Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:07, 26 July 2014

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

TestingHerbxue (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox for Acu Mechanisms Section

Moved to User:Herbxue/Acupuncture mechanisms

new sandbox

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Herbxue/SandboxLiuBin#New_Article:_Liu_Bin

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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine#Acupuncture again. 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#Another convenience break. 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Herbxue. Please comment there. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement 2

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from all fringe science and pseudo-science topics (including Acupuncture & Traditional Chinese Medicine), broadly construed, for a period of six months.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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)