User talk:Benbest

Were does either one of these refs mention the topic in question?

"Cholesterol crystals are believed to both impair myelin repair and aggrevate inflammation.^[1][2]"

Also please read WP:MEDRS. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• • Did you read either of these papers before asking your question or deleting my entry? It is hard to believe that you did.
  • First reference (comment on the second reference), first paragraph: "...insufficient clearance (phagocytosis) of damaged myelin by aged macrophages results in accumulation of cholesterol crystals in these cells, which elicits a maladaptive inflammatory reaponse that is associated with impaired remyelination>'
  • Second reference (Science 359:684 (2018), in this case all you needed to do was to read the abstract in order to see: "Aged phagocytes accumulated excessive amounts of myelin debris, which triggered cholesterol crystal formation and phagolysosomal membrane rupture and stimulated inflammasomes... inducing a maladaptive immune response that impedes tissue regeneration."

--Ben Best:Talk 12:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies was looking at the wrong source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You uploaded, File:Aubrey de Grey photo authorized.jpg, where you either stated or implied that you had permission of a third party to upload it; or that evidence of such permission would be provided on request.

Wikipedia currently needs the permission to be explicit and proven at the time of upload.

Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, which advises on how to confirm the permission you obtained from a third party.

It is also advisable to ask the third-party what source attribution they desire, as opposed to marking the image as having been "sent personally". ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you please review this Wikipedia page? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ODEM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff at ODEM (talk • contribs) 07:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BTC Markets is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BTC Markets until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Blumpf (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reed–Sternberg cell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Benbest. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "International School of Temple Arts".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Lapablo (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I am thinking about having my 300 level Biology of Aging do a Wikipedia project on the Senescent-Asssociated secretory phenotype page this spring semester. Do you think there is enough there for a small class project to make a figure and to build on your work on the the page?Jparcoeur (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that there is much that could be studied on this project, but I don't think I am able to answer your question. And I don't know what you mean by "make a figure" (a summary illustration?). If you are having trouble with having enough material, you could expand the subject to all properties of senescent cells. --Ben Best:Talk 15:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ben Best is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Best until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (help!) 09:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

On my talk page you said, I am not confusing endothelin with endothelium, but I did mis-spell as endothelin-1 as endothelium-1. I generally avoid "revert wars", but I reverted your revert in this case because I did not notice my mis-spelling, and because the information I wrote was solidly based on information in the review articles I cited. One of these articles is easily enough accessed by PMC text: Endothelial function and the regulation of muscle protein anabolism in older adults so you can see for yourself. Unless you have access to a university library system, you may not have access to the other article, but the information I reproduced is accurate. Please revert your revert.

Your content and choice of sources are off topic. There are several reviews on endothelin (not about endothelium). --Zefr (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You are confusing my mis-spelling with being off-topic and you are not reading the papers I cited to verify that the subject of those papers included discussion about endothelin-1. It is incorrect to conclude that the paper titled "Endothelial function and the regulation of muscle protein anabolism in older adult" does not included the information about endothelin-1 that I described. You could verify this by reading the paper rather than just looking at the title. For the other paper, in the paragraph before Protection from adverse effects of risk factors the Seals, et al paper states "Expression of ET‐1 in vascular endothelial cells increases with age in sedentary healthy men (Donato et al. 2009)." where ET-1 is abbreviated from endothelin-1 at the top of that paragraph. Please revert your revert (with the spelling correction, of course). --Ben Best:Talk 19:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You should cite journals like this instead. Journals should not be capitalized, and redirects should not be bypassed (this is especially important because if a journal is created in the future, we want readers to be taken to the journal article, and not the lists). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

You're still doing this BTW. It's annoying to have to clean up after you when this could simply be done correctly the first time. Please be more considerate in the future. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience @Headbomb (Headbomb) or even your impatience, and I apologize for my lack of understanding what you were telling me. I now understand that you have created redirections for the "Trends (journals)" journals which do not have wikipedia entries, such that if I write | journal = Trends in Ecology & Evolution or | journal = Trends in Molecular Medicine, both will redirect to the "Trends (journals)" page. That simplifies things. I would rather use this facility than capitalization and redirection. Have you implemented redirection for every journal under "List of MDPI academic journals" ? The notes at the top of that page only list redirection for Aerospace (journal) and Biosensors (journal). What other journal lists has redirection been implemented for? I think it would be helpful to put note informing other Wikipedia editors of the redirection facility at the top of such pages, to be more general than the Aerospace and Biosensors journals. I would do this myself, except that I defer to your vast editing knowledge. I may not literally be a "newbie", but compared to you I am. -- Ben Best:Talk 12:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Most journals have redirects setup yes. It's possible some of the newer ones don't, but redlinks are fine to have. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have attempted to emulate your efforts by creating a redirect page for the journal Integrative medicine research Integrative Medicine Research to List of Elsevier periodicals#I, but it doesn't look up to your standards. So perhaps you can clean-up this mess I made as well, @Headbomb. --Ben Best:Talk 16:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I failed to capitalize all initial letters in the journal article, but can't seem to fix that mistake, @Headbomb. --Ben Best:Talk 16:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, redlinks are fine, see WP:REDLINKS. You don't have to create redirects. Redirects were created for MDPI and Frontiers because those publishers churn journals like people give candy at Halloween, and most MDPI/Frontiers journals aren't individually notable. It's also pretty easy to find if a journal is published by MDPI or Frontiers, and there's not much else you need to know about individual journals. Elsevier publications however, are hugely varied, published under dozens of imprints, regularly acquired, sold, etc... which makes mass redirects to List of publications much less desirable, or needed. s Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, here. Please stop doing that. Just link the journal name directly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

That was an accidental typo on my part, as you can tell. Sorry about that, sometimes my fingers slip, and my eyes don't catch the error. --Ben Best:Talk 10:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Typos happens, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about links like [[BioMed Central|Gut Pathogens]] and [[Frontiers_Media#List_of_journals|Frontiers in Aging]]. Just link to Gut Pathogens and Frontiers in Aging directly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

On my talk page, you said: You cited MDPI, although the journals are reported to be of variable quality. What evidence do you have that Molecules is not of acceptable quality, other than the apparent bias you have against Pterostilbene? Do you really believe you are being objective about this subject, or about me?

Publishing in MDPI is a WP:REDFLAG for Wikipedia editors because we know editorial practices may be compromised or absent. There seems to be general agreement by medical editors that each article in an MDPI journal be assessed individually, with skepticism.

Concerning this edit, which I suggest should be viewed as possibly non-replicable results (see WP:MEDANIMAL and WP:WHYMEDRS), this lab research does not belong in a section on Research because it is far too preliminary and potentially misleading to non-medical readers, WP:NOTJOURNAL #7. As we have for the Research section on Resveratrol, the Research section should be devoted to the highest-quality human studies available. Such a qualification is self-limiting for pterostilbene because there is no "high-quality human research" on this compound. For many articles, such as endothelin and pterostilbene, your editing indicates a preference to treat lab research as informative about human health or disease (pharmacokinetics is a separate matter). You are right - I disagree, and will continue to challenge, preferring that an encyclopedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING and follows rigorous WP:MEDRS reviews. Zefr (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited CTBP1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transcription.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

In edits like these, please don't add Wikidata links like you did. Linking on Wikipedia should be to Wikipedia articles, not Wikidata entries. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Phytic acid, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You need to consider your sources more carefully, as you are choosing references poorly for several articles you have edited. A strong WP:MEDRS review source would be needed to make statements about anti-cancer effects. Check first the FDA or EFSA websites to see where regulatory agencies have reviewed anti-cancer evidence - you won't find any for phytic acid. Be more careful. Zefr (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

On what grounds do you justify your claim that reviews in the Journal of Nutrition or Journal of AOAC International are unreliable sources? --Ben Best:Talk 22:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This statement reveals the issue with your editing: you are not reading (not understanding?) WP:MEDRS. It is not a matter of general reliability, but rather an issue of expertise by authors and editorial boards on the field of medicine and anti-disease evidence for Wikipedia content. Neither of those sources is a location where experts on human diseases publish - see WP:MEDASSESS - "Assessing evidence quality" means editors should determine quality of the type of source and quality of the publication. Respect the levels of evidence." Try to understand this: you are placing a significant amount of misinformation into the encyclopedia because your choice of sources for nutrition, human health, and anti-disease topics is often from non-expert literature, then you misinterpret (such as from lab research on rodents) a human health benefit or anti-disease effect. This produces misinformation that unsuspecting users may believe, and creates work for other medical editors to correct your errors. Zefr (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi ben, the BMC series is BioMed Central's own collection of journals, led by their own staff editors. The other titles on their platform are led by independent academic editorial boards, and often owned by other organisations (societies, institutes, etc) contracting the publishing platform etc from BioMed Central. There's more info explaining it here: https://www.biomedcentral.com/p/the-bmc-series-journals Joe D (t) 18:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The article American Open Currency Standard has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, no references, nothing in a WP:BEFORE - no evidence this was ever notable in any way, let alone sufficient coverage for WP:NORG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Klotho (biology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kilo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aubrey de Grey photo authorized.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The redirect Cdbc has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 5 § Cdbc until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

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

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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) 22:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also 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—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Benbest, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, ATG (autophagy acronym), should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATG (autophagy acronym).

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Xoak}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

X (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pulmonary vein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atrium.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Benbest. Thank you for your work on Ganglionated plexi. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for starting this article. The scope seems to be the cardiac ganglionated plexuses (or plexi), so it's worth considering a page move to include the work 'cardiac' in the title. I think that this is relevant, because, for example, the enteric nervous system consists of a set of ganlionated plexuses. There is much more than can be added, so I think that the 'stub' template is still warranted.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Anthocyanin, you may be blocked from editing. Read the sources more carefully - there is no sufficient evidence for any anti-disease effects from such early-stage lab and poorly-designed human studies. See WP:MEDASSESS, left pyramid. Your editing history seems to indicate you choose a source based mainly on its title, not on examination and skeptical review of its content. Zefr (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

My edit was based on two 24 reviews from two prestigious peer-reviewed journals: Pharmacological Research and Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, both of which I read very carefully before selecting human studies to cite. You provide no evidence for your claims. The only possible evidence I can see is the 2010 review cited in the article. Very little was known about the microbiota in 2010, so the authors can be forgiven for their ignorance. Ask any artificial intelligence about the health benefits of anthocyanins and you will see that there are many, more than the ones I cited. Ben Best:Talk 15:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Where do you feel any of the sources cited in the two reviews falls in the left pyramid categories of MEDASSESS? Or put in other words: what quality of evidence does anthocyanin anti-disease research have within the pyramid categories? What clinical practice guideline or systematic review (in a respected clinical publication, not a nutrition or basic pharmacology journal) states that anthocyanins have any importance at all in human physiology or anti-disease mechanisms?

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Doesn't exist for anthocyanins. Zefr (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Benbest. Your wiki edit anniversary was 1 day ago, marking 21 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a blessed New Year. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 10:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I too often get negative comments from Wikipedians, as you can see in the exchange above. --Ben Best:Talk 11:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)