User talk:Bon courage/Archive 9

New Happy New New

Three years. Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 02:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

And to you Roxy! Alexbrn (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Undid revision on clinical benefit of a ketogenic diet

Discussion moved on the Talk page. -- Dandv 02:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Issue with sources used

Hi Alexbrn,

Can you tell me specifically wat the issue is with me using this study to claim that Noopept may cause an increase in BDNF in the brain: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19240853/? This will help me understand Wikipedia rules going forward. Many thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoggeek (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! That is primary research. In general, any WP:Biomedical information on Wikipedia needs secondary sourcing as set out in WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Right thanks, that seems clear enough. So the rat cell study currently being used as a source in the pharmacology section; that's a seconday source? Only it seems very similar to the one I used as a source, and it doesn't even support the claim it's being cited for! It says Noopept works by various mechanisms, none of which have anything to do with AMPA receptors.

Correct, the only WP:MEDRS in that section is PMID 12596521 - so a trim would be in order. Or an update with better sources. Maybe PMID 30295186 is useful? Alexbrn (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll get right on it. Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoggeek (talk • contribs) 15:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The only caveat I'd add is that PMID 30295186 is Russian, and Russian neurological material has a poor reputation, so a WP:REDFLAG might apply for any surprising claims (e.g. about effects on human health). Alexbrn (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps an edit stating exatly what the study says rather than extrapolating from it? i.e. that Russian researchers found rats injected with Noopept increased BDNF output? Those are simply the facts and people can extapolate from them, especially as to what "Russian researchers" means in terms of reliability.

I don't think statements about pharmacology are so sensitive, but I notice that review was making some bold claims about treatment efficacy from its data, which could be more problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the Noopept article. It was irritating me having that misinformation up there like that, almost encouraging people to use the stuff! I think it's a lot better now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoggeek (talk • contribs) 20:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

These "nootropic" articles are generally in poor shape, and it's a question of damage management rather at the moment. Alexbrn (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin in COVID-19

I edited the section Research/COVID-19 which was reverted by Alexbrn. There were two parts to the edit. The first part of the edit was simply to give the date for that the NIH guidelines on ivermectin were released. That information is on the NIH website. I will insist on my edit unless it incorrect or misleading in some way.

--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)My edit:

The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use ivermectin for COVID-19,[86] in Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines released on August 27, 2020.

--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Alexbrn version:

The National Institutes of Health recommend against the use ivermectin for COVID-19.[86]

The second part of my edit was related to a meta-analysis of clinical trials on ivermectin.

--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)My contribution was:

A meta-analysis funded by the World Health Organization showed an 83% reduction in mortality in hospitalized patients treated by ivermectin. A presentation of the work by Andrew Hill was given at "Ivermectin Against COVID-19 Collaborative Workshop", December 15-17, 2020, sponsored by MedinCell, S.A..

--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)The contribution was removed in Alexbrn's version

The explanation give by Alexbrn was: "Unreliable source per WP:MEDRS, and misrepresented to boot". The source of information was a talk at a scientific conference on COVID-19. Unless there is a more specific justification of removal of this contribution I am going to insist that it is included. What exactly is "unreliable" and was is "misrepresented"?

Again, the material that was posted refers to a presentation at a scientific meeting. Is there a specific prohibition against such a reference? On the other hand, the guidelines specifically encourage references to meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. That was exactly the subject matter that I referred to. The quote from the quidelines is as follows:

The best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[12]--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines. A Youtube video is not reliable. This is not a meta-analysis by the WHO, it is a researcher who is part-way through performing such a meta-analysis giving an interim personal update. As he says, the data suggests ivermectin is effective, but the WHO is waiting for high-quality data before it can decide. In due course this meta-analysis will be complete and will then be a WP:MEDRS we can use, with results which are based on better data than is currently available. Please continue any further discussion of article content at article Talk pages. Alexbrn (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This admin is active on other sites where Ivermectin is debated. I just ran into him on the "Bret Weinstein" entry. It is best to simply ask medical professionals what they are actually taking as prophylaxis when working with Covid-patients and what they have as a standby at home. Ask your own doctor(s). You will hear Famotidine and Ivermectin often. Thus it is a shame when peer-reviewed medical data is suppressed, and when it is shown that is serves Wiki-rules, the admin leaves a note on your own page. The problem is that this censorship may cost lives.Otaku00 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't have a clue do you? I'm not an admin and you're posting to an old thread agreeing with a long-blocked editor. Alexbrn (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I got s.th. from you that was called an administrative notice, as far as I remember. So I have a clue now. You are not a medical professional. You do not consider the sources that are called secondary like meta-analyis reliable (contrary to the Wiki guidelines that you yourself link to). You got Covid although you were vaccined twice, right? I would call you biased. You should hand over subjects like Ivermectin or Weinstein to others, if such a process is even possible here. Otaku00 (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Do not post to this Talk page again. Alexbrn (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Completely uncalled for and I know you are looking at this Talk Page still, Otaku. I believe you can have your opinions but this type of viciousness will not go without me saying something. I would fully support a one way interaction ban, if Alex were so inclined to ask for one, as you have proven you are incapable or unwilling to remain civil. I expect you will honor the request not to post here again. --ARoseWolf 16:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

"The best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)."

What does the term "mainly" mean to you? To me it means the majority of the time but definitely not all the time. Is this wrong? So what other criteria do you look for to determine whether something belongs to "the best evidence." There must be some other criteria if this is only the one that you "mainly" use. Boringname76 (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I was wondering what exactly was wrong with my recent changes? You typically do not start out the medical and pharmaceutical status of a drug with its common use. Could you please advise why this article follows the common criticism of the drug being called just a 'horse medicine' in the US media. Doesn't this play into the conspiracy theorists play books. Likewise the article should not be so sure of the ineffectual use as trails are on going. Just like with the scientific method something should not be dismissed completely out of hand particularly if there are ongoing trails. Current common concession does not mean that something is limited in the scientific sense. Additionally I thought the English version of Wiki is not just for American audiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honjo294 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at its Talk page. If you continue edit warring you will get blocked. Alexbrn (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI Notice

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 an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks - accusations of sockpuppetry by User: Britishfinance. Thank you. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated minimally-explained removal of my edits

I can't help notice that you've undone or vastly reverted every single edit of mine to articles such as Low-carbohydrate diet and Air ioniser. The edit reasons were laconic, showing minimal effort, and not helping me improve the edits. I had to painstakingly engage with you to divine what the problems were. My last revision that you've undone matched the style of another article you patrol, Whole30, and I specifically set the edit reason to "Matching Whole30" in order to prevent your wrath. Not only did that not work, I see that you did not "lede unbomb" Whole30, which confuses me about your (double?) standards. I am slightly upset by this behavior towards me. It makes me feel targeted, and treated like a wikivandal. I would prefer a more cooperative attitude. I'm far from new to Wikipedia, but since you're more experienced and have access to better sources, I would appreciate a more constructive approach towards my edits. -- Dandv 06:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Greetings Dandv! My first piece of advice is to WP:FOC and stop imagining things about "wrath" and "targeting"; I have nearly 500 articles on my watchlist and wouldn't even recognize your account name. My second piece of advice is to remember that the WP:ONUS to get consensus for adding disputed content lies with the editor wanting to make it - it's no good complaining that improving the encyclopedia takes work, and I'm afraid I have no duty to help you make the precise edits you personally want. You might want to learn about the WP:BRD cycle as a possible way of proceeding, paying heed to the "D" part of it. Third, it's ironic you invoke "minimal effort" while in fact engaging with your edits has meant retrieving and reading en entire journal article when you had merely inserted some content from looking at its abstract. For ledes, you should know by now that they summarize body content, so inserting new material directly into a WP:LEDE is problematic. And there are reasons why the Whole30 article is as it as: with its dearth of sourcing we have to dig for fairly crappy sources. That does not make a good template for other articles where there is rich vein of quality sourcing available.

I hope all this makes sense. Thanks for your efforts to help improve Wikipedia which, in the end, I am sure will have good results! Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications! I have read the policies you mentioned and as an example of applying WP:BRD, I have moved (technically re-added) the U.S. News & World Report ranking of the ketogenic diet from the lede section to the Ketogenic diet section of the article. If that reference does belong in the section (as opposed to the lede), then that is the kind of constructive edit I was hoping for from other editors - moving my content to the proper place, rather then deleting it. If it still doesn't belong there, I would really like to understand why it belongs in Whole30 at all. By the logic of crappy sourcing since nothing better is available, then it seems a few of my other reverted edits should be included, since there's no better research yet? -- Dandv 21:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the U.S. News & World Report source is marginal; let's see what others think. For health effect sources, please also be aware of WP:MEDRS; there are very strict sourcing guidelines for health claims. Please continue any further discussion at the article Talk page(s). Alexbrn (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

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.

---

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. JustStalin (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not really an appropriate template, unless you consider updating content with the best-quality sources "disruption". If anything's disruptive it's more your bad reverts which, rather, worsen the article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You removed well-sourced content that supported the majority scientific position, which was included in the article long ago by consensus, multiple times while refusing to discuss those removals on the talk page first. That's textbook disruptive editing. JustStalin (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Err, you might find that "the majority scientific position" is better represented by recent secondary sources in quality peer-reviewed journals, more than a bunch of older material in lay-press. And as for your "discuss first" demands, that is textbook ownership, reinforcing by your dishonest imagining of some sort of "refusal" on my part - ironic when I was posting to the Talk page while you were busy revert warring. Anyway, you have your crappy old sources in and have successfully removed the WP:MEDRS so we need to see what other editors say, to get a wider consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your misrepresentation of a source at Nutrisystem

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 source says that "Nutrisystem demonstrates better short-term weight loss than control/education and behavioral counseling; however, we identified no long-term trial results. We conclude that Nutrisystem shows promise, but the lack of long-term RCTs prohibits definitive conclusions."

In other words, the evidence shows Nutrisystem helps with short-term weight loss, but the long term effects cannot be assessed, because there are no long-term studies. Yet you misleading imply that there is "no good" evidence for Nutrisystem's long term effects, when in fact that is no evidence/studies (good, bad, or indifferent) one way or another.

Also, calling the evidence of short-term weight loss "tentative" is pure OR on your part.

This is obviously a case of tendentious editing and misrepresentation of sources. Cut it out or I will report you. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation. Your edit claims that Nutrisystem increases weight loss by 3.8% (relative to other weight-loss programs), but in fact the study says Nutrisystem "achieved at least 3.8% greater weight loss at 3 months than control/education or counseling." LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you for a voice of sanity

On that article. You know the one I'm talking about.

I think my next Wikipedia session is going to involve far less contentious topics. You demonstrate a high level of patience that I lack. I commend you for that. Jdphenix (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Likewise thanks, always good to have some WPMED sanity helping improve articles - and I think the situation overall is much better now. Alexbrn (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

So how does this actually work long term?

If we're here to build an encyclopedia, and our response to constant fringe POV pushing seems to be actually engaging in brain consuming debate that ultimately leads nowhere, what exactly are we doing again? Honestly by my eye, the response to actually engage seems to be a miscalculation. I'm not sure of a better option though. Jdphenix (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there's been just a couple of bad patches lately. Usually it's less fraught than this and in the end usually works out okay - though once or twice I've thrown up my hands and left articles to fester in a dreadful state. I suspect somehow American politics is a driver of some of the problems we're seeing, but (through avoiding that topic) I'm not sure how. Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair characterization. In short, our (now former) president's administration was pushing unproven conspiracy garbage. I squarely blame them for the hydroxychloroquine debacle. There's more to learn, but your instinct to avoid the topic is the right way to go.

I just remember burning my free time just being curious and reading about all kinds of topics on WP. I'm far from an polymath, but I do have an insatiable curiosity that WP has always been able to sate. I decided to expend some effort editing because of seeing the POV pushing that we (recently?) seem to be dealing with.

Guess I just need to decide if my editorial motivation rooted as described is worth the frustration. I'm not a medical expert, but I have a brain. Jdphenix (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Thank you for your incredible patience and efforts to ensure that Wikipedia articles remain neutral, while participating in repetitive talk page discussions. I noticed this more recently around COVID-19 related articles where there is urgency, but also in general in relation to medicine and other topics. —PaleoNeonate – 19:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, though TBH sometimes I wonder if engaging actually helps . Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Up to a certain point at least, it avoids leaving the impression of consensus by silence; while remaining aware of ad nauseam, firehosing/Gish gallop, non sequitur, red herring, whataboutism and pushing the impression of great legitimate controversies etc... —PaleoNeonate – 00:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Though now I find I spent a fair amount of time arguing with a sock. Hey ho! Alexbrn (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS is a comment-type of article?

The Zoumporlis et al MEDRS you provided in this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=999521296 is labeled as a "Comment" type of article. Although this fact can weaken its validity, I actually have no objection keeping it in the discussion for the sake of saving us time re-editing stuff and, most importantly, because it seems like a good relevant source.Forich (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yup, despite the name sometimes in journals a "comment" like this can be a full review - hence it is categorized as such by the publisher/PUBMED. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Basis (linear algebra) 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 19:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on MEDRS/RS debate regarding fringe lab leak theory

Your comment on whether MEDRS are mandatory before editing a claim implying the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy/fringe idea is requested by this Diff in this page, please take a look. Forich (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI posting about your conduct on Nutrisystem

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.

---

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious_editing,_misrepresentation_of_sources_by_User:Alexbrn_on_Nutrisystem. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Very brave! Perhaps you'd be better off engaging with the discussion on the article's Talk page? Alexbrn (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More on Nutrisystem

I have opened up a discussion on the Dispute resolution Noticeboard, as advised in the closed ANI. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If you can re-write the submission without the personal attacks, and ping other involved editors I would be very glad to participate. But until then, I decline. I would also want you to clarify whether you have a WP:COI of any kind. Please let me know it you can manage to re-submit the DR request in a less WP:BATTLE-groundy way. Alexbrn (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no COI whatever. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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!

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

See above. Alexbrn (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Your revisions

Hello,

You recently removed a segment of the article Potassium chloride to which I had very recently attributed two citations - your edit-summary indicated them as "unreliable". Both referenced texts were scholarly publications. Your measure of experience on Wikipedia quite perspicuously exceeds mine by a large margin, so I intend not to question your authority; I'd simply like to understand the rationale which justified this revision.

Thank you! Interops (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! Please see WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines (with maybe WP:WHYMEDRS / WP:MEDFAQ alongside). I cleaned-up some primary sourcing at the article (which is in generally terrible shape anyway). Please continue any further discussion at Talk:Potassium chloride. Thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Interops (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Swiss

I undid revision 1001656585 because precision is lacking to the existing NIH reference in the COVID-19 section. To be precise--as stated in the cited press release--the NIH upgraded its recommendation from "against" to “'neither for nor against', which is the same recommendation given to monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma, both widely used across the nation" (U.S., that is). The Covid-19 section should be unlocked to allow autoconfirmed users such as myself to clarify the wording--which is what the notification says is allowed for autoconfirmed users such as myself to do, but does not in fact allow it. --Swisswiss (talk} 19:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't bring press releases to Wikipedia, they are nearly always useless for the encyclopedia. Start at WP:5P and if you have further comments on the article, please put them at Talk:Ivermectin. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Nitric Oxide

MEDRS/RS makes sense under normal circumstances. In the middle of a pandemic secondary sources arrive too late. Just about every measure to control COVID-19 has come too late. Cari.Firelight (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact, during the pandemic Wikipedia has a heightened need for good-quality sourcing, and sanctions are in place to discourage editors from swerving them (you have been notified of these). I have now twice reverted your additions at Treatment and management of COVID-19 because they lacked reliable (or even relevant) sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Much has been written about how best to address emergencies. Sticking to rules meant for normal conditions usually prolongs the emergency. My edit does not say nitric oxide is a recognized treatment but that it is being investigated. In my view the sources are credible and relevant. You have provided no reason for claiming otherwise. Please let me know what source you find unreliable, or what part you find irrlevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cari.Firelight (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS for Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines, and continue any further discussion at the article's Talk page. Thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not lying. Are you trying to perpetuate the mass carnage?

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've added the WHO source.

https://www.who.int/news/item/17-12-2020-a-parasitic-infection-that-can-turn-fatal-with-administration-of-corticosteroids

Are you trying to kill people? See I'm not edit warring? Each edit was quite different from the next. I was working to rerfine the edit. You reverted instead of helping with the easily finable reference. READ IT.

LOOK AT diff=1002626197! Got it?

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi again, a hopefully small favor?

Can you ping me on any discussions where an extra brain may be helpful? I can't edit many of the articles regarding COVID-19 as I do not have extended confirmed access rights. That level of protection has been recently added to a few articles in this subject area.

I'm willing to wade in to discussions, but it annoys me that I can't fix easy problems and obvious fringe, and it annoys me more that I have to waste yours (or a similar editor's time) to do the same. Jdphenix (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd have to be sure to avoid an appearance of WP:CANVASSING. If you haven't already, you may wish to add the following WikiProject pages to your watchlist:

• WP:FT/N
• WT:MED
• WP:WikiProject COVID-19.

If something needs attention, I often ask for more eyes in these places. Alexbrn (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that's perfect. That's a better solution as it doesn't rely on you to get me to notice them. Jdphenix (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Lab leak again

Boing! has removed ScrupulousScribe's topic ban after only a few days after it was implemented, as such I have revived the community topic ban proposal. ScrupulousScribe has revealed their true colours in a post on Dingleingy's talk page

Dingle, I read this essay yesterday and this essay earlier today, and I would suggest that you read them too and close the ANI. I created this account on the urge to right something that I felt was wrong, and while it hasn't been hugely successful in the way I went about it, I believe I have achieved my overall objective, and I trust that other editors who understand the science, as well as WP Policy, will pick up where we left off. While they often act obtuse, our contrarian friends are slowly coming around to realizing that the lab leak theory wasn't quite what they first thought it was, and if you listen in on their conversations (here), you can see some cogs starting to turn in their heads (they're past the second stage of realizing that the leak doesn't mean "Bioweapon + Trump + bleh", but they are still a bit before the final stage of understanding the risks posed by certain gain of function studies). Let's meet up again at the Village Pump.

It's clear that ScrupulousScribe is not editing with a neutral point of view. I think this article in the SPLC is really informative, even though it is about far right editors, as the "Civil POV" tactics are the same, as admins are more focused on conduct than content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I already commented on that proposal. I suspect this may, in some form or other, end up at arbcom. Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I know, I just thought I'd let you know. As for ArbCom, It depends how long they stick around for, most of the WIV lab leak pushing accounts have been ephemeral, lasting for only a few weeks at most. Though ScrupulousScribe is more persistent than most. Do you think the complete removal of all mention of lab leak conspiracy theory related content from the WIV article is an improvement or not? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I put some back, and it seems okay as is. To be honest, I think it's all a bit of a nothingburger kept aflame by US political considerations. It bothers me a lot less than - say - treatment misinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This time last year I was arguing with a persistent SPA that SARS-CoV-2 should be called the "Chinese virus" without any sort of context in the article lead, sourced entirely to newspaper headlines, which took months to resolve eventually by a NPOVN RfC. It ultimately doesn't matter to the end user what happens behind the scenes on the talk pages if the article remains stable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, you made a concerted effort to portray me as some kind of Nascar-watching, Mountain Dew-sipping hillbilly truther promoting conspiracy theories from the Donald. In truth, the only position I advocated for is the inclusion of a hypothesis from a number of respected scientists quoted in reliable sources, proposing that the virus could have originated from a lab, and most likely a lab in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. My position was/is completely different to those of other transient editors you countered before, and my reliable sources were much more recent, and provided new information.

Most of the scientists proposing the lab leak theory as quoted in the reliable sources I provided, focused on the seeming pre-adaption of the virus to humans, and the gain of function studies that the WIV was known to be doing (as discussed in this time-stamped video interview with Peter Daszak or on his Twitter here), and the controversy surrounding the missing data in Professor Shi's February paper in Nature and her addendum to it (the new information, which you can learn more about about here); but there are also other lab origin possibilities, such as a mistaken prick of a needle, contamination through waste disposal, or the reselling of lab animals to the local wet market (like this report from UPI indicates, and was known to have happened with other labs in China).

Both you and Alex carried on the conversation, conflating legitimate lines of scientific inquiry with debunked conspiracy theories, refusing to acknowledge the differences between them, culminating in Alex finding a paper that seemingly rules out all lab based scenarios, which he considered to be among the "best" of the MEDRS sources that could be found, which I found to be highly disingenuous on his part. It's entirely possible that an intermediate host or virus will be found, which will rule out all lab-based origin scenarios, but it has been over a year already, and its looking less and less likely to happen, especially as the addendum that Professor Shi made to her Nature paper revealed that they were holding another eight SARS-like coronaviruses that they were working on in undisclosed ways, and neither she nor the Chinese government are being very forthcoming with any details. This controversy will only get bigger, and you will have to be more congenial with editors, transient or longstanding, who propose lab origins and bring forward reliable sources with quotes from respected scientists and experts. You will also have to beef up your own knowledge of virology and epidemiology, to understand what is being proposed, and what is not.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, we know from the best sources that the "constructed in the lab" story for Sars Cov 2, is a conspiracy theory. Once this sunk in, all I've really seen beyond that is arm-waving from editors, like the above, with nary a decent source in sight. As with most fringe topics, we have diehard true believers who will push and push. Wikipedia tends to prefer mainstream, solid sources. Alexbrn (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"Constructed in a lab" is hardly a scientific term to encompass all lab origin scenarios. And to that point, like I have told you before, Ralph Baric, who is one of the foremost experts in coronaviruses and synthetic virology has publicly countered that claim in a public interview he gave to Presadiretta (a reliable source by any account), saying that with the current technology (2), it wouldn't be possible for us to know if the virus was made in a lab (as a Chimera). For those with a basic understanding of the subject at hand, Baric is not saying it is would be impossible for us to know if the virus was created from scratch as a synthetic virus, as that is a completely different thing (and near impossible with current technology). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"Constructed in a lab" is the terminology from peer-reviewed, secondary sources as cited. Youtube is not a reliable source. My recommendation is to get good sources first, and from them get the concepts. You are doing it the other way round, and this is always a a bad idea. Alexbrn (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

RAI's Youtube channel is a reliable source. And as I and other editors like Arcturus have pointed out, the MEDRS source you referenced doesn't address all lab origin scenarios, such as those proposed by the abovementioned scientists in reliable sources and the statement of the USDOS. As WP:BESTSOURCES says, If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a content discussion. I'd have those at the relevant article. Jdphenix (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Jdphenix It began as a personal discussion that turned into a content discussion. I'm glad we had this discussion because it's difficult to discuss content with personal issues in the way. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It really isn't though. Also, edits like this one seems like a very effective way of giving someone evidence if they're interested in you not editing on this topic. Jdphenix (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• We went through the process of finding the best sources, and have summarized them for what the conspiracy theory is (that the virus was lab-engineered). If there are other "scenarios" not dealt with in these sources, propose an edit on the Talk page. I'm genuinely unsure what they are which is why I refer to "hand waving" above. From my previous experience of Arcturus's sourcing opinions forgive me if I don't treat their source selection as exemplary. I expect in a year or two we'll have university-press academic books examining how this stuff took hold in the public imagination, and it could be interesting then to revisit the topic for a more retrospective look at it. People have a need for stories, and conspiracy theories can make for compelling ones. Alexbrn (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The MEDRS sources provided, which do not trump the statements of the US government and respected scientists quoted in reliable sources, did not differentiate between the different lab origin scenarios that there are, though I think you know that already. Besides for myself and Arcturus, there are other editors who have made this point, and it would be a waste of our time to continue engaging with you in discussion, as I don't believe you are genuinely "unsure" as to what those alternative scenarios are. I don't believe you are balanced on this issue and acting in good faith, and I see it is also not below you to keep a false guilt by association between a scientist with a POV you don't like and holocaust denialism on a page where it completely fails WP:DUE, based on a biased source with only a partial quote (see the talk page there). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The MEDRS sources provided, which do not trump the statements of the US government ← very witty! They kind of do tho'but. No, I truly am unsure about what your imagined scenario is, because it's is something that only ever gets indirectly alluded to and arm-waved about, rather than plainly stated. Alexbrn (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Source selection? Yes, I hold my hands up to that one from the BBC. I should have known better, given the way the BBC is going. It's getting to the point where they should be listed as a deprecated source, along with The Guardian. Nevertheless, I stand by my comments about the WHO and its officers. It will always be possible to find RSs proclaiming their pontifications. The trick is to be able to identify bullshit when you see it - right across the board, not just from one side of the debate. Unfortunately, bullshit from the WHO (of which there is much) is rarely, if ever, rebuffed on Wikipedia. Arcturus (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe has just been topic banned from COVID-19, broadly construed, for at least 6 months. Belated, but welcome. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Some surgical admin interventions should stave off the need for this to go to arbcom (which would be a huge further timesink). Alexbrn (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I just saw this in Ars Technica while looking for something else and figured I'd make note of it: The team also plans to meet with COVID-19 survivors and visit the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is the center of much speculation and many conspiracy theories that the pandemic virus was engineered and/or accidentally released from a laboratory. XOR'easter (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

McDougall Diet

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.

---

• John A. McDougall (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hey, can you explain to me how three pop-science book sources can be used to justify the claim that there is "no scientific evidence" that the McDougall Diet works? I can provide plenty of studies that demonstrate that the McDougall diet works to lower cholesterol, etc. The claim was WAY too strong, so I changed it and left the citations in the article. I reverted your edit that reverted mine, sorry. Edsanville (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:PARITY. When dealing with fad diets such as this, it applies. In any case the claim that there is no evidence for any scientific proposition is a commonplace, the default assumption, and does not need strong sourcing (as opposed to positive claims of effectiveness). Please continue any further discussion at the article's Talk page. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Who classifies a diet as a "fad diet?" Is there an official committee that does this, and everyone else is supposed to accept that ruling? With all due respect, are you the head of that committee? Edsanville (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Rumbled! Alexbrn (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you give us the official policy on the seefood diet please, Mr. Chairman? -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 15:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

See food, eat food! But then, as a dog, you know that . Alexbrn (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, ok then, I defer to the Chairman of the Committee. Just kidding, I'll be back. It's been a decade since I've made Wikipedia edits, and it appears that in the meantime, there are people who stonewall innocent edits just for kicks. It's a real shame what's happened. Edsanville (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My Talk Page

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.

---

Please don't edit my talk page. Edsanville (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Understood, with the usual exceptions for necessary notifications of course - which, judging by your editing you are going to need. I see you've just edit-warred the McDougall article into a POV state again, for example. Alexbrn (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It was a POV state before I got to it, and I've been trying to remedy the situation. You've been reverting my constructive edits repeatedly, therefore you're equally guilty of perpetuating an "edit war." Don't talk down to me, son. Edsanville (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Err, since I templated you I am aware of the policies on edit-warring, so your use of a retaliation template would seem a bit tendentious, no? Alexbrn (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander on an open-source online encyclopedia. Edsanville (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, not. I've seen people admonished for retaliation templates, because they obviously serve no informative purpose, but are a misuse of templates as a kind of weapon. Since you were on an edit-warring spree I thought it was wise to let you know about policy in this regard in case it got even worse. Your goose & gander comment reveals what you're up to. Alexbrn (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't care what you think, and I don't answer to you. You reverted just as many times as I did. You have just as strong a POV as I do. You are biased. You don't intimidate me with silly templates. Anybody can post them. Was that clear? Edsanville (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

McDougall Diet

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John A. McDougall; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edsanville (talk • contribs) 12:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Arcturus (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems a bit like trying to take out opposition, especially when your report omitted to mention that one of my "reverts" was exempt because it was of blatant copyvio/plagiarism. Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, if it was. The warring was too extensive to get into the precise detail. Arcturus (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

PA

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 [[1]] is a really very serious PA, never ever call another user a fucker. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It's very rarely justified. But sometimes ... you know how it is. Alexbrn (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

NO I do not, and point out where in policy it says it is ever justfied. I can harldy tell them to not make PA's and allow you to call them a fucker. What you did undermined what we were telling the user.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Nobody should be conversing with them, they should have been blocked from their Talk page per the ANI outcome (which was my point). Block and ignore. Alexbrn (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Fortunately SS, you have little or no influence in this area, and you just look like a Busybody. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 14:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Then the next time I see you or him call a user a fucker I shall take it to ANI and see what the admins think.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Dont be a marplot all your life. Arkell Vs Pressdram applies. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 14:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited COVID-19 drug repurposing research, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merck.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for summary

Hi, I thought the revert was done by Thucydides that's why I said edit warring. I later realized it was someone else, no harm intended. Feynstein (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, in fact it is you who are edit warring - and reinstating credibly challenged material is a breach of the COVID-19 general sanctions, so I suggest you self-revert. Alexbrn (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

There was no "credibly challenged" because there was no discussion in the talk page, don't make up stuff please. Anyway, another Heimdall took it upon themselves to revert it. Making, yet again, absolutely NO progress. How I love it. Gday bud! Feynstein (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Putting "unreliable source" is a credible challenge. The application notes for these general sanctions are at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019#Application notes. You can't say you weren't warned. Alexbrn (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I looked over at WP:RSP there's no mention of VOA and no consensus on Business Insider. Unless you can back your claim with actual evidence they're unreliable your warning is moot. Feynstein (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSP is a non-inclusive list, and irrelevant. Anyway since you have decided to edit-war I shall leave this. I now support your being banned from the topic. Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I bet you do. It was a mistake on my part and I apologized. I saw Thucydides written and I undid the modification. I then realised my mistake and came here to tell you. In the meantime someone else undid it. It's an honest mistake and I did not do any other edits on the page. If there's an investigation for a topic ban on my part I'd like to be informed, but there doesn't seem to be any. I make sure I respect WP policies and if I don't momentarily I try to undo my mistake. I get unwillingly caught up sometimes and I try to make up for it as soon as I realize. I don't think you threatening me with a topic ban is warranted in that case since I showed multiple times my willingness to comply with uninvolved administrators warnings. It's all in my talk page. I think we got carried with a misunderstanding and I'm willing to discuss it if you want. I might have been harsh when first discovering it, I'm sorry, it's how I talk. I grew up in hard neighborhoods and my bs-o-meter is hair triggered. The misunderstanding I think is about the "virus construction" conspiracy theory. I wanted to ask you if you understood the difference between serial passage or forced evolution and gene editing. And how they are going to affect a virus genome. Thank you for your time. And again, I'm sorry and I'd like to reset our encounter in a lighter way. Thank you. Feynstein (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, I don't want to get into the lore of the conspiracy theory, I just want to reflect the good sources as Wikipedia must. I and others have said this multiple times in multiple ways and I think it is futile to repeat it further since you're apparently not WP:LISTENing. Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to bury the hatchet here. That's exactly why I'm here, I want to WP:LISTEN to you. The revert/edit I made actually added a source to complete a point about the lab's safety concerns, irrelevant to the subject of our other discussions. I made it once and thought that it was Thucydides who reverted it. I noticed the mistake immediately. Would also have reverted it if someone else didn't do it first. I want you, if you want, to explain to me why you keep using that conspiracy language. To me it seems like a false equivalency fallacy with the bioweapon theory. It's not "conspiracy theory" lore, what are you talking about? It's at least an "unproven allegation" (direct quote)[2] since the WHO visited the lab a few days ago. If every "unproven allegations" were labeled as conspiracy theories we would have a problem with victim shaming now would we. Feynstein (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I see it as simple. Make sure Wikipedia has content about topics which is the same sort of thing as found in the WP:BESTSOURCES. We've found them, and they say lab origin ideas are a conspiracy theory. That's it; job done. The rest is noise. If new excellent sources come up which say something different, Wikipedia changes. Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me do a rundown for you of the 4 papers you guys selected for MEDRS, it might take a bit of time because biology lingo is absurdly complex. This article [3] says "Furthermore, a few important points related to the “conspiracy theories” such as “laboratory engineering” or “bioweapon” aspects of SARS-CoV-2 are also reviewed." and The authors, taking the references of published articles on zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2 and based on their own analysis, suggested that the SARS-CoV-2 could have originated either through “natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic transfer” or “natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer”. They rejected the possibility of “laboratory release” or the “SARS-CoV-2 acquired RBD mutations during adaptation to passage in cell culture” [40]. Nevertheless, it was claimed that the mutations in RBD are possible during adaptation to passage in cell culture [41]. However, Andersen et al. suggested that, nearly identical Spike-RBD of Pangolin-CoV with the SARS-CoV-2 supports a recombination or mutation event in the development of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-RBD probably from Pangolin-CoV [40]. It was previously reported that, insertions and deletions near the S1/S2 of Coronavirus Spike can occur due to natural evolutionary process (or prolonged passage or sub-culturing) [42-44]. However, in order to generate such virus through passage, a “progenitor virus with very high genetic similarity” needs “prior isolation” [40]. Introduction of a polybasic cleavage site specific to hACE2 requires repeated sub-culturing of this virus in cell culture or animals with hACE2. But neither such progenitor virus nor sub-culturing based polybasic cleavage to hACE2 has “previously been described”. Hence, Andersen and colleagues concluded that SARS-CoV-2 is not generated or released/escaped from laboratory [40]. Thus, according to these authors, without prior knowledge in public domain, we may not precisely identify the origin of SARSCoV-2. The authors finally concluded that “although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here” (Figure 1B).". Clear as day here, prolonged passage or sub-culturing. In this particular case, for this particular subject, I think editors should read the papers carefully. Feynstein (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what an encyclopedia, particularly Wikipedia, is. The task is just to summarize accepted knowledge and that gives a conservative, maybe lagging, text. Make sure Wikipedia has content about topics which is the same sort of thing as found in the WP:BESTSOURCES. We've found them, and they say lab origin ideas are a conspiracy theory. That's it; job done. Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I know that, but this is a misrepresentation of what the paper said. If you do that, it's worst. Your blanket statement about it is precisely the problem with science journalists. [4] Feynstein (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Some editors want to complicate the summary because of what other, lesser, sources say. But that's not allowed. Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, it's not my point here, I don't want to "add" information here, I want you guys to unpack the blanket statement made so that the source isn't misrepresented. Anyway, you don't seem to be willing to do that for unknown reasons that I think are unjustified. Maybe other editors will weigh in and the article will progress. Thank you for your time, it's really appreciated. Feynstein (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Twitter harassment

In case you weren't already aware, there are several tweets replying to Yuri Deigin that specifically highlight you, so you might want to be on the lookout for off-site harassment. JoelleJay (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. There's been some on-Wiki already.[5] I didn't delve into the twitter stuff too deeply, but it seemed to suggest a certain amount of coordination/meat puppetry going on for all this "lab leak" stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I interestingly recently reverted Special:Diff/1005900871 —PaleoNeonate – 07:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

PMID 33200842 is one of two BioEssays sources that has been repeatedly pushed by leak conspiracists. Alexbrn (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I read some RSN archives today and am now familiar with various sources that were recently spammed, —PaleoNeonate – 03:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably a fair amount of socking / WP:MEAT in the ongoing deletion discussion too. I'm thinking long-term BioEssays needs to flagged up as unsuitable for use on Wikipedia, since its scope ("novel insights, forward-looking reviews and commentaries") is for content fundamentally at odds with what Wikipedia wants. We already don't use Medical Hypotheses for similar reasons. Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis

Beat you to the punch :) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For all the time and energy you spend in ensuring fringe content stays out of the wiki, the patience you exhibit, and in your reviews of journal sources and writing reliably-sourced content. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I love the smell of fresh sources in the morning . Alexbrn (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That article was a good read. This part gave me a giggle for a second, then just made me a bit sad about how true it is: Thus, the issues are clearly on their ideology, not the science. We are now facing over‐critical communities which, unfortunately, are not very knowledgeable. The situation is worsened by the lack of trust in government, research institutions, and pharmaceutical industries. I recall reading a Pew Research report saying that 1/3 of surveyed Americans believe that it originated in a lab. Plus all the other conspiracies about the vaccine and whatever else. Unbelievable scientists have to spend time debunking conspiracy theories rather than getting on with the science. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. One effect editing fringe topics on Wikipedia has has on me, is to make me think the endarkenment is a possibility. Alexbrn (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, well deserved, —PaleoNeonate – 08:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I have to admit Alexbrn maintained a rock-solid position throughout the discussions and did lots of patient work, well deserved barnstar, cheers. Forich (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That's very gracious of you Forich - let me in turn say that you (as someone with apparently a slightly different take on how to go about this topic than me) have shown great integrity. If only all Wikipedia could be more civilised! Alexbrn (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

MDPI journals

I have re-opened the MDPI journals discussion, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#MDPI_journals. Make your peace there and cease edit warring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion has now closed, following this I changed the entry to "Publications in MDPI journals are considered questionable. Editors raise concerns about the robustness of MDPI's peer review process and their lack of selectivity in what they publish. Originally placed on Beall's List of predatory open journals in 2014, MDPI was removed from the list in 2015." Which I think adequately summarises the concerns editors have raised about MDPI. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Tone

Please don't imply disruption for a simple source request. Are you familiar with WP:CHALLENGE? That long sentence is not directly sourced and the terminology is pejorative. The following sentence has four refs, so if it is one of those it can easily re-applied if the appropriate one is named. We don't need to stoke dramas as they are already present in abundance. Remember to bear in mind the content of the template you pasted on my talkpage shortly after I came across the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, it is verified by the cited sources, and the exact terms are used. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, so there would be no problem in applying that source directly then, to make verification less of a chore for the reader? Would you characterise that citation request as disruptive? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the drama necessary?

Why do you want to spread this drama all around wikipedia? I get it that you are passionate about this lab leak thing, but I really think it is good if we just try to keep that drama very focused on a few articles. Let's say the covid19 misinformation article and the covid19 investigation article. The science projects really do not have time for all of the drama. There are simply not enough editors, and almost every editor in the sciences wants to avoid drama at all costs. Look at the sars cov 2 article. It has a phylogentic section and is sourced as in the article that you are causing a disruption in. Obviously, the next step will be to go to the sars cov 2 article talk page and ask the editors there. Do you really want everyone to waste their time over this 100% standard phylogentic section? Please just self-revert, so we don't have to waste endless volunteer hours at the sars2 cov 2 article. Thanks. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not passionate about the subject, other than passionately wishing it would go away and leave space for more productive editing. You have been warned about the sanctions, and removing well-sourced secondary material and replacing it with unreliable (primary) material is a no-no. If it continues I will support your being blocked or banned, for the good of the the project. If other articles are bollixed-up, that's not a good reason for you to spread the problem elsewhere. BTW, your false accusation of disruption is a personal attack. Alexbrn (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if I misinterpreted your actions. Thank you for volunteering with the rest of us. I look forward to your valuable contributions. Keep up the good work. --Guest2625 (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - yes, it's tough times, let's all get on improving things! Alexbrn (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Feynstein (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Please, explain

Please, explain, why is [6] unreliable? --Geysirhead (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS: we want review articles or better. This particular source has been discussed to death at various other articles too e.g. Talk:COVID-19 misinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Circumcision page edits

Hi,

I wanted to follow-up on the changes you reverted on the circumcision article. I think the changes I made were actually much clearer than the way it was. It makes most sense to group the effects of circumcision into positive, negative and controversial. The way it currently reads is biased towards an anti-circumcision view in the sense that all the positive effects are not clearly identified as such (by way of their category heading) and the inclusion of the controversial effects in the adverse category makes a casual reader who only glances at the category headings consider those effects to be adverse when in fact their effects are controversial.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebel702 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest raising at the article Talk page. I am concerned about portioning things up in a way which implies editorial POV, and the term "controversial effects" probably doesn't mean what is intended. Alexbrn (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Please stop vandalising

Accidental Reporting Of Vandalism

I am sorry for accidently reporting you of vandalism. That was a mistake on my part, i am new to the anti-vandalism thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cboi Sandlin (talk • contribs) 20:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem - squishing vandalism is a worthy activity and there's plenty of it going on: all power to your (more careful) efforts! Alexbrn (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a discussion on Twitter under Jimmy Wales' page about you

Alexbrn, you tell others that they must cite only secondary sources to a primary source. Yet you removed my PubMed sources on the RaTG13 page, while not touching any of the other sources above mine which are ALL primary sources. Not one of those is a review. But they all maintain the same point of view that you agree with. What you're doing is using the sourcing rules to remove things you don't personally agree with or like, while not applying those same rules to points of view you align with. There's a discussion on Twitter under Jimmy Wales' page about you that I see has been ongoing for 3 years now. You're infamous for this. As a new user, you've definitely made me not want to contribute anything after you removed my PubMed-backed contribution and contributed nothing of your own to the page. You post some edit warring thing on my page about discussing things and reaching a consensus, yet I don't see a single instance of you compromising with anyone here. It's clear you want to control a narrative on certain Wikipedia pages, initiate edit wars by taking down credible contributions with valid sources, and then copy and paste things about working with other editors when you yourself refuse to work with anyone on anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RonnieSays (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss on the Talk page

Please read and discuss on the Talk page of Fluvoxamine before reverting the stable consensus version based on WP:NOR and WP:MEDRS. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

You don't own the article, and are edit-warring unreliably-sourced content in. Alexbrn (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Why did you revert Bell's palsy effects ?

Why did you revert Bell's palsy effects ? 2A00:C281:1531:B00:9111:980C:57F4:D359 (talk)

As I wrote in the edit summary, content about AEs needs WP:MEDRS sources. That is, not journalism. Alexbrn (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence 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 05:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused

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.

---

by this edit. How was that whitewashing and what is with changing the language to British English for an American based org? VAXIDICAE💉 20:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss content on the article Talk page, but first it might be useful to review WP:V and WP:ENGVAR. Alexbrn (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Why are you telling me to review ENGVAR when your edit was contrary to ENGVAR? An American orgs article should be written in American English. I'm asking specifically about your revision. VAXIDICAE💉 20:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

And there already is a conversation on the talk page, one which you aren't engaging in. VAXIDICAE💉 20:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The principal RS, Goldacre, is British. Hence don't monkey around per WP:RETAIN. Anyway, here is not the place to discuss it. Alexbrn (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Great, so I look forward to you engaging on the talk page there where the discussion has been waiting. VAXIDICAE💉 20:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edits on low-fat diets

In regards to Whittaker's 2021 paper (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960076021000716).

The standardized mean differences show very consistent effect sizes across markers of androgen status (-0.38; -0.37; -0.38; -0.30), and all are statistically significant, the majority highly so. This would typically be phrased as there is strong evidence of an effect (please see the Cochrane Handbook for interpretation - https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-15. Moreover, these effects of notable size (0.2 = small effect; 0.5 = medium effect; 0.8 = large effect).

Also, the included studies show very low heterogeneity, besides 1 outlining sample in the total testosterone meta-analysis, likely due to the ethnicity of that sample.

Tha authors state in their first highlight that 'Low-fat diets decrease testosterone levels in men', which intended to be the complete summary of the research. They do state that further randomized controlled trials are needed, but likely in an effort to direct future research, as their results are very strong.

The words 'limited evidence' do not accurately reflect the content of this review. I suggest omitting the word 'limited', to rephrase the sentence to 'There is evidence that low-fat diets compared to high-fat diets...'

Let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutritionandhealtheditor (talk • contribs) 17:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss on the article talk page. I don't think we can brush aside the "appeared to" language and the unconfirmed nature of the evidence so lightly, as it fails WP:V. For wider input, please raise a query at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

COVID 19 pandemic

[7] have posted at article talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Modest flowers

Thank you for what you said for RexxS --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for prototype testing

Hello there!

My name is AVardhana (WMF) (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC), and I recently joined The Wikimedia Foundation and am writing to invite you to participate in a user testing study that I'm currently conducting for The Wikipedia Library team. I noticed you've been an editor on Wikipedia so I thought I would reach out to see if you're interested in testing a prototype of the library's new Homepage?

This would involve my emailing you the prototype with a list of instructions and questions. The purpose of the study is to get a better understanding of what people think of the new Homepage design! If you're interested, please let me know here or feel free to email me at [email protected], and I'll be in touch via email! If you have any questions, I am happy to answer them.

Thank you, Aishwarya

Further non-MEDRS in the COVID area

To beat the POV-pushers to the punch: there's another dubious paper in Environ Chem Lett.; by the same suspects (A person quite active on Twitter; "Independent Researchers"; ...). Any further opinion on this, or is it just clearly "not MEDRS"? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The journal it's in (area: environment), the loaded title, the conclusion and especially the parts that focus on supposed abnormalities rather than that like the others, the most likely origin is nature, the previous paper that was pushed a lot in WP before, expresses motivation... The last sentence is "While a natural origin is still possible and the search for a potential host in nature should continue, the amount of peculiar genetic features identified in SARS-CoV-2′s genome does not rule out a possible gain-of-function origin, which should be therefore discussed in an open scientific debate." not "While a full understanding of the origin is far ahead but that a natural origin is the most likely scenario, ..." and yes, scientific debates can continue (not WP's business), when major milestones and conclusive research gets reported in better sources, it can become interesting for WP articles... —PaleoNeonate – 22:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

That journal is not MEDLINE indexed, so should be avoided for biomedical claims - particularly anything that could be WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Alexbrn (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm I just noticed Draft:Jeanne Calment identity switch hypothesis today and this reminded me that I knew of Deigin in relation to Jeanne Calment, from before the COVID-19 self-promotion campaign (but didn't do the association then). It's the same, right? —PaleoNeonate – 22:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a new one to me! Yes, it would seem to the same guy. I somehow got the impression there was a cryonics connection too. Alexbrn (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, IRT transhumanism... For the above I'm not sure it's due (the speculative claims were already mentioned in the main article), but it's still only draft space... The new draft find was when following links from FTN (event symmetry), via Gibbs/Weburbia. —PaleoNeonate – 05:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Conversion time of D₃ to Calcifediol

I have noticed you are allowed to edit the Calcifediol wikipedia article. I attempted to "talk" to the editor "zefr" whose bot reversed my initial change. I have added a rational for removing as specifically incorrect phrase. Unfortunately, no one will read or comment on my requested change. I would appreciate if you could read my comments in the talk section of Calcifediol and at least make a comment on them or direct them to the appropriate editor who may care to read them. I could make the change, but it appears the wikipedia is protected by a bot. My change would only result a bot war and with me being banned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.221.147 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I have responded on the talk page and made the correction. Jrfw51 (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop removing edits

Dude, can you stop removing my edits? When people add reliable sources, it's not your perogerative to change them because you disagree with them. Either add reliable sources and contest my edit or stop inserting your personal biases into objective editing. Dashoopa (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe try WP:BRD? Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Alexbrn's inappropriate accusations of 'stalking'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Your accusation of stalking is completely inappropriate and bizarre. The above editor has a habit of poor phrasing, edit warring with multiple people, and has been disciplined multiple times. I was engaged in an non-wikipedia discussion regarding dietary standards, when I was drawn to poor language in this article. I was not aware of his participation on the article until after I made the correction. The coincidence must come from the full time multi-year editing he engages in, which spans a very large number of articles. It might be a better idea for Alexbrn to take a break instead of attacking me. Gsonnenf (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, so you're an admitted WP:MEAT puppet too, recruited off-wiki to skew the article. I see. I don't know what wrong-headed fantasies you have about me being "disciplined" but this is all beginning to look a bit strange. Please do not post to my Talk page again. Alexbrn (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Precious

music medicine

Thank you for quality articles around medicine such as List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments and Fredrick J. Stare, and music such as Piano Quintet (Franck), for appreciation and "I love the smell of fresh sources in the morning", - Alex, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2573 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Aw shucks! Alexbrn (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Atorvastatin and Apixaban discussion

Hi, what was/is the outcome of this discussion? I'm not sure when my original edit should be added, but i found it interesting--Cripplemac (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Working Memory

Hi, Alexbrn! You have deleted the new Subsection "Model of working memory in interacting neural and astrocytic networks" from Working memory with explanation "Failing WP:MEDRS". Could I kindly ask you, how this section can violate the rule "Identifying reliable sources (medicine)". There were three citation: 2 from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience and one from "Trends in neurosciences". Moreover, the topic has no relations to medicine. I believe that you have some reasons to delete but I would be happy to know them. With best regards,Agor153 (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Neuroscience is in the realm of biomedicine. We need good secondary source, and not from dodgy publishers like Frontiers. Also, could you say if you have a conflict of interest with this material please? Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you :). Just for my education, which Journals could you accept for neural models of memory? For example, are Neural Networks or Physics of Life Reviews appropriate, from your point of view?Agor153 (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

In general, we are looking for secondary sources (e.g. review articles) in reputable journals. MEDLINE indexing is, for example, one indication of repute. You did not answer my question about conflict of interest. Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I have checked now. "Frontiers in Cellular neuroscience" is on MEDLINE (despite your comment about "dodgy publishers"). "Trends in neurosciences" seems to be a leading Journal in this area. I also appreciate your comment about the conflict of interest. To prevent "the war" of deletion/restoring, I have to understand your criteria. Of course, Frontiers is not respected as much as "Trends..." or Nature but you can see that the same people publish their papers in these journals. Therefore, I definitely need your advice about appropriate journals: the "MEDLINE criterion" is too soft and includes many journals you do not like to include.Agor153 (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDCOI, and maybe also WP:REFSPAM. Frontiers is a borderline publisher (WP:CRAPWATCH is useful). But we absolutely need secondary sources as the basis of any knowledge Wikipedia gives. Alexbrn (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, thank you.Agor153 (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of What3Words

You have removed a chunk of the Criticism section from the What3words article on the basis that it contains citations to Twitter.

Although tweets are not usually acceptable, I believe these citations fulfil the requirements of WP:SPS, as the tweets are directly from the researcher who is quoted by the cited BBC news article.

Indeed all of the primary research into this issue has been published through Twitter - it is unclear to me how such primary research can be used if citing tweets is always banned. FireFury (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If it hasn't been picked up by secondary sources, where's the WP:WEIGHT? We can mention what secondary sources mention. Otherwise, you'd be opening the door to cite any of W3W's tweeted "rebuttals" and it would be a spiral of craptitude. Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

ANI

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 an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.2603:7000:2400:1E91:49BD:1F3:B4AD:311C (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You've put odd capitals in my name in your complaint. It looks like a ransom note! Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks for note (re: Melatonin edit)

Was clear (need secondary sources - which don't appear to exist for that particular research so article is better without it). Ian TO (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible sensational wording unreliable sources and scare mongering.

Hi, You have recently undid the contribution of user Yamato Bismarck Hood Iowa on Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine#Adverse effects but the very same tone and sources were used for his contribution on COVID-19 vaccination in Bangladesh#Controversies, section explicitly created by the same user, possibly for the same purpose. Please have a look at it. Thank You in advance. YBSOne (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

My watchlist is bulging and I don't want to add more COVID trouble to it. But if you see such problematic wording, please attend to it: be WP:BOLD ... Alexbrn (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hi Alex, why did you revert my additional information with reference on ivermectin? Thanks Wgmetzger (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Because of the primary source. Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The primary source is:

Ivermectin for causal malaria prophylaxis: a randomised controlled human infection trial. Metzger WG, Theurer A, Pfleiderer A, Molnar Z, Maihöfer-Braatting D, Bissinger AL, Sulyok Z, Köhler C, Egger-Adam D, Lalremruata A, Esen M, Lee Sim K, Hoffman S, Rabinovich R, Chaccour C, Alonso P, Mordmüller BG, Kremsner PG. Trop Med Int Health. 2020 Mar;25(3):380-386. doi: 10.1111/tmi.13357. Epub 2020 Jan 2.

It is a scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor of 2,5 listed in pubmed ! What is wrong about that? Wgmetzger (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally does not use primary sources for biomedical content. See WP:MEDRS (with maybe WP:WHYMEDRS and WP:MEDFAQ for background). Alexbrn (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Aha... got it. Makes sense. Best Wgmetzger (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Review vs. study at vegetarianism article

There's some guy who keeps changing "review" to "study." Someone reverted him when he was just an IP, but now he has an account. He registered as 132flix. I think he'll revert me if I change it back to "review." So I thought it would be better to contact an experienced user about it. 174.255.6.32 (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2021 (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.

---

Passive aggressive behaviour

I find your whacking that notice on my talk page to be passive aggressive behaviour on your part. As I commented under it, my editing over the two years since Covid-19 became a known entity shows very little interest in editing Covid related articles. (As, say, compared to your history, which shows a great deal of activity there and some very clear stances.) I think you should remove it and reflect on how posting notices like that with basically no justification can be perceived by the recipient as a passive aggressive threat. I'm serious on this point. Oska (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you need to calm down over this nothingness. Templates are for everybody, and are useful for informing them what's what. It's better than them suddenly finding themselves unexpectedly blocked for (say) lede revert-warring with an admin over some COVID-19 factoid. You can of course remove whatever you want from your own Talk page: the system logs will show you are aware of these particular sanctions should that ever become a consideration. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Mate, don't tell me I need to calm down. Your silly little badge showing how long you have been an editor tells me I have been on this project longer than you. Whoopty bloody do. I don't care how long ppl have been on the project (or all the other stupid stuff that people put on their user page). But the relevance here is that I know my way around and I've never been blocked in my time here for edit warring. And is this mention that Dmacks is an admin some further attempt to intimidate me? Whatever other roles people have on wikipedia shouldn't privilege their edits.

Finally, I wasn't 'revert warring over some COVID-19 factoid'. Your own obsession with the subject (cf. your contribution history) has blinded you to the fact that my edit wasn't about Covid. It was about people pushing agendas in wikipedia articles whatever that agenda happens to be. That's why your notice was inappropriate. I repeat, I have shown extremely little interest in editing Covid related articles on wikipedia. Essentially one edit back in February 2020. And then I get some passive aggressive keyboard warrior whacking stupid notices on my talk page that, whatever you say, give the impression that I have shown substantial interest and quite probably controversial interest in the subject.

I'm not going to remove the template. What I asked is for you to remove it, and acknowledge in the edit note that it was inappropriate. And I also asked that you reflect on your behaviour here. One life hint: telling people to 'calm down' when they are clearly annoyed at how you have behaved almost invariably has the opposite effect. Emotionally mature adults understand this. Oska (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Requiring justification for notice posted to my talk page

Alexbrn, I notice you have closed the discussion I opened above (in a way that further demonstrates a passive aggressive behaviour pattern, in my opinion). But you have still not answered my complaint about the notice you posted on my talk page. The notice begins "You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)." I have rejected that my editing history shows interest in this subject and thus consider the notice inappropriately applied. I am formally asking you to justify the posting of the notice and address the points I made above. You can't just slap a notice on my talk page and then shut down discussion when I ask you to properly justify it. Oska (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLUDGEONING with notices

• 08:13, May 15, 2021 - «‎Notice: new section»
• 10:56, May 13, 2021 - «General note: Not assuming good faith.»
• 17:50, May 13, 2021 - «‎Notice: new section»

What are you trying to achieve bombing everyone's (including me) talkpages with notices? Are you trying to frustrate contributors? Can you please stop doing this? This doesn't help anyone and is rather abusive and disruptive. Explain yourself please. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of a notice is to inform, using language agreed by the community to be appropriate. It's a good thing for editors to be informed, don't you think? Your imagining them "abusive and disruptive" is daft - if you really think so (rather than just posturing), make a complaint at an appropriate noticeboard. Alexbrn (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Just stop. I think the Protection warning at the article's editor top and one on the talk page is just enough. I haven't tried so far to edit the Ivermectin without due consensus so placing notice is simply unwarranted. Fee free to remove this discussion. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Where appropriate I think I'll continue informing editors, including you, thanks. Overall, it's all part of ensuring things work well around here. Alexbrn (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wouldn't the normal response to getting one of these procedural notices be something like "thank you "? -Roxy . wooF 09:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Something like that, yes.[8]. I think I'll add to my ongoing Ways of Fringe: "If an editor reacts with hostility to being appropriately templated, it's a sign the template's advice is especially apt to that editor". Alexbrn (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 lab leak

Hi there, regarding your revert on the above, please let me know where the articles in Science or Sidney Morning Herald were discussed? Otherwise, please undo your revert. Thanks. --Pakbelang (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Start here. Or go back further for endless discussion and an RfC on how the "lab leak" is to be dealt with. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Alexbrn, that is indeed a seemingly bottomless discussion. I can't see any mention of the 'Sidney Morning Herald article. Do you think that this would this be something worth adding to the main COVID-19 talk page? --Pakbelang (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

To the Talk page? In general, I'd be wary of lay press sources for a disease topic, when we have many higher-quality sources to hand. Alexbrn (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, to the Talk page of the main COVID-19 article. I definitely agree that higher-quality sources are needed when discussing diagnosis and treatment of diseases. However the issue here is not really related to those aspects. Anyhow, there is a CNN article that is even clearer than the Sydney Morning Herald article. I have added that to the article. If my latest edit gets reverted I hope that we can add a new topic to the Talk page to discuss how to deal with the growing number of articles in RS that are related to the lab-leak investigations. Thanks! Pakbelang (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe

Hi Alexbrn

Maybe you are right about the suggestion of racism made in the sig discussion. But I wish you could have made your replies[9][10] more gentle, rather than going full flamethrower. That sort of language just tends to provoke a similarly heated response. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, of course. Alexbrn (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Circumcision Enquiry

@ Alexbrn Please could you respond to my enquiry on the circumcision talk page? Jas9777 (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Why ask me? Use the article history to see what happened. Alexbrn (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Please follow WP:CIVIL in your communication with other editors, including in edit summaries. When you request feedback it's a common courtesy to let other editors know about it. Also, please refrain from implying that editors who disagree with you are imply that editors who disagree with you are anti-vaxxers. Alaexis_¿question? 10:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to make such notifications. I made no comment about editors being antivaxxers (though per the sources some boosters of ivermectin are just that). Alexbrn (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Nonsensical criticism

Hello there! The segment you removed from Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 with the comment "nonsensical criticism in wikivoice" is sourced from the New York Times, saying "In March 2021, the W.H.O.-China team released a report that dedicated only four out of 313 pages to the possibility of a lab leak, without any substantial data to back up their conclusion that it was highly unlikely."[11] But we could perhaps just say it is unsubstantiated instead, citing NYT. Terjen (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we should leave assessment of scientific process to scientific sources, since newspapers are very poor on science and here the NYT is engaged in a classic reversal of the burden of evidence, typical of how lay-people mistake the scientific process. In particular, the whole point is the lack of data, so the virologists have to make an assessment in other ways. If a newspaper reporter thinks that's somehow bad we would need to attribute it as their inexpert view - at which point the undue-ness of it becomes apparent (so we should leave it out). Alexbrn (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The "newspaper reporter" for this article is award-winning NYT science journalist Carl Zimmer, author of 14 books on science including A Planet of Viruses. Their paragraph on the lack of evidence to invalidate the lab-leak hypothesis leads up to a quote from Yale immunologist Akiko Iwasaki stating "There’s so little evidence for either of these things, that it’s almost like a tossup." Terjen (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It's an excellent example of why Wikipedia doesn't use lay sources for science! Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

What this comes down to is leaving the assessment of scientific process and consensus to wikipedia editors evaluating scientific sources vs a recognized expert on making sense out of science and taking the pulse on the scientific community. One of these is better qualified, and it's not Wikipedia editors. Terjen (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, thank you for educating editors on what is indeed their responsibility: to avoid using lay sources for science. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Well, Terjen I'm not convinced, but you can of course try to make a case on the article's Talk page – I don't WP:OWN the article! Alexbrn (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom/Covid

Given your involvement in all of this, I feel only obliged to inform you of the open ArbCom case request. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 1977 Russian flu. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes 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. Please note WP:ONUS. --Kutu126b (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, why did you do that? Since I templated you I was obviously aware of the policy. So your purpose was ... what? Alexbrn (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of the policy too. I think you are being disrespectful towards me. I have asked you to "please use the talk page if needed", but you did not, and you called my content "dodgy". I've opened a discussion on Talk:1977 Russian flu. Kutu126b (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Please explain your use of the "erroneously"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is unscientific to describe the opinions of others as "erroneous". Erroneous according to who? You? Furthermore your edit is filled with inaccurate information. For example you called 'vitamin C' a drug, which it is not (it is a vitamin). I am confused as to why it is controversial to say that Dr. Kory's recommendations about corticosteroids are now standard of care. Corticosteroids at high doses are standard of care for severe SARS-Cov-2, and this was his recommendation. This is not controversial and it has nothing to do with ivermectin.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rolfing/ Alxbrn

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.

---

Curious why you continue to change back your opinions on Rolfing. The sources you connect your opinion to hold no value in academia. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodynerd2021 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Making sense and misrepresenting sources

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 have started an editing war on the article Ivermectin. I've made a correction on the following paragraph:

> During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin was beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[14][15] No reliable evidence exists to back up such claims.[16][17][18]

Mainly trying to make remove the term "misinformation", given that there are scientific research being done on the subject. Misinformation is not a good name for scientific research. And it is clear on the discussion page that the term is problematic.

The second line reads: "No reliable evidence exists to back up such claims" and references three sources to support that claim, but those sources do not say that, you are misrepresenting the sources.

For example, the first article reads:

> Following recent media reports and publications on the use of ivermectin, EMA reviewed the latest published evidence from laboratory studies, observational studies, clinical trials and meta-analyses. Laboratory studies found that ivermectin could block replication of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19), but at much higher ivermectin concentrations than those achieved with the currently authorised doses.

I would not say that they are saying: "No reliable evidence exists to back up such claims", they are saying that:

> "EMA therefore concluded that use of ivermectin for prevention or treatment of COVID-19 cannot currently be recommended outside controlled clinical trials. Further well-designed, randomised studies are needed to draw conclusions as to whether the product is effective and safe in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19."

That is, more research needs to be done to make that a recommendation by EMA.

The second article reads:

> Federal health and drug agencies say that more research is needed before making a definitive conclusion about ivermectin’s efficacy against COVID-19. > The FDA has not approved ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.

They clearly say that there is not enough research, and that is not authorized, but they do not say that: "No reliable evidence exists to back up such claims".

It seems to me that the sources are being misrepresented and you reverted my change the first time without any justification (comment on the reversal) and the second time with an aggressive comment: "it makes no sense and misrepresents the sources".

Eloyesp (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

What you wrote wasn't even English, and the sources are correctly represented. Per MOS:MED Wikipedia does not use the cliché that more research is needed either. Please continue any further discussion on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm leaving wikipedia after 7 years because of you

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.

---

Just a comment to make you know that you have an impact. If you are doing this for free, please re-think you actions, if not, hope you find a better job. Eloyesp (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, you might need to read WP:ROWN again. --Eloyesp (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019#Reports of early sources : report from Clinical Infectious Diseases

Following your revert, and according to WP:BRD there's an opportunity to discuss at Talk:Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_2019#Clinical_Infectious_Diseases_report_on_US. Chumpih. (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Citing WP:BRD while re-reverting would seem like trolling. You are already aware of the COVID-19 sanctions. If you continue this I will support your being topic banned from COVID-19. Alexbrn (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, but there are 2 separate aspects here, both of which pertain to the same section, but are quite separate statements and analysis. Thanks very much for your further comments on the first. There's an opportunity to discuss the second at Talk:Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019#Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering: Sewage analysis. Do please note that the text you deleted and the reference to Journal of Env. Chem. Eng has been around in various forms since at least the beginning of 2021. Would it be beyond the pale to consider that deletion of 6-month-old text 'Bold', and to undo that deletion a Revert? And would perhaps therefore the next step should be for a Discussion, as opposed to re-reversion by your good self? Chumpih. (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, but we need to be careful to stick to good WP:MEDRS, especially for exceptional claims about unexpected early COVID in various parts of the world. Alexbrn (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The justification for WP:MEDRS appears to be because stuff may be used for diagnosis, and arguably doesn't apply here. "History" is not WP:BMI. Chumpih. (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

There's been a lot of attempts lately to sideline MEDRS by trying ingeniously to divine what its "purpose" is. But the plain text of the guideline itself says: "Biomedical information requires MEDRS sourcing that complies with this guideline". Feel free to make your case at WT:MED if you want feedback from experienced editors, but this just a repeat of an argument that has been had several times already, so could be view as disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The purpose is fine. The issue is that "History" is not Biomedical Information. Chumpih. (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

History does not just mean "in the past". Otherwise every medical publication, which is by necessity about material "in the past" would be history. Such arguments are WP:WL (and yes, we've heard them before). Statements that could still have medical relevance are not "history". Truly historical material will appear in medical histories, historical articles etc. Alexbrn (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Can it be explained why a timeline of a disease is NOT history? Chumpih. (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

As I say, that would be WP:WL. In common parlance nobody refers to a timeline of contemporary or near-contemporary events as "history". Especially not for open questions that are still hot topics. Statements that could still have medical relevance are not "history" - that's the reality. Alexbrn (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

And I see the debate on Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information#Disease_/_pandemic_origins. Debates can can continue there. This is a murky area with many reasonable arguments already made. Thanks very much for taking the time to engage. Chumpih. (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC). Cripes, that's a lot of words!!!! Chumpih. (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC). Again, thanks for sharing the understanding.

Defending A Better Introduction

I had tried to work on wikipedia a bit some years ago. I wanted to give it another go. On 'Restoration' I'm confused, and my perception is there are people on both sides of the foreskin/restoration debate who wish to use minimizing language like 'restore' when 'restoration' truly is a misnomer. I imagine 'misnomer' is a word that some take issue with, so I'll give it extra attention.

Here was my thinking: We can't “reconstruct an organ”. And more appropriately, the foreskin is a small part of an organ. This idea of “reconstruct[ing] an organ” in this context is bizarre. The practice of 'foreskin restoration' as it is understood (and commonly used as a misnomer) is nothing like reconstructing or restoring an organ, or even part of an organ.

The idea that we can 'restore' something that's been surgically removed (or is malformed by disease or defect) to the human body (or in many other contexts) to its original state once it's been removed is bizarre. We can't replicate, duplicate, replace, restore, reconstruct, regenerate, or reconstitute a foreskin. This is true of efforts to mitigate illness or injury through 'reconstructive surgery' in general. (See Wikipedia's entry for 'Reconstructive Surgery'.) To suggest we can do any such thing is clearly wrong, and I'm fairly certain clinicians are very clear with patients about expected outcomes. The word 'restoration' was likely chosen by advocates of 'foreskin restoration' themselves, and embraced by all. But it seems like Wikipedia should treat such words with truth and accuracy, and to label it a misnomer is true and accurate.

Misnomer:

Mirriam Webster Online: 1 : the misnaming of a person in a legal instrument 2a : a use of a wrong or inappropriate name Nowadays it is a misnomer to call a farmer a peasant. b : a wrong name or inappropriate designation The name "Greenland" is a misnomer, since much of the island is covered by a massive ice sheet.

OED for iPhone: A wrong or inaccurate name or designation: morning sickness is a misnomer for many women, since the nausea can occur any time during the day.

A wrong or inaccurate use of a name or term: to call this neighbourhood policing' would be a misnomer.

I like Wikipedia's own entry, particularly the last clause:

A misnomer is a name that is incorrectly or unsuitably applied. Misnomers often arise because something was named long before its correct nature was known, or because an earlier form of something has been replaced by something to which the name no longer applies. A misnomer may also be simply a word that someone uses incorrectly or misleadingly. The word "misnomer" does not mean "misunderstanding" or "popular misconception", and a number of misnomers remain in common usage — which is to say that a word being a misnomer does not necessarily make usage of the word incorrect.

That I appreciate Wikipedia's definition means I think the use of the word 'restoration' in this context is not entirely wrong, but I think not identifying it as a misnomer would be wrong. I believe it should be called a misnomer to be truthful and accurate.

“[T]o reconstruct an organ similar to the foreskin” is fantastical. More foreskin-like skin grown through mitosis is not 'reconstructed', an 'organ', nor remotely 'similar' to the foreskin. It is a bit of extra skin intended to provide some function of the foreskin or to mitigate problems associated with the absence of the foreskin. 'Expanding' the skin does not describe what is done or why.

As an introductory sentence, “Foreskin restoration is a misnomer for stretching the skin of the circumcised penis to encourage growth of new skin to partially replace functions of the foreskin.” seems to perfectly define what it is without going into detail that will be covered in the rest of the Wikipedia article. Every word is true, accurate, and I believe unbiased. I considered including the word/link 'mitosis', parenthesized after 'growth', but decided this would be more suited and easier to read than awkwardly including 'mitosis'. As I write this, it occurs to me that adding the word 'persistently' before stretching might be appropriate. As to citations, the remainder of the article contains plentiful citations, and this sentence can be properly inferred from the article as a whole.

It seems rational to me that one would wonder who, what, when, where, why, and how a circumcision is done where circumcision is arguably the primary cause of the need for its restoration. I don't believe my sentence, “The foreskin is sometimes removed by elective non-therapeutic surgical circumcision for religious or cultural reasons, usually as an infant, or because of injury.” betrays a bias or opinion. This sentence simply elaborates on WWWWW&H the foreskin might need to be 'restored', and I believe improves on the existing ...“which has been removed by circumcision or injury.”

Who: The parents or doctor decide, or in the case of injury, the doctor-patient decide What: removal of the foreskin Why/How: for elective religious or cultural reasons or because of injury When: usually at infancy Where/How: 'surgically' implies it is done in a surgical setting, and How: is covered by the combination of parent/doctor decision and surgically. I don't believe there's need to go into 'how' the surgery is done.

“Specialized tissues removed during circumcision cannot be restored.” is taken almost verbatim from the previous introduction, and certainly respects that statement in context.

“Some adult men wish to reduce negative effects of their circumcisions and turn to 'foreskin restoration'.” is accurate, unbiased, and well supported with citations within the Wikipedia article. “In some cases men feel their circumcisions are excessive or make erections uncomfortable. Such restoration can sometimes provide relief.” is loosely based on, and a nod to the citation somebody else placed which reads quite awkwardly, “Some forms of restoration involve only partial regeneration in instances of a high-cut wherein the circumcisee feels that the circumciser removed too much skin and that there is not enough skin for erections to be comfortable.” This poorly written sentence refers to a significant range of pages (1539-1557) of a text that is not linked and doesn't appear to be accessible. To clean up that 36 word/226 character sentence into two short sentences totalling 19 words/136 characters seems obvious. The phrase “high-cut” is nowhere elaborated or defined elsewhere in the entire article and is quite irrelevant. I could certainly be wrong on handling this cited sentence, but somebody should deal with it.

The final proposed sentence, “Surgical skin grafting methods also exist.” is well inferred and supported with citations in the article.

To the “Best not to write novel essays in Wikipedia's voice”, the entire introduction now is 108 words / 714 characters. My proposed introduction is 98 words / 683 characters. Not much of a novel or essay. It seems quite appropriate, and an improvement for an introduction to the topic to me.

Phrases that seem to betray bias to me in the existing introduction include:

“foreskin restoration” - the whole 'misnomer' issue “reconstruct an organ” - irrelevant/impossible “similar to the foreskin” - not really “restoration creates a facsimile of the foreskin” - not really “partial regeneration” - implies 'full regeneration'

I apologize if I've stepped on toes, and would appreciate guidance. Kendall Hallett (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you're over-thinking. The dull duty of a Wikipedia editor is to merely to find good sources and summarize what they say, and certainly not to bring fresh thoughts to the table, no matter how "true and accurate" they may be. In general editing just the lede of an article if often indicative of a problem. If it's right (and it may well be) that this article is out-of-alignment with what suitable sources are saying, then it would be good to get the article text re-based on them, and then to make the lede a good summary of the new article body. As always, on Wikipedia, sources are the basis of everything. Alexbrn (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

I'm guessing you may be a Wikipedian who has been tasked with 'keeping an eye on' the Foreskin Restoration page. Your admonition to 'source my information' rings hollow in light of the ONE sourced item currently in the synopsis.

I've been accused of overthinking things before, and I don't suffer it much. I've re-directed my comments to the Foreskin Restoration 'talk' page. I hope you might take a look and let me know if I'm on the right track and how to proceed... to get others involved to reach a consensus on a truly unbiased and accurate synopsis or lede. I think the idea of 'foreskin restoration' misleads people to think circumcision is 'reversible'. (I had one otherwise intelligent man tell me precisely this as he weighed his decision to circumcise his son.) Few people want to talk about this issue, but I believe many do seek good information. Wikipedia is one place people can and do turn to for unbiased information.

Best Regards, Kendall Hallett (talk)

@Kendall Hallett: Not sure what you mean by "tasked". I can't remember how this article ended-up on my watchlist and I have no particular history with it. If it has problem (quite possible) then they can get fixed, but only in line with Wikipedia's WP:PAGs. Anyway, discussion should continue on the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Justify it

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 removed reference 9 on Game Changers documentary while allowing reference 5, 6, 7 and 8. Please differentiate references 5, 6, 7 and 8 and explain how they differ from reference 9 that reference 9 can be removed while reference 5, 6, 7 and 8 cannot. RBut (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

To be frank, much more can be removed. I sort of gave up when I saw the extent of the problem. But be grateful for the start improvements I made and perhaps you could do more! BTW, this is being discussed at WP:FTN. Alexbrn (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you hadn't made the page more biased. Those references cannot be justified if reference 9 is not. RBut (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress. If I removed some of the worst crap, that's good. But more can be done, I'm sure. Alexbrn (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that you put no effort into reading any of the sources how are you so arrogant? RBut (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Eh? Alexbrn (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COVID-19 accepted and resolved by motion

The ‎Origins of COVID-19 case request you are a party to has been accepted under the name COVID-19 and resolved by motion with one remedy which supersedes the community authorized general sanctions with discretionary sanctions. Sanctions made under the previous community general sanctions are now discretionary sanctions and alerts made under the community GS are now DS alerts. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello and thank you (regarding Functional Medicine edits)

Hi,

Thanks for your responses on the Functional Medicine page, and for your post on my talk page. I'll take the time to read all the linked articles.

You correctly surmise that I do care about the quality of the Functional Medicine article (I intend to practice personalised nutrition in the UK, and functional medicine is pretty much the American branding for personalised nutrition, with some weird jargon tacked on) but I also care about quality and doing things correctly, so will do my best to work to wikipedia's highest standards. As you'll have seen I'm quite new to wikipedia editing, so apologies if I make mistakes and unwittingly use your time up along the way.

I hope that this was the correct way to contact you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Llamabeast (talk • contribs) 13:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

My advice (FWIW, which is not much) is that if you're getting into personalised nutrition, which is something of a hot topic in more mainstream nutrition research as I understand it, to steer clear of FM, which is solid woo that tries to absorb some mainstream concepts. To edit health content on Wikipedia WP:MEDRS is applicable, and for fringe topics like FM, WP:FRINGE applies. Good luck! Alexbrn (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Stalker wisdom --- "Eat food, mainly plants, not too much" -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sage advice, but not likely to make much money. The latest thing, as I understand it, is people wearing digital blood sugar monitors (as used by diabetics) and adjusting their diet to smooth out peaks and troughs, this comes with a whole new vocabulary of "super spikers" and so on. It's going to be big I tell you! Alexbrn (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Bret Weinstein / antivaxx

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 are calling the scientific journals Circulation Research and American Journal of Therapeutics "fringe", and reverting back to contrary text referencing PolitiFact? Seriously?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickyjames (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I am calling the overall edit "fringe". Please do not use letters, outlier journals, or other unreliable non-WP:MEDRS source to play to antivaxx talking points or promote unevidenced COVID-19 treatments. You are aware of the discretionary sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you

... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Singled out.The discussion is about the topic FGM. Thank you. --Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about Ivermectin: What would it take to change your mind?

FYI I initially attempted to email this to you via your blog, but the page was broken and it wouldn't send, so I am pasting it here with my personal information removed. Additionally, I am new to editing Wikipedia so please let me know if I am breaking any taboos.

Hello,

Let me start off by saying that I appreciate your work as a diligent Wikipedia editor. Wikipedia is only possible because of the often thankless work of you and others like you. I want you to know that I am sending this email in good faith and I intend to have a peaceful and productive discussion if you are up for it. I am writing this email because I think you are wrong about Ivermectin's efficacy for COVID-19 and I think your edits on the Wikipedia page for Ivermectin are indirectly contributing to the continuation of this pandemic. I choose to believe that you are a man of science and reason and that you are open to being convinced of anything, given enough solid evidence. I believe that there is currently enough evidence in favor of Ivermectin and I will do whatever it takes to convince you of this because there are literally lives on the line. I am not saying this in an attempt to shame or slander you, but you need to understand that the consequences of perpetuating an incorrect Wikipedia page about Ivermectin are very, very serious. Even if you are 99% certain that Ivermectin for Covid-19 is snake oil, you have a responsibility as a major Wikipedia editor to investigate that 1% chance that you are wrong, because the consequences of being wrong are catastrophic. For what it's worth, my brother has degrees in Microbiology and Biochemistry from an Ivy League university and he is a pharmaceutical consultant. Like you, he was initially completely convinced that all the data on Ivermectin for Covid-19 is unreliable, nonexistent, or otherwise completely made up, but after two weeks of back and forth phone calls in which we discussed all of the available evidence, I was able to convince him of Ivermectin's efficacy. If you would like to continue with this conversation, please reply to this message indicating as such. We can continue this conversation over email or over Zoom/Discord if you would prefer to speak in real-time. I would prefer we had this conversation off of Wikipedia so that neither of us feels the need to curate our speech for the public Wikipedia audience. Again, I value your contributions to Wikipedia and your passion for combating misinformation, but I believe you are misguided on this topic. I sincerely hope that you are willing to discuss this topic with me. Zombychicken (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose is merely to reflect accepted knowledge about topics. This means it mirrors reliable sources (and where necessary what those reliable sources are saying about unreliable sources). I have no expertise with regard to Ivermectin, but a certain amount of experience in knowing the kinds of source Wikipedia likes to use. Off-wiki discussion of article content is generally a big non-no. If you have a specific proposal about how an article might be improved, make it at that article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: RSN

I am confused by your position. Are you saying that Roman et al. is reliable, or not? (and, as a followup, is Vice's coverage of Roman et al. reliable?) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Roman et al is a decent source, though redundant in light of the better sources we have (medical organisations). Vice is not reliable for biomedical information but may be for more mundane stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree about Roman et al; the paper is so bad I expect a correction/retraction to be published in July 2021. No objection or concern with how Vice is treated. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

That would be pmid:34181716. I'm not seeing any serious queries (even e.g. on PubPeer). But I am seeing complaints from the moron-o-sphere (e.g.[12]). Let's see what happens, though it's likely irrelevant since there are many higher-level sources abroad. Alexbrn (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Gr33nshorts

I had checked the user's block log and their talk page unblock requests, and it appears that despite their confused reaction and inaccurate descriptions, what had actually happened was that they were caught in an IP range block targeted at an unrelated sockpuppeter. I don't care for what the user is trying to argue, and it's probably best to ignore them, but I don't believe wholesale reversion citing incorrect statements is helpful. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, okay. The attack on the blocking admin made me think it was them. So reinstate away! Alexbrn (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Pierre Kory

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.

---

Do you have any idea what a neutral standpoint is? Martin Sell (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV for the policy, and specifically WP:GEVAL when it comes to quackery/pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that you engage in an edit war by reverting to YOUR version of the article, not me. The statement above about "quackery/pseudoscience" also seems odd to me, how do you know that for sure? Even if you were an expert, science is about discussion and not about just rejecting other view points! Ulmendorf (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV for the policy, and specifically WP:GEVAL. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources and calling a drug a "miracle cure" without miraculous evidence is quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

A closer view at the history of the article shows that you are over and over again reverting other users! YOU should be banned for that! This article is not yours so that you can decide what is in the article and what not especially since you restore your biased, not neutral view point! What do you think gives you this authority? Shame on you! Ulmendorf (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

So YOU decide what is a personal statement and what quackery? Are you a physician that cares for patients with Civid-19? Can't you see your arrogance and presumptuousness? Ulmendorf (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Asailum

Very likely Glasspool1 as you suspect, although there also are those disparate IP adresses that might as well be meat... —PaleoNeonate – 08:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Googling "glasspool malone" is interesting. Alexbrn (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Temporary Protection

(talk page stalker) It may be conceivable, if possible, to suggest a temporary protection of Alex's talk page. I assumed it might get attacked by vandals. I have the user and talk page watchlisted for that reason. Good to see others do too. --ARoseWolf 18:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Bon courage:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Thanks for revert Comment

thankyou for reverting my edit to your talk page. i did not know I had made it. i scroll my watchlist on ipad using my thumb and occasionally have reverted things that should never have been reverted. (I now have to type using one thumb too). Cheers. Moriori (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Moriori, I figured maybe I had done something wrong. No harm/no foul. Alex reverted it. I leave things on others Talk Pages all the time. They are welcome to delete or keep as they so choose. If they ask me not to write on their Talk Page I will oblige them. I saw the vandalism of Alex's talk but it was reverted before I could do it myself. We may not always agree but no one deserves to be disrespected for their beliefs and especially for following Wikipedia policy. I figured Alex's Talk would be hit so I watch listed it and will continue to watch it unless he protests. --ARoseWolf 17:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks guys, everything's cool . Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Userboxes

I noticed you are a cancer survivor according to your userboxes. If I may so bold as to ask, what kind of cancer did you survive? If that's too personal then tell me and I will apologize and we can move on. The subject is very near to me and I am thrilled to find those who have survived various types of cancer. --ARoseWolf 17:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! You can read all about it:

1. Here[13]
2. Here[14]
3. And here.[15]

Alexbrn (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I'm documenting my hospital adventures. Working with another Wikipedia editor on possibly publishing memoirs so I will probably include it in that rather than a blog but this was very courageous and probably a way of relief for you? Just being able to talk about it seems like it would be. Anyway, I am glad you came through it. I'm something of a fighter so I'm sure I'll deal with mine and come out just fine. I especially loved the section on how long they give you to live and your response to that. The doctors didn't tell me. They provided me with a survival percentage. --ARoseWolf 18:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I suppose I felt at the time is was useful to set it down in writing (it also saved having to tell lots of people the same thing: I could point them to my blog!). Treatments are getting better all the time. From one survivor to another, I am sending positive vibes in your direction! Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I was diagnosed with AML about a month ago. I've started my second round of chemo so we'll see how that goes. Every day feels like a victory though. Your courage and tenacity in surviving your experiences and learning to thrive is truly an inspiration for me. I fully wish you the best, Alex. Thank you for the positive vibes. I feel them like rays of sunshine on my face and heart. --ARoseWolf 18:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) My best wishes to you (both). As it happens, I start chemo on Thursday. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, Do you know what type you have? Are you apprehensive? The Universe knows I was. We need a meet-up of Wikipedian cancer survivors after all of this is over (lol). I'm afraid the list will just keep growing. They are changing up my chemo this round so we'll see if it has better results. --ARoseWolf 18:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Damn! - sorry to hear you (must've) been unwell. Wishing you all the best! Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about this, Roxy. I'm also a cancer survivor, too. It's a club I never would have chosen but I'm glad I'm a member. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I have the commonest type of leukaemia, CLL, and this will be my third course of chemo over the years. It is nothing like as serious as you guys, and I am pleased to have beaten the 14 years median survival since diagnosis. I really wanted to offer my support to you. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, I appreciate the support more than I could ever express. It's been a difficult month and I have at least three to four more weeks to go in the hospital. This is a different chemo treatment this time and its made me really sick unlike the last two. I feel very drained physically. It's hard to make people understand that have never experienced it before. There are times during the last month when all I could do is ball up and cry. I didn't want to but that's all I could do. My Spirit is strong though and I have a lot of fight left. No way this is going to be my end. Liz, Agree completely about joining this club. I wouldn't wish it on anyone but I am so glad you survived and you are thriving in life, I can tell. That's the key to everything. We must thrive and turn all of these experiences into something to affect positive changes in our life. Learn and grow, never stop living! Thank you, all three, for this. It's very lifting. :) --ARoseWolf 13:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

MDPI & MEDRS

Hi! RE Long COVID, I wasn't aware of this but am now – sorry about that! Should anything in the RS yellow zone be avoided for citations on covid stuff these days? It looks like there was never consensus about whether to move MDPI publications to red since some editors appear to think that some of their publications can be cited in some specific cases, so just trying to catch up on the community zeitgeist here. Thx! Accedie^{talk to me} 20:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! Aside from the MDPI question, the source in question was primary, so not suitable for COVID-related biomedical content. Alexbrn (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha, thank you! The study in question just got picked up by the WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/are-latent-viruses-causing-long-covid-19-symptoms-patient-groups-push-for-testing-11626181200) — reasonable to add now? Accedie^{talk to me} 19:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

No, that's lay press. We'd need WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, got it. So wait for a lit review in an established journal. Pardon the newb questions; I haven't done much editing on medical content besides copyediting & translation. And (reading below) hope you feel better, yikes! Accedie^{talk to me} 20:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup, a review would be great - Wikipedia likes to reflect "accepted knowledge" so generally waits for things to bubble up to this level before reporting them - WP:WHYMEDRS has some interesting background on this. And thanks for you best wishes Alexbrn (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

ECP

As you've probably noticed, I've applied ECP to Ivermectin. While it reduces the amount of direct drive-by editing, it increases the drive-by traffic to the talkpage, which can be just as problematic. While it often does little good, an FAQ might be a good idea so you don't have to make quite as many lengthy or repetitive answers on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

ECP seems wise but you may be right. Right now I can be "on" this because I'm stuck at home with COVID-19 (still quite unpleasant despite being double jabbed) and so have nothing better to do than edit Wikipedia  ! If the traffic gets much worse I'll put a FAQ together. Alexbrn (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

That is so wrong! I'm sorry you are sick, Alex. I hope you have a swift recovery. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, one week on I'm pretty much recovered. Reckon there's (going to be) a lot of it about here in the UK! Alexbrn (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:5α-Reductase deficiency 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 01:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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!

Dylath Leen (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit war warning

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 currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision and HIV. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes 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. Prcc27 (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

That looks like pointy and disruptive templating. Please don't use Wikipedia for such juvenile stunts. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you need to brush up on your reading of WP:POINT, because I did not violate it.. The template is a generic edit war warning that I found. If there is a more appropriate template for this situation, please let me know, and I'll be sure to keep it in mind in the future. You were edit warring, which could have easily been avoided if you would have just thoroughly explained your edit at the talk. Prcc27 (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Better read WP:ONUS. Also trying to "amplify" another editor's bad edits when it's obvious you haven't even looked at the source in question, is problematic. And if you'd read my page you'd see the template you "found" is already used here too. Looks like you're just making a point. Alexbrn (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't read your page, and I don't think it's necessary for me to. It doesn't hurt to give someone a reminder about Wikipedia's policies, even if they have already been warned. Again, that's not what WP:POINT is about, but I digress. Prcc27 (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Forcing obviously unreliable content into wikipedia and lawyering about rules when caught out is a problem. You seem to thing this is some kind of WP:BURO. Alexbrn (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Covid notice

I didn’t realise it was mandatory. Sorry for any confusion or misunderstanding on my end. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

NP. Happy is the editor who never ventures into DS-governed topics! Alexbrn (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Lol! So it seems! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic data

Hi. Will it still be possible to use Wikidata for several pages related to COVID-19, such as this template? Some editors used to suggest the idea of using Wikidata so that there will be less need to do updates manually. Fewer editors are still continuing to do so and doing updates have now become more challenging. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, but I don't generally get involved with Wikidata so I'm probably not the best person to ask! Alexbrn (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It's okay. I was thinking of talking to some of those editors, but they seem to be inactive already. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 17:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Weight? (Circumcision controversies)

The organization you removed is the only one of its kind in Germany, intaktiv e.V. regularly organizes protests, gives interviews on the topic and some public figures are advocates for this organization. I would say this organization has the same weight as the rest of those anti-circumcision organizations. And some diversity would do the table good. So far there are only organizations from English speaking countries. So it would be nice if the entry would be restored. You removed this organisation on the ground of “Weight”. Which is strange if you look at the other groups in there they are all small and hardly know outside of the the circles of people how care about that topic.

Please discuss the article content at its Talk page, so other editors can offer a view too. Alexbrn (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. — MarshallKe (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You should've taken the advice others gave you. Alexbrn (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Youtube video on Talk:Bret Weinstein#COVID-19

Hi Alexbrn, I'm coming to you as you are one of the more experienced editors to have recently edited Talk:Bret Weinstein. It turns out a YouTube video has been produced criticizing some of the content on the Bret Weinstein article. The video has gained considerable traction, resulting in a lot of IP users making poorly thought out WP:NPOV claims. I'm not sure if this warrants being 'reported' somewhere, such as WP:AN or WP:NPOVN or somewhere else. Would appreciate any guidance you can offer. ––FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 06:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Despite the date, I think that's a clip from an older video which was already generating traffic. The Weinstein article has a WP:BLUELOCK which should stave off disruption (though does mean the Talk page gets a bit repetitive), and I believe some admins are keeping an eye ... Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have Discord?

I would really like to discuss ivermectin, vitamin D, and so on with you. I've spent over 50 hours discussing it with a close friend.

Regards, Rasmus Mrconter1 (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

No. Isn't that something young people do? But you wouldn't benefit from talking to me anyway as I know nothing about the topic, other than what good sources say ... which you can consult directly for yourself. There's a very recent high-quality review from the Cochrane Collaboration too, which is not cited on Wikipedia yet.[16] Alexbrn (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to discuss the ivmmeta.com site. It is mind-boggling how much energy and time has been put into it. Anyways. Could you link the study? Edit: I guess it's this one: https://www.cochrane.org/CD015017/HAEMATOL_ivermectin-preventing-and-treating-covid-19 Mrconter1 (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about that ivmmeta site other than the BMJ piece calling it out for being misleading, and something else saying it's the same web servers formerly used for HCQ promotion. We mention both of those things on Wikipedia. The "why" of its existence is something I've not seen covered in reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Where can I find this BMJ piece? I tried to search for it.

Thanks. Mrconter1 (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

See http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111678 Alexbrn (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Just found it. Perhaps I should look a bit more before asking. Thanks anyway! Mrconter1 (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyvios

I declined your request for revision deletion for Probiotic because the source used was licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Nevertheless, it was correct to remove the information because it was plagiarism. Some of the other additions by this IP probably are copyright violations, however. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed it was CC-BY, thinking is was CC-BY-SA 4.0. The source also fails WP:MEDRS so as you say, there are other issues. Alexbrn (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

List of works

Hi Alexbrn - I recently undid your blanking here [17] and here [18]. We typically provide author bibliographies and lists of works. There's a manual of style here, if helpful: MOS:WORKS. Let me know if you have any questions. Chetsford (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, typically we don't for scientists - and certainly not lists of patents. In general we provide bibliographies for people for whom good sources would provide bibliographies (for people such sources might call "authors"), or for works which have garnered some attention to make them noteworthy. Wikipedia is not a cv, or a search result. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not accurate. Four of the first five BLPs in Category:American virologists I randomly checked all include lists of works: Brian R. Murphy, Dharam Ablashi, Fadila Bouamr, Roselyn J. Eisenberg. Chetsford (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Malone may have been a virologist; these days he's more an antivaxx pundit. Truly "notable" publications may be listed. Patents are more problematic. We get a problem all the time of people trying to legitimize WP:FRINGE figures with voluminous publication lists. See my comment at the Talk page for an idea of how to proceed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

"these days he's more an antivaxx pundit" I don't disagree. "Truly "notable" publications may be listed." You blanked Nature and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Chetsford (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I "blanked "Nature"? What does that even mean? Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You blanked a section of an article [19] in which the journal Nature was a listed publication. You have said "Truly "notable" publications may be listed." Is your position that the journal Nature is not a "truly notable" publication? That seems odd. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. Chetsford (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what? Nature is not a reliable source in itself for biomedicine (but certain of its articles are). But you're wanting to include patents from Nature?? Where in that diff is that? Alexbrn (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong diff. Here [20] is where you blanked a section on the apparent contention that Nature is not a "truly notable" publication. While I certainly respect this interesting perspective, it may not be an entirely mainstream view. Chetsford (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

What? The question is not whether Nature is a "notable publication" (of course it is), but whether some particular reference is relevant. I still have no idea what you mean by "blanked Nature", even with this second try at a diff. Alexbrn (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Previously you said a publication could be listed in an author's bibliography using the following standard: "Truly "notable" publications may be listed." Your current position now seems to be: "The question is not whether Nature is a "notable publication" (of course it is), but whether some particular reference is relevant." Since you've chosen to engage productively on the Talk page, however, I suppose reconciling these evolving positions here is no longer necessary. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me like you're trolling. Please do not post to my Talk page again. Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

International Journal of Molecular Sciences

Here [21] you removed a reference to the International Journal of Molecular Sciences with the edit summary "junk journal". The journal in question is an indexed, first quartile journal. Could you elaborate on what, in your view, makes it a "junk journal"? Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Try reading the Talk page maybe? Alexbrn (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

CD24 trial as Covid Treatment

Could you please check this Evaluation of the Safety of CD24-Exosomes in Patients With COVID-19 Infection and let me know if this is a reliable source per Wikipedia:MEDRS. This seems to be the type of source referenced in other medical articles like Remdesivir. Thanks. Nv8200pa talk 22:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

No it's just a clinical trial registration. MEDRS wants secondary sources (review articles, etc.) for sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Book review

Frederick J. Stare wrote a book review [22] for Melvin Konner's book "Paleolithic Prescription" but I cannot get full access to it. You don't by any chance have full access or know someone with access do you? I wouldn't mind improving the Melvin Konner article, it needs expansion. I noticed you created Stare's article so you are familiar with him. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If you join the Wikipedia Library[23] (recommended!) you currently get to access ProQuest Scholarly Journals - and this is a route to get the review. Alexbrn (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help I think I will join this. I might also add some reviews on Frederick Stare's article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Psychoanalysis 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 15:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Revert less, discuss more

Reviewing some of your recent edits, I see that you are passionate about removing what you see as misinformation on COVID-19. This includes fighting the good fight on some truly bogus stuff, for which I commend you. However, you're also removing encyclopedic information and it really looks like you're sliding down the path of hair-trigger reverts and removals on anything that has a hint of herbal medicine, rather than maintaining a neutral point of view and evaluating each edit or statement on its own merits. This is not healthy for Wikipedia, especially the unexplained reverts—I've been an editor since about 2005, and this kind of behavior has made editing less joyful and more of a chore over the years. I think I understand where it comes from, having done my own duty in reverting vandalism and nonsense; it quickly becomes a rote activity and you get quick on the revert button. But please spend some time with WP:ROWN and consider the common goal of this community project: Building a comprehensive encyclopedia in a collaborative manner. The world will not fall apart if you take some time to talk things through and try to reach consensus. -- Phyzome (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Think I'll apply Hitchen's razor to this. Alexbrn (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

How about applying good faith discussion? You still have not engaged on any point of fact or policy. I honestly hope you will come around and do so. -- Phyzome (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime, I will ask you to stop characterizing me as "POV-pushing" and "repeatedly adding text". I made one edit, now we're in an edit war; all edits since my original one have been reverts (and entreaties to discuss). I again reiterate my desire to engage with the content of the edit. -- Phyzome (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You didn't "engage", you just disagreed and started reverting again. Let's see what others say. Alexbrn (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I could have sworn I had already added this, and I know you're already aware of the notice, but for the sake of process I'll go ahead and add it:

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. 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. Phyzome (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Friendly reminder

Hi Alex. You've been doing a great job editing here on Wikipedia. I was looking over the edit history of the mRNA vaccine article. It looks like you almost got yourself into a 3RR situation. Here are the relevant diffs:

Special:Diff/1036693556 Revision as of 05:07, 2 August 2021 (trim junk journal/primary sourcing)

Special:Diff/1036701131 Revision as of 06:23, 2 August 2021 (Junk journal & a patent - no thanks)

Special:Diff/1036867473 Revision as of 05:17, 3 August 2021 (trim spurious sourcing)

Also one of the users on the talk page said to you (Special:Diff/1036913584):

that continually reverting edits by others is disruptive

I wouldn't worry too much. Just a heads up that the admins seem to be just watching everything all the time, especially these AC/DC pages. Thanks again for helping write articles like magnetic healing which informs the reader about the claim, its history, and practitioners, and then also informs the reader about the lack of scientific evidence to support the claim. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

"I wouldn't worry too much" ← I don't worry at all, and am assured that admins are indeed keeping a watch on the COVID-19 space, where (predictably) there have been a lot of problems both with behaviour and content. Alexbrn (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Cholesterol POV

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.

---

Attention has been called to your reverting at the article Talk page. You are cordially invited to defend your behaviour there if a defence exists.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Please ensure you WP:FOC. Alexbrn (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I see you declined my invitation to defend your reverting practices, replaced part what I wrote on this Talk page with your own words, and removed the link from here to where your reversion practices were described and argued against. Not something you wanted third parties to see? This after you headed over to my Talk page to template me (something you object to whenever it happens to you) instead of heading to the article Talk page. How about we have WP:FOC apply all around, meaning we all dial down the templating of other users or at least the disingenuous explanations for doing do?--Brian Dell (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:FOC applies to articles. Do not post to my Talk page again. Alexbrn (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kratom preclinical research

Hi, thanks for the edit. I'm not sure that I agree with the revert, and am commenting here in the attempt to prevent an edit war. From my perspective, this source is very different from earlier sources. I think it's fair to keep the original wording of the edit I made. The current page says that "There is no scientific evidence that kratom is safe or effective for any medical condition, as of 2021." However, the systematic review I've cited writes the following: "Since six preclinical studies gave evidence for two potential therapeutic uses, the related content will be described in each specific section of the results. [...] Among the records included in this analysis (N = 75), 24% provided data in humans, while 76% supported its potential therapeutic use in the treatment of either acute and chronic pain (41%), substance use disorders (25%), such as morphine withdrawal and dependence, ethanol withdrawal, seeking behavior and intake; and other medical conditions based on several kratom effects (46%). Two out of the 18 clinical studies reported evidence of potential therapeutic application in pain." It is not only inaccurate but incredibly disingenuous to say that there is no evidence for therapeutic potential for kratom. There is clearly preclinical evidence for potential therapeutic use. I would like to keep the original wording of the edit I made, and will be happy to ask for help from others on this issue if you feel that the original wording of my recent edit is inaccurate. All the best, A122045fma (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! Please discuss this on the article Talk page, so other active editors there can weigh in. Alexbrn (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

== Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Not sure how to use this template, but I started a discussion about kratom at the NPOV noticeboard since we seem to be at an impasse. All the best, A122045fma (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Please help with Draft:Siliceous earth

Hello Alexbrn, this is the first time I am trying to write an article from scratch. You made a valuable assessment on a particular source in the draft on WP:RSN. To tell you the truth: I feel that I'm a bit out of my depth and am desperate for more experienced help.
The most important question that is still unclear to me and needs answering before major work on the draft should continue is: What does this term describe, how is it used in recent times, scientifically and economically?
I feel that I may be asking the right questions to get a proper article together but am still baffled how to answer them (technically, mostly. Where to search for the proper sources and so on). I made several announcements and pleas for assistance on WikiProject:Geology, already. But except from a single user I am getting next to zero assistance (and no stated opinion yet as to where the article as a whole should go), there appears to be zero interest in this.
I'd hate to see this effort die due of lack of interest. You can read how the development was from Articles for Deletion to the draft's creation on the AfD page (where I allowed myself to quote your astute observation from WP:RSN, as it is more than we had before).
Thanks in advance for any advice or help you may have to offer. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
When I wrote this, I hadn't seen that we've got a very good reply for my question on WikiProject:Geology already, yesterday. (So scratch the "zero" part.) Any advice and contributions from you would still be welcome, of course. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@ΟΥΤΙΣ: hi - I don't think I can be that helpful as I shared what I found in the sources, and that was pretty confusing. If you've got a real geologist on hand to help, that sounds great! Alexbrn (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Abortion 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, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

How do you rank sources of scientific studies?

I think this is my first edit on Wikipedia. Sorry if I'm doing something wrong.

On the talk page for Ivermectin, you disregard alternative sources for claims about Ivermectin's efficacy with a comment about the quality of the sources. In plain terms, I don't understand how this ranking of different papers/journals is made.

When I'm presented with one of the the large and disinformation-smelling compilations of support for Ivermectin, such as c19ivermectin.com, I can't immediately formulate a consistent opposition to them - and when I can't, the mere amount of studies of different kinds, seem to present overwhelming evidence in favour of the drug.

Is there a rule of thumb, a short explanation, or a pointer to a resource, that can help me understand how to rank scientific papers and navigate the forest of studies that seem to be in favour of quack medicine?

(and now I do four tildes?)

Edit: Btw, your blog's contact has a javascript error. Tried contacting there first.

Njaa (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not something that is easily computable, but see WP:MEDRS in general and WP:MEDASSESS. For tricky topics, gravitating towards the WP:BESTSOURCES is generally a good idea and, in the case of ivermectin/COVID, we have several (Cochrane, FDA, WHO, etc.) Alexbrn (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Gingko biloba and MEDRS

Could you please have a look at the medical research section and talk page dispute regarding the claim in this article that gingko "has been shown to affect vascular permeability and neuronal metabolism"? Thanks. Zefr (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Massive controversy around MCS

Dear Alexbrn (talk · contribs), I can see now that you truly are a neutral editor. I am reaching out to you because I want to encourage you to continue efforts on the MCS page, as it is a target edits by both sides of the debate. The two sides are basically those who view it as a mental illness (IEI) and those who view it as physiological in origin (TILT). I am a scientist myself, and I am familiar with the literature starting around 2015 supporting a physiological basis for MCS. I also have MCS and am involved with advocacy for others. Between those two clear biases and my severe lack of experience on Wikipedia, I feel it would be appropriate for me to step away from this page. I will, however, put forward literature on the talk page, as it does appear that at least one NPOV established editor (yourself) is now considering all sources objectively.

I now invite you to hear out a (brief) summary of what I know. This is just me talking to you and I am not trying to sway your wiki edits. I would be happy to give you my contact info if you are curious to hear more:

1) The vast majority of MCS patients know the exact toxic exposure that initiated their illness. These exposures are not at trace levels, these exposures are at either high levels, or medium levels over long periods of time. Most of the IEI focused literature, including the Quebec report, somehow ignore this initial high toxic exposure for the onset of mcs and instead focus on trace levels that people with MCS complain of after onset. Here is a recent article in a high impact journal that looks at MCS onset due to toxic exposure in 8 specific group poisoning events: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-021-00504-z The event that initiated my MCS was exposure to medium levels of incomplete fossil fuel combustion over a period of three years... It was a crappy car and a leaky furnace in my house. I huffed a lot of carbon monoxide and partially combusted hydrocarbons during that period. I'm lucky to be alive.

2) MCS affects the entire body, but some organs more than others. It is clear that the brain is possibly the most affected organ, and specifically the limbic system. The side IEI thinks the brain causes the physical aspects, and the TILT side thinks there isn't enough evidence for either conclusion but suspect the brain alterations result from physiological alterations after the initial toxic exposure. There just isn't enough literature on the physiological aspect of MCS to compete with the sheer volume of psychological literature.

3) Research probing a psychological basis for MCS has been heavily funded by industries with a vested interest in the safety of chemical products. There was an official institute called environmental sensitivities research institute (ESRI) that was one of the main producers of this literature, they seem to have disappeared, but ESRI is still attached to the literature from this era. Basically, the chemical industry saw what happened to Asbestos and to a lesser extent, tobacco, and waged a campaign of discrediting MCS. More on this here: https://annmccampbellmd.com/publicationswritings/publication-1/ This campaign is still being waged today. I would be absolutely shocked if one user, Science Flyer, did not have financial interests in this debate. I urge you to independently verify everything this user puts forward. With recent advances in MCS pathophysiology, the tactic of the IEI supporters seems to have shifted to discrediting authors by calling them quacks, fringe, etc.

And finally, as an aside, the Quebec report states: "a disruption in oxidative homeostasis... People with MCS, therefore, are not hypersensitive to chemical substances". The chemical substances we are sensitive to are oxidative. COME ON, SERIOUSLY!?

Anyway, I am very pleased to see the skepticism and rigor you utilize while enforcing Wikipedia's policies, and I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for having such an active role in this page. As you said to another user, if the sources are wrong, then Wikipedia shall be similarly wrong in reporting them. You are doing a great job and please continue. Sciencebuilder (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

As a general disclaimer, first, I know nothing about MCS other than what I've read in sources - so have no pre-conceived option. From what I'm reading the "two sides" model is not aligned with modern sourcing, whereby the condition seems much more multi-faceted than that. As a general rule I'd caution that it is important to WP:AGF to other editors, but at the same time I am concerned about signs of coordinated editing at the MCS page. As always, the way out is simple: find the WP:BESTSOURCES, summarize them faithfully, and that will lead to good encyclopedia article. Alexbrn (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn:There was an attempt by a non-Wikipedia-editor person in a large private Facebook "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity" group to motivate others to edit the page. I responded with education on the ground rules for Wikipedia and encouraged truly interested people who were willing to learn to be encyclopedia editors to create an account, look at the talk page, and start learning the guidelines, pointing out that five years after engaging and two years after my first talk page comment I'm still a neophyte. Some of what we've seen very likely came from that source, but I made it clear I wasn't willing to have any sort of discussion other than on the Wikipedia talk page itself. Those folks can identify me here because I use my real name, but I can't identify individuals and can only guess who came here from that group. There was no discussion of specific content for the article (ie no actual coordinated editing) in the FB group, nor would I have participated if there was. Hopefully that wave is behind us. I do think it's time to address Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in the page but want to have a much better understanding of the Quebec paper first. Fstevenchalmers (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn:I would have liked to respond to the anonymous comment put at the end of the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity talk page today, which you locked. I respect your action as a vastly more experienced editor than me. The anonymous poster was out of line. I would have liked to tell them why, just in case they recognize my name. Fstevenchalmers (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sciencebuilder:I looked through your comments above. As pertains to the facts, I believe you have them all correct. However, as has been pointed out in the discussion of this topic on the fringe topic discussion board over the last few weeks, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal, and not a social media discussion board. Every statement in every Wikipedia article has to be traceable to mainstream literature. In the case of medical articles, all data has to be traceable to secondary sources (that is, the summary articles which periodically piece together the consensus knowledge in a field). One does not bring facts, nor does one bring primary sources (the original research) to a Wikipedia debate. It would take me an hour to find all of the Wikipedia policies, and the non binding "why do we do medical topics this way" essay, which have helped me understand this over quite a bit of time, educated by people like Alexbrn. Secondary sources have only started acknowledging physical MCS in the past 5 years, and editors who have seen contention around this page over decades may have perceptions based in the older data, where the secondary sources do reflect the ESRI disinformation. Please do not assume any editor has a Wikipedia:CoI and avoid personal attacks on anyone, particularly people you intend to debate based on facts in secondary sources. Fstevenchalmers (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe entertaining

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/opinion/i-did-my-own-research-meme-4513579 —PaleoNeonate – 01:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hah! Likewise, with pumpkins.[24] Alexbrn (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Nice, I didn't know of it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vision therapy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Learning difficulties.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Since when is an official US Government report not a reliable source?

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 were a little fast on the revert trigger there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quercetin&oldid=1051894078

Did you even read the source that I cited? It's not a primary source, it is a US Government review of overall research results of military research from a decade ago, including significant medical research. If you have a source that refutes it, let's hear about it. But don't just go blasting other peoples' well researched, well supported edits.

(PS: I have no dog in the fight about whether Quercetin is good, bad or indifferent. I have never used it and am not even sure how to pronounce it. I just found that reference in that report, and thought it would be a service to readers to learn from it.) Gnuish (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

A DARPA "Strategic Review" from 2009, even it is was reliable, should not be used for relaying bold health claims which undercut newer, stronger sources. Your imputations of bad faith are unwelcome. Alexbrn (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

As Twinkle's own page reports, "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo changes that are constructive and made in good faith. If a change is merely "unsatisfactory" in some way, undoing/reverting should not be the first response. Editors should either make a reasonable attempt to improve the change, or should simply leave it in place for future editors to improve." I quoted the reliable source in almost its entirety (it's public domain). It's conceivable that the slightly later 2011 claim that the substance has no health benefits were unaware of the military research. If you think that DARPA made too much of a "bold health claim", then make an edit that improves it. Gnuish (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates according to the WP:PAGs, not Twinkle's page. Please do not add unreliably-sourced content to Wikipedia. Please continue any further discussion on the Talk page so others can see. Alexbrn (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger discussion for Somatic experiencing

An article that you have been involved in editing—Somatic experiencing—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. ––FormalDude talk 12:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look ... Alexbrn (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

MCS

I doubt that any version of that article has ever reflected the current medical consensus. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about historically, but there's a problem right now, particularly with the lede. I've read quite a lot of the "Quebec report" and there is much to add about the various hypotheses that have been essayed over time. My overall impression, despite that report's leap of faith in equating MCS with anxiety, is that nobody really knows much about MCS with any confidence. Alexbrn (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be really good to have a decent summary of the various hypotheses over time. The pessimistic induction feels like a rational approach to the newer ideas, because all of the older ideas have proven to be wrong. I hope that researchers are making progress – I even mostly believe that they are making progress – but they could be "making progress" and still be decades away from knowing what's going on.

If readers left that article with the impression that nobody really knows what they're talking about, no matter which cause/etiology/pathophysiology/story we're talking about, IMO that would be an improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

effectiveness of molnupiravir in clinical trial

Yesterday I read the molnupiravir page and found it excellent with one exception. It quoted a misleading interpretation of trial results "50% effective in preventing hospitalization or death." That was actually the quote in initial news releases, and has been repeated everywhere. More recently the "or" has been changed to an even more misleading "and." In fact the trial showed molnupiravir was ~50% effective in preventing hospitalization, and essentially 100% effective in preventing death (8 deaths in the placebo wing, 0 deaths in the drug wing). This seems really important to clarify, for two reasons. 100% protection from death is so much more important than the 50%; and the false 50% number has been repeated endlessly in the press. You might also consider adding a comparison to Pfizer's paxlovid, which was 90-95% effective against hospitalization, and also ~100% effective against death (9 and 0 deaths in placebo and drug wings).

I am not very familiar with editing wikipedia. In particular I don't know how to argue for an interpretation that I think is better but gets bumped by a more active or higher status user. So I hope this talk will get to you for further consideration.

For transparency, I started editing a couple of years ago under username HPErickson, in a field where I was know. It now defaults to a more anonymous Sciprof. My full name is Harold P. Erickson, Duke University. [email protected]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciprof (talk • contribs) 14:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

One of the issues here is that the clinical trial report is a primary source and not reliable per WP:MEDRS so is only being used as a kind of special exception. Whatever, any use of primary sources absolutely must not add a layer of editorial interpretation, so we are stuck with what it says. I have pruned the text back to remove the specific claim, which is probably an okay compromise - but do raise any further thoughts at Talk:Molnupiravir if you want. Alexbrn (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Archontology

Hi. This is about the PROD for the article in which you assert it is an "invented term" which doesn't quite seem accurate. A simple google search does point back to Wikipedia and/or Archontology.org but a little more digging paints a somewhat different picture. wikt:archontology has quite a bit of depth with derived terms and tracing it back to Latin. There is also this site which dates back a decade earlier than Oleg Schultz' site. A Google Scholar search also yields more academic hits (albeit with a theme of Eastern European history). Oleg Schultz has not been active on Wikipedia for a decade and will likely not see the notification. Do you think it is deserving of an e-mail to alert Oleg Schultz? (BTW, thanks for trimming the article of stuff that was copy-paste) Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

My assumption was that since the word appears in no English dictionaries (that I could find), it is a neologism. It appears to a recently coined Hungarian word, (hu:Archontológia) made from Greek components, and in English "archontologies" are just known as kinds of directories. Without sources on this original research it is going to be impossible to justify or write an article, so I'd certainly have to objection to seeing whether Oleg Schulz could provide some. Alexbrn (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You wrote Without sources on this original research it is going to be impossible to justify or write an article, so I'd certainly have to objection to seeing whether Oleg Schulz could provide some. I think it contains a typo. The latter part is "I'd certainly have to objection to seeing whether Oleg Schulz could provide some." ... Did you mean "I'd certainly have no objection to seeing whether Oleg Schulz could provide some." Or "I'd certainly have to object to seeing whether Oleg Schulz could provide some."? ... The boldface are what I changed to try to understand. Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

"no objection" ! Alexbrn (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Think I got a horse dewormer Talk page notice that was meant for you

Hey - I got this message on my Talk page, which seemingly was intended for you. Sorry to dump some horse dewormer misinformation on you, but it seems their beef is with you, not me. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Alexbrn (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Simon Thornley

Thanks for adding that the paper had been retracted - I hadn't seen that it was. I hope you don't mind that I swapped out the source for something more authoritative. Nauseous Man (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It's only recently happened. No problem with the new source, but when it comes to retractions, Retraction Watch is fine too. Alexbrn (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather 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 04:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Vin Gupta AfC

Thank you very much for your input on the AfC for Dr. Vin Gupta. Im an avid follower of Dr. Gupta's work on NBC and MSNBC but do not have any personal, financial, or professional conflicts of interest to declare. Seemed that there was a gap on wikipedia by not having an article discuss him and his background given how visible he is on TV.

Would you be willing to assess the article for acceptance? Its waiting an additional review and has been edited by 2 experienced editors -- just hoping to get it across the finish line

Thank you again for your time,

Caroline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline grossman23 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice not to stalk my talk page and interact there unless necessary to the Wikipedia process

Hi! I am respectfully and in good faith asking you not to edit in my talk page as I consider your recent edits there insulting and patronizing to me. Per WP:NOBAN: If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected. [...] Still, repeatedly posting on a user's page after being asked not to, without good reason, may be seen as harassment or similar kind of disruptive behavior. By leaving this notice in your talk page I consider myself to have done a good effort at letting you know I wish you not to go to my talk page. Note I don't have anything against you and expect us to interact positively in Wikipedia (even if we disagreed, your points at Taner Edis were valuable and have led to what I see is clear consensus, and I have been convinced there and am open to being convinced in many other pages in the future), just not on my talk page. I expect to retract this notice at some point in the future, and am looking forward to feeling able to do so. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing, though your use of the word "stalk" here is further evidence of your looking for drama. (Your talk page was on my watchlist as a result of editing there, so I automatically see changes there and could respond if I wanted to.) Alexbrn (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I see your issues with using "stalk" instead of "lurk", my sincere apologies for that. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Reversions

I undid your reversion of a recent change to the Cannabis (drug) article. In addition to the fact this is a legitimate secondary source, note that WP:MEDRS does not absolutely rule out primary sources, although it (correctly) states that they should be used very carefully. See also Wikipedia:How_to_use_primary_sources_(biological_sciences) and WP:Primary. I have noticed that it is sometimes the case that different sources for Wikipedia guidelines will have some degree of contradiction. (BTW, I'm not being hostile, just terse). Finney1234 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It was bad to start edit warring, and the source is inappropriate. Please continue any further discussion at the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

My reversion of your incorrect reversion (which, IMO, was not valid) is not an WP:Edit war. E.g., you have provided no basis for the supplied reference being "inappropriate" (that requires *looking at the source*: it's actually a very good review article). If you think there is a genuine problem, please start a new section on the article Talk page; I agree with that approach for dealing with editor conflicts (but it's not anywhere close to a war).Finney1234 (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly asserting your preferred version is edit warring. Maybe try WP:BRD to avoid this. Alexbrn (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Doing a reversion of a previous revert is not an edit war; your *repeated* reversion is (arguably) the start of an edit war, and starting a discussion on the article's Talk page instead of repeating your revert would have been a better procedure. See WP:Edit war: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". Note that the word "repeatedly" applies to your behavior, but not mine. Paying attention to WP:Reverting (and assuming WP:Good faith) would be the proper way to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Finney1234 (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cannabis (drug). 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes 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. Finney1234 (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Since I templated you I am obviously aware of this, so this seems WP:POINTy. Alexbrn (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Based on your reversion behavior in Cannabis (drug), it was not clear to me that you were aware of this (nor did you need to post the template on my web page; I'm not an inexperienced editor, and a revert of an arguably invalid reversion is not an WP:WAR). A reread of WP:Reverting might also be useful for you.

I am a big fan of reliable references (and also civil behavior based on good faith). That said, the WP:BMI and WP:MEDRS are new to me, so I'm learning. Finney1234 (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

All this sniping with warnings is counterproductive. (talk page stalker) AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Alexander_Davronov Claiming the discussion is "counterproductive" has no basis. E.g., I have learned that the consensus is that writing about the effects of cannabis needs to adhere to WP:MEDRS standards, something I hadn't known before. Possibly other benefits will accrue as well. Finney1234 (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Please do not edit war. Instead explain your objections to including NIH Panel recommendations in the article.

As numerous other Wikipedia editors have requested of you several times: PLEASE DO NOT EDIT WAR. Edit wars are not appropriate on Wikipedia. Your reverting an edit the first time is fine, but once it has been requested of you to explain your perspective on the article's talk page, it not appropriate for you to revert an edit again without engaging with other users using the talk page. Talk pages are an important tool Wikipedia uses to promotes collaboration among editors. Once again, I'm asking you politely: please explain your objections to the inclusion of NIH's COVID-19 recommendations with respect to the drug ivermectin on the article's talk page. Thank you. Lenschulwitz (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Lenschulwitz: Alexbrn did not edit war at COVID-19 misinformation. You twice made a bold edit, they reverted. You have now initiated a discussion at the article Talk page as per WP:BRD, that's the way to go. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: I haven't accused him of engaging in edit wars, but I have strongly encouraged him not to engage in edit wars. An edit war is three reverts in a 24 hour period, which Alexbrn has not committed in this case. However, he performed a second revert very quickly without elaborating on his edit, even though it was requested of him that he do so in the article's talk page. Such editing comes off as hostile and dismissive, and is not in line with the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. As I explained in the talk article: "rather than provoke another edit war, I have left the page as it is." I have taken such an approach with Alexbrn because he has been repeatedly accused of engaging in edit wars by several other Wikipedia editors.

As to the WP:BRD you reference, please take note of the reverting section of the article wherein it specifies: "Consider reverting only when necessary.". This will take you to Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary, which will take you to WP:REVEXP, which explains the importance of explaining reverts in detail. Since I explicitly requested an explanation from Alexbrn on the article's talk page, ignoring my request of him for further explanation on the article's talk page is not in the spirit of collaboration that Wikipedia promotes, nor is his ignoring my request to explain if his edits were due to a personal perspective or based on a Wikipedia policy. I'm curious though as to your perspective Robby.is.on, is it your belief that an edit summary that reads "Too much detail; this is the wrong article" is a sufficient response for a second revert according to WP:REVEXP standards as you understand them? Lenschulwitz (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Lenschulwitz: if you want "policy", then WP:ONUS is the one to read (i.e. "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content"). More generally, if you get reverted with some information, in future it would be better to try to understand that information rather than mashing the revert key and demanding explanations with loaded, aggressive questioning – because that kind of thing comes off as a dick move. You have now been alerted to the WP:Discretionary sanction in effect for COVID-19 topics. Please improve your behaviour. Alexbrn (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Lenschulwitz: because he has been repeatedly accused of engaging in edit wars by several other Wikipedia editors With the controversial topics Alexbrn edits in, some bad-faith accusations are to be expected. my request to explain if his edits were due to a personal perspective or based on a Wikipedia policy. Per WP:AGF, it's fair to assume the latter. Is it your belief that an edit summary that reads "Too much detail; this is the wrong article" is a sufficient response for a second revert according to WP:REVEXP standards as you understand them? Yes. Edit summaries are not suitable for the detailed explanation you seem to be looking for.

You started a discussion on the article Talk page. Three editors including Alexbrn have responded there. That's how disagreements are meant to be handled. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

I've seen your latest edits and the maintenance you do here on a daily basis. I hope you have seen from my edits that I am not the man on a mission that you expected me to be. I have made the same experience in WP:DE when editing articles on plant based nutrition. It seems that this topic attracted quite a lot of MOMs over the last decade. So I understand the make no prisoners reaction of long term editors.

Personally I've only recently gotten into the subject of nutrition, when the talk about veganism entered my bubble of environmental and climate news. Out of curiosity I wanted to understand if the claims vegans make are robust or unfounded, which got me into reading several hundreds of pages on the subject.

From a Wikipedia/scientific standpoint we will see a lot of new studies coming in over the next years. There is currently a lot in the pipeline on PubMed concerning the health effects. Studies on the environmental impact have also become more frequent recently. And with government action on climate change we also have some interesting new legislation on the horizon.

Have a nice week. BR from Vienna, Tischbeinahe (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks too. I haven't looked at the veganism articles for a couple of weeks, but it's true that all "diet" related articles on Wikipedia are somewhat under siege from people with a strong PoV. Who'd have thought diet would arouse such passions! As you say, the steady flow of literature fortunately makes our job as encyclopedia editors easier. Alexbrn (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Well now we may have a MOM. Tischbeinahe (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Man of Meat ? Alexbrn (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I am referring to what happens at Veganism. Tischbeinahe (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I haven't been watching that article, so I'm none the wiser! Alexbrn (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Otaku00 (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)"}}

I've put my prediction in an envelope and sealed it. Alexbrn (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You appear to have been correct. Here is the usual award for correctness. -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Blimey that was quick! Alexbrn (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Macrobiotics

Hi, Alex. In relation to this revert of yours, you may like to check the edit beforethe one you reverted, too. JBW (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks. Now back in order Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!
	Hello! I hope you have great holidays! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring warnings

Hi Alex, thanks for your message. Here is a very short essay on using user talk messages that you might find useful. Instead of just hitting the revert button and taking disagreements to individual user pages using templated warnings, you could follow the advice in those warnings and start the discussion yourself? Especially over such a trivial matter. Thanks again, Joe D (t) 13:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Says the editor who made their change 3 times! Maybe try WP:BRD when you find yourself heading down the revert route in future? Alexbrn (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Moerman therapy

I just reverted some deliberately false content on the Moerman Therapy article. I noticed you reverted some of the same content back in June 2019. The content being added is some of the most dishonest edits I have seen, user Delphan Gruss added mass content then incorrectly sourced it to Quackwatch. I only just reverted but unfortunately such nonsense had been on the article since May. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Goodo, I haven't looked at that article in yonks. I see it's approaching 2 views/day! Unfortunately with WP it's a never ending task. Yesterday I looked at SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant for the first time (>20,000 view/day) and found it stuffed with dodgy preprints! Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move of Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination

Hi, you're one of the top 10 contributors to this article, can you comment on the move request? Thanks — Omegatron (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Your revert on John Campbell (YouTuber)

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, can you please explain your revert of my edit? I may be totally off, that one lead sentence of him being wrong one time (apparently rightly so, the source is geoblocked for me) completely distorts the info of the article body through omission. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The only reaction from actual experts in RS to this guy is fairly horrified, and on Youtube real scientists have also been similarly horrified (Ivermectin is only one piece of falsity being spread). Please either continue discussion at the article talk page or at WP:FT/N#Ivermectin again. Be aware that continually trying to push your preferred version of the text is WP:EW. Alexbrn (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Borody, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clostridium difficile.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Pierre Kory

Hi, Alexbrn. I suppose by "Read the citation given!" you mean the citation given after the next sentence, referencing the (paywalled) NYT article. That's fine, just not self-evident. (Nothing connects the two sentences.) If the NYT article is the source for the Tracey sentence too, you might want to add a footnote to that sentence directly. Otherwise the Tracey opinion looks unsourced.

My best to you this holiday.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

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)

Hi there! Just picking one at random, PMID:30829033 is primary research on rats. In general, primary research is not suitable for use on Wikipedia for biomedical content — see the links I have posted on your talk page for guidance.

If you can find better sources (e.g. review articles, textbooks and statements from major medical bodies) then material on the the very niche topic you are writing about ("Psilocybin Microdosing Safety‎") should be added to the Psychedelic microdosing article and, if that gets too big, split out eventually. Because of WP:NOPAGE it is not a good idea to fragment a topic into many tiny fragment articles (which this would be, given the likely tiny amount of viable sourcing). Alexbrn (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 ANI notice about incident where you have been mentioned.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attack by Achezet. The discussion is about the topic Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination. Thank you. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)