User talk:LesVegas

Thank you and some question

Thank you and happy new year. I see the talk page of acupuncture still debate whether NCCAM is reliable. However, I see the discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine is closed [1]. It seems the result is the source NCCAM can be considered as reliable sources. Hence, I wonder why acupuncture talk page still go on the debate. Did I miss something? Thank you.19:50, 4 January 2015‎‎Miracle dream (talk)

Hey Miracle dream, thanks for the update. Yes, it's still being debated on acupuncture talk. I always felt that the most appropriate place was on MEDRS talk, perhaps, because it's a guideline page. Anyway, sorry I just now noticed your message and thanks for your raising the issue. MEDRS is very clear that the NIH is reputable. Some editors really just don't like mainstream science covering acupuncture whatsoever. NCCAM is neutral to favorable in their statements, but occasionally makes a negative statement. I suppose some editors prefer that the government ignores acupuncture instead, because "pseudoscience" shouldn't be examined whatsoever. Anyway, thanks for your help! It is much appreciated! LesVegas (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 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 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:

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.

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)

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)

(talk page stalker) Perhaps it's this diff[2] 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)