Please be more careful next time
- You need consensus before adding it. Iceman hypothesis is not supported by evidence. -A1candidate (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- You were previously warned about misrepresenting a source.
- You have not shown on the talk page what is the problem with all my edits.
- You claim "The Ice Man hypothesis is not supported by any scientific evidence."
- Your comment on the talk page is not correct according to the reliable source. The source does not say that it is a hypothesis that is not supported by any scientific evidence.
- Your comment on the talk page suggests I added original research to the article but I did no such thing. I get the impression you did not read the full text and blindly reverted.
- This is what the source says: "Bizarrely, the ‘Ice Man’, who lived in the Alps about 5000 years ago, displays tattoo marks on his body which correspond to acupuncture points. To some experts, this suggests that an acupuncture-like therapy was already used in Europe 5 millennia ago ."
- Please strike your misleading comments on the talk page and revert your edit. QuackGuru (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe that there are very good reasons to think that your recent edits on the above page would be seen by many if not most people as being of a tendentious and/or disruptive nature and also can be seen as being in violation of WP:IDHT. You have been advised to take your concerns to the RSN and have apparently chosen not to do so as opposed to engaging in perhaps tendentious editing on the talk page. This is I believe a very serious concern because ArbCom has placed sanctions on content in a topic area which this article has been found to be within. Should you continue to engage in such nonproductive editing on the article talk page there is a very serious chance your conduct may be brought to attention at one of the noticeboards. Please refrain from further nonproductive editing on the article talk page. I suppose I should say this is a warning. John Carter (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you think my behavior is problematic, feel free to lodge a complaint at WP:AN/I. -A1candidate (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- A1 thanks for your clarification. My comments on IDHT and TE may have been more strident than necessary. In objecting to a source being very specific and clear about the content being challenged is helpful. I realize this might have been understood by other editors based on a recent edit history. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey man, I noticed you on the countering systemic bias talk page and saw your proposed edits on the acupuncture talk page! I've read through them and they look like excellent additions. Have you added any of those? If not, I'm willing to help out. Just let me know! LesVegas (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I've been active on the talk page and I'm still trying to discuss how to include these edits. Thanks for helping out, it's greatly appreciated. -A1candidate (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Chocolate milk is not a form of milk
Don't take this kinda thing seriously and don't let it tax the ol' Liver-Spleen. I think most editors see through that sort of thing. "I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused" -- Elvis Costello .... cheers, Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 03:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. -- Just remember, every minute you spend refuting a spurious objection is (a) a minute taken away from potentially productive contributions, and (b) a little more stress. It's baiting -- or has the effect of baiting. If you respond in a pointed, annoyed way, that's just a diff that will be used against you down the line.
- We have a whole lot of reasonable editors who can see through tendentious behavior on the part of skeptic POV-pushers, but at the same time aren't going to proactively object to it. POV-pushers know this, and know their behavior will be tolerated as long as they seem to be "defending science". Bear in mind that one of the editors involved has said that he doesn't think WP:DR works, and that he thinks progress occurs only "when certain users are excluded from editing". You know there are double standards here behaviorally, so please, don't take the bait. Who cares if bullshit prevails in the short term? There are no deadlines. Be patient, take wikibreaks if stressed, take the high road. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 03:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello again A1candidate, I wanted to let you know I placed an POV tag on the acupuncture page and as part of the discussion I mentioned your "outstanding issues" on the page. I wanted to use the section on the talk page "Tags" as a means of resolving those issues and everyone else's issues as well. Anyway, stop on by whenever you get a chance! LesVegas (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of B.A.P - Live on earth for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B.A.P - Live on earth until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)