Shenqijing

Welcome!

Hello, Shenqijing, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Brumby did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• The Teahouse, our help forum for new users

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, visit the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Warning: Edit warring on Brumby

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Brumby; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Shenqijing, you are misunderstanding the nature of Wikipedia if you believe that Personal expertise/experience is sufficient and/or that the right course of action is to try to "win" an edit war. Doing what you have been doing is wasted effort. Please keep in mind that:

• Wikipedia works through community consensus. It's fine to make a bold change to an article, but if you are reverted to the stable version, then the right way of handling things is to discuss (WP:BRD). If that doesn't bring joy, there's further options to get a broader consensus (WP:3O, etc, but I guarantee that these will fail in the current state of things).
• Articles must (well, at least should) have a neutral point of view, and not have a political, ethical/moral, aesthetic or any other slant (see WP:WIKIVOICE) - instead they should represent what independent third parties say.
• Changes to articles require verifiable information from reliable sources given due weight. If you make the extraordinary assertion that it is illegal to call a Brumby feral in one or more jurisdictions, you'd better be able to back that up with reliable sources, and that information and sources can then be used to expand the article.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 00:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a war there has been may additionally inserts to this page, the discrepancy is about the use of feral nothing else, so even if my edits from feral to wild bush horse are not applicable, which I am disputing deliberate reverting back to a previous bias example is over zealouse and I see as vandalism. I have just linked the page to another wiki listing the Brumby as a bread and not as feral. The Australian Brumy is a Bread. Shenqijing (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Brumby as a bread not ferial.

The Australian Brumby is a bread of Australia as outlined @list of horse breads , Wikipedia page. The term Brumby should be used to describe the wild bush horse of Australia, as the term Brumby was legislated in favour of feral horse of Australia to exemplifie the Native horse from ferial animal management like bush pig etc. Shenqijing (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020A

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Brumby. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I have taken it to talk, on feral, you need to stop calling people names and start being constructive. The page is bias I have supplied evidence to this effect with the name feral,should be changed to Brumby it is a Brumby page not, you must not revert the page and repeated vandetlisum to the eddits and if this persists you could be blocked. Shenqijing (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion can be found here. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

So I have tried to talk I have been abused and taunted the explanation of the dispute is biased also. You are more worried about your edits or how it was edited than doing the right thing and not name demeaning this Brumby. The use of feral needs to changed. I do not expect that you would know how Chinese Medicine applies to the enviroment as you should not expect your self to know as it is not your speciality and I do not have the time to enlighten you from your darkness. The topic once more is about the name ferial nothing more nothing less, Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 02:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Note that your  Confirmed sock Theinhouse has been blocked indefinitely.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 02:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

We are a sustainabile community, we offer free classes to the community, We share wifi and device's and car transport. Due to Intentional living. There is no socks puppet here. You have also blocked an account that we do not know who it is

We are a large community that disagree with your bullying tacits.As we can see no one is using their real names on Wikipedia. The reason that you are finding us dificult is that we strongly disagree and disapprove of the process and the outcome. We have supplied evidence to support and substantiate our edits. We intend to appeal this bane. Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Who is "we"? are you editing for yourself or speaking for "a large community"? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that I outlined that above. This was in response for another person on the same IP. You need to read the comments please, as in a sustainabile communitie there is sharing of services, like car sharing. Les carbon footprint. Thankyou. Shenqijing (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that I outlined that above. This was in response for another person on the same IP. You need to read the comments please, as in a sustainabile communitie there is sharing of services, like car sharing. Les carbon footprint. Thankyou. @Guy Macon: Shenqijing (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually. You need to read WP:ROLE. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a sad day when Those that are threaten by honisty because of their own doubt in their integrity are in a position of power. @Guy Macon: Shenqijing (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not in a position of power. I am an ordinary editor, same as you. I have to follow the rules, same as you. You were blocked by a Wikipedia administrator. I am not a Wikipedia administrator. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

We all have the power with our words, this is a objective platform not subjective. The article in decision if it was pink fluffy unicorns, and all rainbows I would have a problem with this also as it would not be critical, the page Traditional Chinese medicine needs work, as it is unbalanced to the point of almost being intentional, the use of Pseudoscience five to six Times is a overkill, not having a link to food therapy when the world is moving towards plant based health what is that about?, the subject of the Nature Magazine article is about TCM being added to the Global Diagnostic Compendium ICD by the WHO. So the result or reaction is mentioned not the cause. When I finally got the right citation and had help in the wording from a administrator on page. It gets reverted and I get blocked.You need to stop messaging me about drunken driving and talking subjectivity about my credentials,vertue as a person and that I am financially involved with this, as I have no need for money. @Guy Macon: Shenqijing (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

May you find peace and clarity in your life,good buy.@Guy Macon: Shenqijing (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

June 2020B

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Brumby, you may be blocked from editing. Do you understand what WP:CONSENSUS means? Please answer the question. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I do not, look for some reason I am not getting notifications of these posts. I am on a phone does this make a difference for receiving messages. @Isaidnoway: Shenqijing (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Final Warning

Your history of editing on Brumby has been sufficiently disruptive that I regret it has become necessary to warn you formally that if it persists you will be blocked, again, and probably indefinitely. No further warnings on this subject will be forthcoming. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

So I have stopped for now but have still been blocked this is refocus. Great debate 👌 Shenqijing (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020C

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Brumby and Talk:Brumby) for tendentious editing to the point of disruption.

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 ~~~~}}.  RexxS (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a private website that allows the public to view its contents. It also allows people to edit its content, within certain limits. You have exhausted the patience of all of the other editors at Brumby and its talk page, and in that time, not a single editor has agreed with you. You have not responded to requests to drop the issue, and I am therefore preventing any further disruption by you at that article by enforcing a partial block that prevents you from editing there. You are, of course, still free to read the pages. --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020A

Hello, I'm Doanri. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Wuxing (Chinese philosophy), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doanri (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Giraffer (stay home) 08:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a reference on Google, there is no real official reference for the arts as they have a lot of neputisum and filial interference. Traditional Chinese medicine is my speciality. I am happy to talk to anyone about the arts Authenticity. Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source on Google. m.facebook.com/fiveelementmeditation/ Shenqijing (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that is user-generated content, which is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia (see WP:UGC). Please stop adding content to Wikipedia until you have read and understood WP:RS, WP:FORUM and WP:Citing sources, which are guidelines that all Wikipedia editors must follow. Good day, Doanri (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Doanri, I am just navigating around wiki learning. I am new to the internet and learning quickly, can you help me to see if we can make this work as I am excited to be able where I can on this page and other Chinese Medical pages.🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello again Doanri, I was unable to find your eddits initially, this is why I thought you were not a real editor. Shenqijing (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Samurai Virtues

Can someone please explain why we have Samurai virture here please. I think that having Zen and Shinto as links would suffice. As Taoists, Chan and Confucian philosophy underpins the Chinese arts. We need to keep this page relivent. Shenqijing (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

What is going on with this page please.

Why is this page so derogitory and biased, can a editor please explain. Thankyou. Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

As the Milgram experiment suggests that you are not absolve you of the implications of the naritave that you are continuing. At the end of the day it is a cultural heritage and you should first of all honour this, then the medicine. You need to think deeply about the health implications of what you are saying and doing. I think that their is no reason to not be respectful. You and I and all the wiki editors pail in the face of what has been decided by the WHO even if we do not understand why Shenqijing (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

TCM

On my talk page, you said: why is the Chinese medicine page so Biased. I think that it's inclusion by the World health organisation has become a problem for many. Can you please explain as I am a registered health professional.

I don't see any bias at traditional Chinese medicine - I see facts in the lede and Critique section, and quackery with non-verifiable history in most of the remaining article sections. The WHO acknowledged TCM as a practice used for large Chinese populations, but science-trained physicians and researchers do not accept it. You are a TCM practitioner, something very different from practicing science-based medicine. Wikipedia relies on sources and content from evidence-based medicine, for which TCM cannot qualify. I suggest you read WP:WHYMEDRS and the main guideline, WP:MEDRS, to perceive how TCM fits into Wikipedia content and sources on medical topics. Zefr (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

So show me where WHO include it for only Chinese communities. I have lectured in New Zealand and it is included in the National Health fund and here in Australia where I am,Acupunture for lower back pain is covered by Medicare, Acupunctur is widely used all over the world by non Asian people all over the world. You need to stop speaking on a subjective level as this is on a professional page. Acupunture is now being applied by many western medical practitioners and health providers around the world, with their own registry bodies. You need to stop deliberately sabotaging the page with your personal opinions. Once again please show your evidence that WHO said that it was only for Chinese communities.as for Nature magazine, with donkeys, please that is getting desperate, I mean pharmaceutical testing on animals and people don't get into ethical debates. Western medical anatomy was built on breaking ethical taboos of the time, and and and. I am also looking at many churches around the World studying it for the next wave of evangelist movement. You would agree with your background, right. Shenqijing (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Acupuncture is unscientific quackery. I am one editor among many who follow the TCM article. It isn't my personal view that TCM is pseudoscience, but one held by many medical content editors following WP:MEDRS. If you have objections, raise them on the TCM talk page or WT:MED where everyone can participate. I am following your discussion here, so don't post messages on my talk page. Zefr (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

As the Milgram experiment suggests that you are not absolve you of the implications of the naritave that you are continuing. At the end of the day it is a cultural heritage and you should first of all honour this, then the medicine. You need to think deeply about the health implications of what you are saying and doing. I think that their is no reason to not be respectful. You and I and all the wiki editors pail in the face of what has been decided by the WHO even if we do not understand why. Shenqijing (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop soapboxing, WP:SOAP, on the talk page for TCM, where the discussion specifically instructs editors to propose ways the article can be improved. Use WP:MEDRS sources for medical content, and WP:RS sources for history or policy. Zefr (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thankyou for your input, I think that we should be help accountable for what we say. If you don't like what you say don't say it. I am learning how to edit wiki, like many when starting a new task there is bound to be some problems. I think that you are a little autocratic in your approach. Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Please be careful about using the word racism against another editor. This is a WP:NPA violation. I have given you objective advice about TCM and WP:MEDRS sources needed for medical content. You have to separate yourself from the objectivity of WP:MEDRS and the pseudoscience of TCM if you are going to be a productive editor here. Zefr (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments, I think that you are just reflecting what you have been told by myself back to me from past correspondence that you have deleted. That is passive aggression as well to your list. Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Morality

Hi Shenqijing,

I get the feeling that you are not reading (perhaps not noticing?) my responses to your edits in my edit summaries, and at Talk:Morality, and on my own talk page in response to your comments, so I'm writing you a message here too.

I have no objections to you adding appropriately weighted material about Asian ethical schools to the article Morality, but you misunderstand the reason why Latin is mentioned in the first sentence of the article. That is not a place for putting all translations of the word "morality". The only reason Latin is mentioned is that that is the etymology of the title of the article. There are separate ways of tagging links to translations of the article in other languages, and there could be places to mention other terms in the body (I moved your additions down into the body next to some of your other editions), but the first sentence is not the appropriate place for that.

Furthermore, your editing is in violation of Wikipedia processes, specifically bold, revert, delete. (Please read that link). You made a bold addition to the article, I reverted it (and then later just revised it), and now the appropriate step is to discuss it on the talk page. You making threats against me for "vandalizing" your edits is not the appropriate process; if your edit is reverted, you need to get consensus on the talk page before restoring it, not the other way around.

I gather that you're fairly new here so I'm trying to be friendly, but please actually read and respond to things, don't just keep restoring your edits tendentiously. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for your response, I think that maybe after the Latin,etemology will be the best. As to not get lost in the body of the text. Thankyou for your input Shenqijing (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Merit

Hello,

Please do not add unsourced content to wikipedia and follow the manual of style (WP:MOS). You can read what constitutes a reliable source that can be used for wikipedia content at WP:RS. Personal knowledge of a definition is not a reliable or verifiable source, which is what wikipedia requires. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2020B

Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres, as you did to Traditional Chinese medicine, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Don't change lede content without consensus from the talk page discussion; WP:CON needed. Zefr (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Traditional Chinese medicine 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Zefr (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, there is duplicated information on this page. The same and more expounded is in a section called Critique, if you wish to defame TCM do it there by all means. This article had three if the same links going to the same source. We need also to move the Critique section to the bottom so it is in line with other Wikimedia pages. Thankyou. Shenqijing (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Read MOS:LEAD - "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." That TCM is quackery and pseudoscience is one of its most important content topics, so should stay in the lede, as correctly shown now. Zefr (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes I know, I have not removed these items, quakery was I thought removed by you. As it shows that in the history. Shenqijing (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice A

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.

GirthSummit _(blether) 15:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I will take this further,as this page is not balanced and you have not addressed my concerns. The information that was exhumed from its Source was very biased and not inclusive enough and as I have pointed out this naritave on the page was carried through with another two,tree in total link's to Pseudoscience. Then assuming that I am Chinese you proceed to demean me for my inclusions, when it was a far side better than the debacle of a page that is there. Shenqijing (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice B

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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.

GirthSummit _(blether) 15:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This section needs to be removed as it is repeated information from the Critique section including links to pseudoscience, read's as follows "It has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.[2]" We need to also include from the same article that Traditional Chinese medicine has been added to global diagnostic compendium by WHO and what that means for TCM. Also move the Critique section to the bottom of the page maybe just under notes, as I have said that it is in line with the lay out of other Wikipedia articles. Thankyou. Shenqijing (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Shenqijing, I'm cautioning you - you have made three reverts at the TCM page in the last 24 hours. You know what edit warring is I think, but if in doubt please consult WP:EW - you know what will happen if you revert there again. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This is over I have headed the warning and have stopped any edditing, without consulting the talk page. Thankyou, Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Hi - I'm very concerned about your statement that you are trying to get other editors to come to the TCM page, which appears to be an admission of off-wiki WP:CANVASSing. I am going to request that action be taken to stop your disruption at Arbitration Enforcement - please see WP:AE. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 05:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to get a impartial opinion and seeing how to get someone with experience to come and mediate this page, before I do this I am looking at Wikipedia process to make sure that it is within the guidelines. I feel that there is a narrative on this page that needs to be balanced that is all. At no stage have I deleted the inclusion of the statement from Nature Magazine only included it's subject and why it was added to the Global Diagnostic Compendium,(ICD) by the World Health Organisation, please see this reference, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06782-7 Here is the citation from the document, "WHO has been avidly supporting traditional medicines, above all TCM, as a step towards its long-term goal of universal health care. According to the agency, traditional treatments are less costly and more accessible than Western medicine in some countries" and here is my eddits including the original Wikipedia article text, "TCM Recently has been added by the World Health Organisation to the global diagnostic compendium making this medicine more accessible and affordable to many people in need of alternative health care around the world. On the same token, it has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.[2] by many occidental eurocentric thinking medical practitioners and supporters". As you can see that the only thing that I am guilty of is pointing out how the article had three links to Pseudoscience enforcing a unbalanced narrative 2. requesting that the Critique section be moved to a more appropriate position rather than being in pole position in reference. 3, also adding a link for Chinese food therapy that was counted as a revert, 4 recording major edditing on the talk page, sumerising the article that I have supplied a link to, 4, telling the truth and being told that I have a extreme view and what I had to say was not well written, If you look at the history of the page one revert is actually the addition of the link to the Chinese food therapy wiki page. There was also another editor coming on to the page and rivirting the page without talking on the page. Have a look at the Talk on the page. . I would like to say that it is not hard in this case to look biased in this case and that I am not, as to bring Ballance back to this article I need to lean heavily to the opposite side to straighten it up to make it True. Amituofo🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Your recent editing history at Traditional Chinese medicine 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Shenqijing reported by User:Zefr (Result: ). Thank you. Zefr (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Traditional Chinese medicine. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.   Salvio 14:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I thought that I had answered the questions in to other eddtitors but had obviously sent them somewhere else, I am new to Wikipedia and technology, I thought that when people did not say anything or contributing to the page they were being spamming or destructive, it was not my intention to be damaging or destructive, I am learning how to edit on page, as you will be able to see that I have recently learnt how to add citations to the latest edit attempt, the view was entirely from the source article that I provided and a edit suggested by another editor that was mediating, this suggestion by the other editor is on the talk page GirthSummit, the removal of quakery from the lead was not done by myself if you look in the edit history that will be clear, the puppetry on the brumby page had nothing to do with my account and the block was because once again I was new to the edditing process of large edits and was not able to cite my sources, not because the content was destructive if you look at the IP this will be obvious.also, when it comes to personal attacks let's not go there please as this needs to be objective and not subjective and speculation about my qualifications or if am financially involved in this is not relevant or helpful to this mediation at all , the final edit was a collaboration and not the edit that is being proposed to be my final entry, the on page message that I left on Alexbrn talk page was asking for clarification on why he had revirted the edit as his reason on the page in question and on the functional medicine page was not expressed or explicit. Many of my eddits on talk pages were questions and that is all and if you look at these Pages you will see that this is the case, I have not contacted any other editor at all and have left messages to this effect on everyones page that Ihas asked for clarification, last but not least this was about the credibility of the article and bringing Ballance for the end reader, not for this to be turned on my integrity of page but in life, please stay objective and not subjective, thankyou, please remove this block and take it to talk , or if this is not a the right place for this decision is a sandbox decision better, and again if this is appropriate can someone please instruct me on how this is done on talk.@GirthSummit: @Cullen:@Guy Macon:@Newsslinger: @Parked Moi:@Ymblanter: @Alexbrn: Shenqijing (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Based on this and comments below, you simply don't understand how Wikipedia works. This may be that you lack sufficient command of the English language to contribute here. There are definitely no sufficient grounds to lift the block and you should take this time to read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you resume editing like this when the block expires, I'm afraid your next block is likely to be indefinite. Yamla (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Shenqijing, the reason given for one of your previous blocks says it all: "Failing to heed multiple warnings about behaviour". You were warned again and again about edit warring. You ignored the warnings and kept doing it. And now you have posted an unblock in which you failed to talk about your edit warring -- the reason why you were blocked. You have given us no reason to believe that if you are unblocked you will not go right back to edit warring again.

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Shenqijing reported by User:Zefr (Result: Blocked) your edit warring -- including the warnings you ignored -- are documented in detail.

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Shenqijing the administrators are discussing whether to extend your block to indefinite.

At #Disruptive behavior at Brumby the following comments were made:

• "As per the evidence presented, Shenqijing is edit-warring, editing against consensus, exhibiting signs of WP:IDHT, WP:OWN, and apparently is here to WP:RGW. I'm asking for relief from this disruptive behavior,".
• "Pretty bad WP:SPA behavior with WP:CIR to complicate the issue. It seems unkind to take away their hobby but something has to happen. I would support an indefinite block".
• "Just read the talkpage and my brain hurts now; the user wont listen and keeps posting screeds that seem to have little relevance to what is being discussed. ".
• "The user has a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and if they don’t chill out and back down, a block is in order. ".

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou,Sorry I thought that I had made my reason clear and that was my eddits were revirted by eddtitors that had no history on page of contrabutions and gave no explanation of why they did so when asked on their talk page, I also asked them to come to talk on traditional Chinese medicine, but they did not reply.The reason that I made the eddits is because the page is unbalanced and will not be bullied into changing my mind. I think also being objective is a very important part of this and personal attacks and accusations need to be checked. This is about edditing and on page content.}}@Guy Macon:Shenqijing (talk) 06:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)}}

When someone whop has been working on the page for years tells you that your behavior is unacceptable you accuse them of being biased and ask for someone uninvolved to comment. When someone uninvolved comments and tells you that your behavior is unacceptable you complain that they have no history of contributions to the page. What you never do is in any way acknowledge that multiple editors are telling you that your behavior is unacceptable. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

In defence of the Brumbies page, at that time and still to some extent I am still trying to get my head around editing Wikipedia, if you look at the arbitration there is no comment from me or defence, because I did not know how to defend myself and to some extent this is happening know. The page is unbalanced and this fact is in the background like a elephant on the wall at the same time, making me the diversionary target. I will not edit the page if I can get a consensus about how to do this by taking it to talk and how long I should leave it when there is no reply. How to deal with ignorance,stubborn and deceitful and derogatory behaviour to achieve a edit that brings balance. As @GirthSummit: recognise that the addition of Pseudoscience in the article in question is overkill, and the first part of my last edit that I have been blocked for was made with his exact wording as a suggestion for the edit that I was making, the rest was a direct citation from the source that I referenced on page Nature Magazine, and for this I was titled with Extreme POV.Thankyou@Guy Macon: Shenqijing (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no "I am allowed to edit war because I am right" exception to Wikipedia's rules on edit warring. You have been given links to that policy at least half a dozen times already. Why didn't you stop edit warring when you were warned the first time? Based upon your behaviour so far I predict that you will now post a lengthy reply that fails to mention edit warring.

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou, I don't drink, alcohol is not good for your brain and therefore your ability to comprehend information. If you look through my replies and reason I have already answered your questions about the edit war. The reason is that the edit was being revirted by people that had no history of adding worth to the page, so I assumed they had no knowledge of the subject, therefore being notified to do so by other eddtitors or were sock puppet accounts (this term needs to change as it is a derogitory term that causes harm), also there was no good reason given on their revert, I even took the time in most cases to go to talk on page or on theirs. There are many people at home around the world all different cultures and many children, it is important that there is balance in these articles, if not in my experience will cause harm to others. So I think I need to move on now, in the words of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi,,"Nothing has saddened me so much in life as the hardness of Heart of educated people".@Guy Macon: Shenqijing (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

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 ~~~~}}.  Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Reading over your appeal to to your edit warring block above, comments afterwards, and the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, I do not think it is in the project's best interests to let you resume editing at this time --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

iI would like to object to the block due to being asked my reason for the eddits and war, I provided a reason, that may not be deemed as good or right but I did have a reason this shows cognitive understanding, if I did not have a reason this would be malicious damage to the encyclopaedia and it was not, would I enter in a edditing war again l would not wast the time of anyone involved, Will I or encourage others to endure personal subjective Criticism from other Wikimedia eddtitors about editorial that is supposed to be objective and critical in its design, I would not as I am well versed in the effect's of the Milgram experiment. So on this basis I will be professional and ethical when attending to any matters on the Wikipedia platform

Decline reason:

This request does not demonstrate an understanding of why you were blocked. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

. Shenqijing (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me.

In [1] you wrote

"You need to stop messaging me about drunken driving and talking subjectivity about my credentials,vertue[sic] as a person and that I am financially involved with this, as I have no need for money."

I will take that as a request to stop posting on your talk page and of course I will comply. Please do not ping me again. Be aware that when you ask someone to stop communicating with you, you need to stop communicating with them. Don't ping them, don't talk to them, don't talk about them. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You need to stop the harassment, you are talking on my talk page and insulting. I have not gone to yours. Once again please do not be so competitive and subjective, this is only a Wikipedia article, Do not fear a debate on a subject, as this will help you with criticle thinking in the future. It is asking questions and not confirming to the status- quo that makes leaders in the humanities and not just the followers.you need to stay professional. Thankyou and once again may you find peace and some clarity in your life.@Guy Macon: Shenqijing (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero, he just pinged me in response to me asking him to stop pinging me. (Yes, I know about blocking notifications, but he has been pinging other editors as well.) Do you think it is time to revoke talk page access? At this point he is just using this page as something between a WP:FORUM and a WP:SOAPBOX. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that you need to stop playing games.You are using the rules of the platform to work in your favour. I have only been pinging people when it comes to the explanation of my block. This if anything would be a misinterpretation of the rules of Wikipedia not a blatant disregard. Once again you started another talk subject on my page instead of finishing it on the topic that I had asked you to stop doing the very same thing. Now I can only assume that you have a personal interests in the outcome of this process in the defamation of myself, May you find Peace in your life and clarity for your choices. Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Shenqijing's talk page access has been revoked for the same reason he was blocked: "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia". As for me, I continue to find peace and clarity in my life, as I have for many years. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Guy Macon (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet

Not sure if any admins are still watching this user talkpage, but I'm pretty sure User:Sntmichael is a sockpuppet of this user, based on this edit and its similarity to previous edits on Virtue and Morality. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Shenqijing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Sntmichael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Editor Interaction Analyser
• Interaction Timeline
• Intersect Contribs

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on this edit I also suspect User:174.99.203.170 to be sockpuppet. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)