|
Hi Metaphysical historian! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hi, please don't add A Story Untold: A History of the Quimby-Eddy Debate to any further articles. This is a self-published source and will almost never be appropriate as a source for Wikipedia. Adding references to multiple articles to promote the author or work is described in our guideline Wikipedia:Spam, where you'll find further information. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. Our policy on self-published sources (SPS) is at WP:SPS. It says:
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
- The author of A Story Untold: A History of the Quimby-Eddy Debate would have to be an established expert, someone who is a published author (published by third parties) in the field of Christian Science, New Thought or related areas. I hope this helps. SarahSV (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hello again. I wrote a short assessment of the book as a source for Wikipedia at WP:FTN. WP:RSN is also a place where the community can provide input on sources but the context and suggested content to support using it should usually also be mentioned as part of requests. As Acroterion already mentioned, once some edits are reverted one should also attempt to seek consensus at the article's own talk page before restoring the material ( WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ONUS, etc). — Paleo Neonate – 14:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Metaphysical historian. We
welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things
you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the
conflict of interest guideline and
FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{ request edit}} template);
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
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.
— Paleo Neonate – 07:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, can you please stop adding the Keith McNeil book (which is self-published and a fringe source) to Wikipedia articles. It is not a reliable source. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 08:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Wikipedia:Teahouse. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Acroterion
(talk) 01:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Editors who disagree with you aren't "spammers." They disagree with you. Stop attacking other editors. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry but that is the point. They don't disagree with me. They never discuss any fact or substance. They have never said that anything I posted was inaccurate; they simply wish to cancel information that they don't like. Their alleged rationale for doing so is out of date and false. When did that kind of biased activity become OK at Wikipedia?
Metaphysical Historian
- That's not what I see - there have been several attempts to engage you, going back to 2017, and you've ignored them. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I had some back and forth with SlimVirgin in 2017 but she insisted the work at that time was "original research" and could not be used. The concerns as outlined by her no longer apply in 2020 since the book was published by a third party publisher, the author is recognized in the field as a subject matter expert, and the book is well regarded in the academic community. (Those were her criteria.) The attempt was made to update the sites and correct clearly incorrect, out-of-date references. No one disputed any of the facts outlined (they can't, and those facts can be easily verified). The editors simply wanted to cancel me. Acroterion, how do you "engage" with someone who thinks you have no reason to exist and refuses to discuss the issues?
Wikipedia describes itself on its own website this way:
"Wikipedia is an online free-content encyclopedia project helping to create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge."
Since when does "freely share in the sum of all knowledge" include cancelling people who would be happy to engage but instead are simply cancelled because the editor disagrees (for no stated reason)? It would be helpful if you could give me an example of where someone (post SlimVirgin) reached out to me in good faith and I ignored it.
Metaphysical Historian
- I see no edits whatsoever from this account to any article talkpage. You are expected to engage editors on talkpages to gain consensus, and the burden is on you to propose and substantiate changes to the status quo. You have made no attempt to do so on any article talkpage. Combative edit summaries are not satisfactory attempts to gain consensus. I see three messages on this talkpage, including SarahSV's, and you've made no response to any of them. You have no business complaining about other editors when you haven't even tried to take the required steps to achieve a consensus. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it was. Twinkle grabbed the last edit I looked at, so the Teahouse edit was referenced in the warning, but it applies to both edits. To reiterate, if this behavior recurs, you, Metaphysical Historian, may lose editing privileges. Acroterion (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
|
|
Hi Metaphysical historian! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hi, please don't add A Story Untold: A History of the Quimby-Eddy Debate to any further articles. This is a self-published source and will almost never be appropriate as a source for Wikipedia. Adding references to multiple articles to promote the author or work is described in our guideline Wikipedia:Spam, where you'll find further information. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. Our policy on self-published sources (SPS) is at WP:SPS. It says:
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
- The author of A Story Untold: A History of the Quimby-Eddy Debate would have to be an established expert, someone who is a published author (published by third parties) in the field of Christian Science, New Thought or related areas. I hope this helps. SarahSV (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hello again. I wrote a short assessment of the book as a source for Wikipedia at WP:FTN. WP:RSN is also a place where the community can provide input on sources but the context and suggested content to support using it should usually also be mentioned as part of requests. As Acroterion already mentioned, once some edits are reverted one should also attempt to seek consensus at the article's own talk page before restoring the material ( WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ONUS, etc). — Paleo Neonate – 14:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Metaphysical historian. We
welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things
you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the
conflict of interest guideline and
FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{ request edit}} template);
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
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.
— Paleo Neonate – 07:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, can you please stop adding the Keith McNeil book (which is self-published and a fringe source) to Wikipedia articles. It is not a reliable source. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 08:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Wikipedia:Teahouse. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Acroterion
(talk) 01:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Editors who disagree with you aren't "spammers." They disagree with you. Stop attacking other editors. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry but that is the point. They don't disagree with me. They never discuss any fact or substance. They have never said that anything I posted was inaccurate; they simply wish to cancel information that they don't like. Their alleged rationale for doing so is out of date and false. When did that kind of biased activity become OK at Wikipedia?
Metaphysical Historian
- That's not what I see - there have been several attempts to engage you, going back to 2017, and you've ignored them. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I had some back and forth with SlimVirgin in 2017 but she insisted the work at that time was "original research" and could not be used. The concerns as outlined by her no longer apply in 2020 since the book was published by a third party publisher, the author is recognized in the field as a subject matter expert, and the book is well regarded in the academic community. (Those were her criteria.) The attempt was made to update the sites and correct clearly incorrect, out-of-date references. No one disputed any of the facts outlined (they can't, and those facts can be easily verified). The editors simply wanted to cancel me. Acroterion, how do you "engage" with someone who thinks you have no reason to exist and refuses to discuss the issues?
Wikipedia describes itself on its own website this way:
"Wikipedia is an online free-content encyclopedia project helping to create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge."
Since when does "freely share in the sum of all knowledge" include cancelling people who would be happy to engage but instead are simply cancelled because the editor disagrees (for no stated reason)? It would be helpful if you could give me an example of where someone (post SlimVirgin) reached out to me in good faith and I ignored it.
Metaphysical Historian
- I see no edits whatsoever from this account to any article talkpage. You are expected to engage editors on talkpages to gain consensus, and the burden is on you to propose and substantiate changes to the status quo. You have made no attempt to do so on any article talkpage. Combative edit summaries are not satisfactory attempts to gain consensus. I see three messages on this talkpage, including SarahSV's, and you've made no response to any of them. You have no business complaining about other editors when you haven't even tried to take the required steps to achieve a consensus. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it was. Twinkle grabbed the last edit I looked at, so the Teahouse edit was referenced in the warning, but it applies to both edits. To reiterate, if this behavior recurs, you, Metaphysical Historian, may lose editing privileges. Acroterion (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)