User talk:Mjeddy

Welcome!

Hello, Mjeddy, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello, I'm CodeTalker. I noticed that you recently removed content from Craniosacral therapy without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CodeTalker (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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.

Girth Summit _(blether) 21:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the comments you left (and then removed) at Talk:Craniosacral_therapy, please let me explain a few things to you, which may make it easier to express yourself in ways that the editing community will be more likely to accept.

Your assertion that you are an engineer is irrelevant. I could describe myself as a geophysicist, or a primary school teacher (both of which are true), or as a medical doctor or an alternative healthcare practitioner (neither of which are true), or, frankly, as a dog. This is the internet - it doesn't matter who we say we are, since it's not verifiable. What matters is the sources you bring, and the strength of your arguments in relation to Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines.
Saying 'this article is biased' is extremely unlikely to convince anyone, because it is so vague. What you need to do is identify specific assertions that you have difficulties with, and either demonstrate that the sources supporting them are unreliable, or demonstrate that the sources do not support the assertions as-written, or provide other reliable sources which take a different viewpoint, and propose a change based on those.
Casting aspersions as to the motives of other editors is prohibited. See also WP:NPA. Restrict your comments on article talk pages to the content and sourcing of the article.

I hope that's clear. I have notified you about the discretionary sanctions that are in place to prevent disruption in this topic area - I hope that you will refrain from speculating about the motivations of other editors in future, because it may result in sanctions being imposed upon your account. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 22:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to write all that Girth, appreciate it. The engineer part was to demonstrate that I am trained to separate facts from non-fact data when turning lay requirements in actual technical specifications.

From that point of view it is abundantly clear to me that the article has a certain tone. I've been reading through some of the rules though and see that it is bad form to comment on tone. I don't see how this works - I would have thought a neutral tone was standard and anything otherwise would be clearly reprimanded.

But I take your other points on board and apologies for my uncustomary hostility - it is difficult to see something I love and which has changed my life hugely for the better and which I have then gone on to witness changing others lives in radical ways being disparaged so seemingly blatantly. Like others have also commented in the talk page, this article will definitely turn away people who may otherwise have reached out & found help where they couldn't find it in the allopathic domain, and this is especially difficult to see happen.

Thanks again Mjeddy (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand why you mentioned being an engineer - I just wanted to explain to you why that adds no weight to anything you say. We have people claiming to be all sorts of things here - about a week ago, I was literally speaking to someone claiming to be the Emperor of Planet Earth, who was going to have all Wikipedia editors executed if they didn't get their way. Anyone can claim to be anything, and so all claims of being authoritative on any subject are given zero weight.

You are right that any subject should be written about from a neutral point of view, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we leave the reader to make up their own mind. Rather, we aim to reflect what scholarly sources say about the subject. If you take the rather extreme case of modern flat Earth beliefs, for example, we don't merely present what they say and leave readers to decide - we tell readers that it's a lot of old rubbish, because that's what scholarship says it is.

I've literally never heard of craniosacral therapy before today, my attention was drawn by your comments at another admin's talk page, so I have no view on what the sources actually say, or whether the tone of the article is unfairly biased, or an accurate reflection of the scholarly consensus on the subject. If you want to make changes to the article however, you're going to have to be specific - explain which assertions you believe are biased/misleading/flat-out-wrong, and provide sources showing that to be the case.

One more bit of reading for you: WP:MEDRS. That is the bar that citations to support biomedical assertions are required to pass. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 22:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mjeddy, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mjeddy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Bsoyka (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)