User talk:Bon courage/Archive 11

I forgot, till now.

Could have lost my crown at any time. The very best to you. - Roxy the dog 01:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

And to you Roxy! Hope you didn't find the fireworks too scary (my cat did not approve). Bon courage (talk) 08:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with the source?

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

---

According to a study published in January 2023, markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein unbound by antibodies was found in people who developed postvaccine myocarditis (vs. controls that remained healthy).

That's a recent publication in the esteemed peer-reviewed medical journal Circulation that demonstrates that markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein unbound by antibodies is associated with the development of myocarditis. That is remarkable and demonstrates that myocarditis post-vaccination and post-infection may have a common cause: the spike protein. Myosci (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

References

As you have been repeatedly told, by multiple editors, in multiple locations, WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical content and primary sources should not be used like this. Yet you appear to be on some kind of crusade to insert primary research about vaccines and myocarditis. If it continues I shall take you to WP:AE and ask that you be banned. Bon courage (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The articles are full of "primary research". What counts is the quality of the article. A 08/15 meta-analysis is inferior to a good research article. So your argument is void. So again, what discounts this article in your eyes? --Myosci (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

If there are other badly used sources they should be removed; it is not an excuse to make the article even worse. You have expressed your view many times about primary research, yet it against community consensus as expressed in WP:MEDRS. This is why I think if you continue you will need to be sanctioned. You have already been alerted to the discretionary sanctions in effect for COVID-19 topics. Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You fail again to explain why. Again, on what grounds do you disqualify the source?--Myosci (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:MEDRS and WP:WHYMEDRS and WP:MEDFAQ and you will see why. You have no standing to evaluate primary research and insert it into an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source and NOT a secondary one. Bon courage (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

So you consistently reject all sources that do not contain the label "review" or "meta-analysis" as source for Wikipedia for medical articles?--Myosci (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The community generally does reject primary sources for WP:BMI. Bon courage (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

But you're not neutral. From the interactions I've in memory your deletions/reverts occur when a study is somehow critical of Covid vaccination. What's in my memory is one very telling example is where you deleted an article that was already in the wiki-article after I realized (and wrote it into the wiki-article) that it contained further information. All of a sudden the article was primary research. And I've tried to confront you and what you said was: "Dunno, probably still working out what to do and looking at sourcing. I cleaned it out later."[1] You're partisan and should refrain from lecturing others. Especially those who do not delete the information of others. I never deleted one of your edits (or of others) even if I don't agree with them. Only in the case of defamation I delete text.--Myosci (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I specialize in fringe content, and I respect the WP:PAGs. You have been warned about what will happen if you continue to flout them in seeming pursuit of an agenda. Bon courage (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.061025 IS NOT FRINGE CONTENT! Please read it, be more scientific. --Myosci (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

No thanks. I'm not going to delude myself I have the expertise to evaluate primary medical research. Meanwhile, I notice this paper has strong currency in antivax circles. Writing Wikipedia is not doing "science", it is merely summarizing accepted knowledge as found in good sources. Bon courage (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The Mass General Brigham is not an antivax thinktank. Then read at least the supporting press article: Researchers Study Immune Response, Proteins in Blood of Young Adults Who Develop Rare Complication After COVID Vaccination

• Risk of severe COVID-19 continues to outweigh rare risk of post-vaccination myocarditis
• Among adolescents and young adults who developed this rare complication, researchers found no differences in antibody production, auto-antibodies, T cell profiles, or prior viral exposures, but detected elevated levels of spike protein
• Findings point to potential treatment to prevent or reverse post-vaccine myocarditis

How's that "antivax"? --Myosci (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking more of twitter. In any case, this is beside the point: Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources and we shall not be using primary sources in the way you want. Bon courage (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The article is already mentioned in a non-English medical magazine, for instance in the Deutsches Ärzteblatt, see English translation --Myosci (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

If it's mentioned or cited as a source in another primary research article, it still fails Wikipedia's requirements. It has to be evaluated as noteworthy in a peer-reviewed review article, with the review article as what gets cited as a source here. (Based on that English translation, that might be enough to satisfy our requirements for secondary notice, but I'm not sure about it.) Please understand, Myosci, that this isn't about what you think about what makes a good source, or what Bon courage thinks, or what I think. According to the way that Wikipedia does things, what matters is what WP:MEDRS says, and that's not up for debate here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

This magazine (Deutsches Ärzteblatt) is the journal of the Bundesärztekammer and the Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung that informs the physicians in Germany about (current) topics in medicine: Deutsches Ärzteblatt is published by the Deutscher Ärzte Verlag, which is co-owned by the German Medical Association (Bundesärztekammer) and the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung). It is the official journal of these two bodies, distributed to all physicians in Germany. --Myosci (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

And the rejection stems from this notion: Meanwhile, I notice this paper has strong currency in antivax circles. To even mention this "reasoning" is non-Wikipedian. Wikipedia is not here to take a stand whether one should get a vaccine or not but should report the scientific results. Some editors may be more in favor (or disfavor) of vaccines and therefore they typically find more positive (resp. negative) articles than the others - to a certain extent. Wikipedia rests on the assumption that the community as a whole will get to a unbiased article that mentions both sides according to the merits.

But for editors like him it's a thing for power-plays like "If it continues I shall take you to WP:AE and ask that you be banned." Because of content that is published in a peer-reviewed main journal of the American Heart Association and that is published in a medical journal like Deutsches Ärzteblatt??

Only because he thinks that this would be a battle between pro and anti-vax!? If he would actually read the article then he would realize that this specific article isn't one-sided. That the vaccines can cause myocarditis is already a established fact. The problem is what's the mechanism. And the results suggest that it's more likely not an auto-antibody problematic but the S-protein itself. That would actually be good news for the mRNA-vaccines: If it's the spike protein that caused this condition then people must only avoid future contact with the spike protein (in the booldstream) to avoid a recurrent condition. That would imply for these people to take extra caution to avoid (future) infections and perhaps take anti-viral medicine early when infected. Is that really what the Covid-is-harmless-but-the-vaccines-are-bad-as-hell community wants to hear? I don't think so. (And if it were then one would have to accept that, too. But here by chance it seams to br right in the middle of the anti-vax and the pro-vax position.)

To be clear: What I've written is only:"According to a study published in January 2023, markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein unbound by antibodies was found in people who developed postvaccine myocarditis (vs. controls that remained healthy)." That's the established fact that the Deutsches Ärzteblatt also finds worthy to communicate to the physicians in Germany. The further conclusion that one draws is up to the readers of the actual article. Wikipedia's readers have their own minds! --Myosci (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

When we have WP:MEDRS, then it will be worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Until then you're just wasting editors' time, not least your own. Wikipedia's purpose it to reflect accepted knowledge, not to put information out there and let people make up their own minds. Bon courage (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There might perhaps be a quite a lot of editors that share the viewpoint that Wikipedia's purpose it to reflect accepted knowledge, not to put information out there and let people make up their own minds but the one major problem is: Who decides what knowledge is accepted? Some elected experts (by vote in Wikipedia?) or simply editors who think that they're up to the task? Is a publication in a highly regarded peer-reviewed scientific journal up for them to meta-decide? And I doubt that the majority of the ordinary editors and readers agree with that viewpoint since it's one of Wikipedia's main purposes to display the knowlege in science edited in Wikipedia by non-experts and read by non-experts, with the use of good sources (scientific journals). Wikipedia is not Nupedia! --Myosci (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

From WP:NOTEVERYTHING (policy):

A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.

Accepted knowledge is published in the WP:BESTSOURCES and articles must be based on secondary sources (WP:PSTS), where the criteria for establishing what are reliable sources are decided by the relevant guidelines: WP:MEDRS in this case. Everything rests on consensus. If you want to change the way Wikipedia works you will need to change the WP:PAGs. You can check (again) at WT:MED if you think I lack WP:CLUE. Bon courage (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Who speaks of a complete exposition. It's only the sentence According to a study published in January 2023, markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein unbound by antibodies were found in people who developed postvaccine myocarditis (vs. controls that remained healthy) in the text and a longer quotation in the reference. The quotation (Extensive antibody profiling and T-cell responses in the individuals who developed postvaccine myocarditis were essentially indistinguishable from those of vaccinated control subjects, [...] A notable finding was that markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein (33.9±22.4 pg/mL), unbound by antibodies, were detected in the plasma of individuals with postvaccine myocarditis, [...] (unpaired t test; P<0.0001). is likely too large, it can very well be shortened. --Myosci (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. I have nothing more to add. Bon courage (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Warning

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

---

If you keep deleting citations from reliable sources you will be viewed as engaging an edit war and will be reported to an Admin to be blocked from editing Wikipedia, before you engage in an edit always cite other sources to start a conversation page, or else removing sources will be viewed as an edit war, therefore your previous uncited edit would be reverted. CtasACT (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

In fact it is you who are edit warring, by repeatedly inserting your preferred text. You need to discuss this on the article Talk page. Try to follow WP:BRD maybe? Bon courage (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I have cited objective facts from again as i stated Cambridge university and two other publications, if that in fact is starting as you say and edit war by simply adding missing data backed up by my citations than Wikipedia itself is an edit war, this is a legitimate warning do not edit without giving other sources which contradict my previous edit. CtasACT (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

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

“this guy's antics”

Obv there’s more latitude on a talk page, but we should beware appearing POV ;) Best wishes, Springnuts (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, in general Wikipedia is not going to pretend that any "vocal figure for hesitancy about Covid vaccines" is anything other than what they are. That's NPOV folks! Bon courage (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Wholesale reversions with minimal explanation

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

---

Your recent reversions are not acceptable as they were multiple and your explanations were dismissive and inaccurate. Please seek consensus on the talk page of the relevant article and desist from viewing yourself as having the last word on the matter.Budgewoi (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Edit warring: Circumcision

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Prcc27 (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Err, since I just templated you with this I am obviously aware of it, so it looks like you're trolling. Also, aren't you at 5RR or something? Bon courage (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Your persistent personal attacks are truly pathetic. I was under the impression, that you always give a user a warning, if they are engaged in edit warring. If I’m wrong, please lead me to where it says not to warn users that are already aware of policy. Prcc27 (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I have seen editors sanctioned in the past for retaliation templating. Use your common sense, if you were to report me for edit warring would a defense of "I didn't know about that!" wash, when I'd just issued the template myself? Your evidence-free accusation of "persistent personal attacks" is pretty serious. It's what you getting for focusing on content in the circumcision space, I suppose. Bon courage (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ll keep this in mind in the future. But honestly never heard about retaliation templating in all my years as a Wikipedia editor. If you want evidence for your behavior, feel free to peruse the article talk pages. But I digress. Prcc27 (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You accusations about personal attacks are false. Bon courage (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Carnivore diet

I have just been looking at the carnivore diet on Wikipedia and its history, I have never seen so many sock-puppets get banned on such a silly diet. The thing is, the diet does have some history well before the modern internet trend and history of diets is what interests me. I just noticed that science-based medicine covered the diet recently [2] so we have reliable sources for its modern version. I would like to create the carnivore diet article and add the history. Do you think that is a good idea? I have checked over the history of the carnivore diet article on Wikipedia it has never really existed in good detail, one sock-puppet tried to re-create it a few times but was blocked. I am not seeing any consensus on the original talk-page not to keep the article. This all might be a bit controversial so thought I would ask your opinion but I think an article would be better than keeping it at monothropic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

As you say, it's been a magnet for crazies (and one WP:LTA in particular). I have no objection to an article being created for the CD; just so long as everything is kept NPOV - which I'm sure you'll be good at ensuring  ! Bon courage (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cryonics. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Hi,

I saw that you have reverted my edits in the COVID-19 vaccine clinical research and Methotrexate articles. Was the problem that is is cited primary research? I thought that because COVID-19 is a relatively new topic and there are less reviews available, larger primary research could be mentioned and I think there are many already in the article. Also NIHR Evidence articles go through a round of selection based on their importance and I let the Wikiproject Medicine community know that I'll be using them in medical articles. What do you think?

Best,

Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I think for COVID it's more important that we're strict about WP:MEDRS (and there are plenty of sources). I was intrigued by the NIHR source as although it's of course reputable it was apparently "just" a lay-language reflection of a primary source, without any of the analysis, synthesis or evaluation which would make it meaningfully WP:SECONDARY. I'm actually not sure that this is a good idea from a medcomms perspective for NIHR - but by all means raise at WT:MED for discussion - I'd be interested to see what other editors think. Bon courage (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

CT notices

The new setup confuses people a lot. [3] should have been used Template:Contentious topics/alert/first. Do you want to fix it or should I? Doug Weller talk 10:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, noticed that - it's from the alert template which used to give a DS notice. I assumed some discussion somewhere had determined the wording needed to be softer. What is the fix? Bon courage (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Delete the old one, give them a first alert. Doug Weller talk 21:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Bon courage (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tor Phone on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

RE opinion pieces

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

---

You said that "Generally I don't think SBM articles are opinion pieces, a concept largely from news media; they are more analysis, synthesis and commentary on a topic like you'd find in review articles." and I found this a little disturbing given the fact that analysis and commentary are in fact opinion pieces.

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

I take it there's some cleanup that needs to be done? Presumably you've used a lot of opinion pieces for statements of fact without realizing it, if you could identify to the best of your ability those instances and we can begin working on the cleanup. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

No. If a review article analyses the state of research in a topic and states drug X does (or does not) have effect Y then that is not 'opinion' but knowledge. Attributing knowledge can have a WP:YESPOV problem. Bon courage (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

A review article would probably not make that statement, they would say that previous research suggests that drug X does (or does not) have effect Y. An absolute statement would be something more along the lines of an opinion and we would most likely choose to attribute that statement to the authors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm So if a review article surveys a field and says 'The most common side effects of opioid usage are constipation' you think that's just an 'opinion'. And you have the temerity to suggest other editors need to check their work. Sheesh. Bon courage (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say overall this conversation with HEB is going nowhere. They do not have consensus in favor of their preferred changes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"The most common" would be a qualified statement based on the field (I assume based on the plural "effects" that its a sentence fragment and not a complete statement), you really don't find such absolute statements in review article most of the time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Endwise (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your cleanup of EMDR, I encourage you to continue. I'm not a topic expert but there's been like four decades of pseudoscience promoting EMDR, and the smidgin of effectiveness studies shouldn't outweigh the mountain historic redflags. It seems (to my uneducated eyes) that a few otherwise-reputable folks practice it, whie some clients may enjoy the extra doodads in the way an infant enjoys distraction before an injection but the current article does NOT go far enough in warning readers against unscrupulous practitioners who make pseudoscientific claims. I don't know enough to help you fix it, but you're clearly on the right track. Thank you. Feoffer (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I am just amazed how viewed that page is. I thought maybe it was to do with the Prince Harry stuff but no, it's been a high-traffic page for years. Shame it was so FRINGEPOV for all that time! Bon courage (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Loki (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

POV pushing

This revert[4] raises concerns about civil POV pushing by you. The description you reverted was paraphrased from the Washington Post. The WaPo is far from WP:FRINGE. Furthermore, please don't delete references. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

How to characterize DRASTIC has been discussed already, and you just went ahead and watered it down to sanitize their aggressive side. So yeah, POV pushing. I'll delete any reference which is not helping the article thanks! Bon courage (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please refrain from making personal attacks, as you did here[5] and here[6]. Personal attacks in edit summaries are particularly troublesome. And instead of "borderline illiterate", why not say that the clarity could be improved. It gets the point across in a more helpful manner. Thanks! Adoring nanny (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Those are not personal attacks. WP:CLUE is a thing and so is WP:DE. The trouble with your "borderline illiterate" suggestion is that you have offered it as a final option. The time for wordsmithing would have been WP:RFCBEFORE (even assuming this RfC was worthwhile, which I doubt). It's also pretty interesting you're not templating the user who did make a personal attack. Makes it look like you're playing games. Bon courage (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You both did. I'm getting to it. Multiple things are going on for me in RL. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, Adoring nanny, since you're here, I've been meaning to raise this for a while - to ensure WP:SCRUTINY answer me this: have you ever edited Wikipedia with one or more other accounts? Bon courage (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

No. I did some ip editing before I made my account. I have also accidentally edited logged out on occasion, which once led to some phone calls I would prefer not to have received, so I try hard to avoid it. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for being crystal clear you have never edited with another account. Bon courage (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Roswell incident up for GA

Roswell incident up for GA, Talk:Roswell incident/GA1 § Lingzhi (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Roswell

Thanks for the input! If you aren't already (I haven't checked), you should consider being a GA reviewer. Or FAC. Cheers. § Lingzhi (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop describing material sourced to mainstream news organizations as WP:FRINGE.

As I'm sure you are aware, neither the Washington Post nor ABC News is a WP:FRINGE organization. Describing material sourced to them as WP:FRINGE is inappropriate and disruptive. Please stop. Thank you.[7][8] Adoring nanny (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but the politicians are pushing fringe nonsense, and you're parroting it, which is bad. Bon courage (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Closing discussions at articles where you are WP:INVOLVED

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

---

Closures like this[9] are not appropriate. I suggest you revert your close. Per WP:INVOLVED, Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards; editors closing such discussions should not have been involved the discussion itself or related disputes. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not comment on that thread and I wasn't "assessing consensus". These off-topic posts on that article Talk page are getting disruptive. If you want to discuss a category of sourcing in general, RSN is the place as we all know. Bon courage (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be highly involved in the discussion on that talk page. You may not have commented on that particular thread but there doesn't appear to be many more involved in related disputes than you... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Third Opinion on Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis#Intro relevance

I intend to offer a third opinion on the above-topic per the request for one, but it wold be helpful if you could please crystalize your main points on the talk page here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Not applicable as there are already more than two editors discussing this, but thanks anyway. Have hatted this on the Talk page. N.B. This has also been raised at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I will formally decline the third opinion request and note that involved editors should seek dispute resolution. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND

Hi! please note that I am not your enemy, and I do not appreciate being subjected to stuff like this over a mere word choice dispute. Thank you for your understanding. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Correct it's not a battleground, but I think your edits here are very bad for a number of reasons and will say why with those reasons given. Arguing against your editing is not arguing against you (and, ironically, thinking so would be a bit battleground-y). By the way, the question in that diff was a genuine not a rhetorical one: from what the source says how can you think the text you reverted is not justified to the extent it warrants complete removal? You have read the source right? Bon courage (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

See my reply on FTN --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I am none the wiser as to whether you've read the source or not. You know, this WP:CTOP thing ... you signal you're aware of it and you template other with it. It's got meaning:

Editing a contentious topic

Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

You should err on the side of caution if you are unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations.

Bon courage (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Nordic diet

I just read over the AHA new statement on dietary patterns [10] and they rate the Nordic diet the highest. We do not have a page on the Nordic diet, but I noticed there is this New Nordic Cuisine.

A few sources I found on the Nordic diet [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. It comes up in the medical literature (two reviews) [16], [17], [18], [19]. Is it worth do you think me creating an article for the Nordic diet? You may know more than me about this. I am confused to what the New Nordic Cuisine article is. It reads the same as the Nordic diet, so is it worth just expanding that article? Based on what I have seen the Nordic diet seems similar to the Mediterranean diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• Talk page stalker Nordic Bishonen is a little surprised. Those sources don't seem to mention the three mainstays of Nordic eating: burgers, pizza, and princess cake. We're supposed to eat venison, rabbit, and bison? And to avoid alcoholic beverages, lol?[20] Amazing. Bishonen | tålk 20:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC).

That's interesting. The original Mediterranean diet was actually white bread and white pasta with little olive oil. They changed it to become more healthy when it became famous in the 70s and 80s. The same has probably happened with the Nordic diet. I will probably create an article on the Nordic diet. The diet is supposed to mimic what Nordic populations eat but like the repackaged Mediterranean diet it has clearly been updated with modern ideas about healthy eating. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I've never princess cake and now realise m life is lacking! Bon courage (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you haven't lived, Bon Courage. Bison is no substitute! Bishonen | tålk 08:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC).

You haven't lived until you've eaten reindeer steak and reindeer meatballs (frikadeller). (I have shot 16 of them while living in Greenland. The reindeer hunt is the high point of the year.) Because it's very lean meat, fat must be added: butter, cream, red wine, salt, pepper, garlic, and juniper berries, all in a roasting bag to keep it moist. Then use that to make the gravy, which is "to die for"! Eat with cranberry sauce. A recipe. Read more about reindeer in my article Reindeer hunting in Greenland. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Santa says you're naughty. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

LMAO! Here's another. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I recently saw a documentary (Noma: My Perfect Storm), about the restaurant Noma, which is at the center of the New Nordic Cuisine. It was very interesting, and well worth watching. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, it's closing.[21] Bon courage (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, particularly what it says about unhappy workers there. The documentary largely makes René Redzepi look like a nice guy to work for, but also has scenes that seem to go the other way. Often, we just don't know what really goes on inside some workplaces. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Theanine".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

You edited the article. Your participation in the discussion is invited but not required. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks as ever for your efforts Robert, but in this case I shall decline - I already noticed this raised at WT:MED and have just contributed there. Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Your recent editing history at Theanine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Reflecktor (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Please join active discussion instead of unilaterally reverting

Hi. On 04:35, 13 May 2023 you reverted my edit, which was made after the discussion had ended for some time. I had even linked the discussion in the edit summary; therefore, it would have been good practice to join the discussion instead of reverting unilaterally. If editors just revert when there is an active discussion then it destabilize pages and become edit wars. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

No. Especially for a change to core policy a WP:NOCON situation urges caution. Trying to lock in a bad change on the basis that there's "active discussion" is a no-no. Bon courage (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. If you see the discussion I simply followed editors advice and seeming consensus. Also, I waited a week after there was no further input. If you had concerns why didn't you jump in to discuss instead of imposing your personal view without discussion? That action seems to be against the WP:CONSENSUS policy. And if you notice you got reverted by another editor, precisely the scenario I warned about. Let's avoid edit wars. Thinker78 (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

If I can make an edit to improve things, I do it. There obviously is not "consensus" for the change you made. Bon courage (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Check the discussion and my edit. I discussed the issue, took in the feedback of the other editors, and edited attempting to reflect what I perceived was a consensus in the discussion. I even waited at least a week to make sure there was no further input in the short term before I implemented the change. You instead just edited without waiting for anyone's input, disregarding the link to the discussion I had attached to the edit summary. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Why do you assume I disregarded it? It was a bad (even nonsensical) edit and so I reverted it. I don't regard a handful of people deciding on such a bad 'tweak' to policy as having any kind of "consensus" that can override the need for decent quality policy text. Consensus is not a vote. Bon courage (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You unilaterally decided it was not consensus instead of discussing the issue in the relevant discussion. That's not how consensus works at all. At least I attempted to reflect what I perceived was consensus and if you notice the participants of the discussion did not revert me but rather either accepted the edit or offered new input. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Certainly can be how consensus works. Bon courage (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

I let you know you are about to violate the 3 revert rule of edit warring. No idea why you are deciding to do this instead of continuing the discussion. Thinker78 (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

You need to understand what a revert is, and to understand what "instead of" means. Bon courage (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Thinker78 (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I was asleep in the 31 minutes since your "warning" above. What happened? Bon courage (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, it was not an incremental thing but rather I analyzed the situation further and decided to report. Sorry it came to this but I was perplexed why a senior editor would ignore requests to join a discussion instead of engaging in what I perceived was edit warring and in essence undoing edits borne out of consensus. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

How did I "ignore requests to join a discussion"? I was in the discussion. Bon courage (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

One revert is not an edit war.

Don't template me, pal. I've been editing WP a very long time. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Considering in just a short time you've managed to edit war, add BLP-problem content, and get confused about what self-published means, this is not welcome news. Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please strike your personal attack here.[22] I was quite clear that ethnicity was not the issue. Thank you. Adoring nanny (talk) `18:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

No PA. But anybody doing what I described is a problem. Bon courage (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

At the risk of being a buttinsky, I looked at it and it certainly looks like Bon courage is on the side of consensus. However, "racist fuckwittedness" is a really, well, unstrategic way to word it. You can be right on the merits, but nobody is going to look past how rude that is. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Buttinskies always welcome. Granted, that is robust language I wrote. But (and this reflects on previous discussions) removing sources because authors have Chinese-y names would be really not on. I really hope/assume this was not the case in this instance. I have amended my comment hopefully to de-dramatize. Bon courage (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that much, but you're still only partway there. You said I acted based on whether or not someone "sounds Chinese". You even said something similar above ("Chenese-y names"). But I never said that, and I've been quite clear that's not the issue. When I state motive A, and you repeatedly say I had motive B, which would be an unacceptable motive, that's a personal attack too. I'd ask you to go to both places and strike any claim that I acted based on how someone's name sounds. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't comment on motive, but I can see what's happened. Bon courage (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I just want to be sure the following are correct:

1) You are declining to strike your statement above that I was removing sources because the authors have "Chinese-y" names[23].

2) And you are also declining to strike your statement on the talk page that I was removing sourced content because the authors "sound Chinese".[24]

3) Furthermore, you have failed to supply any diff in which I made any such claim.

Any errors in the this? Am I missing something? Adoring nanny (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Those are incorrect. I don't want there to be a situation in which sources are removed (for whatever reason, which might just be by mistake) because sources have Chinese names. This is not focused on you, it's about the meta-discussion which has taken place in various venues over the months: as the diff you give says "I really hope/assume this was not the case in this instance." Bon courage (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to WP:AGF in regards to your statement that it was not focused on me. Your outburst came immediately after a removal by me. There was the obviously inappropriate part, and then there was the incorrect statement of the reason (from law to name). Obviously, removal of a source based on a name would be racist. Doing so based on a belief that it is not WP:RS because the author is required to follow certain law is not racist. You have only partly de-dramatized -- you've struck the obviously inappropriate part, while keeping the repeated false statement that the authors' names have something to do with this. And the part that you are not striking tends to suggest the truth of the part you did strike. That's the problem. If you strike the two statements I've identified, I'll gladly drop the whole thing. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You're over-reading it. I have in mind that failed RfC.[25] which did pose the risk that Chinese-sounding names would be targeted (and it happened). I don't want that coming back in through the back-door via on-the-hoof policy making. However if it will stop this pointless exchange I'll happily strike the lot! Bon courage (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The unresolved question on COVID-19 virus origin

Think you might want to look to something else than "The unresolved question on COVID-19 virus origin: The three cards game?" for best sources. This is probably a case where we should question papers and research from China. Look at Authors concluded that further research should be done to determine whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in China. from "A comprehensive survey of bat sarbecoviruses". That preprint only made it to National Science Review and is very questionable.

I dislike the "most scientists believe" and "consensus" language in the article, in some ways it probably supports the conspiratorial thinking behind lab leak. But that damn article is so screwed up i don't think there is any real fix, and best that can be done is try and keep the crap sources out of the article. fiveby(zero) 14:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes I agree with considering any paper that poses the possibility of non-China origin as pretty FRINGE, given how massive the consensus of a Wuhan or Hubei origin is (both lab leakers and zoonosis people agree on this). So the paper shows pretty clearly it isn't operating from a shared scientific scholarship, and should be ignored as unreliable imo. We also have better quality papers which say most of the other non-FRINGE things that it it says, so it isn't going to give us much anyway.

But I will also say, some of the issue here is that there is actually some limited sero-study evidence that there were antibodies out in the public against SARS-CoV-2 in Italy and elsewhere in Europe really early in the fall of 2019, before anyone had ever heard of COVID. I think that evidence is ultimately flawed and very inconclusive (easy to get false positives, for example). But it is a legitimate question some have posed, at least as legitimate as the lab leak theory: could it have been circulating at a low level outside China, before it erupted in Wuhan? This is also where the most scientifically-based argument from Frutos ("There is no origin, it was circulating at low levels and continually passing back and forth before the pandemic") comes in.

The nuance is understanding that even if that any of these things were true, the evidence that the pandemic started in Wuhan is overwhelmingly there, the evidence that the Chinese govt failed to act during the new year celebration is massive and damning, and all of this cannot be ignored even though the Chinese government would like us to ignore it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree the non-CN origin idea is pretty fringe-y, but by all the usual metrics this is a solid source especially for an unsurprising claim like saying that yeah the consensus is it's probably natural zoonosis. Personally, I think this push to say what the consensus is (or is not) is a distraction as it's only adjacent to LL itself (rather than squarely on-topic). Bon courage (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. We straight up do not even use the word "consensus" in that article text. And we don't need to. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yup, but if people insist let's at least use something peer-reviewed in a respectable journal, rather than Politifact, the Daily Torygraph or whatever ... !! Bon courage (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd still disagree that is a solid source, it's 2021 and i think too accepting of the possibility of a man-made origin, but absolutely agree this whole thing is a distraction. This is a mistake i made when first approaching fringe topics (and probably continue to make). Anything you say on a talk page, Afd, etc. is glommed by editors with an agenda. Point out that "Anywhere but Here" article? well it's ammunition for excluding all Chinese sources, and think i probably owe an apology for that. Just creating more work for everyone. Wish FRINGE were less of a guideline in trying to explain how to edit topics, and more a policy for booting editors from topics where they obviously cannot do that. fiveby(zero) 16:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same source? Borsetti A, Scarpa F, Maruotti A, Divino F, Ceccarelli G, Giovanetti M, Ciccozzi M (April 2022). "The unresolved question on COVID-19 virus origin: The three cards game?". J Med Virol. 94 (4): 1257–1260. doi:10.1002/jmv.27519. PMID 34897750. Bon courage (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Right now, we still do not know enough whether SARS-CoV-2 is human-made or not..., i believe that statement is at least dated and would think more assertive language would be more appropriate today. But i could be wrong of course as i'm just going by what our most trusted voices are saying when they write for a general audience, such as "remaining viable scenarios indistinguishable from lab leak" etc. fiveby(zero) 16:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing. Bon courage (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Warning about edit warring June 2023

Your recent editing history at EMDR shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. GreatBigCircles (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I've seen some silly templating, but it isn't supposed to be the one doing the edit warring that issues them to the righteous. Very bad form Circles. stoppit. - Roxy the dog 07:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Its bad form, its also Bon Courage's preferred form so it only seems fair that what is good for the goose is good for the gander... See User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2023/May#May 2023 for a recent example of "the one doing the edit warring that issues them to the righteous" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Retaliation templates are just silly. If I've just templated somebody with an EW warning it's obvious I'm aware of it. Anyway, NBD. Bon courage (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

HEB, there's a difference between issuing a template warning in order to alert an editor of a potential problem, and giving the same template back to the editor who first issued it. The former is an accepted method of communication here, whereas the latter is a bad move. Yes, I get it that you thought that you were "righteous" and Bon courage was at fault, and you had the right to dispute the template at your talk page as you did, but I also trust that you did not react by putting the same template back here on Bc's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

This community has a long history of accusing others of what we do ourselves. Edit warriors accuse others of edit warring; POV pushers accuse others of POV pushing, rude people accuse other editors of being rude... WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

An example of why I no longer build content

Bon courage, real life, for health reasons, has been quite a mess lately, and I'm barely keeping up, yet I picked up this hunk of junk at WT:MED and tried to turn it into an article simply to appreciate the work that XOR'easter has done at FAR and CCI. As the only editor to clean up and completely rewrite after a student editor chunked in rubbish sources, now I've got an ENGVAR issue that I don't know how to fix, as I don't BrEng. Might you be able to run through and convert any Americanisms to whatever English version is indicated by the talk discussion? If you are able, most appreciated (it's a very short article); I don't even know what else to look for, but I seem to have upset Johnbod. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hiya! Yes, I noticed this topic being discussed at WT:MED but didn't dare look. I'll drop by. (IRL in my work I used to co-author English documents for international consumption with American colleagues. To resolve the endless disputes about English versions us Brits adopted a policy of always using American English with the rationale that this was the only way to stop the Americans going on about it. In this way both camps felt they had 'won' the argument, but for different reasons .) Bon courage (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

In this case, it's not the American going on about it :) I can't pretend to write in different varieties, appreciate the help, and wish I had also ignored the article ... it is so not worth getting hollered at over. I would hope an editor I've worked with and gotten along with for almost two decades would simply say, "hey, SG, thanks for cleaning this article up, now let me help clean up the ENGVAR situation". Thanks for any cleanup you can do. I was planning to finish the article, but have lost interest now; it's still a bit of a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, SandyGeorgia I hope your real-life health problems are resolving themselves: all power to your elbow! Bon courage (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Question on FRINGE

Hey, so my impression of FRINGE is that a fringe idea must be contextualized with how it is received by the mainstream, and if a mainstream perspective in RS cannot be found the idea should not be discussed on Wikipedia (in articles on mainstream topics). This would imply that if the uncontextualizable fringe idea is the article topic, then the article should not exist. I'm drawing this from the FRINGE guidance that sources situating the fringe idea with the mainstream must be independent, verifiable in RS, and not from proponents (The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources and notability guidelines for fringe topics are stricter than general notability guidelines: the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents).

However, the structure of the latter sentence suggests (or assumes? prescribes?) that any source from an adherent is automatically unreliable (because obviously for any topic to be notable it must meet the criteria in the second clause, so the only way the first clause distinguishing it from the GNG would make sense would be if the third clause placed additional restrictions on what is considered RS). This makes it really murky when an adherent publishes something in an otherwise reliable but not necessarily mainstream place, and also forces editors to make judgment calls on "who is an adherent" (which can get into BLPVIO territory quickly). The guidance also does not make it clear whether the notability of the topic can be achieved with mainstream sources that don't actually contextualize it but merely describe it. Would it make more sense to explicitly require that for a fringe idea to be notable, multiple mainstream RS must give it significant coverage AND contextualize it with the mainstream perspective? Or if we don't want to be that strict, we could just require SIGCOV of the topic in multiple mainstream RS + contextualization by at least one mainstream RS. JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah you've touched on (what I see as) one of the big unclosed fissures in Wikipedia policy, the disconnect between notability and neutrality. It's entirely possible for an topic to be "notable" but then impossible to write a neutral article about it. I don't know the answer but I've sometimes thought the answer might be to couch a policy addition in terms of ends (rather than means): "If it is impossible to write a NPOV article about a topic, that article should not exist". Bon courage (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Fascinating, I had thought that it wasn't possible. What are a few topics which are notable but impossible to write a neutral article about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Can't remember specifics, but think we've had cases of dodgy health things which get breathless coverages in newspapers, but for which there were no good sources. If you insist I can dig back and find what. I think it's pretty rare. Bon courage (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Not insisting at all, just fascinated by cases which are at the edge of existing policy+guideline because I think that edge cases are really helpful in refining policies and guidelines. Would be excellent to be able to link an example if we do change the wording. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I have vague memories about this.[26] An interesting question there is the one (not from me) about what we do in the case of the obvious fringe topic that gets coverage, but which "no expert has bothered to refute"? I get the impression this is an issue for UFO stories, where there's a ton of coverage in "RS" but nobody could be arsed to push back specifically. Perhaps ජපස (jps) could comment? Bon courage (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should make it explicit that significant coverage of fringe issues must include relevant expert opinion in order to be significant? UFOs seem like a tricky one because there is both a non-fringe angle (unknown but almost certainly human made flying objects) vs the fringe angle ("Aliens" - Giorgio A. Tsoukalos). In the case of the second I think I would go back to my first step mentioned on JoelleJay's talk page... If a source is only addressing the issue from the Fringe position without providing mainstream context I would question the reliability of the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

As it happens, I came upon a variation of this question just the other day, in the context of conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with science or medicine, but which are squarely in the area of fringe. It was a discussion about John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, and I said this: [27]. My view was that (1) we must not mislead readers into thinking something is true when it isn't, and (2) we should include the information only if there have been enough reliable sources to indicate significant interest – but if those two requirements are met, it's appropriate to describe fringe material in content that clearly identifies it as such. I also feel that, for areas like living persons, where we have WP:BLP, and health-related content, where we have WP:MEDRS (and similarly for WP:SCIRS), those more stringent requirements should also apply. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"If it is impossible to write a NPOV article about a topic, that article should not exist". I think this is the logical conclusion from NPOV and its intersection with notability/NOT, and while it should be obvious (not least from PAG) it clearly needs to be made explicit that NPOV overrides notability. Besides the obvious area of FRINGE, in my experience this has also been a problem in athlete bios where plenty of details from routine match/transactional reports exist, but including such coverage would lend undue weight to minor WP:ASPECTs (this also follows from NOTNEWS, which excludes routine sports coverage). If the only material that can be found on a subject is from routine news, surely an article shouldn't be created, and yet we get editors arguing NBASIC allows one to cobble together all "non-trivial" mentions in IRS to create "significant coverage". JoelleJay (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:NOPAGE already cover this for editors who actually try to understand policies such as NPOV instead of using them to wikilawyer and ignore feedback from others? fiveby(zero) 18:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

NET

O God, I remember what it was now: NeuroElectric Therapy™ At one time Wikpedia did have an article on this.[28] and the conjunction of extensive newspaper coverage (e.g.[29]) and "Eric Clapton" made it a surefire WP:N survivor, but nobody has bothered to write about the therapy in any sensible detail. There was also the whole doing-down-a-woman-scientist thing got added to the mix. Anyway, can't have been too bad as the article is now a redirect, but this struck me as an interesting case. Bon courage (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thats a very interesting case, what strikes me is that something which "nobody has bothered to write about ... in any sensible detail" should not be a surefire WP:N survivor (at least today, we do seem to have been more accepting of fringe in our deep past). It is immensely frustrating when people who don't understand WP:N chime in on notability discussions, maybe I'm a pessimist but I think that some editors will substitute their own opinion about notability and argue from there no matter what our policies and guidelines actually say (its not the wording they don't care about after all, its the entire set of policies and guidelines) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: a similar sort of thing is happening with The Quiet Epidemic. How's it possible to write an article about this (other than a meagre stub?) Bon courage (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be coverage which calls it a medical fraud and the article does too, this is not at all what you described. You said when there is no coverage of the subject other than from a fringe POV and this is not that. Overall I would question whether its over the notability bar GNG wise but the issue you describe isn't present in this case. Also note that there is no prohibition against meager articles, the standard is WP:N and there is no "but will the article be super long?" part of the standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the very invocation of "chronic lyme disease" is fringe. Sure there are plenty of source we can use to make that point for WP:FRINGESUBJECTS reasons. The coverage of the film itself is however credulous - see that Variety piece. Bon courage (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against adding any "balancing" sources to an article that is going to AfD, people are likely to interpret that as coverage (this is one of the primary issues with the "add any source you like to a fringe page" approach, it makes subjects which aren't notable appear notable). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the sources again and GNG does not appear to be met at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

An AfD would be interesting. Bon courage (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Would it? Is there more significant coverage out there beyond what we have now? Because with current sourcing a pass is impossible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd note that if significant coverage does exist there's always the option of merging it into chronic lyme disease where it would be properly contextualized. IMO we have an array of tools at our disposal, what we lack is creativity. The fringe pushers are very very good at innovation and creativity, they will throw a million things against the wall. The fringe fighters (and especially out own militant fringe the skeptics) are often more dogmatic and orthodox taking the position that there is but one path and one procedure by which all topics should be addressed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe an article on Films about CLD? Bon courage (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Merging into a new article that doesn't exist is orders of magnitude harder than merging into an existing article. Maybe a subsection on Films about CLD at chronic lyme disease and we can move it from there to a full article if there is sufficient coverage? Again though, not super convinced that there actually is a notable topic here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not. Bon courage (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: the discussion on my TP that prompted this thread, there's also an interesting situation regarding fringe journals themselves, which are apparently allowed to exist without meeting any valid notability criterion at all, sourced only to indexing services and their own websites. JoelleJay (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Kary Mullis Talk page

Pls see Kary Mullis talk page re “sole inventor of PCR.” Was unable to tag you for some reason. JustinReilly (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Replied there. Bon courage (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Removed content on AMR

Hi,

You have removed three of my edits from the anitmicrobial resistance article. These were not spam but reliable medical sources on tools used in clinical practice. Could you reinsert them? Also, perhaps it would be better to discuss before removing a large part of my edits.

Best, Adam Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! My concern is the poor sourcing. What you described as a NIHR "review" for example[30] is just a plain-language summary of a RCT. You added a NIHR "case study", which is a weak source (paired, again, with a RCT). In view of your conflict of interest I'm not sure you should be adding NIHR citations, particularly in an incautious manner. Bon courage (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

You are right about the NIHR case study, I shouldn't have added that. Saying review was a poor choice of wording but it is still something used in practice so I think the text describing its existence and use fits and improves the article. Being a Wikipedian in residence is not the same as having a COI but it's all disclosed on my profile. I also informed WikiProject Medicine community about my role and that I will be using articles from the NIHR Evidence website as they represent a second evaluation of primary sources (which of course does not mean they are secondary research). Please see the intro here. I'm happy to discuss any potential problems with my edits and admit if I'm wrong but please do rather discuss than immediately remove. Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It might be worth continuing the discussion there. If there are genuine NIHR secondary publications they could be useful for WP:BMI, and some non-secondary publications useful no doubt for WP:NOTBMI. Bon courage (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Essay critique

I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:

• User:Valjean/Wikipedia's credibility

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

Hi Bon courage, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around — ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 22:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Raydann when you use div tags, pls remember to close them with a /div SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Book access ?

Can you access the Fred Volkmar book at Autistic meltdown? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Springer content is meant to be accessible via the WP:WL but this isn't (though a "service issue" is reported at the moment with this subscription). Recently I've been finding that although WP:WL nominally gives full access to various collections, some of the juicier content is often not included in the subscription. Bon courage (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I've succeeded in getting some quotes at autistic meltdown now ... thanks for looking, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, the quote is or example, anger outbursts in ASD have been described as “immature” with labels such as “meltdowns” being used to reflect the uncontrollable nature of these behaviors. Earlier in same entry: Historically, the term irritability was used in ASD literature as an umbrella category for severe disruptive behaviors including temper tantrums, aggression, and non- compliance. There are a few usages throughout in other articles but used as description, not a term and often quoted. Let me know if you need more, or you can always ask at WP:RX for a reputable way of getting a few pages from a work. fiveby(zero) 17:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Fiveby thanks so much! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

subst:DRN-notice

Bokidam (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Bokidam (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverts to my edit on the "John Campbell (YouTuber)" article

Hi Bon courage! I noticed you reverted[31] my edit on the "John Campbell (YouTuber)" article where I added the capitalization of 'T' in "Tube" on several instances of "YouTube" with the edit summary citing "MOS:TM". "YouTube" appears to be a CamelCase. Per the MOS, "Trademarks in 'CamelCase' are a judgment call; the style may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable; however, usage should be consistent throughout the article." "YouTube" is used elsewhere in the article (including in the infobox formatting); therefore, per MOS:TM, I feel "YouTube" should be used. Also, the MOS notes, "however: PlayStation only (camelcase preferred because Playstation is not widely used)". "YouTube" is by far the most used styling, both on Wikipedia and in outside media. For both of these reasons, I feel that MOS:TM supports my use of "YouTube" in the article. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I tend to prefer it without Camel case, but OTOH the article title being as it is, would support your approach - so have at it! Bon courage (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Unprofessional user, should not be allowed to approve/reject edits

Rejected a well-sourced edit on circumcision page (with detailed scientific study) with no explanation other then the word "junk". This is not someone who should be editing any encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stistrash (talk • contribs) 15:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry, they left a similarly nonsensical comment on my page. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Journal of Cosmology on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Please observe BRD

Bon_courage, please observe BRD. The change in question has been disputed. Get consensus on the talk page first. Springee (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

No thanks. Wikipedia doesn't indulge fringe crap. Bon courage (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Your recent editing history at Naloxone shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Hi Bon courage! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Biological effects of high-energy visible light several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Biological effects of high-energy visible light, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Curran919 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Curran919 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm There isn't, but if you believe 2RR is sanctionable you'll need to ask to have yourself banned too. Bon courage (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If you keep running into 2RR, Bon courage, eventually the community will believe you are following the letter but not the spirit of the guideline. Try to engage with dispute resolution processes rather than tit-for-tat reverts as I'd hate to see you get broomed off the site. Not that I expect that to happen soon, but nothing to lose in a friendly push towards civil mediation ^u^ enjoy the rest of the week. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 20:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a question of what's less disruptive. Sometimes "mediation" processes on Wikipedia (DRN/RfC etc.) are a huge time sync whan an editor is pursuing an obviously futile course, and suck-up valuable time from multiple people. Ultimately the community values editor time and quality of content more than WP:BURO, I think. Bon courage (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't overestimate the community's common sense. Sometimes, satisfying the bureaucratic checklist is a safe protection against getting walloped by users who are looking for an excuse to get the upper hand, and are willing to use the drama boards to get it. Also ArbCom recently closed a case with the adoption of a new principle that says that being right about content is not an excuse for bad behavior. And multiple Arbs have since said that this is going to be an important principle going forward. So I would say that playing it close to the line on 3RR while arguing that you are right on the content issues (I'm not talking here about the "usual exceptions" noted in the 3RR policy), has a real potential to turn sour. That's my take on where the community is at. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You are wise, Tryptofish. As always, it's a question of judgement and that can be tricky sometimes. Bon courage (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. Don't overestimate me, either. I just wouldn't want someone I value as an editor to get caught in something. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining my view better than I have, Tryptofish. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Trypto, which arbcase is that ? (Just curious, as I haven't kept up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It's the "Smallcat" case (as in, small categories), and the principle is called "Being right isn't enough". Here's the link: [32]. And for connoisseurs of cheese, there's now a shortcut to it, in the expectation that it will be linked to frequently: WP:BRIE. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Holy moly ... there's a lot a territory covered in there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Premature removal of ref error on Feldenkrais page

Thanks for your diligence on correcting errors. Please look at the date & time before removing other people’s work. You removed my edit while I was making it (nothing to do with covid :) I will re-add the ref using correct format. Best regards. D1doherty (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I know what you were trying to link: this.[33] It a re-review the Aus people were intending to do. But it never appeared (presumably because of COVID). So, please don't re-add saying it happened. Bon courage (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Got it. And there were no Feldenkrais research papers listed in the summary of submissions. D1doherty (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Foreskin and circumcision discourse comes to a head, once again

See here. (Also tagged others active on the page on talk.)

Several editors are again attempting to have the article (fringe-ishly) imply that circumcised men have diminished sexual sensation. KlayCax (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I had noticed anyway, and was planning to take a look ... Bon courage (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This is inappropriate per WP:CANVASS. Notifications of a discussion should be worded in a neutral manner, and should not come across as campaigning. Prcc27 (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your edits in the talk of the covid lab leak page

Hi. This is in response to your reply in the thread User talk:Vbruttel#Some thoughts on User:Vbruttel#My perspective on Wikipedia, backstory and interest in the lab leak hypothesis/covid origins. I clarify: My intention was to say that it is increasingly clear you have an agenda. And I wasn't talking about your general editing but about the Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory page. It is sad we have come to be at loggerheads over this but I tried to get discussion with you to collegial territory[34][35] and you as far as I know ignored my requests.

The way you approach the lab leak theory in a seemingly excessive biased and aggressive way seems to indicate "increasingly clear you have an agenda" over the topic or at least that you discuss the topic as if you had an agenda about it.

For example, in your response to Vbrutte's comment you stated,

That's a false description of the RfC outcome. WP:MEDRS applies to WP:BMI but not to WP:NOTBMI. No one cares that you (say you) are an expert; what matters here are reliable sources. Frankly, the stuff about virologists having a conflict of interest with virology is just conspiracist noise. You don't help your case by citing crappy sources like independentsciencenews.org. Basically, Wikipedia is not going to indulge conspiracy theories, and using this talk page as a forum for them is becoming disruptive.

The wordings, "false", "no one cares", "conspiracist noise", "crappy", "indulge conspiracy theories", "becoming disruptive" seems to be too aggressive, unnecessary and some not entirely accurate, specially when directed to a new editor.

Some thoughts:

1. "False" is actually a subjective belief. Different editors have their own interpretations about discussions. Therefore, a more accurate wording could be that "you disagree with the interpretation given".
2. "No one cares that you (say you) are an expert". This is not really helpful, when actually Wikipedia is in dire need of experts and we should be drawing them in instead of scaring them away. Maybe you don't agree with the opinion of the editor but you could instead collegially refute their points and help guide them in a friendly way into Wikipedia.
3. "conspiracist noise" is another unhelpful wording as it is not only not a friendly expression but represents your beliefs that may not be even accurate.
4. "becoming disruptive", probably an unnecessary statement that instead could be replaced with quotes of guidance from Wikipedia. For example you could have said something like,

"There is an essay that has good advice, Expert editors are cautioned to be mindful of the potential conflict of interest that may arise if editing articles which concern an expert's own research, writings, discoveries, or the article about themself."

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with some of what you have written here. No one is indispensable here. TarnishedPath^talk 03:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Hang on, the original accusation was "It's becoming increasingly clear that Bon Courage is here to advance their own agenda" (stated ironically with any of the softy-language and hedging you seem be now insisting on), in response to a comment linking WP:NOTHERE. So are you now walking that back and saying your complaint is limited to ONE Talk page? (Not sure how one advances an agenda by editing a Talk page, but still). Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

POV tag

In case you are wondering, here is when you are allowed to remove a POV tag: ”You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true: There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.” Prcc27 (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really, problem editors try to get hostage tags to stick all the time. It doesn't work. Not sure if you're at 3RR or 4RR now. Bon courage (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The edit where I initially added the tag wouldn’t count as a revert. Also, it appears I made an additional edit a few minutes outside of the 24 hour period. This was not my intention, so I will be more careful about this moving forward. Prcc27 (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Foreskin RfC

Hello. There is an RfC on the Function section of the Foreskin article. You can participate in the RfC here. Prcc27 (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

RfCs have an automatic way of notifying editors; it's a bit odd to contact ones individually, and could be seen as problematic if it favours any prior known POV. Bon courage (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I contacted every user that was involved in the 3 discussion sections about the “Function” section of the article. I do not see that as problematic, or at odds with WP:CANVASS. Prcc27 (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The way to publicize an RfC is described here.[36] Contacting a group of editors might look like there's been some calculation about how the POV of the group aligns with your desired POV, Bon courage (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Nothing written there forbids what I did. It is a common practice to ping every person that was involved in related discussions. I’ll keep your suggestion in mind, moving forward. But I don’t think I broke any rules, or favored any POV. Prcc27 (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Four options are listed for where you "may" post, so it's not "my suggestion" but the meaning of WP:RFC. Bon courage (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• ”You may use rfc notice to inform other editors.” The template is sometimes used to notify “individual editors”.Prcc27 (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Which does not mean that it is always a good idea, using a definition of "good" that aligns with principles like "not producing avoidable drama" and "not spending the next week at the Wikipedia:Dramaboard" and "not getting yourself blocked". Just because something is permitted in some (or most) instances does not mean that it's a good idea in every instance. Editors with your experience level are expected to show good judgement about whether "permissible" is a good idea.

  But – what's done is already done. If the discussion ends up in dramaboard hell, Bon courage can give you a big fat "I told you so", and you can comfort yourself by remembering that not notifying all prior RFC participants has also (though less often) resulted in complaints, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: I did use good judgment. It makes sense to let previously involved users know that there is an active RfC on a related matter. This is a common practice on Wikipedia. I could see your point if it was clear that this would favor one POV’s !votes over another. But it absolutely is not clear which POV, if any, this would favor. Prcc27 (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is a classic example of the recent trend of using RfCs to "get a judgement" rather than improving articles through the normal process of editing. A twist is the apparent use of an RfC to proclaim that new relevant sources cannot be used to change the article because they will somehow disrupt a running RfC - and we're talking about a C-class article here, which is in dire need of improvement.

  I'd add that moves to bake in (or freeze out) particular chunks of content are bad, and doubly bad if attempted before the sourcing landscape for a topic has even been properly investigated. There are exceptional cases where binding 'agreed wording' may be necessary (e.g. WP:ARBGMO) but in general, proceeding this way is antithetical to the process of collaboratively building an encyclopedia. Bon courage (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Didn’t see your comment on @Neveselbert:’s talk page until now. I was unaware of that user having a foreskin related topic ban or otherwise. Nevertheless, I feel like it would have been more problematic to notify every user except Neveselbert than to just notify every involved user. Prcc27 (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

A Message not from the Hive.

Greetings human Wikipedia Editor. Your action here was detected by our on-board telemetry sensors by normal ocular inspection. We direct you to follow standard procedure and ask you in Good Faith to avoid the term "earthling," and use instead the proscribed more routine "Planet Earth Creature." Further instructions will be transmitted Happy Editing! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Nanu nanu. Bon courage (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

AE discussion

In case pings didn't go through, I wanted to give you a heads up that I referenced what happened to you years ago at an AE discussion. I'm not sure if you dealt with this user in other topics, but since the issues have been more widespread than I realized (some much more recent), I'm just making sure we're covering close to the full scope of folks affected. Thanks. KoA (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Blimey, that's a blast from the past - back when I was getting cheques from Monsanto. These days I'm getting exactly the same sort of cheques from Big Pharma and the CIA! Don't think you need any contribution from me at AE as 'Leyo' (who I don't remember) is going down for sure. (Amend: Oh, just seen they're a sysop - that complicates things!) Bon courage (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC); amend 05:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Interestingly to look back at the arguments at Perfluorooctanoic acid, as a (relatively) inexperienced editor I think I allowed myself to be cowed by the resident POV-pushers, one of whom (gulp!) was an admin, as as a result for the last decade the article has been stuffed with 'scary' health statements from unsuitable sources. It gets viewed > 350 times/day. Wikipedia, eh? Bon courage (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Kind of you to call me a POV-pusher. I just wanted to note, that your mass removal was not reverted by me but by NorthBySouthBaranof, with the comment "Consider this the revert in WP:BRD. I request that the editor discuss the proposed edits before blanket-removing dozens of studies". --Leyo 15:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Classic WP:OWNERSHIP that (I didn't know at the time). Mass removal of crappily-sourced WP:BMI is a good thing, of course. Bon courage (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Well, well, interestingly looks like there's going to be an arbcom case about this. I always had the impression that in the old days admins liked circling the wagons; these days it seems more like a blood-in-the-water piranha frenzy when WP:ADMINCOND is not squeaky-clean. Bon courage (talk) 08:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"Mutilation" to describe circumcision

Recently there's been another attempt to add "mutilation" wording back into circumcision-adjacent articles. (Despite this already becoming a massive, multi-paragraph discussion a few months ago which led to it being removed.)

There's not a "consensus" about this. Is there? KlayCax (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Well there is Talk:Circumcision/FAQ. It editors want to have a Wikipedia-wide shift of terminology they'd need to make a proposal at WT:MED, I'd have thought. But it would be a waste of time. Bon courage (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I'm honestly worn out, and frustrated, so forgive the snark.

Circumcision/foreskin discussion is an absolute time sink with editors who have an asymmetrical amount of dedication about this subject. (To put it lightly.) WP: Fringe ideas surrounding the topic are being reintroduced into the articles. One citation on the circumcision article from a psychologist named Gregory Boyle — intended to prove widespread social controversy despite multiple reliable sources and Boyle himself saying that it isn't — who says this about circumcision.

See here and here for the current situation. I'm honestly starting to feel like improvements to the articles are hopeless. And it's going to be forever dominated by WP: Fringe and WP: POV-pushing. KlayCax (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Circumcision articles are among the least-enjoyable areas of Wikipedia to edit, and I frequently rotate them off my watchlist for a break. There was a point at which Circumcision was a WP:GA but it has since crumbled back into a weak state. Bon courage (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I similarly took a break from circumcision-related articles for a few months due to editor fatigue. You should check out the Genital modification and mutilation article when you (like me) aren't tired of circumcision-related articles. It's quickly becoming another WP: POVFORK. (And should honestly just be renamed into "genital modification" or merged altogether into the "body modification" article.) KlayCax (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

No, you're alright - a man can only take so many penis articles on their watchlist. Just the other day I had to explain to my family why I was looking at a web page festooned with erect willies pointing in every direction ('just editing Wikipedia!') Bon courage (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There's some history to this, re how "genital mutilation" came to be a one-sided description via one persistent editor before it was well used in the literature (Wikipedia led that), but I digress and agree one can only take so much, whether penis or vagina. I just had to take a look in here based on your edit summary; big mess at colon cleansing at least was fun. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, one of the only reasons I watch Foreskin is in the hope I might one day be able to post at ANI, "Problematic rollback at Foreskin". Bon courage (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

That's quite a mind you've got ... that would trump the big mess at colon cleansing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Why were the scientific paper references removed from Andrew Huberman's page?

I didn't see a reason as to why the addition of Huberman's scientific papers was reverted, so I figured I'd ask.

If he was actually part of the publications and it is factual, then why remove it? Captain-about-things (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This has already been asked (and answered) at Talk:Andrew D. Huberman. Bon courage (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! 70.109.128.144 (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia

Re: Special:Diff/1179363751/1179365284: The paper (scroll down) is published in the journal Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology which is cited nearly 400 times on Wikipedia. What is the reason it is unreliable? There may be a reason, I'm not familiar with health guidelines on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 23:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That's PMID:30747099 which is primary research; sources for this kind of content should be WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Fluvoxamine, sigma-one agonism and its role in psychotic depressive complexes

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

---

Listen, here’s as much evidence that sigma-one agonism with fluvoxamine is beneficial for treating the psychotic symptoms of depression (whatever disorder they appear in the context of, be-it major depression, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder or the post-psychotic depression of schizophrenia) as there as it treating the cognitive symptoms of depression (and one or two other disorders), yet you keep reversing the former but not the latter (nor should you re. the latter). References were used in a similar way in both instances but you keep censoring out one, despite the fact that both points follow on from the other and they’re pretty analogous. Why? Why do you keep doing that under the contradictory guise of “can’t use WP sources like this”? 2A02:C7C:2E9A:F100:1874:6F58:F92:5028 (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. If stuff isn't covered by such sources it's simply not suitable for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a journal. If you think you have a special case raise it at WT:MED where many medical editors can consider the question. Bon courage (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

If you keep up the contradictory back-and-forth (the instance of WP has never apparently been an issue before, nor should it be when reliable medical information is being provided), a special case might be made for you to be blocked from editing Wikipedia via admin. because it just looks like you enjoy engaging in edit-wars for the sake of it, despite knowing little about the subjects at hand and the fact that you’re not the one who makes or contributes substantially to these pages. I am going to have to take this up with WT:MED but in the meantime try and be a little slower with your reversals. 2A02:C7C:2E9A:F100:1874:6F58:F92:5028 (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ll also say I’m happy to come to some sort of consensus but I can’t do that when you keep reversing edits (including ones from other editors with grammatical errors) and seem so stubbornly adamant that one truth or well-backed analogous oughtn’t be told. What is it with the correlation between fluvoxamine’s sigma-one agonism and improvement in depressive psychoses are you so against?

LOL, I don't care about the Truth™ I do care about content being well-sourced. Bon courage (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly you don’t care or truly have any knowledge about fluvoxamine or psychotic depression (and it shows, no doubt), so you might have to explain where this reversal-energy comes from. You only remove sources you don’t like it that you personally disagree with (or perhaps just don’t want to admit; don’t really care which, to be honest). A lot of these references are almost identical in sourcing but for some reason you have a particular issue with that of fluvoxamine and psychotic depression. It’s not hard to understand why some people might find you annoying. 2A02:C7C:2E9A:F100:1874:6F58:F92:5028 (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You are very wrong. Anyway I'm glad you've stopped edit-warring and are willing to discuss. Bon courage (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Right, wrong. Not too bothered, to be honest. All I can go off is what you display. Secondary research (not just the primary you seem so against) was given but it all went when you decided to reverse the whole thing. I’ve noticed a lot of people have this same issue with you and your constant edit-warring and at the end of the day it’s not difficult to resonate with that either when the editors of all these pages go to the trouble of writing and sourcing their information and some of it keeps going in a swipe by the likes of yourself. I’ll have another look at the guidelines for sourcing biomedical information but this will be forwarded to WP:MED. But just know that when you’re not the one who contributes to these pages and makes them what they are you only have limited rightful power. Try not to push it too much or carry on exactly like this. It’s not fair on anyone and fundamentally it’s not right (and you know it). 2A02:C7C:2E9A:F100:1874:6F58:F92:5028 (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The page has had over 500 editors and I'm only ranked 29th by contribution volume. Keeping poor content out is useful too. It's all part of ensuring The Project is ever-improving. Bon courage (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Poor content or poorly-sourced content? If you’re arguing it’s the former then you’re showing a certain bias. I’d pick my words carefully. 2A02:C7C:2E9A:F100:1874:6F58:F92:5028 (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

A Wikipedia Talk page is hardly a court of law so I'm relaxed about word choice. However, in an encyclopedia poor content and poorly-sourced content are one in the same, since the only objective is merely to mirror quality sources. Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m also going to refer you back to what you seemed to be reminded of some months ago:

Your recent editing history at EMDR shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensusamong editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 2A02:C7C:2E9A:F100:1874:6F58:F92:5028 (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Always good to bear in mind. However if I were you I wouldn't start grumbling about edit warring with the state of your hands. Bon courage (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s more about you and your erroneous, constant reversals, and if it wasn’t for you there wouldn’t be any warring. I’m not the guilty one here.

Taken up with WP:MED. 2A02:C7C:2E9A:F100:1874:6F58:F92:5028 (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Excellent. BTW, for future reference when making citations, to generate markup which conforms to Wikipedia's preferred medical referencing style, this tool[37] will do the hard work of making a reference from a PMID. Bon courage (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Fluvoxamine redux

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

---

I’m going to have to chip in here (I didn’t know where else to start a discussion). There’s as much evidence that sigma-one agonism with fluvoxamine is beneficial for treating the psychotic symptoms of depression (whatever disorder they appear in the context of) as there as it treating the cognitive symptoms of depression (and one or two other disorders), yet you keep reversing the former but not the latter (nor should you re. the latter). References were used in a similar way in both instances but you keep censoring out one. Why? Why do you keep doing that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:2E9A:F100:1874:6F58:F92:5028 (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that article needs further cleanup, but I couldn't be arsed to do the donkey work just now, partly because the environment is becoming hostile (thanks for that!). Hopefully when it goes to WT:MED other editors will have more of an appetite to deal with this. Bon courage (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You have yourself to thank. 2A02:C7C:2E9A:F100:C0C2:974B:1E51:3B8 (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s funny, also, that Google Scholar and all those other secondary outlets Wikipedia specifically recommended point out the same research/evidence that you keep trying to censor out. All roads lead to Rome, whichever way you look at it. However determined you are to filter out the truth. 2A02:C7C:2E9A:F100:C0C2:974B:1E51:3B8 (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This is so ridiculous it makes me think you're trolling. Whatever, don't post on this page again. Bon courage (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Sorry!

I had no clue my source looked cluttered. I added it back in and fixed it. I was not trying to start an edit war! Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Spam template

You can use Template:Spamlink (which redirects to Template:Link summary) for tagging spam pages. I like to also include an inline link of the site itself so that I can easily track IPs/accounts that have added it, though per WP:OWNTALK, they technically may remove those. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Bon courage (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Please don't

There's really no reason to kick an editor when they're down. Please don't do that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Circumcision lead "rare" penile cancer 3O

Please be advised that I requested a third opinion regarding whether or not a collapsible footnote or otherwise should be included for the penile cancer sentence in the circumcision lead. Prcc27 (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Not an option now as more than two editors are discussing. Bon courage (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Then I guess we should try another noticeboard or an RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

As always, biomedicine is good for WT:MED. Personally, I am satisfied we have achieved consensus. Bon courage (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Prcc27 (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources for Fluvoxamine#Research

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

---

Hello, can you please review my edit at Fluvoxamine#Research, I used reviews rather than primary sources, and I think that my edit is within the rules described in WP:MEDRS WP:MEDFAQ; also, the text I added explains the other text around (fits the content) rather than adding a new contradictory information. If you still think that it is poorly sourced, can you please explain in details why it is poorly sourced in the talk page, adding relevant templates, rather than deleting the text, so I could improve the text to be properly sourced? Thank you! ---09:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Fluvoxamine‎#Sourcing. You added a bunch of primary sources and Cureus is not a reputable journal either. Bon courage (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Proper sources and style for Talk:Boron#Biological_role

Hello, can you please help with Talk:Boron#Biological_role Thank you in advance! --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

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

---

The onus is on you to get consensus. Please go to talk before you add fringe theories to the article. You are 1 edit away from a WP:3RR violation, by the way. Prcc27 (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't think so. But I'm glad you've issued the warning since it shows you're aware. Calling reputable peer-reviewed research 'fringe' in really not a good move. An editor recently got sanctioned for doing that. Bon courage (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The source does not seem fringe. However, you are cherrypicking a source to promote a fringe theory and advance a POV. Please stop making disruptive edits; we have a talk page for a reason. Prcc27 (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you don't WP:OWN the article, and there is nothing WP:FRINGE in play. Bon courage (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You don’t own the article either, so please self-revert, as you are now at 4 reverts, which is a violation of WP:3RR. I would rather not escalate this to an administrator’s noticeboard. Prcc27 (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding fresh content and modifying long-standing sections is not a "revert", but normal editing. You, on the other hand, have been undoing edits. Trying to stop an article being edited by wrongly calling such edits "reverts" is a problem. Bon courage (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Circumcision fringe?

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

---

Calling reputable peer-reviewed research 'fringe' in really not a good move. An editor recently got sanctioned for doing that. If you're referring to me here, I'll have to correct you. I've never once called reputable peer-reviewed research 'fringe'. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

As I recall, you issued a warning template to an editor because they were citing the reputably-published/WP:MEDRS work of Brian Morris (biologist), an acknowledged expert who nobody regards as WP:FRINGE. Bon courage (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You recall incorrectly. He is not "an acknowledged expert", though he likes to market himself as one, but merely an enthusiastic fanatic of long standing. He neither holds degrees (nor genuine interests) in surgery, urology, pediatrics, nor epidemiology, and his field of study is only remotely related to medicine (he is a molecular biologist and professor of molecular medical sciences at the University of Sydney). Nobody regards his work as WP:MAINSTREAM. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems to have been published in high-quality journals, been honoured with a lot of awards, and held a career as a professor. Against that - what? the say-so of a Wikipedia editor? I suggest you write to the journals he's published in and get them to retract the stuff you object to. Until then, NPOV will out. BTW, Morris is a permathread which has been discussed on Wikipedia ad nauseam over the year. Bon courage (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not "say-so", unless you're disputing these details? Based on what, exactly? This person does not hold medical credentials of any kind, he takes a position against the most respected medical authorities in the West, including Australia's RACP. One can point to the work of Robert Van Howe as having been published in high-quality journals, yet I don't see him, a paediatrician no less, cited as often as a professor of molecular medical sciences, which is a completely unrelated field. As for his being honoured with a lot of awards, his record is distinguished in his specialties, those being high blood pressure and the genetics of cardiovascular disease. In this topic, his record can validly be described as fringe. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Doubt it. Anyway, this has long been decided (before the article went to WP:GA even) and Wikipedia is not going to jettison high-quality sources just because of the personal objections of certain editors to an author. Bon courage (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You can doubt all you like, I'm just saying it's a valid opinion, as his work is evidently not in the wp:mainstream, as evidenced by the vast majority of major medical organisations disavowing his conclusions. Why not just check the citations in his work and cite those, provided they're correct? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I was under the impression that they were sanctioned for edit warring, not for citing WP:FRINGE in good faith. We can agree to disagree on whether or not the Morris source was fringe, but he does hold viewpoints beyond the mainstream (i.e. circumcision should be compulsory for all boys, circumcision is akin to vaccination, etc.) Prcc27 (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know the mind of admins, but while edit-warring seems to have been the principle cause of the sanction, the scope of the TBAN is something else, related to content. I don't really give a fig (or even know) what Morris' "views" are meant to be. For Wikipedia all that matters are high-quality sources, and he's apparently been an author on a number of those with no good reason to doubt their scientific worth. Bon courage (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the amount of pushback there's been in the literature, I'd say there's more than good reason. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

If there are superior WP:MEDRS we can cite them, sure. But the 'pushback' typically seems to be from not very good sources. Bon courage (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've seen pushback published in PubMed, which is regarded as a good source. As for superior WP:MEDRS we can cite, I've already suggested citing the citations cited by this author's work instead. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

PubMed content is mostly useless for Wikipedia (except the small portion which is WP:MEDRS). There is plenty of WP:MEDRS for circumcision, and some of it has Morris as an author. The task here is to reflect good sources, not WP:RGW from activist viewpoints. Bon courage (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Addendum

Neveselbert emailed me asking me to elaborate on my WP:ES here.[38] The reasons why this is not a useful discussion is because (a) it will not affect article content and (b) it risks Neveselbert getting further sanctioned, in what is already an over-dramatic episode. I simply do not wish to discuss this with Neveselbert any further. Any further comments on this here will be removed. Back to the articles, folks! Bon courage (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Health claims on Modafinil cognitive enhancements

Could you please review the health claims on Modafinil#Cognitive_enhancement? I have a feeling that those claims are inappropriately stated. Thank you in advance! --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I see a systematic review, a meta-analysis and two narrative reviews. So on the face of it, all good. Which source(s) are concerning you? Bon courage (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I am concerned about the bold style of the statements, such as the words "found" in a section of "research", given that the underlying studies were small, rather than long large studies. When making claims like

1. "found a statistically significant but small effect [...] as a cognitive enhancer";
2. "found that modafinil has a small, positive effect on memory updating";
3. "consistently engender enhancement of attention, executive functions, and learning";

Isn't it better to reformulate the tone of these statements, because regular people read wikipedia and may improperly interpret these sentences while they are in "research" and are not proven. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, okay - I didn't check the content to see how well it is WP:Verified. Once we're dealing with good sources we're in a pretty good place, and editors may reasonably differ how to summarize them according to their judgement, taste and biases. To declare my bias: I am sceptical about claims in the whole 'nootropic' realm because there are so many exaggerated claims. Give me a while as I'll need to do some reading. Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Let me know what you suggest then, maybe I will just use milder claims upon your suggestions, you you edit yourself and I then see how you edited and will edit in similar places yourself the same way you did. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

If you believe in "Rules for thee and not for me." ...

Apropos your edit If you believe in "Rules for thee and not for me," feel free to re-insert your hypocritical last word edit. I was fixing a typo and removed it. But surely you should leave it closed when someone who opened a discussion closes it. RudolfoMD (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

You probably simply do not understand what you are talking about. The 9 years ago, the Board of Directors link talks about undisclosed COI editing, not about COI editing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@RudolfoMD: editors can do what they like on their own Talk page, but an involved close on a noticeboard is probably not a good idea, and reverting it in the case of pushback doubly so. Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Yeah, I suspect this is part-and-parcel of the "scientists have a conflict of interest with science" trope we're seeing more of from antivaxx types and so on. It is a fascinating, if troubling development! Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

You probably simply failed to see what I am talking about. "Rules for thee and not for me," was apropos the advice actually given at WP:LASTWORD, which Bon courage did not follow while telling me to follow with their edit summary. Hence "Rules for thee and not for me" was what was being pushed.

Your bad faith assumptions are just that. They lead you to assume you not understand what I am talking about not because of your lack of effort, as was the case here. Instead, you assumed, "You probably simply do not understand what you are talking about." Will an apology be coming before the heat death of the universe? Surprise me with a show of good faith. RudolfoMD (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Nah, I was interested to continue the discussion, not have a WP:LASTWORD, which is why I made an open-ended comment and then tried to reverse your closure. I was also thinking of your personalized dismissal of other editors' points, not my comments (which you had not engaged with). So, you're mistaken and probably projecting a bit about the bad faith stuff. Bon courage (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok. You did exactly a thing the page encourages you not to do "If your opponent attempts to seize the last word for themselves, be careful to point out the folly of this strategy, perhaps citing this project page." I invite you to have the last word by deleting this message, per Form 3 of MUTUAL. RudolfoMD (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, buy I do not regard you as my opponent. My concern was your trying to have the last word with BD2412 by sealing-in some odd comment about them being a 'lawyer'. Anyway, the discussion continues ... Bon courage (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

adding a published study

I have tried to add a published study to the Bowen technique site and it was rejected with the response 'Not WP:MEDRS' I believe PubMed is a 'reputable medical journal' Could you please assist me how to add a new study on this therapy? Isbtlisa (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

PUBMED is not a journal, more a search engine. Please see WP:MEDRS for a discussion of what's needed (generally review articles in reputable journals). Bon courage (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Stanley Burroughs

Small world! I see that you were the nominator in the deletion discussion for the previous version of this article. I wanted to let you know that I have revived it, and I think, provided substantial content in support of the notability of the subject. BD2412 T 12:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Nice! I'd forgotten all about him! Bon courage (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Politeness, Respect, Constructivity and WP:NOOB

I noticed that all of your deletions are correct, but some of your deletions are not as friendly as they could be and as suggeted in WP:NOOB. Although some folks may not be newcomers here, we should still be friendly towards each other and explain our actions. It may take us 8 seconds to revert a change that a person in good faith spent 40 minutes of preparing. For example, we can behave in constructive and respectful manner by introducing ourselves with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcomed here, and present our corrections or deletions calmly and as a peer, i.e., assume good faith and respond to problematic edits in a clear and polite manner. The comment "rubbish source" at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modafinil&diff=1183155786&oldid=1183154583 could have been presented in a way that could be more polite. --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The editor in question has been here since 2007, and given the needling of their edit-summary I think I was more than restrained. Bon courage (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees, the burden of being right is having to be gracious about it. All in all its not a bad problem to have. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Detoxification

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

---

1. You changed the reference to an archived URL, which may be less valid than a current URL

2. Neither the current URL, or the archived URL ever mention that toxins are "undefined" or have no "scientific basis"

3. There is no verification or source for what you are reverting this to.. You are violating wikipedia terms for only using sourced and verifiable information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Know I AM (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Talk:Ayurveda

You just violated 1RR, so please self-revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The arbitration remedy at the top of the page says complaints about pseudoscience wording are to be "removed without reply". Make of that what you will. If you think continuing that identikit section will help the Project, by all means revert, but be aware of the arbitration remedy fork of confusion! Bon courage (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I know what it says, and it's not a hill I want to die on. If it's a hill you want to die on, that's up to you. Please do note that I had already posted a suitable reply to the IP. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, it's back. I am surprised you asked for this reversion. Bon courage (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Then I guess I should explain. I'm coming from a place of trying not to treat stuff as a battlefield. The IP posted something that we both believe is dumb and unhelpful. You reverted it. OK, so far. But then another established editor reverted you (and I posted a suitably dismissive reply to the IP). Instead of reverting again, you could have just let it go. Someone else reverted you, and you could have just dropped it there. No need to make a point, no need to be right. And even if you were right on the fine points of the arb remedy, and I think that you technically were, it's something where it's all too easy for editors on the other "side" to make a drama board complaint about it, and that's not worth it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a question of what's most efficient. Now we have other editors wasting time by adding comments, which is want I wanted to avoid. Bon courage (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The only added comments are me saying cite needed, and another editor pointing to the same things at the top of the talk page that you pointed to. Hardly a tragedy. And a lot more "efficient" than if you got dragged in front of AE or ArbCom. (As I'm sure you know, another editor whom I think we both respect is, right now, being dragged in front of ArbCom simply because he was the person who was wrongly blocked by a misbehaving admin. This is Wikipedia, not some world where everything works as it should.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

With the passage of a little more time, the editor who originally reverted you has posted that they realize they made a mistake, and another editor has reverted the whole thing. That's a good outcome. You'll probably think I'm daft for saying this, but it's good that it worked out without the need for you to make multiple reverts. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

"You'll probably think I'm daft for saying this," ← My diagnosis: arbcomitis

Seriously, I have to admire how you have the chops to move through that labyrinth but, spend too much time there and the labyrinth will be in you as much as you are in it. After a brush with ArbCom early in my wiki career I learned that it, like getting old, is best avoided! Bon courage (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Ha! Good diagnosis. Actually, I could accurately be diagnosed as old. But getting out of town and out of WP tomorrow! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just by my experience so far, I'd say visits should be at least greater than at least once every 8 years. KoA (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

On pseudoscience

About hills to die on:

I've never been seized with the desire to label as many subjects as possible with the term pseudoscience. I have been wondering what the goal is. It's not just dispassionate compliance with a policy. There's something else going on there. Even after you strip away the ignorance (e.g., people who don't know the difference between junk science and pseudoscience), there is a level of emotional involvement that I don't understand. It's really really really really really important to some editors to make sure the word pseudoscience appears in a lot of articles, and they usually want to see it within the first sentence. Why?

Are they trying to save consumers from their own bad decisions, and they think that if they add this word prominently in the article, it will hurt sales? Is it a sort of social posturing, to show the world that we have the Right™ views? The only subject area that seems to have this level of passion is the fights that people get into over music genres. There, as well as here, we (or, at least some of us) are not content with adding the label to the obvious articles (e.g., homeopathy, which is literally a textbook example of pseudoscience). We actively seek out the maximum territory for applying this label and hold low standards for justifying it.

There's a friendly conversation at Excited delirium about whether to include that label in the opening sentence. One editor is firmly in favor. The supporting source is an article from the New York Times saying that A and B "have dismissed the term as pseudoscience". Links are provided to the statements from A and B. However:

• a term can't be pseudoscience (ever), and
• neither of the organizations in question used the word pseudoscience to describe the subject (ever, AFAICT, but definitely not in the linked statements).

My diagnosis? A reporter whose beat is breaking news doesn't understand the difference between pseudoscience, junk science, new evidence (which proper science responds to by changing its mind!), and things that are technically true but not serving society overall.

We can (and probably will) use some Wikipedia:Editorial discretion and UNDUE to omit this in the particular case, but why should this produce such passion? What's the purpose of adding this label? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

One of the problems is that the word 'pseudoscience' is undergoing a transmutation, particularly in the USA, into having a very loose meaning (I read something good on this recently, but annoyingly can't find the source). I know we've tightened-up WP:FRINGE to be a bit more specific about what pseudoscience is (not), but maybe more will help. Perhaps when I get round to writing MOS:FRINGE (any volunteers to help?) we can say something more about this?

One issue is what Jytdog used to call Wikipedia's 'immune system'; if editors sense something untoward is being pushed, there is a desire to push back, and what better than the neutralizing antibody of a 'pseudoscience' label. I see myself as taking a central position: if something is described in decent RS as pseudoscience then WP:PSCI is important; on the other hand we often see problems with over-egging ("Wine therapy is a pseudoscience promoted by pseudoscientists and studied in pseudo-laboratories using pseudoscientific methods"). I've thought for a while a Fringe MOS might be a way to help with this ... Bon courage (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You forgot "and the pseudoscientific pseudoscience doesn't work, because it's pseudoscience". ;-)

Part of the problem is that almost all humans see ourselves as taking a central position, and our positions always seem reasonable to us. I'm not sure that I could name 10 things that I believe that most people don't also believe. I don't believe in ghosts, and most people do. I do believe that most people can do math, if they put in the effort to learn. Those might be my two most "abnormal" beliefs about the world.

MOS:FRINGE would need a statement about being precise and accurate even when your (politicized, etc.) sources are sloppy (or "loose", as you said).

It might also be worth suggesting two rules of thumb for the word pseudoscience in particular:

• If all the reliable sources using that word merely mention the label in passing, without explicitly explaining why that label applies (or why a different label doesn't apply), then that's not a good reason to include that word in the article. (See also: Hitler was a genocidal maniac, and yet we don't feel a need to put those labels in that article.)
• My version of a Bechdel test ("two female characters who have a conversation about something other than a man"): Don't add it to the lead until you have at least two consecutive sentences in the article body that say something about the subject's pseudoscientific qualities other than who used the word. Homeopathy#Evidence and efficacy isn't great (I'd prefer something that says "Homeopathy is often given as a textbook example of pseudoscience because..."), but it's more than sufficient. The many non-stub articles that mention it in the first sentence and never again are not.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a limit to what a MOS can do, and pushing too far into questions of content would - I imagine - get pushback. I think I'm more bullish than you in thinking WP:PSCI really calls for emphasizing RS claims of pseudoscience, but also I envisage a section in MOS:FRINGE about the danger of 'over-egging'. Also a section about FRINGEWORDS (to watch) - of which "pseudoscience" might be one (of many)? Anyway, I'm assuming you're signing up for the drafting committee? Bon courage (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I've spent my adult life doing real science, and the difference from stuff that isn't real science is very real to me. Is it falsifiable and evidence-based? If no, then it's either theoretical or it's pseudoscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I think it can be hard to detect problems in some cases, and you've left out some options, like deliberate fraud, bad science, and junk science. The ideal for science is "I have this idea; let me prove that my idea is false". The ideal for business is "This molecule could make us a fortune; let me prove that it works so I can get regulatory approval". That's not pseudoscience, but it's not great science, either.

To give an example: Smoking marijuana kills people. We know this, beyond any doubt whatsoever, because PM_2.5 (fine particulate matter) causes lung cancer, regardless of whether that smoke comes from a charming campfire, a cooking stove, tobacco, a burning building, a wildfire, or anything else. But we had editors insist for years that cannabis never kills anyone. That's not pseudoscience; it was willful blindness. It was probably junk science (we don't have data clearly proving my idea wrong, so my belief is automatically proven correct).

What I'm curious about is why the pseudoscience label is so important. It's the most powerful word in some people's minds. If you have sources giving a variety of (negative) descriptions, why is it pseudoscience that seems to be the one chosen? Given, e.g., a medical story whose early case studies involved an obvious and disgusting level of racism (I'm thinking of one in which murdering women was passed off as drug side effects, because dontcha know that those Black sex workers are all druggies and too sexy to live ...right up until the police arrested the serial murderer), why are editors more interested in labeling it as pseudoscience instead of racist? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Just drop by :)

@ Tryptofish, what you’ve said is true in general, but… it’s a big world [39][40] [41][42] [43] … ,etc. Terms like “scientific method” may not be appropriate for everything in every place in all historical perspective ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

BTW, “theoretical” sounds a lot nicer than “pseudoscience” :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: One thing that interests me about Wikipedia is the 'taste' issue about which word are assertable and which are not. I think saying outright that a therapy was 'racist' would cause editors to quail and say that is not encyclopedic. Likewise it's not done to say that something 'is quackery' on Wikipedia ('characterized as quackery' is fine though). 'Pseudoscience' is one of the few pejorative labels on Wikipedia which can usually be freely asserted, maybe because it seems like a sober 'scientific' assessment, less a value judgement. I wonder if that in part is why it's popular? Bon courage (talk) 08:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

You may be on to something there. We permit relatively few pejoratives, so we want to use the ones we've got as much as possible.

I assume (but couldn't prove) that we're also reflecting trends in the broader white-male-western-internet-denizen demographic, who may be uncomfortable saying something is "wrong" and so falls back on a sort of science-as-religion concept, and we say it's "pseudoscience".

(Dustfreeworld, just on the off chance that it wasn't clear, "theoretical" is abstract, not bad. It's also generally not monetizable, so if you're a drug company, you care more about "what's this molecule do?" than "Here's our idea of how pain works in the brain". Also, please add Health effects of sand to your list of missing articles.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

eDiT wAr

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Points to note: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 72.89.19.118 (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain these comments?

Sorry if I have mischaracterized your comments. Here you said, regarding my disagreement about a source, that I was engaging in a "fringe-pusher gambit that is quite familiar" (the "fringe" being the COVID-19 lab leak theory), in response (?) to my comments saying that it did not happen. Here, you said that I was engaging in "OR rambling" and that the idea (the "idea" being the COVID-19 lab leak theory) was "mixed up with racism".

I apologize for not being able to fully understand what was meant here. Could you explain in further detail what you actually meant by saying I was engaging in a "fringe-pusher gambit" for an idea that was "mixed up with racism", since you said this interpretation was a "flat-out lie"? jp×g🗯️ 21:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I very carefully didn't say you were engaging in fringe-pushing (and I don't think you are, actually). Read again[44] and see if you can see why (note: the words 'which happens to be' are key). My hope is that this coincidence of positions between your proposal and that of fringe-pushers will make you think more about the ramifications of what you are proposing.

As for OR rambling, yes - that's my view. Coming up with your own imagined timeline of COVID-19 events in which scientists are declaring "lab leak happened" is exactly that. Oh and yes, you did flat-out lie, I am glad to see you struck the text and, with your apology, we can leave it at that. Bon courage (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now -- there is no evidence, you are just casting aspersions. Thanks for clearing up the issue. Please stop doing this. jp×g🗯️ 22:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, God. You have no shame, Bon courage. 2A04:4A43:490F:DBB8:2C7B:9D2F:C3EC:FB80 (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Just the a tip

If you were 25% less antagonistic you'd be 50% more convincing in discussions. The antagonism only serves to harden opposition, and makes you look needlessly snarky to uninvolved parties which can make it harder to take your arguments seriously. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

As what I hope will be understood as a friendly addition to that, this is the same overall message that I was trying for in #Talk:Ayurveda, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I will try to turn the dial down (if I can find it)! Bon courage (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! (It's here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Blimey - a brand I've never heard of! Bon courage (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

No worries, I'm sure it will all come out in the wash. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Please respect WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD

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

---

It's best practice to establish consensus for your addition [45] since the WP:BURDEN is on you to do so "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Re-inserting your addition without consensus is not collaborative. Your behavior on this matter is not consistent [46]. SmolBrane (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:V has not been questioned, and WP:BOLD is policy, and does not require prior consensus. I think edits made on an obviously mistaken basis can be safely reverted, and removing well-sourcing content from articles can be seen as problematic too. Bon courage (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It's WP:ONUS, you're right; not WP:BURDEN, to split hairs here. Sorry to see you cannot demonstrate consensus for your reverted bold edit. From WP:BOLD "Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted." SmolBrane (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, you've produced several arguments why you don't want this text, all apparently fallacious. Please continue any discussions at the article Talk page. Personally, I think removing WHO sources from a a timeline of what's happened wrt COVID in 2023 is bordering on disruption. Bon courage (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Query Regarding Altmed Sidebar and Reverted Edits

Hello, I was curious about the application of the altmed sidebar to the isolation tank article while noticing its absence from the articles on LSD or psilocybin. I believe consistency across related topics is beneficial. Could we discuss the rationale behind this decision?

Moreover, I've invested time in making constructive edits to the isolation tank article, which were recently reverted. I'd greatly appreciate your insights on the reasons behind this revert. Thank you for taking the time to clarify. Kleinhern (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. Please raise any content issues at Talk:Isolation tank so the article's other editors can see. Thanks. Bon courage (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks Kleinhern (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Coley's toxin article

Hi,

why do you keep reverting my edits? Even the minor improvement of the structure of the articles (efficacy should not be discussed in the intro as there is a separate section). Also, why do you remove my reference to a NATURE article and keep quaternary sources such as the (double) link to a UK cancer website?

Best wishes, Frederik. Vanbruystelghem (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. Please raise any content issues at Talk:Coley's toxins so the article's other editors can see. Please be aware that biomedical knowledge needs to be sourced to WP:MEDRS, and that Cancer Research UK is a high-quality WP:MEDORG source. Thanks. Bon courage (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is ජපස. Thank you. Sennalen (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have made a statement. Bon courage (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

FAR

You probably should have been pinged to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Digital media use and mental health/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, it is a FAR FAR better thing you do, than I. Bon courage (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Fluvoxamine additional indications

Back to where we left off with habitual fluvoxamine censoring despite consistent WP:MED, are we? 2A02:C7C:2E9A:F100:E477:FF64:6C0E:D690 (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Huh. I was intrigued by "The Efficacy of Pharmacotherapy for Borderline Personality Disorder: A Review of the Available Randomized Controlled Trials"[47] as potentially viable. But is this article even indexed by PUBMED? Bon courage (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

That journal is in the bottom quintile.[48] I wouldn't recommend it. The publisher isn't bad overall,[49] and the paper itself might be okay, but journals in the bottom quintile are always suspicious (e.g., having above-average rates of copyright violations). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

It's really odd. This IP has been hammering away at fluvoxamine throughout the year. They said they were going to take their case to WT:MED but never did. I've no idea where these edits are coming from, POV-wise. Bon courage (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Shungite article

Thanks for spending time and energy dealing with that editor, much appreciated. Mikenorton (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I also raised this at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Dec 23

I also have to ask you to please drop it, you are also bludgeoning the conversation at Lab leak now, they are an SPA, leave it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think responding to a single interlocutor is bludgeoning, and it is an opportunity to introduce some fresh sources into the discussion. Bludgeoning is more responding to multiple editors' comments in an attempt to dominate. Wouldn't want to get accused of stonewalling right! Bon courage (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

As I implied this is more a case of I have warned them, I have to do the same to you. Frankly, the IP needs to blocked as a clear wp:not account. I will be asking for a formal close soon. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You never know with that page; the number of socks has been remarkable, Bon courage (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

I have nominated several articles on Good Article (GA) status, but some of them have been waiting for months without any feedback.

Here they are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Biology%20and%20medicine

(look for "Maxim Masiutin")

I tried to review other articles myself to reduce the backlog and speed up the process, but it was not very rewarding. Could you please do me a favor and review one of my GA nominations that you think is ready for GA? This would encourage me to create more articles or improve the ones that need more work. I feel frustrated when my nominations are stuck in limbo. :-) Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the cryonics page

You must actually provide a credible source for statements, not simply assert that a source exists without providing any. See WP:SOURCE. KingSupernova (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Please see WP:NOTVAND. If you have any suggestions to improve the article, please make them at Talk:Cryonics. Bon courage (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Kombucha

What does "Was verified before" mean? Also, I don't think "commonly consumed for its purported health benefits" belongs in the definition of Kombucha. TlonicChronic (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It means the text was WP:VERIFIED in the prior version. Bon courage (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If it isn't verified in the current version, it still needs a citation. TlonicChronic (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It's there. Please raise any further points at Talk:Kombucha so other editors can see/participate. Also do remember that ledes don't necessarily need citations (see WP:CITELEDE) so long as the body content being summarised is cited (but in this case the citation is supplied). Bon courage (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)