User talk:A1candidate: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:45, 9 May 2015

Well done!

Excellent NPOV editing on [[Acupuncture]!DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DrChrissy. I've also expanded Veterinary_acupuncture#Mechanism. We, as representatives of the medical profession on Wikipedia, must ensure that this encyclopedia stays faithful to the medical and scientific literature! -A1candidate 10:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Nice work on Vet Acupuncture too! Don't know about you, but I have taken a great dislike to being called a "fringe editor".DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much immune to these attacks, but I recognize the disruption they cause. The same editor attacking you also tried to smear me with this comment. A quick glance at the recent history of my talk page would reveal additional names that are probably very familiar to you by now. -A1candidate 11:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've not looked at your recent history yet, but when I make edits I often have a little bet in my mind as to which one of the gang will answer first. ;-) I'd be willing to bet those names appear on your own history.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe

In what way is treating TCM as being scientific anything other than a fringe view?—Kww(talk) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly isn't as fringey as the Iceman tattoo hypothesis which QuackGuru and others are advocating for. -A1candidate 19:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JAMA re: Quackwatch

Hi. Please could you have a look at this edit of mine[[1]] and then see if you can open the JAMA reference re:Quackwatch. Would be much appreciated.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it took a while to load but I've managed to download a pdf copy. Should I send it to you via email? -A1candidate 17:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do - unless you can see that Quackwatch is listed.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is listed as "Quackwatch, Inc. - A nonprofit corporation that combats health-related fraud and myths." -A1candidate 17:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that for me.DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acupuncture

I stand by this edit summary because my intention was to restore my good faith, non-controversial formatting of the "miller" reference, which Kww disruptively reverted during his edit-warring with another editor -A1candidate 12:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I saw the edit war on Acupuncture, and while I wasn't able to get a detailed count of your reverts, it was obvious that you were editing pretty aggressively. I think it would be helpful in the future if you slowed down a bit, especially when there's an edit war going on. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your RFAR...might I suggest that this is not something to be done on the spur of the moment. At least sleep on it. The current request seems way too combative, is bound to attract conflict, and will ultimately not be accepted. Please consider withdrawing it now and giving things a chance to cool down a little. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adjwilley - I will consider withdrawing the request under one condition: i) Kww pledges not to discredit and smear me on talk pages and elsewere. ii) JzG pledges not to discredit and smear me on talk pages and elsewere. I hope this is not too much to ask for? -A1candidate 08:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is too much to ask for. "Smearing" is a loaded term, and obviously bad, but pledging not to "discredit" you? When you mess up and use a sloppy/misleading edit summary then you can expect a little "discrediting" such as this. It's probably not worth discussing further, since it's too late to withdraw the request anyway. It seems to have taken a new direction far beyond the scope of the original request. (I still don't think it will be accepted.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Mess up"? If the edit summaries had been a genuine mistake, wouldn't A1candidate have apologized for using them instead of defending their content and taking me to Arbcom over the minor scolding I gave him? The easiest way to not have me comment on the edits and edit summaries is to use honest edit summaries and to not misportray alternative medicine and pseudoscience. I rarely comment on good behaviour, as I simply expect it of all editors.—Kww(talk) 05:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my edit summary, User:Kww. The sequence of events is as follows:

18:57, 3 May 2015‎ - I modified a reference per WP:REFNAME with the edit summary "minor touchup". This is a completely non-controversial edit and the purpose was to format a reference.

18:59, 3 May 2015 - I expanded the lede with the edit summary "expand".

19:00, 3 May 2015 - I deleted an unnecessary ISBN number from a reference, because it was a duplicate. The intent of the edit, again was to format a reference.

19:05, 3 May 2015 - I improved the earlier expansion of the lede

19:06, 3 May 2015 - You reverted the earlier additions of LesVegas, stating in the summary everyone "If you want to make this change, get a consensus to include it that does *not* editors that practice acupuncture for a living" and in the process of doing so, you also reverted my good faith, non-controversial formatting of the "Miller's Anesthesia" reference per WP:REFNAME

19:07, 3 May 2015 - In the heat of the dispute, I reverted you to restore my non-controversial formatting of the "miller" reference. I did not care about your edit-warring with LesVegas, and I did not want to be involved in it (although I sensed that I might be dragged into it soon), so I did not comment about it in the edit summary. All I wanted to see was my non-controversial formattting of the "miller" reference being restored.

So yes, I stand by my edit summary because my intention was to restore my good faith, non-controversial formatting of the "miller" reference. Expecting me to explain all of this on the article's talk page, and calling my formatting of the reference "active deceit", is ludicrous. Unlike you, I actually have a clear conscience and I will not apologize for something I did not do. Your attempts to intimidate me is not going to work, User:Kww. I rarely comment on good administrative behaviour, as I simply expect it of all administrators -A1candidate 07:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purposefully misleading [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So your defense is that you because you "did not want to be involved", you neglected to mention that you were edit-warring and inserting misleading material? But neglecting to mention the bulk of your edit wasn't intentional, and that it served to disguise your edit-warring was a happy accident?—Kww(talk) 13:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has said and explained in detail that it was not his intention to deceive. Per AGF that should be the end of it. To that point, does anyone here really think that edit summaries deceive when they are clearly highlighted, and for that matter if they can do we really want to start looking at and criticizing edit summaries including those created by editors who have a history of making major edits with either no edit summary or those that are cryptic with little or no explanatory words. This is quickly becoming harassment.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Littleolive oil A1 has been in a hot dispute for a long time, and made a huge blunder. Instead of doing the simple thing and acknowledging it, he is denying the problem and offering some weird rationale - you cannot just "ignore" anything when you edit, much less in a hot dispute. If all he wanted was to restore the citation, that was easily done by a copy/paste fresh edit - reversion that re-deleted sourced content, was a bad, bad judgement. He did that, regardless of the reason given. Instead of acknowledging that (saying something simple like "yeah, that was a bad way to do what i wanted to do - I should not have done it that way" he is denying the problem altogether. Which is just unwise, and which actually invites more pressure. It is not harassment in a situation where there is such a clear disconnect between what he did and what he is saying.

A1, fwiw, you should just acknowledge the bad judgement made in the heat of the moment, apologize, and everybody can move on. Continuing to defend it just makes it worse and will come back to haunt you. the stance you are taking is bad for you and for everybody else. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog. You and others are attempting to force another editor to apologize for something he doesn't think he did, are criticizing him for not acting in a way you and others think he should. Its edit summary for heaven's sake. Move on.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Littleolive oil, yes, I'm criticising him for not behaving the way he should. He shouldn't provide edit summaries that disguise the contents of his edits. That's not a particularly onerous expectation.—Kww(talk) 15:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kww That's backwards. You are criticizing him for not behaving the way you think he should. He clearly did not see the edit summary as a "disguise". That's your opinion, your word, and your reading of the situation, and its an assumption of bad faith given the explanation A1 gave. Way too much time and attention on this. One editor suggesting he made a mistake is enough. Multiple editors who cannot let this go is another story altogether. I've said what i have to say so will move on (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Littleolive oil that was my first contribution to this discussion. and you are really missing the point. the surface behavior - an edit note stating a minor change when the actual edit was dramatic - was bad, and in a hot dispute, really bad. Nobody can know why he did it - but he sure did it. The best thing to do is just acknowledge that he did it, apologize, and move on. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I disagree with you. And no I'm not missing the point. A1 does not agree with your opinion of what happened, so AGF and move on, is right. Jytdog, its an edit summary.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

hell is other people. one way to make it less hellish is to acknowledge and apologize when you upset other people. and yes, to let things go when it has been acknowledged. things are stuck now because A1 really upset people and is not acknowledging that he did something wrong. this is peace-making 101 stuff. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can do like Jytdog does - strike it and move on - no apologies necessary. I just don't know how to strike an edit summary. Atsme☯^Consult 17:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

being snide is so unattractive. if i fuck up i acknowledge it. and yes, edit notes are dangerous in that you cannot amend them. you can ask an admin to revdel but i don't reckon they would do that for this. the most you can do is acknowledge/apologize on talk. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very unattractive as your comment demonstrates. The "f-word" is even more unattractive. At least try to have some consideration for the youngsters who read TPs. Yes, you do acknowledge your screw-ups but you only apologize for the ones you interpret to be screw-ups, and therein lies the problem - yours, not mine. Common sense tells us it takes more than a minority of WP editors to convince the nations that WP provides trustworthy encyclopedic information; the latter being what will help WP grow as a trusted source while still being able to maintain some semblance of a lead in Google searches. The Encyclopedia Britannica actually is a trusted source. Review their acupuncture (medicine) article to see an excellent example of NPOV in action. No guerrilla skeptics involved there. It's a true source of encyclopedic information about the topic from a NPOV. [3] If you get a chance, take a look at their Alternative Medicine article - a year in review (1997). Of course, that's where WP clearly has an advantage; i.e., being up-to-date but a lot of good it does if the information being disseminated is limited, noncompliant with NPOV, and cannot be trusted. [4]. Not once in the EB articles is there any mention of quackery, cranks, or any other name-calling - pejorative terminology we find most often in the Urban Dictionary. There's no whitewashing, and no coatracks in the Britannica. Imagine that.... Atsme☯^Consult 20:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

100% off topic. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^{Oooops, sorry. Won't strike because it's useful info. Atsme☯^Consult 21:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

atsme, i will say however that your calling Britannica WP:NPOV shows a lack of understanding of both Wikipedia and Britannia. Britannica does not have the WP:NPOV policy. Wikipedia does. Britannica and WP are different on several issues, and our actual WP:NPOV policy, of which you continually betray a lack of understanding - is one of the reasons why. you really don't understand it - you seem to think it means "balanced" but it does not. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog you have just said this is 100% off topic - so why are you barking about it? Sit! Behave!DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you really have no idea how ridiculous that makes you look, do you. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not anywhere near as ridiculous as you look making a scene on A1's TP making silly comments that demonstrate your lack of understanding regarding neutrality. WP:CIR Atsme☯^Consult 23:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and this has gone completely off the rails now. enough ugliness for one day, i think. And A1's behavior in making a blunder remains unresolved. Which you, A1, could easily lay to rest. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme is correct - The Encyclopedia Britannica is a reliable source. -A1candidate 23:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And Jtydog's last comment said it all. A1 may be guilty of a "blunder". What is trying to be achieved by all this fuss over a potential "blunder".DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Signing

Please remember to sign your posts, especially for something as important as opening an Arbcom case. I've left "unsigned" templates on the relevant users' talk pages which of course you are welcome to revert and replace with your own signature. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my signature. Thanks for the reminder. -A1candidate 08:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curious

Which case at ARBCOM are you referring? Would like to hear your suggestions on how you would change that particular reference at Advocacy ducks. Atsme☯^Consult 23:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme - It's over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Complementary_and_Alternative_Medicine. You could try making a statement about JzG if you think it helps, but for the moment, it looks like the case is trending towards a decline. -A1candidate 23:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, A1 - actually, I saw this [5] - see QG's edit summary. I was following Occult's filing at ARBCOM earlier - lost track of it - but he also named about 3 admins (I think). Takes brass ones for sure. Atsme☯^Consult 00:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

new article Western medical acupuncture

Hello - welcome to a friendly message! ;-) I realise you have a hell of a lot of other considerations at the moment so this is perhaps one for the slow burner. Do you think there is any mileage in creating a new article Western medical acupuncture? It seems to me (who has done a minimal amount of research on this) that the difference between WMA and TCM-based acupunture is the adherance to meridians, energy flow, qi, specific acupoints, etc. Are there any other differences that distinguish the two? At the moment, I am feeling that there would be so much overlap with Acupuncture that the creation of a new WMA page might be opposed. To my own mind, however, the two are so fundamentally different they might be deserving of their own seperate pages. I have posted this a little reluctantly because it may attract circling birds of prey. So if this post causes you any further stress, please feel free to edit/delete as you wish.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a good idea at the moment, largely because there is not enough research yet and it might be deleted as soon as the article is up. By the way, if someone hounds you on your talk page, you can always close the discussion like how I did it above. -A1candidate 12:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought that mike be your answer. The Cochrane reviews are often not clear on whether the trials are TCM or WMA so they would probably be unreliable. Something for the future then. Thanks for the advice on closing - much appreciated.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of hounding or WP:NPA, instruct them to not post on your TP again. Issues about article content and edits should be discussed on the article TP. Civil advice and/or questions about an editor's involvement at an article can be asked on the respective user's TP but if it turns into harassment, you can provide them with a list of options to settle their issue with you, such as ANI or AE. 🍺Cheers! Atsme☯^Consult 14:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice - rather needed it with the ongoing postings on my talk page. Have you seen the new timelimit on replies to requests for page numbers or the content gets deleted....hmmmm... a new one for the Quackers essay?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 ::Yes, I thought that mike be your answer.  The Cochrane reviews are often not clear on whether the trials are TCM or WMA so they would probably be unreliable.  Something for the future then.  Thanks for the advice on closing - much appreciated.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]]</span></sup> 12:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 :::In the case of hounding or WP:NPA, instruct them to not post on your TP again. Issues about article content and edits should be discussed on the article TP.  Civil advice and/or questions about an editor's involvement at an article can be asked on the respective user's TP but if it turns into harassment, you can provide them with a list of options to settle their issue with you, such as ANI or AE.  🍺Cheers! <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>[[User talk:Atsme|<font color="green"><sup>Consult</sup></font>]] 14:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
+::::Thanks for the advice - rather needed it with the ongoing postings on my talk page.  Have you seen the new timelimit on replies to requests for page numbers or the content gets deleted....hmmmm... a new one for the Quackers essay?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]]</span></sup> 17:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)