You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. TFD ( talk) 03:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

What are you talking about? ParkSehJik ( talk) 03:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

He thinks you are at risk of being blocked for reverting content in articles. It's a very easy to get blocked if one is unaware that reverting the same or similar content is inappropriate. The rule of thumb is to discuss rather than revert, following WP:DR. -- Ronz ( talk) 05:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Then why did he (re history content) and you (re the word "diagnose") revert my edits without discussing? And if the revert was edit summed as lacking sources, I only restored with sources, and started a talk page section. My question remains, what is he talking about? He may have erred because of all of the talk page rant accusing me of being on an "anti-psychiatry rant" because MEDRS content was critical of some of its practices (as are almost all psychiatrists themselves). I treated the psychiatry articles the same as I treated the alt med article. There I go again being verbose and obscuring my own point. See what your deletion of that section of my talk page did? :) ParkSehJik ( talk) 05:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I try to stick to WP:1RR myself. It's a very good rule-of-thumb. -- Ronz ( talk) 05:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

You have exceeded 3rr and have been reported to the edit-warring noticeboard and may respond here. TFD ( talk) 08:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I have not violated 3RR. I cannot post a response there because I was blocked in less than an hour from the 3RR post, without being given an opportunity to respond. ParkSehJik ( talk) 18:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Psychiatry. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ParkSehJik ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

*There is no 3RR violation. *There may not even be a 2RR or 1RR violation. *There is no edit warring by anyone on any side. The diffs and context have not been correctly read. There may possibly not even even be a 2RR or 1RR violation. :- When User:The Four Deuces (TFD) posted a 3RR warning on my talk page, I asked what he was talking about [1]. :- TFD did not respond to my question in any way. :- Instead of responding as to what he meant, when I undid an unrelated massive deletion, made in error by an unrelated editor, TFD jumped on his 3RR warning and alleged a 3RR violation. The allegations of 3RR violation are incorrect as follows. :* Two (not "more than three") of the diffs of alleged 3RR violating reverts involve edits adding new content, but additionally adding the term “ diagnosis”. Unanimous consensus was reached that “ diagnosis” should be added. In fact, Ronz, the editor I supposedly “reverted” from in the “1st revert” allegation, was the same editor who diligently located sources to support my edit adding this term [2], and said the sources he located supported also adding the term " Prevention", which I did, and I responded “done” at the talk page. [3] ::So I assume the 3RR violation allegation refers to only to other parts of my edit, and I will not further comment on edits as to adding “ diagnosis”as being the basis of the allegation of 3RR violation. :* 1st “revert”: [4] 21:47, 30 November 2012 ::This edit is not a "revert" of anything. ::* This edit did not delete any content previously added by other editors. ::* This edit did not add any content previously deleted by other editors. ::* This edit responded to a request by another editor to add new sources to the history section, which had no opposition at the talk page. ::* The edit was actually the end of a string of edits, each of which added single sentences with RS sources, one step at a time, and with an edit summary that quoted the sentence added, so that the diffs would be well explained. ::* So this edit is not a "revert" of anything. :* 2nd “revert”: [5] 00:0,2 1 December 2012 ::This edit is not a "revert" of anything, and is not related to the content of non-revert #1 above. ::* The edit actually involves a string of edits, each adding single sentences, and each with edit summary quoting the content added, so that the diffs would be well explained. ::* This string of edits did not delete any content previously added by any editor. ::* This string of edits did not add any content previously removed by any editor. ::* This edit was unrelated to any talk page discussion seeking consensus. ::* This edit added sourced content for the first time as follows - ::::“Unlike English philosopher of science Francis Bacon, Burton assumes that knowledge of the mind, not natural science, is humankind's greatest need.?UNIQ329a551b4b4e5044-nowiki-00000017-QINU?1?UNIQ329a551b4b4e5044-nowiki-00000018-QINU?” ::with edit summary ::::“Unlike English philosopher of science Francis Bacon, Burton assumes that knowledge of the mind, not natural science, is humankind's greatest need.” ::* The difference for this edit is well explained. ::* This edit is in no way a "revert" of anything. :* 3rd “revert”: [6] 02:06, 1 December 2012 ::This edit is not a "revert" of anything, and is not related to the content of non-revert #1 or #2 above. ::* The edit did not delete any material previously added by another editor. ::* This edit did not add any material previously deleted by another editor. ::* This edit did not add any content removed by any other editor. ::* This edit did not add content in any topic under discussion at talk for which consensus was being sought ::* This edit was a string of entirely new step by step new edits that added a construction tag, reorganized content in the lede per MOS, added content with RS sources, and that was not related in any way to any talk page discussion lacking consensus. ::* This edit is in no way a "revert" of anything. : * 4th revert: [7] 02:17, 1 December 2012 ::TFD is being very misleading here. This edit was a revert, but not of Ronz’s edit as TFD makes it appear! It was a revert of TFD’s much earlier edit [8], which utterly lacked an edit summary that made sense, and which violated consensus reached at the relevant talk page section on history calling for additional sources in the history section, to which TFD in no way commented. I added new sources, and new content from the sources. TFD’s edit summary, “Rv unexplained diffs”, made no sense since each of the edits adding content to the history section was addition of a single sentence with RS, and with an edit summary quoting the sentence, to have the best possible explanation in the diffs. I put the RS content back in the article, and I a started a talk page section asking for an explanation from TFD. If TFD had any explanation, I would have undone my own revert. TFD explained that he objected to only one sentence in the man sentences added. He explained “Your addition included a passage about the ancient Greeks sourced to an 1881 satirical book”. I did not add content sourced by an 1881 book, and did not add content sourced by any satire. I asked if there was any basis for me to undo my own revert in such case, especially as to the massive other content he deleted. TFD did not respond. This is not edit warring on my part. :* 5th "revert": [9] 06:23, 1 December 2012 “*This edit undid Harizotoh9’s edit [10] :*Herisotoh9’s edit undid Ronz’s last edit, which was part of consensus reached at talk re “diagnosis”. :*Herisotoh9’s edit had no edit summary. :* Herisotoh9’s edit appeared to be either vandalism or an error. :* With my AGF that Herisotoh9’s edit was an error, not vandalism, I started a talk page section asking if the edit was made in error - Was this edit intentional?”, in which I asked about his unexplained edit – ::::“Was this edit intentional, or a slip of some "save page" button? It had no edit summary, deleted content and sources, undid the reording Ronz just did, and ignored consensus just reached as to the word "diagnosis". I reverted it. If it was intentional, please explain it, and the absense of talk page discussion and edit summary basis." :* There was no response by Herizotoh9 or anyone to my inquiry. :* Herizotoh9's edit appeared to be an error, and I undid it, with edit summary ::::“Undid revision 525819400 by Harizotoh9 (talk) Rv unexplaned edit removing sources and content back to Ronz version; Was that an edit error?” :* This is in no way an edit warring repeat of multiple reverts above (if there even is more than a single revert above), but merely a correction of an erroneous deletion made by an editor, unrelated to the above, and unresponded to at the talk page when I said I assumed it was uintentional, which by WP:silence, and the utter lack of edcit summary, implied that it was. Conclusion - *There is no 3RR violation. *There may not even be a 2RR or 1RR violation. *There is no edit warring by anyone on any side. ParkSehJik ( talk) 19:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

Wow. That took a lot of reading (next time read WP:GAB to understand the importance of brevity). First, you seem to be under a distinct misunderstanding - edit warring and WP:3RR are related, but different. You do not have to break the bright line of 3RR to be edit-warring. You also seem to have skipped over the key points that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." (emphasis mine from WP:EW). In short, your own unblock request actually proves your edit-warring. I suggest you re-read WP:EW, WP:3RR and most importantly WP:DR while this very brief block is in effect ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 11:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC) reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your first edit (21:47, 30 November 2012) restored "diagnosis" to the lead, which you had originally added 22:57, 29 November 2012, [11] and had been reverted by Ronz. [12] It therefore counts as a revert. Your second edit also restores "diagnosis" and therefore counts as a revert. The third and fifth edits changed the wording of the final paragraph of the lead and therefore count as reverts. The fourth edit, as you admit, was restoring material that I had deleted, which is also a revert.

Ronz explained to you above after I posted the warning template, "It's a very easy to get blocked if one is unaware that reverting the same or similar content is inappropriate. The rule of thumb is to discuss rather than revert, following WP:DR." [13] This is a short block and you should take the time to read through the policy on edit-warring.

TFD ( talk) 20:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Re "third and fifth edits changed the wording", these two edits rearranging the order of content in the lede, added entirely new content with RS that was not contested in any way, and fixed grammar and merged the existing content with the new content per MOS. It is a contentious abuse of the word "revert" to call this a revert.

Putting "diagnosis" in the article does not count as a revert after there was unanimous consensus gained at talk to put it back in. Counting these as "reverts" in this context is violates common sense in interpretating WP policies, and is unhelpfully contentious. ParkSehJik ( talk) 22:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

The only "revert" after TFD's 3RR warning was when I undid another editor's error or vandalism, and any claim that this counts as edit warring is not made in good faith.

• Using "reverts" to describe uncontested grammar fixes, or the undoing of errors per talk page discussion, is being contentious. ParkSehJik ( talk) 22:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I do not see why you assume that Herizotoh9's reversal of your edit was vandalism. He set up a discussion thread at WP:NPOVN#NPOV dispute at Psychiatry and Forensic Psychiatry showing that he disagreed with your edits to the article. Otherwise, putting a single word back into an article counts as a "revert". TFD ( talk) 22:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

My comment, "With my AGF that Herisotoh9’s edit was an error, not vandalism, I started a talk page section asking if the edit was made in error", is not an "assumption of vandalism". I further respond below. I am spending much of my time on these talk pages. If I could, I would now choose to have my time back for more productive use, if I could, even if my edits were permanently deleted. ParkSehJik ( talk) 17:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• ParkSehJik, I think you're focusing too closely on the edits, rather than the pattern that WP:EDITWAR is all about. Rapid back-and-forth editing between editors that disagree is an edit war, and should be avoided by each party. Splitting hairs misses the point; just take the time to take stock, reflect on what will help you become a more effective editor, and move on. We've discussed this before. Look back over your edits and see that multiple respondents have described your edits as a "wall of text" or otherwise overwhelming amount of material, rather than succinct comments. You will be able to avoid an edit war if you communicate effectively and also keep in mind that there is no deadline. I'm amazed at how prolific and intelligent you are, but you won't be effective if you're contentious. WP hinges on collaboration (no one says that's easy, though). -- Scray ( talk) 23:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I understanding that on these talk pages, my fourth "revert" is universally seen as having the spirit of edit warring and evidencing my "contentiousness", as even being a revert at all. I understand that this restoration of RS content, after Herizotoh9 massively deleted it without any edit summary whatsoever, just after TFD posted a 3RR warning then would not respond when I asked what he was referring to, and after I said at the talk page that Herizotoh9's edit appeared to be "accidental" and not vandalism, and that I was restoring it under that assumption, to which Herizotoh9 did not respond, was called by TFD "an assumption of vandalism" on my part. I understand that here on these talk pages, my restoration of "diagnosis" in this 4th edit, after Ronz agreed it should be restored, is still universally called a 3RR violating contentious 4th "revert", evem with Ronz agreeing not only to "revert" his own deletion, but supplying sources to do so. And there is (almost) universal agreement that I should expect to spend similar time on talk pages, and have my RS content deleted, if I am unable to understand that this all evidences my being "contentious", and that I need to understand that my putting the word "diagnosis" in the psychiatry article introduces an "antipsychiatry POV", and evidences my being in an "antipsychiatry POV rant". I fear I will likely never undertand. An outside observer would more likely conclude that there is an entity, perhaps best called a "Wikipedia lawyer", and the specialty attorney has skills that include tag-team (WIki) legal entrapment by people with tens of thousands of edits, who engage in this as a daily activity as sport to exercise the lawyering skills. It is WP:SPADE clear that Herizotoh and TFD's deletions did not have proper edit summary or response at the talk page. It WP:SPADE clear that TFD set up for Herizotoh9 or another editor to WP:SPADE intentionally, not accidentally, make a massive deletion without any explanation in an edit summary, and intentionally did not respond at the talk page. It WP:SPADE clear that that TFD did not intend to imply that a non-esistant "1888 source" was a "parody" to base TFD's deletion of well sourced historical content on Esquirol and the historic first elaboration of depression, was not for the reasons stated in his edit summary, which makes no sense. It is WP:SPADE clear that all of this was not to improve Wikipedia, but to implement this entrapment. WP:SPADE, which I was referred to read, should make the an expression such as "Wikipedia lawyer" commonplace on these talk pages. It is WP:SPADE clear that if an analysis were to be done, the number of new Wikipedia editors who stay, not on the talk pages as W-lawyers, but who stay to conribute mostly expertise-based content, would be found to be shrinking, not growing, that the percentage of edits on talk pages would be growing as an overall percent of edits at Wikipedia cf article content, as the numbers of these "W-layers" and the meaningles fights they pick grows, that the ratio of entrenched log-term editors with tens of thousands of w-lawyer edits at this law-like practice is an ever growing number, causing the shrinkage of ratio of new content-based editors, and shrinking ratio of content based edits to W-law based talk page W-laweyering. My POV is entirely different from any of these baseless accusations of "anti-psychiatry" made all over new talk page discussions started about me. My POV grew from study begining with mind control drugs used by China in the Korean War (which to date has never ended). No one in the world who knows me would say anythign other than that my POV is pro- evidence-based-psychiatry to treat real disorders, unlike any of the baseless accusations I will not further spend time responding to. Anyone who knows me would say that I have much specialized knowledge to contribute to Wikipedia on the topics in which I have expertise. But I also have extensive first hand knowledge of lawyers. I WP:SPADE know them when I see them. I know that my time is best spent not engaging with them, and moving away from any forum in which such engagement might suck up my time without producing much at all for use of it. When editors with tens of thousands of edits on talk pages and with no expertise in the field make preposterous edits like deleting "diagnosis" from psychiatry (Ronz) and entirely deleting Jean-Étienne Dominique Esquirol from its history section (TFD), then start talk paged discussion all over various Wikpedia "courts of law" talk pages, accusing a new editor of pushing "antispchiatry-POV" in a "rant", then use W-lawyer-like tactics, not bothering in any way to follow their own W-laws, to shut down the editing of the new editor, thus evidencing W-lawyering, John Foster Dulles' model, not AGF, should apply to anything these entrenched beurocrat/lawyer talk page editors do. I have now spent the better part of a week arguing with experts at this W-lawyering, not experts in the field, that "diagnosis" is part of psychiatry, and that my insertion of the word into the article does not introduce POV, and that this does not evidence an "antipsychiatry POV rant" on my part. I wish to close my account, but when I went to do it, I could not find information as to how to do it. Does anyone know where that information is? ParkSehJik ( talk) 17:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC) reply

See WP:DISAPPEAR or WP:RETIRE. TFD ( talk) 17:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC) reply

• ParkSehJik, I hope that you'll agree we've had a fairly constructive relationship. Real life keeps me busy enough that I have had trouble even reading all of your additions to articles and Talk pages, much less process and analyze them, but I've done what I could. I think I could've helped more if you'd gone at a slower pace. I encourage you to consider taking a short break if you must, then try slowing down - a lot - and start editing something you find interesting but not so contentious - a hobby, perhaps. Get used to the editing process (and other editors), build experience and trust, and plan to return much more gradually to the areas about which you feel strongly. I certainly had trouble adjusting to the rules here (particularly having others assume I know nothing when I'm an expert in real life), but I also acknowledge that something about this process has led WP to become the world's encyclopedia. -- Scray ( talk) 18:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Park. This is a poor outcome. While I think a number of your edits and proposed edits were problematic as a new editor you certainly encountered an enormous amount of bullshit. Scray constitutes a very honourable exception to this trend which emerged as soon as you were designated as promoting an anti-psychiatry POV. As he indicates, the problem was compounded by the speed at which you were editing and starting discussions at several relatively high profile pages. Like Scray, I'd also like to see you return but to apply a different and more considered strategy. Best FiachraByrne ( talk) 03:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC) reply

What the heck? Get back to work! But I suggest you move more slowly – at least at the beginning while you build trust. Judging by what I've seen you do here, that will be forthcoming, but reputation-building takes a little time. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 01:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC) reply

OK. But is is a waste of my time and that of others, arguing whether "diagnosis" can go in an article on psychiatry, or whether Esquirol in as part of its history. When I put in the information, with good sources, they were tag team deleted in an apparantly arbitrary and baseless harrassment, and tag team effort to make a Wikipedia-Lawyer claim of 3RR violation.

Similarly, arguing that there are not major concerns about the scientific validity of its diagnoses, with the concerns making Discover Magazine's new issue as one of the top 100 science stories of 2012, is also a waste of time. How can it be a top 100 science story, and at the same time no one at Wikipedia in general, or even its Medicine project, has heard about it? Since editors here seem to pay more attention ot popular science magazines than scholarly works, here is a quote from a previous Discover Magazine story -

"Roel Verheul and John Livesley, a psychologist and psychiatrist who were members of the DSM-5 work group for for personality disorders, found that the group ignored their warnings about its methods and recommendations. In protest, they resigned, explaining why in an email to Psychology Today. Their disapproval stems from two primary problems with the proposed classification system: its confusing complexity, and its refusal to incorporate scientific evidence. -

The proposal displays a truly stunning disregard for evidence. Important aspects of the proposal lack any reasonable evidential support of reliability and validity. For example, there is little evidence to justify which disorders to retain and which to eliminate. Even more concerning is the fact that a major component of proposal is inconsistent with extensive evidence…This creates the untenable situation of the Work Group advancing a taxonomic model that it has acknowledged in a published article to be inconsistent with the evidence."

Why are editors working on medical articles, deleting all content and sources I add, arguing UNDUE with no basis at all, tag teaming their deletions, and stating such strong opinions and taking up so much time from baseless and preposterous positions, when not only do they not have any expertise at all on the topic, but they are not even familiar with the popular science literature on the topic? ParkSehJik ( talk) 21:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Give me a day or so and I'll look at your history and tell you what I think. Fiachra points to you possibly being identified as an anti-psychiatry obsessive. We've had a long-term problem here with people harrying the psychiatry pages out of personal grievance or religious (Scientology) zeal. No one here appreciates new editors making many significant controversial changes to many articles in a short time, because it takes time to check and discuss controversial changes with new editors until they've demonstrated an understanding of and willingness to work within our policies and guidelines. Slow down, as a courtesy to others here who take the quality of our medical articles at least as seriously as you do, until you've developed a reputation as someone who can be trusted. Anyway, I'll get back to you. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 01:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Welcome back. You were identified as a 'tendentious editor with a strongly anti-psychiatry point of view causing trouble' in a post at the medicine Wikiproject with a request for more editors to get involved in policing the psychiatry pages you were then attempting to edit. Once you were so identified all of your edits, even very innocuous ones such as the addition of the term "diagnosis" to the lead of article, were going to be treated with the utmost suspicion and subject to reversion. Added to that a lot of your edits and proposed edits in the psychiatry articles were not appropriate and were correctly reverted in my opinion.

I'll post on the source above when I get the chance to read the full article. FiachraByrne ( talk) 01:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks to both of you. I did not know of "We've had a long-term problem here with people harrying the psychiatry pages out of personal grievance or religious (Scientology) zeal. ", which explains much. I do not think any of my edits are controversial. They are the same edits any psychiatrist I associate with would have approved of. I am not antipsychiatry, just the opposite, I am very pro-evidence based psychiatry (as long as it is not politically abused or otherwise used to harm, not help, people), and futher, I am pro-mental prosthetics for people who have no disease, which is essentially outlawed in countries of European cultural descent. The choice should be a person's own to do what they will with their own mind, never a choice by others in opposition to that person. ParkSehJik ( talk) 03:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

You and I have met before. We agree, pretty much, in our attitudes towards evidence and science, so I value you as a person and want you to be able to contribute here. What I suggest you do is stay away for a reasonable time, and then ask permission to return under your old identity. That will be successful if you can convince the community that you really own your past errors, including this one, and won't repeat them. Good luck. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 11:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

ParkSehJik's block was only for 24 hours Anthony. S/he's active again. FiachraByrne ( talk) 11:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I just noticed this edit - you seem to have accidentally reverted a large number of unrelated changes. Could you specify which change(s) you intended to make? Arc de Ciel ( talk) 09:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Very strange. I did not make that edit. It has my name on it but I did not make it. I did not read any of the article, or even read any of the one footnote you referred me to. I just looked at the style of the single footnote you referred me to. The first bullet point appeared as an asterisk, while the rest were actual bullet points. So I put an extra space in the reference and hit preview, and the asterisk turned into a bullet point like the others, but created an extra space. So I hit save because the extra space seemed preferable to a nonuniform bullet point appearance. I never read any of the content of the article or even the reference I edited by adding a single space. The srangest thing is that the edit in my name looks thought out because the changes preserve grammar, indicating that whoever made the other changes actually thought about them. Who might know what is going on here? ParkSehJik ( talk) 15:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

What happened was that instead of editing the current version of the article, you accidentally edited an old version from the page history, from 11 September. When you hit Save, all the changes since that old version were reversed. Looie496 ( talk) 16:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks.

@Louie496 - How did you figure that out? - I tried to figure out what happened, but I lack the skill to have done so.

@ Arc de Ciel - no, I did not intend to make the changes except to correct the bullet points so they wuld appear uniform. ParkSehJik ( talk) 17:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Those organized changes had to come from somewhere, and the most likely place was an earlier version of the article. So I just looked backward in the history until I found one that matched the version you created. Looie496 ( talk) 17:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, that's what I thought. :-) Fixed. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 00:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks. How can I search an article's history, e.g., looking for an experession I recall being in an old version? ParkSehJik ( talk) 19:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Wikiblame

There is a tool called WikiBlame that can be used for that. (I didn't use it here, though -- since you said you only made very small changes, I looked for a recent version that was nearly the same size as the one you produced.) Looie496 ( talk) 20:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I put your coment in a bold subsection here to remind myself. ParkSehJik ( talk) 22:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi ParkSehJik. I haven't really been following your posts elsewhere but in my opinion you're raising too many issues at once on the Talk:Psychiatry page. I would advise taking one issue at a time and when some sort of consensus has been established for inclusion to or exclusion from the main article move on to the next item. You're much more likely to get a negative response when you make lots of proposals at once. FiachraByrne ( talk) 17:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I was tring to be slow, by keeping all of my suggestions on the talk page, and then sitting it out for a while during discussion, before implementing any of them in the article. As I understand the point you are making, even this apporach is too fast, and may be ultimately counterproductive to improving the psychiatry article. I will hold off on adding more for a while, even to the talk page. Thanks. ParkSehJik ( talk) 17:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Well my advice would be to stay engaged with the section on the lead. FiachraByrne ( talk) 17:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I will do so. I had no idea why my simple improvements to the lede section (e.g., adding the word "diagnosis") were in any way be controversial, until I read the comment of Anthonycole above on the article's history. ParkSehJik ( talk) 17:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

On a related note, to avoid WP:CANVAS problems: Start discussions at the most relevant location you can find. When you take a discussion to multiple locations, indicate you are doing so from all locations and provide rationale. Generally, follow WP:DR and escalate any dispute slowly. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I blanked one section where only you commented, and your comment was for me to read CANVASS. The Alt med aspects of my edits clearly fell within CANVASS, which was an attempt to get more editors to participate. (WP:POINT might also apply to these edits of mine.) I will try to focus discussion at MEDRS, which is where the essential question is discussed. I do not know when to use DSM and when not to, given that it is 20 years old and there is much published work since then contradicting much of it, and DSM V is acknowledged to be held up because it contains info that is directly contradicted by evidence, yet it does not indicate this. ParkSehJik ( talk) 18:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Park, this is a repeat of things you have been asked several times on the dozens of pages you have posted essentially the same thing:

1. Please read WP:TALK and refrain from using markup such as excess bolding in your posts.
2. Please read WP:TLDR and try to keep your posts focused, on topic, brief, concise.
3. Please read WP:NOTAFORUM and try to keep your posts to the topic the page is about. If you have an issue with an individual article, take it to that article talk page.
4. Please stop posting the same content to multiple forums. Posting a notice to one place with a link to another is fine; repeating the whole long screed on every page is not.

Finally, I want to point out that this advice is neither correct nor helpful:

You were identified as a 'tendentious editor with a strongly anti-psychiatry point of view causing trouble' in a post at the medicine Wikiproject with a request for more editors to get involved in policing the psychiatry pages you were then attempting to edit. Once you were so identified all of your edits ... were going to be treated with the utmost suspicion and subject to reversion. ... FiachraByrne ( talk) 01:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not the case; we are all generally capable of evaluating your posts ourselves, regardless of how the post was initially framed, and your posting style has been as big of a problem as your posting content. The issues I have seen with your posting have extended beyond, and have nothing to do with, the way the original request at WT:MED was framed, and if you think this is the case, you may fail to heed the pleas from others for you to please alter your posting style lest you end up in dispute resolution after exhausting the community's patience. Please take the advice given you on this page to be more focused, more brief, to better understand Wikipedia policies, and please stop exhausting the watchlists of so many editors. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

@SanyGeorgia - Thanks. Yes, I noticed that some editors dismissed my comments without apparent thought or reasoning, but others (including you) commented back to me directly on point and with good points. I posted at what appeared to me to be several relevant talk pages with an attempt to direct comments to one single place, but I might have done it incorrectly, especially re "repeating the whole long screed on every page is not". I think I might appear to need to read FORUM because I am still learning about where the correct place to post is, and not being aware that my edits are similar in content to previous edits that were problematic. But re WP:TLDR, please post and repost that warning on my talk page until I get it, or at least improve per it a bit. :) ParkSehJik ( talk) 20:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, first, just about anyone who reads WT:MED also reads WT:MEDRS, so repeat posts there aren't necessary. If you want to make a post somewhere, then link to it from elsewhere, then only link-- don't repeat the whole darn thing, and especially not with all that messy markup. Also, please try to make your section heads shorter, briefer, less leading; you are killing the watchlists of many very busy editors. A short, descriptive section heading is enough, and will make you look less like you are pushing an agenda with leading subject lines. I have never in all my days on Wikipedia seen an unblock request like yours (above); that is a pretty impressive wall of text, and no one appreciates having to get through something like that. We are all busy, most of us struggle just to keep up with our watchlists, and your approach isn't exactly the picture of "how to win friends"-- you are wearing people out. Short, brief, one issue at a time. You aren't going to change the field of psychiatry in the real world by wearing out Wikipedians who edit articles on those topics. Most of us have more work we want to do in here than we can get to in a lifetime: it is your posting "style" as much as your lack of understanding of "policy" that is resulting in frustration-- both for you and for others. Please remember we all have other work to do, and your goal of changing psychiatry isn't one that is going to happen overnight, if ever. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Post at MEDRS gets most at MED, only link don't repeat whole darn thing, section heads shorter, wall of text bad, pro- ebm psychiatry POV not to be achieved by edits at WP. Thanks. :) ParkSehJik ( talk) 20:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Grand. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

:) ParkSehJik ( talk) 21:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I'd like to have a private conversation with you. Would you be able to email me via Special:EmailUser/Anthonyhcole? (That will disclose your email address to me, so you may want to use a throw-away account.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 01:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for the abuse of multiple accounts and editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 01:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ParkSehJik ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

How am I supposed to get my one shot at an ublock without even knowing the charges of my aleged very serious abuse? *Where are the diffs of the "abuse"? *Where was the "trial"? *When was I noticed of it? *Who is my accuser? I would like to face them. What was the "abuse" that was so serious that all of AT&T was blocked (Starbucks, McDonalds, Barnes & Noble, etc.), as well as apparantly a whole college, and including everyone associated with my group? What was the serious abuse and not an improvement of Wikipedia from anyone associated with this or other anon IPs? Where was there a warning? Why is everyone at this shared IP, and at many others, blocked. Why are so many trying to "out" editors who do not want to reveal their identity for whatever reasons they may have, including posting the name of the college they edited from? Why am I being dragged back to this talk page? ParkSehJik ( talk) 05:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

Nowhere, either in your unblock request or elsewhere, have you addressed the reason for your block. In so far as what you say relates to the block at all (which much of it doesn't), it is a rant against what you see as the iniquities of the way that Wikipedia deals with such cases. However, any unblock request must be assessed within the existing framework, and suggesting changes to Wikipedia policies is a separate issue, which is not going to be dealt with here. Any suggestion that we should introduce "trials", rather than the present system of entrusting administrators to make assessments is, I guess, unlikely to get very far. The reason that I am here assessing your unblock request is that another editor asked me to step in, because of your comment below, where you say that I "implicitly acknowledged anon IP use was OK just two days ago". Of course anon IP use is OK, but it is a large jump from there to "anon IP use is OK no matter how it is used, including such things as using IP addresses and an account to edit the same pages, in such ways that other editors are likely to be misled into thinking that more than one editor is involved, using an IP address to evade a block on another one, etc etc". JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ParkSehJik ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

How do I address the reason for the block without knowing the diffs that it is based on, and how do these specific diffs show intentional "abuse"?

I wrote "How am I supposed to get my one shot at an ublock without even knowing the charges of my aleged very serious abuse? Where are the diffs of the "abuse"?"

You wrote "Nowhere, either in your unblock request or elsewhere, have you addressed the reason for your block."

How am I supposed to address the reason for the block if no one will not specify any diffs upon which it is based? There are no such diffs without assuming bad faith. What are the diffs of the alleged abuse, and how do they show an intent of abuse? Other editors have asked for these on the notice board, but no one seems to know of any.

The accusation seems to be of a deliberate effort to appear to be more than one person. No one could possibly think that given the edit history. So where is the SP even if there are diffs? (I am only guessing at what I am supposed to be responding to, since no one would specify any diffs when I asked, nor specify how those diffs "prove" an SP effort.)

Even if there were such diffs, how do they address this] without an assumption of bad faith.

Why are editors who do not want their iedentiy revealed now blocked from editing at alt med, because one, Aspheric, (actually three, including Qexigator and Puhlaa) wants to know who they are? (Is Aspeheric or any of the others one of the unhappy campers who had to camp in a prison for medical fraud related to expert work by one or more of the authors in the sources trying to be removed?) ParkSehJik ( talk) 15:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

I took another look and this is unambiguously  Confirmed multiple account abuse. Talk page access revoked, and I'm marking this a {{ checkuserblock}}. T. Canens ( talk) 08:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org.   T. Canens ( talk) 08:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply

How do I address the reason for the block without knowing the diffs that it is based on, and how do these specific diffs show intentional "abuse"?

I wrote "How am I supposed to get my one shot at an ublock without even knowing the charges of my aleged very serious abuse? Where are the diffs of the "abuse"?"

You wrote "Nowhere, either in your unblock request or elsewhere, have you addressed the reason for your block."

How am I supposed to address the reason for the block if no one will not specify any diffs upon which it is based? There are no such diffs without assuming bad faith. What are the diffs of the alleged abuse, and how do they show an intent of abuse? Other editors have asked for these on the notice board, but no one seems to know of any.

The accusation seems to be of a deliberate effort to appear to be more than one person. No one could possibly think that given the edit history. But I am only guessing at what I am supposed to be responding to, since no one would specify any diffs when I asked, nor specify how those diffs "prove" an SP effort.

Even if there were such diffs, how do they address this] without an assumption of bad faith.

Along with another CheckUser, I found that you edited the same article from two accounts and while logged out in violation of the Sockpuppetry policy, however, the Privacy and CheckUser policies restrict the information I am allowed to publicly release. There are conditions on which such information may be divulged, but none of them appear to apply at the moment.

As for your question about AT&T being blocked: it was not. I do know that I was unable to access this and many other websites earlier today due to some sort of AT&T network outage, so perhaps that is what you were experiencing. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 16:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for responding.

* Where is it prohibited to edit the same article from two different IP addresses?

* That fact is obvious and did not need a check user, especially since a different IP responded to comments at talk that were directed to the first IP, and everyone there was clear that it was the same editor, especially with the first IP having explicitly said the IP was Starbucks, then Barnes & Noble, then another Starbucks, etc.

* More importanlty, AGF, What are the diffs of "abuse", that there were multiple accounts used with the intention of trying to generate consensus, or otherwise deceive anyone?

*What diff shows anything other than an intent to improve Wikipedia?

*What is the response to AGF combined with this?

• Is it possible that you are interpreting your checkuser info, or fishing for evidence of a possible mal-intent, looking at checkuser info in the worst possible light, the opposite of AGF?
• Is it possible that, if you AGF, then there was no mal intent or "abuse", yet whatever you found is still accurate as to whatver you found?
• Is it possible you made an error in finding abuse, by superficially looking just at whatever you have access to, when there was none if you read the actual content of the edits? ParkSehJik ( talk) 17:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Leaving the logged-out editing aside for the moment, could you address the matter of editing the same article both from this account and another undeclared account? ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 17:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes, formal notice was given that there were multiple IPs for the same editor, and no one following the dicsussion could have understood anything otherwise -

• "64" is Starbucks' central IP addy in Austin TX.

• 64 is Barnes & Noble! (Maybe its just AT&T)

There other such edits, but the above two are sufficient to make the point.

In fact, the complaining editor began using the singular name “IP” to refer to all the IPs used, so could not possibly be being deceived. No one could possibly interpret the content of the edits as being intended to deceive. A more reasonable interpretation is the editor who made the complaint (advertising himself on his user page as a “new” editor – “i'm new”, but coming in from out of nowhere already having the most sophisticated technical knowledge or Wikilawering I have ever seen. When called out on it, for arguing he did not know policies to create the impression of being new, he removed the “I’m new”.

Perhaps the checkuser was on the wrong editor?

He may have posted at admin noticeboard in bad faith, given the above, intending to deceive admins and checkusers, who he knew would only superficially look at technical info, and not at the content of the edits.

Furthermore, there was notice on other talk pages that people who work with some of the New York Academy of Sciences author, themselves prominent expert in the field, were about to come in and lend their expertise.

That is an incentive for this Wikilaw expert editor to push for a block of new editors.

I am still AGF with that editor, but such considerations should not be ruled out.

In any case, there is no basis for the assumption of bad faith required to allege "abuse", and that assumption is proven wrong by the first two links above alone. There was no abuse, and there was formal notice that different IPs showed for the same editor (a notice that is not required in any way, but was made anyway).

Please consider all this. Please look at the content and context of the edits, not just at technical info. Please AGF. Thank you. ParkSehJik ( talk) 18:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for acknowledging that it was you that made those logged-out edits. However, I would still like for you to address the matter of the other registered, named account that was used to edit that same article. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 18:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• What are you talking about? Diff? Does the content of whatever the diff indicate some sort of intent to decieve or abuse Wiki, or does the content appear entirely innocuous? (I truly have no idea what edit you are talking about, so a diff might be helpful.) Shouldn't the specific charge, with a diff, be made before a fishing expedition, not after it, or am I unaware of some maliscious edit that others complained about somewhere I do not know of, and this is not fishing? Why all the secrecy, charges without letting the accused know what they are, no warnings, no diffs at all, why all the secrecy?
• Is it a violation of any policy to use multiple IPs without an intent to appear to influence consensus?
• What are the diffs that caused the AGF to go away and resulted in a check user? (I don't really know what a check user is, but it appears from comments of others that there has to be some clear evidence of intent to harm Wikipedia to trigger one. Is this correct, or are they routine?)
• Is it wrong to try to be as anonymous as possible, without appearing to be numerous editors to unduly influence consensus, when editing articles where there have been corresponding fraud actions off wiki since at least the 90's, and related to authors of sources cited in that article?
• Where are the diffs of abuse so severe as to trigger a check user? ParkSehJik ( talk) 20:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The policy says:

Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people. Contributions to the same page with clearly linked legitimate alternative accounts is not forbidden (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited). (emphasis mine)

It was apparent to several editors that this was being violated so an admin with CheckUser access was consulted. That CheckUser determined that a check was warranted, after which I was consulted, and that leads back to my first comment above. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 20:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• 1. Is editing multiple IPs different from editing from multiple accounts, all else being equal?
• 2. From the quote you cite -

"multiple account... in a way to suggest that they are multiple people".

Where are diffs that there was an intent to "suggest multiple people" by anyone?

• 3. What are the diffs that made it "apparent to several editors" that someone was trying to appear to be more than one person?
• 4. Who is the editor, who was in AGF, who first had this "apparrition" of several people appearing before to him or her, (expecially since the IPs posted on the talk page that they were just changing from Starbucks to Barnes & Noble and the IPs likely change aroud since it is AT&T?)
• 5. Please consider that someone may have made a mistake in failing to AGF, causing appearance something without any empirical evidence (diffs), and contradicted by the existing evidence (diffs of notice of Starbucks, AT&T, and thus changing IPs. ParkSehJik ( talk) 21:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I have not investigated the original complaint, but once it was raised, it became apparent that the logged-out editing was being done by a registered user. Since there was no clear connection between the IP edits and a named account, it looked like someone avoiding scrutiny, and it was probable enough to warrant a check. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 22:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

OK. So, someone before you apparantly asked for a check user without any having any diff of "abuse" to base it on, purely on there being multiple IPs (which is not prohibited), without looking at the content and context, and without AGF as wo why there wer multiple IPs. The content of the edits, and context, shows there is clearly not an intent to suggest there are "multiple people". They indicate the opposite, that there was an attempt to appear to be one person moving around in locations, from Starbucks to Barnes & Noble to other AT&T hotspots, making the "one peron" not so easy to locate. So there is no policy violation, and all blocks should be lifted as being made in error. The flow of the comments at talk clearly show the same person answering to comments, and there was an announcement that the IP was Starbucks, Barnes &Noble, and ngeneral AT&T internet cafes. The blocks were made in error and should be lifted, since there is no allegation of policy violations given this evidence from the diffs, and there is no diff suggesting anything like an attempt to appear to be multiple people. ParkSehJik ( talk) 00:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply

There certainly was a policy violation - two violations, in fact. One was avoiding scrutiny by editing while logged-out and not making it clear that the anonymous edits were you, and the other was using an undisclosed alternate account to edit the same article as your primary account. If you don't wish to discuss these matters, that's fine, but don't expect me to continue talking in circles with you. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 01:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi Park. Sorry to see you were blocked and I hope that there were no serious real life issues that led you to edit as an IP (outside of problematic socking behaviour I have no problem with IP editing). I'm assuming you can respond on your talk page even though you're blocked. If not I'll delete this.

Just to say in regard to your previous comments on forensic psychiatry, psychiatric clinicians and researchers tended to look at diagnostic concepts very differently (notwithstanding the fact that a considerable proportion of clinicians may be skeptical of all or certain diagnostic categories, particularly ones that have experienced recent hyper-inflation like bipolar ii). Clinicians tend to look at them as reified objects - real, discoverable objects in the world that can be easily identified - while researchers, particularly those that favour dimensional approaches, tend to see them as working constructs.

Best of luck. FiachraByrne ( talk) 04:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

As I have seen happen to others in our group, first there is discussion off the talk page, to which the "accused" does not reply, because they are blocked. This creates a mass momentum in others who do not know the editor or that they are in a trial where they are not allowed to have a defense, that they do not have a response. The person is on "trial" without being allowed to speak or be spoken for. Then when they try to get others to speak for them, using their own talk page, their talk page gets blocked for "abuse of the talk page". And the comments on the talk page that they were not allowed to speak are then erased from the talk page history, so no one knows they were ever made. Then other editors come along and just see the "guilty" block, and assume the editor actually did something deserving permanent ban. All without evidence, too! If you get this message before it is erased, please pass on the info to others about what is going on. I, and everyone associated with me, will be unable to do so. You will not even know it all happen, and think I am not responding.

All systems where a accused is discussed and accused but disallowed to speak in that forum, deteriorate to a situation like what i just found at Traditional Chinese Medicine, where even mention that it is alternative medicine has been scrubbed out. Here is some stuff that was able to be said before a range block blocked all of us. Particularly this part - Almost all of the references in the "1000 edits ago" version of BullRangifer are gone.

(PS, commenting on your reply to SBHarris re what you can do at Wiki, its best to the the primary source that the tertiary source relies on. Better, be the subprimary source that the primary source studies.)

One more comment, pass it on - “… suggestions about where DSM-V might best be aligned… nonempirical aspects of classification are legitimate and necessary.” - (Am J Psychiatry 2007; 164:557–565) Yes, my nonempirical "gut feeling" is that the person is crazy, and needs to have their assets seized and be locked up until my gut feeling changes, i.e., for life, without a trial, or accusation of having committed any crime... its for their own good. :) ParkSehJik ( talk) 05:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

ParkSehJik ( talk) 05:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Again, you will never have a way to know when a talk page gets blocked.

This editor, who requested " I recommend you come to my talk page (since your address keeps changing) so it can be discussed", has no way of knowing why I never went to their talk page.

The editor charges it is "contentious" not to compromise or be polite with an edtor who keeps deleting NSF as a source because it is not a good source. The word "contentious" gets throw at anyone who does not cave in to a "consensus" with alt med pushers, e.g., maybe there is half of a spiritual energey, or at least a tenth, as a compromise. That is why the TCM article got reduced to dust, caving in on the "contentious" charge, and now it is not even considered an alt med. This "truth by consensus" and "get along with the fraud community" attitude does not improve Wikipedia.

If you have a way of letting this admin know what is going on, he may have opinions on all this, since he implicitly acknowledged anon IP use was OK just two days ago. 05:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC) ParkSehJik ( talk) 05:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• You may, perhaps, be interested in the following comment posted on 3 June 2011 by a user who uses the username "NE Ent": It's important to realize WP does not have a justice system. It has a "most of us just want to edit and if someone causes too much aggravation they're going get blocked because no one wants to deal with it" system. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

@JamesBWatson, what are the diffs for the supposed "causes too much aggrivation"?

By avoiding "too much aggrivation", we end up with a Traditional Chinese Medicine arricle that does not even mention that it is alternative medicine! Apeasement does not work, and never has.

Other than five editors objecting to Academic Medicine, Nature Medicine, NSF, and New York Academy of Sciences as sources (the latter of which it appears few have read, despite it being the seminal source on the topic, from which almost all the others can be traced, even NSF.) Other than them, it appears there is rough consensus on the article so far.

The whole point of the NYAS article (read it) is this "caving in" to "just getting along", and not be "contentious", which is how the Traditional Chinese Medicine article ended up having all science scrubbed, all mention that it is a deliberate fraud by Mao, and not even calling it "alternative medicine", giving it scientific respectablity by default. That s how propoganda works - calling the enemy names and getting them shut down from speaking by the name calling, all without evidence (diffs).

Ironically, Sampson, the guy heading the delegation of one of the most pre-eminent debunking scientists ever assempbled, the one that uncovered that acupunture and TCM was a Communist plot (paranoid as it sounds, that is what happened), ended up being forced into early retirement for being "contentious" about Stanford funding acupuncture research, despite the delegation's findings, and refusing to treat with "dignity and respect" the "MD" claiming to have found "positive results" for acupuncture and asking and getting more funding (i.e., postive results for the fraud that was alrady known to be nothging but a Communist plot, later to be discovered to be another fraud, this time an academic fraud, but leaving that MD in place, and Sampson as emeritus! LOL but its not funny.) Editors at that article should read the sources before caving in to the "truth by consensus" relativism pointed out in the NYAS article. I will see what I can do about someone in our group posting it somewhere, since none of us now appear able to edit on the article in which we have expertise.

What the likely outcome of this will be is not improving WIkipedia, but taking out the simple fact that alt med is what the article currently says it is, and what the sources say in support of this. Alt med may be unconventional and not under the "dominant orthodoxy" (i.e., science, but obscured in the Marxist WHO wording). But that is not what defines it. What defines it is a deliberate use of language to create the appearance of efficacy and consistency with science by the very words (alternative, complementary, integrative), when this is false, and by it not being based on science (however poorly eb-medicine is based on science, it at least purports to try to be so based), but being based on superstition or fraud (all the other words defining it are subsumed by these two). This is not a POV, it is a fact. (Facts only have POVs in abstract philosophy courses with extreme examples in slippery slope arguments.) ParkSehJik ( talk) 14:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Just in case you find a way to contribute ... Request initiated for the article Alternative medicine to be moved to Complementary and alternative medicine. I'm notifying you as major contributor to the article. Relevant talk page discussion found here. FiachraByrne ( talk) 02:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Wallace Diesel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wallace Diesel (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kindzmarauli ( talk) 22:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Florida Institute for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Since you had some involvement with the Florida Institute for Complementary and Alternative Medicine redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Bangalamania ( talk) 19:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply