User talk:RexxS

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

I'm still enjoying real life for the moment, so please accept my apologies if I do not reply in a timely manner. There may be a few TPS who can answer you in my absence.


All the socks watching fireworks[edit]

Darwinfish and the gang send you some deep midwinter Stockholm fireworks from last night.

Thanks for suggestions[edit]

Sir, I am thankful for your worthy advice.Rajsector3 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't call me sir, Raj; I stopped being a teacher almost 20 years ago. Just Rexx is fine. I appreciate you taking the time to drop me a note here and I really hope you can make the adjustment to our norms here - you have much to offer if you can get the tone of your article writing right. --RexxS (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Trying to get the hang of this[edit]

Hi RexxS, I wasn't sure if I should respond on your talk page or mine, so just in case, I will do both. I am thankful for your response and want to be sure to reply to you in a timely manner:

I certainly want to follow the proper channels and definitely did not intend to initiate an "edit war" (?). I had resubmitted the deletion because I thought I had to include an edit summary (which wasn't on the first one). That is why I did it the second time. I am not sure what to do at this point? Does it need to be re-instated? How does the "debate" process work about the appropriate sources? I thought the talk page had the debate already. How does it get decided on what the final outcome is? If you have a suggestion a more productive way to edit the criticism, maybe you would kindly take the lead on that section? I just didn't see anything happening with it and there seemed to be no objections.

Regarding my username or COI, I am very familiar with PADI and experienced in the scuba diving industry so I do have knowledge that I think can be helpful particularly about this PADI page, but am not trying to trump any wikipedia culture or etiquette.

Thank you again, and I look forward to your feedback!TotalConversionMarketing (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rexxs, I saw you posted about the appropriateness of each source. Thanks so much for taking the lead on that! TotalConversionMarketing (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Formatting request[edit]

Great and scary dino, could you please make the text at the top of my talkpage red and a little bigger? (Or otherwise more in-your-face, feel free to be creative. People tend not to notice these.) I'm in a bit of a hurry to catch a train. Bishonen | talk 10:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC).

Done; Have fun. --RexxS (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
[Enviously] Pretty! I want one! Or, I suppose not really, cos I may log in over my phone to keep everybody in order while shonen is away! Could be fun! darwinbish BITE 11:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC).

Ernst re pain... and talk...[edit]

Hi RexxS, please don't take this the wrong way (i.e. anything other than friendly): remember our conversation about this same source, where it took a few exchanges for you to realize that the search for adverse events being not just those limited to pain? How it had to do with a detail in the paper you were overlooking? I think you might be missing some context with his discussion on pain too. Or we may just be misunderstanding each other. I'd really be grateful if you could tone down the rhetoric (here) re "cherry picked source" and so on. I have read the paper multiple times and I'm not cherry picking, and my last edit along these lines -- re Moffet -- was, as Kww realized, accurate. So, benefit of doubt, please! And this:

"Your assertion in the edit summary that "source comments on subset of literature reviewed" is nonsense. You're not entitled to do amateur peer-reviews of secondary sources by policy."

....is way too aggressive. Why not try and make sure you know what I mean before going on the offensive? I'll explain the substance on Talk:Acupuncture. Just wanted to touch base and say, let's be collegial! cheers, Middle 8 (leave me alonetalk to meCOI?) 15:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no benefit of the doubt available when Ernst states:
  • "Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham."
and you remove the text:
  • "A systematic review of systematic reviews found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham.<ref name="Ernst 2011"/>"
with an edit summary claiming that the source doesn't support the statement. That simply is untrue.
I'm sorry, but while you pick a fragment of a statement and try to pass it off as meaning something that it doesn't, that's the very definition of "cherry-picking" and I'm surprised you don't know that.
It's playing games to assert that Kww agreed with you before and therefore you must be right this time. Anybody who reads "Acupuncture: Does it alleviate pain and are there serious risks?" can see the conclusion that Ernst reaches about sham and true acupuncture being equally effective. Are you really claiming that the text I quoted above is not a conclusion of the review?
You're on shaky ground here and I'd strongly recommend you reconsider trying to impose a POV on the article that sources do not support. It's time for you to back off. --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
RexxS... "Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham." is talking about a particular trial and is not the conclusion of the paper... it's a context thing...this is just true... you're missing details... no hard feelings... please let's deescalate. --Middle 8 (leave me alonetalk to meCOI?) 15:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I noticed this when typing your username into search -- User:RexxS/Accessibility -- which reminds me: I'm active in autism rights (I have close relatives with autism) and I know a lot of people with these issues. It's a real challenge. Anyway, that reminded me, that paper is not the most accessible thing in the world, and I could see anybody, whether they have difficulties with accessibility or not, missing stuff. AGF, fellow editor! --Middle 8 (leave me alonetalk to meCOI?) 15:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd love to collaborate with you on finding ways to improve the Wikipedia experience for anybody on the autism spectrum. Some of our most prolific editors self-identify as such and they are often a joy to work with.
Nevertheless, you're dead wrong about Ernst's conclusions in that review and I think that sooner or later, you'll have to recognise that. People who know me understand that I often write in a very assertive style, but it's nothing personal; I don't bear grudges, but I do feel strongly about defending the values that our encyclopedia is founded on. --RexxS (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Cool re autism! Thanks for explaining re your style, I thought so, although I think it's unnecessarily hot -- think about how sensitive people with autism are, it probably freaks some of them out. So -- have you read that first para on p.762? (btw I don't do grudges either, so we're cool) --Middle 8 (leave me alonetalk to meCOI?) 15:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
[1] good point - thanks --Middle 8 (leave me alonetalk to meCOI?) 17:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yer, I read it, of course. It's typical Ernst. He finds reviews showing a positive effect on LBP and osteoarthritis, so has to balance those with RCTs demonstrating that the effectiveness is only due to placebo by showing that true and sham are just as effective in those cases. But it's after that - the reference [128] (Suarez-Almazor 2010) concludes the point about osteoarthritis - that he makes the statement about real and sham having the same effectiveness. He doesn't reference it to anything, so I'm dead sure he's reached that conclusion that off his own bat. It's not a quote from one of those RCTs otherwise he'd attribute it (he's published too many times to make that sort of mistake). You really don't expect Ernst to be anything but highly skeptical about any sort of alt med, but you can't just go removing his conclusions from the article. If you want to give a broader pov, then don't attack the reliable source but find other reliable sources that give the other side of the picture. --RexxS (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Paper[edit]

Thanks. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

RE:[edit]

WP:NGEO was no longer an essay. It's a guideline now. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah thanks. I've reverted my revert of your edit. Can't help but think it would have saved effort if you'd just put that into your edit summary, though. --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)