 | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please replace the code {{admin help-helped}} on this page with {{admin help}}, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
No idea, whether I am doing this correctly, but I have a problem with Italian phonology, because, and I don't know how this happened, it has headings, which say "6-10 months", "18 months", "12 months", etc. And I cannot find the edit thereto, otherwise maybe I would have reverted it. Could somebody look into that weird thing? Much appreciated,
-Konanen (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Getting Started
Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Tips
Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
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:
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) 19:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
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:
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) 19:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:[1][2][3][4]
Wikipedia's policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.
So yes, we are biased.
And we are not going to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
References
Hi there. While I appreciate your recent efforts at NPOVN, I do have something to say ...
I haven’t heard of any policies saying that the comments/opinions of a tbanned user have any problems and shouldn’t be quoted or need to be striked out. Currently my name appears in your recent post as + Dustfreeworld (topic banned). I don’t mind as much that you don’t include my comments as you include others’, but I *do* mind my presence appears as something like “+ Dustfreeworld (topic banned). If you don’t want to include my comments, that’s fine, just don’t mention me at all.
BTW, it would be great if a few words can be added to make it clear that most opposing comments only appear recently (well ...after my edit of the article), as I don’t want people to think that I’ve misinterpreted a no-consensus situation as the opposite (as the no-consensus situation only appears later).
Thanks so much. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
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 Konanen. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Konanen; thanks for the reply :-) Just in case you haven’t noticed, we have a gadget that can "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" if it has been enabled through Special:Preferences § Gadgets. [1] I don’t think that’s a good idea. There are many alternative ways to indicate the same thing (e.g. User Bob**). In real life, even for someone who was dead or for criminals who committed the most serious crime, we don’t “strike out their names” in news reports. This is not the issue at hand though.
It would be much appreciated if “+ Dustfreeworld (topic banned)“ can be changed to “+ Dustfreeworld”, as I’m still around and what it looks like now can be confusing / misunderstood and potentially disparaging. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The following topic ban now applies to you:
You are indefinitely topic banned from Reiki, broadly construed.
You have been sanctioned per this AE report.
This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.
If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
