June 2022 (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. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
50.45.170.185 ( talk) 18:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Glossary of areas of mathematics on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 7 July 2022 (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.
Hi, I appreciate your attention to the Isolation Tank article. However, I was wondering why you have flagged and deleted material on neuroimaging in the article as unreliable? It is properly cited with references to recent work in the journal Human Brain Mapping. Thanks in advance for your time. Kleinhern ( talk) 08:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Are you working up Sylvain Lesné? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The Medicine Barnstar | ||
Duly awarded to the gatekeeper of all medical knowledge. jps ( talk) 14:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC) |
Bravo - Roxy the English speaking dog 14:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SmolBrane ( talk) 16:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
26 Jul 2022 research article in Science: The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic
Key quote: "Our analyses indicate that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred via the live wildlife trade in China, and show that the Huanan market was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic." -- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 07:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Considering your expertise with this, I thought I'd just leave a note in case you'd like to evaluate these claims and sources. There's a claim of randomised controlled trials but the idea that listening to a sound effect could replace anaesthesia still appears extraordinary to me. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 21:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Dear Alexbrn, I have made an edit to the page of John Campbell (YouTuber) for which you are the contributor. I have left my reasoning at it's talk page ( Talk:John_Campbell_(YouTuber)#Monkeypox_parallels) but wish to notify you and give an opportunity for discussion in case it is not within your watchlist. SuperiorWalrus (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The user in question is "Smaricic". If you look at their user page part of the text there is just a advertisement asking people to go to a certain website. I believe trying to convince the person to remove the text over the "talk section" won't work at all. I have no idea what official channel to go through for something like this (that's not trying to convincing a user through their talk page). 2601:443:47F:2130:29E1:CFFE:3736:BA4D ( talk) 00:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I see that you did some work on the Placebo article, there's a long standing mis-reference dating to:
Revision as of 11:15, 22 August 2019 (edit) (undo) Anywikiuser (talk | contribs) (Restructured lede, moving effects and non-effects to a higher paragraph; various other tweaks.)
which puts reference (4) as supporting the text "In general, placebos can affect how patients perceive their condition and encourage the body's chemical processes for relieving pain" - the given reference doesn't in fact support that. I'm unclear how to unpick this particular problem, so just alerting you as a possibly interested editor. In Vitro Infidelium ( talk) 12:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
In
this edit, you changed your comment and inserted the phrase maybe even to the point of
WP:BLUDGEONING
. I believe that my edits in that RfC were civil, that I responded to comments directly, and that I did not engage in the sort of repetitive thumping of one's own arguments that constitutes bludgeoning. Please do not hedge on this—if you mean to suggest that I was bludgeoning, please say so directly. But, if you do not believe that I was bludgeoning the discussion, please strike that comment so as to not cast
WP:ASPERSIONS. —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest) 06:29, 22 August 2022 (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.
Hello Alex, I do no understand a) why you remove my edits which include sourced infos about the substance Berberine and its possible use, and b) why you consider this an edit-war at this stage and treaten me with a lock. I included only information which has been in the cited source for years, and I included some other sources which are reliable. Please be detailed why you are going against this. Not only the possible negative effects should be mentioned in such kind of article. Thank you -- Chris 2003:CB:2F02:AAF2:B410:5A48:C024:10ED ( talk) 15:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Recreational use of nitrous oxide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relaxation.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
...what if I don't agree to my email address being made public? Cabayi ( talk) 10:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Note to my Talk Page stalkers: I have changed my Username in an attempt to reduce the risk of further outing and off-wiki harassment. Bon courage ( talk) 10:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Gotta wait a bit, still not actually open. Someone else is supposed to add a co-nom, but they're very busy. I'll be opening it up in 6 or so hours if they haven't added their nomination statement by that point. Thanks for the vote of confidence as well. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
I mentioned you in an existing edit warring complaint, for your violation of this Arbcom ruling.
Michael.C.Wright ( Talk/ Edits) 15:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I just want to say that I appreciate your patience. I'm willing to learn and listen. TheWandering ( talk) 02:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello @ Bon courage, you've gone thru and reverted all my edits from the past couple days, I think I'm doing the right thing, can you explain what the problem is? Lead's commonly have a sentence or two about health affects of the article's topic. For example, the meat article already had health information about raw meat in the lead, in a single sentence, medical information about overcooked meat should work as well? Brian Shaposky ( talk) 17:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Chris Ducat Also dealing with this behavior from this account, they're being banned from accessing my email. I have pointed out specific examples of phrases that are not NPOV and their only response is "it's good". No, the summary of Low-carbohydrate diet needs to reflect phrasing that is NPOV. The diet has been practiced, in some form or another, since the 19th century and has mountains of research behind it. Reducing carbohydrates and sugars is not "extreme". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Ducat ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 October 2022 (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.
I noticed you removed all of the research of the scientist, Krista Varady, even though each statement was supported by a scientific article. The page simply outlines her research contributions to the field of intermittent fasting. It is interesting that you chose to target a female scientist and call her "self-promotional", while you chose not to target any male scientists. This behavior seems overtly sexist. Also, I believe what you did is considered vandalism, since you "removed encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition". Please stop removing content from this page or these actions will be reported. It seems like others are complaining about similar behavior from you (Keto article above). Ejacobs8990 ( talk) 02:34, 5 October 2022 (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.
Hi Bon New to Editing and I won’t repeat my reasons for the edits here since I think you read them. I liked your Bio and I think we’d agree on most things given the bit of hand tipping you did by adding the additional notes about why Heather is wrong about her use of Ivermectin. Could you address my concern though? Is a Bio a place to take issue with the subject? I appreciate that I don’t agree with her because I don’t either but I think that is for readers to determine without our help. Thank you for the guidance for editing here I truly appreciate what you’ve said and I apologize for my clumsy landing. I’ll learn the right way to do this. Best, Jonathan Jonathan94596 ( talk) 16:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello there, there is an important topic which you removed to do with the miscateogization of the AT; see below:
The Select Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Lords included 44 recommendations in its comprehensive report on “Complementary and Alternative Medicine” (CAM) released in November. Many of the recommendations refer to a classification scheme used in the report to organize therapies into three groups.
Group 1, called “Professionally Organised Alternative Therapies” contains acupuncture, chiropractic, herbal medicine, homeopathy, and osteopathy. The Lords report says: “Each of these therapies claims to have an individual diagnostic approach and are seen as the ‘Big 5’ by most of the CAM world.”
Group 2, called “Complementary Therapies” contains Alexander technique, aromatherapy, Bach and other flower remedies, body work therapies including massage, counselling stress therapy, hypnotherapy, meditation, reflexology, Shiatsu, spiritual healing, Maharishi Ayurvedic Medicine, nutritional medicine, and Yoga. Therapies in this group “are most often used to complement conventional medicine and do not purport to embrace diagnostic skills.” 68.129.197.221 ( talk) 12:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BATTLECRUISER OPERATIONAL ( talk) 15:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
This is an attempt to address perceived disruptive editing of the biography for Martin Kulldorff.
WP:BLP states the following:
All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
WP:RSP states the following:
Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation.
This edit is an unsourced statement that you made after you participated in a discussion on the talk page specifically about it being unsourced and factually inaccurate. In that discussion, you acknowledged that the SBM article's "wording is imprecise" and that this new version is what you think "the "two years" comment means." This is WP:OR.
WP:OR states the following:
A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of this policy against original research.
Poorly sourced and contentious material are not acceptable in a biography. This is core policy, as quoted above. This biography and the statement itself is also in context of WP:ARBCOVID, of which I'm sure you're aware.
WP:TE states the following:
Tendentious editing is a manner of editing that, when taken as a whole, is partisan, biased, or skewed. It does not conform to neutral point of view, and it fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content, or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions.
Because the statement as currently written is unsourced, it should be removed from the biography as original research without further discussion.
Michael.C.Wright ( Talk/ Edits) 01:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
flu killed just one childto the CDC site which provides the clarity necessary to state 2021/2022. We have a secondary source providing the context and linking it to the article subject and then another source, specifically called out by a secondary source, that gives the exact data. That isn't an OR issue. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 02:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
"if an editor said 'what Kulldorff really meant was not what he said, but this...'"← if Kulldorff had written something vague but it was 100% obvious from the context what was meant then yes, we would respect the obvious meaning and certainly not propagate a wrong interpretation. And (unlike this case) that might actually have a BLP aspect to it. Bon courage ( talk) 03:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Michael.C.Wright ( Talk/ Edits) 16:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Why are you deleting correctly cited and referenced text regarding the 'Origins of Cannabidiol. What authority do you have to delete factual information cited correctly?? Qualitative CBD Researcher ( talk) 10:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I was not aware that one was not allowed to remove incorrect & opinion-based information without replacing it. This seems counterproductive to supplying accurate information but I will be happy to gather the correct research and *current* information since I have access to it. Veritst1.6 ( talk) 21:32, 9 November 2022 (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.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your uncouth comments on Mr. Malhotra's character. The thread is Personal attack against article subject on talk page. Thank you. Nutez ( talk) 21:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On what grounds did you close this talk page discussion after only a single comment? That appears to be a violation of Wikipedia policy and norms. Without some explanation, that appears to be a closure that will have to be reverted. Rossami (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd categorised you as a new good chap, and have just now discovered your secret identity. - Roxy the dog 08:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to carve up lasting content on an article with (my count) fourteen edits in a three hour span? Including the renaming? It's a bit over the top. This is a collaborative project... SmolBrane ( talk) 15:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Male expendability on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
See User:Shibbolethink/Sandbox. I think my personal position is "generally reliable except science/data reporting".— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Endemic COVID-19 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Crossroads -talk- 09:21, 2 December 2022 (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.
In light of the fact that you're on record as suggesting that I should be sanctioned [6], you're not neutral with regards to discussions I've started. This makes you unsuitable as a closer of discussions I'm involved in, and especially of ones I started. I suggest you self revert your close here: [7]. Adoring nanny ( talk) 17:14, 4 December 2022 (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.
Could you please underscore your decision to not include credible cited sources that were included on the page to show updated academic consensus in the scientific literature about naturopathic medicine?
I welcome your input. SP1111 17:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenpeters ( talk • contribs)
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 Bon. Could you please let me know your decision to not include credible cited sources that were included on the Naturopathic Medicine page to show updated academic consensus in the scientific literature about naturopathic medicine?
Looking forward to hearing back. SP1111 23:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GR8M8 ( talk • contribs)
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.
Have you investigated the claims I made today, that the way macrobiotics is being used in 2022 is far different from what the current article says? The "rice diet" cited in that article was something one of the macrobiotic founders suggested many decades ago as a temporary measure; it was never intended to be used long term. I am not myself practicing macrobiotics, and I recognize that there were some outrageous health claims made by certain individuals in the past. My claim is that the macrobiotic community: (1) has not died out, and thus was never a "fad", and (2) is no longer "officially" making any outrageous health claims, and (3) contains within its body of advice information on cooking and healthy eating that might be beneficial to people with heart disease and other conditions requiring a low-salt, low-oil diet. It is not easy to cook that way. My hope is that this article could be revised in such a way as to include the appropriate warnings (it does not cure cancer, prevent infections, etc; and being mostly vegan, people eating that way require a B12 supplement) but also include the potential benefits. There are a number of articles in the medical literature that support what I say here. If you are willing, I will look some of those up and write a draft in my sandbox of some possible revisions to the article as it stands now. Would you be willing to look over such a draft if I write it? You may of course reject it, but would you at least look? Harborsparrow ( talk) 19:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Don't know if any admins are watching, but having trouble at User talk:World Carnivore Tribe with that user stirring things and wanting to riff on my real-world identity. Bon courage ( talk) 13:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Bon courage,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—
Moops ⋠
T⋡ 22:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.