User talk:Julius Senegal

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:

• Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically require recent secondary sources to support information; their application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
• The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, revert, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions. A bunch of us who are interested in medical-related articles hang out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Feel free to drop by if you have questions, need help, or want to see what else is going on. We always need more good editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed you have reverted my edit on the article about Sucharit Bhakdi. I ask you to please clarify why you did so. In your message, you assert that my edit was wrong, but provide no further evidence. In the talk page, in the section Insubstantial reference for spreading conspiracy theories we had reached the conclusion that the sources referenced did not support the misinformation assertion. I invite you to expose your case on that section, or provide sources to support your claim. Tigre200 (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this [1] should not be on Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants per MEDMOS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator of the failed GA application for Vitamin b6, I am working through replying to the bulleted points of the review. Your suggestions and comments (and contributions to the article) are welcome. P.S. I did not bring this up with the GA reviewer, but I have previously raised seven vitamin articles to GA. This was my first time for an outright rejection rather than a 'fix this and that' interaction. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, I try to help - I also intended to improve the German article...--Julius Senegal (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.

Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Please explain what this means as I strongly oppose any kind of "past disruption" in that field.

Otherwise I will bring this warning to you as well, if it makes you happy. --Julius Senegal (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have shown an interest so I am informing you there are DS in place, it means no more than that.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to join WikiProject Medicine's informal, low-key contest about adding citations to articles: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikipedia/WikiProject_Medicine_reference_campaign_2023?enroll=qyoufwds (All you have to do is sign up at that link, and then edit normally. Everything else is automated.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcywinograd (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Hi Julius, I received your message addressing my edits to the lead on Robert F. Kennedy Junior's Wikipedia page. The lead as it is written--"Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. (born January 17, 1954) is an American environmental lawyer and author known for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories.[2][3][4]" lacks neutrality and reads like a hit piece out the gate. Is he only known for this? Is he not known for his environmental litigation? Is he not known as a challenger in the 2024 Democratic Party primary? Who is to be the arbiter of what he is most known for? I do not see a citation to a current poll asking what Kennedy Junior is best known for? In time, he will be known for challenging a sitting Democratic Party president--a fact listed at the end of the whole entry, assigned to irrelevancy. Silly.[reply]

Hey, Marcywinograd, I'm not Julius, but I happened to see your question. Since RFK is identified first as an environmental lawyer, I think that settles your question about whether he is known for his environmental litigation. If "in time, he will be known for challenging a sitting Democratic Party president", then "in time" the Wikipedia article will say that, but not before then.

The usual method for identifying what a subject is known for is to read books and other high-quality sources, and see what they say. If none, or hardly any of them, mention some fact, then the Wikipedia article should not make it prominent. As a very rough, crude estimate, I note that putting his name into Google's search engine gives me millions of Ghits, and the same search with -vaccine on the end halves the number of hits. I see the same pattern for terms like -lawyer and -environment. See Wikipedia:Search engine test for some reasons why this approach isn't sufficient, but if it turns out to be representative, then this suggests that we're approximately on the right track. A more reliable test is: Can you name two books about this person that have been published in the last ten years and that don't mention the things you'd like to have buried? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To me, someone who knew little about Kennedy Junior until recently, he was best known for running and losing against incumbent Senator Markey, who introduced the Green New Deal legislation.

On another note, where do I scream from the mountaintops about the politically incorrect usage of the term "American," which is also in the lead. Editors should be specific, say US, as American also applies to those from Central and South America. Someone who disagrees might say this is standard practice or consensus practice. Granted, a lot of people also adopt a US exceptionalist attitude about term "American" but that doesn't make it appropriate. Would we use a racially derogatory term that a lot of people use just because they use it??? To use the term "American" is racially insensitive as it suggests those in the Global South do not exist. Best wishes, MarcyMarcywinograd (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases like "was an American" are used about 30 times more frequently than "was a US" on the English Wikipedia, so that battle is probably hopeless. Also, the United States of America aren't the only United States, so there may not be any perfect solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can only echo WhatamIdoing.

In addition, the abstract of an article summarizes what is written below. Unfortunately for RFK jr., he does promote anti-vaccine propaganda and conspiracy theories. Maybe he will stop this some time in the future, so we can add this with reliable sources. But omitting it is clearly a violation in WP:NPOV. --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Julius,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to you regarding the page for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.). There has been some discussion on the internet about the potential bias of this page . Some people believe that the page presents an often inaccurate mainstream consensus on RFK Jr.'s views on vaccines .

One specific point of contention is the use of the word "propaganda" in the first sentence of the page, which some people believe is a loaded term. Additionally, some people may take issue with the page labeling RFK Jr. as a “conspiracy theorist” without providing sufficient context or evidence to support this claim. There is also a concern that the page does not give enough attention to RFK Jr.'s decades of advocacy for the environment and human rights.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Best regards, -- Iosdeveloperguy (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. This is a standard message to inform you that genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours in this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Dialectric (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you think this [2] is a WP:CIVIL reply? Maybe you were in a bad mood and would like to edit it? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have noticed on several occasions (see also last Rfc) that you are lacking knowledge and a neutral point of view in that subject. That concerns me whether you should continue posting such things. I wished that you first get familiar with rules like WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV and then after this break come back with some more useful questions. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that you retract that if you wish to continue contributing. SmartSE (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Such rude threats clearly are offending, so please retract that. --Julius Senegal (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have some experience with those guidelines thanks. I came here to de-escalate your personal attack, but you seem to be doubling down. Your comment does not provide any source to back up your statements and instead completely focuses on ad-hominem attacks against the source I provided "no one would ever consider him reputable"/"he is so awkward" etc. and against me ("don't waste our time here"). You have also removed another user's comments in the talk page in an unnecessary aggressive way. I have challenged your removal and replied to that user to try and guide them in editing that page more effectively [3] and you have once more removed that content for no reason at all and making my own comment seem out of context. Why are you creating such a toxic editing environment in a delicate and controversial editing area? @Smartse is an admin so I'll let them decide what to do here. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you were really here to "de-escalate", why are you continuing to attack me?

You have not provided a reliable and reputable source acc. to our guidelines here.

In addition I find it really wierd that you insist of restoring a clearly violating dicussion post of user Nicolaas19. He is insulting us as "censors", he is spreading conspiracy theories about EFSA.

Why are you accepting and this highly toxic behaviour?

Also, I have clearly stated the reasons to remove this post, so why are you lying?

Please abstain form my discussion page, I don't want to have that toxicity on this page. --Julius Senegal (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julius, I would suggest striking your first sentence in that comment on the article talk page (and striking or at least rewording the last sentence) in terms of WP:FOC, especially because that's the very problem we've been dealing with in this topic lately. If you want to advise an editor of their behavior and that they should voluntarily step back from a topic, that belonged on something like their usertalk page, not article talk space. That isn't always the best advised course either though since that usually ends up at and is best handled a behavior board like WP:AE in this subject. KoA (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KoA,

Thx, that sounds reasonable. --Julius Senegal (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to use clearer, more neutral edit summaries, per WP:SUMMARYNO. Your last 50 summaries show repeated use of the unclear 'aw' and unhelpful summaries like 'yawn' and 'lol'. What does 'aw' mean? Dialectric (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The acronym 'aw' is commonly used in deWP for 'Antwort' (reply). --Leyo 22:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dialectric,

As for discussion pages I abbreviate much to safe time. "Aw" means "answer". --Julius Senegal (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to results of a randomized controlled trial published in Frontiers in Immunology in April, 2024, hospitalized COVID-19 patients who took spirulina had a lower risk of death than those who did not.

Why did you remove this? Did you read the study? 2600:1700:B2C0:5E10:D4BA:B511:43FF:4786 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to explain.

Besides of this primary single study (WP:MEDRS), we have also the issue that this COVID-19-related study was published in a doubtful journal form authors of region prominent of publishing quackery papers regarding COVID-19 treatment. --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now give me an honest answer. 2600:1700:B2C0:5E10:D4BA:B511:43FF:4786 (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are avoiding any critique of the study itself. Did you read it? Did you read any critiques or analyses of it or of its statistical methods? Because the region that the authors come from is not relevant. The "doubtful[ness]" of the journal is not relevant. Personal attacks are more than not relevant; they are disingenuous and pejorative. Your answer shows unambiguously that your reasons for removing it had NOTHING to do with science. Single studies are cited in Wikipedia all the time; I would posit that there are tens of thousands of them cited.

Again: why did you remove this. Be honest. 2600:1700:B2C0:5E10:D4BA:B511:43FF:4786 (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Frontiers in Immunology" appears to have a good reputation in the scientific community.

https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100229161&tip=sid

https://www.resurchify.com/impact/details/21100229161 2600:1700:B2C0:5E10:D4BA:B511:43FF:4786 (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that the doctors who conducted this study have ever been involved in "quackery"? Have you ever even heard of these doctors before I published the link to their study? Do you know anything of their histories, their education, their prior work? 2600:1700:B2C0:5E10:D4BA:B511:43FF:4786 (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a screen shot of this and provided it to the authors of the study. 2600:1700:B2C0:5E10:D4BA:B511:43FF:4786 (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Are ***you*** a doctor? 104.49.195.138 (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't repeat myself, and whataboutism or promoting singular papers at any cost won't change anything. --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also asked (and answered) at Wikipedia:Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the IP address has been blocked for one week. David notMD (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]