Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:29, 13 August 2013

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

TestingHerbxue (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox for Acu Mechanisms Section

Moved to User:Herbxue/Acupuncture mechanisms

new sandbox

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Herbxue/SandboxLiuBin#New_Article:_Liu_Bin

February 2013

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please 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 Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Before lecturing me on proper behavior, why don't you explain your edit? I'm happy to take this to arbitration if need be, but first, why don't you justify the statement I object to? Lets deal with the actual content of the source in question instead of wikilawering.Herbxue (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I get it. I want to discuss the content issue on the Talk page.Herbxue (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Acupuncture and Biomedical Correlate

Review request for a review on the acupuncture page, first paragraph. See the Talk page, "Physical correlates of acupoints" section and "Physical correlates of acupoints, Part Two." I am concerned that an ethnocentric bias on the part of editors has prevented a simple edit. The editors stand by some very shaky references and will not accept references from the most prestigious universities in the world, including those in China. At issue, the current article reads inaccurately, "Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological correlates for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians and acupuncture points," and yet I have sourced numerous peer reviewed studies from reputable sources showing MRI brain activity, hemodynamic and oxygen pressure correlates. Please review the talk section and weigh in on consensus to help get the edit verified. TriumvirateProtean (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not appropriate, see WP:Votestacking. TippyGoomba (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It is an ethnocentric article in general. To improve it, I would like to see a separate section on proposed mechanisms of action from a scientific perspective, rather than debating whether or not scientific evidence supports traditional chinese concepts. In my opinion, the term Qi describes, through metaphorical language, a variety of physiological phenomena rather than describing a distinct type of energy or matter. I have found over a long time that the skeptics here (editors of the acupuncture and tcm pages) generally have good intentions, however they are selectively religious about following MEDRS restrictions for any statement that suggests support for acu or tcm, but will not apply any scrutiny to pop culture publications that discredit it (see the discussion about "animal penises" - people were defending sensationalist journalism as legit MEDRS). Best to just be patient and work on one sentence at a time, carefully sourcing, assume good faith, and point out the double standards as gracefully as possible. Herbxue (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Acupuncture#Medical procedure?". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  02:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Acupuncture. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Diffs: , , . Looks like you were already warned about 3RR here. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It is Dominus who is not attempting any compromise, while I have been on all the recent areas of contention (see discussion of "medical technique", "theories" and this absurd blanket statement by A1candidate. A1's edit is not supported by the cited sources. I am not introducing new material, I am reverting an erroneous edit. How is Dominus not accused of edit warring? It is because you like his POV better than mine. Apparently you guys only care about being supported by sources when it suits you, and here it does not suit you. Herbxue (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And so it continues . TippyGoomba (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it continues because you guys keep reverting to a version that is not supported by the sources.Herbxue (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You give no demonstration of remorse or understanding of what an edit war is. I just noticed that I warned you here. I also notice you're an WP:SPA. You might find some tips for how to proceed in a content dispute at WP:DR. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Either address the article's content issue or buzz off. You can wikilawyer all you want, but you have focused entirely on me and not addressed the actual issue. I'm perfectly comfortable with my position and conduct. btw - not sure how "power pop" and "baguazhang" fit into your SPA theory. Again - how do the cited sources justify the sweeping general statement "Acupuncture's effects are due to placebo"?Herbxue (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)