User talk:Jmg873

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Jmg873. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spinal manipulation copyright concern

The material you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-1340-18-3, a copyright journal article. The material has since been removed by another user, but I would still like to remind you that copying copyright material to this wiki is not allowed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa Understood, is this the case for the 2017 review that was just added to the effectiveness section under low back pain by "Quackguru"? He quoted the study, which is something my addition was previously removed for doing. I'm just curious if he did something differently than I did.

Thank you. Jmg873 (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted a review not a study and I put the text in quotes. Quoting is allowed as long as it is not too long. QuackGuru (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A systematic review is a type of study, hence you'll see I refer to it as both. I asked this person because his/her mention includes an instance where I also put the text in quotes. Jmg873 (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You added a quote without a link to the source. That is a copyvio. This edit was also a copyvio. QuackGuru (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first was unnecessary to bring up, that was one of the original issues Diannaa was discussing. The second is my mistake; I didn't know that talk pages required full citations I'll re-post correctly.Jmg873 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, user talk pagesJmg873 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed them up, the first was the user talk page, the second link you had was what I was referring to from Diannaa.Jmg873 (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to add the full citation. It can just be a link. The last source you added to the article has a problem with the pmid. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you formatted the ref with the correct pmid then it might of not been deleted. You can start a RfC on the talk page to try to obtain WP:CON to restore it. But I think there is no chance you would gain consensus. They often disagree with me. It is getting harder and harder to maintain neutral articles. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cervical radiculopathy source

I think that the cervical radiculopathy source you are trying to add at the spinal manipulation article is reliable and fine for inclusion. I also suspect that the roadblock is a result of editor bias more so than any wikipedia policy. I have posted at the reliable sources noticeboard for other opinions. You can see it here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56a:75b7:9b00:a5fc:56e7:d1a6:3966 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

NPA

Please do read the talk page guidelines and please comment on content, not on contributor.

Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Spinal manipulation‎ that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message below. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made that comment due to the nature of the comment I was responding to. Would it have been more appropriate to say his comment exhibited bias?Jmg873 (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

marginally better. much better to focus on content and sources. bickering over how people talk will never get you where you want to go. Not ever. Focusing on content and sourcing is the best way to go. Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caption

I know the policy and guidelines. I heard most editors are against the rules. If it is a violation of WP:CAPTION I can't help you. They won't listen to me. QuackGuru (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I don't totally understand the reference you're making here. I understand to look at WP:CAPTION, but are you saying you've tried something like this before without success?Jmg873 (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have had trouble with a lot of things without success. It depends on the topic. Removing original research is very difficult on some topics. The text is usually a description of the image. The wording should be simpler. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and kudos on your editing

Hi Jmg873, I think that you are doing a fine job! All of your comments contain reliable sources and quotes from those sources and you have not sunk to discussing other editors rather than edits! You are well on your way to being a great contributor. You will find that editors will often game the system, relying on your lack of knowledge on policy, and even resort to bullying (like telling you that you are an SPA, like that is not allowed or something). I find that these tactics are most prevalent when the other editors have no source, or policy-based arguments, but still want their POV to be promoted. In addition to your great use of sources, you should get to know policy and guidelines much better to help you avoid being 'wiki-lawyered'. The most important guideline to know for editing health related articles, in my opinion, is WP:MEDRS. However, it is also good to know WP:NPOV and WP:OR. There are tonnes more that are relevant, but after about 7 years of lurking here and participating in discussions (I don't edit articles very often, just like the discussions), I still don't know them all and get 'caught' by those who know policy better. Hopefully you 'learned' a little about the wiki culture and approaches to discussion and editing by watching the exchange! Best regards 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment and the links you provided. Yes I learned a lot from that discussion. I find myself very disappointed in how the issue with the secondary source has been handled thus far. I hope that the medicine wikiproject talk page gets handled in a more unbiased fashion, or at least in a way that satisfies WP:V. Anyway, thanks again. I'll make sure to read up on policy as much as I can!Jmg873 (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits with incorrect summaries

In this edit you removed content saying it was not based on a review. However the source is a review (as confirmed by PUBMED classification). Such edits with incorrect summaries are damaging to the project. Alexbrn (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I misread a piece of the study, my mistake.Jmg873 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

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 Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 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.

Reply to your post at my talkpage

I could not reply to your query on my talk page because the bots keep seeing it as vandalism and removing my reply, so I am posting it here. First, let me note that the above warning does not imply that you have done anything wrong. Note that the first sentence suggests "it does not imply misconduct". Anyone who edits at an article that is under sanctions should receive that message, so they can held accountable if they break the rules.

With regard to your question: There are no rules against being an SPA; unless you are pushing a POV without any supporting high-quality sources, then you will have a problem. If you are concerned, familiarize yourself with WP:SPA. You have sources for everything you propose and are polite on the talk page and are not discussing other editors, only edits. As such, I do not think anyone could get you banned, but your suggested edits may still not be accepted either. An administrator that is actively editing an article, as Guy is, cannot use their administrative powers at that same article. If Guy wanted you banned for something that happened at the chiropractic article, he would have to find another administrator to make the block, or he could face sanctions himself. There is not really anything you can do to prevent misinformation (or one-sided info) except keep editing. Ultimately, consensus is what 'wins', so as long as there are more POV editors (pseudo-skeptics or true-believers) than neutral editors, the article will suffer. When you are working on the article, make sure you follow WP:BRD, it is not policy, but the standard for editing controversial articles. Also, BRD can be used against other editors who are reverting you...they have to be willing to 'discuss' or their revert is garbage and you could try another 'bold' change.

You can always try to get additional opinions, that what noticeboards are for. For example, I posted our query about the secondary sources for knee OA at the 'project medicine' talkpage (see WT:MED ). There is also a simialr talkpage for NPOV, for RS, etc. This is a way to get uninvolved editors to look at what is going on and give their 2 cents. If that is not working and if you have a conflict with 1 or 2 editor that is not being resolved, you can do a 'request for comment', where you place a template on the talk page and it notifies people to come comment on the relevant discussion. See WP:RFC If you are having major struggles you can do 'dispute resolution' see wp:dispute. If you need to report someone for being uncivil, etc, you can do it at WP:ANI. You should probably familiarize yourself with all of these if you want to edit controversial articles like 'chiropractic', most of the pages I linked have instructions at the top for how.when to use them appropriately. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still suffering at the hands of Wikipedia's underlying pseudo-skeptical culture. You are not alone in your struggles to try and impart some balance here. The acupuncture article has been a recurrent NPOV battleground over the years; there is even a British Medical Journal Blog about it. Similarly, the alternative medicine page is a battleground over even the basic definition for CAM. Making change at controversial articles usually requires getting some 'neutral' editors involved. How to get neutral editors involved is a challenge; however, some pointers:

When you post at a noticeboard for other opinions, it is good etiquette to let everyone know at the talk age where the discussion is occurring, so that it does not look like you are WP:canvassing behind your 'opponents' back.
Try not to let other editors 'ruin' your noticeboard posts. Neutral editors get easily 'scared-off' when they see long 'back and forths' between 2 passionate editors. Did you see how easily another editor was able to make the thread at the RS noticeboard a million lines of dialogue between the two of you and nothing of substance was addressed. No neutral editor wants to sift through all of that banter...you are better to let them have their say and wait to see what another editor is going to say, maybe a couple other editors if you are lucky. The longer the post, the less editors will bother to read.
Try not to 'ruin' your own noticeboard post. As mentioned above, long posts and repetitive responses ensure that no one is going to bother reading and commenting. Make sure to post a clear and concise post, link to the main discussion and then hope that someone neutral is going to get interested and provide a comment. When someone contradicts you, or challenges you, always consider if typing a response is going to be worth the risk of making the thread WP:TLDR and scaring off neutral editors. Other editors are smart, they will see through false arguments with no sources or policy to back them (hopefully).2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1: Thank you for the advice from this and previous posts, I will make sure to keep all of that in mind when posting at the noticeboards in the future. Regarding your first point about posting at the talk page; when I moved the discussion, I posted that I was moving it to the RS noticeboard with a link. Was there anything else I should do? If you're referring to when I brought it up under "use of the word 'some' in the lede", that talk page topic was started regarding "the removal of two secondary sources...". I hope this doesn't come across as trying to argue, I'm not; I'm only trying to understand. Please continue to let me know if you see me do something that might be better handled differently. Again, I truly appreciate all of the advice you've given me. Jmg873 (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed your note saying that you were moving discussion to the noticeboard....sorry; in which case you can ignore point 1.2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something. Jmg873 (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project Chiropractic

Just a short while ago I made the project active. It would mean a lot if you signed up on the members tab to help out. The main page has a list of objectives, feel free to add what you want out of the project, I put down some of my preliminary thoughts over the past few days while it was in draft-mode. There's a lot to cover and we'll need more people to help out. Thanks! Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chiropractic. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Looking forward to this. I don't know how much I'll be available, but I'll try to help out wherever I can. Jmg873 (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]