User talk:Bon courage: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:23, 25 March 2015

This is Bon courage's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Sorry!

Hi Alexbrn,

I apologize for removing the comments you made on the naturopathy page. This was an accident. I am new to Wikipedia and I am not sure what I did to remove the comments. Should I not edit a post once comments are made? Again, I'm sorry for this accidental removal,

Solomonmorris (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Solomonmorris[reply]

Hi! To be honest, I missed that even happening. FYI, the guidelines for using Talk pages are at WP:TPG -- these cover commenting etiquette. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reiki

Re this edit, in the spirit of collaboration, please avoid edit warring and let the discussion about the proposed content run its course. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A single edit is not an "edit war"; also WP:DRNC (which seemed to be your rationale). Your edit is not in accord with how we neutrally present nonsense medical claims here (add: this is an interesting thread on this topic). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the need to make a brief introduction since we haven't edited together much. I generally stay away from these sorts of subjects. However I want to let you know that while I very rarely weigh in, I'm almost always on the skeptics' side of these debates. The question is, as a skeptic, how do you (we) (1) distinguish between fringe theories and questionable science, and (2) avoid overstating the reliable sources? These two questions must be intertwined. Of course you are free to your own personal opinions about reiki and similar subjects, but if you are hoping to convince the community of your views and create credible articles you're going to have to find reliable sources that support your views and do more than say reiki is fringe ipso facto all sources that support that view must be reliable, or chant "quackery quackery quackery obviously utter bollocks." Believe it or not there are scientifically plausible explanations for why many people report positive outcomes from reiki that go beyond placebo effects. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes, I think I've come across you wrt Monsanto? you work for the NSA or something ;-)) I am very familiar with altmed topics here and the demarcation issue for fringe/questionable science, with how the WP:PAGs apply to this area and how WP does (or sometimes does not) work in practice when it comes to fringe topics. I don't put stuff in articles that isn't sourced, chanting doesn't cut it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at Monsanto, never did anything on that, but I was accused of working for the NSA so you're right there. You've done an awful lot of chanting on reiki, and your comments at RSN have honestly seemed pretty lacking in PAG support. They read like you're ranting because it's so obvious and you can't believe people would actually disagree with you. Take a moment to understand and consider your opponents' arguments, and then debunk them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What may not be apparent to you if you're not often editing in this area is that a number of participants at RS/N know each other well and this is an oft-repeated and well-worn ritual. I believe at RS/N I quoted WP:RS and WP:PSCI; not sure how that's "ranting". WP:PSCI is a policy, BTW. Also be aware that WP:AC/DS apply to the Reiki article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) what is exasperating, is that anybody is WP is arguing that vitalism is not pseudoscience. for pete's sake. the need for extraordinary sourcing is the burden of those who want to say that reiki (or any other snake oil that has no valid mechanism of action) is effective for anything. Since scientists don't go around repeating themselves endlessly that quackery is quackery, we have WP:PARITY and sources like quackwatch are great, per that. PSCI is policy. FRINGE is the guideline that 'splains it. PAG. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I read from the comments posted by skeptics on this matter: Reiki makes no sense to me, therefore reiki is quackery, therefore reiki is obviously utter bollocks, therefore reiki is snake oil, therefore reiki is fringe. I don't have to support these views with reliable sources because because reiki is quackery and scientists don't go around saying that quackery is quackery. There's my RS-based argument. Anyone who disagrees with me is a lunatic charlatan and a POV pusher. Did I mention that reiki is quackery? Quackery quackery reiki quackery. What, I haven't convinced you? How exasperating! (In all seriousness, I don't know anything about vitalism, but I'm aware of at least one plausible "valid mechanism of action" for reiki.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oh goodness. hm. you and A1 are fellow travellers. so.. what is the plausible MOA for reiki that you are aware of. do tell. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How condescending! Cortisol and oxytocin release. The same mechanism that's been proven when you cuddle with your lover, your baby, or your dog. Here are some sources: [1], [2] And remember, I'm not saying this proves reiki works. I'm saying it's scientifically plausible and addresses the knee-jerk claim that there's no conceivable mechanism. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry you see it as condescending to ask you a question. ok, something akin to cuddling is not an intervention - is not an effective treatment for any disease or condition - it is just comfort. which is what i said. anyway, enough here. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiiight. You just asked a question, no condescension. Anywaaaaay, you're not listening. I didn't say this proves reiki is an effective treatment. I said there is a plausible mechanism, the same mechanism that has been scientifically validated in other, non-therapeutic situations. So, please stop arguing that reiki is obviously fringe, utter bollocks, snake oil, etc. etc. because there is no plausible mechanism. That's ignorance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DrFleischman let's step back a bit. the "pseudoscience" label is only relevant to claims that reiki is actually useful to treat some disease or condition. there is no evidence that it is useful to treat a disease or condition, and no plausible MoA by which it could treat a disease or condition. causing comfort (and we do have some undertanding of what comfort means, biochemically) is not a plausible mechanism of action for treating a disease or condition. Inhibiting protein X that is involved in inflammation, is a plausible MoA (salicylic acid). Holding a wound closed and keeping junk out of it, is a plausible MoA to improve wound healing (band aid), or propping open a closed artery (stent), is a plausible MoA. Moving some kind of "energy" around, by touching a person in a way that also causes comfort (which we can describe biochemically somewhat).. not a plausible MoA to treat any specific disease or condition. Why are you saying it is? i really don't get it. I don't think anybody would call a claim that reiki is relaxing or comforting, "pseudoscience". that only comes in, on the therapeutic claims. so i really don't understand where you are coming from. really i don't. Jytdog (talk)21:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment. Regarding the first part, I agree that this pseudoscience debate only applies to claims that reiki is useful to treat diseases or conditions. Reiki, as I understand it, is also a spiritual practice and a means of providing comfort, and I'm not aware of any reliably serious position that it doesn't provide spiritual valid or that it doesn't provide comfort. So in that sense, the organization of our lede (and in particular the blanket statement that reiki is pseudoscience) obfuscates the multipurpose nature of reiki and overstates the sources. All of the stuff about medical efficacy and pseudoscience should be consolidated in its own paragraph.

As for what I think is the main point of your comment, the sources I provide do point to a real, non-hocus pocus and scientifically plausible mechanism for how reiki might (MIGHT) actually provide some unproven medical benefit. It isn't about moving some kind of energy around, which is how reiki practitioners describe it. I'm comfortable saying that's bogus. The plausible, but unproven theory would go something like this, reiki affects cortisol levels, cortisol levels affect all sort of metabolic and disease pathways. Perhaps reiki's affect on cortisol levels is inconsequential, or perhaps it provides no benefit beyond cuddling. I don't know and it's not the point. The point is that this is a scientifically plausible mechanism, not some sort of wacky voodoo magic like you and others have described it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(exhale) so we share some common ground there. however, changing cortisol levels (in other words, the biochemical definition of comfort) is not a plausible mechanism for treating any disease or condition. that is just trying to dress this up in something science-y.... the very definition of pseudoscience. so we disagree with each other quite firmly there. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is just your personal opinion. You're not an endocrinologist, are you? Your accusation that "that is just trying to dress this up in something science-y" both ABF and grasping at straws. I could equally accuse you of just not liking it because you've been clinging to an anti-reiki ideology. Neither accusation would advance the project. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and with that, i am laughing and walking away. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexia

hi, Alexbrn do you have a minute--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will tomorrow morning (GMT time zone). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Bluerasberry, approved, #3 for GA, just look at it and close (if you have any questions I can answer, add info, references or whatever) thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzie10aaaa errm, looks like I won't be available after all (see below). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda

To enforce an arbitration decision and for Breach of editing restrictions at Ayurveda, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

--John (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard and administrators' noticeboard.

Accept reason:

Editor was unaware of editing restriction and has undertaken to follow it in future. John (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Errrrrr, what?! Since when is it necessary to get consensus of the talk page before making an edit, and this was a good one in line with our WP:PAGs particularly policy WP:PSCI. The way we are encouraged to do things here is to be bold to test connsensus. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since November 2014, see Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 7#Update. You indicated here that you knew the subject had been the subject of controversy. I assumed you were referring to the ongoing restrictions at the article, and that you were also aware of this RfC. Was I mistaken? --John (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was aware there had been discussion about 0RR at a noticeboard (I thought it was a bad idea); I had also discussed the pseudoscience aspect a lot as the result of a request at WP:FT/N as I recall. But I don't follow the ayurveda article closely and I didn't know about this detailed rule set of yours (which also strikes me as a very bad idea as it will achieve nothing more than a superficial peace at the expense of the article quality). I find this turn of events rather extraordinary. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn I am sorry you got blocked. The key question from my view is whether or not (it is yes/no) you knew that the 0RR (for some reason, allowed to be archived) that was in place. If you did not know, then John should unblock you. If you knew, the block was righteous. Answer it straight, then. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I made one edit to the article, adding fresh material. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the blocks were only intended to reduce disruption to the project. If my understanding of your intentions was flawed and you now understand and will follow the restrictions, I am happy to unblock you immediately with an apology. If you wish to discuss changing the restrictions I am open to that too, but they were put there for a reason and I feel they are still necessary at present, as these recent events seem to underline. --John (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that is super decent of you John. fwiw I suggest you pull the notice out of the archive and place it, unarchivable, at the top of the talk page... Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I suspected 0RR may be in place but I did not know about this "Talk first" rule for edits. However, since I was sure I was bringing a fresh source to bear (not that I checked) I assumed I was not even in danger of breaching any 0RR since this was all-new material. John, yes please unblock me: the soluton AFAIAC is for me to unwatchlist this article: working in this environment is bonkers. I agree if these sort of special rules apply to an article, they should be displayed as an edit warning for editors initiating an edit. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that would be distorting the history of what has happened. John, Alexbrn and Jytdog both have been edit-warring aginst me at Foie gras. May I suggest you take a look at recent events on the Foie gras talk page before you consider removing your block. These editors need an indication of how disruptive their approach is.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that is really funny. as soon as he saw you were blocked, drcrissy edit warred content back into the Foie gras article! I wondered at the timing; now it is clear. hilarious. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A move was made at Reiki too. Those jungle drums eh! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have accepted your request and I unblock you, as promised, with an apology. I have clarified the editnotice on the relevant pages to try to prevent further collateral damage like this. --John (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks. There are several aspects to this incident I need to think about. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John, since you're unblocking "with an apology", I'm sorry to see you didn't put anything like that in the permanent record (=the block log), which is what people will see going forward. You realize Alex had a clean block log before this incident. Please put in a one-second block to make a note that's a bit more apologetic than "unblock request accepted". Bishonen | talk 00:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry you got caught up in the side effects of this. Your block was I believe, an overreaction to something I initiated. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 01:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody will make that mistake again. i took a strange notice that was on the page, amended it, and moved it to the very top: here. Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several experienced editors took the time to explain how John's rules were a catastrophically bad idea, but John is still enforcing the rules he wrote, and here we are: Another terrible outcome. Alexbrn did nothing wrong; these are good edits in line with what reliable sources say, but Alexbrn now has a stained block log, and John didn't even have the courtesy to say "Sorry, I shouldn't have blocked you" in the unblock. Alexbrn, I'm sorry you got caught up in this mess. I think the Ayurveda article would benefit from adult supervision. bobrayner (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this farce is just more of the same crap from an admin I have crossed in the past. I de-watchlisted at Ayurveda some time ago for the reasons you can now see in this section. The admin is aware of the fact that I believe he is wielding his mop and broom like a cudgel, and I do not believe he actually watches the page at all. Such a shame for the project. I would not blame any mainstream editor for avoiding that toxic page totally. Civility warriors are as damaging as Pov pushers. I do hope that Alexbrn not being around the project ATM is not a direct result of this affair, and that he will rise above this nonsense. (I may well take a break too, not that it'll have any effect, (I'm not that naive), except on my own well-being)-Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Would you please consider stepping away from the Ayurveda article? One can appreciate that you were trying to help, but there appears to be consensus that this is no longer helping. Alexbrn, who is (in my view) one of Wikipedia's most valuable contributors, got ensnared in this scheme and had his clean record needlessly tarnished. Alexbrn and tps: if these problems continue then as an uninvolved party I would be willing to contribute to an RFC/A on John. Manul ~ talk 12:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Alexbrn, I am sorry to take up your talk page with this as I am sure you have heard enough of this. Two things raised here I wish to respond to; Bishonen, no I won't be doing that as it is not called for. My block was not in error and my apology was a mark of sympathy, not an acknowledgement of wrongdoing on my part. I do feel sympathy for Alexbrn but they should really have made it their business to check out what the restrictions were before editing an article under enforcement. The unblock is the remedy for the block. Manul, no I will not be doing that either. You may feel free to take whatever action you deem appropriate. I request though that any further discussion of my actions take place at my talk page where it belongs, and not here. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Bishonen for your intervention. I think John has issued a non-apology apology (I'm sorry for your error). This admin evidently thinks it's fine to expect editors to "make it their business" to search through Talk page archives to see if he's set up some special rules that might trip them up, which is – interesting. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree. Compare also this little effort of mine. Yes, I disagree with this block, and the others that were placed for the same reason. However, as for your record being "tarnished", I dunno. Isn't a clean block log a bit of a wimpy thing to have? I'm very proud of my own log, especially the item from 2009. Compare this page (search for "Bishonen"). Bishonen | talk 18:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
      - That's cool! I feel my block seems rather puny now ;-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - You blocked somebody for violating your rules, even though they didn't know about it, and four months after you said you had withdrawn the 0RR.[3] It's not even clear which rules now apply, or who they apply to. Do you understand why this is needless, stupid, and counterproductive?
  - The best way forward is that these ridiculous rules are withdrawn. I don't mean the current situation, where you say you've lifted the rule but still make arbitrary blocks of positive contributors; I mean actually withdrawing your rules. Instead, any competent admin could enforce the universally-accepted wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:3RR, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and so on. Alexbrn's edits were in line with those policies, and I look forward to the day when such article improvements are permitted again. bobrayner (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2015 in spaceflight

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 in spaceflight. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits/vandalism of Noopept article

You're arguing against the consensus of a dozen individuals on what does or doesn't belong on the noopept article.

Listen, just because you work on government standards, doesn't mean you're always right. What's your hard interest in noopept? Do you even have a background in nootropics or pharmacology? You removed properly-sourced sections because it was rat data, citing the reason "rats!" on both removals. How is that at all appropriate? Are you phobic? Why not just delete the entire page on rats then? You also repeatedly removed entirely appropriate and useful images from the article, with your edits reverted a dozen times by several users. It seems you have a strong bias as to what should appear or not, rather than just allowing all correct data, especially on a lesser-known topic. I petition for you to be knocked off your high horse because you've achieved your status through loudmouthing and force. I would definitely not want standards defined by your "standards". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.168.199 (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I must confess I'm not keen on rats, but am no Winston Smith. Start at WP:5P for an understanding of what we include in articles; WP:MEDRS expands on why we should make sure Wikipedia only carries accepted knowledge about biomedical subjects. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know WP policies. You removed properly cited data and reverted a logical (unsourced, later sourced) correction of a logically-flawed unsourced generalization back to the lesser accurate logically-flawed generalization. In reverting, you're actually asserting the incorrect statement I removed follows WP policy which it doesn't, nor is it even a logical claim to make, apart from WP policy, confounded by sources posted in the aromatherapy article itself. It's clear of course, pending this post I made on your page, that you're going to go and watch my edits and snipe-revert all of them without even thinking about what you're standing for, and whether you're following your own rules. Emotional lability is not a trait a person in power should have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.168.199 (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. If you want to discuss article content, do so at that article's Talk page. (BTW don't use the "cite pmid" template - it's been deprecated.) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors"

WP:MEDRS doesn't say you must only use secondary sources. They are preferable but when none exist, primary sources ARE NOT WRONG TO CITE and you keep removing all of them; the scant data available on the compound, which is described and cited appropriately without making extensible claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.168.199 (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a very few cases where they're okay. Inserting primary research about oral lavender oil preparations into our aromatherapy article is however a no-no. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic that what I wrote was a no-no; did you think of what you were reverting back to, and whether it was correct? My edit had two purposes as described in the summary. Reverting to the bad claim is assurance you believe it is sound. Again, you aren't fit for editing as you've proven several times; please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.168.199 (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be so good as to discuss article content on article Talk pages. If there's a "bad claim" somewhere, flag it up or fix it! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm discussing your qualifications. Please be so good as to follow the subject of a conversation accurately.

"INTPs can often become far less objective than they think they ought to be: precisely at those times when the under-developed Feeling gnaws at his being."

Alexbrn, drink a bottle of tea tree oil and tell me that it has no effect beyond placebo. You've reverted a disambiguating clarification I made to a totally false generalization on a page, and when I added it back with a citation, you remove the sentence altogether, returning the page's meaning back to its original misleading POV. Why not remove all the others on the page of equal magnitude in importance? You removed it because you must feel right; there was no way you'd let yourself be seen losing what could appear to be an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.168.199 (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Myers Briggs - it's a heady mix of common sense and BS you know. I'm not really sure what you're on (about), but if you want to discuss article content do it at the article; if you want to complain about me do it at WP:AN/I (but in that case I suggest wearing your flame-proof undewear though)! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 :Hello! I must confess I'm not keen on rats, but am no [[Winston Smith]]. Start at [[WP:5P]] for an understanding of what we include in articles; [[WP:MEDRS]] expands on why we should make sure Wikipedia only carries accepted knowledge about biomedical subjects. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] <sup>[[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Alexbrn|contribs]]|[[User:Alexbrn#Conflict_of_interest_declaration|COI]]</sup> 08:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 ::I know WP policies. You removed properly cited data and reverted a logical (unsourced, later sourced) correction of a logically-flawed unsourced generalization back to the lesser accurate logically-flawed generalization. In reverting, you're actually asserting the incorrect statement I removed follows WP policy which it doesn't, nor is it even a logical claim to make, apart from WP policy, confounded by sources posted in the [[aromatherapy]] article itself. It's clear of course, pending this post I made on your page, that you're going to go and watch my edits and snipe-revert all of them without even thinking about what you're standing for, and whether you're following your own rules. Emotional lability is not a trait a person in power should have.  <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.235.168.199|99.235.168.199]] ([[User talk:99.235.168.199|talk]]) 09:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-:::Don't be silly. Emotional lability and misleading others are my hallmarks. (BTW don't use the "cite pmid" template - it's been deprecated.) [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] <sup>[[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Alexbrn|contribs]]|[[User:Alexbrn#Conflict_of_interest_declaration|COI]]</sup> 09:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
+:::Don't be silly. If you want to discuss article content, do so at that article's Talk page. (BTW don't use the "cite pmid" template - it's been deprecated.) [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] <sup>[[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Alexbrn|contribs]]|[[User:Alexbrn#Conflict_of_interest_declaration|COI]]</sup> 09:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 ::::"The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors"