User talk:Magnet li

Welcome[edit]

Hello Magnet li, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope that you have enjoyed contributing and want to stick around. Here are some tips to help you get started:

Learn the basics by reading the introduction and taking the tutorial.
Remember to sign messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) to automatically insert your username and the date.
Enjoy editing to improve articles, but try to leave an edit summary to explain what you are doing.
Create your first article using the Article Wizard to help avoid common mistakes, which may lead to article deletion.
Although you don't need to be familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies, try to keep to the core principles and basic guidelines.
When dealing with fellow Wikipedians, please remain polite, solve problems calmly, and remember that no-one is out to get you.
Get involved with the community by joining a WikiProject.
Make any test edits in the sandbox or click here and create a sandbox of your own.
If you are having diffculty, consider finding a mentor to give you more personal advice.
If in doubt, be bold. If you make a mistake, it can easily be reverted.

If you need any more information, plenty of help is available - check out Wikipedia:Questions; ask your question here and attract help with the code {{helpme}}; or leave me a message on my talk page explaining your problem and I will help as best as I can. Again, welcome! strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 08:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chinese medicine[edit]

I've removed information here that you have added because it violates WP:OR.Curb Chain (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material is irrelevant to the article. You added a few sources to a sentence tangentially related to the paragraph.Curb Chain (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is relevant, particular to native chinese speakers, because there is a legal distinction of the two in China. and the two professions are also traditionally distinguished from one another. but this is not the case in the states, where acupuncturists are the same as chinese medicine practitioners. it is just like an attorney in the US is able to work as a barrister and a solicitor at the same time but it will be illegal in England, Wales, and Hong Kong. and the links i added are the chinese regulatory boards of the two professions. Magnet li (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

also, im curious why it is irrelevantMagnet li (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Providing links to regulatory boards simply show they exist. You have to find sources which back these claims you state. And for the record, different states have different liabilities for acupuncturists and chinese medicine practitioners so they are discrete dependent on the state.Curb Chain (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i am not very clear of what you meant by citing the links simply showing their existence. maybe it was me didnt write it in the right way. my intent was to show that in english language, a lot of times, an acupuncturist has the same responsibilities and rights as a chinese medicine practitioner. but in everyday chinese, traditionally, and particularly legally, an acupuncturist is completely different from a chinese medicine practitioner. in chinese, literally, a 針灸師(acupuncturist) means a professional who understands and practises acupuncture and moxibustion while a 中醫師(chinese medicine practitioner) means a doctor or a general practitioner of chinese medicine who not only understands and practises acupuncture and moxibustion but also may provides other chinese medical treatments, like herbal remedies. so, for native chinese speakers, who are so accustomed to differentiate the two, and also for those who are from asia or are familiar to the two professions, direct translation of the english word, 'acupuncturists' might not be accurate enough to reflect that the reality. thus, i copied the legal definition of an acupuncturist from california acupuncture board, as an example, to show that the responsibilities and rights of an acupuncturist are essentially the same as a chinese medicine practitioner. and i also added the links for the chinese licensing authorities for the two professions to show that these two professions do have different responsibilities and rights and, thus, are different in chinese language and in china, where it is the origin of traditional chinese medicine. and there are other english phrasings and translations have essentially the same meaning as 中醫師(chinese medicine practitioners) in chinese, like 'oriental medicine pracitioners'. but other english translations won't cause as much confusion as the translation of 'acupuncturists' does.

thus, it is also what i meant above, by a US attorney is able to work as a barrister and a solicitor, which they are completely different legal practitioners in other common law jurisdictions, like in england, wales, and hong kong. a barrister is not allowed to get in touch with his clients directly, with only a few exceptions, but able to represent his clients in upper courts through a solicitor. and a solicitor has a completely reverse situation. a solicitor is not allowed to represent his clients in upper courts but able to directly deal with them. but there is no such distinction in the US. an attorney can deal with his clients directly and represent them in upper courts at the same time. and it is a very similar case here for US acupuncturists, and acupuncturists and chinese medicince practitioners in china. in essence, i just want to show that there is not consensus in english language of all these different titles, but there is consensus in chinese. and so it might cause confusion. and it is better to make it clear to those native english speakers who are not very familiar with the field of traditional chinese medicine and want to learn about it from wiki.

i think it is fairly important to point out that in this article. particularly when this article is about chinese medicine. i think it is important to know who are the experts in the field of chinese medicine and who are not, and who are responsible for certain things and who are not. i hope i have made it clear. Magnet li (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is original research. You can put in a few links but it won't prove all these claims you make.Curb Chain (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the links are to government official websites, both chinese authorities and the US's. and you want some proof more official than the information represented in goverment website??? i dont really follow the logic behind. clear, if one looks at and compares how chinese authorities handle the two titles relative to individual states in the US. different states in the US give different meanings to the title of 'acupuncturist' than the chinese government does. and also, i'm curious, do you read chinese? Magnet li (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so, basically, i just want to show two things (or arguably, one):

(1) the english literal translations do not reflect the whole picture of the chinese terms for the two titles. (if one reads chinese, it is just a fact, unless one doesn't.)

(2) the governmental agencies in china give different legal definitions to the two professions, and thus the titles as well, than individual state governments in the US. (the official websites show that.)

and what more proof do i need to show in order to satisfy? Magnet li (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please also, i want to know why exactly the legal definitions shown on chinese licensing authorities' and california acupuncture board's websites are not good enough to prove that the two countries have different legal definitions for the two professions. would you mind explaining it more, please??? so that i can make it better.Magnet li (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole paragraph you write is your own original writing. As the sources you provided, you used WP:SYN to come up with that paragraph. And it is pointless to only compare these 2 jurisdictions. What about definitions in europe.Curb Chain (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the point that i wanted to make is to show that english translations do not reflect the chinese terms, at least in the US. and even within the US, there is no consensus. i only copied the definition from california's board as an example to keep it short; but if you did really check out all the links i provided, you should be able to access to the official website of the National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (NCCAOM).[1] and there, on NCCAOM's website, it shows all the different titles of different states. i chose california as an example because it was the first state enacted law to regulate chinese medicine practitioners. plus, in the text that you deleted, i am fairly sure that i also mentioned that there are some other english titles in other states with more legal rights than those in china.

and i think it's not completely fair that if you criticise me only comparing the two jurisdictions, because i am more familiar with these two but others. in addition, arguably, i also provided the legal regulations of hong kong immediately before the paragraph talking about the US situation. moreover, this was exactly why i put it as a subsection in the paragraph of the US situation. also, if i had been to write and compare all other jurisdictions with laws regulating chinese medicine, it would be too lengthy. and by then, i am very sure that i would be the first one in line who would delete them all.

also, if you think my text should be deleted in accordance with some wiki's guidelines that i am not familiar, then i think a lot of the contents in the following page might as well need to be deleted as well (because i used that page as an example to write the text you deleted.): Barrister. and would you mind checking that page as well, please?

i admit i am not a good writer. in fact, i barely passed my writing classes in university. please, once again, very sincerely, i hope that you can show me how to write it so that you will not think it is the so-called 'original research'. also, i agree with you and i think you have a valid point about the european defintions. and can i invite you to write about the situation in europe? and if you accept my invitation to write about the situation in europe, your writing will definitely become a demo for me to learn how to do it properly. and the next time i do another contribution to wiki, it won't be so bad. but if you cannot accept my invitation for some reasons, please, at least show me how to fix the text you deleted. thank you! Magnet li (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most I can get from the above is that you wrote the paragraph in Traditional Chinese medicine because of what you learned from the article Barrister, then you used the links that you mentioned and wrote the paragraph. If you read WP:OR you will also learn you are breaching its policy.Curb Chain (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if you think i 'breached' the policy, can you kindly show me how to fix it, please??? Magnet li (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't write any of it because it is your own original writing.Curb Chain (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

W v Registrar of Marriages[edit]

As far as I know you're required to include inline citations for your article. I tagged your article with some issues that jumped out at me. Where are you getting your material? Are you copy/pasting it? Checkingfax (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you were just minutes ahead of me Magnet li (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]