User talk:Stardig

August 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Gwyneth Paltrow—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Gwyneth Paltrow. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She has no scientific education or expertise, and thus can't be called (pseudo)scientist. Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did with this edit to Gwyneth Paltrow. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Johannnes89 (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johannes89, Gwyneth Paltrow is, among other things, widely regarded as a purveyor of pseudoscience. Accurately describing her as such is by no means defamatory nor is it vandalism, and is absolutely "constructive" in that it is in the public's best interest to be able to determine the legitimacy of anybody who offers advice, products, and services based on claims about health, wellbeing, and science. This edit serves to protect those who might otherwise fall victim to her deceptive claims and spend money on her line of snake oil products. It is not unconstructive, and it is not vandalism. It is a public service. If you disagree, I can only surmise that you lack familiarity with the extent of her unscrupulous, manipulative business practices, so before you revert my edit and throw around accusations of defamation, I suggest you do further research or at the very least provide a compelling argument for reverting the edit.

Because my previous edit was criticized for being unreferenced, I have included references from Vox and BBC. Accusations about the supposed defamatory nature of my edits are entirely unfounded given this person's well documented track record of pseudoscience purveying. This edit serves to protect those who might otherwise fall victim to her pseudoscientific claims and who may spend money on her extensive line of snake oil products. Censorship herein therefore runs the risk of causing real harm.

Respectfully yours, Stardig

Hi! Censorship is never anyone's intention on this site (assuming there's no COI). As long as you can provide sources, all is well. I have not reviewed your edits, though, I'll let Johannnes89 do that. Do make sure you comply with WP:BLP policy.

Hi Stardig! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Gwyneth Paltrow that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was unfamiliar with the technical definition of the term as used here. Thank you for informing me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stardig (talk • contribs)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did with this edit to Steven Gundry. Johannnes89 (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing

Just a tip. Whilst I believe your intentions are good when adding contentious labels (such as pseudoscience) to biographies of living people you need to cite a reliable source. You've already been reported to WP:AIV for vandalism which I removed in good faith but if you continue in the same way you'll likely be blocked. Please read WP:BLP and err on the side of caution. Thanks. Glen (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the insight and for your understanding. I am a bit confused because I've now had lede edits reverted for not citing references, but have also had lede edits reverted for citing references (because apparently the lede shouldn't have references?) It seems like certain editors are picking on me out of spite, when I am just trying to help keep people from getting scammed by making it easier to identify quacks and frauds. Stardig (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stardig, let's just say you're jumping straight into highly contentious areas without fully understanding Wikipedia policy. I'd label GP a pseudoscientist every day of the week if I could, the nonsense she peddles is a complete scam in my opinion but that's not how an encyclopedia works. Just take some time to learn our policies. Happy to help. Glen (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stardig, I'm going to post a welcome message to your page with some helpful links. Please take the time to read them. Wikipedia is usually criticised for being anti alternative medicine, including by one of its founders (Larry Sanger) but the way you're conducting yourself is not conducive to a collaborative project. Please consider this a friendly but strong warning. Welcome message follows. Glen (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Stardig, 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! Glen (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, thank you. Shouldn't this be some kind of automated message right from the moment one signs up? Stardig (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stardig, perhaps but the vast majority of new accounts created never actually edit. There are a lot of editors that patrol newly created accounts and welcome them so apologies it was belated. Either way, welcome. Glen (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems like a great deal of confusion and time could be saved by simply programming a bot to send this message to get newcomers up to speed. The alternative, e.g., waiting until someone unwittingly break the rules, shooting them down while failing to properly explain what was done wrong or how to remediate it, and then criticizing their lack of adherence to the rules, is a big part of what makes this community challenging to deal with. People here have no qualms about being exceptionally condescending towards well meaning noobs; this is a hallmark sign of toxicity in any internet community, whether here, on forums, or in videogames. Stardig (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]