RPainter

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello RPainter! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 6 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Malcolm Kendrick - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Malcolm Kendrick for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Malcolm Kendrick is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Kendrick until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Kendrick, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Strikerforce^Talk 21:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I would appreciate clarification on the deletion of the Malcolm Kendrick page. I would like clarification on what WOULD satisfy the editors of the notability of Dr Kendrick? Is it peer reviewed papers? Newspaper or other media coverage of him? Number of books published and sold? OR what? I would genuinely appreciate this being clarified - I am not a frequent contributor or editor but that in itself should not disqualify my edits or contributions - we cannot all be experts or knowledgeable about everything!Boddisatva 14:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I left a reply here to you [1], yes peer-reviewed papers would be useful but none out there discuss his ideas in any depth currently. The deletion was justified, he is not notable currently. He might be put on Quackwatch in a few years. That would be a reliable source. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks but the comment about Quackwatch displays blatant bias by you. Surely the purpose of Wikipedia is to edit factual entries, not display and implement your bias or prejudice regardless of what (new) facts might emerge. I find it curious you are pursuing the deletion of members of THINCS. Why?Boddisatva 16:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is biased toward mainstream medicine and science. Fringe, pseudoscience or quack ideas are not given equal weight to the mainstream scientific consensus view on Wikipedia, per policy. You might want to read this [2], or this [3].

Some fringe science was later accepted as mainstream, i.e. plate tectonics was ridiculed early when it came out, as was germ theory of disease but was later accepted because of evidence. Natural selection was attacked by scientists for many years in the early 20th century. Yes science moves on and is self-correcting. Mistakes have been made throughout human history. If evidence for cholesterol or statin denialism is discovered in repeatable experiments and reported in reputable science journals then it will be included on Wikipedia without argument. However, there is no evidence for what denialist groups like THINCS are claiming, the scientific community is not convinced by their arguments and they are ignored by the majority of professionals working in different medical disciplines. Quackwatch is used on many Wikipedia articles, it is a useful reference for identifying people who peddle dangerous or false medical advice. There will be more on there about statin denialism in the future I suspect, as that belief is becoming more widespread with conspiracy theorists. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

What is your background or qualifications for stating so categorically that this is fringe science? This is a debate about a biographical entry and whether it is notable or not ... or are yo actually saying that regardless of his notability, you would argue for deletion as you believe it is quackery?Boddisatva 10:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I have created articles for quacks on Wikipedia - example Dan Dale Alexander. So no, just because a man is a quack does not mean he cannot be on Wikipedia! It is all about reliable references. I have an interest in debunking fad diets and quackery, but this is only a part-time interest. Many of my edits on Wikipedia are related to the history of evolutionary biology. I am educated in that field, not anything else. I do not claim to be qualified in medicine or anything else. I trust proper qualified doctors and nutritionists for facts about food and dieting, not charlatans. Anyone peddling a low-carb high-fat diet is a charlatan and anti-science. LCHF is a cult that offer dangerous and misleading advice about health and nutrition. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. What evidence is there that LCHF is "wrong"?

Have a look at the definition of fad diet on Wikipedia. "A fad diet or diet cult is a diet that promises weight loss or other health advantages, such as longer life, and usually relies on pseudoscience rather than science to make many of its claims. In many cases, the diet is characterized by highly restrictive or unusual food choices." This fits the principles of LCHF.

But the burden of proof is on proponents such as yourself to show how your diet is "right", not skeptics to show how it is wrong. No long-term health benefits exist for LCHF, only short-term. There is not one scientific 'cure everything' know it all diet™. LCHF professes too much. LCHF makes sensationalist claims that go beyond the evidence. LCHF promotes conspiracy theories. This study notes how LCHF proponents dogmatically utilize social media to promote their ideas that are based anecdotal evidence [4], there is also the fact that the LCHF movement sees itself as anti-establishment, anti-medical community, anti-this... anti-that - it is in the same boat as anti-vaccination quackery (from the paper cited above):

In all, the promotion of the LCHF diet as an online phenomenon could be generalizable to a wider array of movements utilizing social media to provide an alternative to existing health-related standards and guidelines. It is a controversial topic wherein supporters use spreadable media to gain momentum and promote their cause against national agencies. Parallels can thus be drawn with other sensitive topics such as anti-vaccine advocates working against national health ministries.

LCHF frequently complains about "big pharma", their proponents promote irrational Big Pharma conspiracy theorys all over social media. Regarding other "cult" like behaviour. Dietitian Catherine Collins RD FBDA from the NHS:

No aspect of nutrition is so hotly contended on social media than the carb versus fat debate, despite the long term evidence on health benefits firmly supporting the higher carb argument. Yet supporters of the cult of Low Carb High Fat (LCHF) eating, itself based on a lifestyle choice and the flimsiest of evidence supporting benefit, will no doubt disagree with this newest research on the subject. [5]

(my bold). Which was a commentary on this study, unfavourable to LCHF [6].

Other useful popular sources (I am not claiming these are scientific sources) but they describe the cult like fanatical behaviour and irrational conspiracy theories of the LCHF [7], [8], [9] and these [10] [11] which describe this 25 year study from Sweden [12] which is unfavourable to the claims of LCHF.... Recent 2018 - if you want to raise your LDL Cholesterol and put yourself at risk then join the fad of LCHF [13]. I think we can "close" this conversation. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You may think it "closed", which is rather arrogant of you, but there are many good, recent papers that show the opposite. Including properly randomised trials. Here's just 3 I could lay my hands on quickly. E.g., 1. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/2/133.short 2. Foster GD, et al. A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet for obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, 2003. 3. Keogh JB, et al. Effects of weight loss from a very-low-carbohydrate diet on endothelial function and markers of cardiovascular disease risk in subjects with abdominal obesity. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2008.

The "fad" is promoting simple carb-heavy Western diets that have led to our massive obesity and diabetes epidemics. A diet that was not prevalent until less than 100 years ago!

For a self-declared evolutionary biologist, I am surprised that the fact that much of mankind would have had no access to lots of carbohydrates, especially simple carbs, until organised agriculture came along some 10,000 years ago - roughly 330-350 generations. Far too short a time for the main digestive and energy processes in the human body to adapt to a carb heavy diet being "normal" (especially when we no longer walk or exert ourselves for prolonged periods every day).

Are you a vegetarian or vegan by any chance?Boddisatva 10:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Signing posts

You are still refusing to sign your posts on this and other talkpages. This is not optional. Whilst you are welcome to amend your signature so that it shows as "Bhodisattva" rather than "RPainter" (you can do so in your Preferences ↑) you do still need to sign your posts with a proper signature that contains, at the least, a link to your userpage. Persistent refusal to do so is regarded as disruptive, and usually leads to accounts being blocked. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Apologies! Not deliberately I assure you! Sometimes I forget to add the four tildes (Boddisatva 11:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)) but more often I spot a mistake in my edit and go back to correct a small typo or format error .. that is when the error happens! But I try to remember to clean up so this should not be obvious. As to the two user names, I am not sure I fully understand what my nickname and real name show at different times - will go and check my settings - must be some function of being signed in or not. Will watch out for this in future.Boddisatva 11:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You are still not signing your posts. If you want your signature to appear as Boddisatva, you need to do the following:

1. Go to your preferences
2. Under the Signature section, insert the word "Boddisatva" into the text box
3. Do not tick the box that says "Treat the above as wiki markup"
4. Scroll to the bottom and save the page

When you subsequently leave a message on a talkpage, sign with four tildes (~~~~) or use the "Sign your posts..." button under the edit window. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• You have repeatedly been asked to change your signature. Please note the following quotations from Wikipedia:Signatures: "Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page" and "A customised signature should make it easy to identify the username, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page" (my emphasis in both cases). As Yunshui told you above, This is not optional. You have already been warned that failing to comply is likely to lead to a block; please consider this as your last warning. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Rename policy broken?

I was told that one does NOT have to show a link between old and new Wiki names ... yet according to the Global Rename Policy here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_rename_policy I see that "To be eligible for a global rename, the request must meet all of the following criteria:

   "The old name is duly and visibly linked to the new name on any wiki where the user is active, or has a history of conflict or blocks.
   The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct.
   The new name is not registered on any wiki (a global rename is not technically possible if there are attached or unattached accounts associated with the target username)."

So it seems to my (inexperienced) eye that (Redacted) being renamed (Redacted) without a referring link by Cereales Killer is indeed incorrect. I note also that this unlinked renaming happened AFTER challenges to the links between the three identities and the curious deletion request not only on the biography for Malcolm Kendrick but Uffe Ravnskov and some other members of THINCS (The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics) and rumours of vegan/vegetarian activists being involved ... will post more as facts emerge.Boddisatva 12:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Céréales Killer has requested that I do not post on their talkpage, so I cannot ask them, but I suspect that given Dr Kendrick's encouragement to his blog readers to out (Redacted), there are issues of personal safety at stake. In such cases, global renamers may err on the side of caution and avoid prominently linking new usernames. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

    Understood. I trust however that if required by lawful authorities that the nickname trail has been recorded. You may dismiss it as a paranoid conspiracy theory but Kendrick, Malhotra and other doctors/scientists who question the cholesterol/lipid hypothesis for heart disease and some HAVE been targeted by vegan/vegetarian activities, frivolous and malicious court cases (all so far found in the defendants favour), and the sales of statins (which depend for their credibility on the cholesterol hypothesis being maintained) generate literally billions in sales each year. This has led to well documented and frequent conflicts of interest as pharma cos not only fund most of the statin trials but in the UK for instance, most of the post-qualification training and update information for doctors! The British  Medical Journal even came under undue and unfair pressure from statin-funded researchers at Oxford Univ. to withdraw properly reviewed papers questioning statins and their mass-prescribing - the papers were upheld. (If you're really interested read the book "Bad Pharma" by Dr Ben Goldacre - an award winning author and doctor who is well respected and writes a regular column in the Guardian newspaper. Not fringe or a quack. You may also dismiss the claim of connections between editors but when one is a vegan and the  other has a nickname that implies vegan sympathies ...??Boddisatva 16:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

To say that Ben Goldacre writes a regular column in the Guardian is inaccurate: he wrote one, but has not done so since 2011. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

   I stand corrected - he used to ... but I don't read the Guardian ...Boddisatva 17:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, as you did at User talk:Céréales Killer, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You were asked to pursue other avenues of questioning regarding CK's renaming action and you've continued to post on their page. Please stop. You've raised the issue on multiple pages. If you feel there is a reason to pursue the matter, please use the appropriate Administrator's Noticeboard. Strikerforce^Talk 19:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Strikerforce: there was no intent to harrass, and I am sorry if it was seen as such. I asked WHY the supposed standard practice of linking a new identity to an old identity in a rename was not followed. And this IS important as there appears to be some coordinated effort to delete various biographies of living people, with specific scientific viewpoints - deliberate targetting based on opinion, bias and prejudice about those views. Linking new and old IDs is standard practice for transparency, and particularly relevant where there seems to be some controversy. No abuse was involved, only questioning.Boddisatva 20:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Please properly indent when using a talk page, as it makes the conversation much easier for other editors to follow. There is no coordinated effort, as you've described. If a subject fails to meet notability guidelines, the article gets deleted. It really is that simple. Dr. Kendrick did not meet the guidelines, so his article was deleted. The other articles that I've seen nominated by <this editor> have also not met notability, with one exception. There is no grand conspiracy afoot. Nobody is being "paid by big pharma!", as has been alleged on Dr. Kendrick's blog. The renaming in question appears to fall in line with standard policy, given the off-Wiki harassment and intimidation that has been alleged. Strikerforce^Talk 20:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• I have seen the reason why the two names have not been linked, and there are excellent reasons. Under the circumstances publicising the connection would be totally unacceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Based on JamesBWatson's message above, I have redacted certain sections of your talkpage, above. Please do not continue trying to connect these two usernames on Wikipedia, or you are liable to be blocked for harassment. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yunshui: There is something out of my comment immediately above yours that should probably also be redacted. Strikerforce^Talk 14:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User talk:Céréales Killer. You have now been asked twice by Céréales Killer not to interact with them on their talk page. I would strongly recommend recognizing their request and abiding by it. An uninvolved administrator has reviewed the renaming request that Céréales Killer fulfilled and found it to be within acceptable guidelines. There is no connection between Céréales Killer and the editor with whom you have disagreed. This has been made clear to you previously. Strikerforce^Talk 15:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC) Warning struck per my comment below. I misread the time stamps on the talk page in question. Strikerforce^Talk 17:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  :Since the FIRST warning I have NOT interacted with any of the earlier editors so I am not clear why this repeated warning has been issued. Please check dates of any entries or edits to confirm.Boddisatva 16:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

While the timing of the above warnings shows an error on my part, I will point out that they are - technically - merited. The user asked you at 11:16 on 18 December not to interact with them (I am unable to post a diff, as there was a subsequent rev deletion and a link to a diff can't be generated - please review the talk page's history). You subsequently interacted with them, against their wishes, at 11:51 and 13:49 on 18 December. I will strike the second warning, but you are still reminded to be aware of the request from CK not to interact with them on their talk page. Should they feel the need, they retain the right to pursue an interaction ban on pages other than their talk page via the proper channels. Strikerforce^Talk 17:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Strikerforce - I would like you to review this entry - yes he (Cereales Killer) asked me not to post again BUT all I did was ask two questions - legitimate questions about why the editor renaming had been done the way it was by "him". Asking two questions is NOT harrassment - scrutinising editors actions especially where it affects transparency and honesty must be allowed in Wikipedia. Since then and your warning - which by the way comes across as very heavy handed - I have not interacted with him. As you admit the timing you read was wrong so I did not transgress against your warning. I would therefore like you to remove the struck out paragraph entirely (as it's incorrect) and also remove any accusation of "harassment" which asking two factual questions does not justify. There was no abuse, no personal attack, no repetitive or threatening content. Please consider this request. Finally, as a relative novice user, it is not always clear what formatting, indenting or signature is required - I will try to follow this practice BUT as Wikipedia rules suggest, please assume the best intentions and not that an error or omission is deliberate or malicious.Boddisatva 10:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've read your request and am not inclined to fulfill it. Despite the mistimed warning, you still chose to interact with another editor after they explicitly asked you not to do so. Your reason for doing so is not really relevant. When someone makes such a request, it is accepted practice not to interact with them. There were other avenues for you to pursue to get the answer to your query than to continue to interact with CK. As it specifically pertains to my warning above, the strike-through of the text is generally enough for the typical editor to understand that something about the text was in error and it should be ignored. My additional clarification above reinforces that. As such, I will not remove it, but you are welcome to do so on your own, since you have obviously seen the warning and responded to it. As JBW mentioned in their blocking message below, I do also suggest that you change your signature. Strikerforce^Talk 22:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, RPainter. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Anarchie76 (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Silly question perhaps but WHERE do I find/read your email!?Boddisatva 10:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• In the email account you have set up in your Wikipedia preferences. If yo don't remember what email account that is, then follow the "preferences" link at the top of the page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocking an editor from editing for something as trivial as not following the signature guideline is really something I would much rather not do, but you have been told over and over again, and taken no notice, so blocking in the hope of getting you to take notice is all that is available. Yunshui has spelt out virtually in words of one syllable how to change your signature, and his instructions are still on this page, so there is no question of your not knowing how to do it. I have blocked this account for just three days. If you believe there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. If you make an unblock request after changing your signature to comply with the guideline, then any administrator is welcome to unblock you without consulting me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

RPainter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have now done as requested. Sorry but I did not see the original instructions - as I was focused on the content/topic discussion and these were "lost" higher up the page - nor did I appreciate the urgency. Moreover other editors - dare I say CK - had mismatched signatures and they did not seem to be blocked or told off - in fact at least one of the editors was in dispute with claimed it was OK for them top have mis-matched signatures (as I had inadvertently)!! So as a relative amateur, again please assume ignorance and not malice or recalcitrance as others have requested for their edits. Please check and confirm this is NOW correct and unblock me. Thanks in advance

Accept reason:

Unblocking per this edit, which shows you have properly updated your signature to include a link to your userpages. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Boddisatva (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)