User talk:Mallexikon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

If you leave a message here, my reply is also going to be here.
If I left a message at your talk page, please respond there (I'll be watching).


Contents

Etiquette violation report; NRS and WP:BURDEN[edit]

You have repeatedly called me a "vandal", and have not responded to my reply at talk before your third revert of my removing NRS using WP:BURDEN. This is discussed at ettiquette violations here[1]. If you continue to ignore WP:BURDEN and revert my edits, I will report to the RS violation alerts, and you will be in violation of 3RR and get banned. What I wrote at talk TCM should have ben adequate to work together cooperatively to find verfieable RS so others can check the sources, which is the core of what Wikipedia is. PPdd (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources

“When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page.”

It is best in a footnote, since it will be hard for average future non-editor users to find in the talk page archives, if they even know what a talk page or its archive is.

tcm[edit]

I reorganized sections in theoretical superstructure, but did not change content. I put the meridian and elements/phases sections before the organ system section because the latter referred to the former. I also added plain English to the section headers, retaining the Chinese language versions. PPdd (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Request at AN/I[edit]

Informational note: this is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Problems at Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).The discussion is about the topic Traditional Chinese medicine. Regards, —Six words (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Contras and War Crimes[edit]

I would be happy to cite sources. I have also scanned some relevant pages and can email them to you. Page 19 alludes to kidnapping civilians, torturing civilians, indiscriminately attacking civilians and civilian houses, and kidnapping children specifically. Page 21 cites the sad story of San José de la Mula. There you have a citation involving targeting health care clinics and health care workers for assassination, kidnapping civilians, evidence of torture, executing captured civilians, seizing civilian property, and burning a civilian's house. Right underneath you have on pages 21-22 another sad story involving several more kidnappings, murders, and a rape. I scanned the story on page 24-25 just to capture the ineffable horror of many of the attacks, including the examples of the infants with their throats slit. I could go on: the bound Americas Watch report on Human Rights in Nicaragua in 1986 included 36 pages detailing "violations of the laws of war" by the contras. There are 25 more pages in my unbound 1985-1986 Human Rights in Nicaragua Report. Neither source is meant to be an exhaustive catalogue. I won't even get into the specifics detailed by the CIIR. My eyes glaze over after so many consecutive stories of murder, torture, rape, and pillage.MarkB2 Chat 02:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Page numbers. Like those people are going to actually check my sources. That would require them to read something informative! I added the page numbers. Thanks for the little edit you did on the page. It looks a little more cohesive now. MarkB2 Chat 09:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

feedback request[edit]

I'm hoping to improve a couple of articles about alternative/traditional healthcare that could use some of the neutrality and cooperative discussion I've seen you display on the TCM article. If you have time, please take a look at 'yoga as exercise or alternative medicine' [2], and 'maharishi ayurveda' [3]. This last one has a discussion about 'pseudoscience' and I'd appreciate your perspective on the use of that infobox, as experienced wiki editor who is familiar with tradition medicine. I'm just an observer of that discussion. I haven't stepped into the fray. Octopet (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Octopet! Sorry for replying so late (I was on a short vacation). Regarding your articles - I don't know much about Ayurvedan medicine or yoga, but just by glancing over the articles I had the impression that a more sceptical tone would be adequate. I don't support using the pseudoscience infobox, though. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. That validates my impression of the situation. Octopet (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Acupuncture[edit]

Excellent fact checking and revisions. Note that I have replaced some information you removed, but I will attempt to find better sources and summaries (probably based on Celestial Lancets). The section on blood (which isn't real blood, it's a magical equivalent) is relevant since at least one version of acupuncture appears to manipulate blood and qi but I've hid it for now until I can hammer together something better. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, and thanks for letting me know! --Mallexikon (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Still excellent edits, good work. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
...and thanks for being so patient with my clumsy citations! --Mallexikon (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Most of my changes are relatively arbitrary, but they harmonize the citations. I dislike using the url parameter in the {{cite book}} template 'cause it links to the title instead of the page. Also, I don't like using highlights in cite book links either, I prefer a simple page reference. Not a big deal, not like there's any guidance, it just makes sense to me. The only other suggestion I might make is to be sure to use the .com rather than .hk domain name for google books (it's world-wide, mine defaults to .ca but I try to correct it when I remember). Also, to link directly to a page without retaining the search string at the end, cut out all of the url after the &p, add "g=PA##" where ## is the page number - i.e. if you want page 27 of a book with a url of books.google.ca/books?id=W2WlcaQB0aMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false, cut out the underlined part, replace it with "g=PA27" and hit enter. You get http://books.google.ca/books?id=W2WlcaQB0aMC&pg=PA27#v=onepage&q&f=false, which should always link directly to page 27. Clear as mud. Throw it between square brackets add your page number and it'll show up in the citation template as 27. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice one :) I'll definetely try it. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Undid edit to acupuncture[edit]

Hi,

Just a note letting you know I undid your removal of the brief definition of qi. Two reasons:

  • WP:LINK states that we shouldn't make readers unnecessarily chase links; if a brief definition works, we should use it. Though "energy" isn't strictly speaking what qi is explained to be, lacking evidence of existence and no real comparison to energy as science explains it, lacking a better definition it's the best I could come up with. If you've got a better short definition, please feel free to improve it.
  • As the same bullet says at the end - not all readers can click on the link. In particular, printed versions lack that ability, and we are supposed to always write with readers of printed versions in mind. That's the main reason I replaced it.

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I hoped by removing the brief definition we could avoid a lenghty discussion about what exactly a brief definition of qi should be (given the complexity of the subject), but you're definetely right: a wikilink plus a short explanation is more reader-friendly. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


Welcome to WP:MED[edit]

And thank you for keeping referencing requirements high :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

... well let's see what the etanercept PR people come up with next time :) Cheers, Mallexikon (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


Discussion[edit]

Discussion is taking place here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Helicobacter_pylori#Organization --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The Flowers of War contribution[edit]

I am curious, is it you who wrote the plot in the The Flowers of War article? AnonymousAnimus (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's me. Like it? Don't like it? Mallexikon (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for doing such a bang-up job. I created the article, and it was a huge relief to see - not only that it was articulately written, but that after I saw the movie, I found that everything was spot on. Plus, it's only a bonus that I found out that you are a fellow atheist. Cheers! AnonymousAnimus (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thank you. That's probably the nicest compliment I got on WP ever. Let me return it by congratulating you to the very good article you created and to the diligent maintenance. Do you happen to somehow be involved in screenwriting? Mallexikon (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I am ever flattered. It's funny that you ask that because I am a screenwriter. For years now, in fact, I have been writing for an indistinguishable screen that's in my head. AnonymousAnimus (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

... always a pleasure to meet someone in search of the Blue Flower. Happy hunting! Mallexikon (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

DRN[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Acupuncture". Thank you. --Famousdog (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Acupuncture talk page section[edit]

Any chance you can move the substantive inquiry about meridians from this edit to a new section? The POV and Lede sections are already quite long due to unnecessary tangents (many due to me), and it's getting to be a pain in the ass to preview and edit them. Normally I'd do it myself but it's your substantive inquiry linked to another comment that's not substance-based. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Actually thought about it myself, too. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

History of acupuncture[edit]

Hi, Mallexikon,

I am Dr.Fan, an acupuncture researcher and practitioner. I have edited some where at Acupuncture page. I am new, sorry for the direct-edit manner, which may cause you or other editors busy at looking for the places I edited. I actually don't know where I could start to the talk with you. I just put something here.If it is not proper, give me guidance of putting talk words.

Thanks!

For the history of modern stage of acupuncture,one of important things is adding the Dr.Chen Dan'an the first person in acupuncture, who was the the origin of most acupuncturists today. He established the first acupuncture school in China in 1920s, and was the first Academician in acupuncture/Chinese medicine in China Science Academy (1950s) and was the first president of Nanjing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, the oldest accredited University in Chinese medicine in China.

Arthur Fan, e-mail:ArthurFan@ChineseMedicineDoctor.US — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Fan (talkcontribs) 01:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Arthur! Welcome to wikipedia. Here's an article I think you should read: Wikipedia:Verifiability. In a nutshell, you should provide a reliable source for everything you write; otherwise, what you wrote can be challenged and deleted. And since there is always a lot of debate going on at the acupuncture article, most unsourced material will be challenged and deleted. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Section: User:Dickmojo on Acunpuncture   — Jess· Δ 06:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on acupuncture[edit]

Not the easiest page to work on... --Mindjuicer (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No. :) But what a bucket full of experience! BTW, thanks for keeping your cool. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with red refs[edit]

While trying to rescue two refs at TCM, I discovered a possible source. You introduced them here, but not the complete refs. Were they included in a previous version?

The content is this (the first two are missing right now and need to be rescued):

  • Several review articles discussing the effectiveness of acupuncture have concluded that its effects may be due to [[placebo]].<ref name="Ernst2006"/><ref name="Cochrane back 2005"/><ref name="Madsen2009"/>

Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I found them and fixed it. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, my mistake. I copied the material from the acupuncture article and didn't pay attention to get the complete refs. Thanks for fixing it! Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Da nada. I've done the same too. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Contras Assessment[edit]

Hello Mallexikon!, First I would like to say I rated the article as a C class. Some tips as to getting the Contras article to a MILHIST B or GA status.

  • Citations are needed throughout the paper. Many places are marked.
  • Move the photos so the ending isn't one big block of text.
  • Add photos if possible as they always help an article.
  • It looks to be but make sure the paper is stable and no repetitive drastic edits.

Now getting the citations in and making sure every paragraph has at least one citation can get the article to B in MILHIST. The guidelines are here.

Alright, thanks! --Mallexikon (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mallexikon. You have new messages at Madalibi's talk page.
Message added 07:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Goddard & Taoism[edit]

Hi Mallexikon. How does a German-speaking person end up in Shanghai? Intriguing. I read your edit to the Zen article, and completed the source. The connection between Taoism and Zen is indeed often mentioned, but as far as I can see, especially by modern interpreters. I've tried to figure this out before, but found very little literature on it. I've added a comment on the Zen Talk Page on it; would you like to read & comment on it? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Tao and modern[edit]

Pinyin may be more modern then Wade-Giles. However, as established on the talk page and with google ngrams, Taoism is still the most current modern name of the religion. OttomanJackson (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right :) But how long will the Wade-Giles romanization still represent the most common term? 5 years? 10? Might as well change to the Pinyin form now already, no? --Mallexikon (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand your point of view. However, putting (modernly: Daoism) after Taoism implies that Daoism is the most common modern English usage, which is incorrect. Oxford still only gives Taoism. Pinyin is not always most common (Peking Duck, Kung Fu, etc...) so calling Daoism the modern spelling of Taoism is incorrect. OttomanJackson (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, as I explained on the Taoism talk page already - it's far from incorrect to emphasize that Pinyin is the more modern romanization. It's not the most common one (yet). But much more modern. Fact. You can check the dates yourself. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages[edit]

Dear Author/Mallexikon

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Helicobacter Pylori. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Gould[edit]

You seem to be putting words into Gould's mouth. I'm not sure whether this is your misunderstanding of punctuated equilibria or you are simply citing other authors who (perhaps deliberately?) misunderstood the theory. Either way, you look to be adding unwelcome bias to the article. 121a0012 (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond to this at the article's discussion page. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Our discussion on Talk:Acupuncture[edit]

I have left you a reply to your last message. I notice from your user page that you are native Chinese speaker who lives in China. I respect your efforts in trying to keep the sourcing and neutrality in the article up to standards, but you seem to me to have the stance of a sceptic. Have you had acupuncture treatments? If so, for what condition? How many different acupuncturists have you tried? What was your experience with this? I have found that the results of the treatment can range from very good to poor (no improvement, or even left feeling irritable and with headache) depending on the skill of the therapist (which includes diagnosis, treatment plan, needle placement, needle selection, etc). - 17:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stillwaterising! I wish I was a native Chinese speaker (would have saved me a lot of trouble learning that language), but unfortunately I'm not. As to what my personal experiences with acupuncture efficacy look like - they interestingly correspond quite accurately with the picture that emerges from the research. And I have to say I'm not impressed. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes, level one is having an only a beginner's level knowledge. It does say that you are a native German speaker. I've been born and raised in the US. I haven't been able to travel as much as I would have liked due to my health condition that showed up in early childhood and started impairing my ability to study around age 19 and so I didn't finish my degree in engineering. (I later got a 2 year degree in electronics) and when Robert Becker's books (Body Electric and Cross Currents) came out I read both of them several times and was fascinated in the idea of becoming a biomedical researcher. My original plan was to get a degree in Electrical Engineering with a Bio-medical option. I highly recommend the book Cross Currents, as it sums up most (but not all) of the ideas in Body Electric with a new subtitle of "The Promise of Electromedicine, the Perils of Electropollution". His research would be considered a primary source, however he was a genius. He even did an experiment where he amputated the front limb of a group of rats and implanted a galvanic batter with a 1 MegaOhm resistor into stump and had partial regrowth of the limb on some of the animals, with the most being a rat that regrew most of limb with all the bones and even cartledge fingers!
His research into finding meridians with a "cookie-cutter" electrode (yes, a kitchen cookie/pizza cutter with a wire attached) running along established acupuncture meridians and finding confirmation on the milli and microvolt ranges that they do exist. This is preliminary research, however I'm pleased that he inspired other researchers to continue his work. My advice, keep an open mind. I'm an intelligent person who firmly believes in science and has (in my unfortunately short) professional career focused on electric signals and data acquisition in a research environment. Due to multiple car accidents and some other condition (most likely Lyme's disease) I've been searching for non-surgical options to help control pain and repair the damage. I can say that the pain relieving effects from acupuncture have ranged from none to profound. Typically they were in the slight range. I remember one session from a highly skilled professional (not student) acupuncturist who gave me a dry needle and moxibustion session that gave the feeling of being hit with a high dose of morphine! I've had that experience also from a skilled deep tissue massage therapist. The "drug" effect is likely from my own endorphin system, but I think there's a bio-energetic component to it as well.
My motivation to learn about this, including reading books like Anatomy Trains, is out of a true interest to learn everything I can about the anatomy of the skeletal/muscular system as a way of learning how to help heal myself. I also have multiple conditions of neuropathic pain (including trigeminal neuralgia, and recognize the ingenious and complex design of the nervous system. I have talked with several western doctors, and they admit they only have a gross understanding of how the nervous system works. For example, I have a spot near my temple where if i press into it with my fingernail (stimulate it) I have a sharp sensation between my shoulder blades on the same side. Current neurological theories such as dermatomes do not explain why this could occur. I can't explain why it occurs either, however I do know that our nerves are more like a matrix than like the branches of a tree as was first thought through dissection. Anyway, I'm not sure what your skill level or interest level is in medicine. I encourage you to join WP:Medicine if you are interested. Cheers. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok! Thanks for sharing. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverting[edit]

[4] After adding that edit, I started a discussion on it on the talk page. Why didn't you attempt to discuss it first before reverting? The material couldn't have stayed a day or so longer to see what others think about it first? Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Very sorry. I totally overlooked the discussion you started, and I'll explain why I object to your changes to the lede there on the discussion page. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
If the material is included in the body of the article and most people don't think it should be summarized in the lede, no problem. Cla68 (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Jin Chan, Mallexikon!

Wikipedia editor Stausifr just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good job with the article! Please cite the in-line references from the web urls you have provided.

To reply, leave a comment on Stausifr's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thanks! However, I didn't really create that article. I just tweaked and then moved it. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Daoism picture[edit]

Don't you think it has some use within the article, after all its a straight forward diagram indicating the basic concepts of the faith? --Andrew 14:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It definitely has, but I think the contents needs to be stripped to the minimum... I noticed that it says at one point that Dao should be obtained by not acting on impulses... I think that's not always correct, given the emphasis Zhuangzi puts on spontaneous action...? --Mallexikon (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Acupuncture[edit]

Hi Mallexikon. I've reverted your edits becausre there was no consensus for its removal, see Talk:Acupuncture#Acupuncture_usage_in_the_US_military_and_other_military_forces.

Please join me at Talk:Acupuncture#Recent_edit for discussion. -A1candidate (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! Let's discuss it at the acupuncture talk page. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes like I've already said, the consensus seems to be against the inclusion of recommendations/medical claims, but not the other parts. See Talk:Acupuncture#Acupuncture_usage_in_the_US_military_and_other_military_forces -A1candidate (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mallexicon! If you have time, would you have a look at Acupuncture and the most recent stuff on talk? Changes in lede are being made that don't follow sources. (I see there's been some stuff going on at another TCM-related article as well, involving some of the same editors... same WP:IDHT as in the past.) regards, Middle 8 (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunate, this whole thing... but we'll sort it out :) Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Venezuela and Mexico content is related to Nicaragua[edit]

According to the source, the implication was the domino could extend to resource rich countries.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand. The problem is, the source doesn't say it explicitly, and thus an allegation like this would constitute synthesis. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

But I'm fine with everything you deleted. I could use it for something else.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad you're not upset. Sorry for spoiling so much of your hard work. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the excess. I just have a lot of information. Don't know what to do with it.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries :) it's good to be bold. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I also feel as though I need to show everything in great detail as a way of deterring certain whitewashers from deleting it. You kind of have to hit them over the head with it for them to accept it...sort of.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I know. This article used to be quite hotly debated. But don't worry. Your material all seems to be reliably (and transparently) sourced. To remove it, somebody would have to come up with some really good arguments. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Apparently even your edits went too far for him.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry. We'll sort it out at the article's talk page. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I did about 90% of this neglected page. Any advice? Should I change some things?--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

So sorry, man, I'll probably be too busy these days... Maybe next week. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Do not insert Vickers on any more pages[edit]

Your citation of Vickers as supporting claims that acupuncture is effective is problematic because of this. Continuing in this fashion is in violation of WP:MEDRS and could result in sanction.

jps (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A blog? That's what you want to use to throw out a meta-analysis? You better rethink that, boy. You might also want to rethink threatening me with "sanctions". Just sayin'. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
That's usually how shitty research is disputed these days absent weekly radio shows and the like. The claim that this JAMA-in-name-only meta-analysis was "peer reviewed" is laughable from the sense that medical articles like this published in out-of-the-way journals are hardly ever subject to any editorial rejoinder and, in fact, those who dispute them would never bother to try to publish a dispute because, frankly, that's not how scientific discourse works. Vickers was criticized by Ernst, Novella, Orac and others and there is no counter to their arguments. It is impeached and should be removed from our pages. jps (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not impeached. It's a reliable source. If you are of a different opinion, be my guest to take it to the RS noticeboard. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Mallexikon. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jps (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of German Acupuncture Trials for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article German Acupuncture Trials 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/German Acupuncture Trials 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. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:German acupuncture trials[edit]

I am not placing this here in any way to contend your are currently edit warring. I feel quite to the contrary. I appreciate your contributions and your work on consensus building with the mediator. I am just putting it here to keep discussions on this article in one place. I have changed several section headers on this talk page to focus on editing as opposed to editors. Appropriate processes have been implemented and can and should be used as needed. I am not contending that individual editors don't make working on an article difficult. I think comments directed to such editors on the talk pages of the articles being worked on are appropriate. I just thought section headers consisting of a UserName are not consistent with WP policy and may escalate contention rather than help build consensus. Hopefully the mediation taking place can help editing move forward (I think this is occurring and your contributions have been constructive). Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Haven't thought much about the section headers but now that you mention it I think you're right :) Thanks, --Mallexikon (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring/vandalism at Acupuncture[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Acupuncture shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm edit warring? You reverted me. But you're only at 1 RR yet, so no need to panic... --Mallexikon (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you continued to delete material after your edits were reverted (and with a BRD notification for good measure, although it shouldn't be necessary with you). Your first deletions counted as the Bold part, my revert was the Revert, and I had already started a Discussion, even though that would be your duty. I'm going to AGF that you edited without noticing that I had reverted you, but that's why I wanted to notify you here before you continued. Somehow I had to get your attention.
Why you even thought you could delete any properly sourced material (especially of an opposing POV) without a serious discussion and gaining consensus is beyond me. Never do that. Experienced editors treat that as vandalism. Any potentially controversial edit should be discussed thoroughly first. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Why you think this kind of strong-man talk is helpful or even permissive is beyond me. There has been a very serious discussion both at the acupuncture talk page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Arbitrary section break. Are you accusing me of vandalism? --Mallexikon (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Only if you continue. Then it would be vandalism and edit warring. Anyone who saw such an edit would be justified in thinking it was vandalism, but I know your thinking and had seen your comment, so I knew your intention was not to vandalize, even if the effect was the same. It's also a question of motive Face-wink.svg, which is why I AGF (see my first comment above).
Let's discuss each potential deletion at the article and also get input from others before we end up having to lock the article. Edit wars are never a good thing. That happens to be very old and properly sourced content, most of which is not covered by MEDRS, and you'd need some very good reasons for deleting it, especially since it represents the opposing POV. Deleting it would create an undue weight situation and a violation of NPOV. Criticisms must be included. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Brangifer, Mallexikon is an experienced, level-headed and science-literate editor just like you and me. We're all grownups here and don't need to go tagging each others' pages. (There's an essay: Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars.) regards, --Middle 8 (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect 3RR report[edit]

You've been around long enough to know that you don't take someone to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring on the basis of only 3 reverts unless there's been a pattern - and there wasn't. On top of your ANI report this doesn't look good. I suggest you be more careful if you are going to avoid a boomerang block. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, I have responded at WP:AN/EW and documented deception, NOTHERE, and lack of competence in several ways. I'm not asking for a site ban, but a topic ban. This should have consequences, because this has been going on for far too long. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Happy holidays. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You are close to violating 3RR[edit]

  • Revert 1 Revision as of 06:03, 26 December 2013
  • Revert 2 Revision as of 09:19, 26 December 2013
  • Revert 3 Revision as of 09:52, 26 December 2013
  • Revert 4 Revision as of 10:33, 26 December 2013 You are trying to force changes without gaining consensus first. Actually, you may have violated 3RR. QuackGuru (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Man, seriously, I think you didn't quite get the concept of what edit warring and 3RR actually means... --Mallexikon (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

German acupuncture trials[edit]

You might want to join the conversation at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Edits against WP:LOCALCON at German acupuncture trials. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine SYN violation edits[edit]

Why was this deleted? Scientists are moving away from traditional methods. The drug is not a traditional Chinese herb of the "heat-clearing" category. There were obvious problems with the text that was previously explained. See Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#WP:MEDRS violations again. QuackGuru (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If I may be so bold as to offer advice (let me know if my input is not welcome and I will go away), and without taking sides on this particular content dispute, it is clear that the two of you are having conflicts on multiple pages. That's fine, but you both (along with a few other editors who are involved in this) need to stop carrying on the battle by editing pages. Do we really want an admin to step in and start handing out blocks and topic bans? I am asking you both once again to attempt to find consensus on the talk pages and, if you cannot agree, to go through the dispute resolution process. You are hurting the encyclopedia. If you don't voluntarily stop hurting the encyclopedia, you will be forced to stop hurting the encyclopedia. Sorry if that seems harsh, but there is no gentle way to say it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
My first reaction was "yes, please have an admin step in and start handing out blocks and topic bans", but then again, I am a believer in the dispute resolution process... I'm DISENGAGING a little right now. If that also doesn't help, I think an RfC might be a good way to move on. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture[edit]

Please AGF in my discussion about the CSICOP report as a primary v secondary source. I am not trying to be disruptive or excessively argumentative. I feel the issue/distinction warrants discussion. The CSICOP report may turn out to be a poor source for other reasons. I appreciate your patience and thoughtful effort in working towards consensus. Please note that the only information remaining in the article from the CSICOP report is an assertion of a specific fact that is of significant importance. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please respect consensus[edit]

Please take a look at the RfC about the details. See Talk:German_acupuncture_trials#RfC:_What_level_of_detail_should_be_included_in_German_acupuncture_trials.3F.[5][6][7][8] Editors prefer less detail not more. Editors thought a summary would be better. You previously said there is consensus forming to not include this material but you restored against consensus the extreme details about the set-up. QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Truce[edit]

If you want me to I will refrain from editing Acupuncture and German acupuncture trials for a very long time. You can revert ALL my edits to Acupuncture, the German acupuncture trials or Traditional Chinese medicine. Please accept my apologies. I am very sorry I was a bit harsh on you. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I made this comment. Let me know what you want me to do and you have my full support to reverting my edits at the German acupuncture trials. QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Wow... that's very magnanimous. Thanks. What happened? --Mallexikon (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I think we must think of the reader. It would do no harm to include more information. Wikipedia policy is sometimes confusing. QuackGuru (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

An editor mentioned you at ANI. They want me banned but I am interested in improving the German acupuncture trials. I deleted way too much content at the German acupuncture trials. QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not say I wanted you banned. I also pinged Mallexikon, so the feedback system will have issued a notification. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
It does look like you want me banned. You did not say you don't want me banned. You said "This is not how WP should be edited, I think." QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Look at this comment. He is baffled I am trying to compromise and collaborate. I want to compromise and that is helpful for the project. QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Identity, profession[edit]

You should consider posting at AN/I about jps's making false claims about you. IMO he is clearly gaming the system by trying to cast doubt on your impartiality, and he's going to try and drag it out as long as the RfC is active. He's very cynical in this respect ("Wikipediavellian") and is only interested in outcomes involving keeping editors he likes and getting rid of those he doesn't. (See: "What results in meaningful process..."). Whatever "evidence" he has is likely bullshit or misunderstood, and IMO likely the former. I suppose one approach might be to have him email it to you and CC an admin, and then abide by whatever decision the admin reached, but even that is dignifying his stance too much, and again, he likely won't stop till he gets his way (or till there is no more need to game the RfC). That he is still editing is a worse crime than that QG is; his return was not well-vetted by the community, only by a small subsection who approves of his ends-justify-the-means approach. But of course I can't initiate a process to reconsider that because "of my history" and the fact that I "profit from TCM", and mostly because of teh dramaz. Anyway, don't tolerate this nonsense! He is taking IAR way too far; it is WP:GAMEsmanship at its most cynical. Middle 8 (leave me alonetalk to me) 08:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was falsely accused on having a COI a while ago. At COIN, I agreed to subject myself to scrutiny by a neutral third-party (Wikipedia has such people) to clear things up. In that instance, it boomeranged spectacularly on the accuser. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC User[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

I read through the RfC User GC and found no evidence.[9] Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You are being discussed at AN here [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Mallexikon - Oy, what a mess! I think my responses at WP:AN and the RfC were sufficient, but we'll have to proofread the diffs to make sure they all match. I think some of the stuff I posted on the talk page (under discussion of Doc James's outsied view) may suffice as evidence. As for that hideous thread about White 2004, the one currently at the top of Talk:Acu, I dread having to annotate it, let alone diff-ify, but it seems that may be what some editors need to evaluate it. Without explanation, or the effort to read really carefully which some editors can't/won't put in, it just tends to make the eyes glaze over. It may go to WP:AE, according to Guy/JzG, to the extent admins don't want to touch it at WP:AN. And I gather, also from Guy's comments, that the RfC and WP:AN discussion are somehow linked.... so editors who comment at one don't have to comment at the other. --Middle 8 (leave me alonetalk to me) 18:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem here. Doc James just didn't get it (and he overreacted on top of it). Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
He did overreact, but he's 100% right that it's insufficient evidence, and that it needs to be fixed. Remember, most of your audience has no idea of what QuackGuru knew or should have known. All they know is what they see in the RfC, and that's a contention of anti-acu bias plus diff of someone adding a good source. No wonder other editors are appalled, and it feeds the false perception that you're a pro-acu partisan. For now, please take Guy Macon's wikibird's advice [11] to heart, don't get caught in the drama, and instead spend your available editing time to fix this. I really think that would be a good idea now; let me know if I can help. Which reminds me -- I'm spending much of my available time working on the evidence for IDHT, i.e. this thread. I've been assuming that a reasonable person would be rather appalled by QG's behavior in that thread, but I could be wrong: what do you think? How good is that as evidence? --Middle 8 (leave me alonetalk to meCOI) 07:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey, relax :) the case has been made already; we don't need to continuously build it. And we will not convince people who see QG as a necessary bulwark against quackery, no matter how good our evidence is. When QG wrote about GERAC in the acupuncture article, he tried to make it look like GERAC's only result was that some health insurers stopped reimbursing acupuncture. Yes, he sourced it correctly. But he clearly tried to skew the facts out of bias - not more and not less was alleged by me. Sorry if this stressed you out. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Everything you say is true, including the "relax" part (i.e. it is a good idea :-) ... but that "skewing the facts" thing does need at least one additional talk page diff or something. You're right re the partisan-editors having made up their minds, but neutral ones will look at it, in a vacuum, and say "WTF?". It does no good alone. Anyway... yep, time to relax. I know a good placebo for that ... yes, I can give myself an acu treatment. best regards. --Middle 8 (leave me alonetalk to meCOI) 14:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. jps (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to make sure I have it right.[edit]

Hi! At Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 I plan on posting a detailed independent analysis of the following statement:

"The incident where QG skewed the fact that GERAC led to acupuncture being reimbursed by German health insurers into the exact opposite (using a fringe source which is actually banned from the GERAC article by now)"[12]

I plan on sticking to verifiable facts; if the statement cannot be verified, I will say so, and if it can, I will say that while including diffs or citations. For the diffs, you can supply diffs or just tell me the time/date and page where the edit was made -- either is fine with me.

Is "GEREC" the same thing as "the German Acupuncture Trials" mentioned in Acupuncture and the subject of German acupuncture trials?

Is "GERAC led to acupuncture being reimbursed by German health insurers" backed up by reference "Tragende Gründe zum Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesau sschusses zur Akupunktur"?

How do we know this? Are we relying on Google translate, or do we have an editor who reads German, or is it reported in an English-language source?

What was the fringe source?

Where and when was the fringe source was banned from the GERAC article?

Where and when did QG skew the facts?

I am pretty sure I know the answer to some of the above, but I plan on putting my name on a statement that I have personally verified or failed to verify them. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. I don't know whether GEREC is the same as GERAC (spelling mistake?), but GERAC is the same as German acupuncture trials.
  2. Yes, this is backed up by reference. The most important source is the report of the Federal Joint Committee ("Zusammenfassender Bericht des Unterausschusses 'Ärztliche Behandlung' des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Bewertung gemäß §135 Abs.1 SGB V der Körperakupunktur mit Nadeln ohne elektrische Stimulation") [13]. It's in German, but there's an English summary on page 2. The source you're mentioning ("Tragende Gründe zum Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses zur Akupunktur") is the short version of this report (no English summary). Another source is Focus (magazine) ([14]), but this is entirely in German. Anyway, the fact that GERAC led to acupuncture being included in the list of reimbursable services in Germany has never been doubted by anyone. This fact is the main reason why these trials are notable at all, and the main reason why the GERAC article survived AfD (QG participated in the discussion):
  3. The fringe source was: He, W.; Tong, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, L. et al. (2013). "Review of controlled clinical trials on acupuncture versus sham acupuncture in Germany". Journal of traditional Chinese medicine 33 (3): 403–7 ([15])
  4. It was banned from the GERAC article on 26-Feb [16] after talk page discussion: Talk:German acupuncture trials#Fringe journals (this is a long thread; you might just want to read the end part of it). I had objected to the source already a month earlier (at Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 12#Edits on "Legal and political status" vol. II) but was ignored by that time.
  5. QG skewed the facts about GERAC at the acupuncture article on 24-Dec ([17]).
Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Greets[edit]

Hi Mallexikon, Just thought I'd drop a note to state my appreciation of your participation in WP. Although disagreements occur and contention sometimes runs high, I think you wholeheartedly endeavor to edit well. I appreciate your efforts in research and consensus building. I particularly encourage you to continue editing broadly, where contention is absent your editing has been of the highest quality and very well supported with good sources. To avoid backhandedness and qualification let me say, thank you for your work on WP. You summarize sources well and provide organization, currency and good writing. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Bill! Thanks for these kind words. They mean a lot to me, especially right now. I really envy your patience... Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

your comment on MEDRS Talk[edit]

Hey - about this: this comment... you write: "I'm not sure why we're having this discussion." This is worrisome to me. Do you really not see that there is a legitimate debate with good faith arguments on both sides? thx Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

But yes, sorry, I do see that it was an important debate. My remark obviously was premature. I made it because I saw the debate wander away from the issue of peer review, which IMO is the defining criterion when it comes to assess the reliability of a journal. However, Acupuncture in Medicine seems to be one of those examples where independent peer review is just faked. I have to admit I wouldn't have thought that, and I specifically credit jps for unveiling this. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for over reaction[edit]

I over reacted to a series of edits at Acupuncture. Apologies. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sorry my edits seemed suspicious to you. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Traditional Chinese medicine. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Tiptoety talk 16:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

There is an issue on WP:AE that concerns you. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

a change of venue[edit]

There is an issue on WP:ANI that concerns you. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

DRN: Traditional Chinese Medicine[edit]

Your statement of the case and discussion are welcome at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Traditional Chinese medicine. --Bejnar (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the DRN volunteer for DRN:Traditional Chinese medicine. You brought the case to request assistance in reaching a compromise about the word "pseudoscience" in the lead of that article. In opening discussion I asked some questions to attempt to get to the basis of dispute and, with luck, to generate a basis for a compromise. Please try to answer these questions. DRN is about content, not editor behaviour, so please restrict yourself from commenting on other's editorial or commentorial behaviour. See Wikipedia:Resolution#Focus on content. --Bejnar (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the DRN volunteer for DRN:Traditional Chinese medicine. I noticed that you've been editing the Traditional Chinese medicine article again. Have you abandoned the DRN you started? --Bejnar (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bejnar, and thanks for your efforts. The acute problem about the wording of the pseudoscience sentence at the Traditional Chinese medicine article lede has been solved thanks to the intervention of hitherto uninvolved user:Richard Keatinge. I think the DRN still makes sence, though (QG copied his controversial edit into the acupuncture article). --Mallexikon (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.


Hipocrite (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For your good work at WP:DRN KeithbobTalk 01:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI on alternative medicine articles[edit]

Hi Mallexikon! I hope you have time to look at these two boards: User:Jayaguru-Shishya is not moving on and he is continuing his battleground behaviour and Sockpuppetry at article Traditional Chinese medicine. It seems that QuackGuru is now publicly accusing me of "following him from article to another", along with a punch of other accusations. In the first one he took me to WP:ANI, and in the second one he is making these accusations in front of an administrator, Jmh649 (weirdly enough, he just came out of the blue to Jmh649's Talk page even my post there had nothing to do with him). Anyway, as you have been involved in editing the same article(s), I'd appreciate if you had the time to take a look! :) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue has recently moved to WP:AN3 due to QuackGuru's violation of WP:3RR on alt-med articles. Anyway, I'd appreciate if you had time to check it out! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

About Chinese herbology[edit]

Hello. I see the dispute and discussion about TCM. I don't know whether the discussion reach the consensus but I hope you can also check the article Chinese herbology#Efficacy. It was edited by the same way like TCM and I think the editors can use the same words in TCM to describe this part and avoid the mess. I see TCM was put in Category:Pseudoscience by editors. I wonder this is the consensus or the discussion is still ongoing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.105.112.33 (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments at WP:ANI[edit]

Hello there Mallexikon! How are you? :P I was wondering if you liked to take a look at this one[26]? It's a rather lengthy case, but I tried to summarize the main points a little in a comment I left there at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Comments by Jayaguru-Shishya (and also the Conclusions -subsection). Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)