User talk:Jmg873

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Jmg873. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spinal manipulation copyright concern

The material you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-1340-18-3, a copyright journal article. The material has since been removed by another user, but I would still like to remind you that copying copyright material to this wiki is not allowed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa Understood, is this the case for the 2017 review that was just added to the effectiveness section under low back pain by "Quackguru"? He quoted the study, which is something my addition was previously removed for doing. I'm just curious if he did something differently than I did.

Thank you. Jmg873 (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted a review not a study and I put the text in quotes. Quoting is allowed as long as it is not too long. QuackGuru (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A systematic review is a type of study, hence you'll see I refer to it as both. I asked this person because his/her mention includes an instance where I also put the text in quotes. Jmg873 (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You added a quote without a link to the source. That is a copyvio. This edit was also a copyvio. QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first was unnecessary to bring up, that was one of the original issues Diannaa was discussing. The second is my mistake; I didn't know that talk pages required full citations I'll re-post correctly.Jmg873 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, user talk pagesJmg873 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed them up, the first was the user talk page, the second link you had was what I was referring to from Diannaa.Jmg873 (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to add the full citation. It can just be a link. The last source you added to the article has a problem with the pmid. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you formatted the ref with the correct pmid then it might of not been deleted. You can start a RfC on the talk page to try to obtain WP:CON to restore it. But I think there is no chance you would gain consensus. They often disagree with me. It is getting harder and harder to maintain neutral articles. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cervical radiculopathy source

I think that the cervical radiculopathy source you are trying to add at the spinal manipulation article is reliable and fine for inclusion. I also suspect that the roadblock is a result of editor bias more so than any wikipedia policy. I have posted at the reliable sources noticeboard for other opinions. You can see it here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56a:75b7:9b00:a5fc:56e7:d1a6:3966 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

NPA

Please do read the talk page guidelines and please comment on content, not on contributor.

Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Spinal manipulation‎ that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message below. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made that comment due to the nature of the comment I was responding to. Would it have been more appropriate to say his comment exhibited bias?Jmg873 (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

marginally better. much better to focus on content and sources. bickering over how people talk will never get you where you want to go. Not ever. Focusing on content and sourcing is the best way to go. Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caption

I know the policy and guidelines. I heard most editors are against the rules. If it is a violation of WP:CAPTION I can't help you. They won't listen to me. QuackGuru (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I don't totally understand the reference you're making here. I understand to look at WP:CAPTION, but are you saying you've tried something like this before without success?Jmg873 (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have had trouble with a lot of things without success. It depends on the topic. Removing original research is very difficult on some topics. The text is usually a description of the image. The wording should be simpler. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and kudos on your editing

Hi Jmg873, I think that you are doing a fine job! All of your comments contain reliable sources and quotes from those sources and you have not sunk to discussing other editors rather than edits! You are well on your way to being a great contributor. You will find that editors will often game the system, relying on your lack of knowledge on policy, and even resort to bullying (like telling you that you are an SPA, like that is not allowed or something). I find that these tactics are most prevalent when the other editors have no source, or policy-based arguments, but still want their POV to be promoted. In addition to your great use of sources, you should get to know policy and guidelines much better to help you avoid being 'wiki-lawyered'. The most important guideline to know for editing health related articles, in my opinion, is WP:MEDRS. However, it is also good to know WP:NPOV and WP:OR. There are tonnes more that are relevant, but after about 7 years of lurking here and participating in discussions (I don't edit articles very often, just like the discussions), I still don't know them all and get 'caught' by those who know policy better. Hopefully you 'learned' a little about the wiki culture and approaches to discussion and editing by watching the exchange! Best regards 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment and the links you provided. Yes I learned a lot from that discussion. I find myself very disappointed in how the issue with the secondary source has been handled thus far. I hope that the medicine wikiproject talk page gets handled in a more unbiased fashion, or at least in a way that satisfies WP:V. Anyway, thanks again. I'll make sure to read up on policy as much as I can!Jmg873 (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits with incorrect summaries

In this edit you removed content saying it was not based on a review. However the source is a review (as confirmed by PUBMED classification). Such edits with incorrect summaries are damaging to the project. Alexbrn (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I misread a piece of the study, my mistake.Jmg873 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 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 that 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.

Template:Z33

Reply to your post at my talkpage

I could not reply to your query on my talk page because the bots keep seeing it as vandalism and removing my reply, so I am posting it here. First, let me note that the above warning does not imply that you have done anything wrong. Note that the first sentence suggests "it does not imply misconduct". Anyone who edits at an article that is under sanctions should receive that message, so they can held accountable if they break the rules.

With regard to your question: There are no rules against being an SPA; unless you are pushing a POV without any supporting high-quality sources, then you will have a problem. If you are concerned, familiarize yourself with WP:SPA. You have sources for everything you propose and are polite on the talk page and are not discussing other editors, only edits. As such, I do not think anyone could get you banned, but your suggested edits may still not be accepted either. An administrator that is actively editing an article, as Guy is, cannot use their administrative powers at that same article. If Guy wanted you banned for something that happened at the chiropractic article, he would have to find another administrator to make the block, or he could face sanctions himself. There is not really anything you can do to prevent misinformation (or one-sided info) except keep editing. Ultimately, consensus is what 'wins', so as long as there are more POV editors (pseudo-skeptics or true-believers) than neutral editors, the article will suffer. When you are working on the article, make sure you follow WP:BRD, it is not policy, but the standard for editing controversial articles. Also, BRD can be used against other editors who are reverting you...they have to be willing to 'discuss' or their revert is garbage and you could try another 'bold' change. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]