User talk:Metaphysical historian

Metaphysical historian, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Metaphysical historian! 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 Samwalton9 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Self-published source

Hi, please don't add A Story Untold: A History of the Quimby-Eddy Debate to any further articles. This is a self-published source and will almost never be appropriate as a source for Wikipedia. Adding references to multiple articles to promote the author or work is described in our guideline Wikipedia:Spam, where you'll find further information. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 16:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Our policy on self-published sources (SPS) is at WP:SPS. It says:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

The author of A Story Untold: A History of the Quimby-Eddy Debate would have to be an established expert, someone who is a published author (published by third parties) in the field of Christian Science, New Thought or related areas. I hope this helps. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest on Wikipedia

Hello, Metaphysical historian. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.

Template:Z33 —Paleo Neonate – 07:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keith McNeil

Hi, can you please stop adding the Keith McNeil book (which is self-published and a fringe source) to Wikipedia articles. It is not a reliable source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Teahouse. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who disagree with you aren't "spammers." They disagree with you. Stop attacking other editors. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that is the point. They don't disagree with me. They never discuss any fact or substance. They have never said that anything I posted was inaccurate; they simply wish to cancel information that they don't like. Their alleged rationale for doing so is out of date and false. When did that kind of biased activity become OK at Wikipedia?

Metaphysical Historian