User talk:Soll22

Hello, Soll22! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Sources

Please note that on a contested page like acupuncture, editors are not permitted to make changes, additions or deletions solely on the basis of their opinions. All new material must be verified through reference to reliable sources. Any edits made to sections justified by a source must continue to be an accurate summary of the contents of the source itself. The removal of material that is already sourced is generally not seen as a good idea unless it is accompanied by justification of some sort, usually through discussion on the talk page. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Soll22. You have new messages at WLU's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Well as I am going through citations, that many of the statements with citations are actually not supported by their citations. It's sort of a free for all interpretation. Interesting. Soll22 (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I wouldn't be surprised actually. When the main page has settled down I plan on going through the sources and the statements they are appended to and doing a careful read. In the meantime, you should find sources for the parts you think were removed unjustly, and note the sources you think are misused. You can use a subpage to do so, it would probably be easier. That talk page is an effing mess right now.

If you want to ignore that wall of text on my talk page, I suggest you instead read Snake Oil Science by R. Barker Bausell. The book does a great job of explaining why you need stringent controls for all science and why CAM is particularly problematic. Continuing to claim that acupuncture needs different testing from all other medicine without being aware of why science and medicine insists on the testing methodology it does is a disservice to actual science and ability of humans to think critically. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WLU. I have tried to find the book - it's very truncated on google books, so I am trying to find it in a library. I will def. take a look and discuss. Certainly the points and views held by this book are representative of a number of medical professionals. Will return to the topic once I find it. Soll22 (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userpages

Please don't edit (or create) user pages for other users, as you did at User:Nickjbarlow. Many users wish to have their user page blank, and doing this forces them to have the page deleted. It's also generally a faux pas, since their user page should be theirs alone to edit. This is just a friendly notice to let you know. All the best, — Jess· Δ ♥ 00:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry I thought that was a helpful thing to do. I am new here, and I thought they didn't realize that you need to create a user page. Just trying to help out. Thanks for intervening.Soll22 (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. That's why I'm letting you know! :) All the best, — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Soll22. You have new messages at Mann jess's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Jess· Δ ♥ 06:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting banned for disruptive editing

When I said that being disruptive like in trying to make a WP:POINT could get an editor banned, I did not intend for you to think that you are anywhere close to that. Just that if the same things get argued forever, it could. A thing I had trouble getting used to when texting first came out, and when I started editing at WP (Wikipedia), is that you don't have tone of voice and facial gestures going with the writing, so it sometimes seems cold and indifferent, or just outright rude or threatening, when that was not intended. You are new, and seem to have a POV, but you seem to be sincerely trying to learn to be NPOV. If someone were to try to get you banned right now, I would argue for you, and you would win. But no one is even suggesting anything like that, and if they do, it will probably be in a moment of frustration, and they will likely apologize to you the next day. PPdd (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I appreciate it. I also appreciate your perseverence with this ongoing let's say, clarification of terms...I guess everyone else is out enjoying the day, huh? thanks for all the wiki refs you send my way. Yeah, sometimes if you read certain paragraphs of discussion if you're frustrated they seem more charged, if you're relaxed the menacing tone dissappears.Soll22 (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]