| Revision as of 02:26, 19 February 2014 editMiddle 8 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,254 edits →RfC User: rev← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:10, 31 December 2024 edit undoMiddle 8 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,254 edits add cmt talk pages (conversations in one place)Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit | ||
| (364 intermediate revisions by 43 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{NOINDEX|visible = no}} | {{NOINDEX|visible = no}} | ||
| * <big>'''Welcome to my usertalk page!'''</big> Please ] and see ] on my userpage. | |||
| * <big>'''If you leave a message here, I will reply here'''</big> unless you state a different preference or ping me. Likewise, if I comment on your page, I'd just as soon keep the thread there, if you're OK with that. It's much easier for me to keep conversations in one place. | |||
| * '''Privacy note: Do not post any personal information about me on Misplaced Pages''' beyond what I disclose on this and my other user pages. See ''']''' and ], which is taken as seriously as ], as it should be. | |||
| {{Template:User Scientist}} | |||
| {{Template:User acupuncturist}} | |||
| {{User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Humanist}} | |||
| That said... let's get high! On the ol' hierarchy... | |||
| {{Break|3}} | |||
| <br> | |||
| ] | |||
| {{Busy2|color scheme=green}} | |||
| {{Break|1}} | |||
| '''Privacy note: Do not post any personal information about me on Misplaced Pages''' beyond what I disclose on this and my other user pages. See ''']''' and ], which is taken as seriously as ], as it should be. | |||
| <hr> | |||
| '''If you leave a message here, I will reply here''' unless you state a different preference. It's much easier for me to keep conversations in one place. | |||
| <hr> | |||
| {{cot|title=userpage boilerplate for mirror sites}} | {{cot|title=userpage boilerplate for mirror sites}} | ||
| {{userpage}} | {{userpage}} | ||
| {{cob}} | {{cob}} | ||
| '''<big>]''' (personal list)</big><br> | |||
| {{Break|1}} | |||
| ''']''' ''(as yet incomplete; check the history)'' |
''']''' ''(as yet incomplete; check the history)'' | ||
| </center> | |||
| {{Break|2}} | |||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == ArbCom 2019 election voter message == | |||
| == 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, I think you will find the research interesting. ] (]) 13:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the note; I've been very busy and only read it just now. I will have a look, but can't get into anything very intense for another week or so. But I will have a close look. This is an important area and we need to get it right. --] (]) 16:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;"> | |||
| == The response by Vickers == | |||
| <tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| Hi Middle 8. QuackGuru interpreted your remark to mean that you oppose citing Vickers's response to Ernst in the article. Is that accurate? Thanks. ] (]) 11:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I do support citing Vickers' response to Ernst; sounds like QG misunderstood my comment. thanks, ] (]) 16:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Shoot me an email if there are any PDFs you'd like to have in hand. ] (]) 16:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Done! Thanks so much! --] (]) 06:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for engaging in reasoned and reasonable discussion on the article. - - ] (]) 15:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :To you the same, MB3. I think the overall trend is pretty good. We may even make a "good article" out of it one day. That would be pretty cool. regards, ] (]) 14:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. ] (]) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Purported MEDRS violation == | |||
| </td></tr> | |||
| </table> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Coordination/MMS/04&oldid=926750357 --> | |||
| ==Concern regarding ]== | |||
| ] Hello, Middle 8. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that ], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months ], so if you wish to retain the page, please ] again or ] that it be moved to your userspace. | |||
| If the page has already been deleted, you can ] so you can continue working on it. | |||
| A 2004 cumulative review should not be used to . See ]. | |||
| Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 14:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Current text: "The incidence of serious adverse events was 5 per one million, which included children and adults." | |||
| : --] <small>(])] • ]</small> 18:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your draft article, ]== | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello, Middle 8. It has been over six months since you last edited the ] submission or ] page you started, "]". | |||
| The numbers are now in the article using a newer source. The older source did not did not specify if the estimate included adults and children, but the newer source did. The newer source gives a better explanation about the numbers. ] (]) 21:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| In accordance with our policy that Misplaced Pages is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia ], the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can ]. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. | |||
| :As I already at ], that 5-in-one-million number comes from White 2004. The newer source simply quotes White. Standard practice is to cite the original. That's not controversial and it appears other editors are on board, so if you don't want to join consensus in this case, fine, but your objections to this source are now well past the ] threshold. (See ].) --] (]) 02:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: was . I object to replacing the 2011 meta-review with dated source. I don't see a rationale explanation to replace the newer 2011 meta-review with the dated source. I don't understand how your edit improved the article. The 2011 meta-review does not cover the 5 in 1 million number yet you continue to insist to delete the newer source. I recently updated the article with the numbers using another source. ] (]) 03:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're misunderstanding/misrepresenting multiple things, and I'm not the only editor to notice this. It's disruptive. And there's no reason to discuss this here when Talk:Acupuncture will do. --] (]) 04:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your proposal has too many problems. For example, I explained on the talk page that your proposal is tantamount to . The newer source explicitly states the 5-in-1 million numbers. ] (]) 04:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you're going to just repeat yourself and ignore what other editors say (aka ], why should we respond at all? You're losing the trust of other editors. --] (]) 06:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You are unable to give a reasonable explanation for using the older source when . See ]. ] (]) 18:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::White 2004 indeed states 5 in one million. Well, actually 0.05 per 10,000 (treatments). Which I think we can agree is that same thing as 5 in one million. That's a fact, not a matter of opinion. Why do you dispute it? As for adults and children, it doesn't specify, so we can just report the result; there's no reason to think children were excluded. (Same logic applies to any such review.) There is no IDHT on my part here -- but as before on Talk:Acu, you're repeating simple misunderstandings of fact. --] (]) 04:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::And you'd actually have us believe that converting from 0.05/10,000 to 5/1,000,000 is too confusing. ''Right.'' We're done here. --] (]) 07:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for your submission to Misplaced Pages, and happy editing. <!-- Template:Db-draft-deleted --><!-- Template:Db-csd-deleted-custom --> <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Purported violation of ] == | |||
| :Fine by me, ]. FWIW, although I created the article, it was not as a draft (I think it might've been a redirect ]). It was significantly changed by other editors, thereby bringing about the current situation. They're the ones who would benefit from the above message, FWIW -- it does no good here (but no harm either, of course; no worries). Kudos for helping maintain WP, and happy editing! --] <small>(])] • ]</small> 08:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message == | |||
| You restored the disputed against ] and you restored excessive details against ]. Your violated the ] guideline. Editors at the talk page disagree with you. See ]. | |||
| <table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;"> | |||
| Ideal sources for '''biomedical assertions''' include ] or ]s in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable ]s, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or ]s and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a ]. It is "vital" that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. See ]. Please be more careful next time. ] (]) 18:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| :First: Under MEDRS, as you well know, primary sourcs are acceptable in some situations. My edit was per the discussion at ], where multiple editors agreed that the sourcing was fine. The article is not intended to be about current medical consensus, but rather a notable experiment; to whatever degree it's been superseded, the article can and should say so. | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :Second, your comments could as easily have been at ]. I watch article pages regularly and don't need to be reminded. I'm going to copy and paste your remarks there. In general, I prefer to discuss articles at their talkpages. Your comments are not particularly welcome on my talk page given your poor reciprocal communication: you IDHT at article talk and above, and you simply delete comments at your own talk page. Therefore, I'm going to copy and paste your comments and my reply to Talk:GERAC. | |||
| </td></tr> | |||
| </table> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1056563210 --> | |||
| == Hi. == | |||
| :QG, please do not use this page in the future, except to tell me about discussions elsewhere that involve me, e.g. at noticeboards. Thanks, --] (]) 02:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| --] (]) 23:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message == | |||
| ==User conduct: ]== | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| Moving this to ] and hopefully not having to revisit it. --] (]) 07:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == FYI == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Sorry, Middle 8, there is a you recently created that you miscategorized with '''{{tl|R to talk page}}'''. That ''']''' should only be used on redirects that are ''not'' talk pages and that link to (target) talk pages. Please see '''{{Cat|Redirects to talk pages}}''' for more information. Also, it would help a great deal if you would ''']''' when there are no discussions and therefore no need for the talk page. Thank you very much! ''Joys!'' – '''''<small>]</small>''''' <sup><font size="1" color="blue">]</font></sup> 05:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your correction -- I missed the part about ''']''' being for ''cross-namespace'' redirects, and will make a note of the correct template you used. But I don't get your comment about there being "no discussion" .... there is indeed an active page at ''']''', and I created ''']''' to redirect to that, because ''']''' already redirects to ''']'''. How is that bad form? I can't find anything at '']'' or '']'' suggesting that we shouldn't create redirects in talk space to other talk space articles, and this instance seemed quite logical. Thanks again for helping to clue me in! regards, ] (]) 07:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you, Middle 8! Fact is, there is no policy nor guideline against creating any ''redirects'' you think are needed. Redirects are not actual "pages" and are very "cheap", as they say, which just means that they take up only minuscule server space. It was not the redirect that concerned me so much as the possibility that you might be creating discussion "pages" (not just redirected talk pages) where none were needed. I am happy to be wrong in that respect. Best to you! – '''''<small>]</small>''''' <sup><font size="1" color="blue">]</font></sup> 17:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1124425182 --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message == | |||
| I have changed several section headers on this talk page to focus on editing as opposed to editors. Appropriate processes have been implemented and can and should be used as needed. I am not contending that individual editors don't make working on an article difficult. I think comments directed to such editors on the talk pages of the articles being worked on is appropriate. I just thought section headers consisting of a UserName are not consistent with WP policy and may escalate contention rather than help build consensus. Hopefully the mediation taking place can help editing move forward constructively. Best. - - ] (]) 08:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :That's cool, no problemo -- I certainly appreciate your endeavoring to keep the temperature from flaring up. It is grating when editors engage in extreme IDHT and apparent obtuseness and so on, and those are the times when it's especially important to stay cool. Thanks! best regards ] (]) 09:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| ==Thanks for your mail== | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div> | |||
| Hey,... Yes, I wasn't prepared to meet so little response at AN/I - I should have presented a much stronger case. But it's water under the bridge now...</br> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| TCM/acupuncture is not very mainstream here in Shanghai (anymore?). I guess the efficiency is just not good enough to make it very popular... although defending TCM seems to be kind of a national pride. They'll all tell you how great TCM is, but most people will still go to a Western clinic if they have a problem... Even regarding Western medicine, though, superstition is going strong. A lot of people swear on getting i.v. antibiotics when they have a simple cold (and the health care system is rotten up enough for the doctors actually prescribing it)... This country is a mess. Cheers, --] (]) 10:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| :Good Lord... i.v. antibiotics for a cold.... now ''there's'' a genuine public health need for docs to start prescribing placebos! For colds and sinusitis I actually use Chinese herbs; they help a lot. Shanghai sounds crazy, interesting as well. Happy (Gregorian) New Year, --] (]) 15:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| ==Would you certify this RfC/U?== | |||
| Hey. I need a 2nd certifier for ]. And if you want to add anything, be my guest. Cheers, --] (]) 10:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I'll join it. See also ]. (]?) cheers, ] (]) 07:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Alright. I filed the RfC/U; it's at ]. You'd need to certify within 48 hours from now. Thanks! --] (]) 04:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| If you want me to I will refrain from editing Acupuncture and German acupuncture trials for a very long time. ] (]) 19:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Up to you -- personally I think a topic wikibreak might be a good idea for you; I've taken them from time to time too, including a really long one for much of last year. best regards, ] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::], please revert ALL the edits I made to German acupuncture trials article. If you want me to I can strike whatever comment I made at the German acupuncture trials. Whatever issue you have at Acupuncture or related articles I can fix it if you want me to. There was not enough discussion and no compromise was reached. I think we can start at the . ] (]) 19:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I guess I can do that if you like, and then work with other editors on restoring any material that was lost. I might post on talk page first just to see if no objections.... is your request time-sensitive? Re ] (and other articles for that matter), don't worry about changing your past edits, it's a wiki after all and anything can be changed if editors want to. In fact I think we can do the same with GERAC, right? Reverting to a much older version runs the risk of losing other edits. Maybe it would be better to just let consensus work out where to go from here, rather than going to an earlier version? regards ] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I feel sick to my stomach. I think we can start from and anything that lost can be restored only if there is consensus. Please help. ] (]) 21:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Acupoint P6 may help for nausea... ;-) ... Seriously, dude ... don't stress. It's just a wiki, it can always be changed, tomorrow or next week or month no one will care. I have a motto that's only half-joking: "Misplaced Pages ruins lives". I think of it whenever I waste time editing obsessively (and I am pretty obsessive) and then fall behind on something essential, like e.g. sleep or work. Don't worry, I'll handle the revert if you want; relax, take a break and enjoy your favorite food/entertainment. take care, ] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Using Category:Pseudoscience== | |||
| ''(refactoring) The below is in response to ] of my user page:'' | |||
| :That acupuncture bit is a load of bollocks. --] (]) 19:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : "That's apparent when peer-reviewed meta-analyses and mainstream bodies find ..." ← not apparent at all: we call this "original research". We need to know what experts on pseudoscience think, not editors of Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 19:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::@RtD, the depth of your critical analysis never ceases to amaze. @Alexbrn: we need to know what the ''scientific community'' thinks. (...) anyway, I'm obviously happy to consider the issue along the RS lines you'd prefer... --] (]) 11:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Acupuncture and COI == | |||
| ('''Note''': My earlier comments on COI mentioned the example of a ] (DPM) who could have COI because of the potential for pushing to make their profession look better in some ways -- not that it should need to, but podiatrists don't always get the respect that they should given that their training is as rigourous as MD's and DO's, albeit more limited/specialized in scope. There is, for example, debate over their scope of practice: how much of the lower leg or ankle should be included, and should the upper extremity be included too, since the anatomy is quite similar. Hence the thread-starter's mention of podiatry.) | |||
| Podiatrists focus on a particular part of the body, and will select their treatment option and sell it depending on what they judge will work best (if they are behaving correctly). Acupuncturists have pre-decided their treatment option. That's a big distinction. If however a podiatrist was on commission from (say) Wongo Nail Juice and used that as a treatment, and decided to edit the Misplaced Pages article on Wongo Nail Juice, then ''that'' would be comparable to an acupuncturist editing the acupuncture article. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 16:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : {{U|Alexbrn}}, you raise two distinct issues (in the context of ]): profiting from the treatment one prescribes, and (pre-)selection of treatment option. The former is simple: we get paid for doing procedures, just as dentists, podiatrists, etc., do. There's nothing "generally considered" ethically wrong with that (although sometimes the consultation and treatment ''are'' done by separate parties, as with Rx drugs). Your example is more like (e.g.) docs getting junkets from pharmaceutical companies. | |||
| : The latter boils down to ethics: i.e. ensuring that there's alignment among one's scope of practice, what one claims to treat, and the evidence base. That confluence is obviously limited for acupuncturists, but it's limited to two of the most common afflictions: pain and stress. These fit the evidence, and are what I focused on before going on leave, and those things certainly fit acupuncturists' scope of practice well, since the main things we do are acupuncture ''per se'' and ], along with some Asian bodywork techniques. Obviously, if I were overpromoting acupuncture, I'd be violating generally-accepted ethical guidelines, and if I were pushing that same overpromotion on WP I'd be in violation of several policies. And I know many acupuncturists do overpromote, and that this is common in alt-med, though neither the rule in alt-med nor a terribly rare exception in medical and allied health professions. | |||
| :I still don't see COI emanating from any of this, nor do I see its adumbrations being unique in kind to acupuncture, though obviously greater in degree if scope of practice is a factor. Are you arguing that anybody who gets paid for performing a given procedure shouldn't be editing that topic? Or only if they only perform a small number of such procedures? Or if a lot of their colleagues are known to be bad actors? | |||
| :Over to you, then... time for a nightcap of some juju juice. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 12:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Somebody heavily invested in a single procedure probably shouldn't be writing about it; and if that procedure became the subject of controversy, where the outcome of the controversy might bear on their interests, they almost certainly shouldn't. Personally, I now keep clear of editing around anything I'm closely involved in (even if I'm not paid for it): one of the reasons I edit altmed topics is precisely because it has no "real life" crossover with me. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 16:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::We're writing an encyclopedia, and our standards should reflect that, and be pragmatic, and not try to fix what isn't broken. People heavily invested in single procedures are also known as "specialists" and should be writing about it, assuming topic expertise matters. (Who else will be able to evaluate certain sources? Etc.) It would be disastrous if Misplaced Pages followed that standard. | |||
| :::In cases where that procedure becomes controversial, where the outcome of the controversy might bear on their interests, you may be right about COI, or at least potential for it (if that's not redundant). But this may still cast too broad a net, and has to be weighed against the benefits of subject expertise. Discouraging editing from specialist expert editors is a big deal, and may damage the project severely. We should do something to draw out the best in such editors, and it shouldn't be all stick. Of course, declaring a COI doesn't necessarily mean a person shouldn't write about a topic, only that certain checks and balances be involved, e.g. perhaps 0RR, or just using talk pages. And that could be done in cases where controversies might bear on an editor's interest. What we've done so far, for all professionals irrespective of specialty or controversies, is to caution against tendentiousness, and otherwise hold them to the same standards as everyone else; where is the evidence of this not working? (Diffs, please, if citing specific editors.) --] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===Community input=== | |||
| I opened a thread on myself at ], but it goe hijacked. Will revisit at a later time. May have to do this in user space (or some carefully-moderated venue) to prevent hijacking again. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 08:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Synthesis - OR == | |||
| For you to make up stuff about me is rather underhand. --] (]) 17:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :All I know about you is from your comments, which I cited in I assume you're referring to. Did I depict them fairly? I think so: | |||
| :* certainly sounds like a disparagement of the two sources in question. An of ] reviews of acu for pain is indeed a gold-standard source, as is a . Both find efficacy of acupuncture for these conditions. Your comment on these was, quote: ''When you boil it down to basics, those "gold-standard" sources say it is good for a bit of placebo induced pain relief. That is all.'' (unquote) From that, a reasonable person would infer that you don't think the sources are gold-standard, and you don't think they say what they say. | |||
| :* likewise sounds like a disparagement of the sources posted in the thread-starter. (See ] on article talk page.) about acupuncture and demarcation that said it was neither science nor pseudoscience, but somewhere in between. (Like ]'s "questionable science".) These sources included a ]'s book chapter in a book edited by another ]. Your comment on these and ensuing discussion was that WP:FRINGE's category of "obvious pseudoscience" ''"still trumps any of the Acuapologists in this talk page''". That sounds like you believe these sources either are irrelevant to demarcation, or perhaps that they themselves are "acuapologists". (I was surprised by your comment and said so a couple of weeks ago.) | |||
| :There's no basis for feeling offended here. My depiction of what you said is fair, but it's possible you meant something different. I don't assume bad faith. I think that in your comments above, you're either oversimplifying, and ignoring evidence to the contrary, and/or speaking hastily and unclearly. Either way, please take my feedback in a constructive spirit, and consider a bit of a course change in this topic area. Happy editing... --] <small>(] • ])</small> 08:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Note == | |||
| It's no issue, regards, ] (]) 10:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==FYI about COI for healthcare professionals (mainstream and alternative)== | |||
| Hey Middle8; Are you aware that there is an essay that supplements ] that broaches the subject of healthcare professionals, both mainstream and alternative? If you haven't already, have a look at ]. It may be helpful. ] (]) 02:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, Puhlaa, this looks very helpful! --] <small>(] • ])</small> 07:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tps}} But be sure to remember that many people do not consider you guys to be health care professionals. -] (]) 07:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: I will be sure to remember that. Thank you. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 07:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::On another note, Middle8, have you seen ? ] (]) 02:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Attempt at WP:BOOMERANG turns into richest WP:KETTLE ever== | |||
| {{cot|title=Deprecated as drama, but click if you must}} | |||
| ] | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| </div> | |||
| ==Null results for acu with double-blind studies== | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1187132125 --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| Re a discussion generalizing discussion of to all of acupuncture: Not true. In that link Novella cites one study, but it's frequently not the case in others. Which why some meta-analyses do find efficacy beyond placebo with double-blind studies. Small, but statistically significant: enough to reject the null hypothesis. Cochrane's PONV (post-op nausea & vomiting) , for example, and Cochrane reviews are unsurpassed as MEDRS's. And ''that'' is why acu is truly controversial. It's a mixed bag, in the "borderlands" between science and pseudoscience -- this per ] (). Unlike homeopathy or faith healing, it has mainstream acceptance: , , . And how is this POV-pushing, btw? It's simply presenting strong RS's whose conclusions differ from others. Sure, the balance may change in the future, but for now, ]. Wanting to exclude or minimize strong sources is tendentious. Be careful of making unwarranted POV-pushing allegations and of oversimplifying ]; this is not a matter of black-and-white, ''per RS's''. At ] issues like this come up not infrequently. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| ==RfC User== | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| {{trout}} | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| I read through the RfC User GC and found no evidence. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You are being discussed at AN here ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::Thanks for alerting me to the fact that the diff used in the RfC/U didn't match its description; it's been struck and editors notified: ]. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| :::I've moved the section to statement of the dispute, since it is more relevant in that section than in a section on views which is for "statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute". ] (]) 22:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| ::::I agree, but as long as Doc James's statement remains as it is (i.e. suggesting this might have been intentional), editors need to be able to make an informed decision, so I'm leaving it there for now. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1258243506 --> | |||
Latest revision as of 11:10, 31 December 2024
- Welcome to my usertalk page! Please AGF and see § Collaboration & accomodation on my userpage.
- If you leave a message here, I will reply here unless you state a different preference or ping me. Likewise, if I comment on your page, I'd just as soon keep the thread there, if you're OK with that. It's much easier for me to keep conversations in one place.
- Privacy note: Do not post any personal information about me on Misplaced Pages beyond what I disclose on this and my other user pages. See User:Middle 8/Privacy and WP:OUTING, which is taken as seriously as WP:BLP, as it should be.
That said... let's get high! On the ol' hierarchy...
| userpage boilerplate for mirror sites | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Editing tips (personal list)
Archives (as yet incomplete; check the history)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Concern regarding Draft:List of Better Call Saul characters
Hello, Middle 8. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Better Call Saul characters, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages. FireflyBot (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:List of Better Call Saul characters
Hello, Middle 8. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of Better Call Saul characters".
In accordance with our policy that Misplaced Pages is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Misplaced Pages, and happy editing. Liz 04:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Fine by me, Liz. FWIW, although I created the article, it was not as a draft (I think it might've been a redirect here). It was significantly changed by other editors, thereby bringing about the current situation. They're the ones who would benefit from the above message, FWIW -- it does no good here (but no harm either, of course; no worries). Kudos for helping maintain WP, and happy editing! --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 08:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hi.
My answer. --The Explaner (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)