User talk:TruthIan

Alert

You have recently made edits related to complementary and alternative medicine. This is a standard message to inform you that complementary and alternative medicine 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. Bon courage (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Macrobiotics (a redirect page)

Your recent editing history at Macrobiotics 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; read about 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.

Ian, you are edit warring. No matter how right you may be, edit warring is always wrong, so don't do it. You will be blocked. Use the talk page and seek a consensus there. ONLY then, and ONLY that way, will you have a chance. Don't get blocked so soon. You're a newbie, but don't try our patience. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Macrobiotic diet

Your recent editing history at Macrobiotic diet 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; read about 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. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the warning. I just discovered major flaws in the representation of Macrobiotics on Wikipedia. I have made sincere additions to the topic and it is me that been warred against! I have sent a polite topic to Bon Courage and an email to Psychological Guy asking for their reasons for 'undo'ing me repeatedly - and I have had no friendly response from either, to resolve or understand our points of view. I hope you have sent the same warning to them. I have examined WP:NEXIST and other relevant guidelines, and I am trying to abide by them, but every edit I make is being deleted by these two with no discussion at all on their part.

At what point should I seek WP:DR? I am sincere and if you read my page, I am not daft... the user pages of those warring editors seem intended to intimidate not invite discussion. I look forward warmly to a chance to discuss this important topic, which means a lot to many people. Please read my talk topic to Bon Courage.

Great, nice that everyone is conscientious, but communicative they are not, so far! All the best.

PS what is your status in Wikipedia? I have not yet understood the hierarchy. This is Wikipedia's introduction page message:

= Welcome to Wikipedia =

,

the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

6,840,476 articles in English TruthIan (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My status here is irrelevant, but I have been editing here since 2003 and have over 92,000 edits under my belt, but that just reveals I am not a newbie. I have helped to get a very sincere Nobel Prize laureate blocked for disruption, so you are not going to get any type of protected status because you are sincere. I don't doubt that, but that is far from enough to succeed here. I expect that's what you'd like to do.

You need to think of this place as someone's living room, and you are a guest (a very tenuous position) among a lot of others who have been here a lot longer than you have. They know the rules and the customs in that home. You think you do, but you don't. You are out of your depth, and if you irritate enough people, they will freeze you out, and you'll get blocked from that home.

You need to back off and get to know this place. Start with uncontroversial topics and make uncontroversial edits for a while. Whenever one of your edits is reverted, do not restore it. That revert means you do not have a consensus to move ahead. It means you must change your tactics and discuss with others. Instead of restoring your edit, follow the BRD procedure and start a discussion on the talk page. Seek to convince other editors to accept your edit. Expect to have to compromise.

This is a collaborative project. You have no right to make edits and expect them to be accepted without objection. Now stop edit warring or you'll get blocked. It's really that simple. Stop immediately and stick to discussion. BTW, we are about the same age. I'm a bit older, but not much. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that it is me who is edit warring? Those other guys undid me without explanation, twice. I have tried to discuss my concerns about the page on its talk page, which match others' concerns, but have received no reply.

Your own reply, as sincere as mine no doubt, comes across as an attempt to intimidate me into shutting up! I am quite happy to discuss the topic, Macrobiotics, but so far neither you nor any of the others have replied about that. When can we discuss which modifications you, the owners of the scary sitting room, will allow? Stating that Macrobiotics is a 'fad diet', in some American woman's opinion, is plainly far short of Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia itself states that the term had originated by 1797 in Europe as an alignment with nature. This point should be welcomed in this day and age, not 'undone' by people edit warring me without discussion. I refer to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Wilhelm_Hufeland.

Please can you suggest where that point would be best made, if you think I am not up to making the right choice?

How else would you be happy incorporating the point that modern Macrobiotics was active in the 60's and is still flourishing today, which makes it a very long 'fad'. Having used that term, the rest of the page is seen as seriously biased to anyone who has any knowledge of the subject. Why is the use of this term being so strongly defended?

I await the calm discussion of the topic in question that I have been promised as the core of Wikipedia's ethics. I am quite happy to mug up more carefully on the rules but I invoke the notability page that requires editors not to assume verification does not exist just because it has not yet been fully implemented in a new edit or page.

Summary: Macrobiotics is primarily a philosophical approach to life and not just a diet (see my NYT link and the BBC link) and its credentials are as valid as any other faith listed in Wikipedia. Please allow me to make this point and discuss satisfactory references, without them merely being 'undone' by editors with X,000 edits under their belt. They should know better, shouldn't they? It was not me who started the 'undo' wars on this occasion.

Thanks for your time. If you are my age, you will agree how frustrating it is to have one's precious remaining time wasted! I put a lot of care into what I wrote and I do not respect being undone without discussion or even a thoughtful reply to my emails and talk topics to the editors on question.

Are you going to start the ball rolling on discussion of my wishes for the topics in question which you 'undid'? TruthIan (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note about Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland, he did not coin the term macrobiotics but he was one of the first to use it. But it has very little in common with the macrobiotic diet promoted by George Ohsawa and Michio Kushi. If you read Hufeland's book he promotes a diet heavy in bread, milk and eggs, this isn't what the modern macrobiotic fad advocates. Hufeland even recommends for children to suck on cows and sheep to obtain milk [1]. It is mostly an absurd book that I doubt you have read. I don't know why you keep raising Hufeland as some sort of proof macrobiotics is valid. Macrobiotics is very much a fad diet, there is plenty of WP:RS on this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the reply. The wikipedia page about him doesn't say that! Maybe it needs your attention ;)

Why do you insist it's a fad? I've been a carefully researched vegetarian for 45 years, not New Age, maybe more Hinduism inclined (statue at CERN, Island by Aldous Huxley, time in Indian Ashrams). I bumped into Macrobiotics in 1984 by accident. I adopted it wholeheartedly for about a month and felt so well, wonderfully clear-headed. I've continued in the background since then but decided against making my children feel outsiders. My first teacher was a woman who was diagnosed with cancer in two places and had resolved to cure herself through Macrobiotics. She studied under Michio Kushi and 40 years later she is still going strong, having had no further medical attention. Unlike Mr. Kushi! I could go on, and I am clearly aware that this is not the stuff of admirably conscientious wikipedia... but I do know that the current page you are defending so adamantly does not do justice to the people or practice of Macrobiotics as I have known and experienced them. How can we work together to show a little less disrespect on that page for a way of life that a great many people have put their hearts into and found deeply rewarding? Fads don't last nearly 100 years... and that USA reference list of fad diets is surely just her personal opinion, hardly a gold-plated wikipedia-quality reference? What do you think? Both the BBC and Cancer Research agree it is a lifestyle rather than a diet and neither recommend or deny the benefits it may have if you are careful. All the best. TruthIan (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you've described epitomizes "anecdotal", which is a cornerstone of the fad diet phenomenon. Lostsandwich (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, say, Christianity? Anecdotal rules!

I made the point that I recognised that what I was saying to Ps-Guy was anecdotal and therefore not content for Wikipedia. Did you see that? All the best. TruthIan (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TruthIan, I wrote a lot of the Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland article. Over the years I have edited and created 100s of articles for vegetarians. Everything I add is supported by good sourcing. At Wikipedia we are not aloud to insert our personal opinions or stories into articles. We need good sources. You have not listed any. Cancer Research UK states The macrobiotic diet was developed by a Japanese philospher called George Ohsawa. It is a strict diet with rules about what you eat and how you cook your food. There is no scientific evidence that this diet can prevent or cure cancer. [2]. This does not support your personal claims.

As for fad diet, some get confused with this term. Fad diet is just a name for a diet that lacks evidence and makes pseudoscientific claims. There isn't any clinical evidence that macrobiotic diets are effective in treating any disease. The Wikipedia article makes it clear that the macrobiotic diet is influenced by Zen Buddhism but all of the sources define it as a diet. If you dig up pretty much any good nutritional textbook they nearly always have a section on "fad diets" and the macrobiotic diet with the Atkins diet is always cited as a classic example of a fad diet. The macrobiotic diet is quackery because it makes far-fetched claims about healing cancer and AIDS without any clinical evidence. It's also low in calcium, iron and a bunch of other nutrients. As cited above, your claims are anecdotal. There are also people on breatharian, carnivores and fruitarian diets who claim to have "reversed" disease but these are just stories with no scientific evidence or sources to back them up. At the end of the day we shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote personal stories. This website runs on WP:RS, not wives tales. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Psychological Guy - thanks again for the informative replies. I thoroughly respect your scholarship and experience. A bit more justification of that kind for the undo's could have avoided this 'wars' label. However, I still dispute your definition of the term 'fad diet' and use of that expression in this context. I googled 'fad diet' and no site came up which included macrobiotics in its list of fad diets, though plenty of other diets were listed, Atkins, Hay, etc. The British Dietetic Association makes a different definition of fad diet from you, which does not apply to Macrobiotics. And ... the vast majority of sources I have read and googled state that Macrobiotics is a way of life, a lifestyle, or a philosophy first, and diet second, including the BBC's professionally reviewed page. All of which leads me to the conclusion that the words 'fad diet', and the link to one woman's personally chosen list in USA, should be replaced with something nearer your excellent (and non-derogatory) description of "a diet that lacks evidence and makes pseudoscientific claims. There isn't any clinical evidence that macrobiotic diets are effective in treating any disease." But I would add on the page some wording about the benefits that even the Cancer Research UK page allows for:

"Research into macrobiotic diets

Some research shows that macrobiotic diets can improve some people’s health. This is when done in moderation and not taken to an extreme."

Which I support. That section concludes:

"Some organisations say that a macrobiotic diet and lifestyle can help people with cancer and other health conditions. But there has not been enough scientific research into this. We need more trials to test and compare different diets. Then we can be sure of their true benefits."

Cancer Research page on Macrobiotics

They are clearly not closing the door to potential benefits, which implies that fitting Macrobiotics to your definition of 'fad diet' seems inappropriate at this stage and potentially derogatory (you remarked how many people are confused by the words).

The Cancer Research page is also wrong about Macrobiotics being strict; I can find you endless sources that state that Macrobiotics offers guidelines, not strict rules. A leading proponent, Craig Sams who founded Whole Earth, once told me that eating a good plate of strawberries and cream (serious excess Yin!) with enjoyment will do you far more good than suffering any aspect of more formal Macrobiotics that is unwelcome.

So I would try wording along the lines of "despite widespread anecdotal accounts of benefits, there is no clinical evidence that macrobiotic diets are effective in treating any disease." (If that is actually true - it may not be! see Notability >>>

=== Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article[edit] ===

Shortcuts

The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources in libraries, bookstores, and the internet) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article.

<<<

My support of Macrobiotics is not blind or unconditional: I am writing in the sprit of honesty, not promotion. Personally I am repelled by the Japanese-influenced idea that you should thank the fish before you kill it. I became vegetarian in India for reasons well stated on the interesting 'history of vegetarianism' page, but the dietary advice on food according to the 'three gunas' is so vague and contradictory as to be useless! In Macrobiotics I found a classified and detailed set of guidelines to modern food that worked, brilliantly, when I tested it. So I urge you excellent editors to reconsider this possibly incorrect wording 'fad diet' and also to allow that Macrobiotics is more then a dietary practice. You choose the wording - I see your skills are excellent, having googled many of your edits on pages about this field that interests us both. TruthIan (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fad diet per decent sources, so Wikipedia reflects that. If the "conceptual background" section of Macrobiotic diet gets expanded to the point where a WP:SPLIT might be justified, then that argument can be had then. Until then, the principle of WP:NOPAGE applies and Wikipedia certainly shall not be including the kind of rubbish that was present in the article fork that was attempted. Bon courage (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What decent sources? I see none! Please list them.

What rubbish? If you are referring to my thoughtful page on the nature of Macrobiotics, I dispute rubbish and find that word unpleasantly aggressive, over-simplified and derogatory. I have only been here three days and found such the opposite of the calm discussion of TOPIC that is required by Wikipedia. And I repeat the reference to * WP:NEXIST

WP:NPOSSIBLE

TruthIan (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You skilled and experienced editors command my respect for your knowledge and conscientious upholding of Wikipedia's standards, and impressive page design skills. But please be careful you do not miss the whole point of Wikipedia, which is surely to present a topic respectfully and truly! I speak as a long term prolific user and donor. TruthIan (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point of Wikipedia is to summarize accepted knowledge, so personal rambles like "All systems and faiths based on 'ancient wisdom' and intuitive notions, Yin and Yang in this case, render scientific testing impractical, allowing sceptics free rein" added in Wikipedia's voice (aka the "your science cannot measure my woo" gambit) exemplifies the kind of WP:PROFRINGE rubbish that Wikipedia rejects. Bon courage (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but your aka was not at all the intention of my remark - another example of you and Valjean apparently trying to intimidate me rather than address the point. I will find some 'accepted' voice that says what I said, that you feel represents Wikipedia better. But I am busy and I have a life outside of Wikipedia. I just wanted to make a valuable contribution to a subject I am very familiar with and feel is wrongly represented on Wikipedia as it stands. I will come back to this another day.

You still have not listed what source you consider 'decent' for the 'fad diet' label. Does reference (1), the inclusion by two women in their personal opinion book, count as a scholarly reference and an accurate reflection of 'accepted knowledge'? Do you really think they meet the criteria? So all I need to do is to publish my 'Encyclopedia of highest known knowledge to man' and it will become 'accepted knowledge'? I am working on it :)

I repeat: I googled 'fad diet' this morning and NO SITE listed Macrobiotics. So I consider there is obvious bias in picking on a single obscure reference which is only personal opinion. TruthIan (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS replacing a redirect arbitrarily placed over an article is not exactly a WP:SPLIT is it? Why are you so pointedly ignoring

I am quite happy to discuss better ways of supporting the point I was trying to make. TruthIan (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is already covered at Macrobiotic diet; a WP:POVFORK is damaging. Not sure why the gender of its editors needs raising, but yes – a reputably-published encyclopedia of fad diets is indeed a good source for Wikipedia when considering whether something is a fad diet or not. Bon courage (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who says the authors are reputable representatives of agreed human knowledge? Or the publishers? They publish to make money - a valid criticism of other edits in Wikipedia! What is the source of your assertion that they are 'reputable'? The word Encyclopaedia is just a word. Very limited source checking going on here.

You are seriously picky questioning my use of the word women when they have women's names!

Please could we stop wasting time and discuss why that reference was selected when NO website lists Macrobiotics as a 'fad diet' that I can find. On Wikipedia, 'fad diet' is described as 'like a fashion'. Hardly!

Why are you so obsessed with retaining this particular description? It is plainly inappropriate, reeks of bias, and I shall not let this go. I am sure I can find some appeals process on Wikipedia. Please have no doubt that is where I shall go with this, unless we can, as Wikipedia insists, resolve this amicably with some satisfactory compromise. In my case that would be choosing less derogatory wording to convey the agreed point which Psychological Guy makes above. I'm sure an experienced editor like yourself can come up with a suggestion? This is just a discussion over improving wording for an agreed point.

NB just for fun: if the point is that there is no scientific proof of benefit, where does that leave Christianity, or Buddhism? All anecdotal! My point that you cannot scientifically test something unmeasurable is perfectly logical and valid. There is even a fascinating page on consciousness which asserts that no scientific or philosophic agreement exists on what it is! TruthIan (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article for faith healing (and yes religion-derived health claims can be tested or otherwise assessed). If you want a man saying macrobiotics a dangerous fad diet, try PMID:2186615. For determining whether something is a fad, a specialist source on food faddism is appropriate. Sources you were attempting to use, like macrobioticsinternational.com, are the opposite of the WP:BESTSOURCES. If you want further eyes on this matter, a thread is already open at WP:FT/N#Macrobiotics where the are hundreds of watchers. Bon courage (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with using Encyclopedia Britannica's simple and accurate wording, or similar: Macrobiotics, dietary practice based on the Chinese philosophy of balancing yin and yang (see yinyang).

You can then proceed to all the relevant warnings.

(And why are YOU talking about gender? I was just referring to the named authors. Please explain why you think reference to gender is relevant here. Or don't bother; we'll just take it that you are on another mission of some sort!)

I looked up your user page and found the interesting info about WP:NPOV.

I then realised I should be having this discussion on the talk page of Macrobiotics Diet so that if I wish to invoke the POV template, our discussion can be found there. {| class="wikitable"

|

|The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (June 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

|} TruthIan (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who raised (oddly) "two women in their personal opinion book" (for an educational encyclopedia). Readers will draw their own conclusions. Bon courage (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More likely to draw conclusions about you! I referred to the authors' names: Marjolijn Bijlefeld, Sharon K. Zoumbaris. What did you want me to use, 'people'? Ridiculous. Haven't you better things to think about? I have no issues about gender!

Have you heard the aphorism, "The only faults you see in others are the ones you yourself have."

Why are you not supplying chapter and verse on why I should accept those authors as speaking on behalf of 'accepted human knowledge' rather than selling books with catchy titles? TruthIan (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you googled their range of books - cookbooks? And you still think they are disinterested parties? TruthIan (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because academic textbooks are generally regarded as trusted, independent and authoritative sources, obviously so for such a trivial question as whether a whacky diet is a fad diet or not. Bon courage (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You call that an academic textbook? No wonder people vote for Trump in USA! She, sorry, they, are a reporter and writer of popular books. My respect for Wikipedia has just dropped through the floor after that comment of yours. TruthIan (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I live near Oxford, England, and read Physics at Oxford University. I think we have a different understanding of academic textbook. Let's leave it there. TruthIan (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROFRINGERS tend to dislike works that contradict their beliefs, but this is irrelevant for Wikipedia's purposes, which relies on reliable published sources. The work is in its second edition and has been reviewed well-enough e.g. here.[3] To quote

The authors are both freelance writers who have written on this topic before. Focusing on America’s long and varied history of trying to achieve the perfect figure, this work is a solid record of our many follies. ... This Encyclopedia is recommended with some few reservations for general reference and nutrition collections.

But as I say there's always PMID:2186615

Some fad "alternatives" are blatantly dangerous. Followers of the "Zen macrobiotic" diet have died while attempting to subsist on water and brown rice alone. Many other dubious programs deprive the public of timely and rational medical care, and promote useless and costly regimens, thereby exploiting the fears and the hopes of the public, especially the sick.

Bon courage (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that they are only one obscure reference, as is your sports link. No-one denies the misuse of macrobiotics that led to deaths - of course not, why would they?

Those writers are, from your remarks, cashing in on a topic of interest to USA readers. Unfortunately it is £50 here - $70 - so I can't afford a copy to investigate. Can I borrow yours? The thing is, there are also countless references by writers who report that macrobiotics is a very rewarding way of life.

I am not a 'follower' - I haven't been near another macrobiotic person in years, nor communicated with one - so to that extent, I am an educated third party freelance writer too!

I am certainly not a profringer! On the contrary, I reject bullshit, especially about ways of eating - and lazy thinking!

I think the biggest problem here may be that 'fad diet' could be a more accepted term in the USA; here in the UK it is a very belittling expression. I believe that aspect should be taken into account. I have no time now, but I will work on finding wiki-standard sources justifying the elevation of macrobiotics from that demeaning status and replacing the wording.

Thanks for the hard work you do to keep wikipedia standards high. I just feel there is a danger here of 'throwing the baby out with the bath water,' as I am sure you will agree.

Finally - I am sorry for taking Wikipedia's welcome message at face value - "the free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Clearly not! At least, not until they learn how to abide by, and reference, the rules, which I propose to do.

All the best and thanks for stimulating me to get to know the system better. Anon, as they say in Shakespeare! TruthIan (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the edit warring has stopped, it's time to return to the article's talk page. Keep discussions focused on content and sources, not on other editors. There you can make proposals for changes, with the reliable sources you'd like to use. Take small bites in the beginning (well, that's always good to do), as attempts to make large changes rarely succeed. As you get more experience, you will learn when to make, and not make, bold changes. Your goal should be to make edits that are so well-formulated, well-sourced, and uncontroversial, that they will not be reverted. (That's tricky when dealing with a controversial topic.) You want your edits to "stick". Success at doing that comes with experience. Practice by editing on lots of uncontroversial topics. Build up a good reputation as a non-fringe editor who is easy to work with. Good luck! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia, TruthIan!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I'm Dustfreeworld, one of the thousands of editors here. Below are some pages that you might find helpful:

While editing Wikipedia:

Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Be bold, but do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
Provide reliable sources to the content you add. If you are adding biomedical information, please follow this guideline.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.

If you have any questions, check out the Teahouse or ask me on my talk page. Please sign your messages on discussion pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Again, welcome! ----Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I guess you are from L.A.? You must be a fan of M Cafe. I hope I can visit there someday too :)

I hope you won’t regret joining this Wikipedia jungle … and yep what they said is true, and what those help pages won’t tell you is that one can get banned / blocked very easily by only one or two admins if you are editing those articles. Don’t think it’s the same as ANI, Arbcom, etc. Don’t expect there will be lengthy, thorough, reasonable discussions (ANI sometimes can be not so reasonable too, but still.. not too bad most of the time I would say). NO. It’s something called WP:AE; and people may work “together” to expel those who disagree (I think they are telling you this?). This way, we guarantee that the whole project will only have “one voice”, “one opinion” and “one truth”, forever. Even if you only discuss on talk pages, you are not safe. All these are no secret. But if you don’t know you don’t know ... (there may be some differences for different topics/situations, the procedures may work better / less misused e.g., there may be less disagreement if used for preventing, say, racism (?); but may not be so for all topics IMO) I hope you understand what I mean, and that you will never know as much as I do :)

It’s not too late if you choose to leave now, for continuing to be a whole person, for saving your precious time. for preserving your trust to other people, for preserving the good impression to on Wikipedia, etc. (sorry the WP:Wikiproject Editor Retention now seems non-sense to me). P.S. sorry if I’m too direct and too discouraging, but you really need some advice from “experienced” user ;-) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2024; --Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC) ; --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! That's what my wife is saying! Actually I'm English, near Oxford... do come and visit. I'll be writing my best seller and someone can make a page about me!

Thanks... TruthIan (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]