User talk:RealScienceGeek

March 2019

Hello, I'm Pepperbeast. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Acupuncture have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. PepperBeast (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Acupuncture. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

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.

Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Acupuncture, you may be blocked from editing. PepperBeast (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Acupuncture. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Acupuncture shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

who gets to choose the content of the page. The information currently being reposted is biased and out of date. The edits I provide are more current to the actual state and understanding of acupuncture. Are you not able to present information without your ethnocentric bias? And why are the positions of the NIH and CDC not considered better sources than single, poorly designed studies? I sourced my edits to include latest thoughts on it and current governmental practices in the US.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RealScienceGeek (talk • contribs) 13:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the first edit was pointless and not constructive. I'll give you that. However the subsequent edits have only updated the page to reflect the current stance of acupuncture according the CDC and NIH. I don't know how you get to call something pseudo science when the US governmental agencies say otherwise. Information is based on more than just single studies, which you currently use. And data suggests those studies are already flawed and actually only tell us the data was inconclusive. You are the one taking the extra leap and inferring that inconclusive data = pseudo science.

Please sign your posts. See WP:SIGNATURE. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RealScienceGeek. Guy Macon (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience

Acupuncture is pseudoscience. Peer reviewed clinical trials have shown that acupuncture works exactly as well as any other placebo, that the results are exactly the same no matter where you put the needles, and that the results are exactly the same whether you put the needles in or just pretend to. The WP:MEDRS-compliant sources say that acupuncture doesn't work. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before you're allowed to edit Wikipedia any further, you'll need to address this vandalism and your subsequent blanking of sourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]