User talk:Bon courage/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Removing links

I noticed you removed a link, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=129020418&oldid=129000945 (i.e. * OOXML.ScriptumLibre.org focuses on national standardization committees in order to have a fair ISO voting.

However what we do there has everything to do with the subject and is highly relevant, in the working group JTC1 commission members and volunteers are working on texts for the final ISO voting. You seem to disagree with a good reason ("Somebody else already removed this link before. It is not appropriate to have campaigning organisations (N.B. reference to "our side" on the site) listed here") but it is not good for Wikipedia to remove the link either. Can you put the link back in a way it suits you better?

I prefer a direct mail to wiebe@vrijschrift.org

Best regards, Wiebe

From the above it looks like you've removed more that one link without clear reason. I'm putting back the link you removed today, because it was already discussed at the talk page. If you have any problem with this please address it there. Dovi 19:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

BRM voting

You seem knowledgeable about ISO procedure.

I take it that votes from countries that aprove the spec but do not attend the ballot resolution meeting will be upheld in the meeting ? Also I wonder if countries that voted YES or NO can change their vote at the ballot meeting even if they have not submitted comments ? hAl 16:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hal hi,

Yes, I am the convenor of the BRM (if it happens). There is no published source for the clarified procedure - yet. However, the SC34 secretariat has passed on, in private email, JTC1's observation that "formal votes are taken on an ISO member basis *of those present* at the BRM" [their emphasis]. I hope a clarifying document will be published in time which we can cite. Countries can change their votes from NO to YES or from YES to NO: the criterion for being able to vote at the BRM is that they voted in the letter ballot and so appear on ITTF's voting list. It is not clear whether a vote of "abstain" counts as a vote! Alexbrn 09:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

tenuous links

I see that you changed the OOXML article to remove the "distinguish" link to "Open Office XML." The content of that template was the subject of discussion on the OOXML Talk page. Please make the case for your change there. Thanks. —Fleminra 19:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest warning

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Office Open XML, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. -- samj _in^out 18:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam hi - have no fear, I am very-well acquainted with the rules and am on the look out for PoV editing. I've already cleaned the doc format articles quite a bit. Rest assured, I'll keep the standard up! Alexbrn (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Information Technology Task Force

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Information Technology Task Force, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/supporting_services/information_technology_task_force.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Piano Quintet No. 1 (Bloch), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cadence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Objective sources

Have you looked at Steiner Schools in England as an objective characterization of the schools?

It's not at the URL but I found it elsewhere. Yes, this looks like it's got some useful stuff that could be mined for a more friendly lede. Alexbrn (talk)

Notification about PeteK on several articles

The talk page does still have a big thing about the arbitration case at the top, perhaps we could add a link to the review for that? It just seems like a waste of space to have a big notification about a user who hasn't been here for a long time. a13ean (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a different link to some other stage of Arbitration ... so yes: if we can include the review link up top, then I have no objection to removing the PeteK stuff ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, anything to reduce a bit of header bloat. If you want go ahead and propose a wording, otherwise I'll get around to it in a bit. a13ean (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done 17:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Fit as a fiddle

Or in good fettle. A nicely worded summary. hgilbert (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

deepak's chopra page seems too biased to me

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery/ He has himself admitted that he misuses people's ignorance of quantum theory to make billions. I think the description of "quantum quack" suits him more that "physician". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfVIl1UUQns — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhirkmv (talk • contribs) 23:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Then you need to find a good source that backs that up: "I think ..." is not going to be a winning argument on Wikipedia! Alexbrn (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

CST

I have started a new section on the talk page of the CST article to discuss this issue which you clearly feel strongly about. I don't believe there is anything POV about the edits I have made to yours which I feel are too strong. The way I rephrased the sentence still acknowledged that the majority of the academic community (I hope you realize that not everyone in the academic community has the same opinion on this topic) views CST as pseudoscientific but the fact remains that you are ignoring high quality pieces of evidence, recent systematic reviews, one of which you put on yourself. Even the 2012 systematic review calls for more study despite the currently small body of evidence and acknowledged that the current studies are of moderate methodological quality and that this treatment would benefit from more rigorous study. These statements from systematic reviews do not sound like those for a closed matter. I feel that the way I rephrased the sentence in the lead is a fair compromise and does not misrepresent the academic community's stance on the topic. If you disagree, please discuss it on the talk page and discuss why and include details. Let's please avoid an edit war and discuss this more at length on the talk page before making any more changes. Thank you. Sincerely, TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I also suggest recruiting an outside party on wikipedia to give a more outside perspective to see if there is some other middle ground we are missing or to decide which statement seems more reasonable. Please let me know on my talk page, or reply here if you wish regarding what action you would like to take from here. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't think I "feel strongly" about this - just want the article to be good; CST looks from the sources to be a sure-fire candidate for the pseudoscience label. If that's the case, the article shouldn't hedge its bets ... Alexbrn (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Just appears that you feel strongly about it from what you say but fair enough, it's true that I don't know how you feel. I also want the article to be good so we are in agreement about this. CST being a sure-fire candidate for pseudoscience seems like an opinion to me at the moment given what the systematic reviews say. If the systematic reviews were old and the references you put on there were more recent, I might say it's more equivocal, but since the systematic reviews from 2011 and 2012 call for more research, I am of the opinion that the matter remains unclosed and is still subject to debate. It's not really our place to say whether CST is pseudoscientific or not but to simply report what the literature says about this topic and it looks to me like the jury is out even though it is true that much of the academic community still has significant reservations or skepticism about this particular treatment modality. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I may express myself strongly, but it's not a reflection of my feelings :-)

I agree it's not up to us, but there's a heavy WP:V weight categorizing CST as pseudoscience/quackery. I note your opinion about the "debate" being open but as I say on the Talk page, I don't believe there is a debate. The fact that trials may be going on doesn't demonstrate anything. In some other realms of pseudo-medicine practitioners keep initiating new rounds of investigation to lend a veneer of respectability, e.g. ... Alexbrn (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, then we will have to agree to disagree. I think your statement about the debate being closed is an inaccurate one and selectively ignores the systematic reviews. Might I also add that I do not appreciate the implication behind your characterization of my edit as "shifty" and "POV". It most certainly was not and to characterize it as shifty is uncalled for and rude. Whether you intended to be or not, calling someone's edit "shifty" will come off like a personal attack. You may want to exercise a bit more tact next time and choose your words a bit more carefully. Additionally, pointing the finger at me regarding edit warring was also uncalled for and not very polite since you reverted as well.I am not talking about trials going on nor am I talking about other realms of "pseudo-medicine", I am talking about the conclusions of recent systematic reviews used in the article. I have sought out a third opinion since I believe we are at an impasse. Good day. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if you took offense. I was criticizing the wording, not you. I of course know nothing about you! As with myself, I don't make a connection between the expression and (necessarily) the person behind it. TBH, I thought you were restoring wording from some previous version of this Article (I'm new to it). Alexbrn (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification, you should make sure that is clearer next time. I did not restore wording from a previous version of the article (you should check that before making such large assumptions-the only thing I restored from earlier versions was my inclusion of the 2011 systematic review but I left the 2012 systematic review alone since I think both deserve to be in the article) and instead of saying things that could be viewed as inflammatory statements about another's character, perhaps suggest alternate wording as a middle ground. After reading wikipedia's guidelines on defining pseudoscience, I would still like to hear a third opinion on the matter since I think it is a bit of a gray area and the academic community often shifts its stance on certain therapies as evidence emerges. I agree that there is not much evidence for CST at the moment but I (and I don't think you either) can confidently say exactly how much of the academic community views CST as pseudoscience or implausible given the implications of the new systematic reviews which have not been incorporated into the opinions of the sources you cited. Regardless, if the outside party is of the opinion that CST can be classified as pseudoscience by the definition of the majority of the scientific community viewing it that way, I still believe that the sentence must be appropriately worded to not mislead readers. Most readers do not fully understand the concept of scientific consensus and will most likely misinterpret such a statement as unanimity (which is not the case) and is why I changed the wording to much of the academic community. I am not opposed to saying the majority of the scientific community views CST as pseudoscience if that is more amenable wording but I still feel that the sentence about the systematic reviews' call for more evidence should remain since I believe the implication behind that is that there is still a significant enough interest in the therapy that further scientific study is being asked for and I believe that to be noteworthy. I'm all for expert opinions but not to overrule the conclusions of systematic reviews which uniformly state that the evidence is little but that the topic has not been thoroughly investigated enough to reach definitive conclusions one way or another. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad we were able to work together on the CST page and reach an agreement with the third party opinion. I think the article is much better now after our discussion and your inclusion of the newest systematic reviews from 2012 (Admittedly,I hadn't heard about them yet). If you ever want to discuss something about this or another page, don't hesitate to let me know. I share in your desire to always support well-defined and well-designed scientific study on issues controversial or not. Cheers! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes - all that needs to be done now is to get the pseudoscience label front and centre in the lede (probably with some more wording from Ernst), restore the Quackwatch stuff; delete the out-of-date reviews; and re-write the 5 paras in the article. Plenty for tomorrow! Alexbrn (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely on the 5 paragraph bit, I agree that the organization could be better there. I don't think the quackwatch bit belongs in the evidence base section of the article and remember to keep Quakvr's comments in mind, Quackwatch is controversial as a source and it should be used with caution. I happen to agree with Quakvr and think that, while quackwatch has it right on some things, they also come off as quite biased on some topics and undermine themselves by doing so. I still think the systematic review portion of the lead I put on should remain but Quakvr made the pseudoscience label bit clear due to wikipedia's definition of pseudoscience. Regarding the old reviews, I'm assuming you're referring to the '99 review. Also, for future reference, while I acknowledge Ernst as a respected researcher, I don't think his blog should be relied on too heavily for this article. Let's make sure we keep relying on more secondary sources such as the review articles, etc. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Quackwatch needs to be used cautiously; I think with some section re-working it will slot in nicely. For the '99 review, I don't think we need bother with something that's (a) 13 years old and (b) inconclusive, when we've got something conclusive that is a few months old. Agree on blogs in general too, but in this case since Ernst is specifically glossing things in the review it makes a really useful companion piece of work. Alexbrn (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

3RR

Hi, Alex. This is just a reminder, as I mentioned on Talk:Christian Science, of the 3RR policy. Bishonen | talk 12:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC).

Antisemitism

Hi Alex - you reverted an edit by Redheylin to this page a couple of weeks ago as precipitate, on the grounds that discussion was ongoing on the talk page - oddly there seems to have been no further discussion there, by you or any of those who reverted Redheylin's edits. Were you just trying to ensure orderly procedure, or were you hoping more would be added to the talk page discussion? Anything you have to add would be welcome. Peace, Dsp13 (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi — there was a lot of discussion ... it's moved to the archive now. If you search for my username there you'll see it (including a suggestion to take the definition in a whole new direction). I'm not holding out much hope of any change: things on that page seem deadlocked. Alexbrn (talk)

It's not just you

And, as bad as I feel about it, I'm going to ignore their contributions from now on. I, too, have given DJT advice on their talk page; they thanked me for it and went on flooding the talk page with primary sources. --Six words (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's sad really - there are so much better uses for his time! Anyway, the page is now looking in better shape ... Alexbrn (talk)

Notification of an request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Christian Science and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

history of waldorf schools chart

Can you clarify your objection to the

Growth in the number of Waldorf schools worldwide

chart? Do you need to see the sources for this, or do you feel that it is WP:Syn (for which it would have to be advancing a position not found in the sources, which I don't see in a chart of data)? I'm just trying to understand why you removed this. hgilbert (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It didn't seem to be reliably sourced. Did I miss something? Alexbrn (talk)

Talk

I removed this as unproductive per WP:TALK, but if you disagree feel free to revert me. a13ean (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No you're right of course. Thank you for saving me from myself. This article is hard work. Alexbrn (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem; like many large articles (including many in physics) I've been rather reluctant to work on it just because I know that it would be quite an undertaking to get everything cleaned up, so I'm always glad to see someone take the initiative and try. Cheers, a13ean (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Killers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Killers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the barnstar, Alex, that was very nice of you. Once again, I am sorry to hear about your mother, and I hope you're doing okay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Slim. It was by no means a shock, and in the end mercifully swift and peaceful – and she had had a fun and colourful life (she would have been 81 today). Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to know what to say. Do you like David Bowie? He has released a new song and video, and it's about getting old (or I think it is), and about having had a colourful life and living there, rather than here. If you're feeling sad perhaps best not to watch it, but if you feel strong enough, it's here. Of course, you may not read it the way I do. Whatever it means, it's strange and moving. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd class myself only as a moderate David Bowie enthusiast, but my wife on the other hand has always been a huge fan - so needless to say there was great excitement in the household this morning with the news of the new song and forthcoming new album! Alexbrn (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've always loved Bowie, so I've been listening to it all day. I should probably stop before I start sobbing. I hope the rest of the album is as good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Curious about rejected external link

I recently made a small edit to the Arbortext_Advanced_Print_Publisher page, adding a link to a long-established discussion group, and you rejected it (5 minutes later!) saying it was inappropriate. I thought I was being helpful so I'm just curious as to why it is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.3.68.98 (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Per WP:ELNO, links to discussion forums should normally be avoided (see item 10). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems like an overly restrictive rule, but you've implemented it correctly, so thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.3.68.98 (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hi Alex. I replied to you on Talk:Homeopathy, and then I moved both our comments to a new section at the bottom of the page. As I explained there, we have so much rambling and soapboxing and repetition, particularly in the section you replied to, that I don't imagine many editors are likely to continue participating there. Hopefully, a new section might spur more discussion. If you're unhappy with my move, please feel free to undo it. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know! Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea! Let's hope there's some progress on this ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Burzynski Clinic".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 09:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC) • {Suggested addition of "Burzynski Clinic" Section, edit/removal of non-referenced/sourced material:drn-notice} ----Didymus Judas Thomas 1/16/2013 "Suggested addition of "Burzynski Clinic" Section, edit/removal of non-referenced/sourced material" - Administrator's noticeboard The WP Administrator's noticeboard indicates: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Please advise if you have a valid WP reason for not complying with WP:NPOV re the Burzynski Clinic Article. Otherwise, I will post my grievance on the Administrator's noticeboard. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/17/2013 You misunderstand NPOV, and you're wasting everybody's time - not least your own. I suggest you carefully review the discussion on the Burzynski Clinic article to see how multiple editors - not just me - view your proposed additions, and how WP policy applies. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC) I've worked over 22 years in the legal industry. I know the natural & legal meanings of words. I will proceed with the Administrator's noticeboard. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/18/2013 {{subst WP:NPOV}} Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/18/2013 I don't think that went according to plan. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI Please comment on Talk:Disney XD (Europe) Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Disney XD (Europe). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Dash Hi Alex, I don't know what the benefit of the en-dash template is, but if you want to restore it, that's fine by me. If it adds a non-breaking space, that would make sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Yup, that's it - the template just places a nbsp before the en-dash and a normal space character. Which would probably by quicker to type (and faster to load) than using the template! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI I'm anti-template, except for infoboxes and similar, because it's almost always easier and faster to write them out manually. And apparently the page reloads each time a template is encountered (or something like that), so lots of them slow down load time, which is the main problem with citation templates – not to mention that they cause cancer. So I remove them now by instinct. :) Having said that, if you've grown fond of the en-dash, nbsp template, feel free to restore and add more. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Medical uses of silver HI Alex. Many thanks for your help with the referencing at Medical uses of silver. I have little idea how to quote journals "properly", I can't follow the long and complex sequence I see on edit pages, but I'm keen to learn. Is there perhaps a user-friendly template for this? Wdford (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Hi, the "manual" way is to use Template:Cite journal, filling in as many fields as possible, but it's much easier to find the article's DOI and then use {{cite doi|put-the-doi-here}}, as Wikipedia will then (usually!) auto-expand the reference for you. There's a free utility from CrossRef for finding article DOIs here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC) So simple! Many thanks for the assist! Wdford (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Expand the refs Can you please expand the references? These short references makes it very hard to edit the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Hi! do you mean the ones using just DOI? If you go to the References section and click "edit" you can edit the template they expand to. Or would you prefer the templates to be copied into the host article? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC) The whole reference in the article text makes editing them / verifying them much easier IMO. You shortened a bunch in this edit [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC) It's true it's less easy to "see" the reference when editing, but on the other hand both these references had missing/incorrect information and syntax which using the DOI template fixed: since it pulls in the metadata that that the publisher submitted to the registration agency, it generally gives the best/most complete references in the article as a reader sees it. I wonder if there's some way to do a static copy from the citation template back into the host article - that would seem to give the best of both worlds: I'll investigate. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Have you tried using the ref tool in the top of the edit box? Explanation is here WP:MEDHOW Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Ah, I hadn't thought about gadgets. The citation bot does the trick nicely. Thanks for the tip :-) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Request for clarification about reliable sources for Waldorf education I am requesting clarification of the arbitration ruling on reliable sources at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. You may want to add any thoughts on the subject there. hgilbert (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC) I think more editors need to be notified of this. In recent discussions User:Binksternet, User:a13ean and User:EPadmirateur have all expressed opinions on this topic. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Good idea. Done. hgilbert (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Christian Science Vaccination and Forking Hi Alex. Please see Christian Science talk regarding my reply. Centamia (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:The Muppets Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Muppets. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Pubmed yes please. Starting with inclusion of 6 pubmed peer-reviewed studies i have posted on the talk page and removal of quackwatch. Ryanspir (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Re User:Ryanspir Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Removal of systematic review, Stuber et al. 2012 Hi Alexbrn Can you please explain the reverted edit you made here [2] with your summary entitled "don't believe this is a fair summary". The conclusions, specific to pregnancy and post partum were verbatim from the article "There are only a few reported cases of adverse events following spinal manipulation during pregnancy and the postpartum period identified in the literature. While improved reporting of such events is required in the future, it may be that such injuries are relatively rare.". DVMt (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Hi - sure, see the Talk (I added a comment shortly after the rv). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks. DVMt (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Notification of Dispute Resolution regarding colloidal silver Hi Alex, Ryan started a Dispute Resolution case regarding the use of Quackwatch at Medical uses of silver. Doc James and I were named but because you also have been involved in these discussions, I thought you might like to be notified about it. Here's the link: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Medical_uses_of_silver. Cheers.... Zad68 00:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Okay thanks - I have added a comment. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI Waldorf education Hi Alex, I see there's been some long-term discussion about sourcing and other issues at Waldorf education. I responded to your WP:RSN notification. I took a look at the article Talk page and in my assessment there's definitely some long-term disruptive editing happening there that should probably be addressed. It's not 'my' article - I do not have it watchlisted - but I wanted to let you know that if a discussion about problems with editing behavior at that article does happen, and you think my participation would help, please notify me about it as I'd like to review and maybe participate in the proceedings. Thanks... Zad68 00:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Sometimes editing WP is not so much like leisure as like a job (and not a very fun one at that!). I'm not sure how this will be progressed but if anything should happen, I will be sure to alert you as you request. Thanks, BTW, with your help and advice on RS issues with this article - much appreciated :-) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC) POV tags are not to be removed until the issue is dealt with WP policy is that a POV-section tag should not be removed until the discussion on the talk page is resolved by consensus. Consensus does not consist of assertions by one side. There is a POV-fork in Waldorf education#Pseudoscience at the moment. hgilbert (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC) As a COI-compromised editor, you shouldn't be taking it upon yourself to add templates in this way without agreement. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Clarification request regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion has been passed regarding an Arbitration clarification request which named you as a party. Please view the wording of the motion, feel free to discuss the motion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC) My talk page Kindly check the entry in my talk page regarding Microbiome. Ryanspir (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Weltmer Institute of Suggestive Therapeutics It took me a long time and energy to enter all this text and you have took the initiative alone to deleted practically all the text under some pretense that you seemed to have subjectively invented the idea that, from your own perspective and believes, what should be and what should not be in this Wikipedia page without consulting nobody else on that mater and without looking at the "primary sources" and taking the time to do a comparative. Instead you have declared out of the blues and from you own that you should delete it. You did not have the excuse that it was copyright material, so you have invented the idea of "Primary source regurgitation", by trying to Reinvent a Standard on what should be Wikipedia Policies. Plus it was not a simple regurgitation but a reformatting of the primary sources and selective editing. I do not accept it, I will never accept this kind of behavior and nobody has to be subjected to accept your Personal Policies and Standard--Fady Lahoud (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Hi there! See my response on the article talk page ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC) My Question is: Did you look at the Primary Source at all, or you have assumed to be so? And if this is the case, then 90% of Wikipedia is Primary Source material. There is a double standard here. No "Original Sources" no "Primary Sources" no "unreferenced sources" etc. There is an IMPERFECTION and a FLAW in your interpretations of the Wikipedia Policies. Plus the Policies themselves are Flawed and subjected to re-considerations. I will See to it with the Real Administrators of Wikipedia, so that they revise their flawed policies and make them less susceptible to personal interpretations. And when I do that and succeed to make Wikipedia more perfect, policies will have to change. I am a Constructor not a follower, if the laws are not perfect then every citizen have the DUTY to change them, we do not live in the world of Monarchs where the Elite dictates the rules. MEN CAN ACHIEVE WHAT MEN CAN CONCEIVE. --Fady Lahoud (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC) First I will make it Mandatory to put at least a Notice on the page to inform the Creators that put efforts in WIKIPEDIA of Creating articles before some inexperienced in Life and out of misplaced zeal, decides to disrespectfully delete big chunks of the text. They should have put their intentions like they should do and that it is usually done by experienced professionals. Second, when they take the initiative to delete a paragraph they should consult with others on that mater. There has to be a Democratic vote on what to take out and what to leave in the page. And not one person who, with his good intentions ends up vandalizing it. Third, do not take it lightly what you delete, be special careful on everything that you take out and double check your stuff to make sure your not mistaken in your judgments or interpretations of the Law. Be respectful and do not Discourage Creators that put an effort, treat others like you wish to be treated. It is not like I have put garbage in Wikipedia. Forth, Tell your selves, is this material of interest to somebody. If it is not for you, it may be for somebody else. Is it garbage, is it vandalism, is it misinformation. etc. For copyright material, I understand, but for "Primary Source" that is outdated WHERE THE CIVIL and International LAW itself Permits on Reproducing it, Reediting it, reprinting it, etc. it is unacceptable (we are not in school, plus Wikipedia is free of charge) Fifth. What I can see of Wikipedia is it lacks the "Balls" of taking the responsibility of promoting and accepting "Original Ideas". The Ideas has always to be referenced from somebody else work or already published by another "ENCYCLOPEDIA" with "Balls" to backup it up. LEARN it. Sixth, "This Primary Source" philosophy has to be Immediately PUT DOWN because of the bias it represents. Plus it is not Constitutional. It opposes Freedom of Speech. If I want to put the whole Bible in Wikipedia, or the Civil Law in it, or the Torah, or the Zohar, or the Scientific papers. etc, I cannot because of this Policy and yet there is tones of Wikipedia pages that are "Primary Sources" but it gets somehow subjectively accepted anyways. So you see that this in not Constitutional, because it is so bias, it opposes Freedom of the Press and at the same time there is an injustice that can flow easily form it. Do you understand what I am trying to do, I am working so that the world we are living in, be a more perfect and peaceful place. Do you oppose that? Are you with me or against me? Seventh, The editors that edits other work of creators, have to be certified to do so. Plus they have to create at least some good articles of their own. They have to be accounted for especially it they lack the wisdom and respect. Unless this is what they want to do by purpose, to discourage, to misinform, to infiltrate by night, to Control the Media, what should be said and what should be not and how, for political agendas. We must not be naive to believe that all people are saints. These are the first Seven Perfect Points to draw a Perfect Magic Circle, six on the circumference and one in the middle. Men can Achieve that Men can Conceive for a perfect World. --Fady Lahoud (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC) NOR Noticeboard Hi, Alexbrn. This is a note to inform you that I have referred the question of your edits to the NOR Noticeboard, as we discussed in Talk. NORN Jellypear (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Deepak Chopra physicists references This is not promotional material. They are the views of physicists who read his book and commented on Chopra's understanding of quantum physics. What better sourced reference could there be if one wanted the views of nuclear physicists? Removing properly cited material is against wiki policy. Please undo your edit. Thank you.Vivekachudamani (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Dearchiving DRN case The Talk:Medical uses of silver DRN case has been de-archived in order to close it. Please visit the page and state whether you will accept the proposed solution. There will be no extensive discussion. If all participants agree to it, the case will be closed as 'resolved', if not, as 'failed'. CarrieVS (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC) All the others agreed, and the compromise proposed was the same as one you had expressed agreement for previously, so as you are apparently on a wikibreak we assumed your agreement and the case has been closed. CarrieVS (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC) AE request result The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Waldorf education. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. See this discussion for details; please read the reasons given there for the above warning to assist you in avoiding possible future sanctions. Thank you, Gatoclass (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Quackwatch Since you have reverted my edit, kindly reply on the article talk page. Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC) hTMA Vandalism Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Bmartinsen (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC) It's not vandalism. The article failed WP:V WP:NPOV and WP:NOR as it was. Any content added to it needs to be reliably sourced. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Citation bot Hi Alexbrn--You fixed a ref for me on the med uses of Ag page: pimp ref | Assisted by Citation bot r419). How did you do that? Thanks, Desoto10 (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Under Preferences|Gadgets, enable the "citation expander", and new button, "Citations" appears in your edit screen. Pushing this will (usually!) expand any partial citations in your edit text if it can find them online. For journals, if you have a DOI you can just put {{cite Journal|doi=xxxxxxxxxxxxx}} and the bot will expand the whole thing; also works if you have a PMID (maybe more ...). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Greetings You could cut and paste it over to WT:MED. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Aha - thanks for the tip ... will do. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Homeopathy". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 20:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Hello, from a DR/N volunteer This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Crashdoom Talk 08:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC) You deleted my edit. Why? It had good references Ref E-Cat wiki. I wrote that the E-Cat had been independently tested, giving the reference arXiv:1305,3903 and ALSO that Elforsk (The Swedish equivalent of EPRI) not only funded it but wrote about it on their web page. You think an unreferenced comment of yours is good enough reason to do that? Why did you (or someone else) choose to post a comment from a blog by Ugo Bardi after that? Can I just pick blog comments and post them because I like them? a.ashfield@verizon.net Parallel (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC) If you think your edit has merit, argue its case on the Talk page (in my view arXiv references are not RS for your use). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC) I don't know how to put new text under the old text, so I'm starting a new request. Obviously I think the edit has merit or I wouldn't have made it. You didn't answer my questions apart from stating the arXiv:1305.3903 was not "RS" what ever that means. It is a location where the paper maybe read or downloaded. Obviously an independent test has been performed. I linked Elforsk who state they funded it and the general results. Elforst is a large, well respected R&D organization. So this is proof positive that an independent test was performed. You deleted my comment and replaced it saying the E-Cat has not had an independent test, and have nothing to back that up. By definition you can't prove a negative and the most you should say is that no test is known. So you were wrong. I really don't care what you and your fellow editors believe, but there is now overwhelming evidence that LENR has been proven to exist. There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers you can look at here. CANR-LENR.org Clearly the writers of this section on the E-Cat and also Andrea Rossi do not believe it is possible, but you shouldn't allow your beliefs to color your postings with unsupported statements to bolster said beliefs. For example, following the part about a third party test you post a long quote from Ugo Bardi's blog. His blog! That is no proof. I note the commenters on his blog were uniformly negative and I can find you blogs from respected scientists that say the opposite. Parallel (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC) You need to read the article Talk page: this has been discussed at length. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC) You were the one that deleted my comment. I think you owe me more of an explanation than you have given. See too the expanded piece I have posted on topic talk. I doubt it will do much good. Skeptics treat this like heresy. In my opinion the editors are so biased they should recuse them selves and allow the whole piece to be rewritten based on the facts. Parallel (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC) arXiv references are not RS for the claims made. There is no more to add really. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC) It would be good if you actually read what I wrote before commenting. I never claimed the arXiv reference was the RS. The RS is Elforsk. Are you now claiming this is not a RS? Parallel (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC) I have opened a dispute page and you are invited to respond http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Energy_Catalyzer Parallel (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Little edit conflict on Sungazing Hey, I saw you reverted my revert of myself on Sungazing. I was trying to correct this edit by a person who didn't seem to grasp NPOV re fringe topics and I of course didn't preview. Sorry 'bout that! I see from your contrib list that like me, you're business of cleaning up after woo. Great to meet a fellow Pharma Shill! ;) Ultra Venia (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I think our edits crossed - but because I was working with an 1st gen iPad I wasn't fast enough to clean up afterwards - thanks for sorting it! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Gratuitous Edits Alex, regarding your deletion of my previous edit, I reverted your deletion because you did not bother to understand WHY I edited the text, originally. Regardless of HOW the source reads, you should not simply "copy and paste" a source text. Read the text, copied and pasted from the source, and you'll find that the text reads, as though the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK recommend against cancer patients taking the diet, in GENERAL. This is an incorrect statement, and needs to be written, as the source intended. The American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK recommends using the diet as a primary means to combat cancer. I will change it again, to read as it was intended. My edit is not only reasonable, it is correct, where your continued changes, read incorrectly. Irshgrl500 (talk · contribs) 06:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Irshgrl500 No, you are misrepresenting the sources and this has the effect of watering them down. CRUK states plainly, for example, "We don’t support the use of macrobiotic diets for people with cancer". You are also now engaging in edit warring. Please be aware that the consensus version of the article should prevail in case of dispute. If you think your changes have merit, make the case on the Talk page and get consensus there. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Edit blocked as 'need stronger sourcing for biomedical content' Hi Alex, I see you undid my edit, can you point me to the criteria for biomedical content sourcing on Wikipedia thank you? I think the info I posted is helpful particularly as it is based on a significant sample size, maybe it could appear in a different part of the article? What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesserangel (talk • contribs) 08:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Hi there - the relevant guidance is at WP:MEDRS. As you can see, the bar is set very high ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks Alex, that is helpful and I do follow the logic, but I am not convinced that this type of info (purely about weight loss, not about other effects) falls under this categorization, I note that 'Sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline'. Lesserangel (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Well, the effect of following a diet on body weight is "biomedical" I think. But even if it were not, 52fastdiet.co.uk would not meet the general guidelines for sourcing either. Please raise this on the article's Talk page if you disagree. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Edgewood Can you take a look at the article now and perhaps withdraw your nomination to save everyone time? 86.121.18.17 (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC) I beat you to it :-) Thanks for your good work on the article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 22:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC) By the way, the guy who wrote the confusing article even bragged about it [3]. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (2nd nomination) Alexbrn, what is your assessment of the two additional sources I found (Wired magazine, 1998; Associated Press, 1992)? You are still not considering withdrawing the nomination? Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Hi - I've added a comment to the discussion on these sources. Overall, I am not convinced we have quite enough to take us over the notability threshold. Great digging BTW, to find these extra sources and bring some useful substance to the discussion. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks. I have just further expanded the article... --Edcolins (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Dates I saw your comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Dates of Birth, which you then struck out. Unfortunately, your strikeout didn't work quite right and messed with the heading, so I've fixed it. In any case, have you got the answer to your question? A comma is usually required after the year for dates in mdy format, except when followed by other terminating punctuation such as a closing parenthesis in this case (and Serena Williams (born September 26, 1981,) ... would look quite odd). —sroc (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks - Yup, I'm sorted now. It's "6 June 2020" or "June 6, 2010" but never "6 June, 2010". I think! :-) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Correct! —sroc (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Cold Fusion Breakthroughs ignored by Wikipedia. I understand Cold Fusion/L.E.N.R. (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) have for many years been considered pseudoscience. However; in 2011 an Italian Inventor named Andrea Rossi made some startling claims that made the scientific community look again at this technology. I am not going to say he has anything because that has yet to be provedm but we now have LENR being replicated in 100's of labs worldwide, and this months ICCF is the largest ever with a surplus of great science minds. It could be said that LENR was discovered while attempting cold fusion and is a byproduct of it more than it is cold fusion. Cold Fusion Element A + Element B = Element C LENR Parts of Element A + Parts of Element B - join into a short lived Element C - Decay into heat. but it is all Cold Fusion and the same minds behind LENR will be attending the ICCF conference in July. (in light of all the breakthroughs in past 2 years ICCF wikipage is still scheduled for deletion.) If you understand science I will give you a simplified version of what is occurring in LENR (NASA W/L Version). On the surface of metals there is a film of electrons that all shake/vibrate/oscillate together called surface plasmons. These nanoclusters can be excited by many means like light and heat. Like a sponge holding water to capacity and forming droplets on the surface, metals (Nickel in our case) loaded with hydrogen will also collect saturated protons. The Protons attract the electrons through their magnetic fields (opposite polarities) and combine to form an "Ultra Low Momentum/Low Energy Neutron". During Fission this Neutron would be highly energized so this is a key difference. These slower Neutrons will get absorbed quite easily by any nearby nuclei. This starts a deluge of unstable isotopes that then decay with beta style emissions because of the weak force (beta decay). Gamma radiation emission (Gamma Ray Photons), and Gamma radiation (x-rays) are a result of this. Released gammas are absorbed by the heavy electrons which are also there, and they convert them to infra red. LENR is often associated with low Gamma emission. This is a dumbed down version of The Widom Larsen Theory. Miracle #1: the mystery of how the Coulomb barrier is penetrated Miracle #2: the lack of strong neutron emissions Miracle #3: the lack of strong emission of gamma or x-rays Resolution to Miracle #1: There is no Coulomb barrier with neutrons Resolution to Miracle #2: It is not a fusion reaction, so fusion-associated neutrons are not expected. Resolution to Miracle #3: Converted to infra-red and shielded. There are other conflicting theories, but they are to explain something that has been proven to exist. There is still much we do not know, but Wikipedia is treating these breakthroughs badly. I have seen several well cited posts buried by some of your staff. It is a shame because this is a very exciting science and 5 minutes googling the term LENR may show you that, and lead you to many peer reviewed papers confirming LENR/Cold Fusion. 76.68.43.240 (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Hi there. Any edits must be backed by reliable sources and in-line with Wikipedia policies, unfortunately yours was not. If anything eligble does come to light then of course we should have it in the article ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC) (Untitled section) Hi Alex, Here's a copy of my response to you and Littleolive that I just put up on the Deepak Chopra talk page regarding the Large-scale removal of content. I include it here in case you don't take notice of it there. Dear Olive and Alexbrn, I just discovered this conversation/response today to my edits back in February. I apologize both for the long space of time as I have been preoccupied with pressing matters, and for my lack of expertise in navigating my way through the wiki avenues of correspondence. Regarding the removal of Duerr's quote on Chopra's understanding of quantum physics, I can accept that decision if book jacket material cannot be used in wiki articles. What I was hoping to address was the misperception that physicists don't agree with Chopra's interpretation of quantum field theory, when in fact a number of eminent quantum physicists not only agree, but have been stating these views long before Chopra did. The role of the observer in quantum measurement has been debated by evenly divided groups for nearly a century, it does a disservice to the wiki reader to suggest that Chopra's position(which is also Heisenberg's Wigner and Bohr's) is somehow discreditable because he's not a physicist. At the time this material was under a topic called Academic Scholars, and I felt that many of the authors referenced there were weak and it needed quotes from who had actually read some Chopra material and spoke to his ideas. Alexbrn removed my quotes quickly after I posted them and I couldn't understand why. I repeatedly reposted because I thought it was mischief-making. When he responded that Duerr's view of quantum physics in agreement with Chopra was a self-promoting puff quote, I felt that was incorrect and unfair, especially given the weak material there already. So to make that point I removed the biased material with brief explanations. The material was instantly put up again. And that's where I left off. Then later I saw Olive's message to me warning me not to unilaterally remove content or be sanctioned.I was urged to seek consensus first,which seems like a good idea, although I notice I have never been asked for clarification or a response before any of my reliably sourced content was removed. But in the spirit of friendly cooperation I would like to get feedback from you about changing or removing these entries. It's not that they aren't referenced properly, but they lack informative content, they push a point of view instead of give substantive information about Chopra's ideas, actions or material. 1 Reception- In Academic Journals Reviewing Susan Jacoby's book, The Age of American Unreason, Wendy Kaminer sees Chopra's popular reception in America as being symptomatic of many Americans' historical inability (as Jacoby puts it) "to distinguish between real scientists and those who peddled theories in the guise of science". Chopra's "nonsensical references to quantum physics" are placed in a lineage of American religious pseudoscience, extending back through Scientology to Christian Science.[49] Kaminer is reviewing Jacoby's book and the implication is that the scholar Jacoby has something to say about Chopra. I read Kaminer's entire review as well as searched Jacoby's book and it's index. Jacoby never mentions Chopra. Here's the actual passage from Jacoby's book. "Many Americans possessed just enough education to be fascinated by late nineteenth-century advances in both science and technology, but they had too little education to distinguish between real scientists and those who peddled social theories in the guise of science." Jacoby is speaking of the false science of the social Darwinist of the capitalists of the Gilded Age. Given that Chopra’s name nor the words 'quantum physics' ever appears anywhere in the book, it's disingenuous to quote the book as if she was commenting on Chopra. Kaminer inserts her opinion about Chopra and his "nonsensical references to quantum physics" out of the blue without any foundation from the book, and with no further elaboration. How is such a characterization not misleading to the casual reader searching for background information on Chopra? 2. Reception- In Academic Journals George O'Har, a professor of English at Boston College, saw Chopra as an exemplification of the fact that human beings need "magic" in their lives, and places "the sophistries of Chopra" alongside the emotivism of Oprah Winfrey, the special effects and logic of Star Trek, and the magic of Harry Potter.[45] This entry misleads the reader into believing that needing magic is a criticism, when in fact O’Har is pointing out the limitations of a solely technological approach to human existence and suggesting we explore magic more fully to uncover a deeper meaningfulness to our lives. O'Har doesn't put the word magic in quotes. Here are O'Har's last three concluding sentences from his paper: “We crave meaning and spirit in our lives, and we find them in the oddest places: the sophistries of a Deepak Chopra, the emotivism of an Oprah Winfrey, the special effects and logic of Star Trek and The Matrix. Now it's Harry Potter's turn. And while this is not an altogether good development, certainly it could be worse. One does hold out hope, though, that this disguised search for meaning—and it is precisely that—will someday result in an exploration that takes us beyond what is provided by an alternative world found only in the pages of children's books. I doubt if most readers would realize from this wiki entry that O'Har is not ridiculing magic and that he's actually encouraging Chopra, Oprah, Star Wars, The Matrix and the Harry Potter books to keep going more deeply into the meaning of life. If the reason this entry is included is for the phrase “sophistries of Deepak Chopra,” , then one would expect the article to support that in some way. It doesn’t. This opinion about Chopra's presentation is the only mention of Chopra in the entire piece. If this were an unbiased wiki entry, one would then find the identical entry of O'Har under Oprah Winfrey’s wikipage: Reception – in Academic journals. The “emotivism of an Oprah Winfrey” exemplifies our human need for "magic." I fail to see how the wiki reader will understand from this entry that O'Har thinks magic and not technology is the right direction to find meaning. And even if he sees limitations in Chopra's style of teaching, he still includes him in that camp. 3. Reception- In Academic Journals John Gamel (2008) also acknowledges Chopra's business success, thinking him "perhaps the wealthiest" of America's alternative medicine practitioners.[4] Why state an opinion on Chopra’s wealth without supporting facts? Speculation on his wealth or lack of wealth has no relevance to how his ideas are received. If he was well known but financially unsuccessful, would that merit inclusion under Reception? The rest of the Gamel entry seems fine. 4. Reception- In Academic Journals According to medical anthropologist Hans Baer (2003), Chopra – as a wealthy individual – is an example of the American success story,[46] Again, what is the connection between wealth and how academia receives Chopra's message?The rest of the Baer reference is fine with me. 5. All of Robert Todd Carroll's references. Author Todd Carroll said Chopra left the TM organization when it “became too stressful” and was a “hindrance to his success”.[30] These quotes suggest that Chopra said this somewhere to someone. That is not the case. Here is the actual sentence along with the previous sentence. Soon he was an international purveyor of herbs and tablets through MAPI. When association with TM itself became too stressful and a hindrance to his success, he left. Carroll speculated on the reason for Chopra's departure. He gives no source at all. Another Carroll reference: According to the book Skeptics Dictionary, Chopra's "mind-body claims get even murkier as he tries to connect Ayurveda with quantum physics.”[30] This is a value statement on Chopra’s writing style, not a substantive critique of ideas. Calling Chopra's writing "murkier" only reflects Carroll's cognitive capacity. It offers the reader only Carroll’s point of view, no useful information. The third Carroll reference: Chopra acknowledges that his thought has been inspired by Jiddu Krishnamurti and others. [30] This text no longer exists in the Skeptics Dictionary. There is another reference for the same entry, so it can remain, only the reference number needs to be removed. Carroll’s work is full of biased and invented positions as well as demonstrably incorrect information. Including his citations is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and even to self-respecting skeptics. His lack of credibility is shown where he says. “Chopra has no license to practice medicine in California.” Chopra has always retained his medical license in CA and in MA. Carroll just made that up. Regarding the Sapolsky lawsuit, he claims that Deepak Chopra plagiarized Sapolsky by “lifting large chunks of his work” when in fact it was one stress endocrine chart from a textbook that was mistakenly included in a Chopra book without proper attribution. On his wikiquote page, Robert Todd Carroll says: “ The reader is forewarned that The Skeptics Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects.” Why would editors use this material if the author himself admits to bias, and has no respect for the facts? That's it. Tell me what you think.Vivekachudamani (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC) My position has not changed, and I have just reverted a bunch of edits you made to the article backed with inaccurate claims that material is not backed by the source used (I of course checked). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC) We differ on what a reliable source is, so let's discuss this. Littleolive oil said we need to reach a consensus. That is why I explained my position last week. You both had all that time to make a considered response but you didn't. I assumed if either of you had objections you would raise them. Once I made changes this morning you changed the material back without explaining why only claiming the material is good without showing how. Regarding your point about checking the source: Did you check this? Chopra acknowledges that his thought has been inspired by Jiddu Krishnamurti and others. [30] Please tell me where this exists in the Skeptic's Dictionary? or the source for this quote: Author Todd Carroll said Chopra left the TM organization when it “became too stressful” and was a “hindrance to his success”. How does one determine who said these words from these sentences in his book? Soon he was an international purveyor of herbs and tablets through MAPI. When association with TM itself became too stressful and a hindrance to his success, he left. Today I noticed Carroll has removed the sentence. "When association with TM itself became too stressful and a hindrance to his success, he left." A separate search for the word "hinderance" can bring us an alternate version with a dead link to hindunet.org that was not there last week. Previously it didn't even show a source of any kind. I honestly do not understand why you want to stake your reputation as a fair editor on this material. Please explain, don't just assert. I feel confident that a review panel of editors will recognize that this material does not meet wikipedia standards. Vivekachudamani (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC) I have posted on the article Talk page; please continue the discussion there as consensus needs to be achieved between all the editors of the article, not just the few of us discussing this on User Talk pages. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Quackwatch Do not undo the revision I made. You're being biased, and not promoting fair use. Alex, Who are you talking to? This isn't addressed to anyone. There is no reference to any specific material. What revision? What bias? What is quackwatch? Your comment is altogether unclear. Since it was posted after my message I want to know if this is addressed to me. If not, I would like to know if you have any reason to keep in any of the material I outlined earlier. Thanks. Vivekachudamani (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC) This was an unsigned comment made by an IP editor - please just ignore it. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Quantum Physics Hi Alex, In case you didn't see, Quantum Physics is a new topic in the talk section I began today, and I wanted to let you know about it here because I reference you in it. Vivekachudamani (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia Biographies of Living Persons Policy --Deepak Chopra Alex, Your recent edits show you are repeatedly violating WK:BLP policy. You have already been warned 3 times. BLP pages are judged in favor of removing contentious material. There is no mention of the 3 revert rule for BLP policies. I am following WP: BLP policy to immediately remove poorly sourced contentious material without discussion. You are violating policy by reverting it without consensus. You must read the BLP policy and abide by it. You need to understand the phrase "remove immediately without discussion." Furthermore Olive has already ruled against you on this material. Consensus by neutral editors was achieved even though it wasn't required here on a BLP. All the discussion on this is already there on the talk page. It is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. You are trying to game the system reverting it 3 times yourself but not having it technically count as a edit war by having "IRWolfie" revert one of those edits. But the 3 revert doesn't apply here anyway. That just makes you look pathetic and desperate. This is going to look very bad for you when it is revealed you have staked your reputation on keeping in the SkepDic reference to the Jiddu Krishnamurti line when that line is not even in the book. It isn't there. It isn't there. What could be a better example of unreliable source for the Jiddu Krishnamurti line than to send the readers to the SkepDic book where it doesn't exist? I'm honestly not trying to make you look bad, but you are not helping yourself here. I'm really trying to make this a better balanced article, stop posturing and bullying, let's stick to WP: BLP policy . Vivekachudamani (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC) It would be more constructive if you actually understood WP policies before citing them. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Dispute resolution noticeboard/Burzynski Clinic Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Docia49 (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Hello, I would like to notify you that I have posted on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard about the Burzynski ClinicDocia49 (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Nice work Hi, Thank for responding to my request for your help on the MBSR stuff. I'm amazed at how dedicated some of the people are here and you are one of them. Sorry I messed up on the psychology sentence. I just thought that since the word mindfulness was linked to the Mindfulness (psychology) page then it should mention psychology. But you are more experienced. Thanks again, --LarEvee (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks, and - after editing the Mindfulness (psychology) article some more, I think your clarification is in fact good (and have re-made it) since one of the issues there seems to be a blurring of categories between kinds of "mindfulness". Interestingly, based on the most recent research it looks as if the story for mindfulness is a positive one, since it seems genuinely to help people who are having a hard time ... so after removing the cruft these articles can be a lot more direct without having to rely on the rather shaky sourcing they are currently using. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Your revert of sourced science Dear Alexbrn, explain why you reverted my edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soursop&curid=382945&diff=567947375&oldid=567940812 Prokaryotes (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Because they removed sourced information and added poorly-sourced implications about human health. Please make a case on the article's Talk page is you believe your edits have merit. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Soursop#Removal_of_sourced_material_by_user_Alexbrn Prokaryotes (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Toxicity of plant seeds Please consider to improve the article further, read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Soursop#Toxicity_of_plant_seeds Prokaryotes (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Regarding your gang Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Prokaryotes_linking_YouTube_content_apparently_not_uploaded_by_the_copyright_holder Prokaryotes (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC) WP:TINC Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Costa del Sol Hello Alexbrn. I saw that you resolve conflicts about the neutral point of view or fringe theories. I would like you to give your opinion in this discussion, if you would be so kind. Thanking you in advance, greetings.--LTblb (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC) I come back to thank again your kindly disposition, greetings.--LTblb (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Editor's Barnstar For tireless editing on topics with neutrality problems. bobrayner (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you very much :-) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Regarding removal of science study Hi, here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosemary&diff=prev&oldid=570218997) your recent article edit reason is: "improperly-sourced biomedical content". Though it appears the "url" is missing from the ref tag. I looked the study up and foudn it under this url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12690999. Would the addition of this url be considered properly sourced? If not please show me an example what you consider "Properly sourced", thanks. Prokaryotes (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Hi - for a biomedical effect we need something that complies with the guidance in WP:MEDRS. The study in Int J Neurosci is a piece of primary research (the authors did an experiment that generated data, and wrote-it-up themselves), and so not suitable. We would need a secondary source that verifies the finding. Since the claim about Rosemary is not very extraordinary, a review article might suffice. In general the best sources for this kind of thing are systematic reviews or (or a metaanalysis) or statements by established medical bodies like the NHS. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC) But why did you revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_plants_used_in_herbalism&diff=prev&oldid=570219122 which cites a primary and secondary source, however you also gave the reason that it is improperly sourced. Prokaryotes (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC) The Science Daily piece isn't a high-quality secondary source in a way which would satisfy WP:MEDRS - it is really just a news piece reporting on the primary study (in fact, if you look at the 'story source' you'll see it's just picking-up material that the journal publisher fed to them). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC) WP:MEDRS states that "Peer reviewed medical information resources such as WebMD is a acceptable source" here is the study from that source - http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20120224/can-the-scent-of-rosemary-make-you-smarter Prokaryotes (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Yes! that might do - but we'd need something a lot more tentative than the claim I removed (that it was "shown to improve cognitive performance") ... "an intriguing concept, but very preliminary" maybe? But we're then into the question of whether something this speculative is notable enough for inclusion; I have no strong view about that either way ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I like to include just the findings and what is generally said in a study. Maybe we can include from study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12690999 this line = "Findings indicate that properties of the oil can produce objective effects on cognitive performance" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokaryotes (talk • contribs) 09:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC) That would be going back to the primary source, which is a no-no. The only expert peer-review we have (from WebMD) gives us a steer to the line Wikipedia must adopt if it's going to mention this, that "the findings could be due to chance or something else besides the fragrance." Although this isn't a very important case, the general principal is that since Wikipedia is a "widely used source of health information", editors must be scrupulous in not making articles contain things that are not published in reliable sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC) But the study source is a governmental source - this ought to be considered reliable. Also i would rather use the original research rather than a secondary, although this is not clear that one should only use the content from the secondary source. But in this instance i have np with using the secondary source. Though can we include something along the lines of "The Scent of Rosemary Oil May Improve Speed and Accuracy During Mental Tasks" (via WebMD).Prokaryotes (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC) It's not a governmental source, it's from a group of reseachers at Northumbria University and published in a neuroscience journal[4] (the electronic version of the abstract is then hosted on PubMed - an indexing and hosting service - as happens for many/most medical journal articles these days). It may seem counter-intuitive but for biomedical content we need to go through the secondary layer, as that is providing the validation via peer-review that gives some assurance of the quality of the information. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Ok. But it is still from a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.gov domain. Ok, so can you add that sentences i gave above or do you want me to do it? Prokaryotes (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I've added something - it's important we follow the somewhat tentative tone of the WebMD piece. Their main title ends with a question mark, after all! Right, now I'm going to sniff some rosemary; I have a big bush of it in the garden :-) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC) :D Prokaryotes (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Addict ! --Roxy the dog (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I've put some in my shirt pocket. It's ... rather nice ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Related? a13ean (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Rosemary, third opinion requested I have requested third opinions, or additional input, on the Rosemary edit. Please feel free to discuss here even though you have given your opinions elsewhere. Thanks. --AfadsBad (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Bon courage. You have new messages at Talk:American Cancer Society. Message added MrBill3 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Hello Alexbrn, Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I opened a discussion on the removal of the embezzlement scandals at American Cancer Society. I am not objecting to your edit just think it might be worth discussion and that the information should be preserved on the talk page for possible re inclusion if the article is substantially expanded and balanced. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Original Barnstar For your ongoing efforts to improve medical topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you very much sir! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC) you're guilty of an edit war too Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Talkback Hello, Bon courage. You have new messages at Talk:Deepak Chopra. Message added 04:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 04:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Again, thanks much! ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 05:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Again ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 05:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Again. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 06:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Again. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 06:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC) A cup of coffee for you! For editing the article of Clinical trials on Ayurvedic drugs. It gives a confidence that it is really need of time and that I am heading in the right direction. You may also like to have a look at blog of mine which I have dedicated for this cause. You can see the blog over here. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Happy to receive your response very fast. I am really really very happy to see your fast response. I just cant tell you how happy I am feeing right now. Please do have a look at the blog as you will get time. And please keep guiding for the article. Wikipedia is really a wonderful place! --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC) A brownie for you! Thanks for your dedicated sense of collaboration and compromise at Vacuum Bell. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC) So nice! but not good for my diet ;-) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Your contributed article, Zoetron therapy If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Zoetron therapy. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – List_of_ineffective_cancer_treatments. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List_of_ineffective_cancer_treatments – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page. If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Caffeyw (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC) It was I who added the material to List_of_ineffective_cancer_treatments after creating Zoetron therapy, so there is no (unintended) duplication. List_of_ineffective_cancer_treatments is a list article that summarizes a number of others we have, providing a small WP:SYNC'd summary. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC) vit c and cancer The pharmacokinetic study and the reviews all suggest that intravenous vitamin c has effects that oral does not and should thus be reevaluated. This is noted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine#Vit_C My edit was not promotional, but it reflected the actual content of the articles, from notable sources, the conclusions of which specifically stated the view that intravenous vitamin c in the treatment of cancer be reevaluated.198.189.184.243 (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC) It's nonsense, and you're trying to edit-war it in. At the very least, take your proposal to Talk now your edit has been rejected (not just by me). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC) The proposal has been taken to talk. You state that it is a "non-neutral" edit, but, again, the 2004 NIH study "Vitamin C pharmacokinetics: implications for oral and intravenous use." published in the Annals of Internal Medicine specifically concludes: "Oral vitamin C produces plasma concentrations that are tightly controlled. Only intravenous administration of vitamin C produces high plasma and urine concentrations that might have antitumor activity. Because efficacy of vitamin C treatment cannot be judged from clinical trials that use only oral dosing, the role of vitamin C in cancer treatment should be reevaluated.": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15068981198.189.184.243 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Can we agree that the actual content of these two reviews states that vit c in cancer should be reevaluated because of differences between oral and intravenous administration? Also, the content of these reviews is justified because of that very pharmacokinetic study, as well as other evidence.198.189.184.243 (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC) The place to discuss this is the article talk page, not here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC) I have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine#Vit_C198.189.184.243 (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Multiple people Editing my edits... I'd like to know why I'm "speculating" since that was your reason for removing my edit... I have sources and I'm wondering why you think my research is violating wikipedia standards, or is it the content that you do not like? You are the 3rd in the last 12 hours that has removed my edits. I have complied with your request to cite and produce research. What's up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms.Lola B (talk • contribs) 16:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC) You need to make a case for your edits on the article's Talk page, per WP:BRD perhaps. See you there ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Can you explain what was wrong with my modification of "Expanding Earth"? Expanding Earth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndwelsh (talk • contribs) 09:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Just about everything, I'm afraid. Content on Wikipedia needs to be sourced to verifiable, reliable, published sources. What is more, it seems you are adding your own work here, which is definitely frowned as as it raises WP:COI conflict-of-interest issues. I will post some more on your talk page. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Mass transforming into gravity Hello Alexbrn. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Mass transforming into gravity to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Update - the article author removed my PROD and in doing so restored your speedy, which another admin then accepted. I have explained WP:NOR on the author's talk p. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks - I wasn't sure a PROD would be right as it was likely to be contested. Perhaps a better CSD category would be G11, because this article is just for promotion of a point of view. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC) I don't think I would have agreed with G11 either - that is really for promotional text rather than promotional intent. These articles about somebody's new theory are not really speediable, IMO, and PRODs aren't always contested if the reason is explained clearly. I like to quote the key sentence from WP:NOR: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery" which makes it fairly clear. JohnCD (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC) American vs. British English Nothing against British English, but I thought I should inform you of Wikipedia policy regarding your addition of the word "practise" instead of "practice" in the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine article. Here is what Wikipedia: Manual of Style says: "While Wikipedia does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently. exceptions are: quotations (do not alter the quotation to match the variety used in the main text; but see typographic conformity, below); proper names (use the original spelling, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force); titles of works such as books, films, or songs (use the spelling of the edition consulted); and explicit comparisons of varieties of English." The article was consistently written in American English and according to MOS, should consistently use that. Your edit meets none of the criteria for an exception. It would be great if you could correct that. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Whoops. I try, I really do, but sometimes lose track of all the different errors American English has - and it's not helped by my being slightly dyslexic. So please tidy up anything you see! Thanks, Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Errors? And as for fixing it, it's your edit, you should correct it now that you've been notified. I have other things to do. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Conflict of Interest Alex you have declared a conflict of interest on the Chopra page and according to WP:COI should not make controversial edits yourself. You can discuss them but should not make them. You can make general edits. This is the second time your COI editing has been mentioned, but your controversial editing persists, and even increased. It is disruptive and needs to end. Vivekachudamani (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC) I have made no such declaration, and I have no such conflict. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 01:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC) The multiple postings is a courtesy and policy requirement. You raised the COI issue with Matthewbowker at the WM Help site, and he didn't just assert he didn't have a COI, he put the matter before a group of impartial Wikimedia editors and after a couple of weeks they made a decision. That would seem to be the fair approach here as well.Goose:GanderVivekachudamani (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Revert to List of ineffective cancer treatments Alexbrn, I notice you just reverted my edit to list of ineffective cancer treatments. I see your point about making the inclusion criteria clear, and I'll try to revise my changes to do that. But in the future, could you take it up with me on my talk page rather than summarily revert my changes just because you disagree with one aspect of them? I made quite a lot of changes in that edit, including some careful copyedits that have nothing to do with the inclusion criteria, and I must say it stings to feel as if they've been thrown back in my face. —Neil 20:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Neil - thanks very much for your assistance. Please, there's nothing personal in my revert, I generally follow the WP:BRD convention so this is really nothing more than an invitation to discuss, and not a rejection. Because the opening has had multiple editors work on it, and already a little controversy about whether or not things could be included in the list because of nuances of its wording, it's really important that we catch all the cases, that's all ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 23:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Alex, thanks for clarifying that, and I apologize if my comment was overly dramatic. I'm a bit confused by your invocation of WP:BRD; to me, it seems like a method for using bold edits to break a deadlock, rather than a justification for reverting constructive changes from an editor you haven't met before. I feel like the fairer thing to do would have been to edit and fix my changes rather than just throw them out the window, or at least to start the discussion on the talk page rather than leave me guessing what inclusion criteria I missed. But that's water under the bridge; when I get a chance, I'll try to draft a revised lede and post it on the talk page. —Neil 05:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Tea tree oil article I'm sorry, but you've written the tea tree article to imply that a source, which states only that it thought it didn't have to hand enough evidence to rate tea tree oil for lice, is evidence that it's inapplicable to use for lice, and in fact you OR'd that it didn't work at all. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And this is the only source that comes to that particular conclusion; every other source I could find stated that it killed lice quite well, in fact better than pyrethrins. (n.b. it's not an insect repellent though.) You are grossly misquoting even that source: "it has however not been found to be effective for a host of applications, including treatment of lice, cold sores, yeast infections and ringworm." And the source also states that tea tree oil is likely safe when used topically, but you only quoted the bit where it states it should not be taken orally, and you did it in the non safety section, and strangely you did not quote the bit of your beloved source where it's said to be very likely to be safe when applied to the skin. Please explain how the source that you reference finds that it to be ineffective, because so far as I can see the source doesn't say that, it just says it hasn't rated it either way; and given the other sources even that is an amazingly biased conclusion for them to come to.Teapeat (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Hi! I think you've misread my edit. Anyway, the place to discuss this is the Talk page; I've responded there ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Proposed lede for list of ineffective cancer treatments Alex, I just proposed some edits to the list's lede. Looking forward to your comments! —Neil 00:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks Neil, I have responded there. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC) light therapy treatment in acne I'm new here so forgive me for any beginners error. Wanted to discuss the revisions I was trying to make in regards to the treatment of acne with light therapy. I cited 5 medical sources to support the proposed changes. I'm trying to understand why this wasn't an acceptable edit. Any insight or information would be helpful. Ytsirk (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Hi! They are contradicted by more recent, stronger sources (notably a 2009 systematic review). The guidance in WP:MEDRS applies here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Consider yourself on notice for biased editing I can't believe how much cherry picking you're doing in the Tea tree oil article. The introduction no longer matches the references, nor the body of the work. You use weasel words, you continually misquote sources, use sources which are in no way reliable, and deliberately use sources that support your point of view, even if they are out of date, and even if contradicted by later, more reliable sources. All the evidence is that you are deliberately slanting the lead to say things that are not supported by the reliable sources; that you are deliberately misleading. If you do not stop this, I will take it to ANI, and get you blocked from editing this article. You have clearly, repeatedly, gone way, way to far, way too often.Teapeat (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I have no opinion on tea tree oil; just following the sources. Discussion of content should take place on the article's Talk page and not here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I don't agree. Your editing of the article is horrible. You've repeatedly reintroduce flawed out of date research, you've routinely cherry pick the data out of poor quality sources as well cherry picking and misquoting reliable sources, and you've edit warred to include material that is not backed up by any reliable sources. You've introduced weasel words, and repeatedly deleted referenced material solely because you disagreed with it.Teapeat (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. The way forward is working calmly toward consensus on the Talk page. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Barnstar of Diligence Thanks for orchestrating the merge of Health effects of coffee into Coffee. About ten months ago, I worked on both and suggested the merge, but was denied. I'm busy now, but I could help with cleanup over winter break. Have a great day! Exercisephys (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Many thanks! :-) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 01:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC) ANI There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Source Formatting Question I have been researching the wikipedia help pages and templates for citations and footnotes. I wasn't trying to "edit war." I must have misunderstood the note about the removal. I believed it was in reference to the source formatting errors which I was in the process of fixing. When I fixed it, the citation appeared to be formatted correctly. Would you be so kind as to explain your comment "biomedical information sourced to sources which fail" since I mistakenly thought it was a formatting issue? The links are both to credible medical journals.Bgil842 (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Bgil842 Hi there! Any biomedical material we include here needs to conform to the (rather strict) guidance in WP:MEDRS. The articles you were citing didn't, I'm afraid. If you have any further queries, please raise them on the article talk page ... thanks! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Why do some people have the power to cherry-pick what gets published in wikipedia? I would like an explanation of why my comment "This doesn't mean that shiatsu doesn't work in controlling symptoms or side effects, simply that it has not yet been tested properly." which comes from exactly the same source and the same article - even the same paragraph - as the comment that has been left on the article "there is no scientific evidence to prove that shiatsu can cure or prevent any type of disease, including cancer." by Alexbrn. He certainly doesn't give any explanations as to why he has removed it, nor why the words he has cherry-picked are more important that the ones I have added. Do I have to ask Alexbrn on his talk page? Does he have the right to choose what parts of an article are inserted and which are not? Is this typical of wikipedia? Some people have more power than others? I'd be interested in knowing. Is it something the public are aware of? Johntosco (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Hi there :-) See the article Talk page for further discussion ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Trick or Treatment". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 08:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC) LASIK The Medicine Barnstar Kudos for your work on LASIK, I was pussy-footing around it for almost a month. If I may speak for others, your work is much appreciated! Lesion (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Thank you very much! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Brassiere Thank you for the improvements you've made to that horrendous article. — Scott • talk 22:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the Barnstar MrBill3 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thank you for the Barnstar. I do strive for NPOV and WP Policy adherence. MrBill3 (talk) To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}! Rosen As regards my edits to the Rosen Method page, we are the attorneys who handle the intellectual property for the Rosen Institute. We would like to get across the message that not just anyone can call themselves Rosen Method practitioners. One must meet the certification criteria and be certified by the Rosen Institute before calling themselves a Rosen Method bodyworker. If we leave out the IP information, is it ok to state what is required to call oneself a Rosen Method bodyworker?Ebaypi (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)ebaypi Ebaypi - okay, this needs to be discussed on the article Talk page and since you are connected to the topic you shoudn't really edit it directly. I'll copy your comment there ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)