User talk:Rodanmeb
Discretionary sanctions
[edit]
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. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
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.
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. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
February 2022
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Rudolf Steiner 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes. We are biased.
[edit]Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:[1][2][3][4]
Wikipedia's policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.
So yes, we are biased.
- We are biased towards science, and biased against pseudoscience.
- We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.[5]
- We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.[6]
- We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.[7]
- We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy.[8]
- We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.[9]
- We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.[10]
- We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.[11]
- We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
- We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.[12]
- We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.[13]
- We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.[14]
- We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.[15]
- We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
- We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
- We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.[16]
- We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
- We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.[17]
- We are biased towards evolution and an old Earth, and biased against young Earth creationism.[18]
- We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.[19]
- We are biased towards an (approximately) spherical earth, and biased against a flat earth.[20]
- We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.[21]
- We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.[22]
- We are biased towards the existence of Jesus and biased against the existence of Santa Claus.[23]
- We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.[24]
- We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.[25]
- We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.[26]
- We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
- We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism.
And we are not going to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Farley, Tim (25 March 2014). "Wikipedia founder responds to pro-alt-med petition; skeptics cheer". Skeptical Software Tools. Archived from the original on 19 October 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
- ^ Hay Newman, Lily (27 March 2014). "Jimmy Wales Gets Real, and Sassy, About Wikipedia's Holistic Healing Coverage". Slate. Archived from the original on 28 March 2014. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
- ^ Gorski, David (24 March 2014). "An excellent response to complaints about medical topics on Wikipedia". ScienceBlogs. Archived from the original on 19 October 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
- ^ Novella, Steven (25 March 2014). "Standards of Evidence – Wikipedia Edition". NeuroLogica Blog. Archived from the original on 20 October 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
- ^ Talk:Astrology/Archive 13#Bias against astrology
- ^ Talk:Alchemy/Archive 2#naturalistic bias in article
- ^ Talk:Numerology/Archive 1#There's more work to be done
- ^ Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 60#Wikipedia Bias
- ^ Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 13#Strong Bias towards Skeptic Researchers
- ^ Talk:Energy (esotericism)/Archive 1#Bias
- ^ Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 12#Sequence of sections and bias
- ^ Talk:Vaccine hesitancy/Archive 5#Clearly a bias attack article
- ^ Talk:Magnet therapy/Archive 1#Contradiction and bias
- ^ Talk:Crop circle/Archive 9#Bower and Chorley Bias Destroyed by Mathematician
- ^ Talk:Laundry ball/Archives/2017
- ^ Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 15#Suggestion to Shed Biases
- ^ Talk:Torsion field (pseudoscience)/Archive 1#stop f**** supressing science with your bias bull****
- ^ Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 3#Biased Article (part 2)
- ^ Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 12#Blatant bias on this page
- ^ Talk:Flat Earth/Archive 7#Disinformation, the EARTH IS FLAT and this can be SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN. This article is not about Flat Earth, it promotes a round earth.
- ^ Talk:Scientific racism/Archive 1#THIS is propaganda
- ^ Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory/Archive 3#Problems with the article
- ^ Talk:Santa Claus/Archive 11#About Santa Claus
- ^ Talk:Flood geology/Archive 4#Obvious bias
- ^ Talk:Quackery/Archive 1#POV #2
- ^ Talk:Ancient astronauts/Archive 4#Pseudoscience
Hint
[edit]You don't have to agree that Rudolf Steiner is a pseudoscience guru. But, as long as you want to edit his article, you have to agree that the mainstream scientific view is that Rudolf Steiner is a pseudoscience guru. Denialism is very much not appreciated here, at Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay, as I'm often reminded, I should not speculate about the intentions of the editors. So it may well be that your motivation is genuine, however your behavior isn't according to WP:RULES.
Morals: since I don't have evidence about your intentions, I should drop talking about your intentions. If you want to continue the discussion, you should reply at Talk:Rudolf Steiner. There is the foremost place wherein decisions about the article are made. There are other options, like WP:DRN, but first consider that you have landed in WP:1AM territory: anti-fringe editors are many, they edit like professionals, and take no prisoners. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
So, while I no longer discuss your intentions, there are behavioral norms everyone has to obey in order to edit Wikipedia. Admins are entitled to decide at WP:AE who has violated arbitration decisions. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)