Jump to content

User talk:Aldep77

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Aldep77, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Vsmith (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edits to the Eskimo article; please start a discussion and state your concerns on talk:Eskimo rather than edit warring. Vsmith (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Regarding your recent edits to the Eskimo article; please start a discussion and state your concerns on talk:Eskimo rather than edit warring. --Moxy (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Since the late 20th century, numerous Canadian indigenous people have viewed the use of the term "Eskimo" as offensive, because it is extrinsic and has been used by people who discriminated against them or their forebears.[1][2][3][4][5]

--Moxy (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Maurice Waite (2013). Pocket Oxford English Dictionary. OUP Oxford. p. 305. ISBN 978-0-19-966615-7. Some people regard the word Eskimo as offensive, and the peoples inhabiting the regions of northern Canada and parts of Greenland and Alaska prefer to call themselves Inuit
  2. ^ Jan Svartvik; Geoffrey Leech (2016). English – One Tongue, Many Voices. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 97. ISBN 978-1-137-16007-2. Today, the term "Eskimo" is viewed as the "non preferred term". Some Inuit find the term offensive or derogatory.
  3. ^ Parrott, Zach. "Eskimo". The word Eskimo is an offensive term that has been used historically to describe the Inuit throughout their homeland, Inuit Nunangat, in the arctic regions of Alaska, Greenland and Canada, as well as the Yupik of Alaska and northeastern Russia, and the Inupiat of Alaska.
  4. ^ "Inuit or Eskimo? - Alaska Native Language Center". Although the name "Eskimo" is commonly used in Alaska to refer to all Inuit and Yupik people of the world, this name is considered derogatory in many other places because it was given by non-Inuit people and was said to mean "eater of raw meat."
  5. ^ "Obama signs measure to get rid of the word 'Eskimo' in federal laws". 24 May 2016.

May 2017

[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Fascism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. General Ization Talk 03:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AAPS

[edit]

Your proposed changes to this article have been repeatedly reverted by multiple editors, who have explained to you why your edits are objectionable. You have a duty to engage on the article talk page and discuss your proposed changes, supporting them with reliable published secondary sources. If you cannot get a consensus for your changes, then your changes will not be implemented. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

[edit]

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. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Association of American Physicians and Surgeons 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We are biased.

[edit]

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:[1][2][3][4]

Wikipedia's policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.

So yes, we are biased.

And we are not going to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

tgeorgescu Thanks for the references. They are actually very good example of what I mean. Let's take the last two "pseudo-science" entries from your list. phrenology and ancient astronauts. Look at the first paragraph (summary) of each of them. There are 18 references for phrenology. Each and every claim is justified by a reliable source right up there. There are 9 references in ancient astronauts. The authors were able to confirm each accusation with a reliable source reference. How many references the AAPS article have in its summary? Zero! So my intent was to try to make AAPS article to follow the standards of the articles you have provided, which it is currently not following.Aldep77 (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CITELEAD. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have read WP:CITELEAD. From there: "The lead must conform to verifiability". And " The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged ... should be supported by an inline citation." Obviously (since roughly 50% of Americans are Republicans), the statement that "association that promotes medical misinformation" is likely to be challenged and thus needs to be supported by inline citation and/or references. See for example the above to articles where the claims of pseudo science are confirmed by two and four references correspondingly. And the theory of ancient astronauts is probably less likely to be challenged than views of AAPS.

References

  1. ^ Farley, Tim (25 March 2014). "Wikipedia founder responds to pro-alt-med petition; skeptics cheer". Skeptical Software Tools. Archived from the original on 19 October 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
  2. ^ Hay Newman, Lily (27 March 2014). "Jimmy Wales Gets Real, and Sassy, About Wikipedia's Holistic Healing Coverage". Slate. Archived from the original on 28 March 2014. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
  3. ^ Gorski, David (24 March 2014). "An excellent response to complaints about medical topics on Wikipedia". ScienceBlogs. Archived from the original on 19 October 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
  4. ^ Novella, Steven (25 March 2014). "Standards of Evidence – Wikipedia Edition". NeuroLogica Blog. Archived from the original on 20 October 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
  5. ^ Talk:Astrology/Archive 13#Bias against astrology
  6. ^ Talk:Alchemy/Archive 2#naturalistic bias in article
  7. ^ Talk:Numerology/Archive 1#There's more work to be done
  8. ^ Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 60#Wikipedia Bias
  9. ^ Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 13#Strong Bias towards Skeptic Researchers
  10. ^ Talk:Energy (esotericism)/Archive 1#Bias
  11. ^ Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 12#Sequence of sections and bias
  12. ^ Talk:Vaccine hesitancy/Archive 5#Clearly a bias attack article
  13. ^ Talk:Magnet therapy/Archive 1#Contradiction and bias
  14. ^ Talk:Crop circle/Archive 9#Bower and Chorley Bias Destroyed by Mathematician
  15. ^ Talk:Laundry ball/Archives/2017
  16. ^ Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 15#Suggestion to Shed Biases
  17. ^ Talk:Torsion field (pseudoscience)/Archive 1#stop f**** supressing science with your bias bull****
  18. ^ Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 3#Biased Article (part 2)
  19. ^ Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 12#Blatant bias on this page
  20. ^ Talk:Flat Earth/Archive 7#Disinformation, the EARTH IS FLAT and this can be SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN. This article is not about Flat Earth, it promotes a round earth.
  21. ^ Talk:Scientific racism/Archive 1#THIS is propaganda
  22. ^ Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory/Archive 3#Problems with the article
  23. ^ Talk:Santa Claus/Archive 11#About Santa Claus
  24. ^ Talk:Flood geology/Archive 4#Obvious bias
  25. ^ Talk:Quackery/Archive 1#POV #2
  26. ^ Talk:Ancient astronauts/Archive 4#Pseudoscience
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aldep77&oldid=1142839932"