User talk:Preconscious

July 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Witch-hunt has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Witch-hunt was changed by Preconscious (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.95443 on 2014-07-25T13:46:09+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Modern Witch-hunts may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• are a reversal of traditional accusations or just an extension. According to Riedel, two major [[Nollywood]films depicting children as witches don't show any economic stress and play in a middle-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Edited before with a different account?

Hi Preconscious, have you edited Wikipedia before using a different account name? Thanks... Zad68 13:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you? Preconscious (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Preconscious, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Preconscious! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Your request for a third opinion

Hi Preconscious. I looked at your request at WP:3O for a third opinion on Talk:Circumcision#"appear". Unfortunately, that discussion is unsuitable for a third opinion, as multiple editors are already in the discussion. You may take it to WP:DRN if you wish. Also, if you file any further requests at WP:3O, please read the instructions carefully. In particular, we don't accept long expositions of the the issue on the 3O request page, just a very brief and neutral statement identifying the topic. Your opening sentence, "Disagreement about the suggestion, circumcision would not have ANY impact on sexual function" was fine and would have been quite sufficient (although the capitalization of any was somewhat leading and would have been better if avoided). Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Forum-shopping, personalizing content disputes and courtesy notifications

Hello Preconscious. Sorry you're getting off to a rough start editing here. I see that after not getting the result you were looking for at the article Talk page you went on to start discussions in significant part about me, personally, in three locations, first here at the Help Desk, then here at the Third Opinion board, and finally here at the User Talk page of Tumadoireacht.

First, starting multiple conversations in different places about the same topic is discouraged, see WP:FORUMSHOP. It's best to pick one venue, let the discussion run to a conclusion, and then abide by any consensus established. Sometimes you get the result you were hoping for, sometimes you do not, but if you keep pursuing it beyond that, it can be seen as tendentious editing, a form of disruptive editing.

Also, regarding your multiple new sections here, if I might offer a bit of advice: Pick one topic/content change suggestion at a time, focus on that, and let it run to conclusion before starting a new one. Opening multiple concurrent sections dilutes the amount of attention any one suggestion will get, and you will have less of a chance of having a clear consensus develop one way or another regarding your suggestion.

Second, again, please do not personalize content disputes. In each of the three discussion you started you focused attention on me, personally. Please follow the advice SpinningSpark gave you here.

Third, if you are going to mention another editor by name and accuse them of wrongdoing, as you did, you should at least extend the courtesy of notifying that editor that you have done so, to give them a chance to respond. You can use the following notification template: {{u|UserNameHere}} to do so, see {{u}}.

Thank you... Zad68 13:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, you totally got this wrong! I didn't focus on you as an entity or person, I focus on the role you are playing in preventing this article from improving. At least, you can accuse me of wrongdoing with simply blocking me from editing this article. About your main concern: I offer you my assistance as a scientist, as you are obviously having a rough start with applied science and getting this article objective. A hint: Try to improve more objectively and fast, so you avoid having it critisized in too many sentences to fast in a row. So you can also run to conclusion before you block a new one. Thank you for the advice with the respond, I will use that next time on W:DRN. Preconscious (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Zad, I'm definitely not after venting aggression on an undue subject. I think you underestimate the aggressiveness of your behaviour. Effectively, you (as other editors with admin-rights seem not present) are vandalizing my suggested edits by blocking them. If you ever experienced vandalizing on wikipedia content you put work into, you know how annoying this can be. As I put work into my suggested edits, I see this work vandalized by seeing it blocked from any publication (where it might be scrutinized by other persons at will, fine with that). So my primary concern is not getting some plain sophistry when I'm seriously working on improving an article. I would've never deleted other opinions or interpretations of research, and my first edit-suggestions were far from radical, if you remember, I only suggested to modify into "disputed".

I defy the attitude of "quality hierarchy", when even Cochrane and Pubmed is selected at will. There are definitely studies of varying quality. But it is not up to some fixed hierarchy, especially not one where cochrane is on top and once cited no other allowed, if content of research is disputable or remains untouched by studies who were less lucky to be funded and pushed by lobbies into the position they would deserve. If you are really interested in the subject, I honestly recommend reading Adorno on positivist science, maybe also Horkheimer on the racket of doctors in the Nazi-era. I only have the German sources for these texts, but you will find translations online for sure. Preconscious (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)