Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:2over0/Archive 9) (bot |
ns: Bit of a tiff over a misreading of a source at acupuncture |
||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
Apparently the semi-protection also blocks new editors, not just IPs. I'm going to ask 2/0 to go ahead and lift the semi-protection for a while. It may not be necessary right now, and it can always be reinstated if IP and sock harassment starts again. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 23:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC) |
Apparently the semi-protection also blocks new editors, not just IPs. I'm going to ask 2/0 to go ahead and lift the semi-protection for a while. It may not be necessary right now, and it can always be reinstated if IP and sock harassment starts again. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 23:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
{{done}} - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 14:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC) |
{{done}} - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 14:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
==Bit of a tiff over a misreading of a source at [[acupuncture]]== |
|||
HI 2/0, would you mind having a look at [[Acupuncture#Summarize]], toward the end when RexxS comments? He and QuackGuru are reading Ernst '11 (PMID 21440191) incorrectly, taking a sentence out of context: see '''[[User:Middle_8/Ernst-11]]''' or just grab the paper (email me for a copy if you like). RexxS is also not grokking some basic stuff about study design, and just digging in. A bit embarrassing. We talked about this at some noticeboard or other, and the generally clueful Imperfectly Informed and others read it properly, but some sadly saw this as "skeptic vs believer" and supported the wrong reading just because it was supported by editors supposedly more skeptical than I. I'm 100% certain I'm right and this isn't personal (despite RexxS's turning up the heat). Nor is this to be see as canvassing, because it's simply about proper reading of a paper, and I know you're clueful, and are not going to support me or RexxS/QuackGuru just based on whom you might like better. Sorry if I sound arrogant but after all there's only one right way to read the paper... Best regards, [[User talk:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|POV-pushing]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|COI]])</small> 17:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:25, 2 September 2014
25 April 2024 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Welcome!
Hello, 2over0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Bullrangifer protection
How can I communicate with this user if I cannot post on his/her User:talk page? I will NOT disclose my personal e-mail to him/her since that violates my privacy.
He/she deleted my 3-4 different edits on the Cannabidiol page in one singular edit without first reading my edits. He/she only said that I had to read WP:MEDRS and that Wikipedia does not use primary sources as evidence. I had already read WP:MEDRS and it says WP "generally does not use primary sources". Basically, primary sources can be used but only in a proper way. I had mentioned the use of the primary source in my edit notes.
I re-posted much of it on the Cannabidiol:Talk page and justified my positions. Only one post used a primary source, but in an effective, non-biased that only suggests there is evidence that supports a conclusion, but more inquiry is necessary.
I feel the need to challenge him/her directly because his/her deletion edits are destructive, irresponsible and disrespectful to other users. It took 4 hours to construct and edit those separate posts and he/she deleted ALL of them, forcing me to have to sift through all the information instead of just reverting my posts individually and only the posts that violated some policy/rule.
So how do I contact this user without using e-mail to tell him/her if he/she wants to debate these topics that the discussions are available, and if he/she has nothing to say that I will re-add my edits?
DystoniaPatient (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have a talk page, just like all other editors. You can post there, but since this is about the article, it should happen on the article's talk page, not here or by email. We're not at war here and we can work this out. We just need other editors to notice the conversation and add their opinions. When I get more time, I'll return to the page. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- BTW, I did begin my response to you on the article's talk page, and agree in part, and have even deleted that section in the article. You haven't responded or continued to explain/defend the other parts of your edits. You need to keep a discussion going. There is no rush, and nothing is truly lost. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Apparently the semi-protection also blocks new editors, not just IPs. I'm going to ask 2/0 to go ahead and lift the semi-protection for a while. It may not be necessary right now, and it can always be reinstated if IP and sock harassment starts again. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Done - 2/0 (cont.) 14:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Bit of a tiff over a misreading of a source at acupuncture
HI 2/0, would you mind having a look at Acupuncture#Summarize, toward the end when RexxS comments? He and QuackGuru are reading Ernst '11 (PMID 21440191) incorrectly, taking a sentence out of context: see User:Middle_8/Ernst-11 or just grab the paper (email me for a copy if you like). RexxS is also not grokking some basic stuff about study design, and just digging in. A bit embarrassing. We talked about this at some noticeboard or other, and the generally clueful Imperfectly Informed and others read it properly, but some sadly saw this as "skeptic vs believer" and supported the wrong reading just because it was supported by editors supposedly more skeptical than I. I'm 100% certain I'm right and this isn't personal (despite RexxS's turning up the heat). Nor is this to be see as canvassing, because it's simply about proper reading of a paper, and I know you're clueful, and are not going to support me or RexxS/QuackGuru just based on whom you might like better. Sorry if I sound arrogant but after all there's only one right way to read the paper... Best regards, Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 17:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)