User talk:ShadowAdvocate

Welcome!

Hello, ShadowAdvocate! 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.

Getting Started

Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset
How to: edit a page • upload an image

Getting Help

Policies and Guidelines

Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research
Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines
What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons

Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule
Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy
External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry
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
Discord server • IRC channels • Mailing lists
The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)

Things to do

Task Center • Be bold in editing
Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles
Join a WikiProject • Translating articles
Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism

Miscellaneous

Happy editing! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Your COI at HEART Party

Please keep in mind you have a COI and should not make controversial or substantial edits to that article. Use the talk page. I have undone a removal you made. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe I have a conflict of interest. I made a mistake when I created this account originally. At the time I was just going to make the one edit and not continue, but I was then given the advice that I should broaden my scope and develop trust in the wiki community by contributing across a broad range of articles. I've since changed my username and decided to learn the wiki ways and get more involved. I am operating independently and only making evidence based edits. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes to this article, as your COI is obvious. You may discuss your proposed changes on the talk page if you like, but do not reinstate them without establishing consensus. – bradv 15:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I do not have a COI.

All the changes I have made are evidence based changes. I corrected factually incorrect information and included references and reasoning. Please read them. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Then it should be easy to convince people on the talk page that your edits are an improvement. – bradv 15:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

You'll see that I used the talk page months ago and no one responded. I think your reverts are unjust. I'm new here so could you help me learn if I have options available to me? ShadowAdvocate (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

When several editors tell you that Wikipedia considers that you have a COI, then just act like that is the case. I suggest you use the talk page, like those with a COI should do. Start a section for each proposed edit, one at a time, not all at once. Settle each issue and then move on to the next. Let other editors have some input. If they see merit in your suggested edit (or a reworked version), then someone else will install it, or they may ask you to do it. That will avoid controversy, and that's what you should strive for. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey thanks for your advice. I have done that, but I've found that this page doesn't have high traffic and my previous edit on the talk page had no replies. This is why I just started editing the page, making sure I backed everything up with rationale and references.

Do you have any suggestions on what to do if no one replies? ShadowAdvocate (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

You can ping editors who have previously edited the article or talk page. Be patient. There is no rush. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any advice on what is next with the edits on that page? Do I wait until someone comes along and makes the edits? There's been support for my edits, but do I assume that I'm still not allowed to directly edit the page? ShadowAdvocate (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

The proper place to ask is on that talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks, will do. I was just looking for advice for myself on how to behave on Wikipedia, but that answers my question! ShadowAdvocate (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

An oxymoron

By definition, "Evidence based alternative medicine" does not exist. Just sayin'...

Alternative medicine#Definitions and terminology

Alternative medicine is defined loosely as a set of products, practices, and theories that are believed or perceived by their users to have the healing effects of medicine, but whose effectiveness has not been established using scientific methods.

Journalist John Diamond wrote that "there is really no such thing as alternative medicine, just medicine that works and medicine that doesn't",^[1]^[2] a notion later echoed by Paul Offit: "The truth is there's no such thing as conventional or alternative or complementary or integrative or holistic medicine. There's only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't. And the best way to sort it out is by carefully evaluating scientific studies—not by visiting Internet chat rooms, reading magazine articles, or talking to friends."^[3]

Marcia Angell proposed that healthcare practices should be classified based solely on scientific evidence, and if a treatment had been rigorously tested and found safe and effective, science-based medicine will adopt it regardless of whether it was considered "alternative" to begin with.^[4] It is possible for a method to change categories (proven vs. unproven), based on increased knowledge of its effectiveness or lack thereof. Prominent supporters of this position are George D. Lundberg, former editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the journal's interim editor-in-chief Phil Fontanarosa.^[5]

Tim Minchin summarizes it best in his beat poem. It's hilarious and informative: Storm, Lyrics

"By definition," I begin, "Alternative Medicine," I continue, "Has either not been proved to work or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine."

It's a real Catch-22 situation. When some alternative medicine practice is proven to work (that rarely happens anymore) it ceases to be "alternative" and just becomes "medicine". Its origins are irrelevant. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

References

[1]
[2]
Jeffery, Nick (2015). "There is no such thing as alternative medicine". Editorial. Journal of Small Animal Practice. 56 (12): 687–688. doi:10.1111/jsap.12427. ISSN 1748-5827. PMID 26735773.
[3]
[4]
[5]

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes you have a good point. I agree that alternative medicine hasn't undergone the rigorous studies like mainstream medicine. However, I'm in support of theee being potential benefit from certain modalities. For example, peppermint oil contains menthol and wintergreen has salicylic acid, so these two oils can be rubbed onto muscles for muscle support, just like mainstream over the counter products. To be clear, I don't support alternative medicines like homeopathy. This is what I mean by "evidence based".

I'll have a rethink about how I can word it better. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey we've had some good discussion on the Vaccine Hesitancy thread and I think you understand me better now. Would you be able to help advise me regarding the admin who's just reverted all my HEART Party edits? I only made evidence based edits based on my knowledge of AEC processes etc. A lot of the page regarding the audits was wrong and I think the reverts were a bit unfair. What do I do? ShadowAdvocate (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Reply moved to above and placed in relevant section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles