User talk:LesVegas: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:LesVegas/Archives/2017/July. (BOT) |
||
| (38 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|box-advert=yes |
|box-advert=yes |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{clear}} |
|||
== January 2017 == |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]] You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''60 hours''' for violating your topic ban related to acupuncture, broadly construed. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[WP:Appealing a block|request an unblock]] by first reading the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 11:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> |
|||
> |
|||
{{unblock reviewed | 1=''I welcomed a new editor and warned him/her not to make the mistakes so many here have, when it was clear to me he/she was just new, was already being ganged up on, and didn't know what was going on. I clearly implied that I couldn't talk about Acupuncture, but that I could only offer general editing advice. If it is deemed that this block was fair, I have no problem with that, but I would love to know the specific wording I used that was problematic. Am I not allowed to even mention to other editors that I've been T-banned? That seems to be the implication, and that certainly seems absurd. I've only recently been T-Banned so I'd like to know what not to say going forward. [[User:LesVegas|LesVegas]] ([[User talk:LesVegas#top|talk]]) 15:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC) | decline = Pretty clear violation of your TBAN. In my opinion as an uninvolved administrator, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APlayalake&type=revision&diff=758539341&oldid=758507348 this edit] contains extensive references to your TBAN. Now, I'm not necessarily saying I agree with preventing someone from discussing a particular ban. In my opinion, it might be appropriate to allow you to discuss it solely here on your talk page, or provide you a way of objecting to it. It's not clear to me whether or not that's allowed. But bringing it up in a welcome message on a new user's talk page? What were you thinking? What good could come of that? Given the block is for 60 hours, I decline to unblock you. [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 15:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)}} |
|||
*{{re|Yamla}} Just FYI, they can appeal at [[WP:AN]] once enough time passes for them to be permitted to do so. I didn't see this appeal, but the block was largely based on the seeking out of an editor new to the topic area they've been banned from to welcome them and provide this area-specific warning. Discussing their ban is certainly part of the violation, but I find the clear intent to communicate with editors related to the topic area about the topic area itself to be more significant. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 16:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Please comment on [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators#rfc_056A176|Wikipedia talk:Administrators]] == |
|||
The [[WP:Feedback request service|feedback request service]] is asking for participation in [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators#rfc_056A176|this request for comment on '''Wikipedia talk:Administrators''']]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 59855 --> [[User:Legobot|Legobot]] ([[User talk:Legobot|talk]]) 04:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Please comment on [[Talk:Scare-line#rfc_1470FBC|Talk:Scare-line]] == |
|||
The [[WP:Feedback request service|feedback request service]] is asking for participation in [[Talk:Scare-line#rfc_1470FBC|this request for comment on '''Talk:Scare-line''']]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 60068 --> [[User:Legobot|Legobot]] ([[User talk:Legobot|talk]]) 04:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Please comment on [[Wikipedia talk:Drafts#rfc_3502347|Wikipedia talk:Drafts]] == |
|||
The [[WP:Feedback request service|feedback request service]] is asking for participation in [[Wikipedia talk:Drafts#rfc_3502347|this request for comment on '''Wikipedia talk:Drafts''']]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 60322 --> [[User:Legobot|Legobot]] ([[User talk:Legobot|talk]]) 04:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Please comment on [[Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#rfc_1504A6E|Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates]] == |
|||
The [[WP:Feedback request service|feedback request service]] is asking for participation in [[Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#rfc_1504A6E|this request for comment on '''Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates''']]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 60552 --> [[User:Legobot|Legobot]] ([[User talk:Legobot|talk]]) 04:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Please comment on [[Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#rfc_5B00ED3|Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest]] == |
|||
The [[WP:Feedback request service|feedback request service]] is asking for participation in [[Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#rfc_5B00ED3|this request for comment on '''Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest''']]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 60796 --> [[User:Legobot|Legobot]] ([[User talk:Legobot|talk]]) 04:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Please comment on [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#rfc_8185751|Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion]] == |
|||
The [[WP:Feedback request service|feedback request service]] is asking for participation in [[Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#rfc_8185751|this request for comment on '''Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion''']]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 61002 --> [[User:Legobot|Legobot]] ([[User talk:Legobot|talk]]) 04:28, 2 February 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."<ref>{{cite journal|last1=MacPherson|first1=H|last2=Vickers|first2=A|last3=Bland|first3=M|last4=Torgerson|first4=D|last5=Corbett|first5=M|last6=Spackman|first6=E|last7=Saramago|first7=P|last8=Woods|first8=B|last9=Weatherly|first9=H|last10=Sculpher|first10=M|last11=Manca|first11=A|last12=Richmond|first12=S|last13=Hopton|first13=A|last14=Eldred|first14=J|last15=Watt|first15=I|title=Acupuncture for chronic pain and depression in primary care: a programme of research|date=January 2017|pmid=28121095}}</ref> |
|||
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. --[[User:Acuhealth|TriumvirateProtean]] ([[User talk:Acuhealth|talk]]) 05:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 06:44, 15 August 2017
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
