User talk:Herbxue: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:45, 30 April 2014 editQuackGuru (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Acupuncture: See Acupuncture.← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:06, 30 April 2014 edit undoHerbxue (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,206 edits →Acupuncture: really?Next edit →
Line 47:		Line 47:
	{{uw-3rr}}		{{uw-3rr}}
	You're at least at 2RR now. ] (]) 16:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)		You're at least at 2RR now. ] (]) 16:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
			: Buzz off, you revert almost everything I do without discussion. You should know better than to sneak controversial material in while its being discussed on a noticeboard. ] (]) 17:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:06, 30 April 2014

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

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Herbxue. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jps (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Its about time

Hi Herbxue,

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

This is in recognition of your persistence and courage last summer at the acupuncture article, in dealing with the attempts to say that there was a scientific consensus that acupuncture is no more effective than placebo, when the sources cited did not say that. It got pretty hot for you at one point, being dragged to ANI, and I was happy to see that the tables were turned on those who caused you that trouble. Well done! (Sorry it took so long to get to this--had a really busy fall in RL.) EMP (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks EMP! Very kind of you, and greatly appreciated.Herbxue (talk) 05:48, 17 December 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 "Traditional Chinese medicine". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot 04:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You're at least at 2RR now. QuackGuru (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Buzz off, you revert almost everything I do without discussion. You should know better than to sneak controversial material in while its being discussed on a noticeboard. Herbxue (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)