User talk:StefanoProScience

July 2023

Hi StefanoProScience! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Recovered-memory therapy several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Recovered-memory therapy, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. JaggedHamster (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it is is not biased, it is biased to defend the innocence of those accused of abuse, whether they are guilty or not. You should watch the Netflix documentary "The Keepers". Paul McHugh is not a reputable scientist, and the existence of dissociative amnesia and recovered memories is neurobiologically proven. Paul McHugh is a Catholic and testified on behalf of the Catholic priest Joseph Maskell, who abused many girls in Baltimore. Maskell also murdered Catherine Cesnik, a nun who was going to denounce the abuses. But Maskell went free due to the "false memories" theory. StefanoProScience (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, Elizabeth Loftus testified on behalf of Ted Bundy, pedophile priest Paul Shanley, Harvey Weinstein, Gizlaine Maxwell, the Hillside Strangler, and other criminals and rapists. She is not an impartial scientist. StefanoProScience (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving your disputed additions to another article isn't going to work - you should engage with the process and discuss with other editors on the existing talk page discussion. MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice

You have recently made edits related to pseudoscience and fringe science. This is a standard message to inform you that pseudoscience and fringe science is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. —Paleo Neonate – 11:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Recovered-memory therapy

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Recovered-memory therapy. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. If you believe that the article as it stands is biased, then post on the article's talk page and get consensus for your changes. Thank you. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. JBW (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]