User talk:Pacmann117

Edit warring at Spinal adjustment

Your recent editing history at Spinal adjustment shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic treatment techniques

I just noticed a whole series of seven edits you made at Chiropractic treatment techniques. I wish I could say they were all good, but you just engaged in addition of unsourced editorializing, original research, deletion of sources, several huge deletions of properly sourced material, etc.. Of all the last seven edits, there is only one which does not violate policy and might be an improvement. Basically you just trashed a consensus version that took many editors several years to develop. That's quite a slap in the face to all of them. They researched, discussed, edit warred, got blocked and banned, sought third party input, and held RfCs, all to arrive at that version. Every word and source has been the subject of intense negotiation.

So, to save lots of time, I'm going to revert back to the consensus version and you can describe each intended edit on the talk page first. Go slow, because you may not get any response immediately. Silence is not the same as approval, and reverts of your edits is not disapproval of you as a person. I totally trust that you have very good intentions. It's just not easy getting to learn the practices around here. My first articles and edits were all trashed, and very roughly! It was hard to deal with. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:BullRangifer I appreciate your guidance as to how to properly improve these articles. There seems to be much policy for me to master. To start with, is this talk section on my page an appropriate place for me to reply to your messages? (as in, do you see them and respond here?) Second, we can discuss the edits to chiropractic treatment techniques. But these should be discussed on the talk page there, correct? Third, am I correct that the revisions will be saved, so that I do not have to rewrite my edits? (after they are discussed.) And lastly, I have posted my rationale for the source removal on the chiropractic treatment techniques talk page, not sure if you have viewed that.

Pacmann117 (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I watchlist all pages I have edited, so I will see your replies here. Generally it's better to discuss edits on the article's talk page, but I wanted to make sure you were notified, and a red mark appears at the top, no matter where you are editing, if I comment here. Otherwise it's best there. Revisions are saved in the history, so nothing is ever lost, with a couple exceptions: a new article which is deleted also removes the edits from one's contribution history; WP:Outing can also be blanked so they are not visible. I have responded to your comments about removing the Ernst source. Keep communicating. That's the way forward and we can keep working together. You'll find that I am not an unreasonable hardliner, who deletes content which I find uncomfortable. I even defend the addition of content with which I strongly disagree, simply because it's properly sourced, properly framed, and NPOV may require the addition of such content. Sometimes that puts me at odds with some skeptical editors, but here I am an editor first, and a skeptic second. To ensure I respond quicker to your comments, just include my fully linked user name. You did it above, but the format wasn't right and I've fixed it. Now it will ping me. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I can discuss technicalities of formatting and policy here with you, and you get a ping if I tag you like this: User:BullRangifer (if you don't mind, I don't plan to harass you with questions) And to discuss individual pages, I should do so at the appropriate pages talk page.

Pacmann117 (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the basic idea, but the capitalization in my username needs to be right. I fixed it. I have also indented comments using colons to aid viewing the flow of comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think i've got it. Will include proper capitalization. Pacmann117 (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you a bit of info about my status here: autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 43301 edits since 2005-12-18. I started editing a little bit a couple years before without an account, but when I decided to get serious, I created an account. Although I've been urged to seek administrator status, I don't want it. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chiropractic Biophysics (CBP) (November 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Chiropractic Biophysics (CBP) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chiropractic Biophysics (CBP) has been accepted

Chiropractic Biophysics (CBP), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 08:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasting

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to grant license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such as you did from http://idealspine.com/cbp-research/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

revert/Chiropractic Biophysics/

[1] please take to talk page/article first, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I take it you are not sure what a review article is? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a research honors student, thank you very much. I have independently worked through an IRB board, and am an avid reader of research. I am well aware of what a review article is. CBP has valid RCTs, and some of the spinal modeling studies have been published in journals like Spine and European Spine. Pacmann117 (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
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) 03:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Pacmann117. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. Your edits to date are all focused on chiropractic topics, with a focus on Chiropractic Biophysics. This makes your account what we call a "single purpose account" (please do read that link to see the community's experience with editors like this). I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Pacmann117. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with folks who sell CBP products or offer CBP services? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Please reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- I am a research honors student in chiropractic college, and am involved with the rehabilitation department. About a year ago, I was involved with the CBP student club on campus. I have no financial ties to CBP, nor am I expecting any reward for trying to improve wikipedia. Pacmann117 (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your gracious and forthright response. I appreciate that very much. OK, what seems to be going on here, is what we call "advocacy". COI is a subset of advocacy editing. I will close out this subsection and open a new one, to save us both from scrolling forever. :) Thanks again, and please see my next note... Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy in Wikipedia

Based on what you have wrote above, I want to make sure you are aware of issues with what we call "advocacy" in Wikipedia.

There are a lot of things that Wikipedia is not (see What Wikipedia is not, which describes what we are up to, and what we are not up to, here) and one of the things WP is not, is a platform for advocacy. Please especially see the section, WP:NOTADVOCACY. "What Wikipedia is Not" is both a policy and a "pillar" - something very essential to the very guts of this place. People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead people to abuse Wikipedia - to hijack it from its mission of providing the world with free access to "accepted knowledge." Some people come here and try to create promotional content about their companies (classic "COI"), some come to tell everybody how bad it is to eat meat, some come to grind various political axes... we get all kinds of advocacy (COI is just a subset of it) It all comes down to violations of NOTADVOCACY. A lot of times, people don't even understand this is not OK. I try to talk with folks, to make sure they are aware of these issues.

For non-COI advocacy issues, we have three very good essays offering advice - one is WP:ADVOCACY another is WP:SPA that I already pointed you to, and see also WP:TENDENTIOUS which describes how advocacy editors tend to behave. As you are in a health-related field, I also urge you to please read Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine), an essay that I think you will find very helpful.

So, while I hear you that you think CBP is important in the real world, please do try to check that at the login page. And while you are free to edit about whatever the heck you want, please do consider broadening the scope of your editing. (I do realize that you are just getting started here, and everybody starts somewhere! Who knows where you will end up)

Changes to content (adding or deleting) need to be governed by the content policies and guidelines - namely WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT and the sourcing guidelines WP:RS and WP:MEDRS (the latter is the guideline for sourcing content about health - please do study it carefully!)

In terms of behavior, the really key behavioral policies are WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:HARASSMENT, and WP:DR, and the key guideline is WP:TPG. If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course.

But do try to aim everything you do and write in Wikipedia to further Wikipedia's mission (not your mission) and base everything you do on the spirit (not just the letter) of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Your passions will determine what you work on, but they shouldn't guide how you work here. I hope that makes sense.

If you have questions about working in WP at any time going forward, or about anything I wrote above (especially WP:MEDRS), please ask me. I am happy to talk. Thanks again for your patience with me. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chiropractic Biophysics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chiropractic Biophysics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic Biophysics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]