User talk:Bon courage: Difference between revisions

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Bmartinsen (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism. The article failed WP:V WP:NPOV and WP:NOR as it was. Any content added to it needs to be reliably sourced. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexbrn--You fixed a ref for me on the med uses of Ag page: pimp ref | Assisted by Citation bot r419). How did you do that? Thanks, Desoto10 (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under Preferences|Gadgets, enable the "citation expander", and new button, "Citations" appears in your edit screen. Pushing this will (usually!) expand any partial citations in your edit text if it can find them online. For journals, if you have a DOI you can just put

{{cite Journal|doi=xxxxxxxxxxxxx}}

and the bot will expand the whole thing; also works if you have a PMID (maybe more ...). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could cut and paste it over to WT:MED. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha - thanks for the tip ... will do. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to you 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 do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Homeopathy". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 20:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Crashdoom ^Talk 08:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref E-Cat wiki. I wrote that the E-Cat had been independently tested, giving the reference arXiv:1305,3903 and ALSO that Elforsk (The Swedish equivalent of EPRI) not only funded it but wrote about it on their web page. You think an unreferenced comment of yours is good enough reason to do that?

Why did you (or someone else) choose to post a comment from a blog by Ugo Bardi after that? Can I just pick blog comments and post them because I like them?

a.ashfield@verizon.net Parallel (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think your edit has merit, argue its case on the Talk page (in my view arXiv references are not RS for your use). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to put new text under the old text, so I'm starting a new request. Obviously I think the edit has merit or I wouldn't have made it. You didn't answer my questions apart from stating the arXiv:1305.3903 was not "RS" what ever that means. It is a location where the paper maybe read or downloaded.

Obviously an independent test has been performed. I linked Elforsk who state they funded it and the general results. Elforst is a large, well respected R&D organization. So this is proof positive that an independent test was performed.

You deleted my comment and replaced it saying the E-Cat has not had an independent test, and have nothing to back that up. By definition you can't prove a negative and the most you should say is that no test is known. So you were wrong.

I really don't care what you and your fellow editors believe, but there is now overwhelming evidence that LENR has been proven to exist. There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers you can look at here. CANR-LENR.org

Clearly the writers of this section on the E-Cat and also Andrea Rossi do not believe it is possible, but you shouldn't allow your beliefs to color your postings with unsupported statements to bolster said beliefs. For example, following the part about a third party test you post a long quote from Ugo Bardi's blog. His blog! That is no proof. I note the commenters on his blog were uniformly negative and I can find you blogs from respected scientists that say the opposite. Parallel (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the article Talk page: this has been discussed at length. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one that deleted my comment. I think you owe me more of an explanation than you have given.

See too the expanded piece I have posted on topic talk. I doubt it will do much good. Skeptics treat this like heresy. In my opinion the editors are so biased they should recuse them selves and allow the whole piece to be rewritten based on the facts. Parallel (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

arXiv references are not RS for the claims made. There is no more to add really. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if you actually read what I wrote before commenting. I never claimed the arXiv reference was the RS. The RS is Elforsk. Are you now claiming this is not a RS? Parallel (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a dispute page and you are invited to respond http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Energy_Catalyzer Parallel (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Hey, I saw you reverted my revert of myself on Sungazing. I was trying to correct this edit by a person who didn't seem to grasp NPOV re fringe topics and I of course didn't preview. Sorry 'bout that! I see from your contrib list that like me, you're business of cleaning up after woo. Great to meet a fellow Pharma Shill! ;) Ultra Venia (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think our edits crossed - but because I was working with an 1st gen iPad I wasn't fast enough to clean up afterwards - thanks for sorting it! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, regarding your deletion of my previous edit, I reverted your deletion because you did not bother to understand WHY I edited the text, originally. Regardless of HOW the source reads, you should not simply "copy and paste" a source text. Read the text, copied and pasted from the source, and you'll find that the text reads, as though the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK recommend against cancer patients taking the diet, in GENERAL. This is an incorrect statement, and needs to be written, as the source intended. The American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK recommends using the diet as a primary means to combat cancer. I will change it again, to read as it was intended. My edit is not only reasonable, it is correct, where your continued changes, read incorrectly. Irshgrl500 (talk · contribs) 06:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Irshgrl500[reply]