User talk:A1candidate/Archive 2

5 eyes
Hi A1,

I thought you might enjoy this interview with Annie Machon - very informative. And while I'm here, I wonder if you have noticed any POV efforts aimed at removing or denigrating non-Western healing modalities? I'm wondering what might be done to ensure a more NPOV, global coverage on wiki. Cheers,   petrarchan47  t  c   19:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Petrarchan47, I think that while its only fair for these non-Western healing techniques to be closely scrutinized by Wikipedia's medical editors, I also believe that some editors have gone way too far in their efforts to remove every single medical source that even remotely hints at a positive treatment outcome. I'm still engaging in a heated debate with a handful of them over here, and as you can see, I'm clearly outnumbered by a horde of my opponents. The only way to ensure a global coverage on Wikipedia is to ensure an equal geographical distribution of editors. That means having more editors from Asia, Africa, Continetal Europe, Latin America (or in other words, countries that are not part of the "Five Eyes") to edit the English Wikipedia. I'm not sure what is the best way to attract these editors to stay, but anyway, thanks for sharing the interview. -A1candidate (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting - these are the exact same folks who've asserted their POV at all of the cannabis-related articles. They are attacking articles at a manic pace. Recently it came to light that Wiki is 90% or so white males from the US and Western Europe. We really are suffering from the lack of diversity. I don't know what to do either. It does often seem to come down to a single editor left battling an endless supply of like-minded, connected editors.  petrarchan47  t  c   05:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We could try to highlight this to the Wikimedia Foundation, but I doubt it will change anything. Chances are, they probably know that such a problem exists, but have no clue about how to solve it either. -A1candidate (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. And if you see my talk page, there are heated attempts to stop any questioning as well.  petrarchan47  t  c   19:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Global surveillance disclosures
Normally there is discussion on the talk page and consensus reached before major changes are made to an article. I know that there was discussion (which you participated in) about the article 2013 global surveillance disclosures being overly large. Some suggestions were made, both for short-term changes and more extensive restructuring of the article. No consensus was reached on your major changes, however, I proposed some interim changes and also suggested that we agree on an outline for the changes you were proposing. No one objected to that. I had just begun to make some of the short-term changes (i.e., creating sub articles). Now you have made sweeping changes and it looks like you have deleted significant amounts of content. Please explain. Sunray (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Shorter: Where did the article go???  petrarchan47  t  c   23:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What I inferred from the discussion is that the original article has gotten way too large and there's apparently an urgent need to split it up, which I thought should be non-controversial. All of the sub-articles are now linked from Global surveillance; several of the more important ones - Origins of global surveillance and Aftermath of the global surveillance disclosure - are linked from the main article itself (Global surveillance disclosure), and nothing has been deleted. I believe this must have been a misunderstanding? If not, perhaps you may want to be more specific about which of the changes you're referring to. -A1candidate (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My main point had to do with consultation. Where was the consensus to make these major changes? According to WP:CON editorial decisions are made by consensus. Normally for a major overhaul of an article a fairly comprehensive outline of the changes would be posted on the talk page. Then following discussion and assuming consensus, the changes could be made. As to content, I have some problems with the titles that are being used. There is no way of knowing what Origins of global surveillance relates to unless it stems from a root article, such as the one we had in 2013 global surveillance disclosures. To my mind a reasonable work plan would have been to create the sub articles first and then (again assuming consensus) change the name of the root article. You have, essentially, obliterated the work of many other editors. Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative project. Sunray (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Taking a closer look at the various articles you have created, I can see where you have put the content of the original article. However, Global surveillance disclosure seems inadequate as an overview article. The article does not give any real context of where Snowden's releases came from. There is no history. It arbitrarily sets out a timeline starting in the 1970s. The lead fails to mention UKUSA, yet it is mentioned in the section on the 1970s. UKUSA emerged from the BRUSA Agreement and there are documents that refer to it at the origins of the cold war. This isn't the place to be discussing this, but there are MAJOR PROBLEMS with the current structure of the articles. Unfortunately, there is no longer an adequate root article we can work from or a talk page to discuss this. I can see a couple of ways to go but I need to hear more from you about this. Does what I've just said make sense to you? If so, we may be able to figure out a way to fix it. Sunray (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It is obviously far from a perfect article, but I think its contents should only be limited to dislosures, or else the article will become way too big again. The history of the UKUSA Agreement is undoubtedly an important issue, but I don't see why we can't leave it to the origins of global surveillance for the sake of compactness and readability. The timeline begins in the 1970s based on the first public interview of an NSA whistleblower, but if you know of any related disclosures that occurred before this and are worth mentioning, I would highly encourage you to add them to the article. I've started a section at the talk page, so please join me there. -A1candidate (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We definitely need an article on Snowden's disclosures. The problem seems to be that, because of the secrecy involved, disclosures sometimes permit only a retrospective understanding of what was going on. We now know that the origins of the current regime of mass surveillance was during World War II when technology improved sufficiently to enable the ability to monitor global telecommunications. We now know that the UKUSA agreement led to the formation of the "Five Eyes" and allowed for the surveillance of civilian populations (by one of the participants spying on another's civilians). That context will be important for a root article. One cannot understand the significance of Snowden's disclosures without knowing how the current surveillance system originated. I will join you on that talk page. Sunray (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One thing that needs to be done ASAP, are redirects made to the appropriate articles for "The Snowden effect", "Snowden leaks", "Snowden disclosures", etc. I can get the needed RS to find the most-used terms for these, but as it stands now, even I can't find these articles with the normal search terms one would use. We also need one of these, but for Snowden leaks:    petrarchan47  t  c   19:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Western media, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media of the Soviet Union (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm Yopie. Your recent edit to the page List of oldest universities in continuous operation appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
As a side-note, I would appreciate it if you could leave me a note on my talk page whenever you feel outnumbered. Pass a Method  talk  11:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:German acupuncture trials
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. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Using the talk page first
Please do not tell me or any other editor of Wikipedia to use the talk page to discuss any changes before making them. I have just as much a right to change a couple of words in the article without discussing it first as you have to revert my edit without discussing it first. I will discuss changes when I think a discussion is merited. perhaps WP:OWN is relevant here, perhaps not. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Global surveillance disclosure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GMS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A very high compliment
From Jacob Applebaum, for you!  petrarchan47  t  c   01:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, its a team effort and all of us played a role -A1candidate (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thought you might enjoy this AJ doc about the NSA leaks.  petrarchan47  t  c   02:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Stateroom (surveillance program)
— Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 00:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech
There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do: Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech
 * 1) List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech.
 * 2) Add userbox User Freedom of speech to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
 * 3) Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 4) Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 5) Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

List_of_notable_people_under_Five_Eyes_surveillance
Hi, I didn't see the explanation for your major edit of a few minutes ago. Are you changing the inclusion criteria for the list? I was getting ready to add Norman Mailer. &mdash; rybec   23:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's indeed the case, as pointed out by peer reviewers of the article: Peer review/List of notable people under FVEY surveillance/archive1. I'm sorry that the article is a little unstable right now, but the criteria for including a particular person may have to be changed again, depending on how the peer review goes. I think the addition of [Norman Mailer is an important one, perhaps you could add him to List of Americans under surveillance instead? If you're interested, you may wish to join our peer review too so that we can come up with a better set of criteria for inclusion -A1candidate (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help
Things can get pretty intense! Thanks for all your help. I honestly don't care what the community decides-- I'm the waiter, not the chef. My role here is to generate a big menu and present it to the community. I do not know what the "right" answer is, I leave that question to wiser minds than mine.

I've been really shocked at the amount of negative pushback we've gotten. If it's really such a bad idea, I assumed people would be content to oppose it and watch it fail, but it seems we've accidentally stepped on some toes by suggesting the possibility that NOTBUREAUCRACY could apply to the main page bureaucracy.

WP:NOTADVOCATE is a really honest and sincere objection. Heck, when the final !votes are cast, I still might cite NOTADVOCATE myself.

But instead we've seen all these bureaucratic objections:  "We don't allow Featured Lists on Tuesdays" or "That article was on the Main Page seven years ago, so it can't be shown now". Just silliness that trivializes the whole scale of the issues being considered.

So, please keep your attention on this proposal in the coming days. Your support and feedback are essential to this process. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Best name yet...
I've started Squeaky Dolphin. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Five Eyes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Dent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The Snowden-Interview in English
Hi, thought you might enjoy the first Snowden-TV-Interview: https://archive.org/details/snowden_interview_en - from the main public radio and television broadcaster in Germany Das Erste/NDR. You may add it if you think that will be useful. Cheers, Sei.--91.10.35.79 (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder what the copyright status of this interview is. Is it shared under a creative commons license or is it in the public domain? If not, then we can't add it, I'm afraid. -A1candidate (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

NSA helpful link
Hi A1, you may have seen this already. I wonder about adding to external links? You're most familiar with this set of articles, so I'll leave it to you.  petrarchan47  t  c   04:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, maybe not, actually. I'm not sure what this is. Never mind.  petrarchan47  t  c   04:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My first impression is that it is certainly one of the most comprehensive compilations I've seen, but at the same time, there are several issues that come to mind:


 * Numerous important programs such as Global Telecoms Exploitation and Stateroom (surveillance program) are missing
 * There's an exclusive focus on the NSA, without even a single metion of GCHQ (and other agencies)
 * Web design looks somewhat amateurish, could be mistaken for a conspiracy theory website (e.g. "Things the NSA doesn't want you to know...")


 * If and when they do a major re-design, I'll be happy to take a second look.


 * -A1candidate (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Surveillance awareness day
Hi! Did you read ? The message to which you reverted conveys of only some of the ideas discussed (the most extreme among them), thereby implying that the proposal was shelved solely due to a lack of consensus in their favor.

To be clear, I have no desire to mention "the belief that participating in the protest would have violated our core principles" in the message. Standard procedure is to tag a failed proposal with failed, which doesn't "mention why it failed". We've made an exception in this instance because the amount of time available for discussion was limited (which I made a point to note explicitly), but there's no extraordinary circumstance justifying a non-neutral tag.

You also removed the category. (I don't know whether this was intentional.) —David Levy 16:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello David, I reverted you because I feel that the page needs to mention why the proposal failed. Simply stating "no consensus" isn't exactly helpful, its better to provide a brief and concise explanation of why the community failed to reach such a consensus. Doing so enables future editors to learn from past mistakes and hopefully avoid repeating them.


 * I have not been following the discussion closely, but I'm aware that it generated a great amount of controversy and I was under the impression that the proposal got scrapped because we failed to push a few of our featured articles onto the main page. But as you've pointed out, there's also a significant amount of opposition coming from users who claimed that the proposal runs counter to the "core values of Wikipedia". Taking a second look at things, I'm assuming that's the real reason why it failed. -A1candidate (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. —David Levy 18:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi A1-- I trust you to arbitrate this.  I notice David has been edit warring very heavily on a closed discussion, which is very unusual.  I get the sensation David thinks it's somehow a pejorative to call something a proposal and he thus really wants to get that word into the final page text, lol.
 * For my part, I don't have a "preferred version" of the page, but I think it could be a major waste of time to categorize it as a proposal, since there is no proposal to be found in the history and no rfc to see where it 'failed'--  It never got that far, it's just scribblings; lol.
 * Anyway, I trust you to decide how to words things best-- David was a strong opponent, I was obviously involved, so it's best to leave it up to fresh eyes. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been edit warring? I've striven to edit the page collaboratively.  I've incorporated others' wording/formatting, modified mine to address their concerns, and even invited input/assistance from Wnt and you on my talk page.
 * Conversely, you've engaged in wholesale reversion continually (including removing the standard category five times — six if we count the redirection), sometimes without explanation and with your edits mislabeled "minor".
 * You've inexplicably my replies from the talk page, apparently citing Deny recognition for some reason.  (By the way, I did email you.  I await your response, and I must say that reading the above message hasn't increased my patience.)
 * No, Hector. You seem to think that it's somehow a pejorative, so you really want to get it out.  The endeavor was explicitly called a proposal (and treated as one) from the beginning.  You unilaterally removed that language.
 * I wrote the following on my talk page (regarding labeling a proposal "failed"):
 * Then why have you reverted repeatedly?
 * The history contains a proposal to make yesterday "The Day We Fight Back"/"surveillance awareness day" at the English Wikipedia.
 * A major part of the problem is that you view me as an "opponent". As I've pleaded with you to understand, I merely seek to present a neutral explanation of what occurred.
 * Rather than treating me as an adversary, A1candidate engaged in civil, thoughtful discussion, which I found quite refreshing. —David Levy 20:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Then why have you reverted repeatedly?
 * The history contains a proposal to make yesterday "The Day We Fight Back"/"surveillance awareness day" at the English Wikipedia.
 * A major part of the problem is that you view me as an "opponent". As I've pleaded with you to understand, I merely seek to present a neutral explanation of what occurred.
 * Rather than treating me as an adversary, A1candidate engaged in civil, thoughtful discussion, which I found quite refreshing. —David Levy 20:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A major part of the problem is that you view me as an "opponent". As I've pleaded with you to understand, I merely seek to present a neutral explanation of what occurred.
 * Rather than treating me as an adversary, A1candidate engaged in civil, thoughtful discussion, which I found quite refreshing. —David Levy 20:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Didn't read this, but saw parts appear to be addressed to me. To the extent is addressed to me, email it if you want it to be read by me at some point-- I will get around to it, but not until I have more distance and perspective.
 * To the extent this is a discussion of the issues addressed to A1 about historical tagging, I trust A1 to sort it out between you and Wnt-- "I'm getting to old for this shit" and "I've got one day to retirement", to quote every cop movie ever.  Namaste. --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: This seems to be a rather delicate matter... I don't want to take any sides, and I'm not entirely sure what this dispute is really about, but at this point in time, I do feel that both of you should take a break and come back later. If all else fails, a mutual interaction ban would be highly appropriate, but I'm sure we don't have to go down to that yet. -A1candidate (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikibreak is NOT gonna be a problem.  I wouldn't stick around for all the tea in china.  Just be sure to double check on any future edit wars on the relevant page, but they won't come from me.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I harbor no animosity toward Hector. I'm sorry that he's upset, and I've reached out in an attempt to address his concerns.  But if he'd prefer to withdraw, I respect his wishes and have no intention of prolonging undesired interaction.
 * The problem, from my perspective, is that Hector is engaging others while simultaneously expecting them to withdraw (e.g. reverting edits and posting messages on talk pages, but complaining when editors with whom he disagrees respond).
 * If, as he's promised above, he simply walks away, I'll consider the matter resolved. And should he change his mind, I'd be more than happy to resume civil discourse.  —David Levy 23:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My proposal: - I recommend that both of you refrain from interacting with each other from now onwards. If there is a particular edit by the other person that you strongly object to, contact me first. If I do not respond within a reasonable period of time, feel free to highlight it on the talk page, but do contact another uninvolved editor first. Is this acceptable to both parties? If so, you do not have to reply any further. Thank you for your contributions. -A1candidate (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I sincerely appreciate your offer, but I don't feel that such restrictions are called for.
 * As I noted, I harbor no animosity toward Hector. If he prefers to avoid interacting with me, that's his prerogative.  Otherwise, I'll treat him just as I would any other editor in good standing.  My invitation for Hector and me to work together collaboratively (whether today, tomorrow or a year from now) still stands.  —David Levy 02:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It was just an attempt to end a dispute that seemed to be getting nowhere, but now Hector has apparently left, so...Anyway, thank you once again for your contributions and have a nice day. -A1candidate (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You too. Thanks again for your help.  —David Levy 03:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Why Socialism? does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 13:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

discuss on the Talk page
You have provided no argument at all for reverting me with respect to the paragraph about the Buzzfeed article. "I see no reason not to revert you" is not an argument. There are threads concerning this paragraph on the article Talk page. See ""...thinks it’s a parasite from the local water..." ("U.S. official(s)" wanting to kill Snowden)" and "Mike Masnick / Techdirt". Why have you made no contribution to those threads? Do you believe that it is appropriate to edit war without discussing the matter on the article Talk page?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See talk page. -A1candidate (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That comment had nothing to do with your reverting me with respect to the paragraph about the Buzzfeed article. That comment of yours was about including the reaction to rector speech (and included no argument for inclusion beyond claiming, with no supporting evidence, that it was "absolutely appropriate" to include that speech).  So I'll repeat the question: why have you made no contribution to the "U.S. official(s)" wanting to kill Snowden)" and "Mike Masnick / Techdirt" threads?  Do you believe that it is appropriate to edit war without discussing the matter on the article Talk page?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Anesthesia & Analgesia
You've got mail. Cheers --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 20:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've sent you some attachments. -A1candidate (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for National Defence Radio Establishment (Sweden)
An article that you have been involved in editing, National Defence Radio Establishment (Sweden), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gavleson (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

K-pop
Did you mean to accept this edit to K-pop? It doesn't seem accurate to me, so I've reverted it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe this edit wasn't entirely inaccurate, since both versions of the translation are commonly used. The one I accepted seemed to be the prevailing version that stretches back to 2012, but I'm not an expert and it's really just a minor issue. -A1candidate (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit on FRA
I'd appreciate if you explained your reversal of one of my edits on Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) on the talkpage. -- Gavleson (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Terracotta Army
Hi there, I've created a new topic at the above Talk Page that you might wish to comment on. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 05:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Science
True science is open to the possibility of being wrong. Religions, including homeopathy, are not. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert in homeopathy and I don't know much about the topic, but I tend towards the opinions of experts such as a nobel-prize winning scientist, rather than pseudoskeptics on Wikipedia. -A1candidate (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your constant misuse of the term "pseudoskeptic" is very revealing. Those who push pseudoscience while claiming to be skeptics are the true pseudoskeptics, evidenced by the fact, among other red flags, that their skepticism is directed against mainstream science and not against junk science, pseudoscience, and quackery. Another red flag is when they defend other pseudoscience pushers, like the Nobel Prize winner, and the editor where you just left a barnstar. You are the real pseudoskeptic here, and one with a huge COI. As a professional acupuncturist, you should not be editing acupuncture and TCM subjects so boldly, if at all. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Opposing hard evidence and jumping to conclusions are the hallmarks of pseudoskeptics. Do you have hard evidence to show that I'm a professional acupuncturist? No, you don't. If you do have hard evidence, please show it to all of us. Since you probably don't have hard evidence, you choose to jump to conclusions based on my editing patterns alone. What does that tell me about you? -A1candidate (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the star. Thinking of E Pound poem "The scientists are in terror and the European mind stops" I keep referring to the Aristotelian definition of logic as it can be seen in its modern crystallization in  Alonzo Church work  - totally unrelated to the modern "science" which by the way favored  the "evidence" vs proof for ...practical reasons.  Logic can convert  one to a healthy agnosticism  leaving space  for future discoveries.  Bright scientists have been criticized for experimenting with politically "incorrect" ideas for the sake of science and truth vs truism - which is easier to fight for and superficially win: takes less time and intellectual effort - no need to know pure mathematics just statistics and mainly no need for consistency and it looks cool. OMG I m trying to not say the "H" word and regarded as a violation of my ban--George1935 (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You're at 2RR now. -- QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Violation of consensus

The previous discussion resulted in WP:CON to keep Ernst. See Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 11. Don't do that again. QuackGuru ( talk ) 05:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

why?
why are people interested in meditation so aggressive! so crazy. anyway, as i put in my edit note, there already was an ongoing discussion about the edit. you didn't see it, i guess.Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My concerns have nothing to do with the actions of User:Nigelj, whom I believe is a fully competence editor. The issue I've raised is about a gross misrepresentation of the review that is not being discussed anywhere else on the talk page. -A1candidate (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * there was a text. it was changed by nigeli. i reverted, and opened a discussion.  we were in discussion of that text. in the middle of it, nigeli re-reverted. alexbrn re-re-reverted and joined the discussion.  you re-re-reverted, and didn't  seem to know a discussion was going on.  i reverted you and told you there was a discussion going on.  you re-reverted and.. opened a new discussion?  i really don't know what you are talking about, saying that the passage wasn't under discussion. i don't know why you edit-warred either. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Look Jytdog, I understand you may have issues with Nigelj, but the point I was trying to make is that there was a blatant effort (intentional or otherwise) to misrepresent the source by twisting its conclusion in a 180-degree fashion and this definitely needs to be highlighted. I appreciate that you've come to my talk page to discuss, but at this point, I suggest we move on and focus on improving the article instead. -A1candidate (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gate control theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorsal horn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

OR
Checking a source and finding that it does not support the text it is purported to support, is not original research. Rather the opposite, in fact. We certainly do not assert as fact, something which the source presents as a hypothesis. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, not here. Could you please participate in the discussion at Talk:Purinergic signalling? -A1candidate (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Please be more careful next time
Please don't mass delete medrs compliant sources. Your edit summary does not give a valid reason to delete text and sources you don't like. QuackGuru ( talk ) 03:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You need consensus before adding it. Iceman hypothesis is not supported by evidence. -A1candidate (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You were previously warned about misrepresenting a source.
 * You have not shown on the talk page what is the problem with all my edits.
 * You claim "The Ice Man hypothesis is not supported by any scientific evidence."
 * Your comment on the talk page is not correct according to the reliable source. The source does not say that it is a hypothesis that is not supported by any scientific evidence.
 * Your comment on the talk page suggests I added original research to the article but I did no such thing. I get the impression you did not read the full text and blindly reverted.
 * This is what the source says: "Bizarrely, the ‘Ice Man’, who lived in the Alps about 5000 years ago, displays tattoo marks on his body which correspond to acupuncture points. To some experts, this suggests that an acupuncture-like therapy was already used in Europe 5 millennia ago [15]."
 * Please strike your misleading comments on the talk page and revert your edit. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Acupuncture
I believe that there are very good reasons to think that your recent edits on the above page would be seen by many if not most people as being of a tendentious and/or disruptive nature and also can be seen as being in violation of WP:IDHT. You have been advised to take your concerns to the RSN and have apparently chosen not to do so as opposed to engaging in perhaps tendentious editing on the talk page. This is I believe a very serious concern because ArbCom has placed sanctions on content in a topic area which this article has been found to be within. Should you continue to engage in such nonproductive editing on the article talk page there is a very serious chance your conduct may be brought to attention at one of the noticeboards. Please refrain from further nonproductive editing on the article talk page. I suppose I should say this is a warning. John Carter (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think my behavior is problematic, feel free to lodge a complaint at WP:AN/I. -A1candidate (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A1 thanks for your clarification. My comments on IDHT and TE may have been more strident than necessary. In objecting to a source being very specific and clear about the content being challenged is helpful. I realize this might have been understood by other editors based on a recent edit history. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for leaving a message. It was a misunderstanding and I'm glad we have cleared it up. -A1candidate (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture edits
Hey man, I noticed you on the countering systemic bias talk page and saw your proposed edits on the acupuncture talk page! I've read through them and they look like excellent additions. Have you added any of those? If not, I'm willing to help out. Just let me know! LesVegas (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been active on the talk page and I'm still trying to discuss how to include these edits. Thanks for helping out, it's greatly appreciated. -A1candidate (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Chocolate milk is not a form of milk
Don't take this kinda thing seriously and don't let it tax the ol' Liver-Spleen. I think most editors see through that sort of thing. "I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused" -- Elvis Costello .... cheers, Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 03:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * P.S. -- Just remember, every minute you spend refuting a spurious objection is (a) a minute taken away from potentially productive contributions, and (b) a little more stress. It's baiting -- or has the effect of baiting.  If you respond in a pointed, annoyed way, that's just a diff that will be used against you down the line.


 * We have a whole lot of reasonable editors who can see through tendentious behavior on the part of skeptic POV-pushers, but at the same time aren't going to proactively object to it. POV-pushers know this, and know their behavior will be tolerated as long as they seem to be "defending science".  Bear in mind that one of the editors involved has said that he doesn't think WP:DR works, and that he thinks progress occurs only "when certain users are excluded from editing".  You know there are double standards here behaviorally, so please, don't take the bait.  Who cares if bullshit prevails in the short term?  There are no deadlines.  Be patient, take wikibreaks if stressed, take the high road.  --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 03:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll take heed of your advice and I'll be careful -A1candidate (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture Tag
Hello again A1candidate, I wanted to let you know I placed an POV tag on the acupuncture page and as part of the discussion I mentioned your "outstanding issues" on the page. I wanted to use the section on the talk page "Tags" as a means of resolving those issues and everyone else's issues as well. Anyway, stop on by whenever you get a chance! LesVegas (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of B.A.P - Live on earth for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article B.A.P - Live on earth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/B.A.P - Live on earth 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. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Those outstanding issues
Hey, just saw that you're back editing and wanted to let you know I added some of the things from your list of outstanding issues onto the page. They were removed by a couple of edit warriors without any real discussion, and I just now added them back in. As I said earlier, I would love to help you in your efforts to place this material into the article. You've worked hard on that and I don't think it's right for it to not be included. A little at a time, I think, and the best stuff should stick. LesVegas (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out, it is greatly appreciated. -A1candidate (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Precious
  Gangnam Style

Thank you, resident of the Earth, for quality articles such as Das Reizleitungssystem des Säugetierherzens and Germany–South Korea relations, for, for , for insight such as "It's like saying 'You're allowed to stab each other 3 times but not more than that'" and oppose, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Dana Ullman
Just to save you making the same mistake again, Ullman was stated to be "not credible" by a judge, who rejected his testimony in its entirety.

The "dysfuunction" blog post has previously been discussed. The errors were pointed out then. It's rare to find any propaganda for homeopathy that is not trailed on the talk page almost immediately, so it's always worth checking the archives. A more complete rebuttal can be found here, if you are interested. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I base my assessment of Ullman on the quality of his arguments, not on his reputation. See Assume good faith. If he makes strong arguments, a witch-hunt against homeopaths by fighters of pseudoscience isn't going to change my opinion. The way to persuade me is to try this out: Show me how his arguments in this specific post are flawed. Thanks. -A1candidate (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I also base my assessment on the quality of his arguments. Every single argument he advanced int hat rant, was provably false, mendacious, long-since reuted, distorted or in some other way unworthy. I am extremely familiar wiht the literature on hoemopathy. So is Ullman, which gives him even less excuse for querstionable tactics such as citing a 1997 review whose lead author has told him, to his face, in front of witnesses, that he should instead quote the 1999 re-analysis of the results. You may not like my opinions on SCAM, but in this instance opinion does not enter into it: I am objectively correct, Ullman is objectively wrong. And he knows it. And he keeps proselytising anyway. Which is why a Judge called hium "not credible".
 * I have no problem dealing with civil advocates of non-mainstream POV, I do have a problem with people whose judgment of evidence is incorrect, and who do nto change that judgment in the face of compelling evidence they are wrong. Read my blog post, I cite my sources and I also reference in many cases long-standing refutations and rebuttals of which Ullman was fully aware. He was banned for good reasons. Don't go down tha same path, please. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm reading your posts and thinking about the entire issue. It's a complicated one. -A1candidate (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What you are writing is totally false- Ullman refers  to BOTH reviews. 1999 and 1997.  How can you write such things? And you consider yourself credible Guy ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioMarco2009 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that the 1999 re-analysis replaces the 1997 paper, but Ullman cites the result of the first and only nods to the second without acknowledging its full importance to the validity of the first. And while he alludes to the second paper, only the first is actually cited. He leads his reader direct to the conclusion he likes, with full citation and a link, but does not provide the necessary information for them to check his assertions on the rleevance of the later paper. He references Linde's critique of Shang, but not Shang's reply, which showed the critique to be wrong in important respects and stands as the last word in that debate in press. I could go on, but I have already line-by-lined Ullman's diatribe and A1candidate has read that and understands the problem. Ullman is a propagandist, his views are not reliable, and we're done with that. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The 1999 was NOT an original meta analysis- it was a qualification of the previous one and as such it is refereed by Ullman -- this is accurate. He says what the papers say  The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials ... have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most "original" subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments This does not mean that they found that H= placebo as

wikipedia editors write in the article. It is pretty clear to every good faith observer. If I were Ullman I would cite Shangs response as well - I agree with you--but here in wikipedia you should not say that-- you and other editors you have done much worse things in a "neutral" article- you have edited out ALL criticisms to Shang even if there are published in reputable;e sources  to create the false impression that every author says H= placebo. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Fact check on Homeopathy
MarioMarco2009:

UpToDate is a reliable clinical encyclopedia that I use and trust.

This is how Wikipedia's homeopathy article fared when I compared it to UpToDate's article:

I would prefer it if the fighters of pseudoscience stop throwing around the "pseudoscience" label at everything they could grab their hands on, and there certainly are clear cases of dysfunction at Wikipedia's alternative medicine articles, but Homeopathy isn't one of them. -A1candidate (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Before I try to explain you - what is your relationship with math and logic- I m asking because you use the word logic here. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mario, the assertion that potentization "defies logic" did not come from me, I'm simply quoting what UpToDate said. Perhaps it may be better for you to direct this question to the authors and editors of UpToDate. -A1candidate (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * it is complicated to explain why the above phrase makes no sense-- if you use the world logic in a  scientific or mathematical concept and not in a coffee shop - so if you are curious look it up and you will see how shallow this argument is. Furthermore provided you have the curiosity to explore it yourself,- how you can justify to yourself that an encyclopedia article edits out all the criticisms against the only review that has clearly concluded that H= placebo and these criticisms are  published in reputable sources ? Again if you have the intellectually curiosity to back it up to yourself - if you don't - just leave it alone. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * First, thank you again for understanding the Ullman issue. Your input helped close off a debate that was going nowhere.
 * Homeopathy is a very frequently discussed example of pseudoscience. However, there is a need to be clear: homeopathy itself is, as you say, a pre-scientific vitalist belief system. The pseudoscience is in the cottage industry of faux-scientific publications attempting to justify it in terms of modern scientific concepts and the practice of evidence-based medicine - however, this is a route set by Hahnemann himself, and his own publicatiosn were clearly intended to be scholarly and, as we would now characterise it, scientific. This was not the scientific Dark Ages, homeopathy was dreamed up towards the end of the Age of Enlightenment, a century and a half after the founding of the Royal Society and the emergence of empirical science from its predecessor, natural philosophy - the problem is that the scientific method had not, at that time, taken hold in medicine, to anything like the current extent. So it's not as clear cut as it might be.
 * Take a less contentious example for comparison. The original Fleischmann-Pons cold fusion experiments were not pseudoscience and were not pathological science. They weren't right, but a lot of science turns out not to be right when tested further. Fleischmann was not given to pseudoscience, and did not, as far as I can see, engage in it. Pons may well have engaged in pathological science, and a substantial group grew up who are also engaged in pathological science and pseudoscience, publishing papers in their own journals and discussing their findings with each other, in a classic walled garden. Jones, of Brigham Young, went the full pseudoscience when he fell in with the Truthers.
 * Another example: chiropractic is a practice which contains elelments of pseudoscience. Manipulation therapy is plausibly effective for musculoskeletal pain, but the concepts of innate and the chiropracxtic subluxation are nonsense, and the academic study of these things is pseudoscientific. Chiropractic is not pseudoscience as practiced by some, but the roots of it are pseudoscience because it was invented in an era when the scientific method was available, at least in outline, and no attempt was made to falsify the claims, only to provide "evidence" to support them. So chiro is a field rooted in pseudoscoence from which some legitimate elmenets have emerged, almost by accident.
 * Osteopathy, by contrast, also has its roots in pseudoscience, but applied the scientific method and became legitimate, at least in the US.
 * Pseudoscience is a useful and informative category to describe a class of endeavour. The label "alternative medicine" is also helpful, due to Minchin's Law, but proponents of alternative medicine do not help us here in that they constantly try to rebrand it in order to avoid the obvious. Thus alt med became CAM (as if homeopathy is any less bogus because you consider it alongside massage and other valid complementary therapies) and now "integrative medicine" (as if homeopathy becomes any less refuted when you use it alongside valid therapies). In this we are actively hampered by the sources, since the quackademic medicine movement seems at present to be in the ascendent, to the point where even fatiuous nonsense like reiki and reflexology is offered with a straight face.
 * I would prefer to be clear about the differences between alternative medicine and the pseudoscience it inspires. This is not always easy in the context of an article like hoemopathy, most of whose content is concerned with the pseudoscience used in the rearguard action currently being fought. I do not know if, in ten years time, we will have the same problem, as there seems to be rising public awareness of its fraudulent nature and certainly in the UK and Australia it is suffering badly at the hands of reality-based reviews.
 * I's be wary of using the textbook you refer to: it's unlikely to be concerned with the demarcation issue and is more likely to simply describe the beliefs of homeopaths, not least because they have a tendency to go ballistic and protest when you say they are wrong, and the more evidence you provide the more ballistic they get. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia for the general reader and there are an enormous number of sources for the general reader that describe homeopathy as pseudoscience (just for starters, , , ), and it's also widely discussed in books on the subject of pseudoscience and the demarcatio issue, always coming down on the side of homeopathy being pseudoscience.

Query (Reposted from User talk:JzG)

 * The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends Transcendental Meditation for lowering blood pressure. According to, "TM may be considered in clinical practice to lower BP". Is the AHA part of the SCAM industry?


 * The American Neurological Association (ANA) recommends cannabis for managing multiple sclerosis. According to, "Clinicians might offer oral cannabis extract for spasticity symptoms and pain". Is the ANA engaging in quackery?


 * The U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recommends meditation for improving psychological stress. According to, "Clinicians should be aware that meditation programs can result in small to moderate reductions of multiple negative dimensions of psychological stress." Is the AHRQ a lunatic charlatan?


 * The American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) has included acupuncture as a treatment option for allergic rhinitis. According to, "Clinicians may offer acupuncture, or refer to a clinician who can offer acupuncture, for patients with AR who are interested in nonpharmacologic therapy." Is the AAO-HNS an advocate of acupuncture?

More importantly, are the doctors following the guidelines of AHA, ANA, AHQR, and AAO-NHS believers in the SCAM industry and therefore enemies of the Declaraiton of Helsinki? - A1candidate  00:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Your determination to validate the invalid is truly impressive. Feel free to point out the studies that show TM to have an effect distinct from non-spiritual relaxation therapy. Meditation is a form of relaxation therapy and is not alternative, nor is it exclusive to "ancient wisdom" from any particular part of the world. The evidence on acupuncture shows that there are no such things as meridians, no such thing as qi, that it doesn't matter where you put the needles, and it doesn't seem to matter if you even put the needles in. And that is my last word on the matter until the evidence changes. We don't change the universe by changing Wikipedia, we do things the other way round, so when compelling evidence arises that changes the scientific consensus view on the nonsensical nature of the core claims of acupuncture, then we will follow that evidence. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That is not my determination, but the consensus of the AHA, ANA, AHQR, and AAO-NHS.




 * I don't have to do so, because I did not claim that TM is distinct from from non-spiritual relaxation therapy. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.




 * Meditation refers to the intentional change in the stage of consciousness, resulting in alterations to brain regions responsible for meta-awareness . It is a form of mind–body intervention that falls under the responsibility of the U.S. National Center for SCAM.




 * The evidence has never been changed: It has always been known that Adenosine A1 receptors mediate local anti-nociceptive effects of acupuncture (Goldman et al. 2010), a finding that has been replicated in humans (Takano et al. 2012) and reproduced by independent research groups (Hurt and Zylka 2012). It has also been reviewed and accepted by pharmacologists (Hill et al. 2014).


 * Of course, the doctrines of the Chuch of Pseudoskepticsm mandate that "All SCAM experiments resemble the Jacques Benveniste experiment" and must be flawed. That is why their believers readily cling onto everything Church leader David Gorski claims, without subjecting these claims to any form of critical analysis. We know that Church leader Gorski hates the The New England Journal of Medicine and his pseudoscientific Bible "Science-based Medicine" is a vocal critic of evidence-based medicine and their contributors are staunch opponents of the Cochrane Collaboration. (Cochrane Reviews: The Food Babe of Medicine?)




 * Edzard Ernst, a true defender of science and courageous skeptic, cited the Goldman et al. 2010 experiment in the Textbook of Pain in Chapter 43 and page 605 of the book. Ernst wrote: "Our understanding of how acupuncture might work has grown (Zhao 2008, Goldman et al 2010) but is still far from complete."


 * David Gorski, leader of the Church of Pseudoskepticsm and managing editor of the pseudoscientific Bible of "Science-based Medicine", wrote in a commentary in Nature Reviews Cancer that the same study cited by Ernst has nothing to do with acupuncture. (Gorski 2014)


 * You may not like my opinions on the Chuch of Pseudoskepticsm, but in this instance opinion does not enter into it: Ernst has objectively cited the Goldman study to support the notion that our understanding of how acupuncture might work has grown, but Gorski cited the same study as an example of an experiment that is "over-interpreted and/or have little relevance to humans", despite Takano et al. 2012 replicating the same experiment in humans and Gorski ignoring it altogether. I am now reminded of the name of a quack who cherry picks studies that fit his own beliefs just like Gorski does: Dana Ullman, the pseudo-evidence-based homeopath.


 * I may not agree with everything that Ernst says, but his criticism of acupuncture (and probably homeopathy) on his blog has validity and the questions he asks are entirely reasonable. "Science-based Medicine", on the other hand, is a pseudoscientific Bible owned by the leaders of the Church of Pseudoskepticsm. They attack the most reputable scientific journals including the NEJM and they attempted to destroy the foundations of evidence-based medicine by discrediting the Cochrane Reviews. The most striking evidence that the Church of Pseudoskepticsm is a cult movement rests on the fact that they indoctrinate their believers to believe everything they say and reject everything from the medical community. Please, realize that this is a cult and don't go down their path.


 * If you ignore everything else I say, please at least answer this question: Who is correct? Ernst or Gorski? The Goldman study cannot be irrelevant to acupuncture (as claimed by Gorski) and still be cited as evidence of how acupuncture might work (as Ernst does). Either Ernst is right and Gorski is wrong, or Gorski is right and Ernst is wrong. - A1candidate  19:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

New meta
Hello A1. I see that you've shown interest in the research on the effect of TM on blood pressure. Wondered if you saw a new meta-analysis that just came out. TimidGuy (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a good source that expands upon the findings of AHA, albeit with limitations as the authors stated. - A1candidate  20:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Ref format
BTW, if you've got a PMID it's best to use this tool to generate the ref, as it bakes it into a MEDMOS-approved format! Alexbrn talk 15:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Leave that to the bots. - A1candidate  15:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think they'll touch refs that are already hand-populated with fields (or at least not MEDMOS them)? Alexbrn talk 15:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Using sources in Griffin
I'm writing this here instead of on the article Talk page, because it is not about the article. Going forward, please do not make arguments based on sources that you haven't read and cannot even classify. There is too much smoke and not enough light in that article without that. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See Talk:G. Edward Griffin - A1candidate  20:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

RCTs
Hi! I just had to comment on this, especially "...one cannot claim effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) until an RCT has been performed." There's truth to that - but, if you'll pardon me, that's a very black-and-white distinction. Potential therapies are dropped from consideration at earlier stages of the process all the time, because they aren't considered promising. Since RCTs are so expensive, there has to be at least some reason we think the test will work before we can do it. If a potential therapy doesn't reach that level, then perhaps we can't say anything with extreme confidence, but we can say that the likelihood of it working was low enough (in the clinical and scientific judgement of the investigators) that nobody wanted to spend their funding on it. And of course, on the flip side, you probably know that RCTs can easily be done poorly, so even when there are many RCTs, it's quite possible to have no useful results at all.

Also, as a related point, I would add that the vast majority of drugs never show any benefit (millions are screened on a regular basis), so a compound about which there is no initial information is a priori much more likely to be ineffective, because of an extremely low prior probability. So when you say "If you think amygdalin is ineffective, the only way to convince the medical community would be to do an RCT" - I suppose that's technically true, but it's a very unusual way to put it, because the burden of evidence is for showing effectiveness, not for showing ineffectiveness. That is, the default is "Unless you show otherwise, there's no reason to think this one compound isn't one of the millions that failed rather than one of the few that succeed."  Sunrise    (talk)  06:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, you're correct to say that many therapies are dropped at earlier stages, and in the case of amygdalin, the case reports of dangerous effects should also be taken into considertaion, but ultimately, this is something for the ethics committee to decide. The a priori argument doesn't work here because amygdalin seems to have shown some effects in laboratory or animal studies (correct me if I'm wrong). The default statement for laetrile is "There is no evidence to support the effectiveness of laetrile", not "Laetrile is demonstrably ineffective". - A1candidate  11:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. :-) I don't know much about the specifics of this example; I've just been watching the discussion at the Griffin article. The a priori statement is meant to be a general principle that addresses your own general principles! One of the main problems is that some effects are always expected even for ineffective treatments, just because of how p-values and standard errors work - and that's not even considering things like publication bias. It's easily possible that given a study that reports positive pre-clinical results, e.g. in mice, it could still be more likely than not to be false (in probabilistic terms, it might move you from a 0.0001% initial chance of effectiveness to a 0.001% chance). These problems can even be captured by meta-analyses, e.g. if they don't do a funnel plot, and is a major problem in the field of meta-analysis evaluation, because often it's simply impossible to account for the (typically positive) bias in the underlying data.


 * On the specific example, I agree that "There is no evidence" is typically the correct formulation, though I would add that sometimes people may use that term loosely as a shorthand for "no good evidence." Or even "ineffective" (though not "demonstrably ineffective"), because after a certain point, absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence.  Sunrise    (talk)  18:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The best way to avoid misinterpretation of the p-values would be to enforce the reporting of the effect size of the intervention. For example, if laetrile had no clinical effects on cancer outcomes and the null hypothesis is indeed true, one would then report the effect size as close or near to zero. This may help to prevent awkward statements such as "The effect of XYZ alternative treatment was shown to be statistically significant (because p < 0.05) but not clinically meaningful".
 * To eliminate publication bias, one should first ensure that all future trials are registered in a central database before they are allowed to proceed any further (cf Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre). This way, even if the trial investigators do not publish their negative results, the relevant researchers could still be tracked down by those conducting a meta-analysis in order to recover the missing unpublished data.
 * I understand that some people may think that "no evidence" and "ineffective" are equivalent, but that is not how evidence-based medicine works. As for "absence of evidence" being taken as "evidence of absence", one might as well categorize all future untested treatments as ineffective, because the evidence for all untested treatments has been lacking since the dawn of humanity. We don't assume inefficacy when there are no clinical trials to support inefficieny. You may wish to read the categories of evidence in clinical decision making.
 * It is important to fight pseudoscience. However, it is even more important to stay true to the principles of evidence-based medicine while doing so.


 * - A1candidate  15:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You're attributing statements to me that I haven't made, so please read my comments more carefully. :-) (Also, part of the reason this reply is longer is that I'm trying to account for that!)


 * On effect size, your comment seems to be a misunderstanding of the analysis works. Effect sizes are not tied to p-values - they only affect how much statistical power you need in order to detect a relationship. Large but nonsignificant effect sizes (or even large and significant ones) are relatively easy to come by, even when the null hypothesis is true. It becomes easier as the size of the literature increases and as the sample size in each study decreases. More rigorously, if X has no effect on outcomes, then we expect (in the absence of other factors) that the reported effect sizes will take on a normal distribution with mean 0, but this says nothing about the standard error.


 * On publication bias, the reality is that trials are generally not registered, so what could (and hopefully will) be done doesn't affect the quality of the data we have now. I mentioned it only as an example - it's one of several types of bias that I could have used to illustrate the point. I agree that Bad Pharma is a great book though!


 * Absence of evidence is evidence of absence after a certain point; future untested treatments are not categorized as ineffective, which is how you seem to have interpreted my statement. The statement can be proven rather easily using probability theory - e.g. see the quote in the lead of Evidence of absence, and a longer description that might be helpful is here. Briefly, the limit is when you would expect evidence to have been found that was not. The correct statement about future untested treatments is that if you select any individual one of them, you will estimate a high probability of ineffectiveness - suppose 0.001% of tested treatments are typically found to work, then you estimate a 0.001% chance in the absence of further information. Or equivalently, out of any 1000 such treatments, on average we will find that one of them works. I don't think anyone thinks that "no evidence" and "ineffective" are equivalent.


 * I'm not sure what you intend by your final point. I don't think of anything in terms of "fighting pseudoscience" (besides, that way lies WP:BATTLE). The principles of EBM aren't immutable and aren't perfect - they're used because they're a good approximation of scientific reasoning, and likewise the reasoning that is used in practice is an approximation of these principles. For example, if we could reason perfectly, we would never use a significance level and only ever report the exact p-value. Likewise, as with any scientific tool, it can be unintentionally misused when the user doesn't understand the exact mechanics that are taking place behind the scenes, e.g. use of statistical tests in cases when they aren't valid is another major factor contributing to bias in the literature. Of course, that doesn't mean EBM isn't better than what came before! Or, to be more precise, what we now call EBM is a codification of what were already best practices for several decades, and the best practices continue to evolve - e.g. one aspect of current best practice is to consult with a statistician regularly when designing a trial, but it doesn't seem widespread yet given that I still hear reminders at research talks at least a few times per year.  Sunrise    (talk)  04:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While a P value can inform the reader whether an effect exists, the P value will not reveal the size of the effect. In reporting and interpreting studies, both the substantive significance (effect size) and statistical significance (P value) are essential results to be reported.


 * We can't retrieve data that already has been lost, but we could prevent this from happening in the future by ensuring that all future trials are registered before commencement.


 * I glanced through the Wikipedia article on Evidence of absence, and what I can say is that at least in the case of amydalin, it does not fall under the category of evidence of absence but rather, a simple absence of evidence (e.g. no careful research has been done). The quote by Irving Copi is a logical fallicy: Just because something could be discovered does not mean it will be discovered. There are many reasons for non-discovery such as technical restrictions, financial difficulties, or no research interest.


 * The "fighting pseudoscience" statement is not directed against you, so please don't take it personally. It is for those editors who truly see this place as a battleground. Those are the same editors who insist that "no evidence" and "ineffective" are equivalent.


 * - A1candidate  13:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to say, A1C. Pretty much every statement you've made in this last reply, other than in the fourth point, appears to be either non sequitur or based on misreading what I (or the sources I've quoted) have said. For example:


 * The first point states a basic property of p-values, that they are not tied to effect sizes - which is the same point I was explaining to you in my own comment. Specifically, I brought this up in response to the statement "[if] the null hypothesis is indeed true, one would then report the effect size as close or near to zero" which does in fact appear to confuse effect sizes with p-values. I suppose it's also possible that there's a deeper misunderstanding that led you to this - e.g. the statement directly implies that the investigator can conclude the null hypothesis is true, which is not possible in this analysis.


 * The first point also contains an additional error - specifically, a p value does not inform a reader whether an effect exists. It informs a reader of the probability that an observed dataset would occur solely by chance if the null hypothesis is correct. (For example, note especially that a p-value is a property of a dataset, not a property of a relationship.) It can inform our downstream decisions on whether an effect is likely to exist, but its ability to do this is typically overemphasized.


 * The statement in the second point is true, but it isn't related to my own comment, which is about how we analyze the data that we already have. You've actually repeated this same misinterpretation after I already corrected you once.


 * For the third point, the quote is from a widely used introductory logic textbook - it's not fallacious. It's an expression of modus tollens, for which the formal statement is: 1) if A, then B; 2) not B; 3) therefore, not A. The same logic applies to scientific evidence, except we reason inductively: 1) if A, then B is more likely; 2) not B; 3) therefore, A is less likely.

I don't like being this blunt, but you don't have a full understanding of how medical statistical analysis works. This isn't meant personally (just as I didn't take your comment on pseudoscience personally!) - I think it's an important subject, because it isn't taught rigorously in medical and biomedical courses even at top-tier medical schools. I'm happy to discuss with you further if you're willing to learn, but I probably won't respond again unless it seems likely to be productive.  Sunrise    (talk)  22:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said that p-values are tied to effect sizes. Rather, I'm in favor of banning the reporting of P-values because only effect sizes matter.
 * The statement in the second point is merely a suggestion to avoid the problem of publication bias that you mentioned.
 * "1) If laetrile is effective, then its effects must have been discovered; 2) No effects have been discovered; 3) Therefore, not effective." If you still can't see the logical fallacy in the statement above, then you're right - you don't have to respond.
 * - A1candidate  20:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The responses to each of these points are either contained within or directly implied by my previous comment. Again, let me know if you think we can proceed.  Sunrise    (talk)  08:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything preventing us from proceeding, other than your unwillingness to accept the logical fallacy of your argument. - A1candidate  00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

What??
What was that about? Please consult WP:TPO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The way you phrased your comment was highly inflammatory, unlikely to resolve the conflict and certainly viewed by the other party as a form of harassment. You're of course free to communicate with Astme, but you should do so in a civil manner - A1candidate  19:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

American politics 2 arbitration case opened
Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I noticed this was restored
A1, I noticed you restored this material to the article and water to thank you for that. It used to be on there, but someone removed it. Do you happen to know who or how it got removed? LesVegas (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The person who removed it happens to be the one hounding me above. See - A1candidate  08:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)