Happy New NewEdit

My edsum said "handwaving". -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Cryptic as ever, Roxy - and a Happy New Year to you! Alexbrn (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of KhabzelaEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Khabzela at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: Your ping to me in your comment hereEdit

Hi Alexbrn! I'm so sorry! I received an email notifying me of your comment and your ping - I somehow allowed it to fall into the cracks and go unanswered for this long. If this is still an issue, please email me and let me know. I took a look at the page you linked to, but many edits were made to it around that time - if you could email me the diffs of the content that you believe I should review and redact, I'll take a look at it right away. Again, I owe you my apologies; I did not mean to let your ping and your comment go unanswered. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, No problems :-) That page made me despair so I left it but, looking back, the comments (about Facebook activity) seem to have be rendered less problematic by what participants said as the thread continued, so I don't think there's a problem any more. Alexbrn (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Cool deal, thanks for letting me know. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Khabzela: The Life And Times Of A South AfricanEdit

 On 15 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Khabzela: The Life And Times Of A South African, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Khabzela, a 2005 bestselling biography by Liz McGregor, concerns a South African disc jockey who died of AIDS? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Khabzela: The Life And Times Of A South African), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Know ofEdit

sources that specifically brand Unani and Siddha as pseudoscience and/or quackery? WBGconverse 17:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Unani is a new one to me. For Siddha, the Siddha medicine article has some (presumably sourced) content that may be relevant ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Carnivore dietEdit

Regarding your revert, it was already discussed in Talk. See Talk:Carnivore_diet#Medsci. MEDRS is not exactly pertinent, as no general health claims is being made in factual sense in the article. BecomeFree (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I have responded there. Alexbrn (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tithonia diversifolia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bioactive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Grape therapyEdit

Re your removal of "junk". I am feeling a bit frustrated because another editor wrote that The main problem with the grape therapy article is the absence of reliable sources ..to indicate it is in current common use (European spas, etc.). So I insert a couple of examples to comply with that reviewer's request and then you delete them as "junk". Looks like I can't win. The photo has been on the page since the article was first written: in fact the place was what inspired me to investigate the topic in the first place.Roundtheworld (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem (such as it is) is the absence of reliable sources. They just don't exist from what I can see, other than some we already use. Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

'Adverse Effects' Section on Circumcision ArticleEdit

Better at article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
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 Alexbrn. Thank you for recently amending the circumcision webpage, by including information from the NHS website, after I submitted a request on the talk page. I believe the circumcision wikipedia article should also refer to the article by the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS)[1] as it was published in June 2017. This is because it is more up-to-date than the sources currently on the wikipedia website, other than of course the NHS’ findings.

I believe the first line in the paragraph under “sexual effects” (quoted below in bold) should be removed as it contradicts more recent evidence:

“The highest quality evidence indicates that circumcision does not decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction.[19][76][77]”

The BAUS’ article, published in 2017, disproves the above statement, which is based on outdated sources from 2010, 2012 and 2016. The BAUS article is a reliable source and based from a number of sources including the Department of Health in England, as mentioned on its article. The BAUS article states:

1. The “penis will feel a little less sensitive than before the operation”. This statement is on page 4 in the "what can I expect when I get home?" section of the article (bullet point 4). Thus, sensitivity will decrease after a circumcision. However the above line in bold states “circumcision does not decrease the sensitivity of the penis”.

2. Almost all patients (men) have reported “permanent altered or reduced sensation” after a circumcision. This statement is on page 3 in the "after-effect" section of the article (3rd risk). However the above line in bold states “circumcision does not… reduce sexual satisfaction”. The term "satisfaction" is a synonym of "pleasure", and "pleasure" is used interchangeably with "sensation".

Additionally, the term “sexual function” is used in the above line in bold, however, according to another wikipedia article regarding sexual function[2], “the aspects of sexual function defined as being relevant to the assessment include sexual desire, erection, orgasm and ejaculation”, all of which are already mentioned below in the sentence regarding the 2013 review. Thus, there is simply no need for the above line in bold.

I believe the paragraph should be changed to the following as it reads easier:

"A 2013 systematic review found that circumcision did not appear to adversely affect sexual desire, pain with intercourse, premature ejaculation, time until ejaculation, erectile dysfunction or difficulties with orgasm.[78] However, the study found that the existing evidence is not very good.[78] A 2017 review found that circumcision did not affect premature ejaculation.[80] Reduced sexual sensation is a possible complication of male circumcision.[79] Almost all men have reported permanent altered or reduced sexual sensation after a circumcision. The penis will also feel less sensitive than before the circumcision[3]. When it comes to sexual partners' experiences, circumcision has an unclear effect as it has not been well studied.[81]"

Please let me know whether these amendments are possible. Thank you. Jas9777 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The BAUS source is not great. Please continue any further discussion at Talk:Circumcision. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2020 (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.

Discretionary sanctions alert for AbortionEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...Edit

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
  • New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
  • If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


Trying to force bad edits just wastes everybody's time. Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
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 refer from false spam accusations. (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You have reverted my edit three times now (without providing a source). If you make it a fourth I will have to report you. Please stop using reverts to talk and use a TP instead. (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:BRD would have been better rather than trying to force your bad edit. Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2020 (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.

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!Edit

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
  The 2019 Cure Award
In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Circumcision revert "per talk"Edit

What do you mean "per talk" when you reverted my edit to the circumcision article? I explained the problem in the talk page and then edited after I got no response. Then you revert it "per talk"?Madsenanders (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Your explanation was wrong, as I intimated. Please continue discussion about article content at Talk:Circumcision. Alexbrn (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Once more unto the breachEdit

Hey there! Looking over Morgellons and delusional parasitosis, they aren't making use of the most recent reviews, and I propose to dive in for an update. But I want to take care with impact factor. What do you think of this article? There are other equally good recent reviews, but with low impact factors, and I don't want to open that door.

  • Moriarty N, Alam M, Kalus A, O'Connor K (December 2019). "Current Understanding and Approach to Delusional Infestation". Am. J. Med. (Review). 132 (12): 1401–1409. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.06.017. PMID 31295443.

I'd also want to standardize citations to that format, since when I clean up an article, I want to clean up everything; do you think that will be a problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think impact factor is only really an issue here if a source is venturing into making WP:Exceptional claims, as the work of Marianne Middelveen often does. From a quick look, PMID 31295443 seems to be making entirely unexceptional statements about Morgellons. I can't imagine anybody making a fuss about citation formatting in a fairly undeveloped article like this, but it might be best to signal your intention on Talk beforehand to be sure. I would be happy to help get the article into better shape! Alexbrn (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
OK ... I am hoping to do a bit of updating first at dementia with Lewy bodies. Then I will work first at delusional parasitosis, updating to that review, leaving morgellons 'til last. Do you have the delusional article watchlisted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I've not got delusional parasitosis watchlisted, but then I blanked my watchlist a few weeks ago in a fit of wiki-ennui, and am slowly building it back up again with select articles. I shall add it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Morgellons is on my watchlist and I stalk this page, by way of explanation. I used to be an expert in fibre identification. Give me my old equipment and 48 hrs and I'll identify accurately any fibre snipping given to me of more than a cm or so. If its cotton, wool or silk for instance, they are easily identified microscopically in minutes rather than a couple of days. Hence my interest. Just sayin'.
PS. I could never blank my watchlist. I back it up in fact. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 20:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, I mostly cleaned out the old junk from DP, and in the process, found the answer to the Middleveen stuff, which I added to Morgellons. I'll stop for now, but the three new reviews I found on DP are FULL of good info for expansion, which I will continue to work on over the coming week. As always, the best defense is a good offense, and keeping the DP article in good shape will go a long ways for the Morgellons recurring issues. I'll keep at it, but enough for today. I kind of got into it and forgot about Mr. Lewy! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
PS, unsure about how to handle this; yay or nay. Feel free to revert me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Good stuff! I half wonder whether Morgellons should be folded in to DP where (per WP:NOPAGE) it might make better sense. There isn't much out there on the nature of Middelveen's research, apart from this Atlantic piece which we already (mis-)cite. Alexbrn (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I am liking the separate articles, because Morgellons is more ... non-MEDRS-y. We can delve into all the laysources and the history of it as a the kind of phenom it is. But I want to beef up DP better, so that the real meat is there. If we merged Morgellons into DP, the Morgellons stuff would pretty much have to go away, and I think it could be helpful. Going off to look at theatlantic now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case openedEdit

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Pending revisions?Edit

I notice some of my edits have been flagged as pending revisions (e.g.[1]). As I recall, this didn't happen before. What gives? Alexbrn (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If there are unreviewed pending revisions, any further edits to the article are also put in the queue. This continues until the changes are finally reviewed. That is probably what happened. For what it's worth, the help desk will probably give you better and faster help when asking general questions about Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for reviewEdit

Hi Alexbrn! I would like to request you for reviewing my draft page Epos 257 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Epos_257). I know that it was already reviewed and unfortunately declined, nevertheless I have rewritten it and I would like to ask you very much to check the article if at least a little possible...Thank you very much! Regards Jiří Jiří Gruber (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to find somebody who understands Czech so they can evaluate the sources ... Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Reversion and "unreliable source"Edit

Nice to know you're a circumcision fetishist wrt your sweeping reversions on Circumcision. Care to explain how the Journal of Epidemiological Biostatistics is an "unreliable source"? Zedtwitz (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS, then read WP:BLP and WP:ADVOCACY. And do not post here again. Alexbrn (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussionEdit

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 for editors. 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! MJV479 (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Bates method. Thank you. Belteshazzar (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Vitamin CEdit

I saw that you removed content and references from the Vitamin C article. In your opinion, is the vitamin C and common cold information sufficiently covered in the History section as it was? Or should more detail be added there? David notMD (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:V was not being satisfied. Please continue any further discussion at the article Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)