User talk:LesVegas/Archives/2014/September

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks bro! Hey do you know how to edit articles? All I can edit is talk pages? There's got to be an instruction manual here somewhere! LesVegas (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Help desk reply

Hello LesVegas yes we have such a page at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia - you may want the specific section Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia#How to edit. -- Moxy (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for being so helpful!LesVegas (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Adoption Request

Sure! I would be happy to adopt you. I am going to base my teaching course on my adoption, but I would be happy to explain things instead of you just reading them. You can ask specific questions on the talk page of your adoption page. Your adoption course will be located here (when the link turns blue): User:JHUbal27/Adopt/LesVegas. Thanks for requesting for adoption! ~~JHUbal27 05:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! LesVegas, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! ~~JHUbal27 08:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, LesVegas/Archives/2014/September. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by McDoobAU93 16:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

User:JHUbal27/Adopt/LesVegas#Test

You have new messages at User:JHUbal27/Adopt/LesVegas#Test. Please re-take the test for Lesson One. I am looking for serious answers to show your knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, not sarcastic humor. Thank you. ~~JHUbal27 22:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Great job on Lesson One! I really appreciate you taking the time to re-do your answers and cite specific policies. I really believe you deserved an "A". I will now post the next lesson, which I understand somewhat better. ~~JHUbal27 00:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Please go find some vandalism edits

Hello. You are doing a great job so far but I encourage you to slow down and read through everything carefully. You missed this part but, assuming good faith, you may have simply overlooked it or will do it later. So, if it is easier for you, please conplete the assignment below right here on your talk page. ~~JHUbal27 03:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to go and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.)

IMPORTANT WARNING: Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. Please add your signature here (~~~~) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning:

Oh OK, so that's the test? Yeah, that's a good lesson in good faith because I actually did read it but for some reason it didn't "click" in my stubborn noggin. I was expecting another test, but this is much more fun!! Thanks bro! LesVegas (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not the test lol. It is just a "prequel" to the test so I know that you understand what vandalism is. If you do pass this next test, I'll let you have a more fun lesson. You mentioned you wanted to renovate your user page, right? I can help you if you want. Just let me know what you want it to look like and what stuff you want on it. ~~JHUbal27 04:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Your input is requested

You seem like an enlightened person. I've been trying my best to try to incorporate the latest advances in acupuncture science into this article and I've been fought tooth and nail. There's a hardened core of skeptics that just don't want things to change. I invite you to participate in a RFC I've started to help break this impasse. You can find the debate here: Talk:Myofascial meridians Thanks! - Technophant (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Les, but that's textbook wp:CANVASSING. Please be aware that T is under plural topic bans, for other reasons. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Talking science Comment

Since we're talking science, you might be interested to know that you might not be as extremely ENTP as you think: the Myers Briggs-Test is Totaly Meaningless --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Aw shux, the link was broken! I was actually interested in reformulating my entire opinion regarding Myers Briggs and myself because the P in my ENTP likes to do that! LesVegas (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Left Hand of Darkness

Why would that be a hyphen, rather than an ndash? It's not the connection between parts of a compound word, it's something that prior to HTML would likely have been properly expressed as "--" and hence now should be an ndash. 2600:1004:B106:CC76:753D:5099:CB6B:19CE (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I see, and my apologies. Perhaps you just want to use a spaced  – dash instead. LesVegas (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification

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 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I was already aware about Wikipedia's policy here but I could always use a refresher! LesVegas (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys

Please remember that not everyone on the internet is male. Relatedly, sorry that you are seeing this side of editing so early in your career. Edit wars over tags are among the sillier things that people do here. (that said, do read the linked policy page). - 2/0 (cont.) 02:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry sweetheart, it won't happen again:)LesVegas (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Gender-neutral language on the net is tricky, isn't it? I think "they" is going to win out as a singular pronoun. As a form of greeting, "guys" can be gender-neutral (and it wouldn't surprise me if that usage is more common in the US). I like "Hi all", or of course "YO!" -- or the immortal "YO BITCHES!", which, as we've seen on the greatest TV series in the history of mankind humankind, can also be gender-neutral.  :-D ...albeit maybe a bit harsh for Wikipedia's delicate sensitivities. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Haha, and YO BITCHES is quite gender neutral if you factor in all the criminal badasses who were addressed with it . It is something to think about!LesVegas (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

LasVegas, I am sure you are trying to be helpful, but you should realize that you are coming across as arrogant, flippant, and dismissive of others, their work, and their dedication to this shared project. A more moderate tone might actually encourage the collaboration you seem to be interested in achieving. Everyone agrees that MPOV is correct, but you seem to want both to promote your preferred version of the Acupuncture article and simultaneously be perceived as a neutral moderator; this is unlikely to be productive.

I am not much of one for standing on WP:CIVIL violations, but I would appreciate if you refrain from addressing me as "sweetheart" in future. Let us keep it collegial. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh man, I'm very sorry, "sweetheart" was my clumsy attempt at humor. I assumed you are a man and it was my way of joking about you telling me not to say "guys". Anyway, sorry if I offended you.

And I appreciate the advice, and it's not my intention whatsoever to come across rude, arrogant, etc. As a matter of fact, I try to be the opposite of that in how I conduct myself. As a person who was raised in the "friendly south" and now live in New York, I know what it's like to encounter rude people constantly. Could you show me an example of where I'm being rude and arrogant because I really want to correct my behavior and it would help me immensely if you showed me where I've been misbehaving. Again, I'm very sorry for offending you, and everyone else, and I appreciate the help! LesVegas (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Grammar

There were a couple simple non-controversial grammar corrections that you also undid in your blind revert. Please be more careful, as failure to check your work actively makes the article worse. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice on this. When I reverted the page, I used the "restore this version" option but QuackGuru, unknown to me, edited it seconds before I pressed the button. All I wanted to revert was the tag, not the grammar. And I hope you didn't take offense to me reverting you! I just think it's only right to tag 8 year old sources which is why I saw the need to do so in that one instance. Fortunately, I see we're using the talk page now and not edit warring! Peace! LesVegas (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

My edit had nothing to do with the grammar change. QuackGuru (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

After User:2over0 recently told you about blind revert you made another blind revert to undo a ref improvement. It is disruptive tagging to add numerous tags. There is broad consensus to use the 2008 source. See Talk:Acupuncture#The_source_we_are_working_with_.5B39.5D. You claimed ignoring editors points. According to you, QuackGuru is literally correct. QuackGuru (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

As it has been said at the article Talk Page already, "there is no consensus" for the 2008 source. On the contrary, it's outdated per WP:MEDDATE and still waiting for comments by such users as User:A1candidate and User:Middle 8. QuackGuru, you have recently got warned by an administrator, and I'd advice you to stop making false claims. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I previously provided evidence on the talk page that there is consensus to use the 2008 source. User:Jmh649 and other editors agreed the source is reliable. See this diff. QuackGuru (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

And it's all been answered here[1]. So far, no consensus has been established. You keep falsely claiming consensus even you have been notified many times. Besides, there's been clarification asked from User:A1candidate and User:Middle 8 already couple of times[2][3]. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No policy to back up your comment

You claim we should tag and delete sources older than five years.[4] Nope. QuackGuru (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi QuackGuru! Yes, I forgot to mention the policy and thank you for reminding me. It's specific to medical claims, not just everything though, and it is Wikipedia:Meddate. LesVegas (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I just told you there is no policy (or guideline) to back up your comment. Wikipedia:Meddate does not say delete all sources older than five years. QuackGuru (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It says not to use them, though Wikipedia:BLUE is applicable here. But I agree somewhat, if we can't use them, we don't delete them. First we find up to date sources, and if we can't, then we delete them or just replace them with something else. LesVegas (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Who says not to use them? If you are referring to Wikipedia:Meddate you are mistaken. Wikipedia:BLUE is not applicable here. You don't delete sources according to blue. You don't delete sources if you can't find another source and you should not add several tags to the page against policy. QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for being a frequent guest on my talk page. Please I love visitors and you're welcome to stop by anytime. I love the good conversation. I said, WP:BLUE because Meddate says we don't use old sources. You said "it doesn't say we don't delete them" though. I'm not going to prove we don't delete them any more than I'll prove the sky is blue, although I might if you twist my arm and ask really, really nice because it's always fun trying to prove it's not black. Besides, I think this edit puts us on the same side anyway. See, isn't it more fun to be agreeable? LesVegas (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Meddate does not say we can't use older sources. You think this edit puts us on the same side anyway. Nope. That section was updated. That was the reason an older source was removed.

Your comment on the talk page is misleading. You did not explain the sources were removed because they were unreliable or we are using better sources. For example, I deleted an unreliable and dated source because I found another source. QuackGuru (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh but we do agree, silly Quackster. Should I invoke WP:BLUE on that as well? Or should I point out that I also believe we need to find more reliable and updated sources, which is the whole purpose of having the tag. I see in other instances you didn't replace it with new sources, nor did other editors. Nor is anyone required to do that. What is required, it seems to me, is to use current sourcing because MEDDATE says so but even bigger than that is the principle behind it, because science changes constantly. Anyway, it's beyond bedtime for me. Like I said, feel free to stop by anytime! LesVegas (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Confusing comment at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Dispute over POV tag on Acupuncture?

You claim there are outstanding issues at acupuncture but did you provide a link to the rebuttal? See Talk:Acupuncture#The_tag_was_removed_multiple_times. QuackGuru (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I sure did, I gave a link to the rebuttal where you went through it point by point. I'm a fair person and have nothing to hide. Now, I didn't give them the information where you said the tag was removed multiple times, but it contained my rebuttal which showed that you were the one who removed it multiple times. You can give them that if you want, but... LesVegas (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You say you gave a link to the rebuttal but it would be easier to follow if you gave a link to the thread at the Talk:Acupuncture#The_tag_was_removed_multiple_times talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure I'll post it tomorrow when I have time. I was going to update it anyway with all the research I've done on the page, and I'll add that in there. The more information the better. LesVegas (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Outdated sources at Acupuncture

Greetings! Thanks for participating the discussion at Talk:Acupuncture about the outdated sources in the article! I noticed that you added few tags on the article as well. If I have understood correctly, sources older than 5 years may be used as long as they are not making claims on medical efficiency. For example, to support a statement about the existence of Chi and meridians, I think even older sources are fine. I think that also applies with explaining the problems related to trial designs. I.e. they are used as RS, not MEDRS.

I hope you don't mind, but I reverted your edit for now, so maybe you can have another look into the sources. :-) Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks man. I'll post something I've been working on on talk a little later, which would probably be a better place anyway to look further into these sources. Anyway, thanks again! LesVegas (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

These sort of comments are not tolerated [5]. If they continue you may lose your ability to edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Doc James for the policy reminder! I'm unsure where I was specifically being uncivil in my comment though, so would you be so kind as to point out what I did wrong? I would really like to learn where I could do better. And for the record, in both the real world and on wikipedia, I try to conduct myself with as much civility, calmness and niceness as possible. That's just who I am and how I was raised, so if it's ever a question of tone (which as of yet can't be captured in online text), I really hope everyone will assume a calm, nice and playful tone with everything I say because that's how I mean it. LesVegas (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Doc James, but I find it incivil to refer to another editor as silly, to make a play on their username when you clearly do not have that kind of relationship, and to make a sarcastic reference to Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Those are easy ones. There is a great deal more to being actually civil, though, than simply refraining from telling other editors to go screw themselves. This is a diverse community and sometimes requires a gentle touch. I am bothering to explain this because I think you genuinely are interested in and capable of improving; please do not prove me wrong.

You may also be interested in the essay Wikipedia:You spat in my soup!. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the insight 2/0! It's always helpful to receive feedback from you and all the other experienced editors who visit this page! And just to let you know, my comment regarding WP:BLUE was not in the least bit intended to be sarcastic, and I apologize if I communicated it as such. I was being absolutely, 100 percent serious. My friendly talk page regular, QuackGuru, was saying WP:MEDDATE did not say we delete outdated material, and while he was literally correct, I felt he missed the BLUElike implication behind "don't use outdated material". In the future, please assume good faith in my case, I'm only trying to be positive and help out, and I will never intentionally be uncivil with another editor. But I thank you again because everyone, even the best, should be reminded about civility from time to time. LesVegas (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes those are the concerns. As are comments like this `Sorry sweetheart`. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Listen guys/gals, I have made every attempt to be as cheerful and nice and civil as humanely possible up to this point, but everyone has their limits. I'm beginning to get a little upset with these constant attacks and allegations when QuackGuru is given a free pass to say anything he wants and be disruptive. I've been nothing but nice to him even as he covers my talk page in slime. Do you both actually truly care this much about policy or just nitpicking at me because we might disagree in our views? I didn't bring up this edit even when 2/0 came onto my talk page and accused me of being arrogant and flippant without providing any substantiation, even when I asked as nicely as possible. I apologized for the sweetheart joke, even though I probably shouldn't have had to. I put a smiley at the end of it, clearly it was a joke based on the content of what we were discussing. Do I have to be a prosaic robot to be found civil? Geeze. Anyway, please understand I'm being sincere when I say I look forward to editing with you here, but civility is a two way street and in the future I hope everyone would please keep it real. LesVegas (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Verbal vomit

LesVegas and Middle 8 wrote YO B(Redacted). See User_talk:LesVegas#Hey guys. LesVegas wrote again YO B(Redacted) and Middle 8 wrote YEAH B(Redacted). See User talk:Middle 8#YEAH SCIENCE.21.21. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru, as I said, you are always welcome on my page, but I have to say I'm not sure I see where calling my conversation with another editor that I gave a barnstar to "verbal vomit" is helpful. LesVegas (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't use the B(Redacted) word again. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)What's YO B? :O By the way, why are you writing to LesVegas' Talk Page, and still talking about him in 3rd person? I'd remind you that you just recently got administrative warning for using user Talk Pages as a "wall of shame". I hope you have learnt about your past mistakes. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)