User talk:LesVegas/Archives/2015/August

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Great! That's good to know. I always assumed discretionary sanctions applied to the article, but now it's good we know for sure. Thanks for the update! LesVegas (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring
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: In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. Manul ~ talk 18:40, 15 January 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.
 * Hi Manul, I have done just that.I prefer not to edit war but an IP editor reverted me without any discussion and now another editor claimed the talk page didn't have any discussion on the topic, which was wrong. I alerted the editor that it did, indeed, have discussion on the topic. Anyway, I hope I'm not wrong for doing this! As I understand it, if an editor is removing sourced content, that is disruptive and we are supposed to revert. Am I wrong? Regardless, I will refrain and give any other editors who find objections to the content an opportunity to discuss it. Thanks! LesVegas (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "I prefer not ... but ..." is the wrong attitude. You edit warred, and nobody is compelling you to edit war. Removing sourced content is not automatically disruptive; see WP:WEIGHT for instance. Your comment that you cited is discussing the a different article until the end, at which point you say, "Then, we can add an notable MEDRS-compliant opposing views stating that TCM has scientific validity for balance". Even supposing the source is WP:MEDRS (which it isn't), this is exactly the kind of false balance that Wikipedia strives to avoid. You may be surprised to learn that WP:Wikipedia is not neutral. Manul ~ talk 03:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's this diff that you are talking about? Seems like an unexplained edit to me, so it's okay to revert that. WP:FIES, although not an official WP's policy or guideline, is a good summary of the subject:
 * "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was."


 * Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your experience with Wikipedia so far
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am conducting a quick survey about newcomer support and I would like to hear about your experience so far. Your response will go a long way to help us build a better experience for newcomers like yourself. The survey will take you around 10 minutes to complete.

To learn more about the study, visit this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Co-op

To take the survey, visit this link: https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_2bnPZz0HelBaY85

Thanks!

Gabrielm199 (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail

 * ping* --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 17:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI -- your name mentinoed
FYI, I mentioned an edit you made on an ANI board here. I am posting this in compliance with the requirement that I must tell other users about their name if it is mentioned at an ANI board.David Tornheim (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment
Regarding this edit, it doesn't seem right for the Lead, and I'm not convinced that the source is specific enough to the topic to be making those types of claims. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you and I agree with you that it's not specific enough. My thinking was to add it for neutrality purposes and that it's much more specific than the Wang source currently being used. And that source was actually a defense of acupuncture, and the off the cuff remark has been highlighted in the lede as if it's a nearly undisputed fact. Anywho, those were my reasons for adding it. LesVegas (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hapa
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hapa. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture article
Hi. I hope the family emergency is not too great and things are settling down for you. Just for information, I have deleted a quote from Quackwatch in the Acupuncture article. For some reason, some editors are concerned about this and there is a "lively" discussion on the Talk page there. All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of most widely spoken languages (by number of countries)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of most widely spoken languages (by number of countries). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarify please
Hi. On the Arb discussion we are both involved in, you said that DS had been on the Acupuncture site for a while. Sorry for being thick, but is the DS a user? If so, may I ask who? I like the idea of focussing on just a few editors, I think that was the intent of the OP anway. DrChrissy (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry, I think I made that confusing! I meant DS as in discretionary sanctions have been on the Acupuncture page for awhile! Thanks for letting me know that, because if you were confused more will surely be as well. LesVegas (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I was just replying
I was just replying before you deleted out of totally understandable frustration. Anyway, here is the time-line which I think you were referring to.


 * User:Quackwatch, you informed me of your changes and request for a page number on my talk page here. It is time stamped 16:54, 9 May 2015.  I replied here asking for clarification of why you had left the message on my talk page. This is time stamped  16:57, 9 May 2015.  You did not reply on my talk page, but you deleted the content here which was time stamped 17:01, 9 May 2015.  I make that a total of 7 minutes for "discussion". DrChrissy (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention I added this and I discussing my edits. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh wait I see it here now and I was confused before. You are right, that was 7 minutes so I'll change it to that from no discussion on John's talk page. LesVegas (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do - I think accuracy is vital here ;-) DrChrissy (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There was discussion before my edit. I think the evidence shows this clearly but was deleted. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Acutually, I looked again and I only said you gave no discussion to reverting A1's material and I was correct there. Regarding DrChrissy's concern, you deleted the source you tagged just 7 minutes after discussion began, and really little time at all (as I said) so I don't have to redact or modify anything and as usual, QuackGuru, you are just trying to confuse things. If you ever do that again on my talk page, I will have to prohibit you from ever posting here. But hopefully you will be prohibited from much more than that very soon. LesVegas (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I tagged the source much earlier. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a whole day earlier, whoopee doo? I never told John it was seconds or minutes, I told him it was very little time. QuackGuru, why do you think current tags have a "May 2015" date on them if we are supposed to delete them minutes (in the case of the NCCAM example I provided) or one day (in the case of DrChrissy's example) later, with little to no discussion? Articles that don't have owners typically leave those tags up for a month or longer. Your article plays by different rules than the rest of Wikipedia, but hopefully it won't for much longer. LesVegas (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The text was too complicated for the general reader but I added something else instead. NCCAM was unreliable. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, you were removing claims that didn't suit your POV because a page number wasn't provided almost immediately after you tagged it, so you removed the claim entirely and modified the statement to your liking 7 minutes after talking to DrChrissy about it? What am I missing here? You removed the material after giving it almost no time at all for a page number to be located. And the NCCAM was a reliable source from the US Government and I don't know of many sources more reliable than that, but of course you gave that one a whole 30 minutes of potential discussion to the added tag before removing it. LesVegas (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think QuackGuru has actually been arguing earlier that "tags are for removing material", and I've seen series of edits where he has first tagged a piece of text, and then immediately removed it on his next edit. Anyway, if I recall it right, he said that when there was discussion with respect to the tags. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And now all of a sudden NNCAM has became unreliable? This has already been discussed earlier here, and the result was quite clear: NCCAM is a Federal Government's agency in the U.S., and therefore perfectly reliable. Claiming that NCCAM would not be reliable has a taste of conspiracy theory, and it would be really an extra-ordinary claim indeed. Couple of quotes from their website: "The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) is the Federal Government's lead agency for scientific research on complementary and alternative medicine. We are 1 of the 27 institutes and centers that make up the National Institutes of Health (NIH) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services."


 * On their mission and objectives (emphasis added): "The mission of NCCAM is to define, through rigorous scientific investigation, the usefulness and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions and their roles in improving health and health care. [...] Develop and disseminate objective, evidence-based information on complementary and alternative medicine interventions."


 * "Woo studies" will most likely have "woo results", or even employ "woo methods". If there is some publication bias in favour of pro-CAM research results, though, I am quite sure there are studies about that available. There are different statistical methods, such as funnel plot, that scholars employ in order to study the presumed publication bias. If a national body like NCCAM would blatantly exhibit such bias, it'd surely have been studied and reported. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Concerning comment
Hi - could you please look at the comment here...I might be over-reacting and a second opinion would be very much appreciated. DrChrissy (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, as a person who is very familiar with China I would be happy to comment there. LesVegas (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I asked nicely for you to strike your comments
I asked you to stop making misleading comments about me. Are you going to strike your comments? According to this comment by User:Adjwilley I did not make four reverts for example. I'm not sure why you deleted my comments. Please keep in mind that you have been informed of the sanctions by User:Callanecc and you know it applies to acupuncture. QuackGuru ( talk ) 15:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru, first of all, I just banned you from my talk page and you violated that. But if you really want me to engage with you on the revert issue specifically, here we go. That was Adjwilley's opinion but it was my opinion that you did. Where does the truth lie? I don't know as your reverts are always so hard to see. Adjwilley is much more experienced in these matters than I am and I have to respect that, but I am more experienced in dealing with your patterns than him so I think I'm entitled to my opinion as well. Adjwilley says you maybe had 3. That's certainly more than the 1 revert he told you to limit yourself to, which was my point. Three? Four? Who's even counting beyond one? I counted one where you made many edits at once and one of those edits happened to be where you removed material that had only previously been added by A1 Candidate, so that counts as a revert as far as I understand the rules. So no, I won't strike the comment. It is my opinion that you made 4 reverts. But that wasn't even my point, it's not the number of 4 that mattered all that much, it was that it was beyond one revert. And QuackGuru, this is the last time I will tell you to never come to my talk page again. You are no longer welcome here. I hate to be that way, but I'm not going to allow you to deceive others any longer on my talk page. LesVegas (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture
Greetings LesVegas! I noticed your post where you mentioned that plenty of other stuff was restored along with reverting CorporateM. Could you please point out this material so I could have a look? If any established material has been removed without discussion, I consider bringing it back myself. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, Jayaguru-Shishya! It's very nice of you to offer to add that back in. Here was the edit where Corporate M removed everything, including debated material from "both sides" to shorten the length considerably, an edit I personally liked since it removed material criticized from both sides and made the lede more readable altogether. QuackGuru, of course, only reinserted the pseudoscience stuff, but not the guidelines from the medical organizations. LesVegas (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, I'm having hard time following the discussion. I have to look into it more carefully with better time. If I got it right, CorporateM removed some material, after which only part of it got restored. Right? I haven't had the time to look close enough what material did not get restored, and if there were some other changes there. Please feel to correct me if necessary :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm replying from this thread on John's talk page and I think this is a more appropriate place since I don't want to have too much back-and-forth over there. I can't speak for Kww, but I would guess that he sees you less as a nemesis and more like a single mole in an endless game of whack-a-mole. You offering to walk away is not going to convince him to put down his hammer. (Incidentally a problem with whack-a-mole is that people start swinging at anything that moves, which might explain some of the hostility you may have felt.) Anyway, sorry if my previous post was curt, I was typing from my phone. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that explanation Adjwilley. You know, in my opinion, Kww has brought this whack-a-mole frustration on himself which is why he's breaking our rules now and part of the reason I suggested he takes a break. He really needs to loosen up with trying to make constant excuses for QG's behavior while trying to delete reliable material from being added in, all because it shows a positive result for acupuncture. The Chinese people have a saying that when wind blows, you want to bend like bamboo or else you'll break . Multiple editors are frustrated that the article's owner continues to censor reliable sources and that Kww supports this endeavor. And he does support it. Indirectly, by lobbying for QG to stick around, and directly by edit warring reliable information off the article. Kww can either realize that the wind is blowing, take it easy and let the democratic process work itself out within the framework of our policies and guidelines or he can try to control every word in the article and every editor's opinion. The latter will only cause him endless frustration and grief. LesVegas (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Restoring contested material without consensus, appearance of canvassing
Hi LesVegas, two issues: Les as you know the article's content is contentious and is under active arbitration remedies. If I encounter a series of actions like this again I'll take it to an appropriate noticeboard. Thanks... 17:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I saw you made this edit to Acupuncture, which put into the lead a long list of names of individual organizations.  Your edit summary said "Restoring information on clinical practice guidelines".  As best I can tell, the actual history on that was that it was first added here just 9 days ago, and then within minutes it was challenged and removed, added back, removed (by me), added back, removed again, added back, removed in a subsequent series of edits, and then you added it back again.  I have removed it again.  Clearly this is a bit of content that was proposed recently and has not had consensus for it.  Please do not restore it again without developing consensus for it first.  I'm trying to assume good faith that you genuinely thought it was removed mistakenly.  However, this leads to:
 * 2) You appear to have WP:CANVASSed here, with the comment "You might keep an eye on it though, in case a certain editor finds it objectionable".
 * Hi Zad, thanks for opening the dialogue on this. Let me respond to your two issues.
 * That material which I restored was originally removed by QuackGuru. The sources are reliable, notable, and it adds balance to the lede. There isn't consensus to remove it either, just so you know. And removing reliable sources is a problem. I don't ever do that.


 * 1) Jayaguru Shishya asked me what material was removed because he already  wanted to restore it (See above). He already wants the material in and I'm making him aware I put it there. But I'm glad someone takes policy seriously around here for once, so thank you for all of that Zad! LesVegas (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Change in status quo
As you might have noticed, I've issued some discretionary sanctions to users editing in alternative medicine topics, especially acupuncture. This seems to be the area that most interests you. It seems you have mostly been on Wiki-break lately, so you may have escaped some scrutiny for the moment, and I'm not going to issue any sanctions for you right now. However, I am letting you know that the status quo has changed, and the threshold for incurring sanctions has gone down. Edit warring (even making 1 revert in the context of a larger edit war) and battleground behavior is very likely to result in either WP:0RR restrictions, or a complete topic ban. Consider this a "final warning" of sorts. You may want to consider taking a break from altmed and editing in other areas for now. Best of luck with your family affairs. ~Adjwilley (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Serbian Cyrillic alphabet
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Serbian Cyrillic alphabet. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:H:IPA
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:H:IPA. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New Mexican English
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Mexican English. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chinese language
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chinese language. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blazing Saddles
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blazing Saddles. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chemicals in electronic cigarette aerosol
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chemicals in electronic cigarette aerosol. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ellalan (monarch)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ellalan (monarch). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antikyra
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antikyra. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Acupuncture page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=674090449 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F674090449%7CAcupuncture%5D%5D Ask for help])

Tags
Regarding this you should wait until there is some sign of consensus on the talk page before reverting, or at least try to make some sort of compromise that takes into account the concerns of others. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Adjwilley, I'm not sure if you're aware since you only casually edit on the Acupuncture article and talk page, but several editors have agreed that there are issues with constant reverting of Chinese sources. We haven't hashed out what's acceptable and what's not, and since some editors feel that even Cochrane reviews that happen to have Chinese authors are unreliable, I think we really need to get to the bottom of the Chinese-sourcing issue and etch out some working guidelines. As I understand it, template tags have a different threshold of consensus, i.e., we don't have to have consensus to post one (or else highly contentious articles would never have them) but there should be some reasonable consensus to remove the tag before removing it. Hopefully, that comes after the issues have been worked out on the talk page. Towards that end, I started a section on talk and am trying my best. LesVegas (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, AdJ (hey that rhymes!) I re-added just the NPOV tag after I added a non-exhaustive list of diffs I found problematic to the talk page. What I really want is to attract new editors to the talk page to help us tackle some of these issues regarding our sources. Often sources are deemed unreliable for no reason that exists in our policies or guidelines, while the opposite is the case with some low-quality sources we allow. I'm hoping the tag will force a conversation on this while attracting new editors with wide-perspectives on how we should handle this issue. By the way, I know you're really trying to keep the peace on the page and want to thank you for that. Peace is exactly the same thing I want. I hope my last response to you didn't come across as overly-defensive. I really am trying my best to be a good Wikipedian over there, and since I'm still relatively green, any advice you have to give me on how I could do better would be very appreciated. LesVegas (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a fairly low opinion of tags, as you can probably tell from my user page, and I'm not convinced they work as intended (attracting new editors). They seem to either languish indefinitely on the article or become a point of contention that distracts editors from actually solving the problem. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * AdJ, Thanks for your advice on the tag issue, and I always appreciate anything that comes from a well-experienced editor like yourself. Do you have any advice on what I should do going forward? Seriously, what would you do? My whole issue is that there is a long-standing problem of editors (including myself) adding sourced content only to have it reverted and the source called unreliable for no seemingly good policy-based reason whatsoever. My entire idea was that we need to come up with a working standard for sources, and since so many are continually denied, I thought #1 the article isn't neutral and #2 a tag could help to open up the debate and attract new editors. And I still think it's possible, I mean, it's only been up there for a week or so. And during that time, some editors have kicked and screamed about the tag but then refuse to engage in discourse on the talk page. I have been asking for opinions on sources but these editors simply sit back and complain about the tag, which isn't helpful at all. As I see it there are a few ways forward, including replacing the tag and asking for page protection since it's being wrongfully removed, but I know I have other options as well and I'm mulling those over right now too. What would you do if you were me? LesVegas (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If I had a strong desire to edit the article I'd track down the highest quality, most authoritative peer-reviewed book sources available: the ones by authors that other academics regularly cite, and that regularly cite each other. The books should be published by large reputable publishers. I'd get them used on Amazon or something, read them, and adopt their POV as my own. Then I'd edit the article to reflect those sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's funny you should mention that. I just got a translated copy of the Huang Di Nei Jing Su Wen used from Amazon, which isn't exactly a source with studies, but is rather excellent for many historical and language claims since it's the original book on acupuncture. I'll see how that one goes first. Thanks Adjwilley! LesVegas (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest starting at the policy level rather than an individual article. VQuakr (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that would ordinarily be a good idea, but this case is a bit different because we have editors who aren't following the policy and seem to be making things up on the fly. So it looks like some other intervention will be required. LesVegas (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, WP:RSN is the correct place for expanded opinions on what sources are reliable for a given piece of information. VQuakr (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mat (Russian profanity)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mat (Russian profanity). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shit (disambiguation)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shit (disambiguation). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Snježana Kordić
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Snježana Kordić. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinion vs. facts
Hi LesVegas, you are having an argument with JzG/Guy about your edit and your sources on Acupuncture. I am having an argument with him about a similar issue on Naturopathy: personnal opinion of administrators overriding reliable sources. He did not answer to my question. I am not saying that I am "right" or "wrong". I am trying to WP:LISTEN as a newbie. But it seems to be a recurrent issue on Wikipedia. Do you know of any open discussion at a higher level about this topic on Wikipedia ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Paulmartin! There was an Arbcom case on Wikipedia many years ago where certain topics are broadly construed as pseudoscience and are currently subject to discretionary sanctions. But what that means is that uninvolved administrators can get involved in behavioral issues on these articles. What it doesn't say is that if reliable sources happen to promote an outcome, they must be removed from the article because they're "fringe". It seems many editors here, including Guy, think otherwise. I'm afraid we will probably be forced to go to Arbcom to get clarity over this issue, or else editors like you and me will continue adding reliable sources and editors like Guy will, in good faith, remove them because he thinks if a source shows one particular outcome it's automatically deemed unreliable. This is a big problem which will continue if it's not remedied. To that end, would you like to help me construct a case for Arbcom to look at? I'm a bit busier than usual because I'm a professor and my school is just about to begin, so I could use all the help I can get. LesVegas (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed answer and thanks for sharing my concern. I am a newbie here but I have already been accused of SPA, COI and got a final warning before being blocked. It seems that my behaviour is not making friends here... I am keen to see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV being applied by all, including by long term admins. But I don't know if I would be the best advocate for an Arbcom. I still need to see what it is and how it works. I am ready to help in any case.Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary
Hi, "Restoring some non-tag cleanup" implies uncontroversial changes that, you know, just clean up. In fact the edit is rather tendentious. For instance it deletes information about infective transmission from the lead, and changes "Purported scientific basis" to "Modern Understanding". Worse, it is the start of an edit war, being in part a revert of JzG's revert of your edits. This kind of behavior can lead to blocks, especially with an article under discretionary sanctions. If you've been warned before, consider this a final warning; if not, it's your only warning. Manul ~ talk 21:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. Here is some for you: KETTLE LesVegas (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And just to let you know, each of these edits had edit summaries when I tried going along with your dispute of the tag. I restored them now, so yeah, it was a restoration. You might want to look into edit histories a bit further before you sling accusations next time. LesVegas (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * By invoking KETTLE you are suggesting that I've made a misleading edit summary. Where have I done so? Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but the edit summary in question is misleading because tendentious changes and edit warring are being passed off as "cleanup". Manul ~ talk 22:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy contended the edits and I called them cleanup on his talk page. Sorry I didn't make that clear. When we have self-published sources in the lede, and say sources say "consistently" when they don't and we use weasel words like "purported" that's what I mean by cleanup. I was invoking KETTLE because you said I was starting an edit war, one which you started long ago by tendentiously removing a tag that says not to remove it until disputes are resolved. You never once went to the talk page in an attempt to address anything I disputed. LesVegas (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * So removing information about infective transmissions from the lead is what you mean by "cleanup" as well? The claim of "never once went" is wrong since I began a talk page thread addressing the tag situation, and there was consensus for its removal. Manul ~ talk 23:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Manul, if you actually read the source, it pools data from 2001 to 2011. The source was published in 2013, but the data it uses to state that infections increased over the "last decade" was last decade's decade. I mentioned that in the edit summary. I won't edit war with you over this stupid little detail right now but if the article is to have any credibility once neutral third party editors get involved with it, sources like that ought to be cleaned up if you want your arguments to have any credibility with them. I would suggest taking the initiative yourself. LesVegas (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Woah, what's this about consensus for its removal? You forgot to count me in the consensus. And Middle 8 and Herbxue and Littleoliveoil and Guy and Arthur Rubin. Do you read the talk page at all? LesVegas (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Please use sources from publishers with a reputation
This journal has an impact factor of zero. This indicates that they do not have a history of publishing high quality content. By the way anyway can start a journal. Our in house journal is here and is not suitable as a Wikipedia reference either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that is the only reason for that IF, DocJames? Are you sure it's not because it is a foreign publisher, the articles are in Chinese and therefore must be translated to be published in Western journals, and that the IF rating system by Thompson Reuters has an inherent systemic bias built into its rating system, one of the many reasons IF has no bearing on whether we use journals or not? That's my view of it because that journal has been around many years. It's in its 35th volume, is Medline indexed and has quite a reputation overseas. LesVegas (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Impact factor is one of the ways we determine if a journal is a "reputable medical journals" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that in MEDRS? LesVegas (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your tagging of the article is pointy. Please do not be disruptive. You have been warned about edit warring so I do not need to warn you again. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the tags have been supported by many editors, but you surely know that consensus isn't required to place tags on articles or else disputed articles would never have them. Consensus, however, is required to remove them. I wasn't trying to make a point. I was actually going to place the tags anyway and your revert provided me with a convenient diff that kept me from having to sift deeper into the edit history to find other Chinese sources that had been removed. LesVegas (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not how it works. No you do not get to place pointy tags as you like as you disagree with the content of the article and cannot get consensus to use your zero impact journal. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm..did you see the multiple tags, all addressed on talk? What do you think of the weasel wording in the article? What do you think about the POV issues? What do you think about the self-published sources? The tags go well beyond a dispute over this journal, Doc James. LesVegas (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Incredible claims require incredibly good evidence. This is an incredible claim "acupuncture ... a safe and effective treatment for supraventricular tachycardia" and what you provided was a Chinese language source with an impact factor of zero. One needs a very good source to say this sort of stuff.

Getting it wrong can kill people. SVT is a very serious condition in many people. You trying to convince a 70 year old with a heart rate of 190 that they should go to an acupuncturist rather than the ER for adenosine / cardioversion does not make me happy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern  Doc James, but do we exclude sources based on what their conclusions are? By the way, it's conclusion was adjunctive and combined care which is a whole different matter altogether.   LesVegas (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What we do is use common sense to exclude low quality sources used to support material that if followed could easily result in someone death because that material is "wrong". Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how combined care kills anyone. The source never suggested someone not go to the ER if they have a heart rate of 170. Really, I understand your concern, but you're making a mountain out of this. LesVegas (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
Your recent editing history at Acupuncture shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Acupuncture. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. McSly (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking into things further, we appear to have a long term issue with your editing. I have thus brought this to ANI for the community to address. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

DS
I meant what I wrote at ANI. If an admin does not take action before tomorrow, I will go to AE, and I will be very surprised if it doesn't result in sanctions against you. (I am surprised sometimes, but not often). If you post regret for having made that outrageous edit and back off the tag-bombing I will not bring you to AE. Ball is in your court. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, Jytdog So are no tags appropriate for that article? LesVegas (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not about what the article needs, it is about your behavior.  Your editing is getting way too strident advocating for acupuncture.  I am trying to give you a wake up call to avoid further drama.  If it takes more than this - if it takes an enforced break - for you to see that, so be it. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously Jytdog, let me ask you a question: where in our policies are sources like the one I added not allowed? If you can make a convincing argument and show me something definitive, I will admit it was a mistake to add them. I think you'll find that I'm a fairly reasonable person. LesVegas (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So -- this happens to editors here. They get so locked-in to the content they are advocating for that they lose sight of the big picture of what it means to be a Wikipedian.  Again - there was no way in hell that your original CV edit was ever going to stick, and your subsequent tag-bombing was transparently retaliatory.  You have to acknowledge that WP:PSCI is policy and unless there is some major breakthrough on the underlying mechanism (which could happen) you are never going to get anything like the Acupuncture article that you want to see.  Never.  If you remain committed to achieving that, you will ultimately lose your editing privileges altogether, create a bunch of misery for yourself and others, and suck energy away from productive editing.  Useless drama.  Wikipedia expresses "accepted knowledge" and presently the most you can argue is that acupuncture is accepted for adjuvant use in some pain and some cancer conditions.  That's it.  There is no way to wikilawyer around that - going deeper into PAG to get what you want is not going to work, because your aim is off -- what you want is not possible in Wikipedia.  Again - I am trying to wake you up here.  We need less drama and more aiming for the middle. (I am watching your page, there is no need to ping me, btw) Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC) (REDACT Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC))
 * Were you saying my edits were a violation of WP:PSCI? LesVegas (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are now trying to wikilawyer with me. Again - wake up.   Stop advocating for crappy sources and against the mainstream.  If you won't agree, to AE we go, where you will have no leg.  Your behavior - your behavior, all diff-able --  is clear (arguing to lower source quality and arguing about "Western" science" and tagging accordingly and edit warring to keep the tags in; making edits with zero chance of sticking)  This is why the PSCI DS exist.  And the more you game-play here the more likely I am to push for indef rather than a timed-out topic ban.  What you did today was really bad. I know it is in line with what you have been arguing for a long time - where the road has been leading.  A bad end to a bad road.  You can choose a different road. You can choose to turn. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All I did was ask the question. Seriously, if you feel I did something that terrible you ought to be able to support it with something policy based. Again, what policy was the problem? I mean it when I say I'm open to changing my opinion on this, but if not you then someone should point out where exactly I'm wrong. LesVegas (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You want content that is much more positive about acu; that is what you are advocating for. It violates PSCI and WP:NOTADVOCACY.  if you cannot see that, then as I said I don't know even a temporary block will be enough. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like you to see this - I would like you to back away from the cliff edge where you are now standing. I am going out for a few hours now, so will not be responding again soon. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I prefer to think editors edit in good faith, including you WP:NOTADVOCACY-pushing. When you deny sources, I think you might just be confused about policies. And I might very well be confused myself. See, the problem is there is a lot of grey area in our policies and guidelines and even MEDRS says things like we should focus on the publisher, peer-review, and the like but never on the conclusions of a review. I operate from that standpoint. I really think we're going to have to take this to Arbcom eventually, not out of behavior, but to get clarification about sources because it's not clear enough. LesVegas (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am back. The sources only look grey, when you go looking hard for positive things to say about acupuncture.   Otherwise, they are quite clear.  I am not going into the weeds with you.  Your behavior today was way out of line.  If you are sticking to your guns that it was just fine we are done here. I have given you plenty of opportunity to back away from it. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2015‎ (UTC)
 * btw, arbcom doesn't make policy or interpret guidelines. They deal only with behavior.   They put discretionary sanctions in place to try to put a tighter leash on behavior on contested topics like acupuncture  You are blocked not because of how you are interpreting policies and guidelines, but because of your behavior - the overly aggressive edit and the tag-bombing.   WP:DR is how we deal with content disputes. Jytdog (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry LesVegas, but it is my judgment that under the discretionary sanctions set-up your recent behavior on Acupuncture is disruptive enough to warrant a block. My apologies. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Drmies, I have seen your work throughout Wikipedia and completely respect your judgement, even here. You probably weren't aware that I am on record saying that I was planning on possibly re-adding the tags and asking for the page to be placed under page protection immediately thereafter, which is exactly what I did. As you can see, by no means was my re-addition of tags a spur-of-the-moment decision. I have been concerned that there have been too many problems on that article for far too long, and I desperately just want new neutral editors to help look over the multitude of issues there. For what it's worth, I am also troubled that editors can remove tags when conditions needed for them have been met, and can remove them with impunity. DocJames is only the latest, really. There has been a long history 1 2 3 4 5 of editors removing template tags, even when they're supported by several other editors and even a couple admins. At some point, that article and its many issues really needs to get looked at by outside editors instead of its few controllers, and without tags I'm not sure how that can happen. Anywho, all this is really one big shame. And again, out of respect for you I won't question your judgement even if you didn't know that I had been intending on re-adding the tags. I just kinda wanted to tell my side of things. LesVegas (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Les, if you've seen me around you know I'm easily flattered--thanks. As I said at the ANI, this type of block gives me no pleasure. (At the same time, ArbCom seems to make everything worse.) Look, I have no problem at all if you ask for an unblock, and if the next admin sees something I didn't, I won't mind if they undo my block. I know Doc James is not entirely uncontroversial but, as far as I can tell, he hasn't acted as an admin here. As with many such matters, more outside influence is appreciated, I know, and I'm sorry that it doesn't seem to be readily available. But feel free to question my judgment or have another admin question it: at least you're nice about it! Take care, Drmies (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Complaining on the Talk page that low quality sources are not accepted in a controversial article, and then making a WP:POINTY edit to that article using low-quality sources that you knew would be rejected, and then tag-bombing the article because low-quality sources are not accepted, and then actually planning on edit warring the tags back in, and trying to lock the article in your preferred tag-bombed state, is disruptive behavior. You make it worse (or more sad, perhaps)  by stating that this was a very intentional plan.  Content disputes are not resolved by disruptive behavior.   They are resolved by using the dispute resolution processes that the community has put in place over the years.
 * To reveiwing admins - in my view the DS block was solid and again in my view the unblock request does not provide a basis for believing that LesVegas even understands what was disruptive about his/her behavior, that led to the block. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

LesVegas has POV tagged Acupuncture on these occasions: The current article talk page appears to have three sections devoted to discussing tags (Tags and Badge of shame and Multiple Tags. Those three sections contribute 42KB to the 117KB total—36% of the long talk page discusses tags with no consensus to add them. Many editors watch the article and they do not need to see tags to know that some would like the article to refer to the topic more favorably. The only legitimate reason to tag an article is to draw attention from other editors who might not know that a problem is claimed. Rather than tagging, and if dissatisfied about the outcome of a discussion on a specific concern, the next step is to raise the matter at a noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) 19:51, 4 September 2014
 * 2) 22:21, 4 September 2014
 * 3) 01:00, 6 September 2014
 * 4) 20:07, 3 May 2015
 * 5) 22:16, 4 August 2015
 * 6) 01:10, 10 August 2015
 * 7) 17:44, 11 August 2015
 * 8) 17:26, 20 August 2015
 * 9) 05:38, 22 August 2015
 * 10) 06:51, 22 August 2015
 * 11) 17:07, 22 August 2015
 * Yep, and I'm proud to tag it because I realize the article will never make any headway unless outside editors are alerted to the fact there's a POV dispute. And I would've only had to tag it once if editors respected Template:POV's message not to remove it until disputes have been resolved. And I should point out you are one of these editors. Seriously, why do editors not want to attract an outside POV to "their" article? What is everyone afraid of? LesVegas (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, Law of holes. Recently on the Talk page you made it clear that you don't understand MEDRS; with the comment above, you make it clear that you are unaware of what WP:DR actually says about resolving content disputes.   How you can you be editing so fiercely yet in ignorance of what the policies and guidelines say and what they mean?  Tag-bombing is not dispute resolution; it is just disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want further input request it at a local WP. Tagging does little except disrupt the article. I am happy to see further input. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * DocJames, are you serious? If tagging is just disruptive, then why hasn't the Wikipedia community banned tags altogether? Why do we allow editors to disrupt with policy-backed template tags designed to help direct more editors to the talk page? LesVegas (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify your tagging in this case was disruptive. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is, editors always look for a reason to remove tags. Either they disagree with what's on the talk page, or they accuse the tagger of disruption and justify their removal accordingly. It's a WP:GAME to see how long we can keep tags off of a page in order to keep neutral editors from seeing what we've done. That's the only thing disruptive about it. LesVegas (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean like removing the claim that acupuncture treats SVT? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Did I revert you when you objected to that source? No, I respect the talk page and respect the process whereby editors can discuss sources. What I don't respect, and frankly shouldn't respect is a disruptive effort to keep neutral editors from seeing what entrenched controllers of articles have done in the dark. All I want is more eyes on the article and new lifeblood on the talk page. If the larger community thinks the article is neutrally written, fine by me. LesVegas (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey all, I'm just going to wade in here as an uninvolved editor. The issue with topics like this, as I have seen time and time again, is there are so many different opinions on what treatments like this can and can't do, we have to draw a line somewhere to stop the article becoming a free-for-all with conflicting or unproven claims. Because of this issue appearing before, we have developed a policy regarding which claims to include or not include - WP:MEDRS, which has a fairly wide support from people regularly involved in such topics, however this does not mean it will remain static forever. Of course, changes may well be implemented with community consensus, however the main requirement of peer-reviewed sources is unlikely to change - it's felt this ensures we meet the undue policy as it only mentions what has been shown to (fairly) reliably work or not, and it means we can place some trust in what has been said is true. Now, I'm not overly familiar with this area, however from a quick look at the sources, it appears they do not meet the requirements laid out on that page. This is not a crusade against you or this treatment, it is merely Wikipedia's desire to try and maintain some accuracy in our articles.
 * Additionally, tagging articles, while it shows up issues, is not usually meant to be used during a dispute - in fact, these "cleanup tags" are not meant to be a particular warning about the content of the page, merely information for editors or other interested people happy to clean up the article. These should only be used when consensus exists for them to remain, and if removed when others disagree, should lead to a discussion, not a revert war.
 * What you've got to remember is there are a lot of very reasonable editors is this area, however issues like this are a daily occurance for them. I'm not sure if you will take on board what has been said by me or others, but if you intend to hang around much longer and actually improve the article, the best advice is to follow them - I know they can be daunting, but as you have been informed about them and are still continuing regardless, this is how we have got to this. Take a step back, think it over, and return when you are willing to work with them. Mdann52 (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Mdann52, thanks for the advice, I appreciate it. You know, you are right in saying that the real mistake I made was adding tags while in the middle of a dispute. While I'll never admit it's wrong to add tags just because a few editors on a contentious article don't like them, for me to add them right at that moment just looked bad and escalated the situation. I didn't consider how it would appear to be a battleground move instead of a move out of sheer frustration. I had been preparing that tag all week and was considering everything to put in it, and after the reversion I figured I'd add one more thing to it, "systemic bias." It really wasn't my intention to punish anybody with tags, as I've never viewed tags that way. I added them out of frustration that editors almost automatically removed or reverted sources without consideration or much thought. Interestingly, my very first edit to that article was about a year ago, and it, too, was a tag. I happened upon the acupuncture page, read it, and immediately saw many problems, so I added a tag to the article, added a long list of problems I saw to talk, and despite it saying "not to remove until disputes were resolved" and despite the tag being supported by multiple editors, it was immediately reverted, and a whole team of editors started harassing me. I tried being nice to them, and it seemed to just incense them more. They had no consideration for my opinions whatsoever, nor any of the other editors. As much as I tried assuming good faith, I unfortunately realized the article was controlled by a team of them who pulled dirty tricks to ensure "their version" remained intact. I don't react well to bullying, so that's when I decided to stick around and challenge their control of the article. If you read my post on the talk page, you will find numerous times sources have been reverted for no seemingly good reason, there's no rhyme or reason to most of them. The two Chinese sources you mentioned, btw, I'll fully admit were the weakest of the sources I questioned. They are, however, peer-reviewed, and the journal, Medline-indexed and in publication for 35 years, has enough legitimate merits to be worthy of discussion rather than simply dismissed. But I admit, it's still not the strongest source and shouldn't be weighed heavily. However, many, like Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine are reverted as "unreliable" or "fringe" when they have positive findings for acupuncture, yet one source from that same journal is used 16 times on the article when it has a negative finding! This team of editors doesn't want to have other editors discussing the obvious hypocrisy of such a stance. They also insist on using Self-Published Sources throughout the article, even in prominent places like the lede, unattributed, and anyone who dares question this (many editors have) is teamed up on, blocked, banned, or exhausted by tag-team edit warring, and the source remains. Those are a couple of examples amongst many, and I guess you could say the reversion of the Chinese sources, while they certainly weren't the best source for the claims they made, was something of a final straw for me. Out of sheer frustration, I wanted editors other than the usual crew to see many issues on that article for themselves. That's the background behind the entire issue yesterday, and I've never written about my relationship to that article on Wikipedia yet. Anywho, thanks for stopping by! I'll continue to weight the rest of your friendly advice. It was very nice of you to come and offer me kind words and pork rinds. I truly appreciate it and am all ears if you have any more to share! LesVegas (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey LesVegas, how are things? At least you're--obviously--not in solitary confinement, with all this company. I hope they brought you some beers and maybe pork rinds or something. I think that 's advice is sound. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for stopping by, Drmies! I agree, it's some good advice Mdann gave, and it was very considerate of him to offer it. His beer really hit the spot on a hot summer day, too. When I get out of here, I'll bring some over your way. LesVegas (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * LesVegas I remember interacting with you back at the Countering Systemic Bias board a year or so ago, where you wrote this in a thread called "Systemic bias in Eastern Medicine subjects" on July 17.. You made your first edits only on July 4. You've been convinced our article is messed up, since before you even understood the policies and guidelines here.   You should have a look at what you wrote here, later in that same thread. Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Miss Cleo
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miss Cleo. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)