Hello Mindjuicer, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

• some General guidance.
• Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Take a look at Consensus of standards
• Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing! -- Alf ^melmac 14:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I have no problem with trimming the article size down size the page is rather large, my worry was that we should be very careful about summarising previous polls - perhaps either not bother with the summarising information at all, or I can attempt to balance by also giving the statistic when cost is involved?

Also I think we should consider moving it to a new article rather than deleting it altogether? I think there's a lot of useful information on the various polls, and although it shouldn't clutter up the main article, it might be a shame to delete it altogether. Mdwh 21:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Acupuncture". Thank you. -- Famousdog ( talk) 11:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Section: User:Dickmojo on Acunpuncture   — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC) reply

A new subsection, dealing specifically with your edits has been added: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks.2FMindjuicer. - SummerPhD ( talk) 02:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Epic failure with your spurious and opportunistic bullying attempt. :D -- Mindjuicer ( talk) 17:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Dig, dig, dig... hoist, hoist, hoist... Famousdog ( talk) 21:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I consider your use of language to be totally unacceptable, if you want to continue to edit here please tone it down. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 18:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Following the discussion at WP:ANI you have been topic banned by unanimous community consensus from editing articles and talk pages within the broad scope of alternative medicine, and specifically (but not limited to) the articles on Acupuncture, Neuro-linguistic programming and Emotional Freedom Technique. This ban will last until the 1st of June 2012. Articles and talk pages in other topic areas, as well as WP pages such as AfD, ANI etc may be edited, but I strongly encourage you to edit in a restrained and measured way even here, as there will undoubtedly be many eyes on your edits. Please take this time to edit some other, perhaps less controversial areas of Wikipedia, and build up the community's trust that you can work collboratively with others. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Wow that's still going? You didn't look into my case very hard, did you? In spite of all the improvements I've made to acupuncture that consensus has agreed upon and the complete lack of any validated accusations of recent bad editing, you brought out that ban hammer that the POV pushers wanted. You've driven away this editor. Epic fail. -- Mindjuicer ( talk) 20:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply

After reading your comment on your userpage, it appears you still harbor beliefs about other editors and the reasons for your topic ban that show you don't understand Wikipedia, and that this topic ban may not serve its purpose. That leaves an indefinite ban as a possibly necessary option. Your persecution complex reveals a negative learning curve. Too bad.

I also suggest that you immediately start a sock puppet investigation. We don't want any improper sock activity. Clean out the dirty sock drawer! I hate 'em. -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

BTW, before you start that SPI, you need to AGF, so contact the suspicious parties first. If they actually do have alternate accounts, they may be lawful ones and they may not be violating any rules. It's a tricky thing. I just wouldn't want you to inadvertently get into trouble for attempted outing. That's a very serious matter here, and usually a blockable offense, as in "instantly". -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Starting an SPI on the editors who opposed your proposal (I'm assuming one of them was me) is not a good step forward. If you wish to leave wikipedia, as your last message here indicates, then by all means do so. Good luck, and I'm sorry it came to that. If you wish to stay and contribute to other topics, then that's terrific. I hope you find an area you really enjoy putting time into. However, if so, you need to move forward productively, and demonstrate you have an interest in contributing to the project. Immediately starting an SPI on the editors you don't like, making a big deal out of the topic ban on every noticeboard you can, and changing your userpage to talk about how unfair and biased wikipedia is, are all examples of unproductive behavior. If you let that behavior overflow into editing other topics, it is likely the topic ban will be extended to a site ban, which is no good for anyone. So, please don't do that.   — Jess· Δ ♥ 00:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Good advice. -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

No Jess, you're not any SP I know of. The ones I'm thinking of are Noformation, Famousdog and SummerPhD. Bobrayner might be a meatpuppet - how he knew to comment on my ANI and I didn't is notable.

None of them are welcome on my talk page as long as I can be bothered to edit it. And since altmed is doomed, I don't even think I can be bother to SPI them.

Both you and Brangifer have driven away this neutral editor. Had either of you met me, you would be starting to feel very guilty now. -- Mindjuicer ( talk) 01:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Claiming to be a "neutral editor" reveals a perception problem. I'm not sure I know of any such creature. The only ones who can make such claims are normally people who know absolutely nothing about the subject matter in an article. -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

@MJ: Look, if I were trying to drive you away, I wouldn't have taken time out of my day to write helpful advice on your talk page, or encouraged you to stay in other venues, or linked policy pages when I thought your proposals didn't meet them. Those all took time away from living my life, which I did because I was hoping you'd stick around and learn our rules. The same is true of NoFormation, who made a generous offer to help you lift your topic ban once you learned our policies. Accusing us of driving you away is a little unfair... but whatever. If you're leaving, this discussion is pointless. I won't be back to argue. Good luck in the real world. All the best,   — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I didn't say you were trying to drive me away. I said that you have driven me away.

As for my claiming to be a neutral editor, if that condones your actions, then it just reminds me why I and anyone else who's neutral is better off away from here.

Take responsibility for your actions, both of you. -- Mindjuicer ( talk) 01:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. Just read about this. I'm sorry. Hope this doesn't make you turn your back on WP (then again, why should it?). Cheers, -- Mallexikon ( talk) 02:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Ah Mallexikon. I feel more sorry for you, as you're now the only neutral editor on acupuncture, with everyone else pushing the same POV to a greater or lesser degree.

Yes, I'm gone. Why? Several reasons. As explained on my talk page, WP is broken where there is one-sided zealotry. Yes, we made major improvements to that page and even got WLU to move towards NPOV, but it will probably only be temporary.

Another reason is that any system which rewards cretinous behaviour is one to get out of, in my opinion.

Along the same lines, altmed pages are quite a nasty environment. You'd have to pay me £200 an hour to work with you know who. Seriously.

Lastly, this ban will always be held against me, regardless of the circumstances.

Any of those reasons would be sufficient so it's a slam dunk. -- Mindjuicer ( talk) 08:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Mindjuicer, please stop deleting other people's comments when you disagree with them - you don't WP:OWN your talk page. Famousdog ( talk) 10:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Famousdog, it's entirely in order for users to remove comments from their own user page. It conventionally is taken to mean that the contents have been read. The only exception to this are formal notices such as those of blocks or bans, which must be left in place for the duration. Please see WP:OWNTALK for details. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Kim, I understand the custom and policies around this, but there are other aspects that somehow get forgotten in the process. The context in which it happens often reveals an uncollaborative spirit, continuation of a battlefield mentality, and sometimes an effort to deceive by presenting a "clean" page free of warnings. It also violates the very purpose for a talk page. They exist for communication. Please note that I'm not saying it's never okay to delete material (it should still be archived), but it should be done with care so as not to offend or break the lines of communication. Editors who cannot communicate with editors who hold opposing POV usually don't do well here. Just sayin.... -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Brangifer - will reply on your talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply