“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

Hello Alexbrn. You recently performed a massive deletion of t'ai chi ch'uan's health section without any discussion. Your action is likely to result in an edit war, which is already starting between you and OtterSmith. I would thus request that you revert such a volatile edit & open discussion(s) on t'ai chi ch'uan's talk page and/or the WP:WPMA talk page in reference to your opposition of what is written. Thanks. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! There's a section at WP:FT/N on this. The removed content was out-dated, superseded, or poorly-sourced health information by the criteria of WP:MEDRS (and so making some dubious claims) so I don't believe there's anything controversial in removing it is there? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will take my discussion there then. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You recently deleted a large block of text from Brownie Mary, writing in the edit summary, "rm. irrelevant / SYN / non-WP:MEDRS".[1] That's odd as the source clearly says, "Susan Bro, an agency spokeswoman, said Thursday's statement resulted from a past combined review by federal drug enforcement, regulatory and research agencies that concluded "smoked marijuana has no currently accepted or proven medical use in the United States and is not an approved medical treatment"...The Food and Drug Administration statement directly contradicts a 1999 review by the Institute of Medicine, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific advisory agency. That review found marijuana to be "moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting."[2] Could you please explain how this is, as you claim, "irrelevant" synthesis? More to the point, could you explain how this has anything whatsoever to do with WP:MEDRS? Finally, why did you remove the sourced contradiction but leave in the FDA's statement? I think we both know the answer. The answer is, you did not read the source, you simply deleted it without even looking at it. But let's review the points under consideration:

• The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not currently recognize any medicinal use of cannabis and it remains classified under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. According to the FDA, "smoked marijuana has no currently accepted or proven medical use in the United States and is not an approved medical treatment".
  • Verified, unambiguous fact attributed to the FDA and the NYT.
• However, the FDA's position contradicts the findings published by the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies. The Institute of Medicine published a review of the evidence in 1999 and found that cannabis was "moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting."
  • Verified, unambiguous fact attributed to the IOM and the NYT.

Now, what's so odd about this, is that you have included the FDA's position while ignoring the position reflected by the IOM. Both the FDA and the IOM position (and their contradiction) are cited by the NYT. In what appears to be a disingenuous attempt to remove this information, you claimed that it was "irrelevant". That's odd, since the material is entirely relevant to Brownie Mary's position, her legal battle, and her political campaign to legalize cannabis for medical purposes. Further, the sources on this subject have noted the relevance (Werner, C. A. (2001, March 4). "Medical Marijuana and the AIDS Crisis". J Cannabis Ther. (3/4): 17–33) According to the timeline evidence presented by Werner, the IOM study itself appears to have been funded in response to the public's anger against the federal government's attempted crackdown on medical cannabis after California passed prop. 215. The DEA and other agencies threatened to go after any physician who prescribed a Schedule I drug like cannabis. When a class action lawsuit was filed against the government in response to their draconian pronouncement, a million dollars suddenly appeared to fund IOM study that looked at the scientific evidence for medical cannabis (contrary to what the FDA claimed), the results of which are cited. The NYT cites this material in full, there is nothing synthesized. Finally, nothing here goes against WP:MEDRS. One must wonder what you were hoping to achieve by deleting relevant, reliably sourced historical facts about the FDA, the IOM, and the history of medical cannabis. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nice coat rack! I've explained it on the article Talk page. Your conspiracist "wonderings" are, as usual, a waste of time for everybody. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "coatrack" and there is nothing "conspriacist" at all in the above. Perhaps you should quit stalking other editors and making false accusations. What you refer to as "conspiracist" is a paraphrase of the documented history of medical cannabis from Werner's 2001 article in the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics. Once again, you are adept at making baseless accusations but completely unable to review and read the sources. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your conspiracism is about me, and you're doing it again ("stalking")! Anyway, I'm glad to see you've reduced the coatrack material a bit, despite the blast of hot air protesting nothing was wrong. Keep going. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Total stalker) Like the time, Alex, when you removed MEDRS material from the Lede to "Effects of Cannabis" because it wasn't covered in the body, while leaving stuff about liver damage from cannabis in the Lede, which also was not in the body. Then in a frantic maneuver, you inserted something about liver damage to the body in order to justify your move. You also made a lot of hot air and even threatened me with a 3RR violation, like we're in playschool or something. I had to speak up here, as I watch you accuse Viriditas while actually describing you own behaviour. NPOV is the biggest rule here, it trumps all others. I think it is important to point out that in the cannabis articles that you and Project Medicine have obsessed over for the past month, NPOV is sorely lacking and that fact should be a great concern to any Wikipedian. petrarchan47tc 21:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're sincere. But unfortunately you're wrong. If you think something in the cannabis articles needs attention there are very many avenues to use (Talk pages, noticeboard, DR of various kinds). So why not use them? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 02:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, your comment reflects an innaccurate reading of this source.

As with GERAC (which you thought was a pro-acu coatrack) and the Howick source there (that you thought was a legitimate indictment of GERAC), you're missing details and jumping to false conclusions. Slow down a little, OK? Nobody's forcing you to comment on stuff, so there's no rush. Besides, QuackGuru gets confused enough on his own, and doesn't need help (he cited your diff above). --Middle 8 (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've commented on this extraction method question for a couple of weeks (I've decided it's a trivial detail not worth huge debate). I'm not sure your reading is "accurate" while mine in "inaccurate". The cited source says that after reading a description in a book she decided to try another approach after finding that "traditional methods" were damaging the actual ingredient; the other salient points here (that modern purification and detoxification processes are needed) further show different this process is from folk medicine (and I see you've been removing these details). From the Science piece you link this is perhaps pertinent too:

This insight is considered a breakthrough step toward the discovery of artemisinin by her supporters. Tu's detractors, however, point out that using ether and other low boiling point solvents to extract active ingredients from plants is standard phytochemistry.

Because - it is kind of lame propaganda to suggest that it is only because of the ancient wisdom of TCM that a researcher would think to try low-temperature extraction! The whole thing is rather ridiculous (and you have hinted with your "TCM ROX" comment). However, if you've found other sources which clarify the point then - great!

As to GERAC, the concern there (and in fact other editors raised the coat rack issue more than I did at the AfD) was the picking out of impressive-sounding details from the primaries to construct a coat rack of undue details: something which is still happening (but not for long?). Again, I've said my piece on this but decided to let it run because - nobody reads that article. Howick is good secondary commentary on GERAC and I think you misrepresent him by saying he dismisses sham controls. He does however say they are unlikely to have been useful for GERAC, as WP relates. I've been looking at his work more widely and his schtick seems to be that conducting effective trials (of any kind) is really hard in general. For GERAC Ernst, of course, also says the placebo methods used were problematic. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexbrn,

I believe my edits make sense, in that they reference pubmed and a gastroenterology textbook and demonstrate that leaky gut, as far as the term goes, is equivalent to intestinal permeability (as noted, in fact, at the top of the existing article), and is an established biological fact. A sentence such as mine (with citations) noting the related science clearly belongs in a leaky gut article section called "Conceptual basis and background", especially since nowhere else in the article is any citation made referencing the proven nature and causes of intestinal permeability (aka "leaky gut"). As it exists now it is an article about what has not been proven, rather than what has been.

The QuackWatch reference, however, isn't relevant. It just makes a relatively emotional piece more so, and appears to be an advertisement for that website.

The primary issue, however, is that the article itself clearly needs to be renamed to "Leaky gut syndrome", and if the QuackWatch content stands then the term "leaky gut" in the sentence that mentions QuackWatch needs to be replaced with "leaky gut syndrome".

In addition to modifying the title of the current article a new article needs to be created for leaky gut/intestinal permeability and cover related issues like Crohn's disease, celiac disease, gliadin, zonulin, TNF, etc. Most of these related topics are noted on the leaky gut syndrome talk page...however there is a disconnect between the name of that talk page and the name of the article in question.

Until that new article is written "leaky gut" should simply be a blank placeholder, with a similarly blank placeholder for an "intestinal permeability" article and, probably, a disambiguation for "leaky gut" and "leaky gut syndrome".

Nakomajoe (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Nakomajoe[reply]

Hi! I agree the "dual" nature of this article is a problem (and have raised this before). Let us continue this discussion on the article's Talk page ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) @Nakomajoe I have proposed a split along the lines you suggest. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, I am not looking to get into any kind of a dispute with you over the edit of this category but I am looking to provide up-to-date, cited, verifiable, and neutral information. I have amended the edit to ensure it lies within all of wikipedia standards and am willing to work toward a compromise to advert escalating this any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B10A:B324:A46B:DD7D:79A6:8413 (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You need to get consensus for your desired changes, starting perhaps at the article's Talk page. I have to say though, that in my view there is practically zero chance of there being agreement to add links to saltedboards.com and doctoroz.com - and if you continue to attempt to edit war this change in you are likely to find yourself blocked. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply Alexbrn - as stated I am not interested in warring over this, just providing neutral, verified and up-to-date information. I believe citing a company that is current and relevant to the article only adds value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B10A:B324:A46B:DD7D:79A6:8413 (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are edit-warring. I have requested page protection since you seem to have a dynamic IP. 09:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no edit warring. From Kava Talk reference it seems the consensus is users want more information on available brands. It is also notable to point out it seems you have had a history with this issue before as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B10A:B324:A46B:DD7D:79A6:8413 (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have inserted the spam links three times now without discussion or consensus (and they are there now). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		Bringing you warm wishes for the New Year!
		May you and yours enjoy a healthful, happy and productive 2014! Thank you for the coffee, and for all you do! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting here as this references two articles and I do not wish to contribute to any kerfuffle on GERAC. Regarding your comments in diff, although your comment may have been a pointer to irony, I wholeheartedly encourage your efforts at Circumcision and HIV#African trials and would support a separate article if you thought it appropriate and were willing to write/create it. Regardless, I agree that the African trials warrant adequate and clear material on WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was being ironic :-) I think that the African trials would be much more worthy of a standalone article than GERAC: there's quite a lot of material on them: they have a significant ethical angle and have some detailed aspects which have attracted comment ... and of course big ramifications for public health policy. Overall though, I think its probably proportionate for WP to have a section on them with roughly the amount of material/detail that's there now (do you think there should be more)? - and as I said when I AfD's it, I believe GERAC also merits at most only an article section somewhere, not an entire article.

I raised this because I hoped it might prompt thoughts about how we could treat the GERAC trial details proportionately - though in GERAC's case it's harder because there isn't the mass of secondary commentary that exists for the African trials. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Although in principle I agree that GERAC might be handled proportionately by a section, it is precisely the mass of secondary commentary that establishes notability. WP is by no means perfect and we humble editors simply function within the policies and guidelines to make it the best it can be. Your acknowledgement of irony is appreciated. I think the African trials can be handled as a section, but if some additional commentary is available I urge its inclusion. It is particularly notable for its worldwide health impact and for the ethical implications. I would hope some RS has discussed the issue, esp. regarding implications and ethics. (disclosure: 6, 9 30, 35 with apologies and best wishes and something else clever). - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MrBill3 - sorry, I wasn't clear ... I meant the mass of secondary content on the trial details made it easier for me to include some African trial details with a clear conscience. I'm not sure the details of the GERAC trials have received similar secondary coverage (but let's see if new sources can be found); the biggest fallout from the trial setups seems to be that they stirred up the "placebo debate" a bit more. It seems the most significant reaction out of the African trials stem from the 2007 WHO/UNAIDS conference in Montreux, and at that point the article transitions out of "history mode" since this is where the main content takes up the narrative, in the Circumcision and HIV#Recommendations section. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for edits on the page of - clinical trials on Ayurvedic drugs. It is people like you who give me strength to write on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Both of you do great work, and I'm lucky to work alongside you. Keep it up. bobrayner (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:German acupuncture trials. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sonic weapon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tintin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some nutritious protein to keep you going in your hard labors.

Lesion (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider having a look at Candidiasis#Society_and_culture. There is huge alt med activity promoting "candida diets". Wondering if you are interested in expanding this section at all? Lesion (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, sweet :-) Thanks. I might take a look at Candidiasis later. Thanks for paying attention to Leaky gut BTW - I think it's a topic area with some annoyingly slippery terminology in play so if we can settle this down it would be good. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about edit conflicts....but I have formatted the page a bit...are you aware there is a "Survey" section? -- Moxy (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the formatting! I'll keep an eye on this and chip in again later maybe ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alexbrn, I mentioned you at the chiropractic talk page here. I am pretty sure that you were the editor who wanted to include some info from the Villanueva-Russell paper, and I think it was this discussion and the thread immediately following it where we formed a consensus for how to include it - after the long discussion about WHO. If I am mistaken then please disregard this. Puhlaa (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while - I'll take a look ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Percutaneous Hydrotomy is a new non-surgical medical technology originated in France which gained acceptance in the French medical community in the late 1990s and now practiced by many doctors in different countries of the world. The International Association of Percutaneous Hydrotomy in Nice, France has a web site at www.hydrotomiepercutanee.com in French and English.

The available reference and source materials such as from ANAES (French national agency for healthcare accreditation and evaluation) are in French and this presents a challenge. Your suggestions for how to correctly address this will be greatly appreciated.

I realize now that any entirely new innovation or technology faces the challenge of proving itself where little history yet exists.

As someone who avoided major spinal surgery by the use of this alternative therapy I can personally attest to its effectiveness without the use of anti-inflamatories or anagesics. I hope Wikipedia will permit increasing general awareness of this new innovation in medical science.

Your advice and suggestions for how to improve the Wikipedia entry will be sincerely appreciated.

Respectfully,

Pierre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre Lepoureau (talk • contribs) 04:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! We need some reliable sourcing that describes it, which backs up the text on Wikipedia, and which shows readers that it gets coverage in secondary published sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember this discusion about the Villanueva-Russell paper here. Even though I disagreed with many of your edits that included the Villanueva-Russell paper; when QG tried to remove it I defended those edits because they were generated from discussion and consensus according to collaborative editing and wikipedia policy. Now you have made some major, controversial modifications to the lede, that you know I am going to disagree with - you have removed a source from the WHO from the lede (a international medical body) and replaced it with an NHS source specifically from the UK. Moreover, I noticed that you disregarded the very first sentence of the NHS report, which seems to quote the exact definition of chiropractic that you just removed from the lede; instead you have now started our lede with a critical comment about treating a range of diseases. You can see in [this thread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic#Edit_warning] that controversial edits are going to require discussion (per BRD). It would be a good sign of collaborative editing if you reverted your own very controversial changes to the chiropractic article and started a specific proposal discussion on the talk page so we can discuss the merits. The alternative is that I revert you per BRD, but I would rather not start the discussions that way. I will post at the talk page, but want to give you a chance to revert your changes first. Puhlaa (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an improvement (surprise!), but am of source open to discussion. The WHO document is problematic (and now old), and presents an "idealized" version of Chiropractic which isn't really NPOV. Anyway, see you on the article talk page ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we are on the same ppage, I can live with your additpns to the body of the article. I will be wanting you to revert and discuss first the changes to the lede and the removal of the who source from the lede and where you removed it from the body. I have mentioned before, we can go to RS noticeboard to get consensus on the WHO source! We seem to have this same discussion repeatedly~ Puhlaa (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's possible: anyway the article Talk page is the right place for discussion of this change, not my place! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I can stick to the talk page from now on :) Just wanted to give you a friendly heads-up of my concerns away from the zone of controversy.Puhlaa (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, my Talk page is not controversial? ;-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your gudance and I will read the reliable sources quidelines to comply with the Wikipedia policies !! Pierre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre Lepoureau (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would be best for our readers is what I am bringup at an informal Wiki-meet-up this coming weekend (about 10 of us Ottawa University)..The questions I will be asking the group about Cannabis are.... Should we just have the article at "Marijuana" as its clear the average person uneducated with the topic thinks this is correct? Or should we have it at the correct name to educate people off the bat? What is best to educate more....what would the average person search for....what would be the most direct way to the article? Do people skip over our article at Wikipedia called "Cannabis (drug)" in favour of the next article they see called "marijuana". Does the redirect of marijuana appear in the top 10 of search engines. Do we need to expand more on the terms because peoples understanding of why there is a difference between the terms is relevant (as in we have distinctions for stats, labs, researcher etc...) How can this be worded so that a grade 5 student would understand? Would love any feedback you can give so I can bring it to the group anonymously. -- Moxy (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: Hi - I hoped I had said my last on this. It all seems to be settling down now? For me the main argument is still the whole/part one. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last August you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks - I have started an AfD. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what you need, and I can provide it to you to help you see that what you are adding is actually false. Wikipedia is supposed to be accurate and not untruthful. Rolfing is not, nor has it ever been, massage therapy. It does not use massage techniques. Please stop putting that in there since it confuses people who want to learn more on what Rolfing is. It is structural integration, which is a completely different modality, like how chiropratic and accupuncture are different. Please help make sure Wikipedia is the best is can be by ensuring true and accurate information be provided to the users. Thanks. Sbwinter2 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BRD, which is a good approach to follow. You need to get consensus for these contested changes - please raise this on the article's Talk page if you are not satisfied with the current text. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thank you for all the hard work you put in around here, and to keep up the great work! Yobol (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you - yum :-)

Hello, Bon courage. You have new messages at Talk:Bioresonance therapy#Scientific research about bioresonance therapies.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]