User talk:Acohndc

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--RexxS (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing protected pages

Hi Acohnde, If you want to edit protected pages you must make enough edits to become a confirmed user (it used to be 10 edits, may be more now). I suggest you find a less controversial article where you can make a few edits with out pseudo-skeptics turning everything into a battleground, get some experience and then come back to the chiropractic article. I also strongly suggest that you get familiar with the following policy to help you choose and defend your edits at the chiropractic page: Sourcing your claims and Identifying reliable sources Regards.75.152.109.249 (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's good advice. I'll add that when you make or suggest edits to a contentious article like Chiropractic, you should ensure that you're not adding information already there, and that the text you add is a fair reflection of the reliable source that you are working from. Recent sources published in independent quality journals are much more likely to be reliable, and any claim of effectiveness or mechanism of action really needs to be sourced from a systematic or comprehensive literature review, or similar, i.e. a secondary source, not a primary one such as a RCT or case study. --RexxS (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are not ensuring that duplicate information is not being added to the Chiropractic. Half of the first paragragh is clearly duplication.

"an unproven concept that has no scientific basis. Chiropractors often also offer conventional therapies such as physical therapy and lifestyle counseling, and it may for the lay person be difficult to distinguish the unscientific from the scientific.[4][6] The underlying philosophy and some of the practices and beliefs which make up chiropractic are pseudoscience and anti-scientific.[4]" All this content is duplication and misplaced information. QuackGuru (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]