User talk:Webclinic

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

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

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

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) 22:16, 12 July 2023 (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 standard message is designed as an 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 special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

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

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

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) 22:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023[edit]

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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was offended by the editor tgeorgescu whose words 'because in China everybody who says otherwise goes to jail.'were full of discrimination against Chinese people including me. Webclinic (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't discrimination: it's hardly news that China allows no freedom of speech and has a pro-TCM bias enshrined in its Constitution. Calling a spade a spade isn't racism, nor discrimination. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is discrimination ? China allows no freedom of speech is discrimination.Acupuncture reagarded as a pseudoscience in English language world is discrimination. Webclinic (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the reality-based community, the People's Republic of China does not allow free speech. Take your propaganda elsewhere.

Demanding objective evidence for medical claims isn't racism or discrimination, either. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take your propaganda elsewhere not in my TALK.OK? You are a typical anti China person.You do not appreciate China, nor are you appreciated by most Chinese. Webclinic (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no axe to grind against the Chinese. I do have an axe to grind against quackery and against totalitarianism/dictatorship. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, China is not totalitarianism/dictatorship.Second, you assume China is totalitarianism/dictatorship, and you will attack it. So you are still attacking China. lie less，OK？ Webclinic (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I lived under the rule of a Communist party. I already know how it is. You cannot pull the wool over my eyes. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This just shows that your vision and knowledge are short-sighted. I live in a socialist country with Chinese characteristics, and my city is Shanghai. This country is considered a developed country by the United States, and this city is considered by the United States to be the most developed city in China. Webclinic (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

China is not same with the communism of the Soviet Union, and your rigid communist life experience is very not the same with mine. Webclinic (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are here to preach that in the PRC rule human rights, freedom and democracy, this is the wrong venue for preaching. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am quoting the American point of view.OK? Webclinic (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you think about China's freedom and democracy, I'm still alive and well. Webclinic (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]