User talk:Middle 8: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:24, 1 September 2014 editMiddle 8 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users8,217 edits →Excessive complaints and misleading use of evidence: cmt← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:47, 2 September 2014 edit undoJzG (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits →A small point.: new sectionNext edit →
Line 100:		Line 100:
	Hello there,I'm that user who's been the victim of editing the Fields Medal page(i.e.I got blocked with charge of Vandalism.).I've got three question:1)When the current protected status of that page ends,Does the page current contents remain in place or they are replaced with the old version? 2)I've prepared a new and somehow comprehensive table about Fields medalists.I posted this table on the discussion section of the Fields Medal page,and I request for comments about this(If You come there and see my that table I will be really glad,and don't forget to put your comment about it down there!;-)),but so far,just one person did so.Is it normal? 3)Should I submit a request for edit to replace the new table with current one?Or should I wait for reaching a consensus?Thank You. Rezameyqani (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		Hello there,I'm that user who's been the victim of editing the Fields Medal page(i.e.I got blocked with charge of Vandalism.).I've got three question:1)When the current protected status of that page ends,Does the page current contents remain in place or they are replaced with the old version? 2)I've prepared a new and somehow comprehensive table about Fields medalists.I posted this table on the discussion section of the Fields Medal page,and I request for comments about this(If You come there and see my that table I will be really glad,and don't forget to put your comment about it down there!;-)),but so far,just one person did so.Is it normal? 3)Should I submit a request for edit to replace the new table with current one?Or should I wait for reaching a consensus?Thank You. Rezameyqani (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:{{replyto\|Rezameyqani}} Hi, I wish I could help, but I've only edited that page once or twice and am not familiar with the background, and can't help you. If I were you I'd ask at the talk page of whoever blocked you, or at ]. Best of luck to you. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 08:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)		:{{replyto\|Rezameyqani}} Hi, I wish I could help, but I've only edited that page once or twice and am not familiar with the background, and can't help you. If I were you I'd ask at the talk page of whoever blocked you, or at ]. Best of luck to you. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 08:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

			== A small point. ==

			Your COI essay starts: "Do practicing acupuncturists have a conflict of interest (COI) when editing acu-related articles? The short answer is no."

			This answer may be short, it is also wrong. You are dependent for your living on the validity of a subject the scientific community views as questionable at best, and largely bogus (e.g. meridians, qi). This is a COI for Misplaced Pages, because this is a reality-based encyclopaedia. A homoeopath has a COI on articles on homeopathy, an acupuncturist has one in articles on acupuncture, a pharmaceutical exec has one on articles on drugs, a doctor has none, in theory, because medicine develops by assessing therapies and discarding the invalid - something no alternative therapy can do, because the core doctrines are never up for negotiation.

			You may believe you have no COI, but you are wrong. Just so we are clear on that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:47, 2 September 2014

This user is a scientist.

This user is an acupuncturist.

This user is a humanist.

This user supports the rights of autistic people to speak for themselves.

Privacy note: Do not post any personal information about me on Misplaced Pages beyond what I disclose on this and my other user pages. See User:Middle 8/Privacy and WP:OUTING, which is taken as seriously as WP:BLP, as it should be.

If you leave a message here, I will reply here unless you state a different preference. It's much easier for me to keep conversations in one place.

userpage boilerplate for mirror sites

This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Middle_8.

Archives (as yet incomplete; check the history)

Acupuncture and Biomedical Correlate

Review request for a review on the acupuncture page, first paragraph. See the Talk page, "Physical correlates of acupoints" section and "Physical correlates of acupoints, Part Two." I am concerned that an ethnocentric bias on the part of editors has prevented a simple edit. The editors stand by some very shaky references and will not accept references from the most prestigious universities in the world, including those in China. At issue, the current article reads inaccurately, "Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological correlates for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians and acupuncture points," and yet I have sourced numerous peer reviewed studies from reputable sources showing MRI brain activity, hemodynamic and oxygen pressure correlates. Please review, I think you will find the research interesting. TriumvirateProtean (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I've been very busy and only read it just now. I will have a look, but can't get into anything very intense for another week or so. But I will have a close look. This is an important area and we need to get it right. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Note to self and Acuhealth aka TriumvirateProtean: believe it or not, I haven't forgotten about this, which is why I didn't archive it. Besides being occupied elsewhere, I've been waiting for good sources: not just studies, but reviews (per MEDRS). Looks like we have some now. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 20:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Note to self re refs

Some stuff from Puhlaa to follow up. An ICON Overview on Physical Modalities for Neck Pain and Associated Disorders

And, from Puhlaa's post to TriumvirateProtean's talk page:

If you feel so inclined, here are some secondary sources that could be used to add relevant text to this section of body of the article:

--Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 20:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Middle8, I think that you would also be interested in the Evidence Map of Acupuncture that was recently published by the US Dept. of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service. Best regards Puhlaa (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting; it's a first-rate MEDRS and some if its findings diverge considerably from Cochrane's, usually but not always in the (+) direction, but also with more detail: they chart evidence according to both magnitude of effect and strength of evidence. Naively, I guess the different conclusions are no more and no less than results of different approaches to meta-analysis; I see no reason to suspect bias from this group (as opposed to, e.g., the NCCAM). Surprising. I'm sure some of the anti-acu POV-pushers will freak (yes, POV-pushing occurs from more than one side with alt-med, imagine that), but we follow the sources, wherever they take us. Thanks, this is a really good and interesting source. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 08:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There were several reviews I posted last year at acupuncture and DJ was blocking any attempt at including reviews that showed efficacy with QG being the henchman. This source is authoritative and excellent presents the data. While considering the sources, we should also consider if there are 'outlier' findings, i.e. conclusions that haven't been reproduced elsewhere. Ernst, Colqhoun, Novella and other sources come to mind. I'll add a few reviews to your list when i have some time. I agree, we should follow the sources, but we also need to discern the noise from the signal. DVMt (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability of authors

I see that one of the arguments against Wang is that he's not notable, and that Colquhoun and Novella are. But if one searches Google Scholar, there are very few results for SP Novella. There are many for D Colquhoun and for Shu-Ming Wang. By that measure, Wang is as notable as Colquhoun and Novella. But as you say, MEDRS doesn't say anything about notability but does give guidance regarding editorials. TimidGuy (talk) 10:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. And MEDRS also says "experts in the relevant field", and that's the crux of it; one can be very much an expert but not at all well-known. QG may be confusing expertise with notability. The skeptics will hate this, but notability in the skeptic world doesn't (necessarily) confer academic expertise. Peer review exists for a reason.... that said, I think Novella is fine here; it's just that Wang is more than fine. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 11:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for being a voice of calm and reason over at Talk:Acupuncture. It is always a pleasure to edit with you. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, 100%. I feel much more inclined to edit knowing you're around (the same for Jytdog and Brangifer). I've had to take breaks from the article now and again .... some extended ones over the last year or two to recalibrate my own NPOV (I could get pretty CPUSH, in retrospect, a reputation that's hard to shake), and sometimes because the hyperbole and obtuseness become intolerable. But when there is level-headedness, editing can be pretty fun. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 20:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC) edited: CPUSH, not CPOV 16:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Excessive complaints and misleading use of evidence

This comment -- a very belated one, given the diffs involved -- regards misleading evidence presented by QuackGuru regarding my editing. I'm asking a few editors to have a look: QuackGuru himself and Kww; and John, Jayaguru-Shishya and Brangifer, who commented on this issue earlier at John's user talk (here).

tl;dr: QG provided some diffs about me that made it look like I was POV-pushing, but I can and do show that those diffs, taken alone, are deceptive. These are part of a larger pattern of unwarranted complaints that involve being less than candid. Attacks based on selective evidence unfairly shift the burden to the accused and shouldn't be tolerated. Evidence follows.

QuackGuru posted the following at Kww's user talk:

On two separate occasions Middle 8 added the word "characterized" to the lede 5:40, 25 June 2014 01:09, 4 July 2014 and on two separate occasions Middle 8 added the word "described" to the lede.11:55, 12 May 2014 23:57, 4 July 2014 I think this can be reported to AE or I can let you handle this situation. You wanted me to run things like this before I make a report.
— User:QuackGuru 04:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Kww replied:

It's not a 3RR violation. I will discuss it with Middle 8.
— User:Kww 05:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

To recap, QG chooses four diffs and depicts them as POV pushing. But QG himself was the first to add the supposedly biased "characterized" to the text at hand, while I was the first to add the safely-neutral "stated" . He didn't mention that when he contrasted the two words. QG is very detail-oriented, so his overlooking these is surprising. But they tell a much different story, and omitting them is consistent with his being overeager to depict my editing as bad. It's time for that to stop. (I do apologize sincerely if I am wrong and/or straying into ABF, but -- cf. the duck test -- I think it's more likely than not that the omissions were deliberate. He's making way too many complaints, and they're almost entirely baseless, so to make them appear substantive needs to stretch and bend the truth.)

Attacking other editors with selective evidence is wrong, and hard to refute. And now I have to do exactly that, to show that my complaint has merit -- see how selective attacks seem to shift the burden, and take up the target's time? (A lot of time in this case; upwards of 12-18 hours.) FWIW:

pertinent mainspace changes during the time of my supposedly bad four edits
My first "bad edit" of 11:55, 12 May 2014: "TCM has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience." I explained this in detail at talk, and nobody commented there, nor did anyone revert it. I find no further mention of this passage on talk in the span of time between this edit and my final one on July 4th. Following a small edit war (24 May ) over multiple sentences, QG changed the wording to "TCM is characterized as largely pseudoscience..." . This was also removed but quickly restored by Doc James . A few days later Herbxue (using an edit by QG accepted at Talk:TCM) reworded as "Nature found TCM to be largely pseudoscience..." . Then an IP changed that to "According to one editorial in Nature magazine, TCM is characterized as largely pseudoscience,...". . Doc James amended this awkward construction to "According to an editorial in Nature magazine, TCM is largely pseudoscience...", and QuackGuru reverted back to his own (via Herbxue) preceding wording: . That stuck for a couple of weeks. Then toward the end of June, I changed the wording to "An editorial in Nature stated that TCM is largely pseudoscience..." and then a day later to "An editorial in Nature characterized TCM as largely pseudoscience..." (5:40, 25 June 2014, my 2nd "bad edit"). That stuck for a few days, and then QG reverted to my "stated" wording . That stuck for a few more days. About a week later, I reverted back to my "characterized" wording (my third "bad edit", 01:09, 4 July 2014). (Note: I didn't even realize I was reverting or being reverted at the time, and I doubt QG or anyone else did either, unless the edits were closely spaced. There were about 200(!) edits to be mainspace and talk space during this time, including sockpuppet edits and a reverting of same . But still no talk page discussion of this passage at all, as far as I can tell. People just weren't paying attention.) Finally, that "third bad edit" of mine above -- the only reason for which was to vary up the prose, with a word QG and Doc James once accepted -- was reverted , with an ES "Reverted non neutral change characterised as neutral" (plus a couple of personal attacks that QG and Doc James were oddly spared). Following BRD, I did my best to understand and address that editor's objections; hence "An editorial in Nature characterized TCM as largely pseudoscience..." (23:57, 4 July 2014, my fourth and last "bad edit"). And for the first time since my comments on May 12, talk page discussion ensued, and consensus at last began to emerge. I didn't edit that section of the article any further.

pertinent mainspace changes during the time of my supposedly bad four edits

My first "bad edit" of 11:55, 12 May 2014: "TCM has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience." I explained this in detail at talk, and nobody commented there, nor did anyone revert it. I find no further mention of this passage on talk in the span of time between this edit and my final one on July 4th.

Following a small edit war (24 May ) over multiple sentences, QG changed the wording to "TCM is characterized as largely pseudoscience..." . This was also removed but quickly restored by Doc James .

A few days later Herbxue (using an edit by QG accepted at Talk:TCM) reworded as "Nature found TCM to be largely pseudoscience..." . Then an IP changed that to "According to one editorial in Nature magazine, TCM is characterized as largely pseudoscience,...". . Doc James amended this awkward construction to "According to an editorial in Nature magazine, TCM is largely pseudoscience...", and QuackGuru reverted back to his own (via Herbxue) preceding wording: . That stuck for a couple of weeks.

Then toward the end of June, I changed the wording to "An editorial in Nature stated that TCM is largely pseudoscience..." and then a day later to "An editorial in Nature characterized TCM as largely pseudoscience..." (5:40, 25 June 2014, my 2nd "bad edit"). That stuck for a few days, and then QG reverted to my "stated" wording . That stuck for a few more days. About a week later, I reverted back to my "characterized" wording (my third "bad edit", 01:09, 4 July 2014). (Note: I didn't even realize I was reverting or being reverted at the time, and I doubt QG or anyone else did either, unless the edits were closely spaced. There were about 200(!) edits to be mainspace and talk space during this time, including sockpuppet edits and a reverting of same . But still no talk page discussion of this passage at all, as far as I can tell. People just weren't paying attention.)

Finally, that "third bad edit" of mine above -- the only reason for which was to vary up the prose, with a word QG and Doc James once accepted -- was reverted , with an ES "Reverted non neutral change characterised as neutral" (plus a couple of personal attacks that QG and Doc James were oddly spared). Following BRD, I did my best to understand and address that editor's objections; hence "An editorial in Nature characterized TCM as largely pseudoscience..." (23:57, 4 July 2014, my fourth and last "bad edit"). And for the first time since my comments on May 12, talk page discussion ensued, and consensus at last began to emerge. I didn't edit that section of the article any further.

What the history shows is gradual "drift": changes by multiple editors, with consensus yet to emerge. QG's selective evidence and comments only made it seem that my edits were improper.

QG's use of those diffs against me is opportunistic and underhanded, and the string of complaints (mentioned above, i.e. ) is overdone (and arguably harassment). Those complaints are also chock-full of further misleading use of evidence (e.g. this one, which Kww caught). If I were making so many bad edits I'd have a pretty big block log by now.

Attacks based on misleading evidence are unfair time-sinks to those targeted. This shouldn't be allowed to happen again.

OK! Happier editing. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 21:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's another, very simple instance: QuackGuru saying he thinks I may not have read ArbCom disrectionary sanctions on pseudoscience. As evidence for his assertion he cites this diff, again selectively, because (a) I immediately followed up that diff with this, and (b) both QuackGuru and I are veteran editors of pseudoscience topics and have been well aware of Arbcom sanctions for a long time. I'm really getting tired of the poking and misrepresentation of the record. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 05:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And selective use of a newspaper quote at article talk: Talk:Acupuncture#Safe.3F --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 09:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's up to others to get QG to make a course change if he won't on his own. I've made personal overtures but these were rebuffed ). --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 09:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Fields Medal

Hello there,I'm that user who's been the victim of editing the Fields Medal page(i.e.I got blocked with charge of Vandalism.).I've got three question:1)When the current protected status of that page ends,Does the page current contents remain in place or they are replaced with the old version? 2)I've prepared a new and somehow comprehensive table about Fields medalists.I posted this table on the discussion section of the Fields Medal page,and I request for comments about this(If You come there and see my that table I will be really glad,and don't forget to put your comment about it down there!;-)),but so far,just one person did so.Is it normal? 3)Should I submit a request for edit to replace the new table with current one?Or should I wait for reaching a consensus?Thank You. Rezameyqani (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezameyqani (talk • contribs)

@Rezameyqani: Hi, I wish I could help, but I've only edited that page once or twice and am not familiar with the background, and can't help you. If I were you I'd ask at the talk page of whoever blocked you, or at WP:HELPDESK. Best of luck to you. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 08:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

A small point.

Your COI essay starts: "Do practicing acupuncturists have a conflict of interest (COI) when editing acu-related articles? The short answer is no."

This answer may be short, it is also wrong. You are dependent for your living on the validity of a subject the scientific community views as questionable at best, and largely bogus (e.g. meridians, qi). This is a COI for Misplaced Pages, because this is a reality-based encyclopaedia. A homoeopath has a COI on articles on homeopathy, an acupuncturist has one in articles on acupuncture, a pharmaceutical exec has one on articles on drugs, a doctor has none, in theory, because medicine develops by assessing therapies and discarding the invalid - something no alternative therapy can do, because the core doctrines are never up for negotiation.

You may believe you have no COI, but you are wrong. Just so we are clear on that. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:

Humanist Wikipedians