Archives |
---|
Hi!
I reverted your recent edit in Cretan hieroglyphs, and solved the problem with the use of an adjective instead of the noun in a simpler manner (eliminating a redirect). I assume that your spelling heiro- instead of hiero- was just a typo, and therefore made no remark about this on the talk page; if I'm wrong, feel free to change back and/or to discuss spelling variants at e. g. Talk:Hieroglyph.
Best, JoergenB ( talk) 17:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I just reverted the citation needed tags you placed in the ritual article. In each of the subsections there is one citation placed at the end of the paragraph for that paragraph. Putting the same citation at the end of each sentence in a paragraph really doesn't seem to make much sense, since all of these characteristics of ritual come from one chapter of one book. Hope you agree. Schrauwers ( talk) 11:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I wondered why you had not removed the link to the "Roll Call" of the Golden Dawn on the same basis? It quotes no sources at all.
Could you advise how Ms. Davis should improve her material to meet your reliability standards for the Golden Dawn article?
Thanks Wrighrp ( talk) 16:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi mate! I've left you a note at Talk:Magick with regard to the RFC. I tried not to sound patronising (sorry if I did), but I was genuinely confused by your "vote" and them comment. It was almost as if you meant "strong support", but you clearly have concerns with the article so I'm keen to flesh those out. What I've proposed seems to be exactly what you're calling for so is there something else you think should be resolved at the same time? Stalwart 111 10:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Hope to bump into you elsewhere. Schrauwers ( talk) 20:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
u r probably the only person on wiki who is ever so nice i have never met someone as nice as you on wiki before so i wanna give u a barnstar for ur specialness United kingdoms my home ( talk) 16:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC) |
Wikipedia is mainly a venue for expressing views supported by established science and peer-reviewed scholarship (and perhaps reputable press, for certain subjects). Editors are supposed to understand this, to wish this and be competent at doing this.
Supporting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is, therefore, required of all editors. Failure to respect mainstream science leads to the loss of disputes, and may result in being blocked and eventually banned. Strong adherence to mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is what made Wikipedia one of the greatest websites. So, dissent from mainstream science and mainstream scholarship will be perceived as an attack upon Wikipedia itself. If you want to win a dispute, your claims must be backed by reputable science or peer-reviewed scholarship. If you cannot honestly do that, then you must refrain from making a particular claim. And remember, Wikipedia is just a mirror, mainstream science and mainstream scholarship exist outside of Wikipedia and cannot be changed through editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia merely reflects them. So if you want to change science/scholarship, you have to be a scientist or a scholar; Wikipedia is not the venue for revising scientific opinion. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Parapsychology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
On Talk:Parapsychology you wrote:
You thought wrong. It is most definitely NOT our goal to "give a balanced view".
The actual rule is at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. Read it carefully, keeping in mind that pretty much everyone is telling you that the rules don't say what you think they say.
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!!"
We don't present a "balanced view" between those who believe the holocaust never happened and those who do. We don't present a "balanced view" between those who believe that the earth is flat and those who think it is a sphere. And we don't present a "balanced view" between those who believe that parapsychology is a science and those who think that it is pseudoscience.
As Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ clearly states, "Wikipedia's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such and using the words of reliable sources to present strong criticisms. Fairly explaining the arguments against a pseudoscientific theory or verifiably describing the moral repugnance that people feel toward a notion is fully permitted by NPOV." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I saw you were asking about sources at acupuncture. If you have not seen them, you might find my Questions to Arb Candidates (and their answers) regarding this subject of interest:
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
If you (or any other editor) wants to copy this information to the talk page of acupuncture (and/or any other articles about alternative medicine) and refer to this comment, that's fine with me. But, if you do, please put your name under it, not mine. I'm not sure if the candidates whose answers are referred to would want to be pinged--probably a good idea if their answers are mentioned on article talk pages. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Morgan, just a friendly nugget of advice. I don't think you're sealioning at Talk:Acupuncture when you correctly point out that some other editors are soapboxing and failing to provide specific answers about e.g. why a source is good or bad. Indeed, I think the sealioning accusation is a facile attempt to brush off the valid concerns you raise.
Unfortunately, your repetition of valid complaints starts to look like sealioning. One thing I've learned (and it took me a long time to) is that the more one repeats oneself on WP, the less credible, and more ridiculous, one looks -- however valid one's points may be. Conversely, the more concise you are, the more people will actually read your comments, and the more credible you'll be. Right now you're dealing with editors who are both highly opinionated and highly experienced. They're not going to change their behavior because you ask them to more than twice. And they understand how Wikipedia works and how your actions will be perceived.
Consider how an editor coming to the talk page for the first time would perceive your remarks. The impact of a single, valid, incisive comment is inherently diluted by its repetition. The cumulative effect grows from eyes-glazing-over to annoyance. In that case, an accusation like sealioning may stick not because it's true, but because it's truthy (not fair, but is what it is). Now, on the bright side, this applies also to the soapboxing behavior you're objecting to: editors will pick up on that too, so no need to muddy the waters by seeming (emphasis on "seeming") like another bad actor.
So, just a word to the wise. Let it go. Obviously the NPOV issues being debated will come before a larger audience at some point. Wait until then to re-state your concerns, and in the meantime use the talk page more parsimoniously. My $0.02, FWIW, IMHO, with happy editing and sugar on top. :-) Best regards, Middle 8 ( t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 20:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC) | copy-edit 20:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC), 22:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
You are certainly free to ignore this request, but the following caught my attention:
Could you please explain in general terms what your "field of expertise" is? I am not asking for any personally identifying details, but I have a strong suspicion that what we are seeing in your edits is an example of what Upton Sinclair described when he wrote "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC):
Greetings Morgan Leigh and thank you for your substantial contribution to the encyclopedia. I noticed you recently changed the lede of a controversial and arbcom discretionary sanctions tagged article, Pseudoscience without discussion on talk. I have to respect your experience as an editor, AGF, and I support a strong interpretation of BRD, but not to open a discussion when changing the lede of an article with a very extensive history of work to get consensus support for a fairly stable version? Cheers. MrBill3 ( talk) 04:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless.
Just really unhelpful. You are having a hard time pushing a proposal forward on an alt-med health article, and you are using this discussion involving a new user to air your already well-tended concerns, which span a number of projects and have had a lot of attention from serious editors. The editor in question is getting to grips with policy and bumping into some copyright and image policy issues. It has nothing to do with your crusade to insert favorable reviews of fake medicine. Please express at least some concern for the project as a whole. Please. Thank you. Edaham ( talk) 06:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
One week we are dealing with holocaust deniers. The next week it's creationists. Then the sellers of cancer pills try it. Then the acupuncturists. Then the psychics. After that we get the satellites control my thoughts crowd.( Guy Macon). Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
In the section above, Morgan Leigh says " 'fake medicine', your biases are showing. "
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:
So yes, 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
cargo planes, and biased against
cargo cults.
We are biased towards
crops, and biased against
crop circles.
We are biased towards
laundry soap, and biased against
laundry balls.
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 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
Mendelian inheritance, and biased against
Lysenkoism.
And we are not going to change.
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thousands of years ago in ancient China, astronauts visited the people of a remote Tibetan region. While visiting the earthlings, the indigenous tribespeople had occasion to witness the spacefaring aliens performing medical operations on their crew persons. Medical assistance was even given to some of the tribespeople. After spending time among the tribespeople, they infused the prehistoric society with an impression of their culture. In the years following their departure, charismatic leaders of the eastern tribes developed a technological cult in which shamanic healers would lure people to undergo procedures which superficially resembled those carried out by the aliens, using pins as a representation of surgical operations. They made imagery and recited incantations, which in an example of sympathetic magic were thought to be able to reproduce the same healing effects. Of particular note, was a chart they had made after seeing a pollen sensitive alien sneeze on a diagram of the human nervous system, which they called, “Qi!” Believing the noise made by the alien to be the name of the image.
So rather than actually respond to the issues I raise and the evidence I offer you sink to parody. You are just proving my case.Indeed. They can't respond to your points, because they have no defense. And guess what? They don't need one. If the Skeptic Movement decides it is WP:FRINGE and pseudo-science, no amount of real science, no amount of high quality reliable sources, no amount of asking them to follow the rules of WP:NPOV, posting at a Noticeboard, appealing to ArbCom, or anything else is going to change their minds. They don't like it; they have decided it doesn't and can't possibly work; and that's really all that matters. No amount of evidence is going to change that. If science or reliable sources say otherwise, they will simply say that source is unreliable and WP:FRINGE. If 100 sources say otherwise, then all 100 are WP:FRINGE. If the World Health Organization says otherwise, then it is Fringe. Why? because it goes against what they believe. It's no different than arguing with someone who believes everything said on Fox News. Anything that disagrees is fake news.
no amount of real science...You have it completely backwards, and that's the problem. No amount of evidence sways the fringe practitioners and believers, because it's not about evidence to them. Projecting this mindset on others just shows why the primary role of an editor, "to further the interests of the encyclopedia" is at risk. -- Ronz ( talk) 04:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
You don’t mean these ones do you? Edaham ( talk) 15:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The URL indicates the list you mentioned is from the Institute for Science in Medicine, which was founded by renowned skeptic David Gorski.
Bearing this in mind it is unsurprising to note the summaries on that list are framed to be a negative as possible. For example this study on fibromyalgia is summarized on that list as
The small sample size, scarcity of studies for each compassion, lack of an ideal sham acupuncture weaken the level of evidence and its clinical implication
whereas the conclusions of the author's of the review say in full,
There is low to moderate-level evidence that compared with no treatment and standard therapy, acupuncture improves pain and stiffness in people with fibromyalgia. There is moderate-level evidence that the effect of acupuncture does not differ from sham acupuncture in reducing pain or fatigue, or improving sleep or global well-being. EA is probably better than MA for pain and stiffness reduction and improvement of global well-being, sleep and fatigue. The effect lasts up to one month, but is not maintained at six months follow-up. MA probably does not improve pain or physical functioning. Acupuncture appears safe. People with fibromyalgia may consider using EA alone or with exercise and medication. The small sample size, scarcity of studies for each comparison, lack of an ideal sham acupuncture weaken the level of evidence and its clinical implications. Larger studies are warranted.
This exemplifies what is going on in this article at present. Evidence is being skewed to a skeptical POV. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)"
I see that you've already received the CAM DS/Alert on 8 April 2021 but not the PS one since 2018, but it's renewable every 12 months (the {{ ds/aware}} template can be used to avoid receiving renewals).
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.
I am not certain of the reason, but I have the impression that you appear to have promoted parapsychology, fringe claims about Adam's Bridge, ayurveda and acupuncture. I see a complaint in your previous comments that specific editors would be a problem when reverting related changes and that Wikipedia's NPOV policy implies presenting an "equal" view. However, a summary of Wikipedia policies: WP:NPOV includes WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV about not presenting a false balance or fringe opinions in Wikipedia's voice and the WP:PSCI policy requires making it clear when a topic is pseudoscience. WP:PARITY can also serve to include such criticism, versus the WP:MEDRS guideline to support biomedical claims. — Paleo Neonate – 21:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi i just read your arguments on talk page and i absolutely agree with arguments you have made why wikipedia editors dont consider the edit when i give reliable sources and then they say Wikipedia is neutral Anonypedia31 ( talk) 15:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, In the Ayurveda RfC you state that it is representative to say "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery."
However, I contend that that statement is also partially incorrect. The IMA does not make any remark calling those with BAMS and MBBS as quacks.
Now there will be some who may argue that there isn't one person with this dual degree (without themselves providing any proof for this claim of course). However, there doesn't need to be one. Because the question is that if there were/are (to be) people with dual qualifications, does IMA call them quacks? And the answer is no.
That is why the most appropriate sentence would be - "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners without relevant qualifications as quackery"
- Wikihc ( talk) 14:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you think now is a good time to request formal closure of the RfC on the Ayurveda page or should we wait for some more opinions that might roll in? Aathish S | talk | contribs 04:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Siege of Khan Yunis on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Metaphysics on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors April 2024 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the April 2024 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing. Election results: In our December 2023 coordinator election, Zippybonzo stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki and Miniapolis were reelected coordinators, and Wracking was newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC). Drive: 46 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 32 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 289 articles totaling 626,729 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: 23 editors signed up for our February Copy Editing Blitz. 18 claimed at least one copy-edit and between them, they copy-edited 100,293 words in 32 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 53 editors signed up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive, 34 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 300 articles totaling 587,828 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Sign up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 14 to 20 April. Barnstars will be awarded here. Progress report: As of 23:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 109 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,480 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|
Archives |
---|
Hi!
I reverted your recent edit in Cretan hieroglyphs, and solved the problem with the use of an adjective instead of the noun in a simpler manner (eliminating a redirect). I assume that your spelling heiro- instead of hiero- was just a typo, and therefore made no remark about this on the talk page; if I'm wrong, feel free to change back and/or to discuss spelling variants at e. g. Talk:Hieroglyph.
Best, JoergenB ( talk) 17:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I just reverted the citation needed tags you placed in the ritual article. In each of the subsections there is one citation placed at the end of the paragraph for that paragraph. Putting the same citation at the end of each sentence in a paragraph really doesn't seem to make much sense, since all of these characteristics of ritual come from one chapter of one book. Hope you agree. Schrauwers ( talk) 11:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I wondered why you had not removed the link to the "Roll Call" of the Golden Dawn on the same basis? It quotes no sources at all.
Could you advise how Ms. Davis should improve her material to meet your reliability standards for the Golden Dawn article?
Thanks Wrighrp ( talk) 16:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi mate! I've left you a note at Talk:Magick with regard to the RFC. I tried not to sound patronising (sorry if I did), but I was genuinely confused by your "vote" and them comment. It was almost as if you meant "strong support", but you clearly have concerns with the article so I'm keen to flesh those out. What I've proposed seems to be exactly what you're calling for so is there something else you think should be resolved at the same time? Stalwart 111 10:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Hope to bump into you elsewhere. Schrauwers ( talk) 20:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
u r probably the only person on wiki who is ever so nice i have never met someone as nice as you on wiki before so i wanna give u a barnstar for ur specialness United kingdoms my home ( talk) 16:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC) |
Wikipedia is mainly a venue for expressing views supported by established science and peer-reviewed scholarship (and perhaps reputable press, for certain subjects). Editors are supposed to understand this, to wish this and be competent at doing this.
Supporting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is, therefore, required of all editors. Failure to respect mainstream science leads to the loss of disputes, and may result in being blocked and eventually banned. Strong adherence to mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is what made Wikipedia one of the greatest websites. So, dissent from mainstream science and mainstream scholarship will be perceived as an attack upon Wikipedia itself. If you want to win a dispute, your claims must be backed by reputable science or peer-reviewed scholarship. If you cannot honestly do that, then you must refrain from making a particular claim. And remember, Wikipedia is just a mirror, mainstream science and mainstream scholarship exist outside of Wikipedia and cannot be changed through editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia merely reflects them. So if you want to change science/scholarship, you have to be a scientist or a scholar; Wikipedia is not the venue for revising scientific opinion. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Parapsychology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
On Talk:Parapsychology you wrote:
You thought wrong. It is most definitely NOT our goal to "give a balanced view".
The actual rule is at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. Read it carefully, keeping in mind that pretty much everyone is telling you that the rules don't say what you think they say.
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!!"
We don't present a "balanced view" between those who believe the holocaust never happened and those who do. We don't present a "balanced view" between those who believe that the earth is flat and those who think it is a sphere. And we don't present a "balanced view" between those who believe that parapsychology is a science and those who think that it is pseudoscience.
As Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ clearly states, "Wikipedia's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such and using the words of reliable sources to present strong criticisms. Fairly explaining the arguments against a pseudoscientific theory or verifiably describing the moral repugnance that people feel toward a notion is fully permitted by NPOV." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I saw you were asking about sources at acupuncture. If you have not seen them, you might find my Questions to Arb Candidates (and their answers) regarding this subject of interest:
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
If you (or any other editor) wants to copy this information to the talk page of acupuncture (and/or any other articles about alternative medicine) and refer to this comment, that's fine with me. But, if you do, please put your name under it, not mine. I'm not sure if the candidates whose answers are referred to would want to be pinged--probably a good idea if their answers are mentioned on article talk pages. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Morgan, just a friendly nugget of advice. I don't think you're sealioning at Talk:Acupuncture when you correctly point out that some other editors are soapboxing and failing to provide specific answers about e.g. why a source is good or bad. Indeed, I think the sealioning accusation is a facile attempt to brush off the valid concerns you raise.
Unfortunately, your repetition of valid complaints starts to look like sealioning. One thing I've learned (and it took me a long time to) is that the more one repeats oneself on WP, the less credible, and more ridiculous, one looks -- however valid one's points may be. Conversely, the more concise you are, the more people will actually read your comments, and the more credible you'll be. Right now you're dealing with editors who are both highly opinionated and highly experienced. They're not going to change their behavior because you ask them to more than twice. And they understand how Wikipedia works and how your actions will be perceived.
Consider how an editor coming to the talk page for the first time would perceive your remarks. The impact of a single, valid, incisive comment is inherently diluted by its repetition. The cumulative effect grows from eyes-glazing-over to annoyance. In that case, an accusation like sealioning may stick not because it's true, but because it's truthy (not fair, but is what it is). Now, on the bright side, this applies also to the soapboxing behavior you're objecting to: editors will pick up on that too, so no need to muddy the waters by seeming (emphasis on "seeming") like another bad actor.
So, just a word to the wise. Let it go. Obviously the NPOV issues being debated will come before a larger audience at some point. Wait until then to re-state your concerns, and in the meantime use the talk page more parsimoniously. My $0.02, FWIW, IMHO, with happy editing and sugar on top. :-) Best regards, Middle 8 ( t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 20:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC) | copy-edit 20:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC), 22:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
You are certainly free to ignore this request, but the following caught my attention:
Could you please explain in general terms what your "field of expertise" is? I am not asking for any personally identifying details, but I have a strong suspicion that what we are seeing in your edits is an example of what Upton Sinclair described when he wrote "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC):
Greetings Morgan Leigh and thank you for your substantial contribution to the encyclopedia. I noticed you recently changed the lede of a controversial and arbcom discretionary sanctions tagged article, Pseudoscience without discussion on talk. I have to respect your experience as an editor, AGF, and I support a strong interpretation of BRD, but not to open a discussion when changing the lede of an article with a very extensive history of work to get consensus support for a fairly stable version? Cheers. MrBill3 ( talk) 04:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless.
Just really unhelpful. You are having a hard time pushing a proposal forward on an alt-med health article, and you are using this discussion involving a new user to air your already well-tended concerns, which span a number of projects and have had a lot of attention from serious editors. The editor in question is getting to grips with policy and bumping into some copyright and image policy issues. It has nothing to do with your crusade to insert favorable reviews of fake medicine. Please express at least some concern for the project as a whole. Please. Thank you. Edaham ( talk) 06:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
One week we are dealing with holocaust deniers. The next week it's creationists. Then the sellers of cancer pills try it. Then the acupuncturists. Then the psychics. After that we get the satellites control my thoughts crowd.( Guy Macon). Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
In the section above, Morgan Leigh says " 'fake medicine', your biases are showing. "
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:
So yes, 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
cargo planes, and biased against
cargo cults.
We are biased towards
crops, and biased against
crop circles.
We are biased towards
laundry soap, and biased against
laundry balls.
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 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
Mendelian inheritance, and biased against
Lysenkoism.
And we are not going to change.
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thousands of years ago in ancient China, astronauts visited the people of a remote Tibetan region. While visiting the earthlings, the indigenous tribespeople had occasion to witness the spacefaring aliens performing medical operations on their crew persons. Medical assistance was even given to some of the tribespeople. After spending time among the tribespeople, they infused the prehistoric society with an impression of their culture. In the years following their departure, charismatic leaders of the eastern tribes developed a technological cult in which shamanic healers would lure people to undergo procedures which superficially resembled those carried out by the aliens, using pins as a representation of surgical operations. They made imagery and recited incantations, which in an example of sympathetic magic were thought to be able to reproduce the same healing effects. Of particular note, was a chart they had made after seeing a pollen sensitive alien sneeze on a diagram of the human nervous system, which they called, “Qi!” Believing the noise made by the alien to be the name of the image.
So rather than actually respond to the issues I raise and the evidence I offer you sink to parody. You are just proving my case.Indeed. They can't respond to your points, because they have no defense. And guess what? They don't need one. If the Skeptic Movement decides it is WP:FRINGE and pseudo-science, no amount of real science, no amount of high quality reliable sources, no amount of asking them to follow the rules of WP:NPOV, posting at a Noticeboard, appealing to ArbCom, or anything else is going to change their minds. They don't like it; they have decided it doesn't and can't possibly work; and that's really all that matters. No amount of evidence is going to change that. If science or reliable sources say otherwise, they will simply say that source is unreliable and WP:FRINGE. If 100 sources say otherwise, then all 100 are WP:FRINGE. If the World Health Organization says otherwise, then it is Fringe. Why? because it goes against what they believe. It's no different than arguing with someone who believes everything said on Fox News. Anything that disagrees is fake news.
no amount of real science...You have it completely backwards, and that's the problem. No amount of evidence sways the fringe practitioners and believers, because it's not about evidence to them. Projecting this mindset on others just shows why the primary role of an editor, "to further the interests of the encyclopedia" is at risk. -- Ronz ( talk) 04:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
You don’t mean these ones do you? Edaham ( talk) 15:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
The URL indicates the list you mentioned is from the Institute for Science in Medicine, which was founded by renowned skeptic David Gorski.
Bearing this in mind it is unsurprising to note the summaries on that list are framed to be a negative as possible. For example this study on fibromyalgia is summarized on that list as
The small sample size, scarcity of studies for each compassion, lack of an ideal sham acupuncture weaken the level of evidence and its clinical implication
whereas the conclusions of the author's of the review say in full,
There is low to moderate-level evidence that compared with no treatment and standard therapy, acupuncture improves pain and stiffness in people with fibromyalgia. There is moderate-level evidence that the effect of acupuncture does not differ from sham acupuncture in reducing pain or fatigue, or improving sleep or global well-being. EA is probably better than MA for pain and stiffness reduction and improvement of global well-being, sleep and fatigue. The effect lasts up to one month, but is not maintained at six months follow-up. MA probably does not improve pain or physical functioning. Acupuncture appears safe. People with fibromyalgia may consider using EA alone or with exercise and medication. The small sample size, scarcity of studies for each comparison, lack of an ideal sham acupuncture weaken the level of evidence and its clinical implications. Larger studies are warranted.
This exemplifies what is going on in this article at present. Evidence is being skewed to a skeptical POV. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)"
I see that you've already received the CAM DS/Alert on 8 April 2021 but not the PS one since 2018, but it's renewable every 12 months (the {{ ds/aware}} template can be used to avoid receiving renewals).
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.
I am not certain of the reason, but I have the impression that you appear to have promoted parapsychology, fringe claims about Adam's Bridge, ayurveda and acupuncture. I see a complaint in your previous comments that specific editors would be a problem when reverting related changes and that Wikipedia's NPOV policy implies presenting an "equal" view. However, a summary of Wikipedia policies: WP:NPOV includes WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV about not presenting a false balance or fringe opinions in Wikipedia's voice and the WP:PSCI policy requires making it clear when a topic is pseudoscience. WP:PARITY can also serve to include such criticism, versus the WP:MEDRS guideline to support biomedical claims. — Paleo Neonate – 21:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi i just read your arguments on talk page and i absolutely agree with arguments you have made why wikipedia editors dont consider the edit when i give reliable sources and then they say Wikipedia is neutral Anonypedia31 ( talk) 15:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, In the Ayurveda RfC you state that it is representative to say "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery."
However, I contend that that statement is also partially incorrect. The IMA does not make any remark calling those with BAMS and MBBS as quacks.
Now there will be some who may argue that there isn't one person with this dual degree (without themselves providing any proof for this claim of course). However, there doesn't need to be one. Because the question is that if there were/are (to be) people with dual qualifications, does IMA call them quacks? And the answer is no.
That is why the most appropriate sentence would be - "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners without relevant qualifications as quackery"
- Wikihc ( talk) 14:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you think now is a good time to request formal closure of the RfC on the Ayurveda page or should we wait for some more opinions that might roll in? Aathish S | talk | contribs 04:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Siege of Khan Yunis on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:Metaphysics on a "Philosophy and religion" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors April 2024 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the April 2024 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing. Election results: In our December 2023 coordinator election, Zippybonzo stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki and Miniapolis were reelected coordinators, and Wracking was newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC). Drive: 46 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 32 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 289 articles totaling 626,729 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: 23 editors signed up for our February Copy Editing Blitz. 18 claimed at least one copy-edit and between them, they copy-edited 100,293 words in 32 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 53 editors signed up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive, 34 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 300 articles totaling 587,828 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Sign up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 14 to 20 April. Barnstars will be awarded here. Progress report: As of 23:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 109 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,480 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list.
|