Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:31, 14 November 2013

“The thing that it's about for me – what it's really about, is just ... really sweet people, er, there are all these really sweet people who are ... they just get online and they are typing and instead of yelling at each other or just having a conversation or reading about gossip or whatever, they're trying to build something that everybody else will find useful. I just think it's really sweet. Really nice people.” — Jimbo Wales

light therapy treatment in acne

I'm new here so forgive me for any beginners error. Wanted to discuss the revisions I was trying to make in regards to the treatment of acne with light therapy. I cited 5 medical sources to support the proposed changes. I'm trying to understand why this wasn't an acceptable edit. Any insight or information would be helpful.

Ytsirk (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi! They are contradicted by more recent, stronger sources (notably a 2009 systematic review). The guidance in WP:MEDRS applies here. Alexbrn 16:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Consider yourself on notice for biased editing

I can't believe how much cherry picking you're doing in the Tea tree oil article.

The introduction no longer matches the references, nor the body of the work. You use weasel words, you continually misquote sources, use sources which are in no way reliable, and deliberately use sources that support your point of view, even if they are out of date, and even if contradicted by later, more reliable sources.

All the evidence is that you are deliberately slanting the lead to say things that are not supported by the reliable sources; that you are deliberately misleading.

If you do not stop this, I will take it to ANI, and get you blocked from editing this article. You have clearly, repeatedly, gone way, way to far, way too often.Teapeat (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on tea tree oil; just following the sources. Discussion of content should take place on the article's Talk page and not here. Alexbrn 16:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. Your editing of the article is horrible. You've repeatedly reintroduce flawed out of date research, you've routinely cherry pick the data out of poor quality sources as well cherry picking and misquoting reliable sources, and you've edit warred to include material that is not backed up by any reliable sources. You've introduced weasel words, and repeatedly deleted referenced material solely because you disagreed with it.Teapeat (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. The way forward is working calmly toward consensus on the Talk page. Alexbrn 13:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for orchestrating the merge of Health effects of coffee into Coffee. About ten months ago, I worked on both and suggested the merge, but was denied. I'm busy now, but I could help with cleanup over winter break. Have a great day! Exercisephys (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! :-) Alexbrn 01:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Source Formatting Question

I have been researching the wikipedia help pages and templates for citations and footnotes. I wasn't trying to "edit war." I must have misunderstood the note about the removal. I believed it was in reference to the source formatting errors which I was in the process of fixing. When I fixed it, the citation appeared to be formatted correctly. Would you be so kind as to explain your comment "biomedical information sourced to sources which fail" since I mistakenly thought it was a formatting issue? The links are both to credible medical journals.Bgil842 (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Bgil842

Hi there! Any biomedical material we include here needs to conform to the (rather strict) guidance in WP:MEDRS. The articles you were citing didn't, I'm afraid. If you have any further queries, please raise them on the article talk page ... thanks! Alexbrn 21:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do some people have the power to cherry-pick what gets published in wikipedia?

I would like an explanation of why my comment "This doesn't mean that shiatsu doesn't work in controlling symptoms or side effects, simply that it has not yet been tested properly." which comes from exactly the same source and the same article - even the same paragraph - as the comment that has been left on the article "there is no scientific evidence to prove that shiatsu can cure or prevent any type of disease, including cancer." by Alexbrn. He certainly doesn't give any explanations as to why he has removed it, nor why the words he has cherry-picked are more important that the ones I have added. Do I have to ask Alexbrn on his talk page? Does he have the right to choose what parts of an article are inserted and which are not? Is this typical of wikipedia? Some people have more power than others? I'd be interested in knowing. Is it something the public are aware of? Johntosco (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there :-) See the article Talk page for further discussion ... Alexbrn 19:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Trick or Treatment". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  08:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

LASIK

		The Medicine Barnstar
		Kudos for your work on LASIK, I was pussy-footing around it for almost a month. If I may speak for others, your work is much appreciated! Lesion (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Alexbrn 19:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Brassiere

Thank you for the improvements you've made to that horrendous article. — Scott • talk 22:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

MrBill3 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thank you for the Barnstar. I do strive for NPOV and WP Policy adherence. MrBill3 (talk)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Rosen

As regards my edits to the Rosen Method page, we are the attorneys who handle the intellectual property for the Rosen Institute. We would like to get across the message that not just anyone can call themselves Rosen Method practitioners. One must meet the certification criteria and be certified by the Rosen Institute before calling themselves a Rosen Method bodyworker. If we leave out the IP information, is it ok to state what is required to call oneself a Rosen Method bodyworker?Ebaypi (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)ebaypi

Ebaypi - okay, this needs to be discussed on the article Talk page and since you are connected to the topic you shoudn't really edit it directly. I'll copy your comment there ... Alexbrn 16:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "take it to the talk page"?

You say in response to my edit "take it to the talk" page? When I click on "talk" i get to YOUR talk page. Is there a link on the history page to a article specific talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NR biogeochemist (talk • contribs) 21:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! Every article has a talk page. It might be labelled "discussion" in a tab near the top of the page, depending on your settings. Go there and make any arguments for changes to the article which need to be discussed ... see you there ... Alexbrn 21:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way

We were trying to get dengue fever published in Open Medicine, but I'm not sure if it's going to happen. We need (as medical editors) to establish a pipeline for how to get a well-developed encylopedia article into a format we can submit to a journal. I was messing around with Zotero and that wouldn't rearrange citation numbers when I messed with things. I've heard of LaTeX and BibTeX but I'm not sure how long those take to learn. Anyhow, let me know if you have anything brilliant. I do have User:Biosthmors/Dengue. O well. I guess I should ask the journal. Let me know if you have any ideas though! I see you've worked on some stuff that sounds similar. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 00:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Biosthmors – Eeks - this sounds a bit too much like my day job :-)))

What format do Open Medicine want their submissions in? Generally in journal publishing the standard "currency" is articles marked-up in XML using the NLM (sometimes called JATS) markup language (see here). It'd be pretty much impossible to automate a Wiki->JATS conversion, because the articles here are not marked up with sufficient consistency to make them amenable to that. At best, a semi-automatic converter might do the basic work (including the hard stuff like tables and references), and then an editor could hand finish it. It would, however, be quite possible to convert from JATS->WikiText ... but I don't know whether that's something people will even want to consider! Alexbrn 08:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a .doc & NLM request for submission. I hope you don't mind if other people comment here because I asked them to! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Biosthmors – Sure, no problem. I would be happy to prepare a one-off NLM/JATS version of dengue fever for submission - this might give us some data to think about for later efforts. Usually this requires some back-and-from with the publisher, since there are many different incompatible ways of marking up an article with NLM/JATS, and usually the recipient has particular things in mind (which typically aren't documented). I will add as a general comment, that devising a digital production workflow (which is what is being proposed) usually goes hand-in-hand with the discovery that those publishing folk aren't making money from doing nothing: there's usually a lot of effort, stress and grind in getting something operational going! Alexbrn 13:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much. We'll see what people/the journal says. So far there hasn't been much interest coming from m:Wiki Project Med but there have only been a couple comments so far. I think Open Medicine has very understandable fatigue with the dengue draft (partially my fault for not figuring out technical solutions sooner), but I haven't lost hope on identifying a pipeline for an eventual publication. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, there is m:Grants talk:IEG/LaTeX Export and the possibility for people to get funded with grants (of up to $30,000 USD) to work on technical projects that will benefit Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

And now I started Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#Idea_on_meta_about_LaTeX_export._Is_it_a_feature_request_in_bugzilla.3F. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Biosthmors – Wouldn't want to go near LaTeX. Shudder. Alexbrn 16:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I have no idea about it. I just figured I'd flag it for you! It might give you an idea for a future grant, if you so wish. ;-) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I can handle the LaTeX part if that is still an option. Also know enough about JATS now (especially its problems) that I can help with that too. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel. No word yet from Open Medicine. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, is the only thing that needs to be done to get the article published is that someone needs to convert the citations from wikimarkup to JATS? If not, what else needs to be done? Remember (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. Is there any actual statement somewhere of what the recipient wants? Alexbrn 18:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the draft isn't perfect. It still has a few blemishes. For example, it would need to have its citations rearranged. I tried to do this in Zotero, but it didn't automatically renumber the citations. As for the journal wanting this article, it could very well be too late. I'm posting now to see if we might be able to draw some lessons from the experience. I don't feel like I've learned anything about how to possibly do this better in the future. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Cranial electrotherapy stimulation

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/DevourerOfBooks Ruby Murray 18:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Alex good to have you on-board

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Colon_cleansing Do look at https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dubvit2012/sandbox Danger^Mouse (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

we need to talk. I am beginning to wonder about coi myself. She is a doctor and is affiliated with the topic, however I like to merge what she is saying rather than having a different article, perhaps a name change to the article, and a merge of what she is saying. I am tagging it as resolved on Monday, if you vote in support of what I am saying then we call it a draw. Seems reasonable having the two in one, and neutral. Danger^Mouse (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

By Friday I am tagging it as resolved then or you could do the honours.Danger^Mouse (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There are similar issues with Laser teeth whitening. Alexbrn 11:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Same scenario. Danger^Mouse (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alex please merge the articles, I am not quiet sure, what goes where. However, the merger proposal is a success. Thank you. Danger^Mouse (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I am writing on ANI, this is going for worse, and I have tried to help the user. Danger^Mouse (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's wise: a (quasi-)legal threat seems to have been made after all. Alexbrn 21:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I told her over and over, create a draft, etc give citations, if you have an issue write on the talk page, and threats like that is not civilized, I told her, to come on the table sit with us, and discuss it. Danger^Mouse (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Collaborative working can be great, but is has to take place within the framework of the rules. The basic problem here is that "colonics" are a health scam (according to the reliable sources). Accordingly that's what WP is going to say and if an editor isn't going to accept that there is simply no room for negotiation: they need to go away. Alexbrn 21:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You have acted totally unethically. You asked for my email in a customer service room 2. When you got it you said "what fun" 3. You sent sleazy emails telling me how "superpretty" I am 4. Now you posted my real name on wikipedia talk 5. I have removed the talk you just posted now and I would ask you to leave it like that.

1. IRC is a public, and yes I pm ed the user told her I can assist you further, and I did say you're pretty/ 2. I never said what fun, we both talked about Dublin etc.. 3. Super pretty sure I said that, error on my judgement, Misplaced Pages wants me blocked on these basis for sometime, go for it. I am not denying anything and yes we had a decent conversation, and I have acted stupid on my part. Danger^Mouse (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm Alexbrn 21:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I want this to be resolved, I accept full responsibility, for my actions. Danger^Mouse (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

re editing on the Kombucha page.

Hello, I now see that there is a basic rule that there is a basic avoid 3 reverts policy, and I shall conform to that in the future. However, each time I have made changes I HAVE (now) been taking it to the talk page, and the users continuously reverting the page to an an inaccurate formulation but do not engage in a productive discussion in the talk section which I have pointed people to "state of science". I have created a talk section, and referred people to it, but no one has attempted to discuss the content and scientific merit of the studies, or why these do not constitute legitimate primary sources. I would kindly ask you to discuss your reasons for removing my edit on the talk page. I do not see why my supported position and continuous adding to this position with evidence constitutes "edit warring" while those who simply delete with either no, or cursory, reasons are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NR biogeochemist (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see you have been told there what the problem is. I agree. Anyway, yes, the article talk page is the place for discussion:see you there! Alexbrn 20:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Where? You have not engaged in the talk sections "Claims" or "The state of science and avoiding the insertion of personal bias (pro or con)." regarding my edits, which is where the relevant discussion is, and in regards to your comment "no consensus for this change " this is untrue, numerous people have in fact tried to change it but they give up after you cha and what seems to be 2 other people change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NR biogeochemist (talk • contribs) 21:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Lindane

Hi Alex. I guess you do not like this addition of a recent study outcome. --Leyo 07:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not a good source, and isn't even presented as circumspectly ("may") as it presents itself. Is there some good secondary material that covers this topic? Alexbrn 08:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. --Leyo 09:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is Deepak Chopra. Thank you. ~ Matthewrbowker 19:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that went as my accuser intending, coming to be described by a passing editor as "the most amusing case of WP:BOOMERANG I've seen on COIN". Alexbrn 07:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm thick, and new.

In thirty seconds, could you explain to me what OTRS is? Pretty please - I don't want to waste your time, but I need to know what on earth is going on with the COI thing?? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Welcome aboard! I hope you enjoy your stay on Misplaced Pages!

OTRS or "Open-source Ticket Request System" is a system for experienced volunteers to answer emails sent to Misplaced Pages. Often times, OTRS emails contain sensitive information that can't be posted publicly, so sometimes you'll see tickets referenced in regard to permissions and things of that nature.

If you are referring to the same COI thing as I think you are, OTRS received an email claiming that Alexbrn had a conflict of interest in regard to Deepak Chopra. That is currently being discussed at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard.

P.S. If you ever run into a weird acronym that you don't know what it means, most of the time you can type "WP:" and the acronym into the search box and find out. For example, information on OTRS is located at WP:OTRS. ~ Matthewrbowker 23:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Matthew and yes you have identified the COI I am referring to. In a previous COI discussion you identified a COI the complainant had, and invited himher to declare it, but the invitation was declined. I am not asking you to comment on that, but I am very uncomfortable that Alex is accused and the accuser is hiding something. I also note that Alex has told the accuser that disclosure isn't required !! I don't understand. I'm naive. Thanks for the welcome too, I registered a few years ago ;). --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Users should be allowed to maintain their anonymity if they wish. However I notice that an admin (presumably after viewing the OTRS material) has now flagged Vivekachudamani (talk · contribs) as having a declared conflict of interest, using the connected contributor template. So, a clearer picture is beginning to emerge. Alexbrn 06:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback

Hi Alexbrn, for some reason my browser has always had difficulties with Article Feedback. I don't seem to be able to easily access feedback and consequently I've never really learned to understand its ins and outs. I find the WikiMedia documentation on the topic to be rather opaque. Can you explain to me what this edit accomplishes? I've seen others perform similar edits several times in the past and I'd like to know what it all means. Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. It just "turns on" the feedback mechanism (I did this by using the "tools" menu in Wikpedia's UI). The practical effect is that readers can now leave feedback on the article. if they do, It will show up via an icon on the Talk page. Alexbrn 14:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah OK! Thanks for the explanation. -Thibbs (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(Potential) risks and benefits of Soursop/Graviola

Hello Alexbrn. I am trying to introduce a (missing) balance in the soursop article. It is clear from research and from the positions of cancer organisations that there are potential benefits and potential risks. I think that in order to have a balanced article, both need to be reflected. I hope we can come to an agreement on this. Just a few pointers and questions at this stage:

- Why do you not consider primary research on the anticancer effects of soursop noteworthy? Why can't we have a section on "cancer research and treatment" where both the research and the treatment aspects are included, if necessary in separate subsections. Obviously primary research has no direct implication on treatment since doctors, hospitals and cancer organisations cannot rely on primary research to prescribe treatments. This is obvious and therefore any anticancer health claims made by manufacturers or sellers of soursop-based products are illegal and liable to prosecution. That said, primary research is usually the first step towards finding and eventually developing drugs against any disease.

- Cancer Research UK states that "In laboratory studies, graviola extracts can kill some types of liver and breast cancer cells that are resistant to particular chemotherapy drugs. But there haven’t been any large scale studies in humans. So we don't know yet whether it can work as a cancer treatment or not. Overall, there is no evidence to show that graviola works as a cure for cancer. Many sites on the internet advertise and promote graviola capsules as a cancer cure, but none of them are supported by any reputable scientific cancer organisations." Why do you selectively quote, for example suppressing the statement that "we don't know yet whether it can work as a cancer treatment or not." I think it is important to quote fairly and not selectively. Selective quoting is a way of misrepresenting the author's intentions.

- The toxicology findings are blown out of proportion as the studies are as conclusive or inconclusive as the studies on benefits. This is why the French food safety agency decided against restricting dosage of soursop, explicitly stating that the findings were insufficient to confirm a causal relationship between soursop and the observed cases of atypical Parkinson. Again, this fact was misrepresented in the earlier version of the Misplaced Pages article. Yes, there are potential risks (like with many foods and substances) but it is misleading to give more space to one potential risk than to a series of potential benefits.

I look forward to discussing these and other issues with you with a view to seeking common ground.

Thank you Elfriede21 (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! The place to discuss this is really the article Talk page. But in brief, we don't generally build article out of primary material but prefer secondary sources - especially for anything in the biomedical space (see WP:MEDRS and WP:SPS). Mentioning laboratory studies is particularly inappropriate in a section about human health since there is zero evidence of benefit from graviola, and implying otherwise would be a very bad thing. Anyway - please raise this on the article Talk page if you think edits to the article are needed. Alexbrn 16:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks, will take my questions/comments to the article talk page.Elfriede21 (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

1. "Shiatsu". Cancer Research UK. Retrieved 26 October 2013.