User talk:GaelanClark

Welcome!

Hello, GaelanClark, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yours edits at Traditional Chinese medicine

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warrantlessly changing an addition that I made to clear the ignorance of edzard is unacceptable. Look at the numbers that I included, they clearly show that edzard is a fool to say that there is no difference in sham and real acupuncture. If you cannot see that, then hire someone who is qualified to instruct you.---GaelanClark

And since you ARE so eager to reedit reality, please do be the dove and tell me....as you believe of edzard--how .23 is indistinguishable from .55......how is .16 indistinguishable from .57.......and how is .15 indistinguishable from .42....... Oh please alexbrn, be the dove and tell me how any of those numbers are indistinguishable.-----GaelanClark

Personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that is RICH indeed!!! "stay cool" alexbrn admonishes upon me while he edits out the reality of edzard ernst being ignorant in his claim that sham and real acupuncture are the same. The numbers prove it. I am using the numbers. Where are the facts in your editing out the actual data? Oh yeah, and "stay cool" man, for heavens sake "ssssssssstttttttaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy cool"-----GaelanClark

Go fuck yourselves. My edit of the TCM page is waranted and needed to clear any confusion laid down by the ignorant edzard ernst, who seems unable to grasp the statistical numbers in the paper that was written. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357513

If you cannot see this then go hire a fucking qualified person to review the data and show you how wrong eddzie is on this paper.----GaelanClark

OH BOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THE HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO to alexbrn who seems eager to erase reality.--_GaelanClark

I get it now...three edits in one day gets you blocked.....so roxy the dog couldnt edit me anymore AND you had to become the "standard" bearer. Is it now alex the dog? You two work in unison, WOW. Is this how wiki works? Create a hallucinagenic set of characters so that you can continually edit and reedit? Thank you for the insight. I guess I need to hire some company in India to monitor, track, and change all of your edits.---GaelanClark

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, dear board, is whether or not it is acceptable to erase actual numbers that show the ignorance of a previously quoted "expert". With regards to Edzsard Ernst making the claim that there is no difference in sham and real acupuncture I have given the actual numbers that he is claiming to be "exactly the same" and yet ignoramousi--roxy ther dog and alexbrn--take it upon themselves to remove the actual data that shows clearly that the quote is misleading, a lie and should either not be shown in this section or taken down completely.

the paper----http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357513 And yet the findings of the paper in question highlight the ignorance of such statements from Edzard Ernst as "Patients receiving acupuncture had less pain, with scores that were 0.23 (95% CI, 0.13-0.33), 0.16 (95% CI, 0.07-0.25), and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.07-0.24) SDs lower than sham controls for back and neck pain, osteoarthritis, and chronic headache, respectively; the effect sizes in comparison to no-acupuncture controls were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.51-0.58), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.50-0.64), and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.37-0.46) SDs. These results were robust to a variety of sensitivity analyses, including those related to publication bias."^[1] As any first year stats student would be able to see from the available information!

I have very little tolerance for ignorance and lies and so should you.----GaelanClark

February 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for personal attacks. 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. m.o.p 13:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

GaelanClark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If, as it seems to be the case, it is okay for someone to erase someone else's pertinent edits-----OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER-----that are not only factual but relevant then you should see that it is oklay for someone to get F-WORD MAD about it. If you have zero to say about the relevance of my editing then you are just as ignorant as the clown that is alex the dog...there is no difference in roxy the dog and alexbrn when they collude to erase my edits. Shame on you for coddling these idiots.---GaelanClark GaelanClark (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Making personal attacks in your unblock request after being blocked for making personal attacks leaves me with the impression that you do not require further access to your talk page. m.o.p 14:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

^ http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357513

[1] ttp://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357513

[1]