User talk:Chickpecking

November 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Anthroposophic medicine. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Disagree with the above. Reverting an edit to NPOV after discussing in talk does not constitute edit warring. However, reverting multiple times, as Alexbrn has done, does constitute edit warring. Chickpecking (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

December 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Anthroposophic medicine. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please be aware that in the event of dispute, the consensus version holds. You might perhaps want to follow WP:BRD. You have no business declaring that there needs to be a unanimous decision to reinsert content that you personally don't like. Alexbrn (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn WP:BRD would imply that someone boldly put in the Offit text. I am reverting it and placing it in talk for discussion. Am I looking at this wrong. I reverted because it was an unsubstantiated claim, not simply because I did not like it. Thanks! Chickpecking (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably, but months, years ago ... and so it is long-standing consensus text. That kind of wikilawyering is not advisable especially since this article is under discretionary sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how any of this should inhibit further discussion of what amounts to an unsubstantiated claim. Wikipedia should be open to edit, no matter when you find a problem. I don't want to edit war, but we are not exactly operating on fair ground. You revert any changes made not by you or the other fellow, and revert back any attempt to more closely look at references and what they are saying. I read the excerpt of the book and cannot possibly see how several jumps of inference could be made. An encyclopedia does not do that.Chickpecking (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing inhibits discussion, discussion is encouraged! But you can't impose a change on a fairly stable article by simply repeating a disputed edit - especially when it is removing text which is both verifiable and reliably sourced. See you in Talk ... Alexbrn (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Article is "fairly stable" due to your continuous reverts. Text in question is analogous to using Ben Carson as a RS in Neurosurgery, then going on to quote him on Syria, or basically anything else.Chickpecking (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Mistletoe edits
Sorry, if you think it's okay to misrepresent sources (by saying "moderate" evidence exists) in favour of your line of work, and to delete strong - and more recent - medical sources that paint your chosen line of work in a less favourable light, then - you're badly off base. With your potential COI you need to be extremely careful not to repeat this kind of stunt. If I see anything like this again I shall seek adminstrative action against you. Alexbrn (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free- There are numerous MED RS on mistletoe. Should we just choose the negative RS? They are actually much more rare and are based on a not careful summary of other meta-analysis. I prefer to go to the real sources for this- it makes more sense, and I prefer to stick with them. The fact is, Cochrane has stronger evidence for mistletoe in cancer than it does for the flu shot in preventing the flu, or dental floss preventing anything but gingivitis. Can we actually get to NPOV? your edits misrepresent the available full spectrum of studies and cherry pick. As I said, I am fine if you would prefer to add "but this needs replication". To me, this did not seem essential- most researchers will state such things through their papers that this or that needs to be replicated in another study or studied more. If you feel it is a grievous sin, correct it- don't tear down the barn and accuse me of spin. I am simply sticking to the best sources out there for this- I think in an iscador article there is room to look at each MED RS. I would welcome such a review. I would be happy to fully disclose anything to an administrator but as far as I know, wikipedia does not want to exclude those experienced in their fields from editing articles. I am not paid to make edits, my patients generally do not look for info on controversial topics on wikipedia, I am not promoting myself or my clinic. I simply am interested in accuracy. Your edits on medicine are not accurate of the overall picture on mistletoe in cancer, and elsewhere in medicine in general.Chickpecking (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We must edit according to policy, not misrepresent sources and not delete good sources that we personally disagree with. You have been caught red-handed and have been warned. If you have a problem with my edits you can raise them specifically at a relevant noticeboard e.g. WP:NPOV/N or WP:AIN. (Add: Also, if you have ties to an anthroposophical clinic it is likely you do have a financial COI, as if/when the authorities wise-up to the dodgy nature of the drugs, funding for them will cease, and business will disappear. Therefore your livelihood is linked to the reception of these drugs, and it is in your interest to suppress/distort the science to promote them - which is exactly what you've been caught doing.) Alexbrn (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unlikely. Much of the randomized trials analyzed did not give a modern Anthroposophical approach of tumor directed, high dose mistletoe. We learned as much with pediatric patients with ALL. Someone with cajones started giving them high dose chemo and turned survival stats on their head. I prefer to stick to what the reviews state and not cherry pick as you have. Currently I make no livelihood from AM. As you are interested, and others, I'm happy to give a rendition of potential COI. Will add section on the article talk page. Until then, I will continue making bold edits in wikipedia, as WP policies direct me. If I have been caught red handed doing that, I am not ashamed.Chickpecking (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Warning
You have been advised of the discretionary sanctions. You continue to make poorly sourced and contentious edits and proposals at various related articles. If you continue this you may be blocked from editing. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please give examples, aside from me holding a worldview contrary to yours and using sound logic about inferences made by two cited sources that so far have not been contradicted by anything but ad hominems and a tenuous quote from the Sceptic's encyclopedia. I feel your words were inflammatory on the article's talk page, changed the subject, and carried implied insults to me and other Anthroposophists. I know we all have lapses or jump to conclusions, but I was quite surprised to find out you are an administrator. I don't feel that anything I have said is without good argument or policy behind it. Limiting Ernst in the article, and moving most criticism to its own section is actually supported by WP policies. Removing poorly sourced and cherrypicked sources and quotations is too. Chickpecking (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Question
For a new editor, you are impressively familiar with editors of yore! Have you got other accounts (I did ask in Talk but you never really answered)? Alexbrn (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reasonable question. I have been trained as a physician and one of the things we do is dig through charts. I found it interesting that the Waldorf page is written more fair and balanced by far than the AM page. So I dug into the history. The vocal critics I knew of a decade or more ago and I have countered a few arguments in another forum. I have no alternate accounts. Not my style, and if I had the time for that I would have already put in some improvements to other articles.

I did notice your name and a warning to you in that history. What is the axe you have to grind with anything not solely materialistic, and more specifically Anthroposophic? Chickpecking (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "Steiner is right" is a transcendental truth, and Wikipedia has no access to transcendental truths. What it has access to is learned opinion, such as science, scholarship and reliable press. WP:PAG favor very much mainstream science and are critical of fringe subjects. You do have a right to believe that Steiner is right, but for Wikipedia his views are rather wingnut views, because this is how they are perceived by the mainstream. Wikipedia does not have a position on the existence of the etheric and astral bodies, but not a jot of evidence for them surfaced as far as evidence-based medicine is concerned. Since Wikipedia favors mainstream science, it also favors skepticism, since science is organized skepticism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly that. And given the fact that anthroposophic "medicine" includes not only mystical bullshit but homeopathy, the canonical refuted bullshit alternative to medicine, I have to say that Chickpecking's continued attempts to whitewash the page are likely to end in frustration and disappointment for him. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The only arguments I am making are logical and factual. They may happen to support Anthroposophic medicine. The pervasiveness of your pseudoscepticism is a detriment to wikipedia. Chickpecking (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to give you a piece of advice, it is not an attack. If you will listen to it you will have a good time around here.


 * Wikipedia is mainly a venue for parroting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship (and perhaps mainstream press, for certain subjects). Editors are supposed to understand this, to wish this and be competent at doing this.


 * So supporting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is required of all editors, failure to do this leads to losing disputes, being blocked and eventually banned. Strong adherence to mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is what made Wikipedia one of the greatest websites. So, dissent from mainstream science and mainstream scholarship will be perceived as an attack upon Wikipedia itself. If you want to win a dispute, you have to show that your claims are mainstream science or mainstream scholarship. If you cannot honestly do that, then refrain from making that particular claim. And remember, Wikipedia is just a mirror, mainstream science and mainstream scholarship exist outside of Wikipedia and cannot be changed through editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia merely reflects them. So if you want to change science/scholarship, you have to be a scientist or a scholar, Wikipedia is not the venue for doing that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your friendliness. I agree with your statement that this is a mirror or maybe thermometer of the world. Wikipedia also exists to point out noteworthy ideas (right or wrong). I do see another editor role as correcting one-sided claims about these ideas and showing where they do interface with mainstream. And another would be in maintaining the logical soundness of all the arguments. Chickpecking (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do hope you listen to Tgeorgescu. You are not the first person - and not the first person by far - who jumped into WP bringing a strong belief in alt med with them.  Every person you have interacted with here has seen many, many people like you come and then go. They go voluntarily but very frustrated, or we throw them out of here.  It ends up being a tremendous waste of time for everybody.  There is so much work to do just building and maintaining mainstream content about health but we spend a tremendous amount of time saying "no" to people who behave as you have been doing. Please do not keep draining volunteer time. Please. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * “In some fields and some topics, there are groups who ‘squat’ on articles and insist on making them reflect their own specific biases. There is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles. The people with the most influence in the community are the ones who have the most time on their hands — not necessarily the most knowledgeable — and who manipulate Wikipedia’s eminently gameable system.” Chickpecking (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said there is nothing new under the sun here, and your conspiracy theorizing is a typical maneuver; the trajectory is well travelled. Please be aware that every edit you make is visible in your contribs, and if you continue as you have we will gather them up and show there you are just here to push FRINGE ideas, and you will end up topic banned or indefinitely blocked. It is a matter of evidence, not manipulation.
 * Please also see Conflicts of interest (medicine), which covers various abuses of editing privileges beyond typical financial conflict of interest and discusses fringe-y theories that people in biomedical professions sometimes build their practice or research around. It is an abuse of your editing privileges to do that.   Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion for anybody per WP:SOAP, and that goes for pharma companies as well as people who push mistletoe therapy.
 * Really, if you care about the public good, please use your editing privileges to work on content that reflects accepted knowledge and please don't waste the time of other editors pushing your pet theories out.  We have so much work to do maintaining our beautiful project. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Full of assumptions. You are here, violating wikipedia rules, working in teams with other skeptics to push your own POV. My push has only been for neutral. It is not COI for an expert in a field to make contributions to the field. I am happy to show where your logic folds back onto itself. My quotation was from the cofounder of wikipedia! no conspiracy theory, just conspiracy.Chickpecking (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Zero assumptions. Again, I looked at what you have done.  The evidence. It is all pushing alt-med stuff that is not "accepted knowledge." You are apparently not going to listen. So be it.  If you continue to suck up our time, you will end up topic banned, if you don't leave frustrated sooner.  This is how things go - the typical prognosis for someone with your symptoms in Wikipedia.  (There is so much work to do here!  One tiny example - the article on Late life depression is badly done and all based on outdated refs.  You could do things like read recent reviews and update the content about the symptoms, pathology, treatment, outcomes, and epidemiology, and if you do that well your edits could stick and help a lot of people.   Instead all you are doing is trying to add FRINGEy nonsense and sucking up the time of people who are pushing it out, and trying to help you see how you should use your editing privileges, and all of us could be doing the work of Wikipedia liking fixing the late life depression article, instead of that. Double bad.) Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And if you want to be following "the founder" please read WP:Lunatic charlatans. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Paper cut. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Fascinating- it takes two to have a war. Your revisions made a mess. You seem to be bullying. (Not sure if that page exists). Chickpecking (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe try WP:BRD? Trying to force edits doesn't work and will end up getting you sanctioned. You have been warned! Alexbrn (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * in which case you did not follow the above. I reverted with good cause, and discussed. Chickpecking (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ... and then reverted again. It's BRD; not BRDR (quote: "Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting") - that defeats the whole point (to achieve consensus). Alexbrn (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)