User talk:DolyaIskrina

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine WikiProject!

Welcome to Wikipedia and WikiProject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:

Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically require recent secondary sources to support information; their application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, revert, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.
Please play the "BE BOLD" video to the right - it informs about how to choose high-quality, secondary sources, mainly systematic reviews, to support medical content. You can also review WP:MEDHOW for other tips when editing content concerning human health, nutrition, food, drugs, or diseases.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! Zefr (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga as exercise articles

Hi, thanks for your edit on Yoga for therapeutic purposes; it has spurred me to find more materials and sources, all to the good. Would you like to take a look at Yoga as exercise? I've worked on it so much it has become hard to see if I've overcooked anything. I've read a great many sources and I hope I've got them fairly balanced but it would be really nice to have another pair of eyes on the subject, specially some experienced in philosophy. There are other subsidiary articles on the Template:Yoga as exercise but as always the parent article is the biggest challenge. Of course if you're up for reviewing any of them at WP:GAN that would be great too. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Thanks for reaching out. I'll respond on the talk page of the article. I'm pressed for time, so it won't be as thoughtful as I'd like. Cheers.DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dolyalskrina, I wonder if you could have a quick look at Yoga as exercise, and say if you think it is at all WP:POV? I have worked hard to make it neutral as it's a controversial topic. Many thanks for your comments on other yoga and meditation articles, by the way - you're always worth reading. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: I just gave it a very cursory look. Very impressive. I found the contrasting image of naked yogis smeared with funeral pyre ash with modern yoga model worth the price of admission alone. I'll give it another read, but my first impression is that it's great. Have women traditionally been accepted in the practice? Gender equality has been a disputed topic in the Hindu community. See: Vanitha Mathil. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Very glad to hear it. Women were to a degree grudgingly accepted in medieval Hatha yoga, but there were few famous yoginis until the 20th century, when women in yoga became a distinctive element. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edits

Just as a heads up, it's better practice to not mark an edit as minor if it removes or adds content or makes non-cosmetic changes, even if the change is small. WP:Minor explains in more detail. --Spasemunki (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spasemunki:What edit are you talking about?

I think it was just these two [1], [2] --Spasemunki (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spasemunki:

Oh. The first one was the addition of a source, the second was the removal of a quote I had added internally to the source which had been turned into a large, and therefore erroneous, quote by a bot. again this was not a quote in the article, but in the citation which I had added. Neither changed the article at all. Sometimes your watchlist page will only show the last of several recent edits to the same page, so if a minor edit is made after a non-minor one it will appear like both were done under an m. Perhaps that is why you got this impression. Given that all of my edits were made while I had opened up an entire new section of the page's talk section, your concern are a little fine-grained.DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are both marked as minor in the page history. Particularly because quotes that are in citations don't appear in the page, it's good practice not to mark them as minor if you change or remove them. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Gary Young

Can I ask why you're so insistent on having the distillery explosion on DGY's page, as opposed to just on the YL page? I'm honestly curious and would love to know where you're coming from on this. My assumption is that you're looking for a complete 'warts-and-all' depiction of the guy for his page, which makes total sense, though I might suggest that there are enough warts already there for the average reader to (correctly, IMO) deduce he was a skunk. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NekoKatsun: Sorry I totally missed this comment. I feel like I've said it a lot in the discussion already, so this may not further answer your question. Young's claim to fame is distillers. He loved talking about how he designed, built, crawled around inside them etc. A man died due to one of those distillers. I can't imagine how that wouldn't be a part of his biography. To maybe get more personal and psychological, I don't think the death of employees should be shrugged off as the cost of doing business. I think the family of the killed worker Juan Gomez only got $30,000 compensation. Also, I don't think the corporate veil should prevent CEO's from being associated with (if not accountable for) the death of their employees. Oh, also, essential oils used medicinally and multilevel marketing are predatory and dangerous industries that rely on false hope and exploitation of legislative loopholes and tricking distributors into making false and illegal claims. So yes I think Young was reckless with the safety of his "patients," workers, and family throughout his whole life. I don't think those were character flaws, I think they were his actual business model. PS, I've never been involved with essential oils or even alternative medicine myself. My ire is purely academic. Thanks for reaching out. Now, I'm going to go sniff some lavender to calm down :). DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About one of your edits on Sam Harris

Hello there! To keep this short and quick than my 'very terrible' habit [for non-work communications]: I see that you made some light-reverts of edits at Sam Harris. While I*might* age with some BUT I see that in your key ES, you've said: these links fail on MOS:PIPEDLINK and MOS:LINKCLARITY and WP:NPOV inserting a link to legitimize an accusation rather than clarify a term (emphasis mine).
May I know, what do you mean by “legitimizing an accusation[sic]”? Are you insinuating that the accusations were somehow baseless/illegitimate?
And also.. This one is not as important: Race and crime in the United States is the current redirect of catchphrase "Black-on-black crime" so it does seem like it was done to avoid a redirect. I see that there are clearly guidelines which recommend redirecting to a non-existent article instead of piped-link, BUT it doesn't seem to say anything about the titles which have already been merged with a pre-existing article? Can that catchphrase be added instead?

Regards. —103.163.124.78 (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly the charge was something like Harris was relying too much on opinion polls to smear Muslims. I'm personally agnostic on that point. And a good editor shouldn't let their own opinion show up in an edit any way. If someone said that about Harris and there are sources, then the text should say exactly that. What is not okay is to use links to imply the argument. The fact that an entire clause had to be hyperlinked is a pretty good sign that someone was working very hard to create the link. It'd be akin (in an exaggerated way) to saying "so-and-so was accused of misconduct" and then have the word "misconduct" link to "spousal abuse." If he's accused of spousal abuse, say that. Also links should improve the understanding of the text. New editors can get excited and we end up with WP:OVERLINK. It's all covered in MOS:LINK. There might be a way to rewrite the text to save the link. There's been a lot of edits on the page lately and I'm having trouble keeping up with it. Anyway, I hope that clarifies my edit. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright.. Noted. This might bore you to death *but* it appears I got some 'splaining to do. If you're predictably not interested or expecting textbook-grade grammar — I'm Sorry to say I can't provide that as a non-remunerated task so perhaps, add this to your list as recommended-reading when at some juncture of your life — you're bored enough with nothing else better to do? ;)

You might've known by now that *I* added that that *because albeit not perfectly-uambiguous, but primary-source citation added by me in the very same edit did.* I added that because thus far, I couldn't find any 3rd-party ("secondary") source so based on my life-experience on many other low-traffic articles, particularly non-BLP ones: I came to the conclusion that adding a primary-source in that case is justified, given WP:GEVAL and understandably, none of the articles on subject[ and his like-minded "MC"]'s opponents seems to have covered this chat show exchange. But since BLP applies not just to the subject but other LPs as well (whether they might have pre-existing articles on themselves or not, correct?) — I was of confident-conclusion that the prose failed to sufficiently convey their grievances [precisely because all of the cited showbiz-adjacent sources focused almost exclusively on Sir Ben Affleck, whether to praise him, misrepresent his words (per my WP:OR, not to be confused with the subject and his proponents' long-held contention) and yes, as reported indirectly through a single showbiz-source, attack Sir Affleck altogether. So I was of the view it was necessary to acknowledge those 2 other viewpoints on that side as well, not because of Credentialism*, but so as to avoid undercutting that position in favour of Cult of Personality. Of course one might get "gotcha'!" on that and say it's WP:RGW, that I don't recognise OR at the very least — if not WP:SYNTH. (Even though I think accusing me of failing WP:NOTE would be far more sound, instead of either of these — even the first! Precisely while positioned as an "explanatory supplement" to a guideline, much of it appears to be penned in "blog-style", i.e. as an "essay" instead — with its classification coming-across as MOS:AWW.). So even though there doesn't seem to be any WP:RS which seem to address even the participation of those other 2 panelists in the episode (not a TV denotation!), let alone addressing other aspects of the allegations and consequently, "Wiki" also doesn't — ergo, I was and am of the position that it was disservice to readers since it tantamounted to merely parroting the cited-sources' interests in 'the Loudest Voices' involved (not saying that they were necessarily a bad part of the whole episode, at least in that case) and hence, even if it were RGW — I was willing to risk that, per WP:IAR. An ideal-situation would be to include nothing about the episode on the subject's article at all but since it's not an ideal offline-universe and this project is as far from perfect as it can get, I thought that the absence of episode's mention on those 2 panelists when viewed in the context of that subject's own article, at least gave *me* the impression that WP:WIKIVOICE is implying that the subject, arguably an opinion-leader/-maker has lesser degree of public-profile than those 2 panelists (not contesting the same for Sir Affleck, somebody widely recognised as a Hollywood A-lister) and to less-certain extent, perhaps even his like-minded, said “chat show "MC"”. BUT eventually, a hitherto-friendly, your fellow registered-editor reverted THAT by essentially saying (ahem!) religious-adherence to WP:PSTS is a must. MOVING ON.. Above all, I've no qualms to divulge that: Your argument that it "failed MOS:PIPEDLINK" (paraphrased) in particular (not sharing your MOS:LINKCLARITY assertion since it seems almost-transparent that you didn't took out enough of time to go through the citation I added — albeit I also acknowledge that it was lapse on my part to not WP:INTEXT it through WP:REFNAME, as the environment had grown tense to the point that I was anticipating (if somehow still not ‘expecting’!) that my edit would be eventually wholesale-reverted. But nevertheless.. Be it my ‘laziness’ or ‘pessimism-by-experience’ or whatever, I'm already engaging in dispute-resolution over at the article's talk-page so yes: I do recognise my lapse in this case that I was agnostic over PIPEDLINK in favour of WP:PLAINENGLISH and WP:REMEMBER while taking due-care to be favouring the multi-pronged criticism against the subject [during that exchange] in WIKIVOICE, given direct-quoting it would've been complicated because they were expressed in a free-flow, conversational manner and thusly, adding those quotes would've been most-certainly unencyclopædic (need I spell-out that to the best of my (ahem!) enlightenment, not even Wikisource or better yet, Wikiquote have exact non-high profile public statements or their WP:PARAPHRASE as titles — so why would Wikipedia?), to be concise. Nevermind the vastly-broad WP:NPOV, since I had already zeroed-in on GEVAL. And thusly, I'm not in a mood to challenge your take (even if it arose out of "miscommunication", as you essentially said). I just wanted to understand your motivation for the same, with radical-honesty.

And yes, need I clarify *even* this: I've been aware of MOS:OVERLINK problem since quite some time, as cited back to that 2015 internal-study — so I certainly had THAT in my mind. (Unlike the case in the article's lede, where virtually-undefinable terminology like 'the T word' is wikilinked, as if that lends any credence to the subject's qualifications i.e. I find that a form of subtle AWW — or in your words: ‘As a way to legitimize the subject's standing in terms of his expertise’).
And *finally*.. I hope that you're merely accusing me of implicit-bias, and not casting WP:ASPERSIONS at me of being openly[,] [virulently-]biased against the subject for overall ‘baseless’/‘illegitimate’ factors. :-) Regards. —103.163.124.95 (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Note: Removed the ALLCAPS from some words added for emphasis, presuming they might cause confusion with ‘MOS:’ and ‘WP:’ aliases & [pseudo]namespace-based abbreviated and acronymous "shortcuts" (even though only one was a match out of 10 keystring-combinations, and that too: It was merged); fixed few of those "shortcuts" to match them with currently-displaying keywords and certainly, to save space; added punctuation to both of the nouns in my gun-jumping self--'psychoanalysis'; similarly replaced the italicized "via" with a synonym; and above all: Fixed the reference to the policy referred to by 'Gazelle' since while my headspace was to refer to Wikipedia's own policy-statement on RS, I second-guessed and thought that if they happen to read this and/or somebody informs them, they might think that I [consciously] misrepresented their H:ES even though that was far from my intent. So Sorry @Gazelle55: If you happen to read this miscommunication, too.
And yes.. Also *a very-consciously added asterisk as I *also second-guessed* that if anybody reading this would be tempted to psychoanalyse me (a very-human-if-bad trait found commonly in humans across The Civilisation), they might get confident by my sheer length-of-replies and if they happen to heed sufficiently, they might as well be confident in concluding *that* I'm just another-lunatic fringe type [or adjacent] with a transparent-disdain for scholarly-qualifiers. Or in any case, a WP:SNEAKY — at the very least. But the key to this second-guessing is that even if those who concoct that I've a motivated-bias against the subject, rest assured: That even if that were true, it's certainly not for any of my potentially-hypothesized predilection towards the "contrarian" stuff and all. Quite to the contrary, that would mean that I'm rather giving more value to qualifiers since one of the parties engaged in that exchange-in-question (*trivia hint:* He's the public-figure mentioned and referred to by name in my replies & for those who still haven't figured, the one who was widely reported as "the lone-wolf" (metaphorical-paraphrasing) by the RS on his side of the episode, my sole-attempt to change exactly that has been the domino effect which eventually triggered this discussion). But then I realised that it might be construed by them as "going WP:NOTCV" or such (as if I've already not given enough excuses, by now 😬🤦🏾‍♂️😬) or worse, [per my life-experience:] a subtle way to WP:POVPUSH (even though the policies are meant to explicitly apply for article-mainspaces, at most) given my OR, as I consider myself a ‘voracious-researcher’ that: The 'pop-Interweb' response against him had been.. Let's just say, oh-so-shockingly, confidently hostile [i.e. under good-faith assumption in spite of not just supporting, but echoing oh-so-virtuous positions, their ignorance/obliviousness to the little-nugget from his bio that out of all, he was almost-certainly the most educationally-qualified participant in that exchange [per resources accessible in public-domain], “little-nugget” because as he didn't make a career out of the same, it's evidently a very-low-profile/"mech" part of his life, perhaps known as *"trivia"* only to his most-devout of supporters — to those who share that insight, even greater than the participant who methodically learned the tongue by enrolling in a notable regional-university (with multinational and multi-ethnic character, started-out as uni-cultural Evangelical mission, though) and went on to do quite a majority of his body-of-work in that wider-region, accounting that all of the participants have Occidental backgrounds]. And the certainly included "YouTube comments-section", first and foremost — as well. To those who're still missing "the L": Lemme express it concisely in a way *that might* end-up contravening religiously-inspired WP:5P (per the inference of equal-proportion, if not more) — they were obviously keyboard-warring "Anonymous Cowards" and as somewhat-covered in the opponent subject's article, their public-persona of opinion-leaders/-makers. So given the "anybody can edit" fundamental/mantra: Pseudonymous or not, multiple editors could find my introduction, even if intended as a gun-jumping reassurance — as a subtle WP:ADVOCACY. —103.163.124.95 (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Your recent editing history at Havana syndrome 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources noticeboard

You broke something with this edit [3]. Geogene (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crap did I delete the whole section? Thanks for restoring.DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

––FormalDude talk 06:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what this is about? Despite saying "it does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions..." it sure reads like a warning of some sort. But I have no idea why you would put that here. DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a warning, it is simply a notification to make you aware of additional rules called discretionary sanctions which are in effect for articles I've noticed you editing (specifically articles about living or recently deceased people). It's just a friendly notice as a lot of editors may not be aware of discretionary sanctions.

––FormalDude talk 19:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROFRINGE means bad

Hi DolyaIskrina! With regard to this: see WP:PROFRINGE. It's a serious offense on Wikipedia. Apart from that, how would you feel if someone were to suggest you were pro fringe? Try to imagine that some of the people about whom you suggest this might actually be spending their whole day fighting fringe ideas in real life. Then they come home, log in to Wikipedia, and someone says they're pro fringe. Would be pretty frustrating, wouldn't it?

Also, even though A. C. Santacruz appears not to have understood WP:PARITY yet, I think your understanding of it is also lacking. WP:PARITY is about being able to use subpar sources for anti-fringe POVs. When it applies to a source, as it will often for Skeptical Inquirer, that means the source is subpar. If an anti-fringe source were generally reliable, WP:PARITY would not be needed for it to carry more weight than unreliable pro-fringe sources. But WP:PARITY does apply: we can safely use Skeptical Inquirer wherever fringe ideas turn up their ugly heads and there's no coverage about them in more reliable sources (as happens often indeed). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about PROFRINGE, I didn't realize it was an actual charge. Thanks for explaining that. But I do need to find a way to express the idea that editors are in support of ideas that are not aligned with majority scientific opinion. For instance essential oil, reiki etc. Probably the majority of editors are in that camp. This is the heart of the issue for me. The scientific consensus amongst the relevant experts is actually a minority opinion. And it's quite fragile. A simple lie will always win in the court of public opinion over a complicated truth. As to what you're saying about parity, you are right. I've read what you said on the other thread and here and I'm not quite getting it. Does this sum it up: "SI is not a great source, but if there are no better sources available to counter fringe, we can use it. But only then."? DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More or less. Just change "we can use it" to "we absolutely should use it".

Yes, you are right that the majority scientific opinion is a minority opinion among the wider public a lot of the time. I think that the balance among WP editors is much more pro-science than 'out there', but still it is not always the case. But the thing is that consensus on Wikipedia is not decided by majority/minority votes. Instead, it is decided by what arguments find a good basis in policy. And our policies are really good: they will favor the scientific consensus, no matter how many editors are against it. You just gotta trust on that.

But of course, what is scientific consensus will primarily be found in high-quality, scholarly sources. If these are available, they should be used. Not only are they more likely to be accurate, they are also more likely to already use the WP:IMPARTIAL tone that we should also strive for. They are the most disinterested, the less likely to have an agenda, etc. The problem with SI is that they're not disinterested, and are more likely to get things wrong, not only because they're not reviewed by experts, but also because they are likely to slant things toward their vested interest. Perhaps most importantly, their tone is partisan, not impartial. They exist to argue against something, to fight against something, while we exist to neutrally represent mainstream information. These are two very different things, and ask for two very different approaches.

But then there are so many topics on which scholarly sources are silent. In particular, they won't refute what they don't take seriously in the first place. That's where WP:PARITY comes into play. It's not because there are no scholarly sources about some fringe claim that we should just present the fringe claim as if it were mainstream. In such cases, we absolutely should use less high-quality sources that do take the space to refute the claim. The only thing to be cautious about here is that the fringe claim needs to be notable and verifiable in the first place: the claim really needs to be made, and not just once in a passing mention, but significantly. I gather that you've been in some debates about that with other editors for one specific case. But I believe you can agree on the principle?

In any case, at RSN the question is more about general reliability. As I've argued, being a source properly used per WP:PARITY does not render a source generally reliable, quite to the contrary. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you deserve a barnstar!

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		Hi DolyaIskrina, I wanted to award you this barnstar to recognize your creation of Keith Frankish and Philip Goff (philosopher) and to thank you for your input on my edits at Hard problem of consciousness. I think these fall under the philosophy WikiProject, which doesn't seem to have a barnstar. Anyway, hope to collaborate more in the future! Gazelle55 (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rejuvenate WikiProject Skepticism

Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [4] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leprechauns have only recently not existed

Your 'metaphor' suggests that I'm inferring crazy stuff from sources which do not state anything like it, while what I am doing is proposing a text that is directly supported by multiple sources, in one of them occurring almost literally. Have your opinion that it's excessively contextualizing, I can see why someone would think that, but don't compare it with claiming that leprechauns are real. This is all just hurtful innuendo, which doesn't lead anywhere constructive. I'm asking you again, please don't do that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to both take your argument in good faith and avoid offending you. There are really legitimate reasons to take Astrology seriously in a non-belittling way in the proper historical context. Those reason, however, are the exact same for taking Celtic mythology seriously. I really do not see any daylight between the two. Nor do I see one as more offensive than the other. Here we have from Celtic Animism "The Celts of the ancient world believed that many spirits and divine beings inhabited the world around them, and that humans could establish a rapport with these beings. The archaeological and the literary record indicate that ritual practice in Celtic societies lacked a clear distinction between the sacred and profane; rituals, offerings, and correct behaviour maintained a balance between gods, spirits and humans and harnessed supernatural forces for the benefit of the community." How does this description differ from the context in which you are trying to place Astrology? DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between saying that subjects like Celtic mythology or astrology should be taken seriously from a scholarly or encyclopedic perspective and claiming that the spiritual entities which populate that mythology really exist. What you did here, so isn't that RS for Leprechauns at least at some point in history, being real?, was making it out as if what I was trying to do was to prove on the basis of RS that astrology really works (or really worked, if you will). I was of course doing nothing of the sort, and it is crystal clear that your inept comparison only serves to ridicule. Are you really going to tell me that you are not aware of what it implies when you suggest that someone seriously believes leprechauns exist? If you do not, I will tell you –and please do ask real people in your environment to confirm– it implies that they are insane. It's hurtful. Just don't do it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 17:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you think I'm being too aggressive and should take the caution of ScienceAplogist to heart. Here's the dealio: An editor may be intentionally pro-fringe or accidentally pro-fringe, I don't think it matters much. The issue is that in order to prevent Wikipedia from becoming pro-fringe, we have to be able to state plainly that an argument is pro-fringe without being accused of ad hominem. You are responsible for the effects of your arguments, not your intentions. I don't think anyone can objectively read the Astrology page and think it's dropping the ball on making it clear that once upon a time serious people took Astrology seriously. So then the question becomes, if that is plain as day right now, why would a person advocate so strenuously to make it even more clear that the vague cluster of practices that have recently come to be called Astrology, used to be what passed for science until, you know, actual science came to exist? Why, oh why would one want to put a thumb on the scale in that direction? DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Hameroff

Hi Dolyalskrina, I had deleted from the page in question the reference to the article of June 2022 for the following reasons: 1) The study referred, as written, to the gravity-based collapse which is a hypothesis of Lajos Diosì and Roger Penrose. Stuart Hameroff's hypothesis is that quantum processes in microtubules are responsible for consciousness (which is confirmed by experiments made in April 2022), so it is more correct to insert the statement on Roger Penrose's voice. 2) Quantum consciousness theories in general are not based solely on the Diosì-Penrose model. Thus, the claim that the study "undermines any theory of quantum consciousness" is incorrect. 3) The study authors said working out alternative gravity models could make the theory more plausible. This is why I propose to make changes that reflect the critical points indicated. Deoxys7680 (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There might be something to be done with the text. We should discuss it at Talk. I know science journalism can often get it wrong, but unfortunately we can't, despite whatever expertise we have or even how wrong the article is, just independently decide it is wrong. We need citations. Also "undermines" does not mean disproves. And that is the word they use for better or worse. DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend simply leaving "In 2022 no evidence of gravity-related quantum collapse was found" and removing "this undermines EVERY possible quantum explanation for consciousness", as this is not true: Orch-OR is not the only quantum theory on the conscience 51.179.96.35 (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to copy this conversation and move it to talk of the appropriate page. Let's discuss there. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Grusch

Hi,

Hope you're well. I was wondering if you could justify further why you removed a fact (that Grusch was under oath) because you judged it doesn't mean anything when considered in context? Not being confrontational, would be interested in to know your reasoning as I didn't understand what you meant by SOP in your edit summary.

Per your note I would be happy to change the sentence to state that all three testified under oath, as is the facts.

Thanks! The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 23:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be moved to the talk page of the article, but I'll answer here briefly. SOP- Standard Operating Procedure. Most people are sworn in during these hearings. It's not notable. The reason people in the UFO community are so excited about this being "under oath" is because they think this makes what he's saying more true. It doesn't. I can swear under oath that I think Harry Potter is a real person. The swearing of the oath makes the claim no more plausible. It's incontrovertible because it is a statement of belief without any standard of proof. "I swear under oath that a guy told me he believes Harry Potter is a real person" is slightly more controvertible, but not in any sort of practical way. To emphasize this fairly trivial point "it was under oath!" is to not to have a neutral point of view, but to POV push. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree to be honest. It's a fact that he swore the oath and I'm not trying to pass any judgement value on it by including it. You're also projecting and joining dots when you talk about "the reason people in the UFO community are so excited about x". It's not up to you, or indeed me, to decide what people might think or conclude after reading the fact he testified under oath The fact is he did, and I wouldn't consider it a trivial to mention in an encyclopaedia that's supposed to provide information. I, for one, wouldn't have known a person had to swear under oath before testifying to a house committee before I started reading all this. Finally, to extend your analogy, if Congress asked you in to testify that Harry Potter was real, I'd write that you did so under oath on Wiki without pause and regardless of my opinion of the validity. But, either way, I'll leave at that having expressed my opinion. Thanks. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 08:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, wouldn't have known a person had to swear under oath before testifying to a house committee before I started reading all this. That's a second-order problem. If you read about the procedures for testifying before US Congress on the linked pages, you will see that this is the standard practice. I have thanked DolyaIskrina for their cleanup edit and have reinstated their cleaner prose per WP:Principle of some astonishment. jps (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not true, it. was notable they WERE sworn in. From the Congressional Research Service:

"It is common for committee members to make opening remarks at the beginning of a hearing. Next, the committee chair generally introduces each witness in accordance with a pre-arranged order and format (such as a panel format). By statute, any Senator is authorized to administer the oath to a witness (2 U.S.C. 191). Committee rules commonly allow testimony under oath at the discretion of a committee’s leaders. (In practice, most committees rarely require witnesses to testify under oath at legislative hearings. Sworn testimony is more common at investigative hearings and confirmation hearings.)"

SOURCE: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/98-392

I cannot think of a more authoritative source that runs 100% AGAINST your edit and in favor of the original text. I think this line should be restored. Hopefully enough others will agree. 2607:FEA8:E95C:DC00:35ED:757E:4F8B:F0D2 (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, you should become an editor, we need people who like to research. Get an actual account and join the fun. I'm happy to give you advice if you need any. Secondly, "under oath" has been on the page for months now. So why are you commenting here? Maybe ask yourself if you are more interested in unveiling hidden patterns and evil plots than paying attention to the obvious things. Nothing wrong with that, per se. We all need to edit in a way that is fun for us, and if seeking out shady evil doers is what gets you motivated, go for it. But don't overlook the obvious! FOR INSTANCE: the document you provide is about SENATE hearings. Grusch testified before the HOUSE. So it actually doesn't apply at all. Again, before you go down the rabbit hole, look at what's around the rabbit hole.

DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit talk page comment

Just because your edit summary on Talk:Astrology about editing comments showed up on my watchlist now, I'll tell you how I edit my comments if it's been too long.

Original comment ~~text with mistake~~ [new edit text]<UTC time/date (optional)>.

Something like that. I'm sure others have their own styles. Including the UTC time of your edit helps others out if it's not within a couple minutes after you comment. Happy unsolicited advice on a bored Saturday day! SamuelRiv (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that's helpful. Thanks. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an RFC for the Huberman article

Hi, I thought we could maybe work together to craft some kind of a draft RFC (either here on your talk page, or on the Huberman talk page). We can collect all the sources, and come up with some tentative language, figure out how to address the WP:BLPGOSSIP question, etc.

Alternatively, we could draft something to post to the BLPN again, in hopes of some response, and in order to settle the questions around BLP issues that have been raised. This might be worth a shot? And I think getting some affirmation from BLPN would help us to achieve local consensus with an RFC. Considering this would be the second time requesting input, I assume we'd get a response this time around.

I don't have the time right this moment to make concrete suggestions, but will offer some input in the coming days or on the weekend. Just wanted to make an offer to do this together, so we have a stronger RFC or BLPN request to put forward. Thanks for your consideration. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'm game. I've already presented my arguments as follows. 1. GOSSIP is about quality of sources not about whether or not something is embarrassing or unseemly. 2. The argument that the women are anonymous is just made up non-policy. There really isn't a counter except "that's not how we do it." 3. WP:PUBLICFIGURE "multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident". So the argument here is are there such sources. I've listed all the ones I've found in the OP of the section. If you have more than those LMK. Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I will research and look for more sources when I have time, which probably won't be until this weekend.

I do think we could give BLPN another go, since generating local consensus on the Huberman talk page may be difficult, given that there seem to be a handful of editors with very strong opinions who are active there. Seeking input from the less involved editors who aren't attached to an outcome, and who could be more objective might be helpful. Either way, whether we post again to BLPN or create an RFC, we can draft something that could be useful for either purpose. Thanks. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Okay, so I searched a bunch and sifted through multiple stories on the topic at hand. The reliable sources that you already listed do in fact seem to be the best available at the moment. (Huberman has been interviewed on a handful of other podcasts recently, but the topic of his questionable behavior has not been directly addressed or seriously questioned by his interviewers, thus no more news around the issue seems to have been generated, it seems.)

There are a few opinion pieces, which I know can't be used as references, but I will still just put them here for whatever it's worth. The better op-eds are from: The Irish Times, UnHerd, National Post, and the Washington Examiner.

On another note, I also found this story from Rolling Stone, which hasn't been cited in the Wikipedia article yet, and perhaps could be if it is considered generally reliable enough for purposes of highlighting claims of pseudo-science and misinformation in the Huberman Lab podcast show.

'Word Salad': Andrew Huberman's Cannabis Claims Slammed by Experts - 8 May 2024, by Miles Klee

Alright, that's all I've got for now. I guess the next step is to put something together that will get attention from the folks over at BLPN so that we can get some comment and input this time, before going forward with an RFC? What do you think? Thanks. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, even low grade RS show that the story is being discussed. I’ll open another BLPN heading, but for the record, RFC’s also get listed on pages like that and contrary to what most editors assume, you can make neutrally worded statements notifying people of your RfC. But I’ll try again as you suggest. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, sounds good !! 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

recent comments

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine WikiProject!

Yoga as exercise articles

Minor Edits

Donald Gary Young

About one of your edits on Sam Harris

June 2021

Reliable sources noticeboard

Important Notice

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

WP:PROFRINGE means bad

I think you deserve a barnstar!

Rejuvenate WikiProject Skepticism

Leprechauns have only recently not existed

Important Notice

Stuart Hameroff

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

David Grusch

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Edit talk page comment

Creating an RFC for the Huberman article

Sources