Hosta

Archives

1, 2

• Please see the definition of the word "coined."
• Please use the correct method of asking for more information. It is not interpolating "such as?" into the text of an article.
• There's no need to seek consensus on an article's talk page before making edits.

· rodii · 01:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodii. I think the right place for discussion is at Los Natas -talk page where the other contributors could follow the discussion as well in order to improve the article. If you find errors though, you can also help to improve the article by correcting those faults instead of removing one's contributions. Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good message at WT:MOSLINK. I do a lot of maintenance work that includes unlinking common terms and chronological items. But en.WP is ahead of the game in this respect compared with most of the other WPs. May I ask whether you have experience at another WP? And if so, whether you've had any success in convincing other editors to use the wikilinking system more skilfully? I've watchlisted this page if you want to reply here. Tony (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings there Tony1! And thanks for your message, I'm glad to hear that there is someone else concerned with the same problems too.

I agree with you, the English Wikipedia is way ahead it's other language version counterparts. I am currently contributing to the Finnish language Wikipedia aside from the English one, and I must say that I am really giving up hope with it completely... Few practices still vivid and alive at the Finnish Wikipedia:

1) They are linking all the dates (official WP-policy there, e.g. October 5th, 2004)

2) ...linking a lot of common terms

3) ...linking compounded words from the middle even (e.g. toothpick)

=> If your try to remove excess linking - even with well-grounded reasons and participating the discussion at the Talk page - it is likely to just get reverted without any explanations. There is also a very little contributor base in the fi.wiki, and therefore it is pretty much the same group of contributors that keep patrolling on the changes in the articles and backing-up the doings of one an each other.

If there shall be any discussion though, it tends to be taken to your User -talk page, often on a very personal level, and taken away from below the eyes of the other article contributors...

I have also launched a discussion at the fi.WP, one where "I got mistaken to refer" to the English Wikipedia policies. This resulted into fierce responses, according to which Finnish Wikipedia is completely different, and that the English policies have no value at the Finnish side. Well, that's actually true and I do understand it but.... how about benchmarking? Is it bad in general? In Finnihs Wikipedia, it seems it is.

The Finnish Wikipedia has sunken deep with it's current conceptions, and the general mindset with wikilinks still seems to be "the more, the better".

That's pretty much my experiences in my rather small language version. Maybe I should just drift towards Citizendium (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium) slowly xD ... How about your experiences Tony1? Which language edition you've been working with? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might tell them that overlinking has the same ill effect for all readers—whether of en.WP or fi.WP. The particular language is irrelevant. The war about linking started with the ridiculous date-autoformatting that was introduced into en.WP in 2003 as a ham-fisted solution to editors' fights about US vs non-US formatting. Only logged-in editors who had chosen prefs saw any "benefit". Not readers.

The main battle was won about six years ago: what was surprising was the vehemence of objection, and the fact that within a year or two hardly any editor objected. The whole attitude has turned 180 degrees. It's a symptom of how crude the wikicultures are in other languages that readers don't count. The linking system is washed out and the text looks pretty bad, because no one has stood up to the mind-set of the geek-nuts who are in control. Very happy to have you editing here.

User:Tony1/Most_poorly_wikilinked_article_award, User:Tony1/Survey_of_attitudes_to_DA_removal, User:Tony1/Information_on_the_removal_of_DA, User:Tony1/Build_your_linking_skills. Tony (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
WP:OVERLINK states that "Links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." I can't really understand why you are neglecting this? Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the edit infobox didn't capture this (was left empty), sorry. Anyway, I undid revision back to version by Rothorpe (talk) =P So I'm in favour of his/her edit... Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's allright. I appreciate your concern over the overlinks by the way. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JS! I'm going to take you up on that offer to address key shortcomings and systematic bias at the chiro article. I had been working on an improved/neutralized version in my sandbox. If follows the MEDMOS style as well (specific sections in specific order). How about you take a look and give me some feedback and we can start to prioritize where we're going to begin. DVMt (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, DVMt (talk)! Thanks for your proposal, sure I will accept it! I'll take a look at it with a better time! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a proposal for a new lede at the chiro talk page. Give it a looksee and check out the language, tone, grammar. If that's OK to your eye, I can insert the citations, although I currently forget how to copy and paste the references from my sandbox to the talk page. There is a specific way of doing this, but I need a refresher. DVMt (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think before any significant changes are made to the article we should go present the case to a noticeboard of some sort (I forget the official name). This was done last year with respect to 'proving' that chiropractic was a health profession. What do you think? DVMt (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JG, time to report QG, have your diffs ready, I'll have mine ready to go to. A topic ban on all alt-med articles, on specifically chiropractic and TCM would be appropriate. Please let me know when this is initiated. Diplomacy has failed, unfortunately. DVMt (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here was the last report. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2.

For a new report you can start at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru3. But please be aware you must provide strong evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious attempt to get me topic banned, indef'ed here [1]. The cynics have spoken, but since you've seen me at the chiro page and talk page, I was wondering if you would care to share your experience, if possible. No pressure, and no hard feelings either way. Neuraxis (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I left my response at the WP:ANI already. Personally, I don't see any reason for a ban, but I do find name calling inappropiate though (or making such implications). I know it is hard to keep your cool sometimes, and I have to admit that I have lost mine too as well from time to time. I think you still owe an apology for that. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that an edit-warring noticeboard report in which you were involved has been closed. It is to further notify you that at the next sign of edit-warring on any pseudoscience related articles, including all alternative medicine articles, you will be blocked indefinitely.—Kww(talk) 03:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that warning was miswritten. Consider it to read "The next sign of abusing administrative noticeboards to further pseudoscientific POVs will result in an indefinite block."—Kww(talk) 13:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How come I was misusing the administrative noticeboards? I am not furthering any pseudoscientific POV's Kww, my report was concerning violation of 3RR. There sure were some lengthy discussions at the report that I filed, but I never participated any of those.

I don't think my warning is really fair. There was no POV pushing from my part: you can even notice that I didn't take any part of that POV-related discussion there. Could you please have another look at it? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you make a bogus report against me and continue to ignore the evidence against you. QuackGuru (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explain. The diffs show your edit warring at the 3RR report. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence shows you falsely accused me of violating the 3RR rule.[2][3] and you made a bogus 3RR report. User:Kww warned you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive245#User:QuackGuru_reported_by_User:Jayaguru-Shishya_.28Result:_DvMT_and_Jayaguru-Shishya_warned.29. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:Jayaguru-Shishya_is_not_moving_on_and_he_is_continuing_his_battleground_behaviour. Do you agree you made a mistake? Do you agree you will stop following me to other articles? If you don't agree to stop following me then I think a topic ban for pseudoscience related articles is appropriate. I asked you before to stop following me. See User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/Archive 1#Please stop following me to other articles and undoing my edits. Your first edit to both articles[4][5] was to revert without explanation. See WP:HOUND. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of that nonsense. So where is the evidence? All you gave me was eight links. So far, you have refused to provide a complete list to support your paranoid allegations, so just cut that crap. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, QuackGuru, you aren't doing yourself any favours. Let it drop. If you can point to an actual instance of edit-warring or similar obstructive behaviour, feel free to bring it to my attention. Constantly posting the same link over and over again with a request for a topic ban hurts your cause.—Kww(talk) 04:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I provided evidence that you have no consensus to restore the tag but you ignored it. The evidence is against you on this. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You provided a link to Talk:Chiropractic#Tag restored against CON again. As I already commented in my diff: "Doc James, McSly and Roxy the Dog were the only ones to comment besides you, DVMt and I at Talk:Chiropractic#Tag restored against CON again. As far as I can see, they made no objections."

You are making more and more allegations against me all the time. See Wikipedia:Harrassment#User space harassment. QuackGuru, are you here to edit collaboratively? Please answer my question. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also provided more evidence on the talk page there is no consensus for the tag. I don't see consensus for the NPOV tag. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How did I ignore them? No, I haven't ignored anything. You gave me the link and I already commented on that. The right place to discuss the issue is at Talk: Chiropractic. That's where the consensus is made, not on my Talk Page. So far, where are the objections?

You ignored my question: Are you here to edit collaboratively? You have been proposed collaboration for some times already, but you have never accepted the offer. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest a RfC next time. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, you really need to stop the harassment and constantly trying to create drama when someone disagrees with your edits. Also, use the chiro talk page so all this can be documented. DVMt (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I made some edits on Acupuncture to help resolve the neutral POV tag, beginning with the introductory paragraph. Despite having very high quality references, I have seen those edits reverted wholesale without any discussion on the talk page. If you ever have the time, I'd be interested in your perspective.Klocek (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your message! I already answered you at the article Talk Page! :P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I check the source from nature which define the TCM as pseudoscience. This source is [6]. Actually this article tries to refute another article which is also from nature [7]. The second one describe some opinion, one of them is to use system biology as a way to assess the usefulness of tcm. I just wonder whether it is good to use one article in nature as the view of nature journal and the primary source while ignore others which are also from nature. Despite article [8] which is also from nature 448 in 2007, I see another article from journal nature [9] which describe the usefulness (for dementia) of TCM. This article was published in 2010 and stated " Sound therapeutic effects promote more scientists, domestic and abroad, to study extracts from herbal medicines. Today, a great number of compounds from herb extracts have proven to be multi-targeted, low toxicity and potent in alleviating dementia." It seems there are many articles which present different idea in nature [10]. I wonder whether to add all of these sources from nature to keep neutrally. I hope someone can check all of these articles from nature journal [11]. Now I think one editorial in nature is a neutral description in this article but whatever, add the website link for the reference is a good way for reader to follow up the source. I don't think there is a standard nature magazine view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.125.166 (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I'm a bit busy these days but I promise to check through your sources with a better time! What do you think that would be the biggest contributions of those new sources to the article? Studies on the efficacy of TCM on dementia? Generally, if you have good reliable sources, I can't see any reason why such sources couldn't be used in the article. =P

Hello, I am the user who start this section. Actually my point is just neutrally indicate that“this is one editorial in Nature” like my edition now [12]. Actually, I have edited this [13] when I first start this section in talk page but someone revert my edition. I want to avoid an edition war so I claim in talk page now[14] before I edited it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.63.1 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to respond to every turn of the thread like this. Say your piece, and then let others have their say. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talking this off the article talk page. I repeat - I recommend that you get more solidly grounded and understand that stating the relationship between TCM and science in Wikipedia in a neutral way is not criticism - it is what we do here. I know it is difficult when you are dealing with hard core anti-quack people, but at the end of the day, you are responsible for your own head. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply Jytdog, I've been quite busy these days. I agree with you what you said above. However, I was trying to point out that (if I still recall the discussion right) whereas studies with both positive and negative results do exist, we should seek to bring forth both sides. I think you guys had pretty good discussion about it on Herbxue's Talk Page [something like this). Criticism is good and it's ineviable for scientific approach. I hope we no longer have any misunderstanding about that one. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your friendly reply but I feel we are not connecting still. In Wikipedia, since the basis of TCM is qi and other prescientific notions of the body, those notions, and treatments based on them, are pseudoscience and "alternative medicine." If any given specific intervention is tested using the scientific method and found to be effective for some specific disease, then we have an empirical, scientific grounds for saying that the specific treatment is scientific and is medicine, even though it remains without a scientific basis. But the field of TCM as a whole remains pseudoscience and alternative medicine. It is not "criticism" to say this in Wikipedia, it is the foundation from which we start, here in Wikipedia. Article Talk pages are not the place to try to change that foundation. I hope that makes sense... Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it's only the two of us. I have had enough and won't be responding to this shit any more. He's clearly trolling now. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to alter the text of another user's comments in a discussion, as you did in this edit at WP:ANI. If you wish to criticize or comment on another user's wording, you can do so in our own comments; but to place words in another user's comment does not further honest discussion. Actions like this can lead to restrictions on editing privileges. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops...! Sorry @NatGertler:. I cited BullRangifer and accidentally modified his original post, not mine. I made the corrections and you can see now how it was meant to be :P My apologies for the hassle! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that it was an honest error, and thanks for taking care of it! --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(yawn) He filed one on me and Herbxue too. I wouldn't pay too much (translation: any) attention. It's just something QG feels he has to do sometimes, I guess .... some of us go to the beach to de-stress; QG goes to Wikipedia drama boards. As you can see, the last time he did this with me, the results weren't exactly earth-shattering: here. Happy editing, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 08:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know what is your specific explanation for this edit. Why did you think this revert you made (against consensus) improved the article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Correction: there was no consensus at that point. Anyway that was a week ago, and the issue is now settled. Everyone else has moved on (see bottom of this section; no further mainspace or talkspace edits about this since June 26). --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 01:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chiropractic. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this comment. There is no consensus to restore the text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Talk:Chiropractic#Kshilts' edits 15-18 July 2014

:Why is 2/0 being stamped here? As far as I can see, you left this post, right? If that's what you think, I'd advise you to file a 3RR case right now. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You added sourced material that was undue weight and you added unsourced material too. The following text was unsourced: "The NBCE Part-IV examination is a comprehensive practical exam that assesses case history, orthopedic & neurological testing, clinical diagnosis, radiography & imaging interpretation, manual techniques and case management. The Part-VI exam has generally replaced individual state examinations. Jurisdictions still administer a jurisprudence examination to test a candidate's knowledge of the statutes and regulations that govern chiropractic practice within its particular jurisdiction."[15] You made this comment but the section was too long with the recent additions and most editors disagree with restoring the overly long text.[16][17][18][19][20] QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I didn't add anything. I made a revert since you deleted sourced material per "unsourced material". No mention about undue weight or anything else. This is already discussed in full detail at the article Talk Page. It seems that all your diffs are after I made the revert.

Besides, I don't find the section too long, as I have expressed at the Talk Page

Your ban/block history is quite impressive. I'd advise you to be careful. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You thought[21] I left the message on this talk page but it does not really matter who left the message I suppose.

I tagged the original research. The first revert was made under the edit summary "shorten long section and organise text; remove unsourced text)".[22] The OR and undueweight was restored. After the edit was reverted again[23] Jayaguru-Shishya, it seems you restored the disputed text against consensus on July 24, 2014. You claimed: "I didn't add anything" but he did add something. He added OR and disputed text. It seems you ignored the comment that the edit added OR to the article. I explained it in my previous comment on July 23, 2014 the edit added OR and was a violation of WP:SUMMARY. You claimed "So far, sourced material was removed, as stated above."[24] But you did not address the "1) poor quality sources 2) undue weight 3) original research and 4) lack of consensus."[25] Your proposal on the talk page was using primary sources to expand the section. We should use reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. See Talk:Chiropractic#Controversial changes. Cheers. QuackGuru (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know thezensite? An amazing amount of critical studies on Zen. May be useful~for you, given your enthusiasm and developing knwoledge of the history of Zen. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate! I think I just used it as a source in Kapleau and Yasutani articles! =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evergreen Marine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luzhu. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I want to remark that you give a fairly idiosyncratic interpretation to this guideline.[26] I have edited tens of thousands of articles featuring foreign languages and come across even more of them. As an active member of WikiProject Etymology, I can asssure you that linking language names at first occurence is common Wikipedia practice. This linking practice includes even French and German which are major languages, let alone Vietnamese which is not. Since edit-warring is not particularly constructive, let us discuss this here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your message. I am sorry if I was a bit unclear with my explanation. In my opinion, Vietnamese with 75 million native speakers can be considered as rather a "major" language. That's the reason for my edit.

Anyway, it's not a question of life and death for me, so it's okay if you want to include it to the article. Generally though, I don't think languages with such many speakers would fall short of "major's" definition. I hope this helped to clarify! =P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, only the first ten of the List of languages by number of native speakers are considered major ones. Of course, the cut-off limit is arbitrary. In any case, major or not, language names are commonly linked. I will propose that the documentation of the policy be changed since it does not reflect current common practice. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to deal with your fellow editors civilly and collegiately. You may wish to revise your statements here and here. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statement directed at me may sound a little awkward, but I don't think it was meant to be incivil -A1candidate (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more precise? In the first diff you gave me, I told my appreciation towards all the hard work A1candidate has done in order to find those sources. In the second diff, can you please address what is it all about? Here[27], QuackGuru isn't really addressing any explanation for his edits. ~~

(talk page stalker) I'd guess that for the first diff, 2/0 is talking about your comment to Brangifer, which is further down in the diff. Diffs for multiple edits are easy to get misunderstood; happens all the time. regards,--Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 15:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jayaguru-Shishya: I see you sent me a note thanking me for my recent edit to 'Buddha Nature'. That was kind of you to do so! I appreciate it - and your own fair-minded and constructive editing of, and commenting on, Wiki articles. Best wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• William F. Williams, ed. (2000). Acupuncture. Facts on File. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-1579582074. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help) This is not a random book. It is an encyclopedia.QuackGuru (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet found where to access that book. The name, however, implies that it has something to do with extraterrestrials, is that right? If so, are we using an encyclopedia on extraterrestrials to support claims on medical efficiency? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is not a book about extraterrestrials in general. The encyclopedia covers pseudoscience from Alien abductions to zone therapy. The name does not imply it is a book on extraterrestrials in general. It covers a wide range of pseudoscience topics. Please don't get involved in an edit war or claim the source is not reliable. Did you read the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience page? QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have I made even one single revert concerning your addition of this book? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a comment on the talk page which concerns me. Do you agree your comment on the talk page was misleading or you made a mistake? QuackGuru (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to source? - "From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy"; to be continued there

You changing your previous comment and questioning weather the book is reliable. You claimed "What about this one: "From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy", are we using books on extraterrestrials (!) now too?."

I told you the book is not on extraterrestrials in general. See WP:IDHT. QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not giving a valid reason for deleting sourced text. For example, you have not shown how the encyclopedia is unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to source? - "From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy"; to be continued there

Jaya, Williams isn't a MEDRS but is an RS, and is used as such on WP; please don't confuse the issue with a blanket objection. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 02:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete text from the encyclopedia when you haven't read the book?[28] QuackGuru (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already found. Please participate the discussion at the article Talk Page, there have been given plenty of reasons why the source, Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy, doesn't meet MEDRS. For example:

I agree with A1candidate that the content in the diff provided above is difficult to justify supporting with Williams 2013. I agree a more MEDRS compliant source is appropriate for "There is no evidence that inserting needles can affect the course of any disease." I apologize for my contentiousness, it was due to a misunderstanding. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

According to Google Scholar, the book has an impressive amount of 14 citations. Wow. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayaguru-Shishya, no editor has a serious problem with the current text. Maybe editors can find another article to improve and move on. QuackGuru (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by User:MrBill3 above was posted by Jayaguru-Shishya. QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. I guess this discussion is already outdated. The text supported by Williams[29] is no longer included in the article. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayaguru,

Why did you revert my link of Maitreya at White Lotus in this revert?

BTW, the link has been restored, together with other changes, in the next edit, by Ogress.

I understand that you are working to fight overlinking on Wikipedia – thanks for this! ;)

However, per WP:UNDERLINK and WP:OVERLINK, “Maitreya” should be linked: this is a “technical term that many readers are unlikely to understand at first sight”.

If you feel that the lead section is too link-heavy – bearing in mind that “In technical articles that use uncommon terms, a higher-than-usual link density in the lead section may be necessary.” – then please try to move the term into later in the article, per WP:LEADLINK.

If you feel that this is in error, and that “Maitreya” should not be linked, could you please explain your reasoning? This seems clear-cut to me, and at least one other editor ostensibly agrees.

Thanks!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My addition of a link to Maitreya was actually done without any awareness of the revert; I just was copyediting and it stood out as needing a link badly. So... there's that in your corner, nbarth, I independently agree. Ogress _smash! 05:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nbarth! Indeed, I shouldn't have removed the link [[Maitreya]] after all. My apologies for that! The reason why I hastily made it removed was that the term "Buddha Maitreya" used to be linked [[Buddha]] [[Maitreya]] earlier, which I find pretty redundant IMHO. Sorry Nbarth, I got mistaken that you restored that form of linking, even you made it into [[Maitreya]] alone. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem – agree that Buddha Maitreya is excessive. That makes sense, thanks!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The are still problems with your edit. Please try to improve the text and help resolve this dispute. There is a discussion on the talk page. See Talk:Acupuncture#Primary_sources.2Fpoor_sources_and_original_research. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]