User talk:Wikiwriter43103840

Welcome!

Hello, Wikiwriter43103840, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Delta Air Lines did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Introduction to referencing
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. –DMartin 02:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Wikiwriter43103840 (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikiwriter43103840. You have reverted my changes to the Re-evaluation Counseling page with minimal explanation. The changes I made gave a number of reasons. Like you, I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing, but I think we need to engage in conversation on the Re-evaluation Counseling Talk page. Many of the changes you have made have been canvassed on that page earlier, I believe. I look o=forward to hearing form you Shawjonathan (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am very glad to engage in conversation. Having been involved with the group for over a decade, I am trying to make the wiki page not read like an advertisement for them, while also trying to maintain objectivity. I do welcome your suggestions. Wikiwriter43103840 (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to complementary and alternative medicine, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Wikiwriter43103840. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should learn from your experience at WP:AE. Making the same mistake is not tolerated for ever. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Naturopathy. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was disruptive? I added to the article and followed all rules. Wikiwriter43103840 (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons:

WP:MEDRS strongly dissuades claims based solely upon WP:PRIMARY medical studies;
WP:PARITY says that for WP:FRINGE topics, WP:RS of lesser prestige are allowed, so long as they're written by debunkers;
WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, and WP:REDFLAG;
as well as noticing that some basic concepts of naturopathy are not empirically operationalizable, so they are not even wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cited studies published by the World Health Organization and NIHS. These are third party reviews not primary medical studies, and they are both certainly reputable mainstream sources. I did not make any exceptional claims so I don’t see why you are citing red flag. Wikiwriter43103840 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on my comments from that article Talk page, I strongly encourage you, @Wikiwriter43103840:, to read Wikipedia's policy about personal attacks (here) and to stop expressing opinions about other editors. Your comments on that page about another editor(s), including but not restricted to You are unkind and I’m not sure why you seem to have it out for me, are both unhelpful/disruptive to the discussion (see WP:TPG) and inappropriate. Although an experienced editor like @Tgeorgescu: is likely to perceive those rebukes as so puny as to fall below their threshold for response, the comments can nevertheless be easily interpreted as personal attacks. As you will learn from reading WP:PA, engaging in personal attacks, especially on an article Talk page, can get you blocked from editing. No one wants that to happen, so please stop it. If you have any questions about the personal attack policy, you can ask them here, on my Talk page, or at a helpful Wikipedia forum like the Tea House. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Central Conference of American Rabbis

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Central Conference of American Rabbis, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An answer to your question at Talk:Naturopathy

In response to this post of yours, I will try to provide you with a potential explanation, using two comments earlier posted to that discussion. All that follows is no more than my interpretation of the situation.

In the first post of that section User:Tryptofish wrote about your desired edits as introduced a false balance and may not have consensus, and later User:tgeorgescu addressed your desired content by writing NPOV isn't half-way between science and pseudoscience. Therein lies, in my opinion, the bases of why your proposed content was considered (in your words) "not encyclopedic." In the first, Tryptofish is referring to two Wikipedia policies: the requirement that articles have a neutral point of view and the role of consensus among editors for determining article content. If you aren't already familiar with those policies, please click on those two links and read them. I emphasize the word policy because both WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS are precisely that: fundamental, long-established rules through which article content is determined, and which are not up for debate/discussion/argument, at least not on article Talk pages. In the second, tgeorgecu is referring to two subsections of the WP:NPOV policy: WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI, which (briefly) explain that fringe/pseudoscientific opinions are not given the same emphasis/weight/consideration in Wikipedia articles as those derived from reliably-sourced, mainstream scientific sources. Your desired edits emphasized fringe/pseudoscientific opinions at the expense of the scientific mainstream, your desired content was (correctly) predicted to be unlikely to achieve consensus among editors at the article Talk page, and your persistence in promoting that content reflected a seeming (and common) misinterpretation of WP:NPOV as meaning that "neutrality" allows fringe material to be given as much attention/weight as non-fringe material. You do not have to agree with or like that analysis, but the fact of the matter is that consensus is against your desired content. For what it is worth, you are not alone: every editor has, at some point(s), desired content that does not achieve consensus.

I hope this helps to answer your question. If not, all I can additionally suggest (I'm unlikely to comment further) is that you consult with other editors at the Teahouse, or perhaps at WP:FTN, which is the Wikipedia noticeboard for all matters touching on fringe topics. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]