User talk:Eikoku

Welcome!

Hello, Eikoku, 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)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katsuto Momii[edit]

Hello, Eikoku, and thank you for your contributions!

I wanted to let you know it seems an article you worked on, Katsuto Momii, is copied from another Wikipedia page, Momii Katsuto. It's fine to do this as long as you provide the following information in the edit summary:

a link to the article you copied from
the date you copied it

You can do this now by editing the page, making any minor edit to the article, and adding the above information into the edit summary.

If you're still not sure how to fix the problem, please leave a message at the help desk. It's possible that I made a mistake, so feel free to remove the tag I placed on the article.

Thanks again for helping build the free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Shiatsu‎. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. McSly (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shiatsu. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this was added by Jytdog who undid an edit I had made, which I consequently undid. This was because it was being undone while I was editing the shiatsu page to add in cross reference to scientific journals like Biomedcentral, PLOS One, Elsevier etc. I have asked how you can update an article which is being undone on the fly. I have posted yo the talk page of Jytdog to ask how to update a page in such conditions. i.e. when your amends are being undone as you do them. I have also posted to Shiatsu talk page. Eikoku (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How things work here[edit]

Hi Eikoku:

You are new here and you don't understand the rules very well, much less the spirit that informs them - it is very very unwise to get angry and make strong claims as you have on the shiatsu article, when you are just getting started here.

I am sorry about this, but if you really want to get involved, it turns out that Wikipedia is a pretty complex place. Being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means that over the years, Wikipedia has developed lots of policies and guidelines (PAG) to help provide a "body of law" as it were, that form a foundation for rational discussion. Without that foundation, this place would be both a garbage dump of random content and a wild west - a truly ugly place. But with the foundation, there is guidance for generating excellent content and there are ways to rationally work things out - if, and only if, all the parties involved accept that foundation and work within it. One of the hardest things for new people, is to understand not only that this foundation exists, but what its letter and spirit is. (I keep emphasizing the spirit, because too often people fall prey to what we call "wikilawyering") The more I have learned about how things are set up here - not just the letter of PAG and the various drama boards and administrative tools, but their spirit - the more impressed I have become at how, well ... beautiful this place is. It takes time to learn both the spirit and the letter of PAG, and to really get aligned with Wikipedia's mission to crowdsource a reliable, NPOV source of information for the public (as "reliable" and "NPOV" are defined in PAG!). 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 to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, which is really destructive. WP:ADVOCACY is one of our biggest bedevilments. Anyway, I do hope you slow down and learn. There are lots of people here who are happy to teach, if you open up and listen and ask authentic questions, not rhetorical ones.

But if you continue as you have been (and people sometimes do), you will drive right off a cliff and get banned from Wikipedia. You have to accept that there are "rules" in Wikipedia and work within them. You really do.

The "rules" - the policies and guidelines (PAG) are described and discussed in a whole forest of documents within Wikipedia that are "behind the scenes" in a different "namespace", in which the documents start with "Wikipedia:" or in shorthand, "WP:" (for example, our policy on edit warring is here: WP:EDITWAR not here EDITWAR). You won't find these documents by using the simple search box above, which searches only in "main space" where the actual articles are. However if you search with the prefix, (for example if you search for "WP:EDITWAR") you will find policies and guidelines. Likewise if you do an advanced search with "wikipedia" or "help" selected you can also find things in "Wikipedia space". The link in the welcome message above the "Five Pillars" points you to our most important policies and I recommend that you read them all, if you have not already and if you intend to stick around! They guide everything that happens here.

With all that in mind, here are some things that I suggest you read (I know, I know, things to read... but like I said, Wikipedia can be complicated!)

WP:SPA - please read this - right now your account is what we call a "single purpose account")

Other, really important policies/guidelines about content and sources that you must learn:

WP:OR - no original research is allowed -instead...
WP:VERIFY - everything must be based on reliable sources (as we define them - see WP:RS for general content and WP:MEDRS for health-related content)
WP:MEDRS - this is our guideline for sourcing health-relating content in Wikipedia. This is probably the key thing you need to learn.
WP:NPOV - this does not mean what most people think it means. it means that you read the most recent and best reliable sources you can find, and figure out what the mainstream view is, and that is what gets the most WP:WEIGHT. Pay special mind to the WP:PSCI section, which is further elaborated in the WP:FRINGE guideline.
WP:MEDMOS - this our manual of style, for how we write about health-related things. We are very careful not to discuss pre-clinical findings, as well as initial clinical results, as though they are applicable to medicine. We are very conservative in that regard!

WP:CONSENSUS - Wikipedia has plenty of policies and guidelines, as I mentioned, but really at the end of the day this place is ... a democracy? an anarchy? something hard to define. But we figure things out by talking to one another. CONSENSUS is the bedrock on which everything else rests. So please talk - please never edit war (see warning above). If you make a change to an article and someone else reverts it, the right thing to do is to follow WP:BRD (please do read that) - but briefly, when you are reverted, open a discussion on the article's Talk page. Ask the reason under policy and guidelines why your change was reverted -- and really ask, and really listen to the answer, and go read whatever links you are pointed to. Think about it, and if there is something you don't understand, ask more questions. Please only start to actually argue once you understand the basis for the objection. If you and the other party or parties still disagree, there are many ways to resolve disputes (see WP:DR) - it never needs to become emotional - because we do have this whole "body of law" and procedures to resolve disputes.

I hope all that makes sense. Please let me know if you have any questions. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You asked if I had some questions. I do. You say I am making some strong claims - what claims are they?

Firstly, Are they the evidence of the effectiveness / links on shiatsu taken from peer-reviewed journals published in scholarly journals from Elsevier, Spinger / BioMedCentral, that are on PubMed Central?

Secondly, how can the inaccurate article be updated which states there is no evidence, and cite the evidence from Elsevier, Springer, Sage, Mary Anne Liebert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikoku (talk • contribs) 21:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i copied your question here - sorry, it can be confusing as to where to reply to someone. I am "watching" this page and will see your reply. let's not further fracture this.

i have written the following about five times, and this is the last time i will write it. What you are saying, ignores Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

you are putting the cart before the horse. You are claiming the article is inaccurate, and that it needs to be updated, but you have no concept of how things are judged to be "accurate" or not in Wikipedia, based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You have given no evidence that you even tried to read them. (your response was way, way too fast for you to have carefully read what I wrote above, much less thought about it, much less actually gone and read the policies and guidelines I linked to).

you are driving right off the cliff. you can keep doing that if you want, of course.

if you continue to make strong claims (and you rhetorically put them in questions above, but you are still making them) and do not even reference policy and guidelines with any kind of thoughtfulness (like you actually read them and have thought about them) i am just going to ignore you. really, i will not respond. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read them - twice now. But they do not help in answering why you are preventing me from updating the Shiatsu page. The article is inaccurate. There is evidence. On the talk page I have cited links and summarised the conclusions / abstracts from peer-reviewed scientific articles which show shiatsu is efficacious. There is nothing in the policy and guidelines which suggests that wikipedia prevents updates to articles by putting citations to scientific articles from Elsevier, BioMedCentral, Mary Ann Liebert, Sage - publishers with the highest impact factors in the world on some of the journals.

you do not seem to understand what "evidence" is in Wikipedia. as i wrote below, citing a bunch of publishers has almost nothing to do, with whether a given source is reliable for some specific piece of content. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog[edit]

WP:VERIFY - everything must be based on reliable sources (as we define them - see WP:RS for general content and WP:MEDRS for health-related content) - Springer, Pub MedCentral, Elsevier - these publishers produce some of the world's highest impact factor journals. These are where the articles I am wanting to cite come from." WP:MEDRS - this is our guideline for sourcing health-relating content in Wikipedia. This is probably the key thing you need to learn. - Springer, Pub MedCentral, Elsevier - these publishers produce some of the world's highest impact factor journals.These are where the articles I am wanting to cite come from." WP:NPOV - this does not mean what most people think it means. it means that you read the most recent and best reliable sources you can find, and figure out what the mainstream view is, and that is what gets the most WP:WEIGHT. Pay special mind to the WP:PSCI section, which is further elaborated in the WP:FRINGE guideline. - Springer, Pub MedCentral, Elsevier - these publishers produce some of the world's highest impact factor journals.These are where the articles I am wanting to cite come from." WP:MEDMOS - this our manual of style, for how we write about health-related things. We are very careful not to discuss pre-clinical findings, as well as initial clinical results, as though they are applicable to medicine. We are very conservative in that regard! - These are published articles not pre-clinical findings as they are in published journals ...

Springer is a publisher. So is Elsevier. Pubmedcentral hosts papers published elsewhere. Naming a publisher has nothing to do with whether a given source complies with WP:MEDRS. You are not really trying to understand things - you are still just arguing.

nothing you wrote, is remotely related to NPOV.

copy/pasting things, is not understanding them.

I would be happy to help you if you would stop arguing and start really asking. If you put the horse before the cart. (first try to understand the rules here, and then see if the content you want can work). I am done responding to you, until you come to me with a real question about the policies and guidelines. Sorry, but i am not a wall for you to beat your head against.

you can keep yelling and writing big long posts, but really.. how can i show you? it is like you are sitting at a checkerboard and trying to move a checker diagonally all across the board, like it is a bishop in chess. you are making no sense. and you can keep trying to move the checker diagnonally across the board, and you keep giving long explanations as to why it is OK, but eventually everyone will just leave. or they will throw you out of the game room. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the rules. Updating an article, citing evidence from peer-reviewed scientific articles from the world's premier scientific publishers is all fine. So why are my changes being blocked?

again, you are asking a fake question. i am telling that you do not understand MEDRS nor NPOV. you can ask me about what that policy and that guideleine say and how we use them, if you like. but please stop insisting that you understand them. you don't. Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be precise what part of MEDRS stops a peer-reviewed article from Elsevier for example being cited?

Also are you an administrator?

And who decides "the main stream weight" in the face of scientific journal articles and studies?

Due and undue weight[edit]

Policy shortcuts:

WP:UNDUE

WP:WEIGHT

WP:DUE

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable

I think you will find I have quoted on the talk page far more in number reliable sources than the one source that says there is no evidence. Also the Cancer UK quote says "There is no scientific evidence to prove that shiatsu can cure or prevent any type of disease, including cancer." I don't disagree with this. The articles talk of reductions in pain, helping with fybromyalgia etc medical treatments aren't just to cure or prevent but also to reduce symptoms, reliance on medicines etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikoku (talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Answering in order..

MEDRS calls for "secondary" sources. Please read the definition of "secondary source" in MEDRS.

nope, i am not admin.

editors work out appropriate WEIGHT in discussion based on reliable sources and PAG on the article Talk page. (discussion based on sources and PAG, not on what individual editors believe or do not believe) There are dispute resolution processes if discussion fails. i described all that above.

i don't understand the rest of what you write, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note[edit]

about this. I reverted that. first, you did not have my permission to copy my comments into article space. 2nd, what we are discussing here, is appropriate for a User talk page. it is not appropriate for article talk space. you are being super aggressive but you do not know what you are doing. please slow down. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying reliable sources (medicine)[edit]

This wikipedia page says "Biomedical journals - Peer-reviewed medical journals are a natural choice as a source for up-to-date medical information in Wikipedia articles." These are what I have been trying to cite, but is being rejected / undone. Can someone explain precisely why such citations are being rejected?

please read the definition of secondary source in MEDRS thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i am going to stop answering here, since you are asking the same thing in two places, and are getting the same answer both places. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]