User talk:Bon courage

Your "simpler" edit in Graphology article

Hi. My edit was specifically meant to remove the absolute, so I don't really agree with your edit making the text "simpler". Proving an absolute is quite hard. You'd have to read the entire sources and show that none of what they examined was worthy of the adjective "scientific". And then you'd have to show that they examined everything out there. You can have good scientific studies, good evidence for particular things, without making up an entire separate "graphology" science. An example of this is that male and female handwriting are graphically discernible by AI analysis, for example (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269992400_Automatic_analysis_of_handwriting_for_gender_classification) Anyway, I appreciate your cooperation and I was hoping you would agree with my explanation here before entering into any sort of edit war :-) Peace. Callmepgr (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't disagree, just provided (what I thought was) more concise, direct, non-absolute wording. In any case, please make any further comment at Talk:Graphology so the article's other editors can see/participate. Bon courage (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I did as you suggested on the article's talk page. Thank you. Happy new year!

Callmepgr (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

McDougall

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.

---

Care to clarify why you removed reference to an excellent study in a reputable journal? Teleoid (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Your edit on Cryonics

When you disagree with another user's edit, the correct approach is to explain why you disagree and attempt to reach a consensus on the subject. Reverting the edit without providing any reasoning for doing so is a violation of WP:WAR. I have started a discussion on the talk page here, please voice your objections there rather than continuing to vandalize the main page. KingSupernova (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh you mean your edit! In fact, an approach editors often use is WP:BRD. Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you hope to acomplish by misrepresenting Wikipedia policies; the rest of us can read. From WP:BRD: "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." KingSupernova (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

As my edit summary said "is sourced". That's my reason to to keep it. Bon courage (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

My edit explained why the source was unreliable. Given that context, stating that a source exists is an irrelevant fact, like if you had stated that the Earth is round. We both agree on that fact and it has no bearing on the subject at hand. You'd need to explain why you believed the source to be reliable. KingSupernova (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

You were wrong though. There's only so much one can put in an edit summary. Where even to start with the misconceptions enshrined in your edit? Bon courage (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Your edit on a contentious alternative medicine topic

I am not saying that the medicine works. I personally don't think it does. However, I can't find evidence that says it doesn't work. Could you at least be a little bit kind and maybe show that source and say "Hey, you missed it, here it is."? I see plenty of sources that say it's false advertising, that makes sense. Do you understand what I'm saying or any of the nuance I'm mentioning here? Also, a talk page or something would've been a little more appropriate from either of us. Fephisto (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, cancer/autism 'cures' from supplements are false claims. If you want to argue the case for softening this into some kind of equivocal framing, please make that case on the article's Talk page. Bon courage (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

can you just provide the source for what you're saying? you sure seem to like asking others for citations, even when their edits are fully in line with the science that has already been cited and are actually fixing the previous editors misunderstanding of them. 154.5.201.230 (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Behavioral optometry

Hi Bon courage,

Happy New Year. How to I get talking to someone about this Wikipedia page? My original point of contact was a moderator called Lou Sander who I personally messaged a couple of days ago and have not had a reply. Given modern technology I am up for a Zoom or Google Meets discussion with moderators. Last time I interacted with Wikipedia after a long discussion I was put in contact with an ER doctor in Canada and we had some fruitful discussions. If I could be put in contact with him again or someone of a similar medical research background (ie someone who has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals as regards medical sciences) that would be great. Otherwise if there are higher powers within Wikipedia who I could talk to via Google Meets or Zoom that would also be great.

Warmest regards Peaceful07 (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thet would be Doc James, who has little to do with Wikipedia editing these days. The best way to get a discussion going is to start one on the article's Talk page. That article (and content in general) does not have 'moderators', and decisions are made through editorial WP:CONSENSUS. Also, be aware of WP:MEDCOI. Bon courage (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bon Courage,

Thank you for the reply. How could I find Doc James on Wikipedia? It would be good to get in contact with him again as he was very friendly and interesting to talk to. Peaceful07 (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You could leave a message at User Talk:Doc James (or email him from there). Please note that Behavioral optometry no longer exists as a standalone article on the English Wikipedia; its content got merged to Vision therapy and discussion about BO content would be best started at Talk:Vision therapy., Bon courage (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

Hello, I'm RudolfoMD. I noticed that you recently removed content from Burzynski Clinic without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page You removed: {{tl|unreliable source|sure=yes|quote=of sixty-one registered trials, he has completed only one and has not published the results of any of them|reason=https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=Burzynski&aggFilters=results:with&limit=50 shows 29 studies with results, all in Houston...|Forbes "contributor" articles are not reliable sources.}}{{tl|fv|reason=https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=Burzynski&aggFilters=results:with&limit=50 shows 29 studies with results, all in Houston and 39 without, all but 6 in Houston}} However, [[clinicaltrials.gov]] shows 29 studies with results.

You are in error.

WP:PROFRINGE/OR/unreliable sourcing is a demonstraby false claim. Please reconsider/adequately explain.

You have re-introduced what is now (I presume due to the passage of time) clear falsehood into the article, "Burzynski has not published results for any of these" which I had removed. If you did so in error, I urge you to self-revert. If you did not, do explain how it is not untrue. https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=Burzynski&aggFilters=results:with&limit=50 is not OR or unreliable sourcing. Do you insist it is? Would citing each of the 29 instead be acceptable?

AS for profRinge: I have no opinion on Burzynski's treatments. I was taking initial steps toward forming one when I stumbled upon outright falsehood in the article. Which I removed and you have restored. RudolfoMD (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

And what part of Forbes "contributor" articles are not reliable sources do you not understand or dispute?

Did you even read what you reverted and warned me over? RudolfoMD (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You also reintroduced two other outright falsehoods, e.g., "Independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies". What on earth are you doing? What part of

However, at least one such study, an RCT by seven Japanese researchers showed neoplastons, according to an article in PLOS One, produced positive results. Specifically, significant efficacy for the primary endpoint, cancer-specific survival, was shown.

do you not understand? RudolfoMD (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

References

It needed updating is all. Linking to a search result at clinicaltrials.gov to make an analytic point certainly is OR, and doing it in 2024 data to try and prove something in 2013 was an 'outright falsehood' is also rather silly. As for 'Did you even read what you reverted?' well, you've rather owned yourself there, as it seems you didn't take in the net effect[1] of my whole edit. Do not use unreliable medical sources like PMID:25790229 for content on Wikipedia, especially in the service of a disgusting health fraud. The relevant sourcing standard for biomedical content is WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Misrepresenting what I tried to prove is silly. It certainly isn't going to convince me I did something silly. What's the point? I was clear. You have re-introduced what is now (I presume due to the passage of time) clear falsehood into the article.

Your subsequent edit ~1 hour after you reverted doesn't excuse that you reintroduced three outright falsehoods, just because it fixed one. I responded to what was visible at the time. Own your screw-up.

And it's silly to lecture me about MEDRS while defending freaking Forbes blog tripe.

I noticed you dodged the question.

• What part of Forbes "contributor" articles are not reliable sources do you not understand or dispute?

I don't know if it's a disgusting health fraud. There are a lot of scams out there, and it could well be one. There are a lot of scammers in medicine. The best have convinced most folks they're not scammers. I bet you've read none of the results of the 29 studies, so you don't know what it is either, but rather are trusting what others have written about it.

"Independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies" is (I presume due to the passage of time) not accurate. Policy doesn't allow lies in articles. [pmid:25790229 PMID:25790229] proves positive results were reproduced. DO NOT put lies back into wikipedia. RudolfoMD (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia needs to be WP:VERIFIED, not conform to your external concept of Truth™. Sometimes content is outdated, and can be updated. It is well verified that this clinic's claims have not been confirmed by independent sources. You have been warned about making problem edits in this topic space. Please take that warning seriously. Bon courage (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes content is outdated, and can be updated.
— User:Bon courage 10:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I updated. You didn't keep any of the updates I made. You threw it ALL out. What did I put in the article that didn't improve the article with respect to NPOV? I'm not edit warring with you. So why are you threatening me a second time?

Do you think "There is no convincing evidence" is clear wording? I don't. RudolfoMD (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"NCI observed that researchers other than Burzynski and his associates have not been successful in duplicating his results" is outdated. You rejected my update. What update is acceptable to you? RudolfoMD (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you think "There is no convincing evidence" is clear wording? ← yes, that's good style for Wikipedia

Any edits that were in line with the applicable WP:PAGS would surely garner consensus. If you have any, perhaps propose them at the article's Tall page. Bon courage (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Acrylamide. 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. i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acrylamide&diff=prev&oldid=1196348004 RudolfoMD (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I've protected the article for three days. I've noticed there's no recent discussion on the talk page, however there should be. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing

Your vote here was very perceptive about the judgement and style of the candidate; it's too bad it didn't carry more weight in that discussion. --JBL (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

acrylamide

With all due respect: Your revert reinstates a particular opinion that stands against all others from various institutes. And the general opinion is "potential carcinogenic", period. Whom are you trying to please here? --Kku (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The Gods of Knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Kindly try to please the Gods of Literacy as well and take some time to read through the paragraph dealing with toxicity. You will find startling arguments in there. If that doesn't help, I am afraid, I will have to doubt your impartiality. -- Kku (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Get with the modern evidence. There was an acrylamide scare, CRUK as of 2021 says the idea it causes cancer is a myth with no evidence. Yes, it might turn well out that it is technically carcinogenic ... but in food at the amounts humans eat? You might as well say ripe bananas are carcinogenic. No, the evidence on human exposure to acrylamide is to the contrary, as the article already describes. Bon courage (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Controlled animal studies beat epidemiological dietary evidence. Diet surveys cannot lead to high qulity evidence.

ACS says: Based on current research, some of these organizations have made the following determinations:

• The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies acrylamide as a “probable human carcinogen.”
• The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) has classified acrylamide as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”  
• The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies acrylamide as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

It's in the bloody source for the text you two are fighting over!

CRUK seems to be way way over its skis. RudolfoMD (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you need to read what I wrote. And stop WP:FOLLOWING me and reverting edits, In particular adding to the article lede that acrylamide has "so far" only been classified as a probable carcigonen is pure WP:CRYSTAL POV and contrary to the sourcing. Things can be technically carcinogenic (or probbly so) yet pose no risk in reality at the doses in play. See also, mobile phones and glyphosate. Bon courage (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Holy moly. Your writing that in response to the comment above it with sources proving it wrong before I've even responded is... EPIC. Controlled animal studies can show something to be carcinogenic even if epidemiological dietary evidence can't. Editing accordingly is the opposite of CRYSTAL.
FOLLOW NPOV. By all means, the article should and (IIRC) does mention that CRUK as of 2021 says the idea it causes cancer is a myth with no evidence, but don't' put it in wikipedia's voice. Why?
The problem is what you wrote is a medical claim that does not represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources, not that I didn't read it. The sources are overwhelmingly on my side; I noted three of them in my previous comment. "You need to" back the hell off and not order people around.
I'm not following you. As you should know. I came here to follow up on (link to) your removing content from Burzynski Clinic without adequately explaining why, and then refusing to engage when I said: "researchers other than Burzynski and his associates have not been successful in duplicating his results" is outdated. You rejected my update. What update is acceptable to you? Then while on the page, I saw THIS discussion about and your hostility to Kku and looked into the issue about acrylamide.
Consider yourself warned about making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor following you around. And your argument is so weak. Look at the LD50 of the carcinogen. They're right there in the acrylamide infobox. ~100mg. That not a lot. A 50 packets of chips can have that much. And I'm sure plenty of people have had several packets of chips in a day and that many in a month. And it does seem to do harm according to doctors and blood tests. RudolfoMD (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Controlled animal studies can show something to be carcinogenic even if epidemiological dietary evidence can't ← that's your personal random POV and wrong in respect of acrylamide as humans and rodents absorb and process it differently. Simply put, for humans there no consistent evidence that dietary acrylamide exposure is associated with the risk of any type of cancer. No reliable source says otherwise. Bon courage (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Speaking as someone with decades of real-life experience in animal studies, what animal studies can show in this case is that acrylamide can be carcinogenic in the animal species tested, under the conditions and at the dosages that were tested. They do not necessarily show carcinogenicity in humans at levels that normally occur in human exposure. We have to follow WP:MEDRS, so we need review articles about what happens in humans, at human levels of exposure, if we are going to make statements about carcinogenicity in humans. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"In vitro studies and animal models serve a central role in research, and are invaluable in determining mechanistic pathways and generating hypotheses. However, in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings. Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans. The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to a reader."

Your claim about what we need doesn't follow from that.

Animal studies show a much more serious problem than you claim. This is sobering:
|LD₅₀ (median dose)
100-200 mg/kg (mammal, oral)
107 mg/kg (mouse, oral)
150 mg/kg (rabbit, oral)
150 mg/kg (guinea pig, oral)
124 mg/kg (rat, oral)^[5]. These are for acute toxicity, not carcinogenicity. "It has been shown that acrylamide is moderate to high in acute oral toxicity."-McCollister. Carcinogenicity can of course be expected at lower doses.

Relevant to point out WRT this data: Rabbits aren't rodents. And humans are mammals.

Safety decisions are routinely made based on animal study data, and as someone with decades of real-life experience in animal studies, surely you know that.

Does MEDRS say controlled animal studies beat epidemiological dietary evidence, or the reverse, or something in-between? I don't think it says explicitly. I do think most experts would say controlled animal studies beat epidemiological human dietary evidence. Can you refute my claim that Diet surveys do not lead to high quality evidence with reliable sources?

Did I misquote the ACS? Why should we ignore that evidence?

ScottishFinnishRadish: This is screwy article content:
Despite health scares following its discovery in 2002, and its possible classification as a carcinogen, acrylamide from diet is thought unlikely to cause cancer in humans. Why?

1) It's a known (animal) carcinogen. Not "possible". APpropriate would be, "its classification as a known animal carcinogen and possible human one,..."
2)"acrylamide from diet is thought unlikely to cause cancer in humans" is a minority opinion, and should be described as such.

I notice you're not disputing what I said about 50 packets of chips . RudolfoMD (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

You cherry picked the ACS to omit:

• It’s important to note that these determinations are based mainly on studies in lab animals, and not on studies of people’s exposure to acrylamide from foods.
• reviews of studies done in groups of people (epidemiologic studies) suggest that dietary acrylamide isn’t likely to be related to risk for most common types of cancer.

and yes you are engaging in OR about crisps in a way which would further the myth that our MEDRS source is cautioning about. To repeat: there no consistent evidence that dietary acrylamide exposure is associated with the risk of any type of cancer.[2] Also note the ACS has a more recent communication on acrylamide.[3] Bon courage (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Meticulous and differentiated weighing of the scientific evidence is of course instrumental in producing a non-biased article. No doubts. By putting the most uncontroversial and singular finding at the top, however, you are blatantly downplaying the risk of acrylamide consumption for the naive reader, especially for those that struggle to read through the more involved parts further down. All in all this is dangerous oversimplification and misleading. Your offhanded remarks about "gods of knowledge", mobile phones and glyphosate further go to show that you do not appear to strive for an unbiased introduction to the topic. As I see it: if you are completely happy following your own agenda and believing in your own infallability, you should do so within the scope of personal projects, but not in WP. -- Kku (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Facepalm I strive to WP:FOC and I get this kind of juvenile personalisation and insinuation about 'agendas' with not a source in sight. Look Kku, here is how it works: your ideas about "the risk of acrylamide consumption" do not matter. Neither do mine. To achieve NPOV about cancer effects we cite the WP:BESTSOURCES, i.e. the two foremost cancer-focused WP:MEDORGs on the planets, CRUK and ACS. Here is what they say about "the risk of acrylamide consumption":

• ACS (2022): "Acrylamide is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a “probable carcinogen,” based mainly on experiments in animals. However, a large number of studies in humans have found no strong evidence that dietary acrylamide is linked with an increased risk of any type of cancer."[4]
• CRUK (2021): "Eating foods high in acrylamide, like toast, charred root vegetables or roast potatoes will not increase your risk of cancer".

These people know the field. Random Wikipedia editors do not. What these orgs say corresponds well to what we currently have in the article lede. You, it seems, would have Wikipedia follow some kind of dumb tabloid logic whereby as soon as the word 'carcinogenic' is even mentioned then it's OMG it can cause cancer! And yes, this mirrors the same thing that happened with mobile phones and glyphosate, and feeds exactly those 'myths' which CRUK is warning about. Wikipedia is better than that, and you need to be better than that. Bon courage (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

No I didn't. I quoted one large section from the top of the ACS document. If you feed the stuff to animals, they get lots of cancer. Yet you repeat "there no consistent evidence that dietary acrylamide exposure is associated with the risk of any type of cancer." What nonsense. Yes the source says that is true IN HUMANS. It's still a false general statement. It is not supported by the source as a general statement.

You don't dispute that
I accurately quoted the ACS.
Carcinogenicity can of course be expected at lower doses.
Safety decisions are routinely made based on animal study data.
It's highly toxic to primates, as I just noted on the talk page.

It's highly regulated in the EU:
https://www.bakeryandsnacks.com/Article/2022/09/15/Changes-to-acrylamide-regulations-in-2023-What-biscuit-and-cookie-manufacturers-need-to-know2#:~:text=EU%20Regulation%202017%2F2158%20on,maximum%20level%20of%20500%20ppm. RudolfoMD (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Nobody cares about cancer just in lab animals. And if you start talking about something 'causing cancer' the reader will always assume it's in human beings. What you call "nonsense" is a direct quotation from the NCI. Hint: Wikipedia follows such reliable sources. EU regulation sounds wise, as acrylamide has various toxicities, but as to cancer you've owned yourself a bit with that link, which observes:

A systematic review published in Frontiers of Nutrition in April 2022 even concluded there was no association between high dietary acrylamide exposure and increased risk of any of the investigated cancers, including those of oral cavity, oesophageal, gastric, colon-rectal, pancreatic, prostate, bladder, lung, renal, lymphoma, myeloma, thyroid, brain, larynx and melanoma.

Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Organic Food

Hello Bon courage, The review Brantsæter et al. cites 5 publications to justify the list of confounding factors. You removed most of the factors. You did this 10 minutes after I inserted the sentence. Are you so familiar with all 5 publications that you can dismiss them like that?

The following two reviews (in addition to Brantsaeter) cite income as a confounding factor. Should I now reinstate the list of confounds citing three reviews? I initially did not want to burden the section further with citations to factors that from my own observations in my surroundings seem to be self evident. But I am happy to cite all three reviews. Or perhaps you know a lot more than I do about the subject. What do you think?

A Systematic Review of Organic Versus Conventional Food Consumption: Is There a Measurable Benefit on Human Health? Vanessa Vigar, Stephen Myers, Christopher Oliver , Jacinta Arellano , Shelley Robinson and Carlo Leifert. Nutrients 2020, 12(1), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12010007

Azizur Rahman, Parnian Baharlouei, Eleanor Hui Yan Koh, Diana Gabby Pirvu, Rameesha Rehmani, Mateo Arcos, Simron Puri. A Comprehensive Analysis of Organic Food: Evaluating Nutritional Value and Impact on Human Health. Foods 2024, 13 (2) , 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13020208 Bosula (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I based my edit on the relevant portion of the single cited review, not "5 publications". I suggest discussion of the context would be better at the article's Talk page. Bon courage (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

OK. I'll make a comment there. I'll copy the relevant text in. I suspect that they mention the confounding factors more than once in the paper, and you noted a thinner version. Bosula (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I made a comment on the talk page. Please have a look. Bosula (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Bon courage (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Invective in edit summary. Thank you. Nutez (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sheesh! Bon courage, I wrote in your defense there. This type of revenge is petty. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I think my time was better spend asleep! Disappointing that nobody picked up that "fuckdoodle" is an intensification of "flapdoodle".[5]. Bon courage (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I wish I'd seen this thread before it was closed. I don't think anyone's ever called me anything as sweet and cuddly as "fuckdoodle". Phil Bridger (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I love this comment (without formatting): "ScottishFinnishRadish, indeed, "fucknoodle" would be eligible for a "coolest edit summary" award, if anything. Bishonen | tålk 22:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)."[6] You could frame this on your wall. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to wonder what was going through SFR's mind when they typed 'fucknoodle'. The D and N keys are quite distant, so it's no simple typo. Bon courage (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Just don't fuck a poodle (unless you're another poodle). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Never a good idea to wikt:screw the pooch! Bon courage (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you dog! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This isn't going to be an excuse that answers any questions, but my phone autocorrected to that. I don't think I've ever used fucknoodle either, but I did manage an adult store 17 or so years ago, so maybe I did? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

General edit philosophy

We've had a couple disagreements over edits now, specifically relating to the leads in medical pages, and in the interest of avoiding acrimonious disputes I thought it would be better to have a productive conversation about editing philosophies. (If you don't want to discuss anything further, no worries, just say so).

It seems that the general view of you and other seasoned editors in these areas is that of the skeptical movement – not that you or they are literally part of this movement, or identify with it, but rather that Wikipedia policies are taken to embody its general principles, within certain parameters. Is that a fair characterization? I just feel sort of confused, because I have a hard time getting my brain to a place where the policies are aligned with that level of skepticism (and I am not saying that such skepticism is bad, just that I have a hard time reading the policies as embodying it). But maybe there is a history of arbitration decisions that have formally clarified these matters, or other things that I am missing. AtavisticPillow (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

First of all let me reassure you I detect no 'acrimony' either from me, or you, or indeed anyone in the recent discussions we've been in. As to the 'Skeptical movement' personally I feel jaundiced about that whole phenomenon, which largely seemed to me to be an American thing anyway (I put it in the past tense, since the death of James Randi and the story arc of Michael Shermer has rather thrown that movement into disarray). There, the main criteria for entry seemed to be little more than to dunk on homeopathy and cleave to the words of Richard Dawkins; all very easy in more innocent times. Now it's all more complex than that, but on Wikipedia there is this saving notion of WP:NPOV, and in particular the WP:FRINGESUBJECTS and WP:PSCI sections of that, which mean that - yes - Wikipedia does have its thumb on the scale in favour of a rational, mainstream, dare I say orthodox, worldview. That is probably why Wikipedia has consistently been cited by scholars as resistant to misinformation in general and medical misinformation in particular. As a final observation I'd add that you only seem to have edited in FRINGE medical topic areas so far. That probably isn't a good way to get a feel for how Wikipedia works overall. Bon courage (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, that's really helpful. I'm basically a novice editor (as you know), and what got me interested in this stuff was seeing a family member who had serious lasting effects from a brain injury successfully diagnosed with convergence insufficiency and successfully treated with neuro-optometric rehabilitation (lasting effects just were the CI). This led me out of sheer theoretical interest (prior to anything on Wikipedia) familiarizing myself with a good deal of recent tertiary sources on concussion, which all treated "vision therapy" is a viable treatment option in certain TBI cases. When I then saw that the Wikipedia article did not reflect that at all, I made what I think you call the "Big Mistake." I appreciate you taking the time and being patient with me as we discussed these things; I imagine it is frustrating to confront the same attitude and the same mistake so regularly (I also probably should have disclosed a more or less personal experience with VT sooner, based on my reading of COI at the time I wasn't sure it was pertinent).

But in any case, the VT case got me interested in how fringe topics are discussed more generally on Wikipedia, which led me to surf around other such issues and see how they were discussed. So you're absolutely right that that what I'm looking at isn't what is representative of Wikipedia as a whole. Alas, I probably find the fringe stuff interesting because it presents all sorts of interesting philosophical issues about certainty, neutrality, the status of scientific knowledge, and so on. (Incidentally, if you asked me personally how I feel about acupuncture, I would tell you that I feel it is quackery! I just remain unsure that Wikipedia is or should be in the business of foregrounding that characterization so prominently). And I still have trouble seeing WP:FRINGE as demanding quite the level of skepticism others seem to feel it requires – but it's probably best for my blood pressure just to let it go. AtavisticPillow (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, just passing by and the word “acupuncture” got my attention. I can tell you personally that no, it’s not quackery (I’ve never heard of anyone saying that it’s quackery except here at Wikipedia, I’d never tried it though). That said, I’m not sure if it’s efficacy is the same for different places. What I mean is, for example, would the result be different if it’s done with a needle made in India, instead of a needle made in the US? Would the result be different if the needle is made with metal A, but not metal B? Or, just the length of the needle could make a difference? Would the angle of insertion affects the efficacy? For how long should the needle be inserted? And so on ... These are just some hypothetical examples. The “standard practice” probably varies for different places. I won’t be surprised if people in a place, who don’t know much about an alternative therapy, or haven’t heard of many successful cases about it, would tend to call it “quackery”, though I can tell you that’s a *very* rare opinion in some (very large) parts of the world. IMHO, a failed surgery that results in some permanent disabilities in a person maybe even more dangerous and “quackery”. Anyway, I do agree very much with you that one needs to take good care of their own blood pressure (or other similar health issues), so I’d better stay out of this contentious issue ;-) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Or just use a toothpick[7] ! Bon courage (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

My post above wasn’t a reply to your post. I was replying to AtavisticPillow.

So you are citing the dated (2013, over ten years ago) work from the personal homepage of this person, who is “known for criticism of pseudo-science”.

And I’m surprised by your attitude. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, it was an editorial in a scholarly journal (Anesthesia & Analgesia). Surely an eminent scientist who is a critic of pseudoscience is just the kind of expert who is valuable when considering acupuncture (which is a pseudoscience)? Bon courage (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a number of policies that necessitate limiting medical claims to those that are supported by strong evidence. Room for disagreement about how to best implement and characterize that desideratum (as evidenced above). I happen to suspect acupuncture's effects on pain are largely due to the placebo effect; there could be specific forms or practices of acupuncture (different insertion points or whatever) that are better than a placebo for pain relief, but it's hard to say with any certainty.

Pseudoscience is just when beliefs claim a scientific validity for themselves but are incompatible with the scientific method, because the beliefs themselves are not revised in the face of countervailing evidence. Acupuncture is pretty clearly that; if acupuncturists at large began to respond to evidence of what worked and what does not, it would no longer be pseudoscience. Other things are harder to classify: imo vision therapy contains a mix of scientific and pseudo-scientific practices, as does (in my view) much contemporary psychology. AtavisticPillow (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, acupuncture posits a system of bodily channels which maps onto the river systems in China, and through which flows an unknown form of energy which can be harnessed for therapeutic effect by inserting needles at the correct points. So yeah, some kind of pseudoscience. If 'placebo' causes pain reduction then it's not down to the acupuncture, but the overall experience. Bon courage (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Although insofar as acupuncture has been integrated into contemporary Western medical practice, the theory is often dropped and the practice of putting needles into certain areas is maintained. In theory this practice *could* attain scientific standing, if it could be shown with good data that needles in certain locations relieve pain better than a placebo. Seems unlikely to me though. AtavisticPillow (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Acupuncture without the woo? That would be dry needling. I wouldn't hold my breath for it turning out at all worthwhile given the vast body of research so far, and no convincing sign of any strong signals amid the noise. Bon courage (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The same can be said for a lot of the existing "scientific" (i.e., conventional) treatments that attempt to address the same problems (e.g., chronic muscle pain). We don't have reliable treatments.

AtavisticPillow, some years back, there was a proposal to adopt at Wikipedia:Scientific point of view. It failed. However, we basically defined "reliable sources" in a way that only accepts conventional medicine (e.g., textbooks from medical school but not textbooks from altmed schools), so the end result is the same for medical content. In non-medical content (and for non-biomedical aspects of disease and health), a wider variety of sources is accepted, and the focus is more on accurately labeling the views (e.g., "Theists believe X, and atheists believe Y") than on making sure readers know which view is correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. It's wider than medicine though because of WP:FRINGE. So on topics like dubious ancient civilizations, the age of the Earth, extraterrestrial visitors, perpetual motion etc, Wikipedia will also be keen to say what is "correct". Bon courage (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

(And for chronic pain, some of the 'orthodox' treatments are bad too. Paracetamol for example seems to be pretty much useless and has a terrible safety profile). Bon courage (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

But it's great in combination with oxycodone. Note: WP:OR violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Triptofish? Is this the 'paracetamol handles the lows and the opioid handles the peaks' pain control idea? I've been given this combo too with that rationale. Bon courage (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Triptofish was my rationale. And the civilized world calls it acetaminophen. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

BC, you know me, and you know that I'm no defender of woo content. I want you to know that I think you are being too quick to revert to what you want on the page, and you need to engage with what I have been pointing out in talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that Tryptofish, TBH I hadn't really taken in the material after the break, which is my fault. I have hopefully made amends by responding ... Bon courage (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I've responded to your responses. And, with the new sources that you found, I've changed my mind back to where we were before: [8]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Your recent edits on the Cancer Alley page

Hello @Bon courage. I saw you reverted most of my recent edit on Cancer Alley. While I think most of the reversions are fine, assuming we want to stick to a more minimalist philosophy on the page, I did want to ask if you could elaborate on your changes to the "Pollution and cancer rates" section. Seeing that section prior to my edit was what actually inspired me to make my edit, as I believed it was deceptively inadequate, and still is. I added information about numerous studies which discussed elevated rates of pollution and cancer in the region, which decades of literature appears to support. However, you simply reverted it all so that it simply says "there is debate" about the cancer rates, which is referenced by just one study, which itself finds that Cancer Alley is "a region of excessively high cancer risk". I believe that excluding numerous peer reviewed and published scientific papers on the matter does not support the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) rationale you cited as the reason for your reversion. I also believe that replacing it with one sentence that simply there "there is debate" with little elaboration may fall foul of the balance guidelines of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Could you explain how exactly your edits are supported by the WP:MEDRS policy you cited, especially in how it pertains to your removal of numerous research papers? No ill will on my end, just curious. Amtoastintolerant (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The trouble is the dearth of reliable (WP:MEDRS) sources on this. We need sources that meet that guideline, not primary research. Unfortunately the EPA effort to look at this has failed. This is already being discussed on the article Talk page: I suggest continuing there? Bon courage (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for input on the circumcision section of the article "Human Penis"

Hi Bon courage! I noticed that you are a frequent editor on the circumcision article and talkpage and thought I would see if I could get you to take a look at this recent edit[9] made on January 24 on the article "Human penis". I'm leaning towards the paragraph probably needing to be outright removed (or, at a very minimum, heavily modified) because, despite being heavily sourced, it seems to be seriously lacking WP:NPOV (and especially WP:DUE) to me, but you seem to be more aware of the current research and consensus on male circumcision than I am, so I wanted to see what your opinion was on it. I considered starting a discussion on the article talkpage instead of posting here, but wanted to run things by someone with knowledge about the topic to make sure I wasn't off base on such a contentious topic. Wikipedialuva (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that you are a frequent editor on the circumcision article and talkpage ← Yes, you can check-out but you can't leave! I don't intend to get involved in another penis article, but I notice this (exact?) same content was also inserted into the circumcision article. Bon courage (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Great catch! The two accounts' edits aren't word for word the same, but they are extremely similar (similar sources, the same people mentioned (J. Steven Svoboda and Kameel Ahmady), ect.), which doesn't even begin to get into the accounts' similar timing, editing interests, and editing styles. I filed an SPI report (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aria1990). The edit was already reverted on the "Circumcision" article. I'm debating between reverting the edit now on the "Human penis" article now, or waiting for SPI investigate first. Thanks for all your work on the circumcision article and for letting me know about the similar edits! Wikipedialuva (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wikipedialuva Ooh, confirmed and blocked along with the rest of a mini sock farm. Thanks for pursuing this! Bon courage (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Civility

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

---

Please refrain from making abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries or comments, as you did to Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Your edit summary or comment may have been removed. Please communicate with civility and refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you. When removing a post that an ip user made expressing concerns, you stated in the edit summary, "Rv. dumb/trolling". Thinker78 (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You'd better take it up with the admin who first cleaned this nonsense up. Enabling trolls is not a good idea, and edit-warring in their service is doubly bad. Bon courage (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If possible please stop following me around the pages I edit in[10][11]. I am seeking uninvolved community input in an objective manner. Your input is involved, biased, and unnecessary, and seems to be for the effect to stop any further input from other editors. Kindly read the hounding policy. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2024 (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.

Refactoring Talk Page Comments

[12] I hadn't noticed you'd attempted to refactor my comments in violation of WP:TPG. Had I done so I would have gone to WP:ANI immediately, so you can thank Thomas for reverting you. I would suggest that if you can't add to a dicussion you stop with the petty point scoring, the bad faith comments and the personal attacks. WCM_email 12:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Golly! – accusations of "bad faith", "personal attacks" and "point-scoring" (without any evidence, mind). It all sounds incredibly serious. Except, my irony meter just exploded because I never "attempted to refactor your comments in violation of WP:TPG". (Add: the diff you give is me quietly removing contentious unsourced information you added about a person, which is completely off-topic to boot. Swift aggressive action was needed so that's what I took, and contacted an admin. However sources were subsequently supplied so the issue did not need pursuing. By all means raise this at ANI as I'd repeat the same action given the same scenario. You'll get boomeranged though.) Bon courage (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

NPA

Hi Bon, I understand that you're frustrated, but I have no intention of discussing my motives based on 8-year old blogposts I wrote while the events were still going on. I'm pretty sure that it violates WP:NPA to refer to them. I've had to disengage with one other user so far, and I will do the same with you if you don't delete the comment. If you continue to refer, directly or otherwise, to off-wiki writings in order to cast aspersions on my motives, I will seek help from administrators. Like I say, I understand that this has become unpleasant and missteps like this can happen. But I hope you'll just remove the remarks so we can move forward. Best, Thomas B (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't you think you should be declaring a WP:COI? If you have a particular issue with my comment, I suggest you reply at WP:ANI where countless administrators are watching. Bon courage (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Noted. Thomas B (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not post to my talk page. Thomas B (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, except of course for necessary alerts like what I just posted. You're welcome to post here! Bon courage (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked users

You might want to find "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets (under ===Appearance===, more than 75% of the way down the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hah! I have that, but I couldn't have scrolled enough on the page to see this one! Bon courage (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I run it directly in global.js at Meta-Wiki. It's useful, especially for avoiding pinging people who will be unable to reply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Nova Science Publishers, Neutrality, & Talk Page

Hi. Not out to cause any trouble, but was surprised by a statement which looks to be derogatory or prejudicial, and appears to need some debate on. You appeared to have almost immediately reverted the change and while the new section in talk was being created. Please refer to the new section on their talk page. Thanks.Wukuendo (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I replied there. This was originally added by @KoA and I see no particular problem with it. This is a pay-to-play dodgy press we're talking about right? Bon courage (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, from what I recall, it was pretty well sourced that the quality was highly subject from that publisher. KoA (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent Edits too the Psilocybin page

Hi, Bon Courage. I'm currently editing the Psilocybin page as part of a course through my medical school and I noticed you removed my most recent edit for using "dodgy" sources. In my time researching, I've found the Oxford Journal of Psychopharmacology, Frontiers in Psychiatry, and especially Behavioral Sciences to be quite reputable sources. The new research is quite important to talk about, especially when medically minded individuals come to the page as that's the most likely reason they may seek it out in contemporary time. If you'd be willing to be a little more descriptive, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Thank you! ChasYoung4 (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Please raise any article content issues at Talk:Psilocybin. Thanks. Bon courage (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

MDM -Pure XTC - removed topic

I want more explanation why you removed this with the remark "unreliable". All references are from reliable sources. If you type the name of Danny Leclère in e.g. Google you find a huge amount of articles from reliable sources all telling the same story. These are not only articles from that period: the topic is nowadays a hot topic - especially in Belgium and The Netherlands - after the release of documentary "Bad Bad Belgium" in which the life of Leclère is told. This documentary is also one of the references I've used. I admit most of the articles you find are in Dutch or French language but all of them tell the same facts. Ino mart (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

In fact "unreliable/undue". If you think this material tells us anything useful about MDMA, please raise at Talk:MDMA. Bon courage (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Lifestyle medicine

You might be interested in improving this article. I removed a lot of nonsense from it recently. There's a good overview here [13]. The lifestyle medicine has been highjacked by functional medicine and alternative medicine proponents. Also fringe figures like Caldwell Esselstyn. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Wonder if we need both this and Wellness (alternative medicine) ? Bon courage (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting I had never seen that article before. The Eight Dimensions of Wellness are very similar to the 6 pillars of lifestyle medicine. The lifestyle medicine has evidence behind it but appears to have been taken over by fringe proponents who claim it can reverse many diseases. I will probably wait a while until better sources come to light. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Barnard's latest book

What did you not like about (including) Neal Barnard's latest book?MaynardClark (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Is it of note? Please make a case at the article Talk page. Bon courage (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Original Research - Carnivore Diet

You locked the topic on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carnivore_diet "LDL and Cardiovascular Disease" citing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR

Perhaps you saw the sources I cited were links to journal articles and therefore dismissed them as original research

But the original research page actually gives the example: "For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research" One of the sources I cited was a literature review

The other was a meta-analysis of published studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Medrs explains: "It is normally best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible."

So you are dimissing (and locking discussion) claiming that I am presenting original research, but wiki's policies on original research and medical reliable sources give the kind of sources I give as examples of appropriate or even best sources.

Moreover, you failed to address the point I made that the existing source for the claim in question is a journalist not citing any expert, textbook, studies, etc for that particular claim Even if you disagree with my (implied) suggested change of content, the existing claim should have a citation to a proper source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:580:67D0:60BB:7F1C:B88C:4997 (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The point is that for claims about the 'carnivore diet' you need sources about the 'carnivore diet'. Bon courage (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Your point does not redeem the existing poor-quality source.

The existing claim is clearly a biomedical claim, as laid out in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biomedical_information

Specifically:

"Health effects

Whether human health is affected by a particular substance, practice, environmental factor, or other variable; what those effects are, how and when they occur or how likely they are, at what levels they occur, and to what degree; whether the effects (or the original variables) are safe, nutritious, toxic, beneficial, detrimental, etc."

Meat consumption is clearly a practice which might be any of "safe, nutritious, toxic, beneficial, detrimental" and LDL is a substance which might be any of those things.

The standard for such information is: "Generally speaking, such information should be supported by a reputable biomedical source, such as review articles, higher-level medical textbooks, and professional reference works."

The biomedical guideline eventually concludes:

"Biomedical information not sourced to a WP:MEDRS may be removed in accord with WP:BURDEN which states "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". If WP:MEDRS can be found to support the information, and it is relevant and encyclopedic, then ideally provide a better source yourself. If you cannot find an appropriate source but the material seems accurate, consider adding a tag."

I found higher-quality sources, which happen to reach the opposite conclusion of the cited journalist regarding the impact of the substance LDL, hence my suggestion to either revise the article or improve the source.

Substantial removal of sourced content

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Neuroplastic effects of pollution. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Facepalm. Rather than incompetently templating me, you'd do better to comment at the thread on WT:MED on just this matter. Bon courage (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

XRV

Due to your recent editing history I have submitted a XRV for review. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

What's an XRV? Bon courage (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about: they were trying to snitch on you at Wikipedia:Administrative action review, and I removed it. They're quickly headed towards a block for disruption. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, is this the 'COVID came from Canadian lab in summer' IPv6? They all look alike to me. Bon courage (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

They're blocked for a month now, but their history suggests there might be more edits from the bingo card of conspiracy theories. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring notice

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

---

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. 86.187.171.52 (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Errrm, I think you're at 5RR now and somebody has reported you to WP:AN3. I suggest you focus your attention there. Bon courage (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

No. Two separate edits. One where you inexplicably removed the single publication, and then your wholesale removal of the entire list, obviously in an attempt to make a point. 86.187.171.52 (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant. 5RR is 5RR. Anyway, tell it to the admins. Bon courage (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2024 (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.

Is International Journal of Impotence Research not a medical source?

I was going to delete the "medical citation needed" tag at Androgen replacement therapy, as International Journal of Impotence Research seems like a medical journal. But then I saw that you added it [14], and you clearly know more about this than I do. Or are you looking for a secondary source for the statement?Stix1776 (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The source is fine except that it's 18 years old - so that might not be the right tag! Bon courage (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. If I have a minute, I'll look for a better source. Thanks.Stix1776 (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

PRO-CENSORSHIP EDIT REVERTION

YOU WILL *IMMEDIATELY* CEASE YOUR CENSORSHIP CAMPAIGN AGAINST MY CORRECTIONS TO THE PAGE ABOUT ROBERT MALONE. Delt01 (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Delt01: Bon courage was not the only editor to revert you at Robert W. Malone. Wikipedia does not promote unscientific nonsense; see WP:FRINGE. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on Do you really, actually believe the bullshit big-pharma/corporate propaganda that's on the Robert Malone page right now? Or is someone paying you or controlling you in some other way to push these blatant lies? YOU ARE EITHER EXTREMELY STUPID, like Idiocracy level stupid, OR A PIECE OF SHIT LIAR AND ACCOMPLICE to probably the biggest and most cowardly crime ever committed against humanity in its entire history.

In these past 10 or so years ESPECIALLY since the covid pangimmick i've watched this wikishittia go from an ok-ish but extremely biased source for SOME forms of information on a few topics, to yet another complete shithole of a mouthpiece for globalist propaganda & lies just like all of mainstream media. If Jimmy wales isn't completely and utterly ashamed of what this has become, he very damn well SHOULD be. Delt01 (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Your rant reminds me of this: https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/rsd4je/wrong_way_drivers_are_interesting_if_you_see_one/. Your rudeness is a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL. Have a nice day, Robby.is.on (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"Pangimmick" is a new one though. I'm fascinated by the new rise of the "COVID wasn't real" idea. Bon courage (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Appreciation

I wanted to reach out and let you know that I won't be able to continue our conversation about Massacre of the Innocents. The last month has been a lot of me going back and forth with editors on talk pages. Unlike editors of all identities who have generally used cruel or demeaning language, you remained calm and civil. Your politeness and willingness to recognize an impasse is a credit to the project. Thank you for your hard work. However, I can not trust myself to carry on the conversation with any patience, which you very much deserve. While I continue to disagree, I find the current state of the article suitable because it is more aligned with WP:V than it was a few days ago. Thank you very much, again, for your civility in disagreement. Let me know if you ever need a second pair of eyes on something—I'll gladly work with you. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup

I won't be participating too actively in any further discussion. Now that the consensus has been implemented (and has been more or less stable for about a week), I'm happy to let cooler heads assess it. My personal view is that the editors who support the expanded version should, out of respect for S Marshall's close, revert to the short version and begin to expand the rest of the article. When it reaches about 5000 words, there will be room 250 words about the controversy, tempered by 250 words about his documentable views on women in science, which are altogether positive, the controversy notwithstanding. Thomas B (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not paying any attention to the article, but from memory I think Hunt's sexism escapade actually attracted rather more scholarly attention than his scientific achievements. That may be unfair, and a gloomy reflection of the World we live in, but a strict application of WP:PROPORTION might see things tilted even more in the 'sexism' direction. Be careful what you wish for! Bon courage (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Peace

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.

---

Dove peace

Hi there; I believe what you do is for the good of the project and I think you would agree with me that we don’t want to put our wikifriends in a difficult situation. I have no interest in getting anyone sanctioned, though I do hope we can have more good, civil, AGF active editors and a better encyclopaedia. IMO our goal is the same. I really appreciate some of your work in guarding Wikipedia against misinformation, e.g. in the discussions at the COVID-related talk pages. I hope I’ve made myself clear and I look forward to have better collaboration with you in the future. Best, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we can agree we want more good active editors; ultimately it's all about the content! Bon courage (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

By the way, chagning[15] this message to make it (even more) passive aggressive comes off as really fake and disingenuous. I think you've been told about this before by other editors, but your approach is just going to piss people off. Do not post to this Talk page again. Bon courage (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2024 (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.

Arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Thinker78 (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I assume this is because you're still upset about my removal of the "chemtrails are racist" comment? Although I can't tell as I'm not even mentioned in your complaint. If you think a number of admins have gone rogue and are - uh - "censoring" Wikipedia, you would need to have raised it an WP:AN and failed to resolve it there. Not having done so, there's not a hope in hell arbcom will be interested in this, even if it had some merit (which it doesn't). Hello? Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC); 19:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Havana Syndrome

I thanked you in error. The new information is heavily sourced and highly relevant, and absolutely belongs in the article. Matza Pizza (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS

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.

---

Are you aware of WP:CANVASS? I believe this post [16] in relation to the ongoing discussion here Talk:Havana syndrome/Archive 6#Adding the new investigative report? is a violation of that principle. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you aware of WP:CANVASS ← Of course I am. You seem not to understand though? Noticeboards are great for widening consensus. Bon courage (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Not if you word a noticeboard notification in a non neutral way. A notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. I would suggest you re-read WP:CANVASS and reword your notification more neutrally. Your entire notification pushes your view on other editors and compromises the normal consensus decision-making process. If you won't amend it I will have to report it. Thanks. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I was very clear what my own personal take was. People can take that as they will! It's fine ... Bon courage (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately that means it is not a neutral notification. See: Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning. This is the last warning before I am forced to escalate the matter. Please edit it. You are an experienced editor and other users are also pointing out your behaviour is being disruptive. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't be silly. One can post a notification and then add as an addendum one's own view. That's what I did, making clear what was what. Bon courage (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2024 (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.

Case request Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals declined

The Arbitration Committee have declined the case request Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals. You may view the declined case request using this link. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Good grief

I think we are equating your reversion with censorship. Whatever that means on an encyclopedia with curated content and talk page rules. Meh. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yerrrs, WP:CGTW#12 floats into mind ... Bon courage (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I share your view. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Havana syndrome. 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. FailedMusician (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

BMI

Of course now this is going to become a debate as to what constitutes BMI. I am starting to really loathe that 60 minutes / Insider / Spiegel report. Flight logs and a whole lot of speculation being paraded around as a smoking gun. And now we have to deal with another round of Russian secret super-tech speculation. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:BMI has pretty good consensus behind it. I think editors question it wrt a WP:FRINGE topic will be sailing into turbulent waters. I think it should be fairly clear which aspects of Havana Syndrome are BMI and thus in need of MEDRS sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm probably checked out of the article for awhile (especially after the GMO stuff last fall and interactions I want to avoid), but I am seeing cases where content that contradicts what medical sources say is being inserted claiming it's not BMI when it would have a clear WP:WEIGHT issue with medical content. That kind of stuff is going to be an issue as it keeps being reinserted, and it's not exactly a new issue either. KoA (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Things are particularly bad at the moment. I sometimes wonder if Wikipedia should be surrendered to the sensation-mongers, the MAGAs, the antivaxxers and other sundry antiknowledge activists. Let's face it: they have the numbers and the energy, and although the mechanisms exist on Wikipedia to 'put things right' the system as a whole is an embodiment of Brandolini's law and the effort needed is exhausting and in the end grinds one down. Bon courage (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No hard feelings

Bon courage, just want to say I hope there are no hard feelings. I am aware we disagree on including certain information on the Havana Syndrome page. Just want to say it's nothing personal and I want to apologize for getting a bit heated at times. Anyways I have to head off now but I hope that this situation can be resolved amicably in the coming days. BootsED (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

likewise! Despite the disagreement I'm not detecting any undue hostility in the discussions; we'll get there in the end! Bon courage (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Peer reviewed articles aren't reliable?

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.

---

Re: your reversion of my edits on the Cancer Alley article. MiseDominic (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:MEDFAQ's sourcing section (or WP:MEDRS for the full guideline). Bon courage (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Those apply to medical content, which is not the same as public health. MiseDominic (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

> Head explodes < Bon courage (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you a doctor? Maybe you are too close to these topics to be editing neutrally in this area. Check out this article, and see how much it is like social science and not medicine: Public health MiseDominic (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a doctor of medicine, and I can assure you I am not "close" to these topics (I don't live in Louisiana, e.g.) other than perhaps having had cancer. I don't think that counts as a COI but it's true I am concerned that material is presented responsibly & correctly according to Wikipedia's pretty good WP:PAGs in this realm of knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like there's been a major uptick in editors trying to claim medical content isn't medical content or other variations to try to get around MEDRS in order to use lower-quality sourcing. KoA (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not just you. Bon courage (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not about “using lower quality sourcing,” thanks MiseDominic (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@KoA I think it's the pernicious influence of US politics. Suddenly a lot of things (COVID, vaccines, lockdowns, lab leaks, energy weapons) are matters where people sign up to a version of reality that comes with their political allegiance. Thus we see POV warriors on a mission to bring the Righteous® Truth™ to Wikipedia articles. That's the case here and has also been the case on some legacy topics you are familiar with (Glyphosate, GMOs, evil British oil companies, etc.). Bon courage (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I see two editors who can’t see the forest for the trees, and are dressing up defense of pollution as objectivity. MiseDominic (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Occam’s razor MiseDominic (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Count me as three! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the odd thing is that even though I live in North America to see all that, it seemed at least like the value of sticking to high-quality sources for med content on-wiki was pretty valued and only griped about by generally WP:NOTHERE editors, even during COVID with all of it's challenges then. Maybe it is the political season that broke the dam on that where it's exponentially more noticeable now, but separate from that it also just seems like there isn't the support (or patience) in the larger community to handle medical topics well anymore.

It used to be when someone came in swinging railing against MEDRS and with a pretty clear battleground attitude like in this section, it used to be tolerated much less. Obviously there have still been plenty of issues like you alluded to in GMO topics, etc. with anti-MEDRS sentiment, but it really seems to be ramped up in the last few months when I look at talk pages. KoA (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

There was quite a big "pandemic" intake and a lot of unfamiliarity with the WP:PAGs. Also – and again I suspect this may be down to the political environment – things seem a lot more personalized in recent years. So we get the OP here straight away in attack mode with the dial turned to 11, and above counting anybody who disagrees with then as mounting (good grief) a "defense of pollution".

I also get the impression there's fatigue among the medical editor corps, and for good reason. I mean: how many time can you rehearse the same explanation of why we really shouldn't lean on poor sources, while all you get reflected back is bad faith accusations like from this OP here. It's tiresome and dispiriting. Bon courage (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You need a new approach to reversions. You're the one who comes in swinging, battleground attitude, dial turned to 11. If you're seeing more hostile reactions to you recently, maybe you are the problem. MiseDominic (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

...because as it stands, you come across looking like an industry shill. MiseDominic (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

If you keep dishing out personal attacks like industry shill, you won't last long on Wikipedia, MiseDominic. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read my message carefully. I did not say that @Bon courage is an industry shill. I said that their behavior is causing them to appear that way. It would be in their own best interest to approach reversions in a more collegial manner. Thanks. MiseDominic (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You might like to read WP:BRD. If you come to Wikipedia misrepresenting poor sources you can expect to be reverted. If you keep doing it you can expect to be sanctioned. Bon courage (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Just explain your reversions better. Take the extra time if they are indeed so important. MiseDominic (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

My edit summary said it all.[17] I then pointed you to help pages and the supporting WP:PAGS. Horses and water come to mind. Bon courage (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:MINDREADER MiseDominic (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I just require somebody who can or, more accurately, will, read what's in front of them! Bon courage (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, the sources are not poor, they are merely not compliant to WP:BMI—an important difference for good-faith communication. MiseDominic (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on It's interesting though, it confirms the pattern I was mentioning above. It's the "I'm so right anybody who disagrees with me cannot be in good faith" phenomenon. Bon courage (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2024 (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.

What to do with archived ANI votes?

Hi, I wonder if you know what to do with the ANI votes regarding Thomas B and Wee Curry Monster? Both recently got auto-archived without closure [18] [19] despite a closure request at WP:CR. I and User:JayBeeEll unarchived them, only for the bot to archive them again after around two additional days.

I don't want to be vexacious, but it would be good to have these closed because it's likely that this will be soon relitigated yet again, as Thomas B appears to be working on yet another thread in own sandbox [20]. NicolausPrime (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. Maybe an unsigned comment at the top of the section with "Close requested on (date)" might prevent the bot from archiving? Bon courage (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, just now I found this: [21]. I guess this could prevent archival, but I'm still not sure if it's permitted to use on ANI and would be good manners. I'm concerned that re-unarchiving and then placing this could open me to some accusations. NicolausPrime (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Concern about good manner at ANI! Well, that's got to be a first ... Bon courage (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It is super frustrating that this bad behavior is not getting the necessary attention. Like, I don't even care very much about how it gets disposed of, but someone needs to come along and either make him (them) knock it off or tell everyone else to suck it up. There seems also to be huge backlogs at SPI and other places -- maybe the bite of the long-term decline in admins is kicking in, or something. Anyhow, on the constructive question, I think it is fine to add the do-not-archive-until thing with a modest window (a couple of weeks, or something?) -- you certainly wouldn't be the first person to do that, and I haven't seen it cause problems in the past. --JBL (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It appears this didn't work on one of the threads [22]. Not sure what I did wrong. NicolausPrime (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I'm exchausted and not going to pursue this further. But others may feel free to do so. It's possible that the admins were reluctant to close this because it modified a block imposed by the original page-ban-closing sysop. NicolausPrime (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Just saw this (after unarchiving) -- you did April 7 instead of May 7 :). --JBL (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That's odd, because I thought I wrote {{{subst:DNAU|30}}} there. NicolausPrime (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I have no idea :) -- all I know for sure is that it said April 7. --JBL (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Sunetra Gupta

Hi. You reverted my recent edit under the reasoning that it was "whitewashed". I disagree. The original language is bad style. Additionally it needs to be adjusted to accurately reflect what the sources say. But I won't re-edit. ArguedOyster (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss any proposed change at Talk:Sunetra Gupta. Thanks. Bon courage (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

So the question is, who for Brünnhilde: Flagstad, Mödl, Varnay or Nilsson? Bon courage (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Dara Hobbs --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard notification

Courtesy copy (with added wiki link and signature) from a misspelling of this talk page:

Hi there, to help reach article consensus on a matter you are involved in, I have requested a dispute resolution here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Methylphenidate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Skynxnex (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage @Skynxnex. I have deleted User talk:Bon Courage under the WP:U2 criterion. (This is my first time using the "[ reply ] thingummy, so my apologies it its malformed.) Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The Lightning Process

Instead of just carrying out a drive-by revert, why didn't you leave the grammar correction and the modified link, which bypasses a redirect? Concerning deadlink, what's the point in having a reference to a page that no longer exists? It merely wastes the time of people reading the article. At the very least you could have completely removed the reference - if you're happy with the other source. Will you fix this, or should I try again? 31.52.163.13 (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. Didn't see your follow-up edit. 31.52.163.13 (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Please stop undoing my edits. Edit them by all means.

You and Psychological Guy seem very obsessed with damning Macrobiotics. Why? I refer you to the Notability page where it says you should look for missing references yourself before deleting another editors work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline as other references may yet come available. It is a travesty and a bare-faced lie that Macrobiotics is a fad diet. Who came up with that? The 'fad' has been lasting since 1796 ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Wilhelm_Hufeland Please discuss, not stamp on. I am 72, awarded a scholarship to Oxford in 1971 to read physics, IQ last measured at 140+ ... please give someone else a chance. You and Psychological Guy appear to be uninformed about the real nature of Macrobiotics. Thanks for constructive editing suggestions. TruthIan (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You are attempting to get moronic and harmful pseudoscience into Wikipedia. It won't work, and if you keep it up you will probably be removed from the Project, which likes to protect itself from this unwelcome crap. Bon courage (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Bon courage. Thank you for your work on Motonormativity. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

It does seems that this term has escaped the confines of Walker I's academic work, and made it to the mainstream media, over the span of more than a year in different sources. So, it seems reasonable to have a distinct page, despite the ugliness of the neologism. I do wonder whether Walker P and Walker I are independent of one another ... regardless, there are other sources.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

(TPS) @Klbrain, I don't think notability of a cognitive bias should be judged on the popularity of one name for that bias, do you? Because it sounds like that's the idea here: "this term has escaped...and made it to the mainstream media" is not relevant when the article isn't about the word itself. The fact that urban planners in the US (in particular) have made this assumption for half a century has nothing to do with whether someone's name for it has caught on.

I think the real question for notability is whether motonormativity (the cognitive bias) is sufficiently separate from Car dependency (the inevitable outcome). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

That's one likely outcome, true. Bon courage (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Good points; a merge of Motonormativity to Car dependency for short text and context would seem to be a very reasonable thing to do. Klbrain (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what was that? I can't hear you over the sound of my truck. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

List of Common Misconceptions Criterion

Please describe the misconceptions you've added to list of common misconceptions as common misconceptions (or "contrary to popular belief" etc.) into the topic articles per criterion #3. If you don't do this within in a few hours, other editors are going to delete the entries. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:EDITWAR

Edit warring doesn't help when attempting to resolve disputes. In fact, engaging in such behavior will usually inflame the dispute, poisoning the environment that all Wikipedia editors share.

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers. Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense.

Just a friendly reminder. Simply rstoring challenged material is edit warring. The protocol is to wait for consensus on the talk page before restoring challenged material.

If you have trouble understanding this, there are many helpful people on wikipedia that can offer assistance. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You're not "challenging" material. You're just reverting it with no valid rationale and demands to "discuss first!" or to bend to your original unsourced thoughts. Basically, WP:STONEWALLING and WP:OWNERSHIP. If you have any valid concerns I'm happy to engage, but keep up this nonsense and I'll suport your getting sanctioned for disruptive editing. Bon courage (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If you really are, then why don't you? No instead you post threats that people will get blocked on their pages. How is that "community building" and "seeking consensus"? Dagelf (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it really inadmissible?

Regarding Special:Diff/1238604324, isn't it a self-referenced but non-extraordinary educational claim permitted under WP:ABOUTSELF? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

'sfunny, when I checked that ref I'd swear it didn't even mention Reading. But it seems I'm wrong. If you're content that Reading really did grant a PhD to this person (which is not that a mundane claim; PhD's aren't just handed out) please restore. One could always check the Reading library I suppose. Bon courage (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Allegations about Bigfoot, etc.

Hi @Bon courage! I hope you're doing well and that your day has been pleasant. I just wanted to leave you a message in order to talk to you about some concerns that I have regarding some of your recent comments and responses toward myself and others in some discussions, and in your edit summaries.

For example, the comments you made on Talk:Bigfoot directed towards me including:

• "Yuck yes. Changed to "said". See what you think"
• "It's illiterate."
• "Wikipedia tries not to have bad writing. You are now badly edit-warring, and have been warned."
• "There is no consensus for your bad wording. Maybe go to a noticeboard or start a RfC to seek a wider view, but I can tell you now it'd be a waste of time."

In the edit summary on Bigfoot:

• Your edit summary stated you were doing it to "decrease cringe"

On my talk page:

• "That maths is as bad as the proposed English. Do it again and you'll be reported and likely blocked."

On Talk:Martin Kulldorff Towards me:

• "Yuck, the proposed re-write is POV as it implies the error is just an opinion. This has already been discussed to death."
• "Actually it was discussed to death principally because a disruptive editor wouldn't stop trying to change it. They've since been blocked. "
• "Time to ignore"
• "Note that this has been forum shopped to WP:BLPN again."

On Talk:Martin KulldorffTowards others:

• "WP:SOCKING eh. While whining about bad faith. Classic."
• "You obviously have not read the source with any attention, and your misdirected ad hominem would be fallacious in any case."
• "Your deletions and argument show you're not paying proper attention before modifying the article and blustering on the Talk page, which is further evidence of disruption."

On Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive360:

• "Some editors seemingly want to give weight to antivax arguments. We've already had one blocked for doing that."

On YOUR talk page towards others:

• "You are attempting to get moronic and harmful pseudoscience into Wikipedia. It won't work, and if you keep it up you will probably be removed from the Project, which likes to protect itself from this unwelcome crap."
• "You were wrong though. There's only so much one can put in an edit summary. Where even to start with the misconceptions enshrined in your edit?"
• "If you have any valid concerns I'm happy to engage, but keep up this nonsense and I'll suport your getting sanctioned for disruptive editing."
• "> Head explodes <"
• "If you think a number of admins have gone rogue and are - uh - "censoring" Wikipedia, you would need to have raised it an WP:AN and failed to resolve it there. Not having done so, there's not a hope in hell arbcom will be interested in this, even if it had some merit (which it doesn't). Hello?"

These comments are uncivil, and they directly conflict with one of Wikipedia's founding principle's. Specifically, they seem to be an example of "direct rudeness" by "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts." It's a real bummer to see a discussion turn into something like this, and really difficult to engage in good faith discussion when you use language like this, and generally makes poor environment to work in. You bring up "blocks" quite quickly on talk pages, such as the Martin Kulldorff ones, and upon reading it when directed towards me really disparaged discussion that. Bringing up past blocks in discussion, as in the Kulldorff pages where you said "we've already had one blocked for doing that", really seems like Wikipedia:Gravedancing. In the Martin Kulldorff case, a rewrite was ultimately done that was not what I proposed by satisfied my concerns, but to get to that point took a lot of discussion until another editor proposed a new version in the "Biographies of living persons noticeboard" that you accused me of having "shopped" the discussion onto. An admin using language like "shopped," bringing up blocks, and bringing up comparisons to anti-vaxxers really disparaged me during that interaction. The tone and condescension, among other things, appear like Wikipedia:POV railroad tactics. It made me worry that I could see retaliation unless I dropped the issue and submitted to your preferred version.

I personally agree with many of the things that frustrate you, (pseudoscience, anti-vaxers, etc. all annoy me to no end) but believe you are habitually using uncivil language to make your points. Your essay User:Bon courage/The big mistake helps shape how I've approached working on pages like the dead internet theory, so I think we might be more "on the same page" then not when it comes to many topics and approaches to editing. I'm a researcher and "aspiring" academic professionally, and am used to harsh peer-review and debating word choice with co-authors, and I try to bring that attitude here. Seeing the word "yuck" in feels a bit disrespectful, and has been directed at text I've either written or been a part of writing twice by you. You've called me illiterate. I'm not perfect, and apologize for any interaction where I was or appeared to be uncivil towards you or anyone else, but bring this up because I have legitimately felt bad and disrespected after receiving comments from you. I don't want to "report you" or "have you blocked," but still felt I should probably speak up.

I wish you well, and I hope that you'll take this as an opportunity to self-evaluate how you respond and communicate with others, and that you'll do what you need to do in order to keep calm, remain civil, and keep discussions positive and focused toward our primary goal of building an encyclopedia. Thank you for taking the time to read this message, and I hope you have a great rest of your day. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You've seemingly gone back 12 months and picked some real doozies around some highly problematic contexts I assume you are unaware of. I mean no disrespect and am sure you're a splendid person, but if you're in academia you must know that criticism directed at texts (not people) are par for the course. However I was wrong to go so hard on the "Bigfoot allegation" wording, and apologize for that (though I would still argue this is undesirable wording). I feel distinctly unapologetic about most of the other stuff you've picked out. Bon courage (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

7 Countries Study

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

---

Hey Courage, why did you reverse the edit. This is the essance of the two scientific articles cited. --Pass3456 (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Seemed off-topic for that article; please explain more on the article Talk page. Bon courage (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh no its not. As Ketherine D.Pett wrote about the Seven Countries Study: "Those findings were applied with fidelity, in North Karelia, Finland. Replacement of saturated fats (mainly dairy fats) by unsaturated fats (mainly rapeseed oil) and vegetables have led to a dramatic 20% reduction in serum cholesterol and incident heart disease and a noteworthy addition to average life expectancy.". --Pass3456 (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I should have written that clearer right away. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither is a good source, but you seem to be blending a statement in one about SCS with outcomes in another discussed in large part in terms of smoking cessation. Please propose something on the article's Talk page that sticks closer to these sources, so that others can comment. Bon courage (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2024 (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 of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I have commented there. Bon courage (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Nicely done!

That'll teach me to read the full body of the article before making snap judgements. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

it made me wonder who the ~100 people/day are who read about Max Gerson. It seems out there on the big bad internet the therapy is still promoted all over the place.[23] Bon courage (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no shortage of credulous people in the world, and they seem inordinately attracted to the least plausible theories/paths... cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

What does NPOV mean to you?

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

---

I am sure that as an active editor and valuable member of the community, that you are even more familiar with English Wikipedia's policies, than I am. If I am wrong, please explain it to me, in detail.

We do not need to propagate bias or partisanship reflected in sources, except in the article about that source in particular.

Why is your first response to post the following on someone's talk page?

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;

1. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Impartial tone. Specifically "What to include and exclude": "Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective" "Remove material when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."

Please show some humility, and think objectively about this.

Just because people haven't been taking a stand on NPOV around here, doesn't mean that it's not important. If we want to live in a better world, we have to start with ourselves (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2024 (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.

"Controversy" and "Misinformation" in article title

I saw your movement of seed oil controversy to seed oil misinformation. I do agree that it might be a more fitting title; however, I originally chose the title "controversy" to match the rest of the articles about such topics in Template:Consumer food safety, namely aspartame controversy and water fluoridation controversy. Since you didn't update the wikilinks in the template accordingly with the move, I assume you're not aware of this title pattern.

I think it's worth keeping the titles using the same term. Although now that you've changed it to "misinformation" I'm thinking that it might be a fitting title for all three articles since both aspartame and water fluoridation are similarly conspiracy theory nonsense. What do you think? Since those two articles are far more established I'd like to get at least one person's concurrence before I move them. Dan • ✉ 18:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think aspartame might work better with a "misinformation" title but for fluoridation there is a bit of a debate about benefit/risk tradeoff. But this is without checking sources. For "seeds oils" the stuff going around does seem more like pure misinformation / conspiracy theory. Bon courage (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Zuck's revelations[24]

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.

---

"Weird/vague"? In your opinion, is The Guardian unreliable? Is the information inconvenient? What's the explanation? Thank you. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2024 (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.

The Lightning Process

Thanks for your editing on The Lightning Process. That's all, have a great day. 17:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC) MapleSyrupRain (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

You too  ! Bon courage (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Veganism

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

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AlphaBetaGamaDelta (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2024 (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.

September 2024

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Important question (I come from here)

Hi. Why is it not allowed to use primary sources? Secondary sources risk being inaccurate, because a journalist can quote a politician's speech and take it out of context. I would like to know more, thank you. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on secondary sources because of its quest to summarize 'accepted knowledge' which cannot generally be sourced to primary sources. For WP:Biomedical information, secondary sources are almost exclusively used; see WP:MEDRS (and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background reading). Bon courage (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox country 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 12:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

What part of my edit did not pass Wikipedia:Verifiability?

Hi. It seems you have reverted my edit on methylene blue. I would like to know what part of my edit did not pass WP:MEDRS? H44dyss9900 (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't see anything about wound cleaning, and RCTs are not MEDRS. Please make any further comment at Talk:Methylene blue so other editors of the article can see. Bon courage (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you for the help.

I will re-do my edit and cite the wound cleaning part properly H44dyss9900 (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Do that again and I'll report you

I restored my comment on the talk page of macrobiotics which you removed here [25]. Do that again and I'll report you to those admins who have previously flagged up your edit warring.

By doing so, and starting to get into name calling, like calling me a troll, you are clearly trying to provoke conflict and to game the system.

Just stop and instead provide full citations instead.

I've read various rules and policies. They're very clear and simple. If the given reference does not support the claim made on the topic, then it is policy to remove it.

Thank you. Not a similar account name (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You made a change against the longstanding consensus on that article, which has now been reverted by two different editors. I suggest that you mind WP:BOOMERANG if you plan on making any reports. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

"longstanding consensus" is just a euphemism for a one or two cranks owning a page & being willing to invest time & energy protecting 'their' version of it. It doesn't mean it's accurate or correct. In this case, it is not even reflected in the references being used.

Ergo, I've ask Bon Courage to provide the specific citation in full to support their POV but so far they have failed & just engaged in personal attacks & gaming the system instead.

If Bon Courage can provide the specific citation, then we can discuss their changes. If not, then policy is to remove unsupported edits and follow a NPOV.

Clearly, looking at the mess on their talk page both current and past, they have a pattern of contention & mendacious interactions with others; & I am just the latest victim that they think they can pick on.

Thank you. Not a similar account name (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Invalid reverting of footnote addition

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

---

Hi, it seems you have invalidly reverted my WP:Footnote addition. Help:Explanatory notes are not subject to the same WP:weight requirements as body text is. And the information in the footnote is from an accepted reliable source that is already used in the article and the information in the note is fully and accurately descriptive of the source information. No bit of information in the note is invalid. You have not provided a valid edit summary for reverting my footnote addition hence it is likely either accidental or disruptive reverting and thus if you do not contest this then I will be re-adding the footnote. If you however continue to disruptively revert without valid reason you may be warned. H44dyss9900 (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2024 (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.

October 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Havana syndrome. 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. RememberOrwell (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

A retaliation template. Editors have been blocked for that. Bon courage (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No, you retaliated with the warning on my page right after I warned you to stop edit warring on the HS talk page. RememberOrwell (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The view I have seen admins take is that, if a user templates another user with a warning then they are obviously aware of that warning. So pinging the same thing back looks like a kind of trolling. You'd need to argue why that view is wrong. You've kind of doubled down[26] by calling my initial warning a 'retaliation' which savours even more. This not a game; it's important to get the content right, Bon courage (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

We have a problem with Bon Courage edit warring on another topic, i.e. making repetitive revisions while not providing citations, & avoiding entering into the discussion about them.

It just appears to a pattern of wasting other people's time and energy for them, and gaming the system, which is obstructing the improvement and development of articles. Not a similar account name

Thank you. (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your work on hypnosis...! Zenomonoz (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Source evaluation

I've posted another point-by-point evaluation of an article according to MEDRS's sections, and I'm wondering whether you think it would be helpful to have a template for this. Imagine being able to type something like:

{{medrs eval|type=systematic review|publisher=MDPI|date=2018}}

and having it produce something like:

• WP:MEDPRI: Y Systematic review
• WP:MEDSCI: ? ' MDPI requires case-by-case investigation
• WP:MEDDATE: ? ' May be acceptable.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It could be a useful teaching tool, for editors will to learn! Looking at your fuller response I'm a bit dubious about the worth of Scopus numbers for affirming a journal is good quality ... Bon courage (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

IMO Scopus is good for ruling out some bad-quality journals. Some prior research indicated that journals in the bottom 20% have high rates of copyvios and other serious problems. I think that research was based specifically on impact factors, but the main problem is that the median impact factor varies significantly across fields, so you can't just say "IF ≤1 is a problem" (though WPMED folks said that for years). I use Scopus primarily to make sure the journal isn't likely to be highly suspicious, and also to check for obvious problems (like editors who seem to think that "case-by-case evaluation" is the same as "every single journal published by MDPI and Frontiers is unreliable by definition").

MEDRS gives very little information about how to search for information about journals, and even the information it does give is not very useful. For example, we like MEDLINE indexing, but they indexed Medical Hypotheses, which isn't even peer-reviewed, until recently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

IMO Scopus is good for ruling out some bad-quality journals ← I think that's probably right; and it's probably true that absence of an indication is often more significant than presence, as for MEDLINE. Don't get me started on Index medicus.

In general, for your 'case by case' complaint I think MEDRS could do more to flesh out the idea behind the spinning plate ("A lightweight source may be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim") to explain what these kind of claims are. I'm generally relaxed about using non-golden sources for things like statistics and pharmacology and statements about absence of effect. In practice it is statements about the existence of human health effects (whether beneficial or harmful) where source quality becomes a critical concern. Bon courage (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

In the past, when we've talked about MEDRS' version of a "lightweight source", we usually talked about a website like eMedicine or a book aimed at lay people or early undergrads (or younger). I have argued for using free-to-read lay-oriented lightweight sources for incontestable claims (e.g., definitions or simple summary statements), because they're more accessible to ordinary readers and we could thereby point them towards pre-vetted sources (e.g., the popular health website that is up to date, as opposed to the equally popular health website that happens to be out of date for this specific subject), but since readers rarely click on the sources in well-developed articles, it probably doesn't matter much. My argument did not seem to resonate very much with other editors.

We could probably use the journal work by @Headbomb to automatically flag bad publishers. Calculating date ranges is easy, as would linking to the Wikipedia article (if any). Do you know of a page that gives a step-by-step way to evaluate a journal? I usually check the publisher, for Medline indexing, the Scopus rating, and sometimes the impact factor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

MDPI is more complex. They're truly a shit publisher, but they've successfully integrated themselves in the scientific ecosystem. While certain journals are obvious shit, others are more subtly shit. I would say the main issue with modern MDPI is their over reliance on special issues. It's completely fucking ridiculous, and I would personally treat anything published in a special issue as unreviewed/at best equivalent to conference proceedings/blogs, with non-special issues as lower-tier journals (not necessarily unreliable, but literally any other journal being preferable over them). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe MEDRS warns against supplements (because of their tendency to operate like paid advertising), but I'm not sure that "special issues" are called out by name. That's another thing that could be called out by name. (How exactly does one manage to have more than one special issue per day, every day of the year?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

See User:WhatamIdoing/MEDRS evaluation for my notes on what could be in each bullet list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

With a hint from PrimeHunter about which parser function I needed, I've made some good progress this evening. So you can see it in its full (albeit incomplete) glory, please copy this: {{MEDRS evaluation}} and then use the Reply tool in its visual mode and paste it in.[*]

All the fields accept free-form text (I have tested all of them with "I don't know" and https://www.example.com, with no problems). A couple have suggested answers. A couple search for file names as you type. I suggest finding a plausible source and trying it out.

The to-do list:

• figure out if I did the last two parameters in an unnecessarily expensive/hard way (I combined #switch: with {{YesNo}}, and now I think that was redundant) (yup, that was needlessly complicated),
• evaluate the publication dates in terms of MEDDATE to flag older sources; and
• start recognizing/reacting to some publisher names.

Also, figure out if there's anything else that ought to be in the list. Usual subject matter for the journal, maybe?

[*] If you paste the template in, it should bypass the Reply tool's suspicion of templates. If copying it picks up the text formatting, then you might have to copy the template name+curly brackets, paste it somewhere (e.g., your browser's search bar), and copy it back to get rid of any formatting. But if you "paste as plain text", it will definitely not work; to trick the Reply tool into accepting a template, it has to be a regular 'paste' of text that just happens to be unformatted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It might be useful to note indexes/collections (e.g. MEDLINE/Index medicus) and impact factor. Editorials are special in that sometimes they can be very good (e.g. if the Lancet publishes one like 'Leprosy: where are we?'), but sometimes very bad. Bon courage (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Long COVID

Hi,

I'm writing regarding my edit you reverted in the long COVID article. You're reasoning was "unreliable sources". Was the issue that the sources were primary studies? I do understand the secondary research policy but my argument was (would have been) that because long COVID is relatively recent, there aren't many reviews about it and new, high-quality primary research could be used to update it until there are more reviews. If this was the problem, then these are not unreliable just not according to policy. Just trying to understand, let me know.

Best,

Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, primary sources. Secondary sources must be the basis of Wikipedia articles (not just medical ones) because we need to be reflecting accepted knowledge. If all there is, is primary sources, then there is no settled knowledge and so nothing suitable for encyclopedic coverage. There are however hundreds of suitable WP:MEDRS which could be used for this topic so this is moot.[27] Bon courage (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Edits at Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic

Look. I know emotions are running high. If you need a breather, feel free to take a break from reading the page we're editing. I've already taken two Wikibreaks to stop myself from going crazy editing Wikipedia.

With that said: you know Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:Systemic bias problem. If someone is changing it... well, you gotta account for that right? You can't just set put an article in stasis. No newbie likes that. The foundation doesn't like it.

Just... calm down, if you have to, and think about this a bit. I'll move the edit to tomorrow morning, if it helps.⸺(Random)staplers 04:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I can assure you my emotions are not high at all. It's 05:23 and I'm awake in bed early and thinking about my morning tea. The issue here is you're not getting any consensus for a large article change you want (with high emotion?) to make, and until/unless you do it won't happen. Routine, in other words. Bon courage (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's good. You didn't sound that way earlier with the terse responses... and demanding I go back to the public talk page. There's already a template warning about changes. And as for consensus... letting it go for a day to wait for opinions is consensus, albeit a weak one. Unless you're suggesting we need yet another person. (I know about that too. We'll wait till tomorrow to discuss if we need it.)⸺(Random)staplers 04:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

In general trying to divine subtleties of mood from writing style is a fool's errand on the Internet. Also some advice: telling people to "Just... calm down" is never a good move on Wikipedia. For face masks, you could always go to WT:MED for lots of extra eyes. My impression is that you have an odd idea about how certain sources are "wrong" and want to correct them by being selective about sources and/or engaging in originsl research. That's not going to get traction. Also, people aren't going to read huge walls of text so if you want to make an argument I'd suggest making it pithy. Bon courage (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2024 (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!

By the way, I saw your message on the talk page. I would have appreciated it if you had waited until tomorrow.⸺(Random)staplers 05:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Revert

Sorry you removal of the LTAs comments caught some genuine posts, I think it's right now. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, just seen your thanks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure what happened there, either a software SNAFU or me having finger trouble! Bon courage (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Metformin

I’ve tried to reach out regarding the edits I made to the Metformin article. The article I’ve cited is from a peer-reviewed journal, which you can view here: https://academic.oup.com/ije/issue/51/6. Additionally, Peter Attia MD has reviewed this journal article and discussed its findings in detail: https://peterattiamd.com/a-recent-metformin-study-casts-doubts-on-longevity-indications/. Could you please explain how this doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s scholastic standards or WP ? I’d like to ensure that my contributions align with Wikipedia's guidelines, and any feedback would be appreciated. 38.122.245.52 (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I did. Please read WP:MEDRS or at least WP:MEDFAQ for guidance on what kind of medical sourcing Wikipedia wants. Bon courage (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

38.122, the way the game is played here, you don't cite the original study. You cite a review article that cites the original study. That way it's not just a cherry-picked source by some random person on the internet, but a source written by (we hope) a couple of experts who actually know what they're talking about and have decided that this one was a worthwhile study. There are a couple of possible such sources named on the talk page now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, I mentioned you in this section at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#False statements about Bon Courage You were mentioned earlier in the discussion, but I don't see a notice on your talk page, so I think I am meant to leave one. Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I admire your stamina in going through all that ... Bon courage (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Moerman Therapy: Revision history

Hello Bon courage, I wanted to discuss the recent edits regarding Moerman therapy that I made. I understand your concerns about the representation of the topic and the sources used. For my edits, I referenced three scientific sources to support the claims about Moerman’s use of buttermilk and high doses of vitamin A in his regimen. I believe these sources provide credible evidence of his dietary recommendations and therapeutic approach. I appreciate your commitment to maintaining the article’s integrity and would like to clarify how these sources enhance the information presented. If you’re open to it, I’d be glad to provide the specific references I used and engage in a constructive discussion about how we can best represent this topic while adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to your thoughts. 2003:E0:4F2D:3B75:4165:5326:D1ED:CC6A (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Moerman Therapy so that other editors can see. Bon courage (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Comorbidities in T1D

Thank you for your diligent work on verifiability and for pointing me to Wikipedia's policies on biomedical information! I revised my edit to include a more reputable source. I also included the reference in my original edits, the Williams Textbook of Endocrinology, which seems to be a commonly used textbook in biology and and medicine departments in the US. Is there a reason this fails WP:MEDRS? _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The textbook looks like a good source, but without the primary its use seemed difficult to parse. You new use of it seems good! Thanks for improving the article ... Bon courage (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)