Hello, Nonki72, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Qi 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, 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) 19:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Reformulated:
Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).
You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow ( snobby), heavily biased for the academia.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".
If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19 April 2020 19:55:27 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to
Qi appears to be a
minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given
undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a
neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's
talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
19:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I did not write anything that claimed that vital energy is real or that it is in any way accepted by the majority of the scientific community or any other community. It is not a "fringe viewpoint" to claim that the stated people have abandoned it as a scientific notion and labeled it pseudo science. That is what it already said. Those sources did not claim that anyone other than the authors themselves (and Einstien) share the same opinion. There are for example many people in the Chinese traditional medicine field who have not abandoned it as a scientific notion. It might be better to say that western cultures have abandoned it instead.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:
So yes, we are biased.
We are biased towards
science and biased against
pseudoscience.
We are biased towards
astronomy, and biased against
astrology.
We are biased towards
chemistry, and biased against
alchemy.
We are biased towards
mathematics, and biased against
numerology.
We are biased towards
medicine, and biased against
homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards
venipuncture, and biased against
acupuncture.
We are biased towards
actual conspiracies and biased against
conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards
cargo planes, and biased against
cargo cults.
We are biased towards
vaccination, and biased against
vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards
magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against
magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards
crops, and biased against
crop circles.
We are biased towards
laundry detergent, and biased against
laundry balls.
We are biased towards
augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against
facilitated communication.
We are biased towards
water treatment, and biased against
magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards
electromagnetic fields, and biased against
microlepton fields.
We are biased towards
evolution, and biased against
creationism.
We are biased towards
holocaust studies, and biased against
holocaust denial.
We are biased towards the
sociology of race, and biased against
scientific racism.
We are biased towards the
scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against
global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards
geology, and biased against
flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in
double-blind
clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon
preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards
astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against
ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards
psychology, and biased against
phrenology.
We are biased towards
mendelism, and biased against
lysenkoism.
And we are not going to change. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Nonki72! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC) |
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to JC Lattès has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 15:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Hello, Nonki72, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Qi 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, 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) 19:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Reformulated:
Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).
You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow ( snobby), heavily biased for the academia.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".
If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19 April 2020 19:55:27 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to
Qi appears to be a
minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given
undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a
neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's
talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
19:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I did not write anything that claimed that vital energy is real or that it is in any way accepted by the majority of the scientific community or any other community. It is not a "fringe viewpoint" to claim that the stated people have abandoned it as a scientific notion and labeled it pseudo science. That is what it already said. Those sources did not claim that anyone other than the authors themselves (and Einstien) share the same opinion. There are for example many people in the Chinese traditional medicine field who have not abandoned it as a scientific notion. It might be better to say that western cultures have abandoned it instead.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:
So yes, we are biased.
We are biased towards
science and biased against
pseudoscience.
We are biased towards
astronomy, and biased against
astrology.
We are biased towards
chemistry, and biased against
alchemy.
We are biased towards
mathematics, and biased against
numerology.
We are biased towards
medicine, and biased against
homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards
venipuncture, and biased against
acupuncture.
We are biased towards
actual conspiracies and biased against
conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards
cargo planes, and biased against
cargo cults.
We are biased towards
vaccination, and biased against
vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards
magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against
magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards
crops, and biased against
crop circles.
We are biased towards
laundry detergent, and biased against
laundry balls.
We are biased towards
augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against
facilitated communication.
We are biased towards
water treatment, and biased against
magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards
electromagnetic fields, and biased against
microlepton fields.
We are biased towards
evolution, and biased against
creationism.
We are biased towards
holocaust studies, and biased against
holocaust denial.
We are biased towards the
sociology of race, and biased against
scientific racism.
We are biased towards the
scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against
global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards
geology, and biased against
flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in
double-blind
clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon
preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards
astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against
ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards
psychology, and biased against
phrenology.
We are biased towards
mendelism, and biased against
lysenkoism.
And we are not going to change. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Nonki72! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC) |
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to JC Lattès has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 15:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.