User talk:Kevingweinberg

Welcome!

Hello, Kevingweinberg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: thanks for this insight. I appreciate your engagement in this complex issue. Matthew Wood's dissertation provides an example of a epistemological perspective that you might find different than your own, though he is on the woo-er side of things. In any case, herbalism and the nascent practice of scientific medicine have a long history of being at contentious odds, and so I have a hard time accepting that your anti-"bogus" or anti-"quack" reversions of my edits are neutral. It is, however, the case that research now forms the basis of much modern herbal practice, such as the, in your words, "registered quack" certification of the American Herbalists Guild. [I looked back and it wasn't Alexbrn you who used the term quack at all, sorry!] I know I'm new to editing, but I hope we can find a way to coexist in this space <3 Kevingweinberg (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The topic area is a mess, but Wikipedia must cover the extensive woo aspect of it. I would caution that this is a fraught and much-discussed area and special editing restrictions apply - I will post a note about them ... On another note, please remember to WP:INDENT your Talk page posts. Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the information! Will do. Kevingweinberg (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]