User talk:Bon courage

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

If you are here to discuss something about an article's content then please, to maximize consensus, comment on that article's Talk page and not here.

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

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Ha

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]

Transcendental Meditation edits

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 anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be blunt...

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]

CS1 error on Vinay Prasad

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]

Your reversion of my edit on the Creatine page

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]

COVID-19 lab leak theory

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]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

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]

Advice:

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]

June 2026

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]