User talk:Mknjbhvgcf

Welcome!

Hello, Mknjbhvgcf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! — Cirt (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm reading-up at those links. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For the source, I've added it to the article. Let me know if you need help with anything. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mark, I appreciate the offer - I might well take you up on that at some point! :) --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a much needed cleaning up of the Narconon article! Thimbleweed (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Thimbleweed! Glad to hear that I'm doing OK - as a new Wikipedian I'm a little unsure of myself. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other groups

Here is my suggestion for a section on Narconon under other names and other affiliated groups. Have a look and see if you miss something. Thimbleweed (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I fixed a couple of typos, otherwise fine. I say add it to the article. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do! Thimbleweed (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Impressed with your development of the Narconon article and related pages. Don't know if you've had a look at Purification rundown and Second Chance Program, which are well-developed articles on closely related topics. Maybe some content in both of those will help you with Narconon, or vice versa. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Martin, I appreciate the feedback! --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I award you the Writer's Barnstar. You seem to have really read-up on those links I suggested to you in the Welcome message I gave you. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. :) — Cirt (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ooo, thank you. that's very kind. I'll now have to go and read up on what a barnstar is! :) --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bizarre

Carry on. My problem was with the header, not your view on chiropractic, or your view on the lede. I don't have enough time or inclination to get involved there but if you can't achieve a non-pejorative neutral presentation in the lede of chiropractic's actual standing in healthcare, ask for more opinions at WT:MED. Have you read WP:MEDRS? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilco. Thanks for the reassurance, I appreciate it. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A note on editing

Hi MK. I really want to encourage you to take your time and use the talk page. The chiropractic article has a long history of people trying to nudge the article one way or the other, and the basic approach that has been most fruitful is to calmly and reasonably present suggestions and then give others the time to respond to them. I think you'll find that this method is more effective and less contentious than starting by making changes first. Puhlaa is a great asset as an editor and an individual with a background in chiropractic; Brangifer is a physical therapist with a very critical eye to pseudoscience; I am an alternative medicine enthusiast turned skeptic in my own right; we all care deeply about neutrality and are willing to discuss what that means in practice in articles. In short, you have collaborators here, not enemies, and I encourage you to use them as sounding boards for your changes. You'll learn a lot and neither side will have to be defensive or uncooperative. Please let me know if you have any thoughts. Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My specific recommendation would be to Propose: and Justify: individual changes on the talk page rather than making series of edits which combine multiple changes at once. This is the best way forward; I know that from years of practice trying to overhaul major articles in a single swoop. When you hit resistance, go back to the talk page and try and build consensus. I don't mean to sound preachy, I just want you to have the best chance of success and the least experience with disruption and edit-wars. No one likes them and no one benefits from them. Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for the advice and help, which is evidently well-meant. I appreciate it.

Right now I feel like giving up on this wikipedia thing entirely. I'm not sure it's worth my time and emotional energy. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hard craft. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mknjbhvgcf, I'd encourage you not to give up on Wiki entirely. You seem to have a real knack for it starting out, and it's somewhat unfortunate that you ended up pulled into a highly controversial article so early on. If you enjoy the wiki concept overall, you may enjoy taking a step to the side to clear your head, and spend a leisurely while working up a few non-contentious topics at your own pace. Maybe you're a fan of Finnish cuisine, want to research and write more about Argentinian railways, really dig Samoan music? There are a lot of topics that need new articles as well as improvements on existing articles, and I'd hate to see a conscientious editor get turned off by early experiences in a battelground article. Just food for thought. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to look to noticeboards like WP:FTN and wikiprojects like Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine for more opinions. Particularly if you find a local consensus that seems at odds with what wikipedia stands for. Helpful policies and guidelines in this topic area: WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mknjbhvgcf. 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 MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

I am sorry about the tension in the chiropractic article. Unfortunately I have to say that discussion gets tense in many articles on controversial subjects. I really appreciate your giving editing a good try and I wish there was a way that you could engage Wikipedia only to relax and have fun and never to feel stress.

Thanks a lot for posting on the chiropractic talk page that you felt attacked. I always regret to read that but I am grateful that people complain of problems. I wish there were a natural way to make the social structure friendlier.

Thanks for your contributions. I appreciate them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Sorry to hear you're thinking of stepping back your participation on Wikipedia. :( Sometimes certain topics can indeed get overwhelming, especially the main core article within a larger topic. What's been helpful for some editors is to focus solely on one particular project at a time, like improvement to WP:GA or even WP:FA for one specific article. I hope you'll think about it and stay on as a positive force because you are a good quality improvement contributor to Wikipedia. — Cirt (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Graphic from "wise at work" magazine issue 1 (2005) p15. Published by WISE (World Institute of Scientology Enterprises). Incorporates logos of various Scientology-related eneities.png

Thanks for uploading File:Graphic from "wise at work" magazine issue 1 (2005) p15. Published by WISE (World Institute of Scientology Enterprises). Incorporates logos of various Scientology-related eneities.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]