User talk:Herbxue/Archive 1

March 2011
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Traditional Chinese medicine with your recent edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove content
Please do not repeatedly remove content without a reason based on Wikipedia guidelines or policies. Your stated personal reasons are not relevant. If you have an image of an acupuncture/moxibustion session with a white lab coat from your culture, please upload it to Wikimedia Commons and insert it in the article, but you cannot remove pictures because you do not like the way others look when they practice their medicine, or because you find their style of dress "unprofessional". PPdd (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I take offense at your comments. Did I ever say anything about the skin being "alluring"? No, you are seeking to insult everyone's intelligence by suggesting that complaints about the misrepresentative nature of the photo are based on "personal reasons". My reason is neither personal nor irrelevant. unsigned by Herbxue


 * I believe the words in the edit summary were "wearing seductive, unprofessional clothing". Not liking what professional women wear in cultures other than your own wear is not a basis for deleting content. Please stop edit warring. You will be blocked from Wikipedia if you continue to vandalize articles. You have made more than 3 reverts. See section below. PPdd (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I stated that she appeared to be wearing a prom dress, and that did not represent common work clothes for a TCM practitioner. Imagine if the page on dentistry showed someone doing dental surgery while wearing nothing but a chainmail vest. Do you think it would be unjustified to call that misrepresentative of common practice? Also, I find it disturbing that other editor's good-faith efforts to correct inaccuracies in this article are being dismissed as vandalism. Why? Because your assessment is superior? The continual inclusion of the snake oil poster that has nothing to do with TCM seems slanderous to me. Is slander something you and wikipedia seek to promote?


 * One of your edting group that you referred to said "seductive". In any case, TCM is widely practiced in the new age culture, and we do not allow tradtional values for women's dress to be used to censor photos. If you have photos of women in white lab coats who are not treating bare chested men, please add them. The snake oil content, historic and current, was widely discussed and well sourced by Wiki standards. It is not slander for an encyclopedia to use reliable sources for reporting content. Your opinion does not outweigh Wikipedia policy on sourcing. You violated teh 3RR rule on deleting content, then violated it again twice after you were warned. Please stop deleting content or you will be blocked from editing at all. PPdd (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please cite where the "snake oil content, historic and current, was widely discussed and well sourced by Wiki standards". "Snake Oil" is not commonly prescribed in the United States by TCM practitioners (please see the standard textbook "Formulas and Strategies" by Bensky et al for a reliable reference). A product derived from snake bile is occasionally used for certain lung conditions, but it is neither referred to as "Snake Oil" nor, more importantly, is it associated in any way with the snake oil poster repeatedly posted into the TCM page. It is completely indefensible to include a Clark Stanley snake oil poster in a page that has absolutely nothing to do with that product or the questionable western phenomenon associated with "snake oil".


 * Moreover, you have made accusations about my posts using the terms "alluring" and "seductive" which are terms that I have never used in the notes to my edits. Please be more accurate. I have repeatedly referred to the photo in question as a misrepresentation of contemporary practice. Your complaint about my posts seems to show frustration with the posts of other people, of which I am unfortunately unaware. I am not part of an "editing group" but I am aware that there are others who are shocked at the defamation of TCM presented on wikipedia right now. It seems clear to me that there is consensus that these images are inappropriate, and that you are choosing to ignore and suppress the good-faith effort of other editors. If wikipedia is in fact a tool to present consensus, it seems that you are either obstructing that mission or the mission itself is a failure. It is completely indefensible to threaten concerned citizens attempting to correct inaccuracies and label them "vandals". Herbxue 17:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is not just about TCM in the United States. See the talk page archives on this and the snake oil pages.
 * The words "alluring" etc. and other such were made by anonymous and other editors in your "group of concerned professionals". What is the web address for the discussion forum you refer to? PPdd (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I used the word "group" do describe a number of individual people, not a group collaboration. I may have been in error calling them "concerned professionals" as I honestly don't know how concerned they are or whether they are professionals or just individual editors with something to offer to the TCM page. I am not responsible for anyone else who have become aware of this flawed article and chosen to help edit it. In any event, multiple people had good edits repeatedly reverted.


 * Again, my edits were made by me, as an individual, and should be considered on their own merits, not judged based on someone else's choice of terminology. I have made it very clear my objection is that the image does not represent a typical acupuncture clinic, whether that be one in California, New York, or Shanghai. Herbxue 18:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

3RR @ Traditional Chinese Medicine
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. PPdd (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * It is reasonable request a change in username for anonymity, but violating 3RR after doing so is still prohibited.


 * Why did you ignore this warning and continue to edit war under this name, then continue still more under the new account name? PPdd (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly did not know it was that serious. You may notice my first few edits were reverted because I did not give a rationale in the summary. So I thought they didn't "count". I clearly did not know how WP works, and I assumed I was just being bullied. My mistake.[[User:21:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good enough explanation to me. (and except for outing someone, hurting someone with a WP:BLP, or violating WP:MEDRS and getting someone sick, nothing at WIkipedia is that serious, even getting blocked for 24 hours.) PPdd (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, glad you two are chatting amicably about this, but PPdd, you should't warn someone about edit warring, if you're the person they're warring with (I'm somewhat presumptuously assuming you were). There's a noticeboard for these kinds of things at WP:3RRN, where both of you can go to get outside opinions on whether the editing is problematic.  You're better off just freezing whatever current version is up, or doing a coin flip, and then figuring it out on the talk page. Ocaasi (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. It appeared to be vandalism (no edit summaries the first several times by others, no other edit history, multiple brand new accounts all making the same unexplained deletion), so I did not think of myself as edit warring, only that vandalism should stop. I discussed with another editor who independently discovered the same edits by the same editors at another page, and that editor suggested posting 3RR on their talk (even with only one edit, since apparent SP) in hopes it would quickly stop the vandalism without further escalation. By the way, I have a bunch more personal academic anecdotes about professional dress standards. I will put them where you commented at Brang's talk where I told one. (poor Brang...) :) PPdd (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Some suggestions for editing
Welcome to Wikipedia.
 * Anonymity can be achieved by reading Changing username.
 * Please be sure to WP:Sign, and try to WP:Indent your comments, and it is best to keep them collected on your own talk page if the topic is started here.
 * Some of the essential (not all) policies and guidlines for editing medical articles include WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:MOS, WP:BLP, and WP:IAR. I put them in the order that I think is best to read them in. This is just the beginning of a large number of such policies and guidleines. Although I now have made almost 8,000 edits, I am still a beginner at understanding them all, and more keep being developed. WP:Wikilawyering is highly disapproved of.
 * Editing on pseudoscience and alternative medicine articles is a very difficult place to begin at Wikipeida, and we discourage it. New editors may get blocked or banned by trying to make a WP:POINT, when they often try to impose their own cultural standards or beliefs about how they think the practices should be presented at Wikipedia, not recongizing existing arb com rulings or consensus that we already have or have developed for those topics, or not understanding policies and guidlines we have at Wikipedia. New editors often try to make their practice look less bad than they think it is made to appear using the accepted policies and guidelines or via already determined arbitration committee rulings. Also, most articles were developed based on consensus developed over a very long time period in the talk pages and extensive talk page archives, which are often only resolved by an arbitration committee ruling. It is suggested that you learn to edit on less controversial subjects, and after familiarizing yourself. If you are going to try to edit on them, please read the archives in the talk pages to understand why the article is developed in the way it has been. Usually, edits that have not been challenged by senior editors are not challenged because their is already a develped consensus, which new editors should not try to change per WP:POINT or they will be banned, or existing arbitration committee rulings, which new editors must not ignore or try to change per WP:POINT or they will be blocked and banned. It is especially frowned upon when existing rulings or long developed consensus is brought up again to make a WP:POINT, which may lead to a permanent WP:BLOCK from editing at Wikipedia, or a WP:BAN from editing on or near a topic, so it is best not to edit on those articles without reviewing all of the talk page archives for that article and associated articles, or you may get banned or blocked.
 * If you have questions I will be happy to try to help. I helped write some parts of some of the policies and guidelines. I made a list of WP:MOS guidelines and put it at the top of WP:MOS as a WP:HAT. Feel free to post any question you have on my talk page and I will try to answer them. I have worked with alternative medical practitioners who were beginning editors, and at first they thought I was being heavy handed in imposing existing arb com rulings, long developed talk page consensus, and policies and guidelines; but it typically ended like in one article I completely rewrote with comments like this. PPdd (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestions, I will read up on policies and will attempt to learn the prevailing norms and etiquette. However, you have emphasized that "wikilawering" is frowned upon, so I hope you will also comply with #3 and #4 described on that page and recognize that although you may be satisfied with a consensus arrived at by people with a similar bias to your own, such consensus among a limited sample set should never be accepted as static and unquestionable. Herbxue 17:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but arb com rulings are binding. and consusus is binding on the article page until new consensus is obtained on the talk page. And repeatedly bringing up the same issues on the talk pages to try to get new consensus is condsidered disruptive editing and pointy, and leads to a ban from editing on a topic. What is the web address for the discussion forum? PPdd (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Arb com rulings may be binding to the parties involved but they do not indefinitely define the content described in the articles. That would clearly defy the intent of the policies as described in the wikilawering page you referred me to. You may consider something disruptive and pointy if it does not conform to your POV, but that does not make it unfit for inclusion. The discussion forum is irrelevant to this discussion. Herbxue 17:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, what is the web address of the discussion forum you referred to? PPdd (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Because your tone and expressed bias indicate your intentions are to discredit Chinese medicine, I have absolutely no interest in directing you towards private discussion forums that are not relevant to this discussion. I am not interested in assisting you in what I can't help but perceive as an attempt to harass and disenfranchise people. I do not mean to make assumptions about you personally, but I can only go on the rhetoric, which has a distinct "bully" tone. Wikipedia is public, I am a member of the public, and I have a right to edit incorrect material just as much as you do. Herbxue 18:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Which edits are biased? I offered you assistance, what tone are you referring to? Please apologize. Please do not imply bad faith on my edits. Thanks. PPdd (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Herb, that PPdd is likely a skeptic and that you are a professional TCM practitioner is really neither here nor there. It's irrelevant. If you object to his POV, then we can just as fairly object to your POV, and in fact more so since you have a very obvious WP:COI on these subjects and should tread very lightly.


 * The two of you must assume good faith and learn to edit together in a collaborative manner. If you take on an adversarial tone, then you will end up being blocked for using Wikipedia as a battleground for promotion of TCM and acupuncture. Promotion and whitewashing are forbidden here. As long as information is properly sourced it is allowed in articles, and NPOV requires that both sides (both descriptive and negative) must be included. The negative will obviously reflect negatively on the subject. That's the nature of Wikipedia articles.


 * Please provide the requested information promptly. If you refuse to do so we'll have to consider you as acting in bad faith and your career here will likely be very short. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would love to proceed in good faith and only post edits that are well sourced. As for "the requested information" - you are asking how I found out that the wikipedia article presented a POV misrepresentation of the profession? How is that relevant? Herbxue 18:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Herb, the link you gave on my talk page does not work. The forum discussion will establish to what extent there is a violation of WP:SP. If the only purpose of getting others involved was to avoid 3RR, then it is not appropriate. But I am a firm opponent to the entire MP concept in most other cases; I think it is entirely reasonable and good for WP for associated individuals to discuss becoming editors in an effort to improve WP. There is consensus against my perspective on this, however, and WP:SP/MP will likely not change as regards MP. PPdd (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Another suggestion
I found this to be very useful, WP:WFE. (But I ignored it for over a year before actually taking it seriously.) :) PPdd (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will take all your suggestions and work on them. The workings of this process are becoming clearer for me. Herbxue 03:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There really is not much process to learn, unless you edit on alt med articles, religious articles, or political articles, in which cases there is a very long and complex history. The basis rules are (1) ignore your own knowledge and the truth of something (see first sentence of WP:V) and just use what is in a reliable source, (2) expect anything you do to get deleted or changed even if you are writing from a point of view opposite to what you really have, and (3) don't let anything bother you. I just made those up, but they are pretty accurate from my own experience. Others will refer you to "the five pillars of Wikipeida", etc., but that is all way too abstract, like reading law books to understand how to live in a society. Also try reading WP:WNF. :) PPdd (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

DAOM
DAOM. :) PPdd (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Herbxue (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Archive?
Would you like me to archive your talk page for you, since it has your name? It will move it to your user subspace, and not show on your talk page except as an archive. You can still easily get at it just by clicking on the archive link. PPdd (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A good idea. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be great, thanks.Herbxue (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Re Bad Faith
Since you asked for the definition of bad faith after Calus accused me of it and refused to apologize, here is is - bad faith. If you check the bad faith article's history page, and check its talk page, I wrote the entire bad faith article. As its talk page shows, just as at TCM, I came in and deleted the entire article as NRS, and was yelled and screamed at. But when I had finished, no one has changed anything on the article ever since. The same is true at anthroposophical medicine, which has had no changes since I edited it. As you can see, this, and this, shows removal of POV tags after a long series of my edits on this edit-war-prone pseudoscience/alt med article. Also, even though I have only began to edit it, the POV tag was already taken off integrative medicine as the edit summary here shows. I have barely began to write the TCM article. I have written almost an entire book on the history an have put none of it in the article yet. I have done next to nothing regarding preparations and perscriptions. The reason is that I am letting a TCM doctor in Shanghai write the theory section, and he is moving like a snail, and his work is unintelligable. No wonder you think the article makes TCM look a way you don't like. Nothing is explained, since the theory section is undone, so it cannot be linked to the medicines section yet, and everything looks random when it is not. I again suggest you read WP:WIP, and re-read WP:AGF. And the "soul of a hanged man" is not some obscrure thing, it is Theology 101, as to a material soul. They used hanged men because they were criminals, as I understand, but I am still checking sources. It is no nuttier than any culture on this. No one is trying to make antying look any way. All I am doing is reading TCM literature, which is all by advocates, and finding sources from scientific publications about what it says. And I have my hands tied until the theory section gets written, if ever. I could just write it myself in about 20 hours, but I don't want to step on another editor's toes, since he is clearly developing it now, and WP:WIP etiquette is to give him time before stepping in. PPdd (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If not a "faith" issue there is still possibly an issue of competence here, which we can work together on. You used the words "Theology" here and "ontology" elsewhere in reference to TCM. This shows your bias towards Orientalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism). Viewing TCM or any aspect of Chinese philosophy and culture through the lens of theology and ontology is an application of an inappropriate filter. Cosmology yes, ontology no. This is why I settled down about the Matuk paraphrase when you used "spiritual" rather than "gods" (though I still object to "religious" as orientalist). Still, let's not pretend you really think its helpful or necessary to weight the TCM article towards the most bizarre aspects of attempts at healing in the history of China. Other editors who have no attachment to TCM have also made this same comment.Herbxue (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Meaningful help
Ok. Then help out in a meaningful way. There are five spirits Shen (Emporor, Will, Intellect, Etherial Soul, Corporal Soul), Five associated yin organ systems (Heart, Kidney, Spleen, Liver, Lungs). Five Phases and Five associated elements (Earth Fire Water Metal Wood), Five associated planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn), Five associated directions (North, East, South, West, Center), Five Tastes (Bitter, Salty, Sweet, Sour, Pungent), 4 natures – (Cold, Hot, Warm, Cool), 12+20 meridians, etc. There is also Blood, Qi, Phlegm, Yin, Yang, Pathogens, Toxicity, etc. There is much more ontology. Then there are 'relationships' between all of these things, hugely increasing the list just of names, without even describing what the names are for. It gets complex and large fast. What does it all mean? - The article must answer this. How does it all tie to the medicines? to the other practices? I have been waiting for another editor who has been editing about theory to finish this, out of courtesy, since he has been working hard and I don’t want to step on his toes in the middle, since I do not know his strategy or the MOS style he has set as the first principal contributor on this. Then I will tie it all together. But instead of taking a couple of weeks, he is taking MONTHS. How is it possible for TCM NOT to look weird if there is no explanation at all? It would be like a stone age person going to a computer lab, or physics lab, or watching surgery on the spine for pain in the leg (sciatica – ridiculous?), or watching sausage being made. It looks weird because they do not understand it. TCM article will always look weird until it is explained “why”, instead of what appears to be a random list, which it is not. How can the article be "balanced" in its infancy? There are currently POV editors who think the article is some kind of "presentation to the public" of TCM. It is not. It is a presentation of ''knowledge about TCM", not a public relations stunt. If you really want to help, work on this paragraph and gradually work toward what is already in the article having meaning.

The above paragraph is very long and all I did is list terms that should be explained in the article. Remember, WP:WNF. And WP:AGF, don't assume you know the intentions of an editor or their long term strategy for an article. Just AGF. :) PPdd (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the spirit of what you are saying. I will help. Quick note - don't bother with planets or rivers, they are not actually relevant in TCM. :)Herbxue (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

My AGF just smashed
Time after time, I have AGFd, even with your clear financial COI. Calus just "explained" your "discussion group". He said you all read about it here. But he failed to notice that the posting date is after you all showed up. More "explanation? Otherwise I am going to act on the COI problem. I asked you to just fess up, but instead I got an "explanation". PPdd (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. His forum is not the same as mine. We are not part of a "group". I do not believe he is one of my classmates from Seattle as he said he is "finishing" his degree. And by the way, I am a full-time academic. My job is to teach and explain TCM, I make the same hourly wage whether I have 5 students or 45 in my class. You, however, admitted working for a company that is prospecting on traditional medicinals to profit from creating drugs from them. So, who has more of a COI?.Herbxue (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am independiently wealthy, and all the work I do for anyone is as a volunteer. I thought he said he is your student. PPdd (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your works sounds cool. Have you spent much time in Shanghai? No, I do not know where Calus goes to school.Herbxue (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have not even been to China. I work in America, with a company based in Gansu in the Gobi, and I own a company in Shanghai, although it is officially set up in the Seychelles. I was supposed to go to the Gobi a year and a half ago on a botanical expedition, and had a personal injury and could not. My company in Shanghai imports fine wines from California, for high end sales in hotel resaurants to wealthy Chinese businesspeople trying to impress others. For the conglomerate in Gansu, I helped locate real estate for a distribution hub for their products in America, out in the Mojave desert, where I am a field botanist. I also helped them locate a million square foot wharehouse in the LA area, for sales to Costco, etc. I also work with an eminent Chinese museum, and helped them establish ties with the Getty, Huntington Library and Gardens, and with the California Academy of Sciences, but if I revealed which one, I would instantly lose anonymity. My knowledge about TCM in China comes from my partner, who is from Gansu, but lived in Shanghai, and from a number of Chinese scientists I work with. Also from a peripheral association with a super-collider being considered for construction in China via caltech. PPdd (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Request at AN/I
Informational note: this is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Problems at Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).The discussion is about the topic Traditional Chinese medicine. Regards, —Six words (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem
I am interested in your background and will stop the accusations as long as we all get back to editing. PPdd (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Its hilarious that you took ocasi's advice so literally! Happy to focus more on editing but even though there were fireworks I think most readers would prefer ludwigs layout and the recent version is way more acceptable. I don't think it looks like a sales brochure, and I really don't mind criticism of TCM as long as you and other editors are willing to learn about how the profession currently views those issues and the article presents it as such. I really really really have never prescribed penis or feces of any kind. Really.Herbxue (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. I did not say it looks like a sales brochure. I just thought it. You must be a mind reader! :) PPdd (talk)


 * On human feces, if Ludwigs2 did not delete the three sources because he said he thinks TCM is "disgusting", I included MEDRS on how human feces may actually be scientifically effective, and more that licorice was found to possibly improve the efficacy, and ancectdotal evidence that it works as used in TCM dentistry! That's why I do not like any kind of deliberate censorship like he is doing. You of all people know that deer penis is not commonly used, because it is so expensive, but it is common to see, because it is so big and expensive (and high profit for a single sale) that "deer penis stands out prominently" as a common centerpiece in medicine stores, if they can get their hands on one.
 * On organization, Luwigs2 once argued that TCM herbs were peripheral, and listing them at all was UNDUE, and he deliberately deleted the source I put in that they account for 75% of TCM doctor practice, and a much higher percentage of TCM use, since as you of all editors are likely to know, TCM is mainly practicticed as a family tradtion. (Maybe you don't know that, after all, if you were trained in a western, non-ultra-traditional style school.) PPdd (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What I learned
You are a new editor and I am fairly new. One thing you are likely learning is that when you converse with someone without seeing their gestures or hearing their intonation, it is easy to view their comments and edits as hostile, or in bad faith, or as having a motive that they do not. For example, I assumed you were associated with Calus and the web page he responded to, because of the similarity of your edits, backgrounds, and time of entry with still others doing the same thing. As another example, you would likely never have guessed if I had not been forced to say so, that I work finding plants in America related to those of TCM. Also, you likely would not have guessed that I am part Native American (Apache), and before a severe injury about a year and a half ago, I ran barefoot to the top of Mt. Hollywodd at sunrise each day, and walked back down and labelled plants with green survey tape, describing medicinal uses by Native Americans, for example, my favorite plant, Marah macrocarpus, or "prickley cucumber", or "man root" (I collect caudiciforms, and donated the Marah specimen to the Huntington Gardens that they have made the centerpiece of the main Greenhouse). Marah was used to stun fish. (I do think most Native plant medicines are hocus pocus, and real, effective, and "scientific" hocus pocus, like Lophophora williamsii). PPdd (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What I learned at WP about AGF and cvivility has improved me as a person in real life, and if yo have not already noticed the same in yourself, you likely will. But as my own example about you and Calus I just cited demonstrates, it is likely to be a lifelong learning process. :) PPdd (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Herbxue/ForFun

Sandbox
If you want to set up an actual sandbox, you could create a subpage where it's much less visible and you can mock up stuff a little more easily. For instance, you could create a page User:Herbxue/Generic for just about anything, or User:Herbxue/Acupuncture mechanisms for something more focused. For that matter, you can call it anything you want. Anyway, it's a little more useful than using a talk page. Just click on the red links above and start editing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!
 * You are welcome. Your sandbox also has a talk page, you can draft a section for an actual article in the "main" page, and solicit feedback or discuss on the talk page.  I would suggest soliciting input for a controversial article such as acupuncture.  If you can get consensus on the section, it stands a much higher chance of lasting a long time.  Just a suggestion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Hi. I got your message, thanks for thinking of me. I don't get logged in to WP much these days, and I've kind of forgotten how to do most things, actually, but I appreciate the work you've been doing over at the T'ai Chi article. Cheers! --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

German Acupuncture Trials
Hi Herbxue! After you digged up that source I finally took the effort to write an article about the GERAC. Thanks for the impulse and please feel free to check the article out. Cheers, Mallexikon (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Article looks great Mallexikon, thanks for letting me know about it! Herbxue (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Qigong article
When you get a chance could you please see how you feel the Qigong article is progressing? We have tried to provide solid structure, clean neutral text, and reputable references. Perhaps you could offer your assessment of the article's neutrality on the Talk:Qigong page. Thanks Vitalforce (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for everything that you do herbxue
Thank you for everything that you do herbxue, thank you for standing up against the people trying to bash "alternative" (or actual traditional?) medicines and promote their bias. You're a real hero! - Luna Ariya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luna Ariya (talk • contribs) 09:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Luna, that's very kind!Herbxue (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DRN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Acupuncture". Thank you. --Famousdog (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

COI is/isn't: WP:COS
Hi Herbxue -- just wanted you to know about the above in case you get accused of COI. Just being an acupunturist doesn't mean you have one. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing
I wrote a bunch of the Nothingness article from a western perspective (much derived from Bertrand Russell's historical accountings). I was not able to understand the Bhuddist concept of nothingness to contribute much, but it should be a big section of that article. Can you help add anything? PPdd (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll check it out.Herbxue (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Tai chi listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tai chi. Since you had some involvement with the Tai chi redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Other related redirects are nominated at the same link. ~ Kimelea   (talk)  03:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Taijiquan lineage tree expansion & clarification
Please chime in on the discussion, T'ai chi ch'uan. InferKNOX (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Acupuncture and Biomedical Correlate

 * Review request for a review on the acupuncture page, first paragraph. See the Talk page, "Physical correlates of acupoints" section and "Physical correlates of acupoints, Part Two." I am concerned that an ethnocentric bias on the part of editors has prevented a simple edit. The editors stand by some very shaky references and will not accept references from the most prestigious universities in the world, including those in China. At issue, the current article reads inaccurately, "Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological correlates for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians and acupuncture points," and yet I have sourced numerous peer reviewed studies from reputable sources showing MRI brain activity, hemodynamic and oxygen pressure correlates. Please review the talk section and weigh in on consensus to help get the edit verified. TriumvirateProtean (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not appropriate, see WP:Votestacking. TippyGoomba (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is an ethnocentric article in general. To improve it, I would like to see a separate section on proposed mechanisms of action from a scientific perspective, rather than debating whether or not scientific evidence supports traditional chinese concepts. In my opinion, the term Qi describes, through metaphorical language, a variety of physiological phenomena rather than describing a distinct type of energy or matter. I have found over a long time that the skeptics here (editors of the acupuncture and tcm pages) generally have good intentions, however they are selectively religious about following MEDRS restrictions for any statement that suggests support for acu or tcm, but will not apply any scrutiny to pop culture publications that discredit it (see the discussion about "animal penises" - people were defending sensationalist journalism as legit MEDRS). Best to just be patient and work on one sentence at a time, carefully sourcing, assume good faith, and point out the double standards as gracefully as possible. Herbxue (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Acupuncture#Medical procedure?". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 02:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Acupuncture. 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, 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.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Diffs:, , . Looks like you were already warned about 3RR here. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It is Dominus who is not attempting any compromise, while I have been on all the recent areas of contention (see discussion of "medical technique", "theories" and this absurd blanket statement by A1candidate. A1's edit is not supported by the cited sources. I am not introducing new material, I am reverting an erroneous edit. How is Dominus not accused of edit warring? It is because you like his POV better than mine. Apparently you guys only care about being supported by sources when it suits you, and here it does not suit you. Herbxue (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And so it continues  . TippyGoomba (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it continues because you guys keep reverting to a version that is not supported by the sources.Herbxue (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Date reminder for history pages on tippy and dominus talk pages showing history of disruptive editing.Herbxue (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You give no demonstration of remorse or understanding of what an edit war is. I just noticed that I warned you here. I also notice you're an WP:SPA. You might find some tips for how to proceed in a content dispute at WP:DR. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Either address the article's content issue or buzz off. You can wikilawyer all you want, but you have focused entirely on me and not addressed the actual issue. I'm perfectly comfortable with my position and conduct. btw - not sure how "power pop" and "baguazhang" fit into your SPA theory. Again - how do the cited sources justify the sweeping general statement "Acupuncture's effects are due to placebo"?Herbxue (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed from ANI because it accidentally deleted a section. Please add the comment again, if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This happened to me a couple of days ago. I edited a single section on the ANI page, and a subsequent edit conflict resulted in changes to unrelated sections. It appears that the database occasionally retrieves a wrong (old) copy of the page for the 'current' version during an edit conflict. See also User talk:Jeffro77.- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=569323460#Herbxue

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

Its about time
Hi Herbxue,

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
 * rowspan="2" valign="middle" |
 * rowspan="2" |
 * style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
 * style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |
 * style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |

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


 * Thanks EMP! Very kind of you, and greatly appreciated.Herbxue (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Traditional Chinese medicine". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 04:33, 29 April 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 least at 2RR now. QuackGuru ( talk ) 16:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Buzz off, you revert almost everything I do without discussion. You should know better than to sneak controversial material in while its being discussed on a noticeboard. Herbxue (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine
Hello, I'm Jh1234l. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Traditional Chinese medicine without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please explain why you removed the poaching paragraph in your edit summary.Jh1234l (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Acupuncture, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.Jh1234l (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There is an edit summary for every edit and extensive discussion at TCM talk page. Herbxue (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification
Hipocrite (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI on alternative medicine articles
Hello there Herbxue! I hope you have time to look at these two boards: User:Jayaguru-Shishya is not moving on and he is continuing his battleground behaviour and Sockpuppetry at article Traditional Chinese medicine. It seems that QuackGuru is now publicly accusing me of "following him from article to another", along with a punch of other accusations. In the first one he took me to WP:ANI, and in the second one he is making these accusations in front of an administrator, Jmh649 (weirdly enough, he just came out of the blue to Jmh649's Talk page even my post there had nothing to do with him). Anyway, as you have been involved in editing the same article(s), I'd appreciate if you had the time to take a closer look! :) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue has recently moved to WP:AN3 due to QuackGuru's violation of WP:3RR on alt-med articles. Anyway, I'd appreciate if you had time to check it out as we've been both involved in editing the same articles and you are familiar with the issue! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Will do.Herbxue (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm MrBill3. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Chinese herbology without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! MrBill3 (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I had an edit summary, and most editors following Chinese Herbology are aware of the discussion about the source in question (mentioned in my edit summary). The discussion is mainly at Traditional Chinese Medicine, but it is also being discussed at Acupuncture. Herbxue (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

About TCM
Hello, I am the user who start the section. Actually my point is just neutrally indicate that“this is one editorial in Nature” like my edition now. Actually, I have edited this when I first start this section in talk page but someone revert my edition. I want to avoid an edition war so I claim in talk page now before I edited it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.63.1 (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"outsiders"
Hi Herbxue. I am troubled by this comment. What do you mean by "outsiders" and how is that relevant to Wikipedia? Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When someone with TCM training, or someone culturally "trained" to accept some underlying traditional assumptions, sees results from TCM treatment, they often accept that there are more than one possible explanations for what happened. For most people editing or reading WP, it is a foregone conclusion that there is zero value in the traditional explanation. This leads to weight problems and ethnocentricity. (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. I still don't understand. What is the weight/ethnocentricity problem, and who is causing it?  I could read what you wrote above, at least two different, completely opposite ways. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean it both ways but yes, of course it goes both ways. This is why I always advocate as much specificity as possible. "An editorial in Nature finds..."; "TCM practitioners attribute the effects of ginseng to..." Statements that are contestable just need clear attribution so the encyclopedia doesn't risk giving undue weight to anyone's assumptions.


 * thanks for answering but this is more smoke than light. trying to get clarity. I ~think~ what you meant (start of speculation!) was that for people who are entrained (cultural upbringing or otherwise) in TCM, qi, etc are real and accept that whatever happened was due to manipulation of qi, and maybe other things.  To "outsiders" - those who are not "entrained" -  qi doesn't exist, period.  You find that the "outsiders" are ethnocentrically biasing the article, and that it should be written in such a way to give validity to the existence of qi. (end of speculation)  Is that what you are saying? Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, what I wrote is clear as day. I think you are trying too hard to read something else into it. I am saying we (WP, you, me, QG, everyone) have no business making conclusions or doing original research. Therefore, all statements should be clearly attributed ("The TCM practitioners define tongue diagnosis as…. in this system it is considered reliable for…" then on the other side "Scientific inquiry has found no correlate to the concept of Qi" or "Studies of efficacy seem mixed and may be due to non-specific effects. For example, a Cochrane review found that…"). Do you get what I'm saying? I am NOT saying "WP should give equal weight to supporting the existence of Qi" - again, that is NOT what I'm saying. If you read my first reply you notice I say that those who consider TCM valuable are perfectly comfortable with the fact that there are more than one possible explanation. Plurality is part of what makes TCM a different thought process.Herbxue (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I recommend you avoid using terminology like "ousiders say X" especially in arguments - it is very off-putting and leads folks to speculate as I did above (I was very careful to avoid saying that "you are saying X" - I came here to ask you what you meant.) And you still have not answered the question about "outsiders" - but I am letting it go.    I almost agree with what you write just above.  For sure,  in terms of describing the beliefs and practices of TCM, what you write above is entirely appropriate and I agree 100% - intext attribution ("TCM practitioners define tongue diagnosis as...") is the best way to avoid presenting the beliefs as fact and to present the content clearly and respectfully.  However,  statements of fact should not be inline attributed, as per this.  With respect to pseudoscience, it is a fact that TCM is pseudoscience; TCM provides no plausible mechanisms of action.  It is not biased to say this, nor is it criticism - it is fact.    This is the key thing I am trying to communicate to you.  In Wikipedia, we stand 100% with science and there are no outsiders or insiders with regard to this - it is how things are here.  To the extent somebody fights this, they are fighting community consensus as establissed a long time ago, here.  Again,  this stance goes deep into WP's policy and guidelines and pseudoscience has been to arbcom.  The place to argue about TCM as pseudoscience is not on the Talk page of the TCM article - it is unproductive and misery-making to do that. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I recommend you just get to the point when your plan is to talk down to someone. Pretending to be interested in what I meant and then pretending to not understand my clear answer is disingenuous. Essentially you went way out of your way just to tell me to shut up. Again. Herbxue (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked what you meant by "outsiders" because I found it disturbing, but before I judged, I wanted to ask what you meant. Your refusal to directly answer leaves me still in the wind.  So instead of judging I just told you I found it disturbing and tried to tell you that it is off-putting.  Everything you wrote here is in tune with what you have written on the Talk page, which is that you still refuse to accept what the community has decided about pseudoscience, so I reiterated that here.   I had no plan to talk down to you and I didn't talk down to you here.  You can take my advice or not.  The more you continue fighting consensus inappropriately, the more misery you will have and you will cause, and the more you will continue heading toward running afoul of the sanctions arbcom has established. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok well I thought I was clear enough in my first response that I was defining "insiders" (those who are trained or entrained) as a way to clarify what I meant by "outsiders", I guess not. I'm really not trying to disrespect your effort, but you are correct that I will continue to push for a more neutral tone and will continue to say that opinions in sources like Quackwatch do not constitute fact, even if that flies in the face of previous consensus. And for the record I do appreciate the advice about where it is or isn't effective to do that, but talk page discussions are very important and I don't think there is reason enough to stop reminding people of the dangers of giving too much weight to a select few notable commentators. Herbxue (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Talking is so, so important, I agree.  I hope you can see that you are not just trying to change a couple of articles -- you are trying to change Wikipedia.  Discussion on article Talk pages needs to be grounded on WIkipedia policies and guidelines and the consensuses (sp?) on what they mean, and if you want to change those policies, guidelines, and consensuses please make those efforts on the appropriate pages  - policy/guideline Talk pages.  That is where Wikipedia can be changed. Please make your efforts there - for your sake and everybody else's.  And again, if you want to change how we use Quackwatch, the place for that is RSN.  Good luck!  Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments at WP:ANI
Hi there Herbxue! What's up? =P I was wondering if you were interested to take a look at this ? It's a rather lengthy case, but I tried to summarize the main points a little in a comment I left there at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (and also the Conclusions -subsection). Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY
Cursing as you do here is not suitable in discussions. Would suggest you reword your comments. Best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Duly noted, I have corrected my talk page comments.Herbxue (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Problematic edit
I am having trouble seeing this edit diff as good faith. There is quoted source text that appears immediately following in the wikimarkup and is clearly footnoted. Reverting another editor from "support for" to "correlates for" with "Is your closer to the source? If so, please show" when the footnote so absolutely clear ("Scientists are still unable to find a shred of evidence to support the existence of meridians or Ch'i", "there is no evidence at all to demonstrate the existence of Ch'i or meridians" and "Acupuncture points and meridians are not a reality, but merely the product of an ancient Chinese philosophy") seems less than honest or at the least a failure to read the supporting footnote before reverting another editor. When working such a highly contentious article I would suggest supporting a revert of a respected editor such as User:Jmh649 by actually checking the sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a good faith revert of one word to long-existing text. Yes it is a contentious article, with people milking text to (mostly) push a POV that acupuncture is the most vile form of charlatan rubbish. I'll admit to being hyper vigilant and pulling the trigger too quick on that one. Plenty of respected editors make mistakes. About a year ago I was brought up as a problematic editor for similar reverts, and after much discussion, 2 editors that accused me got banned instead for misrepresenting Ernst's conclusions (which is what I had been fighting to have recognized). So, that's the environment I'm working in. People make sport out of trying to make this subject look as absurd as possible (remember PPdd and all his edits about TCM using feces and blood cakes and penises?). So I acted too quick and got one wrong. I have a hard time keeping up with Quack Guru. Herbxue (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. I can AGF and more than accept your admission of pulling the trigger to quickly as an adequate explanation/apology. I don't want to be contentious on your talk page and make no further or other allegations. It was indeed a one word change and the activity on that article is extensive. I will admit to hyper vigilance myself. I don't in any way wish to discourage your participation. I will concur with you that there is a tendency on the part of some editors to work very hard to make certain acupuncture is presented in a particular light. An accurate reflection of the sources is important as is genuine NPOV. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try to keep a cool head. Herbxue (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

About misrepresentation, Ernst and fighting: I remember that incident I think, but missed that two editors had been banned. Wow - who were they? Alexbrn talk 11:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Tippy Goomba and Dominus Vobisdu - I don't remember if it was just a temporary ban on TCM or alt med articles or if it was something wider.Herbxue (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. QuackGuru ( talk ) 04:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (yawn) He filed one on me and Jayaguru-Shishya too. I wouldn't pay too much (translation: any) attention.  It's just something QG feels he has to do sometimes, I guess .... some of us go to the beach to de-stress; QG goes to Wikipedia drama boards.  As you can see, the last time he did this with me, the results weren't exactly earth-shattering:  here.  Happy editing, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 08:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Poor edit to lede and body
You made this change to lede that was taken out of context from the source. You continue to revert and continue to make bad edits. QuackGuru ( talk ) 14:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the source says:

"Serious complications after acupuncture continue to be reported. Many are not intrinsic to acupuncture, but caused by malpractice of acupuncturists. This might explain why surveys of adequately trained therapists failed to yield such complications [28,147,149]. Most of the case reports originated from Asia (Tables 2–4), possibly reflecting the fact that, in Asia, acupuncture is more widely practised than elsewhere. Alternatively, it might be due to more Asian therapists being poorly trained [113]."


 * So, I would agree it would be better to go straight to the Ernst 2001 source, or the White article and give the direct stats. Funny though how Ernst, while providing data that supports the contention that acupuncture is safe and shows increasing promise of efficacy, BENDS OVER BACKWARDS to word his paper in a way to suggest the most negative possible explanations for things. Notice he says 95 serious adverse events but never says out of how many treatments, or gives comparison to other procedures (you can figure it out from the article but a neutral writer would tell you straight away). Herbxue (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think your revert was straight out of the source or was an improvement? Do you think the details "but have not been reported in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists." was in improvement to the lede? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You removed the tag without fixing the problem. The text was duplication as explained on the talk page. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I was restoring someone else's edit that had a good explanation on the talk page and a clear edit summary. Your POV tags were unwarranted. Herbxue (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You suggested we should use the White article. Was it this article (PMID 15551936) from 2004? What was the good explanation to restore someone else's edit and why do you think the POV tag was unwarranted when the text was duplication. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, how about quoting its conclusion: "The risk of serious events occurring in association with acupuncture is very low, below that of many common medical treatments."
 * I don't understand your other issue. Why is sourcing the same text more than once a POV edit, worthy of a tag? The article milks the life out of a few Ernst papers. Is that not duplication? Herbxue (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The 2004 White source is too old per MEDRS which from a low impact factor source IMO. The article summarises reliable sources such as Ersnt.
 * You did not give me any specific explanation as to why you restored someone else's edit. You claimed you were restoring someone else's edit that had a good explanation on the talk page. But what was the good explanation?
 * Why is sourcing the same text more than once a POV edit, worthy of a tag? It was POV because it was duplication of the same material. I explained this in more detail on the talk page QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? All you had to do is click "previous edit" on your own diff - here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=614414281 this was discussed on the talk page under safety and weight - jayaguru and Middle8 weighed in supporting it, I believe klocek's sock did too but I didn't know he was a sock at that time, meaning 4 editors supporting inclusion. I restored it when Doc James reverted, and I believed I was justified based on the source and Middle8's explanations. Maybe if you didn't do so many hundreds of edits a day you would clearly remember all this and you wouldn't have to pester me here over this. I said it several times before and I'll say it again - let's just include the actual incidence stats and direct quotes from sources so we don't have to nit pick each other like this. Oh and the White source is fine (fine enough for Ernst, why not for us?) but I'd be happy to find a newer one. Herbxue (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I explained "It was POV because it was duplication of the same material." Do you agree we should not include this text and you were mistaken to remove the tag without fixing the problem?
 * Klocek's sock did not discuss it on the talk page and was never part of the conversion about this text.
 * You restored it when Doc James reverted, because you believed it was justified based on the source and Middle8's explanations. But what was the "good explanation"? So far you have not given any specific explanation about what was the "good explanation".
 * The source was taken out of context and you did not explain what was the specific explanations you thought justified the revert.
 * The incidence rates are in the safety section and direct quotes don't have an encyclopedic feel. See: "The majority of the reported adverse events were fairly minor, and the incidences were low.[14] For example, a prospective survey of 34,000 acupuncture treatments found no serious adverse events and 43 minor ones, a rate of 1.3 per 1000 interventions.[14]" I included other examples too.
 * You claim the White source is fine but it is from 2004. Do you understand it has a low impact factor and the source is ten years old? We should use recent reviews according to MEDRS. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe this belongs back at the article talk page.Herbxue (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you have a long history of making reverts and not giving a rationale explanation for your reverts. Do you agree you have made mistakes with your recent and past reverts? Can you be more careful next time or are you going to continue to revert? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously have NO sense of scale at all? Or self awareness? You have probably reverted JUST ME more times than I have reverted ANYONE on Wikipedia! Seriously, we're done here.Herbxue (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Exchanges like the above (and the fact that it was impossible to converse with QG on his own talk page) are why I ended up telling QG to stay off my talk page except to notify me of things like ANI's and so forth. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 08:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to keep it simple: what are the points (of edits) where QuackGuru disagrees? Instead of just giving diffs, could you please exlpain your own opinion, and how it differs from the other opinion? (yes, we all can read the diffs by ourselves, thanks) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a primary source
According to your edit summary is was a primary source. On the contrary, you deleted text from a systematic review of systematic reviews. Verification was also provided at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. I think it would be best for you to revert your edit. The discussion on the talk page shows the text is sourced. Questioning WP:MEDRS compliant sources is not a good idea. See Talk:Acupuncture. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for others to weigh in on this. The text in question is Ernst reporting on the results of a recent high-quality PRIMARY study to support the prediction that IN THE FUTURE we are LIKELY to not find any specific effects of acupuncture on pain. He is is not generalizing, nor is he using one primary study to make a conclusive statement about acu = placebo. He didn't do it here, and he didn't do it in his other reviews. You cannot just take any statement from his paper about ONE other paper and generalize it as a conclusion of the review. If he intended that, it would be in the abstract and in the conclusions. Read the source again and you can see what he is referring to in that paragraph. Herbxue (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The text is sourced only using the 2011 systematic review of systematic reviews. We are not using a primary source to verify the text. Your claim he is only referring to one source is not relevant. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It is relevant because you are generalizing his report on one study and saying it is the conclusion of a systematic review. It is not.Herbxue (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * According to your previous comment the systematic review of systematic reviews is referring to a 2009 review. Now you claim the source refers to 1 primary source. The source 89 that the 2011 is referring to at the end of the paragraph is a 2009 review. It is irrelevant whether the 2011 source is referencing one study or a review, anyhow. What is relevant is that we are using a systematic review of systematic reviews for the sourced text. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Take it to project med — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbxue (talk • contribs)

Arbitration Enforcement 1
I have requested a review of your edits at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Please comment there. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement 2

 * You seem to be editing articles and discussions related to fringe science and alternative medicine. Please stop. If you have questions about how broadly this topic ban should be construed, please request guidance at WP:AE before proceeding. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. All topics related to alternative medicine fall under "fringe" and "pseudoscience". -- Brangifer (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll ask Lord Roem to weigh in, and possibly ask at AE. The articles I edited are not labeled as alternative medicine or fringe, and should not be (they are literally ancient history). But I will take your advice and check before editing more. I just want to do something productive and uncontroversial.Herbxue (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban
I noticed this this discussion and couldn't help but notice you are topic banned from alt med discussions (and acupuncture in particular) on Wikipedia. Discussing acupuncture anywhere on Wikipedia would seem to be violation of that topic ban, so I would suggest you not do this again in the future. Yobol (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning, I assumed individual editor talk pages were not off-limits. I will read the details on topics bans again. Herbxue (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

COIs must be documented on the talk page
See diff. Thanks. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm happy to go along with rules and norms, but, 2 things:


 * 1. I have read the guidelines regarding COI. I am a subject matter expert, and I believe that is not the same as having a COI.
 * 2. Is there a committee decision regarding posting COI of individual editors on article talk pages? If not, I would prefer to not be singled out as someone to be judged on an article's talk page. People should judge the reliability of my edits by the edits themselves.

Herbxue (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see the COI tag that problematic per se, i.e. it doesn't prevent one from editing the topic area. IMHO, as long as one sticks to MEDRS, there should be no problems. After all, the MEDRS literature we are able to quote - according to our best capability - reflects scientific consensus the best. I personally believe that no "woo" studies with their "woo" results will - or at least are likely to - pass the peer review process of notable journals.
 * If one believes otherwise and criticizes the peer review process of a given journal itself, well... that sort of speculation is no longer in our interest here at Wikipedia. We are here to summarize the sources, not to speculate on them. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input JS, but the thing is I do not have a COI any more than Ernst has a COI in "research". Unless professionals working in other areas of medicine (Doc James for example) are required to declare COI in medical articles, I will insist that this labeling of me on an article talk page is a misuse of the COI guideline, and may in fact be violating aspects of it. Herbxue (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not know your position in real life, Herb, but if you're an acupuncturist or TCM practitioner please be aware that during a recent arbitration case tried to argue that as an acupuncturist they had no COI as far as Wikipedia was concerned, and this view got no acceptance. Also arbcom recently passed a motion placing all altmed articles explicitly within the ambit of discretionary sanctions. Please take note of these things. Alexbrn talk 07:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alex, do you have a link to the arbcom case? I've been aware of the discretionary sanctions for some time, but I don't believe my training and experience render me limited under those or other guidelines. Herbxue (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It was actually AE, here. Alexbrn talk 07:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, but that discussion is not really relevant here - in the case you linked to Middle 8 was at risk (warned, not sanctioned or disciplined) because admins felt he was using the wrong process (arb enforcement) to resolve a content dispute. The fact that some other SME was met with a cold reception by some admins is a useful warning about the general atmosphere on WP (thank you for that), but it is not directly relevant to the question of what constitutes COI and is there a policy that requires people with identified COI to be tagged in a template on article talk pages. Herbxue (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the course of the disucssions M8 was told "Note that your interpretation of COI is likely not to be perceived by other editors or AE admins as accurate to COI", and indeed one arb referred flat-out to a COI. I just want you to be aware that the general consensus on WP seems to be that altmed practitioners have a COI as regards their speciality, if this applies to you. Simply asserting that it doesn't is problematic. Alexbrn talk 10:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you get to a "general consensus on WP" from what you've mentioned. You've mentioned instances of editors supporting your view; I can cite instances of editors disagreeing.  I'm not discounting anyone's view, but I'm not seeing a consensus, sorry.  What remains global consensus is WP:COI, which has been clear for many years (cf. discussion) that simply editing in one's area of topic expertise does not, ipso facto, create COI.  And in the "real world", practicing acu'ists write Cochrane reviews and aren't considered conflicted.  I do think editors ought to be judged on their edits, and FWIW, I don't think WP:COI should be used to "win" content disputes by excluding editors with whom one disagrees.  --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 01:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC) edited 02:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You do have a WP:COI according to your own words. Herbxue, you wrote "Yes, I am a TCM practitioner and I regularly butt heads with those that seek to discredit it (by over generalizing or otherwise misrepresenting sources, or using inappropriate sources). I do not believe that I have a COI any more than Doc James has a COI in various medicine related articles." See diff. Please disclose your COI on the talk page. Thanks. QuackGuru ( talk ) 21:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point though, and I wrote pretty much the same thing in my older quote as I wrote in response to JS above. I am disagreeing that my status as a professional in the field of AOM/TCM/Acupuncture is a COI here. Nobody accuses Doc James of COI in medical articles (and btw he's a fine editor I only use him as an example because he is a physician that edits medical articles). While my professional status is not seen as equal to his in the medical world, here in WP there should be parity in terms of assuming good faith and the application of guidelines. Unless there is a binding arb-com decision and agreed-upon wording that is applied equally to all subject matter experts editing articles related to their profession, I see no need to be labeled (and thus marginalized) on any article talk page. Because again, being a subject matter expert may make me scum in the world of wikipedia, it does not mean that I have a COI. Herbxue (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert, but all I tried to say was that: "COI or not, it doesn't prevent one from editing". Hasn't Middle 8 made a COI declaration on his Talk Page? I think he is a more qualified person to answer this. Anyway, I didn't intend to discourage you from editing Herbxue, COI or not. By quoting good MEDRS compliant sources it doesn't really make any difference, does it? ;-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I understood you JS, and thank you for that. I just wanted to be clear that I viewed the directive to declare COI as a misinterpretation of what COI is. Herbxue (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty tendentious to say "You do have a WP:COI according to your own words" and then cite a quote where Herbxue states that he doesn't have one (and gives a good reason). --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 01:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hm
this was pretty uncalled for. You can say "no" without attacking me and there are valid reasons on the "yes" side. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I have a hard time with the suggestion that a whole profession of people should be treated as untrustworthy to edit in their respective fields. It IS disrespectful, as are many of the comments supporting this idea. The best argument I saw in support was from Doc James who at least got granular enough to point out that where he practices he is not allowed to make any money off of the medications he prescribes - I cannot say that about my profession although many of us choose not to sell herbs or supplements ourselves for the very reason Doc James is not allowed to. The other comments in support were nonsensical conflations of issues unrelated to the question. The suggestion that an MD part of a profession but I am part of an "industry" is ignorant and insulting. At the end of the day, Doc James and I both provide good care for patients, within the limits of our respective disciplines and laws, and we send our patients elsewhere when we can't help them. To suggest that it is common for people in my profession to do otherwise is based on assumptions, not evidence. I know you've said this question is not necessarily tied to an enforcement outcome, but then what's the point? What is the goal of starting this conversation? Herbxue (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * my main goal is to resolve an unresolved question; the lack of resolution of which has resulted in disruption at the acupuncture article and (what i view as) hounding of Middle 8, which I do not like. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have mostly avoided WP even since my topic ban ended months ago, and seeing how we are still mired in the same debates got me riled up. I will edit my comments at the rfc.Herbxue (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Acupuncture. 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. VQuakr (talk) 01:51, 17 September 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.
 * I did revert twice, because sourced text was removed without discussion. I will not revert again.Herbxue (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Chinese herbology
As consensus has not been reached, the article should remain in the original state. I restored it to that state. See wp:consensus. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, I saw a bold edit that I supported, but more discussion is needed. I will not revert a second time. Herbxue (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Gloves
Nobody disputes that acupuncturists don't understand sterile technique. That's the point. Not understanding it doesn't make it any less the point... Guy (Help!) 21:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are really editing aggressively lately, what's the beef? L.Ac's practice clean needle technique, not sterile technique, with very few adverse reactions (not counting PT's or others doing "dry needling") You are pointing out a non-issue just to pile on negatives. Did an acupuncturist do something mean to you or something? Herbxue (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that it's inadequate. When penetrating the skin, sterile technique is the standard of care. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not for acupuncture, which has its own laws and regulations that work just fine to protect people. Most adverse reactions have been from unlicensed people performing needling. If you want to convince the states that license acupuncture that they should adopt sterile technique as standard of care, go ahead. Until then, recognize what standard of care actually is.Herbxue (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware that acupuncture thinks it is different. In fact, a fair number of acupuncturists don't believe in the germ theory of disease at all. Acupuncturists' views on what is appropriate sterile technique are as irrelevant as Bernard Madoff's ideas on financial regulation. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm talking about actual laws and the accepted standards of a well-established profession with an enviable safety record. You are talking about your own opinions.Herbxue (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ever heard of "legislative alchemy"? The legal system has nothing to do with science. In some US states, there are laws preventing medical associations from disciplining doctors form using dangeorus treatments for a fake diasease. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but doctors and legislators and acupuncturists all recognize the difference in risk between surgery or venipuncture and acupuncture - the vector of the acupuncture needle is so much smaller than that of a hollow needle that even with gross negligence the risk of infection is still low. There's a reason we don't need to prep with iodine or wear gloves. Simple hand washing and cleaning of the site, and use of a single-use pre-sterilized needle are enough to keep infection incidence almost non-existent in the states. In the case of poorly vascularized tissues or lymphedema we avoid needling. Its not rocket science, its just simple universal precautions, and its effective at controlling risk.Herbxue (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See special pleading. Bored now. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are the one engaging in special pleading by ignoring the facts and applying your own desire to "right great wrongs" based on an irrational dislike of a subject you are not familiar enough with to edit with competence.Herbxue (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is rather obvious that I am familiar with the subject, so your assertion is a bit silly. I know it is fashionable among SCAM believers to think that understanding and belief are synonymous, but they are not. It is perfectly possible to understand bullshit without believing it at all. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok clear-eyed one, where is the evidence of the massive infection rates you seem to think will occur due to CNT not meeting your exalted standards?Herbxue (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Acupuncture Research
I hope that your are a good resource to discuss omissions and changes to article pages. If this seems inappropriate, please delete. I believe I addressed concerns of two individuals on the validity of modern research (2017) on acupuncture; however, they don't believe in it and simply refuted the research with logical fallacies. After trying the talk page for acupuncture, I added it to the article page. Do you have an opinion on this issue? I am concerned that bias against acupuncture is precluding accurate information regarding its mechanisms of action and efficaciousness from being posted. I am not sure how to reference the reverting that was done on: 04:38, 9 February 2017‎ on the acupuncture article page. The research was presented in the talk page as: Feedback on this meta-analysis is appreciated. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics) and University of York researchers conclude, “We have provided the most robust evidence from high-quality trials on acupuncture for chronic pain. The synthesis of high-quality IPD found that acupuncture was more effective than both usual care and sham acupuncture. Acupuncture is one of the more clinically effective physical therapies for osteoarthritis and is also cost-effective if only high-quality trials are analysed." Next, I rebutted complaints about the section (each logical fallacy, one by one). Next, i added it to the article page but it was reverted. I inserted it as: "Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics) and University of York researchers conclude that acupuncture is an effective therapy for the treatment of osteoarthritis and is cost-effective." (I included the citation) Any advice or help to get impartiality added to the page? I am concerned there is extreme bias and potential ethnocentric concerns blocking accurate medical data from the page. --TriumvirateProtean (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)