User talk:Cornelius Benedictus
Welcome!
[edit]
Getting StartedTutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Tips- Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
- It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
- If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
- Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
- When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
- If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
- Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.
Happy editing! Cheers, Doug Weller talk 14:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
April 2024
[edit]
Hello, I'm Doug Weller. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Young Earth creationism seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller Hello, Doug Weller! Could you please specify where the edition has failed the requirements of neutral point of view policies? Cornelius Benedictus (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Because we use secondary sources where we have them, not fringe. If you want to complain, go to WP:NPOVN. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate your considerations, nevertheless, neutral point of view and verifiability are different policies, and should not be confused. About verifiability, there is surely a point of discussion about to what extent should be used the self-description of an organization, even though it is admissible in such cases as I have done, according to the Content Policies: Wikipedia: Verifiability: Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. In contrast, there is nothing I can see at the edition that might be considered as a violation of the neutral point of view, since my edition was about non-contentious issues, i.e., characteristics of the organization, not about the validity of the organization's proposals. Again, if there was any fail about the requeriments of neutral point of view policies, I respectfully ask that you might provide which violations would be these. Cornelius Benedictus (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm hardly going to be confused between NPOV and verifiability. With respect, I have about 250,000 edits. There are various discussion boards where you can get a second opinion. The best place to discuss WP:FRINGE issues, which this is, is WP:FTN. I've got nothing more to say. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller I understand your point. However, how would I be able to question an accusation of NPOV policy's violation if it is unspecified? If there was really any violation, its general framework should not be difficult to indicate, without the need to resort solely to an argumentum ad verecundiam. Cornelius Benedictus (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- By citing Argument by authority are you actually arguing with our WP:V policy? Anyway, I've taken this to WP:FTN#Can someone help a new editor using Creationist sources that I reverted?, You'll sees there that I didn't revert your second relevant edit, just warned you. I'm busy now. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller In fact, I did not realise the NPOV alert was only about the former edition reverted, as the order of notifications on mobile app might cause some confusion at times. Thus I thought both alerts referred to the recent edition. Though I do not regard any of them has violated NPOV ou verifiability policies, I recognise these are contentious issues, and as such should be discussed at the respective article's talk pages. Thus I apologise for the misunderstanding. Have a good day! Cornelius Benedictus (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. No problem. I added to the confusion by not pointing that I didn't do both reverts. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller I understand it was my fault by not realising it, as it was harder for you than for me to find out where was the misunderstanding. Thus I apologise and thank for the help provided. Cornelius Benedictus (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. No problem. I added to the confusion by not pointing that I didn't do both reverts. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller In fact, I did not realise the NPOV alert was only about the former edition reverted, as the order of notifications on mobile app might cause some confusion at times. Thus I thought both alerts referred to the recent edition. Though I do not regard any of them has violated NPOV ou verifiability policies, I recognise these are contentious issues, and as such should be discussed at the respective article's talk pages. Thus I apologise for the misunderstanding. Have a good day! Cornelius Benedictus (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- By citing Argument by authority are you actually arguing with our WP:V policy? Anyway, I've taken this to WP:FTN#Can someone help a new editor using Creationist sources that I reverted?, You'll sees there that I didn't revert your second relevant edit, just warned you. I'm busy now. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller I understand your point. However, how would I be able to question an accusation of NPOV policy's violation if it is unspecified? If there was really any violation, its general framework should not be difficult to indicate, without the need to resort solely to an argumentum ad verecundiam. Cornelius Benedictus (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm hardly going to be confused between NPOV and verifiability. With respect, I have about 250,000 edits. There are various discussion boards where you can get a second opinion. The best place to discuss WP:FRINGE issues, which this is, is WP:FTN. I've got nothing more to say. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate your considerations, nevertheless, neutral point of view and verifiability are different policies, and should not be confused. About verifiability, there is surely a point of discussion about to what extent should be used the self-description of an organization, even though it is admissible in such cases as I have done, according to the Content Policies: Wikipedia: Verifiability: Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. In contrast, there is nothing I can see at the edition that might be considered as a violation of the neutral point of view, since my edition was about non-contentious issues, i.e., characteristics of the organization, not about the validity of the organization's proposals. Again, if there was any fail about the requeriments of neutral point of view policies, I respectfully ask that you might provide which violations would be these. Cornelius Benedictus (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Because we use secondary sources where we have them, not fringe. If you want to complain, go to WP:NPOVN. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
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 special powers 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 practice;
- 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 here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Apologies, the earlier alert was for those who had already received one. This is more informative. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)