User talk:Mallexikon

Yes, that's me. Like it? Don't like it? Mallexikon (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you for doing such a bang-up job. I created the article, and it was a huge relief to see - not only that it was articulately written, but that after I saw the movie, I found that everything was spot on. Plus, it's only a bonus that I found out that you are a fellow atheist. Cheers!

Wow, thank you. That's probably the nicest compliment I got on WP ever. Let me return it by congratulating you to the very good article you created and to the diligent maintenance. Do you happen to somehow be involved in screenwriting? Mallexikon (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I am ever flattered. It's funny that you ask that because I am a screenwriter. For years now, in fact, I have been writing for an indistinguishable screen that's in my head.

... always a pleasure to meet someone in search of the Blue Flower. Happy hunting! Mallexikon (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Acupuncture". Thank you. --Famousdog (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you can move the substantive inquiry about meridians from this edit to a new section? The POV and Lede sections are already quite long due to unnecessary tangents (many due to me), and it's getting to be a pain in the ass to preview and edit them. Normally I'd do it myself but it's your substantive inquiry linked to another comment that's not substance-based.

Yes, sure. Actually thought about it myself, too. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of acupuncture

Hi, Mallexikon,

I am Dr.Fan, an acupuncture researcher and practitioner. I have edited some where at Acupuncture page. I am new, sorry for the direct-edit manner, which may cause you or other editors busy at looking for the places I edited. I actually don't know where I could start to the talk with you. I just put something here.If it is not proper, give me guidance of putting talk words.

Thanks!

For the history of modern stage of acupuncture,one of important things is adding the Dr.Chen Dan'an the first person in acupuncture, who was the the origin of most acupuncturists today. He established the first acupuncture school in China in 1920s, and was the first Academician in acupuncture/Chinese medicine in China Science Academy (1950s) and was the first president of Nanjing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, the oldest accredited University in Chinese medicine in China.

Arthur Fan, e-mail:[email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Fan (talk • contribs) 01:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arthur! Welcome to wikipedia. Here's an article I think you should read:

reliable source for everything you write; otherwise, what you wrote can be challenged and deleted. And since there is always a lot of debate going on at the acupuncture article, most unsourced material will be challenged and deleted. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Section: User:Dickmojo on Acunpuncture   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the easiest page to work on... --Mindjuicer (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. :) But what a bucket full of experience! BTW, thanks for keeping your cool. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While trying to rescue two refs at TCM, I discovered a possible source. You introduced them here, but not the complete refs. Were they included in a previous version?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=next&oldid=475429962#cite_note-Ernst2006-165

The content is this (the first two are missing right now and need to be rescued):

• Several review articles discussing the effectiveness of acupuncture have concluded that its effects may be due to [[placebo]].<ref name="Ernst2006"/><ref name="Cochrane back 2005"/><ref name="Madsen2009"/>

I found them and fixed it. --

talk) 06:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, my mistake. I copied the material from the acupuncture article and didn't pay attention to get the complete refs. Thanks for fixing it! Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Da nada. I've done the same too. --

talk) 14:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright, thanks! --Mallexikon (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mallexikon. You have new messages at Madalibi's talk page.
Message added 07:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi Mallexikon. How does a German-speaking person end up in Shanghai? Intriguing. I read your edit to the Zen article, and completed the source. The connection between Taoism and Zen is indeed often mentioned, but as far as I can see, especially by modern interpreters. I've tried to figure this out before, but found very little literature on it. I've added a comment on the Zen Talk Page on it; would you like to read & comment on it? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinyin may be more modern then Wade-Giles. However, as established on the talk page and with google ngrams, Taoism is still the most current modern name of the religion. OttomanJackson (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right :) But how long will the Wade-Giles romanization still represent the most common term? 5 years? 10? Might as well change to the Pinyin form now already, no? --Mallexikon (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view. However, putting (modernly: Daoism) after Taoism implies that Daoism is the most common modern English usage, which is incorrect. Oxford still only gives Taoism. Pinyin is not always most common (Peking Duck, Kung Fu, etc...) so calling Daoism the modern spelling of Taoism is incorrect. OttomanJackson (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I explained on the Taoism talk page already - it's far from incorrect to emphasize that Pinyin is the more modern romanization. It's not the most common one (yet). But much more modern. Fact. You can check the dates yourself. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Author/Mallexikon

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Helicobacter Pylori. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on [email protected]. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be putting words into Gould's mouth. I'm not sure whether this is your misunderstanding of punctuated equilibria or you are simply citing other authors who (perhaps deliberately?) misunderstood the theory. Either way, you look to be adding unwelcome bias to the article. 121a0012 (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to this at the article's discussion page. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have left you a reply to your last message. I notice from your user page that you are native Chinese speaker who lives in China. I respect your efforts in trying to keep the sourcing and neutrality in the article up to standards, but you seem to me to have the stance of a sceptic. Have you had acupuncture treatments? If so, for what condition? How many different acupuncturists have you tried? What was your experience with this? I have found that the results of the treatment can range from very good to poor (no improvement, or even left feeling irritable and with headache) depending on the skill of the therapist (which includes diagnosis, treatment plan, needle placement, needle selection, etc). - 17:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Stillwaterising! I wish I was a native Chinese speaker (would have saved me a lot of trouble learning that language), but unfortunately I'm not. As to what my personal experiences with acupuncture efficacy look like - they interestingly correspond quite accurately with the picture that emerges from the research. And I have to say I'm not impressed. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, level one is having an only a beginner's level knowledge. It does say that you are a native German speaker. I've been born and raised in the US. I haven't been able to travel as much as I would have liked due to my health condition that showed up in early childhood and started impairing my ability to study around age 19 and so I didn't finish my degree in engineering. (I later got a 2 year degree in electronics) and when

Robert Becker

's books (Body Electric and Cross Currents) came out I read both of them several times and was fascinated in the idea of becoming a biomedical researcher. My original plan was to get a degree in Electrical Engineering with a Bio-medical option. I highly recommend the book Cross Currents, as it sums up most (but not all) of the ideas in Body Electric with a new subtitle of "The Promise of Electromedicine, the Perils of Electropollution". His research would be considered a primary source, however he was a genius. He even did an experiment where he amputated the front limb of a group of rats and implanted a galvanic batter with a 1 MegaOhm resistor into stump and had partial regrowth of the limb on some of the animals, with the most being a rat that regrew most of limb with all the bones and even cartledge fingers!

His research into finding meridians with a "cookie-cutter" electrode (yes, a kitchen cookie/pizza cutter with a wire attached) running along established acupuncture meridians and finding confirmation on the milli and microvolt ranges that they do exist. This is preliminary research, however I'm pleased that he inspired other researchers to continue his work. My advice, keep an open mind. I'm an intelligent person who firmly believes in science and has (in my unfortunately short) professional career focused on electric signals and data acquisition in a research environment. Due to multiple car accidents and some other condition (most likely Lyme's disease) I've been searching for non-surgical options to help control pain and repair the damage. I can say that the pain relieving effects from acupuncture have ranged from none to profound. Typically they were in the slight range. I remember one session from a highly skilled professional (not student) acupuncturist who gave me a dry needle and moxibustion session that gave the feeling of being hit with a high dose of morphine! I've had that experience also from a skilled deep tissue massage therapist. The "drug" effect is likely from my own endorphin system, but I think there's a bio-energetic component to it as well.

My motivation to learn about this, including reading books like Anatomy Trains, is out of a true interest to learn everything I can about the anatomy of the skeletal/muscular system as a way of learning how to help heal myself. I also have multiple conditions of neuropathic pain (including

WP:Medicine if you are interested. Cheers. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok! Thanks for sharing. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[4] After adding that edit, I started a discussion on it on the talk page. Why didn't you attempt to discuss it first before reverting? The material couldn't have stayed a day or so longer to see what others think about it first? Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry. I totally overlooked the discussion you started, and I'll explain why I object to your changes to the lede there on the discussion page. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is included in the body of the article and most people don't think it should be summarized in the lede, no problem. Cla68 (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Jin Chan, Mallexikon!

Wikipedia editor Stausifr just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good job with the article! Please cite the in-line references from the web urls you have provided.

To reply, leave a comment on Stausifr's talk page.

Learn more about

Thanks! However, I didn't really create that article. I just tweaked and then moved it. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it has some use within the article, after all its a straight forward diagram indicating the basic concepts of the faith? --Andrew 14:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely has, but I think the contents needs to be stripped to the minimum... I noticed that it says at one point that Dao should be obtained by not acting on impulses... I think that's not always correct, given the emphasis Zhuangzi puts on spontaneous action...? --Mallexikon (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mallexikon. I've reverted your edits becausre there was no consensus for its removal, see Talk:Acupuncture#Acupuncture_usage_in_the_US_military_and_other_military_forces.

Please join me at Talk:Acupuncture#Recent_edit for discussion. -A1candidate (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! Let's discuss it at the acupuncture talk page. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes like I've already said, the consensus seems to be against the inclusion of recommendations/medical claims, but not the other parts. See Talk:Acupuncture#Acupuncture_usage_in_the_US_military_and_other_military_forces -A1candidate (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mallexicon! If you have time, would you have a look at

Unfortunate, this whole thing... but we'll sort it out :) Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source, the implication was the domino could extend to resource rich countries.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. The problem is, the source doesn't say it explicitly, and thus an allegation like this would constitute

synthesis. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

But I'm fine with everything you deleted. I could use it for something else.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're not upset. Sorry for spoiling so much of your hard work. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the excess. I just have a lot of information. Don't know what to do with it.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) it's good to be bold. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel as though I need to show everything in great detail as a way of deterring certain whitewashers from deleting it. You kind of have to hit them over the head with it for them to accept it...sort of.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know. This article used to be quite hotly debated. But don't worry. Your material all seems to be reliably (and transparently) sourced. To remove it, somebody would have to come up with some really good arguments. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'm talking about.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently even your edits went too far for him.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. We'll sort it out at the article's talk page. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did about 90% of this neglected page. Any advice? Should I change some things?--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, man, I'll probably be too busy these days... Maybe next week. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your citation of Vickers as supporting claims that acupuncture is effective is problematic because of this. Continuing in this fashion is in violation of

jps (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A blog? That's what you want to use to throw out a meta-analysis? You better rethink that, boy. You might also want to rethink threatening me with "sanctions". Just sayin'. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's usually how shitty research is disputed these days absent weekly radio shows and the like. The claim that this JAMA-in-name-only meta-analysis was "peer reviewed" is laughable from the sense that medical articles like this published in out-of-the-way journals are hardly ever subject to any editorial rejoinder and, in fact, those who dispute them would never bother to try to publish a dispute because, frankly, that's not how scientific discourse works. Vickers was criticized by Ernst, Novella, Orac and others and there is no counter to their arguments. It is impeached and should be removed from our pages. jps (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not impeached. It's a reliable source. If you are of a different opinion, be my guest to take it to the RS noticeboard. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

I am not placing this here in any way to contend your are currently edit warring. I feel quite to the contrary. I appreciate your contributions and your work on consensus building with the mediator. I am just putting it here to keep discussions on this article in one place. 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 are 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 (I think this is occurring and your contributions have been constructive). Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't thought much about the section headers but now that you mention it I think you're right :) Thanks, --Mallexikon (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Acupuncture shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

I'm edit warring? You reverted me. But you're only at 1 RR yet, so no need to panic... --Mallexikon (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you continued to delete material after your edits were reverted (and with a BRD notification for good measure, although it shouldn't be necessary with you). Your first deletions counted as the Bold part, my revert was the Revert, and I had already started a Discussion, even though that would be your duty. I'm going to AGF that you edited without noticing that I had reverted you, but that's why I wanted to notify you here before you continued. Somehow I had to get your attention.

Why you even thought you could delete any properly sourced material (especially of an opposing POV) without a serious discussion and gaining consensus is beyond me. Never do that. Experienced editors treat that as vandalism. Any potentially controversial edit should be discussed thoroughly first. --

talk) 08:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Why you think this kind of strong-man talk is helpful or even permissive is beyond me. There has been a very serious discussion both at the acupuncture talk page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Arbitrary section break. Are you accusing me of vandalism? --Mallexikon (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you continue. Then it would be vandalism and edit warring. Anyone who saw such an edit would be justified in thinking it was vandalism, but I know your thinking and had seen your comment, so I knew your intention was not to vandalize, even if the effect was the same. It's also a question of motive , which is why I AGF (see my first comment above).

Let's discuss each potential deletion at the article and also get input from others before we end up having to lock the article. Edit wars are never a good thing. That happens to be very old and properly sourced content, most of which is not covered by MEDRS, and you'd need some very good reasons for deleting it, especially since it represents the opposing POV. Deleting it would create an undue weight situation and a violation of NPOV. Criticisms must be included. --

talk) 09:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Brangifer, Mallexikon is an experienced, level-headed and science-literate editor just like you and me. We're all grownups here and don't need to go tagging each others' pages. (There's an essay: Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars.) regards, --Middle 8 (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around long enough to know that you don't take someone to

talk) 18:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Happy holidays. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert 1 Revision as of 06:03, 26 December 2013
• Revert 2 Revision as of 09:19, 26 December 2013
• Revert 3 Revision as of 09:52, 26 December 2013
• Revert 4 Revision as of 10:33, 26 December 2013 You are trying to force changes without gaining consensus first. Actually, you may have violated 3RR. QuackGuru (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Man, seriously, I think you didn't quite get the concept of what edit warring and 3RR actually means... --Mallexikon (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to join the conversation at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Edits against WP:LOCALCON at German acupuncture trials. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this deleted? Scientists are moving away from traditional methods. The drug is not a traditional Chinese herb of the "heat-clearing" category. There were obvious problems with the text that was previously explained. See Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#WP:MEDRS violations again. QuackGuru (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be so bold as to offer advice (let me know if my input is not welcome and I will go away), and without taking sides on this particular content dispute, it is clear that the two of you are having conflicts on multiple pages. That's fine, but you both (along with a few other editors who are involved in this) need to stop carrying on the battle by editing pages. Do we really want an admin to step in and start handing out blocks and topic bans? I am asking you both once again to attempt to find consensus on the talk pages and, if you cannot agree, to go through the dispute resolution process. You are hurting the encyclopedia. If you don't voluntarily stop hurting the encyclopedia, you will be forced to stop hurting the encyclopedia. Sorry if that seems harsh, but there is no gentle way to say it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction was "yes, please have an admin step in and start handing out blocks and topic bans", but then again, I am a believer in the dispute resolution process... I'm

DISENGAGING a little right now. If that also doesn't help, I think an RfC might be a good way to move on. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Please AGF in my discussion about the CSICOP report as a primary v secondary source. I am not trying to be disruptive or excessively argumentative. I feel the issue/distinction warrants discussion. The CSICOP report may turn out to be a poor source for other reasons. I appreciate your patience and thoughtful effort in working towards consensus. Please note that the only information remaining in the article from the CSICOP report is an assertion of a specific fact that is of significant importance. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the RfC about the details. See Talk:German_acupuncture_trials#RfC:_What_level_of_detail_should_be_included_in_German_acupuncture_trials.3F.[5][6][7][8] Editors prefer less detail not more. Editors thought a summary would be better. You previously said there is consensus forming to not include this material but you restored against consensus the extreme details about the set-up. QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to I will refrain from editing Acupuncture and German acupuncture trials for a very long time. You can revert ALL my edits to Acupuncture, the German acupuncture trials or Traditional Chinese medicine. Please accept my apologies. I am very sorry I was a bit harsh on you. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made this comment. Let me know what you want me to do and you have my full support to reverting my edits at the German acupuncture trials. QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... that's very magnanimous. Thanks. What happened? --Mallexikon (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we must think of the reader. It would do no harm to include more information. Wikipedia policy is sometimes confusing. QuackGuru (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor mentioned you at ANI. They want me banned but I am interested in improving the German acupuncture trials. I deleted way too much content at the German acupuncture trials. QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say I wanted you banned. I also pinged Mallexikon, so the feedback system will have issued a notification.

COI 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It does look like you want me banned. You did not say you don't want me banned. You said "This is not how WP should be edited, I think." QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this comment. He is baffled I am trying to compromise and collaborate. I want to compromise and that is helpful for the project. QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider posting at AN/I about jps's

(

COI 10:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

RfC User

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I read through the RfC User GC and found no evidence.[9]

You are being discussed at AN here [10]

talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Mallexikon - Oy, what a mess! I think my responses at WP:AN and the RfC were sufficient, but we'll have to proofread the diffs to make sure they all match. I think some of the stuff I posted on the talk page (under discussion of Doc James's outsied view) may suffice as evidence. As for that hideous thread about White 2004, the one currently at the top of Talk:Acu, I dread having to annotate it, let alone diff-ify, but it seems that may be what some editors need to evaluate it. Without explanation, or the effort to read really carefully which some editors can't/won't put in, it just tends to make the eyes glaze over. It may go to WP:AE, according to Guy/JzG, to the extent admins don't want to touch it at WP:AN. And I gather, also from Guy's comments, that the RfC and WP:AN discussion are somehow linked.... so editors who comment at one don't have to comment at the other. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 18:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem here. Doc James just didn't get it (and he overreacted on top of it). Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He did overreact, but he's 100% right that it's insufficient evidence, and that it needs to be fixed. Remember, most of your audience has no idea of what QuackGuru knew or should have known. All they know is what they see in the RfC, and that's a contention of anti-acu bias plus diff of someone adding a good source. No wonder other editors are appalled, and it feeds the false perception that you're a pro-acu partisan. For now, please take Guy Macon's wikibird's advice [11] to heart, don't get caught in the drama, and instead spend your available editing time to fix this. I really think that would be a good idea now; let me know if I can help. Which reminds me -- I'm spending much of my available time working on the evidence for IDHT, i.e. this thread. I've been assuming that a reasonable person would be rather appalled by QG's behavior in that thread, but I could be wrong: what do you think? How good is that as evidence? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 07:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, relax :) the case has been made already; we don't need to continuously build it. And we will not convince people who see QG as a necessary bulwark against quackery, no matter how good our evidence is. When QG wrote about GERAC in the acupuncture article, he tried to make it look like GERAC's only result was that some health insurers stopped reimbursing acupuncture. Yes, he sourced it correctly. But he clearly tried to skew the facts out of bias - not more and not less was alleged by me. Sorry if this stressed you out. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you say is true, including the "relax" part (i.e. it is a good idea :-) ... but that "skewing the facts" thing does need at least one additional talk page diff or something. You're right re the partisan-editors having made up their minds, but neutral ones will look at it, in a vacuum, and say "WTF?". It does no good alone. Anyway... yep, time to relax. I know a good placebo for that ... yes, I can give myself an acu treatment. best regards. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 14:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! At Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 I plan on posting a detailed independent analysis of the following statement:

"The incident where QG skewed the fact that GERAC led to acupuncture being reimbursed by German health insurers into the exact opposite (using a fringe source which is actually banned from the GERAC article by now)"[12]

I plan on sticking to verifiable facts; if the statement cannot be verified, I will say so, and if it can, I will say that while including diffs or citations. For the diffs, you can supply diffs or just tell me the time/date and page where the edit was made -- either is fine with me.

Is "GEREC" the same thing as "the German Acupuncture Trials" mentioned in Acupuncture and the subject of German acupuncture trials?

Is "GERAC led to acupuncture being reimbursed by German health insurers" backed up by reference "Tragende Gründe zum Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesau sschusses zur Akupunktur"?

How do we know this? Are we relying on Google translate, or do we have an editor who reads German, or is it reported in an English-language source?

What was the fringe source?

Where and when was the fringe source was banned from the GERAC article?

Where and when did QG skew the facts?

I am pretty sure I know the answer to some of the above, but I plan on putting my name on a statement that I have personally verified or failed to verify them. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't know whether GEREC is the same as GERAC (spelling mistake?), but
   GERAC is the same as German acupuncture trials
   .
2. Yes, this is backed up by reference. The most important source is the report of the Federal Joint Committee ("Zusammenfassender Bericht des Unterausschusses 'Ärztliche Behandlung' des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Bewertung gemäß §135 Abs.1 SGB V der Körperakupunktur mit Nadeln ohne elektrische Stimulation") [13]. It's in German, but there's an English summary on page 2. The source you're mentioning ("Tragende Gründe zum Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses zur Akupunktur") is the short version of this report (no English summary). Another source is
   GERAC article survived AfD (QG participated in the discussion):

   This user page was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

3. The fringe source was: He, W.; Tong, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, L. et al. (2013). "Review of controlled clinical trials on acupuncture versus sham acupuncture in Germany". Journal of traditional Chinese medicine 33 (3): 403–7 ([15])
4. It was banned from the
   GERAC article on 26-Feb [16] after talk page discussion: Talk:German acupuncture trials#Fringe journals (this is a long thread; you might just want to read the end part of it). I had objected to the source already a month earlier (at Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 12#Edits on "Legal and political status" vol. II
   ) but was ignored by that time.
5. QG skewed the facts about GERAC at the acupuncture article on 24-Dec ([17]).

Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mallexikon, Just thought I'd drop a note to state my appreciation of your participation in WP. Although disagreements occur and contention sometimes runs high, I think you wholeheartedly endeavor to edit well. I appreciate your efforts in research and consensus building. I particularly encourage you to continue editing broadly, where contention is absent your editing has been of the highest quality and very well supported with good sources. To avoid backhandedness and qualification let me say, thank you for your work on WP. You summarize sources well and provide organization, currency and good writing. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Bill! Thanks for these kind words. They mean a lot to me, especially right now. I really envy your patience... Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - about this: this comment... you write: "I'm not sure why we're having this discussion." This is worrisome to me. Do you really not see that there is a legitimate debate with good faith arguments on both sides? thx Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, sorry, I do see that it was an important debate. My remark obviously was premature. I made it because I saw the debate wander away from the issue of peer review, which IMO is the defining criterion when it comes to assess the reliability of a journal. However, Acupuncture in Medicine seems to be one of those examples where independent peer review is just faked. I have to admit I wouldn't have thought that, and I specifically credit jps for unveiling this. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I over reacted to a series of edits at Acupuncture. Apologies. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm sorry my edits seemed suspicious to you. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The diffs are as follows: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], and [25]. Tiptoety ^talk 16:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an issue on

Your statement of the case and discussion are welcome at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Traditional Chinese medicine. --Bejnar (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the DRN volunteer for

Wikipedia:Resolution#Focus on content. --Bejnar (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, I'm the DRN volunteer for DRN:Traditional Chinese medicine. I noticed that you've been editing the Traditional Chinese medicine article again. Have you abandoned the DRN you started? --Bejnar (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bejnar, and thanks for your efforts. The acute problem about the wording of the pseudoscience sentence at the Traditional Chinese medicine article lede has been solved thanks to the intervention of hitherto uninvolved user:Richard Keatinge. I think the DRN still makes sence, though (QG copied his controversial edit into the acupuncture article). --Mallexikon (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means

uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks

. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Hipocrite (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your good work at WP:DRN — Keithbob • Talk • 01:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi

The issue has recently moved to WP:AN3 due to QuackGuru's violation of WP:3RR on alt-med articles. Anyway, I'd appreciate if you had time to check it out! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see the dispute and discussion about TCM. I don't know whether the discussion reach the consensus but I hope you can also check the article Chinese herbology#Efficacy. It was edited by the same way like TCM and I think the editors can use the same words in TCM to describe this part and avoid the mess. I see TCM was put in Category:Pseudoscience by editors. I wonder this is the consensus or the discussion is still ongoing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.105.112.33 (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Mallexikon! How are you? :P I was wondering if you liked to take a look at this one[26]? It's a rather lengthy case, but I tried to summarize the main points a little in a comment I left there at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Comments by Jayaguru-Shishya (and also the Conclusions -subsection). Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

CJK (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]