User talk:Ian Oelsner
October 2020
[edit]
Hello, I'm MrOllie. 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 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. MrOllie (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
May I suggest the following revision to the Wikipedia definition of Polyvagal Theory:
Polyvagal theory, first presented by Dr. Stephen Porges in 1994, proposes a hierarchy of the autonomic nervous system based on evolutionary development. The theory suggests a connection between an individual’s sense of safety and their social engagement. Polyvagal Theory is cited in over 8,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers (including biomedical engineering, critical care medicine, neurology, neuroscience, obstetrics, pediatrics, psychiatry, psychology and substance abuse) and is integrated into numerous treatments in the field of trauma; however, it is not widely known in the broader community of traditional medicine. Also suggest removing the template message re “fringe theories.”
I would also like to suggest removing the template message re “fringe theories" esp in light of the number of articles citing the theory.Ian Oelsner (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
A question about objectives
[edit]Hello Ian. May I ask why are you here at Wikipedia? I have certain concerns based on your editing pattern. I see that you've been here for nearly three years, and all or nearly all your edits are about Polyvagal theory. There is an essay called "Wikipedia:Single-purpose account" (which is neither a policy, nor a guideline; so no "rules" there) which expresses some of my concerns. In particular, the second and third paragraphs.
If you are here mainly to promote the positions of the polyvagal institute, then that may be fundamentally at odds with the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to build a neutral, verifiable, online encyclopedia. There are ways for you to contribute if you are scrupulous in following all policies and guidelines, in particular neutral point of view. On the plus side, I thought your edit summary on this edit at PVT was cautious and appropriate, even if did get reverted, and I think you haven't edited it since, so that's all to the good. Still, the question about your fundamental purpose here remains. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)