User talk:Bon courage

You've no idea how much I've been looking forward to this. - Walter Ego 05:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The tradition continues. Happy New Year Roxy! Bon courage (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kkollaps (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Err, reverting your own changes of today as "longstanding" is an interesting stunt. Also, read WP:MEDSAY ... putting all the "A 20o6 review says" cruft back in is not good. Bon courage (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

You raised the idea that I was trying to cut out criticism of Prasad's comparison of Covid policy to Nazi Germany three times at BLPN, despite the fact that I didn't touch that material in the diffs I shared there, and explicitly said that I had no problem with it because its sourcing is good. You then needed to be given signposts to the actual material I was talking about (again, despite the fact that diffs were provided). And even that didn't stick, you've now raised the idea that some of the contested material is about the Nazi-Covid policy analogy again at RSN - I shared links to the SBM sources, Shaffer's post doesn't mention the Nazi-Covid analogy at all.

I appreciate that you think you're dealing with a fringe-pushing lunatic who wants to whitewash a Trumpy villain. You've made that abundantly clear. So I won't waste my time protesting that I carry no flame for MAHA or think that vaccines are a bloody good thing, despite the fact that all that would be truthful. I'll just say that if you're going to smear me, could you at least do it without gratuitously and repetitiously bringing the Nazis into it? Samuelshraga (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Don't be silly - I have no idea about your views. The whole point about the Nazi thing is that overblown rhetoric (like the Hitler/COVID thing, or the stunting children thing, or whatever) does not enjoy the protection of BLP. You are aware that VP made this comparison right? I see Shaeffer's article covers the stunting children thing not the Hitler thing, but the point about "pushing people's emotional hot buttons" is the same. Bon courage (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Vinay Prasad, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

You undid my edit detailing the effects creatine can have on depression with no explanation other than "junk journal". Can you elaborate further? What I used as my ref was undoubtedly a reliable source and every claim in there was verifiable, so really your reversion comes down to your opinion. I'd like some policy-related reasons why that information shoudln't be included rather than anything opinionated like "junk journal." Thanks. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cureus is undoubtedly an unreliable source. See also WP:CITEWATCH. Bon courage (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay I see Cureus is listed there as a questionable source. Didn't know WP:CITEWATCH was a thing. I assume it's unreliable because it's self-published and not necessarily peer-reviewed? HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

It has a terrible reputation for publishing rubbish. Sadly there are hundreds of questionable journals most of which are supposedly "peer-reviewed". PMID:41189312 looks to be a reasonable source on Creatine and depression (executive summary: meh). Bon courage (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Alright point taken. Later on, I will find other (reliable) sources on creatine and depression, I'll also look at the one you linked me. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Bon courage (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Update: I added in the source you linked, it was a solid one on creatine's effects on depression. I also added in another study I found myself. If you have any thoughts or concerns, please let me know. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Have adjusted; I suggest any further discussion is at Talk:Creatine so that the article's other editors can participate. Bon courage (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. I assume that second source was unreliable per the list. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

WP:MDPI on the list, yes as a hit and miss publisher. But when there are WP:BESTSOURCES available we have a good way forward. In general the notion that a dietary supplement has a profound effect on clinical depression is one which is kind of WP:EXCEPTIONAL and, given the propensity of the supplement industry to confect bogus research, we need to be scrupulous in sourcing, in my view. Bon courage (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see, thanks for the guidance. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history at COVID-19 lab leak theory shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. rayukk | talk 17:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Rayukk, you were reverting against multiple editors. Please don't continue. TarnishedPath^talk 22:07, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Linux on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 22:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not saying that you are doing this, but it is something to watch out for. On ANI we are dealing with a bunch of very busy Administrators who deal with multiple editors per day. Someone who posts a few somewhat longer comments (not a wall of text -- think two or three paragraphs instead of sentences) and then does not reply when the person who was reported responds is far more likely to prevail to than someone who goes back and forth with the reported editor on ANI.

This is a different dynamic than most article talk pages. Even better is if ever one of your comments contains a diff or a direct quote. The best admins completely ignore our opinions and focus on whatever solid evidence we post.

In particular, when the person reported has the habit of overwhelming opponents with questions and comments, the tactic falls apart when the target doesn't respond. What happens is that uninvolved administrators end up responding instead. This can be good or bad. If there really isn't a case to be made, the accusation falls apart quickly. If there are real behavioral problems, having the accused post again and again without any non-admin arguing with them makes the defense fall apart quickly. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't usually watch ANI (I've only got it on my watch list because I was involved in another thread). I agree admins usually know what's what. Bon courage (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bon courage! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore a version of an article. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. I see a lot more domineering: Repeated unexplained EW over 10.1093/neuonc/nov198. You've removed it several times now, with no explanation. I invite you to explain.. RememberOrwell (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do not post to this Talk page again. Bon courage (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lancet MMR vaccine-autism report on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 12:31, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

63 ~2026-26739-62 (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

64 ! Bon courage (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

65! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

5.4434494e+92 TarnishedPath^talk 22:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

3.14159265359 Walter using an LLM? Ego 01:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Did somebody bring pi(e)? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

That would not be rational. Bon courage (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is getting very hard to AGF. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Strive, Slatersteven! Strive! Bon courage (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Bon courage, I stumbled across the Christian Science page today and thought it looked a lot lower quality than most pages do. I looked into it an one user, @Soderstromverrier, (whom you have reverted a couple times already back in april), has been making a bunch of edits even after the reverts, and they haven't been the best. I was hoping to corral some of the people involved with that page to this topic I made on the talk page to discuss how to fix it.

I would really appreciate any opinions you have on the matter and I hope to see you there. Cheers- Therealdoomcat (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

You may see it at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Circumcision. I understand you have asked me to not post on your talk page but I was told I must notify you that you're mentioned. Thanks. GlowingLava (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Would you be so kind as to go to WP:SPI and post ny evidence of socking on the Sahaja Yoga page? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's at . Note there is a long history here including stuff that only arbs will know. Bon courage (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

They mentioned you here: --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#Sahaja Yoga. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Power nap, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortality was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply on Zefr's talk page. Can I post my follow up here since it was deleted?

I understand, I'm mainly after what the correct wording is so I can keep the atlas's specifics (region, plant part, preparation, what the people used for) without collapsing it into "people somewhere used this as a folk remedy.

So how should something like this be phrased (on top of putting in the past tense as I already discussed with Zefr)? "Morton records traditional uses of okra: an infusion of the mucilaginous immature pods or of the leaves is taken as a demulcent or diuretic in Costa Rica, a paste of cooked pods is applied to boils and whitlows in Trinidad, cooked leaves are poulticed on tumors and abscesses in Brazil, cooked leaves are applied to the chest of a patient with bronchitis or pneumonia in Argentina, and a pod decoction is used for dysentery in India.""

It's attributed to Morton and describes the practice rather than asserting efficacy. I can see your concern, but it seems to me that Traditional Medicine already signals these aren't modern medical claims, if you don't think that's enough, would a starting sentence noting these are historical uses which may not have clinical support resolve it, rather than trimming the specifics themselves? Eduardo7z (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is no hard and fast answer. Since you can see the concern, you will also appreciate why it is hard to achieve consensus in such instances. Given the state of the World I don't think we can assume that the general reader will take a "tradition medicine" heading as a sure sign that what follows is unsound in medical terms. Bon courage (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I stumbled upon and learnt about Irlen "snydrome" a few hours ago. Given the woo woo pseudoscience grift I just knew that the wiki article would have a long history of people with a financial vested interest using it for marketing. And on a much sadder note, desperate parents who have been taken in and spent thousands of pounds to help their struggling child seeing it described as pseudoscience feeling compelled to dispute this with their personal anecdotes.

I read through all the diffs starting in 2005. For a very long time their grandiose claims stood unchallenged. When someone with proper medical knowledge came in and cleaned it up, a few months later company members had put it back now with even grander claims.

Reading through the decades, it wasn't until you took an interest that things finally changed. In years past,they'd remove all references to it being unsubstantiated pseudoscience and fill it with promises of how your child would become academically successful. They'd remain unchallenged for 10 months, if someone removed one unsubstantiated claim they'd add two back.

With your arrival not only did you gut the articles marketing guff, but every time they tried to put it back in you quickly stopped them. Edpsychphd made a valiant effort over years to rewrite the whole thing with nonsense, would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you.

I've written all this because I'd like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the substantial effort you put in over years. Parents who have children that are struggling with reading and writing feel desperate to try anything that might help. They read articles in the Daily Mail promoting woo and if wikipedia seems to effusively validate it, then it is hard to blame them for forcing their kid into Irlen "certified" "teachers". Required to wear coloured glasses that'd make Elton John jealous but also single you out for bullying.

The serious damage isn't because Irlen is useless nonsense, it is that it is used in place of the fantastic educational support services that have decades of research behind them and are tightly regulated. My mum spent decades working (in Northern Ireland) with children who have down syndrome, autism and various other conditions. She'd mention parents who refused to accept their child was autistic and would instead send them into the local young earth creationist church who denied the existence of autism and claimed with God's help they could make them "normal".

This is why I am so thankful for the effort you put in that helped make sure parents wouldn't be drawn in. It is impossible to know how many children you've saved from that fate who were instead properly supported by trained professionals. Wikipedia is often the first port of call when someone wants to see if something is legit. I would suspect that your actions could have saved many, many thousands across the world, kids who given proper educational support could even become wikpedia editors some day hahahahaha.

Once again I would like to deeply thank you.

Wishing you all the best BeardedChimp (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

It has readers. I wonder what caused the spikes? Bon courage (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Those spikes are intriguing, in the past alt-med groups would spend years weaselling their way into the BBC and onto the most popular talk shows with millions of viewers. For example they'd promote chiropractic, giving a facade of scientific backing by bringing up their private chiropractic service that is presented to and sound like an official NHS institution. Advertising like that is explicitly prohibited by the BBC charter, yet they'd be invited back repeatedly. With millions of viewers this causes massive spikes in the public seeking out these private services.

I could see Irlen trying to engage with the BBC in public interest stories about parents who have children with learning disabilities, they'd interview top "experts" in the field who are actually just Irlen practitioners. In the UK at least that could result in big spikes from mislead viewers. The BBC is also notorious for its absolutely abysmal treatment of scientific topics with an inane interpretation of fair balance, like having a climate scientist on the show can only be balanced by having a climate change denier sitting opposite. If they had an NHS child psychiatrist on, they might invite an Irlen practitioner to challenge the status quo. BeardedChimp (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Or maybe it correlates with the blue glasses worn by Johnny Depp catching the attention of social media again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply