User talk:GreatBigCircles

Archives

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Bon courage (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines and the ongoing discussions about these topics in the talk page archives. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. It's typically not a good idea to wade into a contentious topic area (like pseudoscience), in a section where multiple people are disagreeing and no consensus has developed, and start editing the article. Much better to wait for consensus to favor your edits before doing them. Especially in these contentious areas where disruptive edits carry a greater weight and risk of sanctions. Just my 2 cents. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shibbolethink, thank you for the feedback. I understand that it's a contentious issue, and perhaps I was a little too bold. However, my contributions were heavily cited from reliable sources and objectively improved the neutrality of the article. On the talk page, I quoted official policies that support my changes. Can you help me understand what policy I broke, or point me to a policy that supports the wholesale reversion of my edits? GreatBigCircles (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:LEDEBOMBing with weak/inappropriate sources is not a NPOV improvement, or any kind of improvement. Bon courage (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were counter to consensus established on the talk page. Indeed, removing mention of the practice as "considered pseudoscientific" is not NPOV, it portrays one's own POV about the practice. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. If you look at my edits again, you'll see that I did not remove a single mention of the practice being "considered pseudoscientific." I added information about scientific evidence to the introduction with multiple reliable sources. The evidence is discussed later in the article but omitted from the introduction. I also removed the phrase "Unusually for a pseudoscience," which I agree was inappropriately bold, given the active debate about it on the talk page. However, there is clearly not a "consensus established" at this point, and that phrase is the only one that directly says EMDR is a pseudoscience rather than considered one. GreatBigCircles (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid speculations about editors' motivations on article Talk pages

Following up on my post here, I ask you to please try to avoid comments/questions about other editors' motivations. What you posted here could easily be interpreted as a not-so-thinly veiled personal attack against several editors (see WP:PA, and you really should avoid doing that, especially on article Talk pages. If you absolutely, positively need to understand why another editor edits the way they do, you should ask them on their own Talk page. That, in my opinion, is a path best left untrod, but if you go that way you should be fully prepared for a response(s) not to your liking. It really is best to focus upon content, not the contributors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Your recent editing history at EMDR 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; read about 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.
If you continue this disruption I was ask that you be sanctioned. Bon courage (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop editing the EMDR article without consensus on the talk page. It's a contentious topics area, which you've been warned about above. Continuing to do so could constitute long-term edit warring. Keep the status quo of the article until there is sufficient consensus to make your changes. Which, from my assessment of the talk page, is not there. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medical articles

Please don't edit medical articles, such as Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, until you have carefully read WP:MEDRS. Medical articles have a higher standard for reliable sources than many other Wikipedia articles. What we understand about human health and medicine is based on the basic science of biology, and biology is complex. Non-medical sources often are dead wrong, or dramatically overstate what we can confidently say, based on the science. For health-related content, the field is evidence-based medicine. And per WP:MEDRS – which the community created after long and arduous discussion – we reach for review articles published in the biomedical literature, or statements by major medical or scientific bodies. Sundayclose (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GreatBigCirclesHow many warnings from different editors do you need to show you that the page protection was reasonable and that you aren’t in part the reason for it? Doug Weller talk 06:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]