User talk:Chanoah

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Chanoah, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Talk:Acupuncture does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.
I am looking at the the papers referenced in the article and comparing the text and conclusions to the positions of the page authors and I find the papers do not actually support the author's argument that acupuncture is quackery. I have not added any new material. I am asking that the page be edited to better reflect the body of peer reviewed literature in this area, including some of those works referenced on the page. There are instances where the authors words have been cut/edited and presented out of context to make it appear they support the general idea presented on the apge which is that acupuncture is all quackery. Chanoah (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to complementary and alternative medicine, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption by RFC

[edit]

Opening one badly formed RFC is bad enough, we're not going to run 2 or more such simultaneously. - MrOllie (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to address separate content issues, not to duplicate discussion. The second RfC has been closed now. I also welcome help on how to restructure the remaining one so it meets the standard for a well formed RfC under policy. Chanoah (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Newslinger talk 15:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, you have been blocked for repeatedly bludgeoning discussions on Talk:Acupuncture with obviously LLM-generated comments (e.g. Special:Diff/1305403562, Special:Diff/1305521305, and Special:Diff/1305565954), and for posting a request for comment with an LLM-generated RfC statement in Special:Diff/1305560563, which you subsequently reposted in Special:Diff/1305564052. — Newslinger talk 15:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
== Request for unblock ==
Hello Newslinger,
I understand your concerns about my editing on Talk:Acupuncture, including the frequency and length of my comments, and the perception that I was repeating the same points. I also see there were questions about whether I had used outside drafting tools.
To clarify, I have sometimes drawn on external material to help me understand wikipedia policies/regulations and language (eg. I used ChatGPT to help me understand the various policies and guidelines; as a new user there is lot to learn!), I also used an LLM (Elicit) to compile reference lists of studies in Acupuncture field (this is not a field I work in professionally) so I could better understand the scope of research available on this topic. But I always edit and adapt it myself before posting, and I take full responsibility for my contributions. I now understand that not disclosing this can cause misunderstandings about authorship. In future, I will either draft entirely in my own words or clearly indicate when I have drawn from outside assistance.
If unblocked, I will:
• Keep my participation in contentious discussions concise and avoid repeating the same arguments.
• Focus on consensus-building and policy, rather than prolonged disputes.
• Ensure my posts are written in my own words or disclosed if based on external assistance.
My goal is to contribute constructively and within Wikipedia’s norms, and I would appreciate the chance to demonstrate that I can do so.
Chanoah (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to request an unblock, please follow the instructions in the block message. As the WP:NICETRY section of the guide to appealing blocks states, "Write your request yourself; requests that appear to be written with an LLM or AI are likely to be summarily rejected." If you posted your comment above as an unblock request, it would be declined. Based on your conduct, you are highly unlikely to be unblocked unless you agree to stop using LLMs to make edits on Wikipedia and agree to a topic ban from acupuncture as unblock conditions. — Newslinger talk 15:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Came by from the malformed unblock request filter. Endorse unblock conditions set forth by Newsling. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
icon
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chanoah (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have tried to stay within the rules here, and I have used an LLM (ChaptGPT) to help me understand the policies and regulations I should follow and to help me format tables, etc. in ways that are easy to read/understand. I always edit the work myself, and I do take full responsibility for everything I have posted. My purpose has been to open discussion as I have outlined in the RfC. I should mention as well that I do typically copy/paste my replies/comments from my computer rather than write directly on the page, though I am writing this directly to prevent any confusion. I understand the importance of the ‘person’ here as WP is about personal collaboration and I agree with steps being taken to ensure this site does not devolve to 'bots debating bots’.

I will not use LLM to create content on WP, though I would like to continue to paste my replies/comments in as it is far easier for me to write in .doc or.txt than in the little box provided on the WP page.
As for the topic ban, I am concerned there are areas in the article that do not conform to WP:NOV, WP:V and WP:MEDRS and a full topic ban would mean I would be unable to help address these issues. I can restrict my involvement on the page to policy based Talk discussions through dispute resolution systems (eg. RfC). As well, I will refrain from making any direct edits to the page (I made two, though the second was submitted in error - both were reverted quickly).
Chanoah (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declining, because of the declined tban. I think Newslinger's proposed tban doesn't go far enough, actually; I would not unblock you without a tban from "alternative medicine", broadly construed. I would encourage other responding admins to consider the same. I know you won't like to hear this, and there's no way to say this without coming off as patronizing: this is for your own good, and will help you, in the long run, to address the problems you see on the Acupuncture article. You've stepped into an extremely long-running, at times extremely acrimonious dispute. You will have very little chance of success unless you first learn your way around medical topics, and around dispute resolution in general. Sorry. asilvering (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Chanoah (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]