Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:29, 26 August 2014 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is a reliable source: WP:IDHT concerns← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:43, 30 October 2024 edit undoBaranBOT (talk | contribs)Bots, Extended confirmed users16,963 editsm Fix mass message error per WP:AWBREQ 
(644 intermediate revisions by 87 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}
|archive = User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/Archive %(counter)d
|algo = old(30d)
|counter = 2
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
}}
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|title=Past talking|image=File:Two Patriarchs.jpg|image-size=100px}}


<span style="color:darkgreen;"><span style="font-size:15pt">'''Real-life workload: 9'''</span></span>
== Los Natas edits ==
*'''1 = no work pressure'''
*'''5 = middling'''
*'''> 5 = please don't expect much'''
*'''10 = frenzied'''
*'''11 = ]'''


== ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message ==
* Please see the definition of the word "coined."
* Please use the correct method of asking for more information. It is not interpolating "such as?" into the text of an article.
* There's no need to seek consensus on an article's talk page before making edits.
<b><span style="color: #f33">&middot;]&middot;</span></b> 01:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
:Hi Rodii. I think the right place for discussion is at ] where the other contributors could follow the discussion as well in order to improve the article. If you find errors though, you can also help to improve the article by correcting those faults instead of removing one's contributions. Thanks! ] (]) 17:11, 9 March 2014 (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|2020|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.
== Appropriate level of wikilinking ==


If you wish to participate in the 2020 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. ] (]) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Good message at WT:MOSLINK. I do a lot of maintenance work that includes unlinking common terms and chronological items. But en.WP is ahead of the game in this respect compared with most of the other WPs. May I ask whether you have experience at another WP? And if so, whether you've had any success in convincing other editors to use the wikilinking system more skilfully? I've watchlisted this page if you want to reply here. ] ] 11:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/05&oldid=990308339 -->
:Greetings there Tony1! And thanks for your message, I'm glad to hear that there is someone else concerned with the same problems too.
:I agree with you, the English Misplaced Pages is way ahead it's other language version counterparts. I am currently contributing to the Finnish language Misplaced Pages aside from the English one, and I must say that I am really giving up hope with it completely... Few practices still vivid and alive at the Finnish Misplaced Pages:
:1) They are linking all the dates (official WP-policy there, e.g. ], ])
:2) ...linking a lot of common terms
:3) ...linking compounded words from the middle even (e.g. ]pick)
:=> If your try to remove excess linking - even with well-grounded reasons and participating the discussion at the Talk page - it is likely to just get reverted without any explanations. There is also a very little contributor base in the fi.wiki, and therefore it is pretty much the same group of contributors that keep patrolling on the changes in the articles and backing-up the doings of one an each other.
:If there shall be any discussion though, it tends to be taken to your User -talk page, often on a very personal level, and taken away from below the eyes of the other article contributors...


== ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message ==
:I have also launched a discussion at the fi.WP, one where "I got mistaken to refer" to the English Misplaced Pages policies. This resulted into fierce responses, according to which ''Finnish Misplaced Pages is completely different'', and that the ''English policies have no value at the Finnish side''. Well, that's actually true and I do understand it but.... how about benchmarking? Is it bad in general? In Finnihs Misplaced Pages, it seems it is.


<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
:The Finnish Misplaced Pages has sunken deep with it's current conceptions, and the general mindset with wikilinks still seems to be "the more, the better".
<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.
:That's pretty much my experiences in my rather small language version. Maybe I should just drift towards '''Citizendium''' (http://en.citizendium.org/Welcome_to_Citizendium) slowly xD ... How about your experiences Tony1? Which language edition you've been working with? ] (]) 19:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
::You might tell them that overlinking has the same ill effect for all readers—whether of en.WP or fi.WP. The particular language is irrelevant. The war about linking started with the ridiculous date-autoformatting that was introduced into en.WP in 2003 as a ham-fisted solution to editors' fights about US vs non-US formatting. Only logged-in editors who had chosen prefs saw any "benefit". Not readers.<p>The main battle was won about six years ago: what was surprising was the vehemence of objection, and the fact that within a year or two hardly any editor objected. The whole attitude has turned 180 degrees. It's a symptom of how crude the wikicultures are in other languages that readers don't count. The linking system is washed out and the text looks pretty bad, because no one has stood up to the mind-set of the geek-nuts who are in control. Very happy to have you editing here.
::], ], ], ]. ] ] 11:24, 11 March 2014 (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.
== Wikilinks ==


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>] (]) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
Hello,<br/>
</td></tr>
] states that "Links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." I can't really understand why you are neglecting this? ] (]) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
</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/05&oldid=1056563328 -->


== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==
:Seems like the edit infobox didn't capture this (was left empty), sorry. Anyway, I undid revision back to version by ] (]) =P So I'm in favour of his/her edit... ] (]) 18:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
::It's allright. I appreciate your concern over the overlinks by the way. ] (]) 21:12, 31 March 2014 (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.
== Collaboration ==


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>] (]) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
Hi JS! I'm going to take you up on that offer to address key shortcomings and systematic bias at the chiro article. I had been working on an improved/neutralized version in my sandbox. If follows the MEDMOS style as well (specific sections in specific order). How about you take a look and give me some feedback and we can start to prioritize where we're going to begin. ] (]) 11:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


</div>
Hi there, ] (])! Thanks for your proposal, sure I will accept it! I'll take a look at it with a better time! ] (]) 20:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/05&oldid=1124425179 -->


== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
:I made a proposal for a new lede at the chiro talk page. Give it a looksee and check out the language, tone, grammar. If that's OK to your eye, I can insert the citations, although I currently forget how to copy and paste the references from my sandbox to the talk page. There is a specific way of doing this, but I need a refresher. ] (]) 23:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
:: I think before any significant changes are made to the article we should go present the case to a noticeboard of some sort (I forget the official name). This was done last year with respect to 'proving' that chiropractic was a health profession. What do you think? ] (]) 21:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</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|2023|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.
:::JG, time to report QG, have your diffs ready, I'll have mine ready to go to. A topic ban on all alt-med articles, on specifically chiropractic and TCM would be appropriate. Please let me know when this is initiated. Diplomacy has failed, unfortunately. ] (]) 23:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
::::Here was the last report. See ].
::::For a new report you can start at ]. But please be aware you must provide strong evidence. ] (]) 05:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::Suspicious attempt to get me topic banned, indef'ed here . The cynics have spoken, but since you've seen me at the chiro page and talk page, I was wondering if you would care to share your experience, if possible. No pressure, and no hard feelings either way. ] (]) 16:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::Greetings! I left my response at the WP:ANI already. Personally, I don't see any reason for a ban, but I do find name calling inappropiate though (or making such implications). I know it is hard to keep your cool sometimes, and I have to admit that I have lost mine too as well from time to time. I think you still owe an apology for that. ] (]) 20:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


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>] (]) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>


</div>
== 3RR report closed ==
</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/04&oldid=1187132222 -->


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
This is to inform you that an edit-warring noticeboard report in which you were involved has been closed. It is to further notify you that at the next sign of edit-warring on any pseudoscience related articles, including all alternative medicine articles, you will be blocked indefinitely.&mdash;](]) 03:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
:Indeed, that warning was miswritten. Consider it to read "The next sign of abusing administrative noticeboards to further pseudoscientific POVs will result in an indefinite block."&mdash;](]) 13:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
::How come I was misusing the administrative noticeboards? I am not furthering any pseudoscientific POV's ], my report was concerning violation of 3RR. There sure were some lengthy discussions at the report that I filed, but I never participated any of those.
::I don't think my warning is really fair. There was no POV pushing from my part: you can even notice that I didn't take any part of that POV-related discussion there. Could you please have another look at it? ] (]) 13:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
:::Why did you make a and continue to . ] (]) 20:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
::::Explain. The diffs show your edit warring at the 3RR report. ] (]) 20:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
::::What evidence? ] (]) 20:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::The evidence shows you falsely accused me of violating the 3RR rule. and you made a bogus 3RR report. ] . See ]. See ]. Do you agree you made a mistake? Do you agree you will stop following me to other articles? If you don't agree to stop following me then I think a topic ban for pseudoscience related articles is appropriate. I asked you before to stop following me. See ]. Your first edit to both articles was to revert without explanation. See ]. ] (]) 20:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::Enough of that nonsense. So where is the evidence? All you gave me was eight links. So far, you have refused to provide a complete list to support your paranoid allegations, so just cut that crap. ] (]) 04:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


Hello,
Right now, ], you aren't doing yourself any favours. Let it drop. If you can point to an actual instance of edit-warring or similar obstructive behaviour, feel free to bring it to my attention. Constantly posting the same link over and over again with a request for a topic ban hurts your cause.&mdash;](]) 04:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
== ] violation ==


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
I provided evidence that you have no consensus to restore the tag but . The . ] (]) 18:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
:You provided a link to ]. As I already commented in my diff: "''Doc James, McSly and Roxy the Dog were the only ones to comment besides you, DVMt and I at Talk:Chiropractic#Tag restored against CON again. As far as I can see, they made no objections.''"
:You are making more and more allegations against me all the time. See ]. QuackGuru, are you here to edit collaboratively? Please answer my question. Thanks. ] (]) 18:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
::I also provided more evidence on the talk page there is . I don't see consensus for the NPOV tag. ] (]) 18:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
:::How did I ignore them? No, I haven't ignored anything. You gave me the link and I already commented on that. The right place to discuss the issue is at ]. That's where the consensus is made, not on my Talk Page. So far, where are the objections?
:::You ignored my question: ''Are you here to edit collaboratively?'' You have been proposed collaboration for some times already, but you have never accepted the offer. ] (]) 19:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
:::I'd like to suggest a RfC next time. ] (]) 19:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


Kind Regards,
::::Quack, you really need to stop the harassment and constantly trying to create drama when someone disagrees with your edits. Also, use the chiro talk page so all this can be documented. ] (]) 15:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


]
== Interested in your POV==
Hey, I made some edits on Acupuncture to help resolve the neutral POV tag, beginning with the introductory paragraph. Despite having very high quality references, I have seen those edits reverted wholesale without any discussion on the talk page. If you ever have the time, I'd be interested in your perspective.] (]) 17:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
:Hi and thanks for your message! I already answered you at the article Talk Page! :P ] (]) 20:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
==About nature source in TCM==
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 -->
I check the source from nature which define the TCM as pseudoscience. This source is . Actually this article tries to refute another article which is also from nature . The second one describe some opinion, one of them is to use system biology as a way to assess the usefulness of tcm. I just wonder whether it is good to use one article in nature as the view of nature journal and the primary source while ignore others which are also from nature. Despite article which is also from nature 448 in 2007, I see another article from journal nature which describe the usefulness (for dementia) of TCM. This article was published in 2010 and stated " Sound therapeutic effects promote more scientists, domestic and abroad, to study extracts from herbal medicines. Today, a great number of compounds from herb extracts have proven to be multi-targeted, low toxicity and potent in alleviating dementia." It seems there are many articles which present different idea in nature . I wonder whether to add all of these sources from nature to keep neutrally. I hope someone can check all of these articles from nature journal . Now I think one editorial in nature is a neutral description in this article but whatever, add the website link for the reference is a good way for reader to follow up the source. I don't think there is a standard nature magazine view. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Greetings! I'm a bit busy these days but I promise to check through your sources with a better time! What do you think that would be the biggest contributions of those new sources to the article? Studies on the efficacy of TCM on dementia? Generally, if you have good reliable sources, I can't see any reason why such sources couldn't be used in the article. =P
::Hello, I am the user who start this section. Actually my point is just neutrally indicate that“this is one editorial in Nature” like my edition now . Actually, I have edited this when I first start this section in talk page but someone revert my edition. I want to avoid an edition war so I claim in talk page now before I edited it. Thank you. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Minor note ==

It's not necessary to respond to every turn of the thread like . Say your piece, and then let others have their say. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 20:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

== "Criticism" ==

Talking this off the article talk page. I repeat - I recommend that you get more solidly grounded and understand that stating the relationship between TCM and science ''in Misplaced Pages'' in a neutral way is '''not criticism''' - ''it is what we do here''. I know it is difficult when you are dealing with hard core anti-quack people, but at the end of the day, you are responsible for your own head. ] (]) 19:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:Sorry for the late reply ], I've been quite busy these days. I agree with you what you said above. However, I was trying to point out that (if I still recall the discussion right) whereas studies with both positive and negative results do exist, we should seek to bring forth both sides. I think you guys had pretty good discussion about it on Herbxue's Talk Page ). Criticism is good and it's ineviable for scientific approach. I hope we no longer have any misunderstanding about that one. Cheers! ] (]) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
::I appreciate your friendly reply but I feel we are not connecting still. In Misplaced Pages, since the basis of TCM is qi and other prescientific notions of the body, those notions, and treatments based on them, are pseudoscience and "alternative medicine." If any given specific intervention is tested using the scientific method and found to be effective for some specific disease, then we have an empirical, scientific grounds for saying that the specific treatment is scientific and is medicine, even though it remains without a scientific basis. But the field of TCM as a whole remains pseudoscience and alternative medicine. It is not "criticism" to say this in Misplaced Pages, it is the foundation from which we start, here in Misplaced Pages. Article Talk pages are not the place to try to change that foundation. I hope that makes sense... ] (]) 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

== Let's stop feeding the trolls ==

It seems that it's only the two of us. I have had enough and won't be responding to any more. He's clearly trolling now. Regards, --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 01:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

== Refactoring others comments ==

It is inappropriate to alter the text of another user's comments in a discussion, as you did in at ]. If you wish to criticize or comment on another user's wording, you can do so in our own comments; but to place words in another user's comment does not further honest discussion. Actions like this can lead to restrictions on editing privileges. --] (]) 20:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

:Ooops...! Sorry {{ping|NatGertler}}. I cited BullRangifer and accidentally modified his original post, not mine. I made the corrections and you can see now how it was meant to be :P My apologies for the hassle! ] (]) 20:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

::I'm glad to hear that it was an honest error, and thanks for taking care of it! --] (]) 20:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

== ANI ==

] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 04:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
: (yawn) He filed one on me and Herbxue too. I wouldn't pay too much (translation: any) attention. It's just something QG feels he has to do sometimes, I guess .... some of us go to the beach to de-stress; QG goes to Misplaced Pages drama boards. As you can see, the last time he did this with me, the results weren't exactly earth-shattering: '']''. Happy editing, ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 08:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know what is your specific explanation for . Why did you think this you made (against consensus) improved the article. ] (]) 17:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
:{{tps}} Correction: there was no consensus at that point. Anyway that was a week ago, and the issue is now settled. Everyone else has moved on (see bottom of ]; no further mainspace or talkspace edits about this since June 26). --] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 01:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

== July 2014 ==
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br>
Please be particularly aware, ] states:
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> - ] <small>(])</small> 21:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read . There is no consensus to restore the text. ] (]) 18:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

<small>Copied to ]</small>

<s>:Why is 2/0 being stamped here? As far as I can see, you left this post, right? If that's what you think, I'd advise you to file a 3RR case right now. Thanks. ] (]) 18:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)</s>

You added that was undue weight and you added unsourced material too. The following text was unsourced: "The NBCE Part-IV examination is a comprehensive practical exam that assesses case history, orthopedic & neurological testing, clinical diagnosis, radiography & imaging interpretation, manual techniques and case management. The Part-VI exam has generally replaced individual state examinations. Jurisdictions still administer a jurisprudence examination to test a candidate's knowledge of the statutes and regulations that govern chiropractic practice within its particular jurisdiction." You made this but the section was too long with the recent additions and most editors disagree with restoring the overly long text. ] (]) 19:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
:Nope. I didn't add anything. I made a revert since you deleted sourced material per "unsourced material". No mention about undue weight or anything else. This is already discussed in full detail at the article Talk Page. It seems that all your diffs are after I made the revert.
:Besides, I don't find the section too long, as I have expressed at the Talk Page
:Your ban/block history is quite impressive. I'd advise you to be careful. Cheers! ] (]) 20:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
::You I left on this talk page but it does not really matter who left the message I suppose.
::I tagged the . The first revert was made under the edit summary "shorten long section and organise text; remove unsourced text)". The OR and undueweight was . After the edit was reverted again Jayaguru-Shishya, it seems the disputed text against consensus on July 24, 2014. You claimed: "" but he did add something. He added OR and disputed text. It seems you the comment that the edit added OR to the article. I explained it in my on July 23, 2014 the edit added OR and was a violation of WP:SUMMARY. You claimed "So far, sourced material was removed, as stated above." But you did not address the "1) poor quality sources 2) undue weight 3) original research and 4) lack of consensus." Your proposal on the talk page was to expand the section. We should use reliable ] sources. See ]. Cheers. ] (]) 23:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

== thezensite ==

Do you know ? An amazing amount of critical studies on Zen. May be useful~for you, given your enthusiasm and developing knwoledge of the history of Zen. ] -] 04:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
:Thanks mate! I think I just used it as a source in Kapleau and Yasutani articles! =P ] (]) 10:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

==Disambiguation link notification for July 30==

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 08:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

==]==
Hello. I want to remark that you give a fairly idiosyncratic interpretation to this guideline. I have edited tens of thousands of articles featuring foreign languages and come across even more of them. As an active member of WikiProject Etymology, I can asssure you that linking language names at first occurence is common Misplaced Pages practice. This linking practice includes even French and German which are major languages, let alone Vietnamese which is not. Since edit-warring is not particularly constructive, let us discuss this here. --] (]) 19:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
:Hi! Thanks for your message. I am sorry if I was a bit unclear with my explanation. In my opinion, Vietnamese with 75 million native speakers can be considered as rather a "major" language. That's the reason for my edit.
:Anyway, it's not a question of life and death for me, so it's okay if you want to include it to the article. Generally though, I don't think languages with such many speakers would fall short of "major's" definition. I hope this helped to clarify! =P Cheers! ] (]) 09:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
::Usually, only the first ten of the ] are considered major ones. Of course, the cut-off limit is arbitrary. In any case, major or not, language names are commonly linked. I will propose that the documentation of the policy be changed since it does not reflect current common practice. --] (]) 15:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

== Civility ==

Please remember to deal with your fellow editors ]. You may wish to revise your statements and . - ] <small>(])</small> 17:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
:The statement directed at me may sound a little awkward, but I don't think it was meant to be incivil -] (]) 18:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
:Could you please be more precise? In the first diff you gave me, I told my appreciation towards all the hard work ] has done in order to find those sources. In the second diff, can you please address what is it all about? Here, QuackGuru isn't really addressing any explanation for his edits. ~~
::{{tps}} I'd guess that for the first diff, 2/0 is talking about your comment to Brangifer, which is further down in the diff. Diffs for multiple edits are easy to get misunderstood; happens all the time. regards,--] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 15:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

==Thank You for Your Thanks!==

Hello Jayaguru-Shishya: I see you sent me a note thanking me for my recent edit to 'Buddha Nature'. That was kind of you to do so! I appreciate it - and your own fair-minded and constructive editing of, and commenting on, Wiki articles. Best wishes to you. From ] (]) 23:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

== Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is a reliable source ==

* {{cite encyclopedia|editor=William FW|work=Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy|year=2000|publisher=Facts on File|isbn=978-1579582074|pages=3-4|editor=William F. Williams|title=Acupuncture}} This is not a random book. It is an encyclopedia.] (]) 16:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::I haven't yet found where to access that book. The name, however, implies that it has something to do with extraterrestrials, is that right? If so, are we using an encyclopedia on extraterrestrials to support claims on medical efficiency? ] (]) 09:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is not a book about extraterrestrials in general. The encyclopedia covers pseudoscience from Alien abductions to zone therapy. The name does not imply it is a book on extraterrestrials in general. It covers a wide range of pseudoscience topics. Please don't get involved in an edit war or claim the source is not reliable. Did you read the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience page? ] (]) 19:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Have I made even one single revert concerning your addition of this book? ] (]) 20:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::You have made a comment on the talk page which concerns me. Do you agree was misleading or you made a mistake? ] (]) 20:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
<small>Copied to ; to be continued there</small>

:You changing your and questioning weather the book is reliable. You claimed
:I told you the book is not on extraterrestrials in general. See ]. ] (]) 20:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

== White Lotus: wikilink of ] ==

Hi Jayaguru,
:Why did you revert my link of ] at ] in ?
:BTW, the link has been restored, together with other changes, in , by ].
:I understand that you are working to fight overlinking on Misplaced Pages – ] ] ]! ;)
:However, per ] and ], “Maitreya” should be linked: this is a “technical term that many readers are unlikely to understand at first sight”.
:If you feel that the lead section is too link-heavy – bearing in mind that “In technical articles that use uncommon terms, a higher-than-usual link density in the lead section may be necessary.” – then please try to move the term into later in the article, per ].
:If you feel that this is in error, and that “Maitreya” should ''not'' be linked, could you please explain your reasoning? This seems clear-cut to me, and at least one other editor ostensibly agrees.
:Thanks!
:—Nils von Barth (]) (]) 00:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::My addition of a link to Maitreya was actually done without any awareness of the revert; I just was copyediting and it stood out as needing a link badly. So... there's that in your corner, ], I independently agree. '''<font color=#BA55D3>]''' <sub>'']''</sub></font> 05:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::Hi Nbarth! Indeed, I shouldn't have removed the link <nowiki>]</nowiki> after all. My apologies for that! The reason why I hastily made it removed was that the term "Buddha Maitreya" used to be linked <nowiki>] ]</nowiki> earlier, which I find pretty redundant IMHO. Sorry Nbarth, I got mistaken that you restored that form of linking, even you made it into <nowiki>]</nowiki> alone. Cheers! ] (]) 09:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:No problem – agree that ] ] is excessive. That makes sense, thanks!
:—Nils von Barth (]) (]) 12:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:43, 30 October 2024

Archiving icon
Past talking

1, 2


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Real-life workload: 9

  • 1 = no work pressure
  • 5 = middling
  • > 5 = please don't expect much
  • 10 = frenzied
  • 11 = Up to 11

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (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) 01:26, 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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)