User talk:Morgan Leigh

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

A minor 're-correction'.

Hi!

I reverted your recent edit in Cretan hieroglyphs, and solved the problem with the use of an adjective instead of the noun in a simpler manner (eliminating a redirect). I assume that your spelling heiro- instead of hiero- was just a typo, and therefore made no remark about this on the talk page; if I'm wrong, feel free to change back and/or to discuss spelling variants at e. g. Talk:Hieroglyph.

Best, JoergenB (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Good job. Yup, just a typo. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation tags

Hello, I just reverted the citation needed tags you placed in the ritual article. In each of the subsections there is one citation placed at the end of the paragraph for that paragraph. Putting the same citation at the end of each sentence in a paragraph really doesn't seem to make much sense, since all of these characteristics of ritual come from one chapter of one book. Hope you agree. Schrauwers (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings,

Actually I don't agree :) I have replied to this post on the talk page of the article. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Names, dates and relationships of Golden Dawn members by Sally Davis

Hello,

I wondered why you had not removed the link to the "Roll Call" of the Golden Dawn on the same basis? It quotes no sources at all.

Could you advise how Ms. Davis should improve her material to meet your reliability standards for the Golden Dawn article?

Thanks Wrighrp (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings,

I didn't delete the roll call because I didn't notice it. But, you are correct that it doesn't meet the reliable sources criteria either. They both should be either removed or replaced with one published somewhere that does.

You can find all the information about reliable sources straight from the horses mouth right here.

Please sign your posts with four tildes right at the end so I can know who I am talking to. :) Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response.

I did think you might have some specific points about Ms. Davis work?

She sourced and cited the source as being directly from the Golden Dawn Members rolls held by the Masonic Archive in London where she has done considerable research - is that not "reliable" when it comes to a list of Golden Dawn members?

Perhaps we do not understand the guidance on reliable sources? Wrighrp (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings,

Although the information on the page provides a cited source it is not possible to ascertain with any reliability who the author of the page is. To meet the reliable sources criteron the page needs to be verifable as actually belonging to the person who claims to have written it and it needs to also be verifable that the author has some claim to being a reliable source on this sbject. If Ms. Davis is attached to an institution then using the page provided by that institution is an excellent way of overcoming this problem.

When replying to posts on talk pages it is normal practice to indent your response to make it easier to follow the conversation. To do this you just add a colon at the beginning of each paragraph. If you are replying to a reply then you need to add one more colon then the previous person's reply has. Although it is policy to not edit other people's posts, because this is my talk page and in order to help you see how this works, I have taken the liberty of editing your reply so that it indents. You can see the colons in the page source when you go into edit mode. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the style advice. Ms. Davis is an independent researcher, although she does have a BA in History from London University and worked at the Institute of Archaeology, UCL in the 80's. We will do further investigation as to how any material can actually be verified as belonging to the person who claims to have written it. Perhaps we can follow you as an example? It would seem, based on what you say, that no independent researcher can ever have their material used as a Wikideidia secondary source, which surely can't be right? Thanks Wrighrp (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Further to the above, I now understand that self-published material by anyone who is not an "acknowledged expert" in a subject can never be a reliable secondary source under Wikipedia rules. On the other hand, the members list of the Golden Dawn really could do with some improvement - the list in "The Golden Dawn Companion" by R.A. Gilbert having minor errors and omissions. I'd like to ask you if it would be appropriate to include a link to Ms. Davis's work, with suitable disclaimers, on the "talk" page for the Golden Dawn, until some more "reliable" source becomes available which can have a link on the "main" page? Thanks Wrighrp (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have now placed a link to Ms. Davis' work on the Talk page for the H.O.G.D. as proposed. Please edit it as you see fit to make it useful. Thanks for your help so far. Wrighrp (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that. I haven't had time to look at it yet as I am traveling. I will be back on the 22nd and will look at it then. Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC query

Hi mate! I've left you a note at Talk:Magick with regard to the RFC. I tried not to sound patronising (sorry if I did), but I was genuinely confused by your "vote" and them comment. It was almost as if you meant "strong support", but you clearly have concerns with the article so I'm keen to flesh those out. What I've proposed seems to be exactly what you're calling for so is there something else you think should be resolved at the same time? Stalwart111 10:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed that. :) Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was odd! All good then! Stalwart111 12:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hope to bump into you elsewhere.Schrauwers (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	u r probably the only person on wiki who is ever so nice i have never met someone as nice as you on wiki before so i wanna give u a barnstar for ur specialness United kingdoms my home (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream encyclopedia

Wikipedia is mainly a venue for expressing views supported by established science and peer-reviewed scholarship (and perhaps reputable press, for certain subjects). Editors are supposed to understand this, to wish this and be competent at doing this.

Supporting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is, therefore, required of all editors. Failure to respect mainstream science leads to the loss of disputes, and may result in being blocked and eventually banned. Strong adherence to mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is what made Wikipedia one of the greatest websites. So, dissent from mainstream science and mainstream scholarship will be perceived as an attack upon Wikipedia itself. If you want to win a dispute, your claims must be backed by reputable science or peer-reviewed scholarship. If you cannot honestly do that, then you must refrain from making a particular claim. And remember, Wikipedia is just a mirror, mainstream science and mainstream scholarship exist outside of Wikipedia and cannot be changed through editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia merely reflects them. So if you want to change science/scholarship, you have to be a scientist or a scholar; Wikipedia is not the venue for revising scientific opinion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Tgeorgescu on this. Morgan Leigh, might I suggest that you read WP:1AM? I believe that you will benefit greatly from following the links on that page. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd like you to consider from WP:1AM "This editor has been around a long time, has made many edits, has no recent blocks, and generally gets along with everyone. In this case you should seriously reexamine your own position, especially if you are a fairly new editor. Work with the lone holdout and try to figure out why you are in such an unusual situation." Being the only one arguing for something doesn't make one wrong. Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I answered this on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, where you posted the exact same words. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Your recent editing history at Parapsychology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You are overacting. Reverting edits for valid reasons is not edit warring, unless you want to defend "Remove anti science nonsense" as a valid reason to remove information cited with peer reviewed journals. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no "I am allowed to edit war because I am right" exception to our policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

That is not what I said. Reverting edits to correct where people break the rules of wikipedia is not edit warring. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is. Read WP:EW: "Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version [Free clue: you have repeatedly restored your preferred version] is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense."

WP:3RRNO lists all reverts that are exempt from the edit-warring policy. "Reverting edits to correct where people break the rules of Wikipedia" is not on the list. Not the mention the fact that so far you have failed to quote the actual rule that you claim was broken. Is it the "nobody is allowed to disagree with Morgan Leigh" rule? Is it the "Morgan Leigh is special and doesn't have to follow the rules everyone else follows" rule? Or is it the "just claim that a clear case of edit warring "isn't edit warring" and hope nobody notices" rule? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The reason I made that revert is clearly mentioned in the page WP:3RRNO where it says "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." Removing cited content with the edit summary of "Remove anti science nonsense" is a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability.

You are clearly very emotional about this and perhaps you need to just take a break from this for a bit. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that my edsum was poor. I should have said “anti science bollocks”. Roxy, in the middle. wooF 14:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Morgan Leigh - as an admin I'm telling you as clearly as I can that the exemption you are trying to use to justify edit warring will not fly if you are reported at WP:3RR.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I thank you for your input, but I have to assure you that I am not trying to justify edit warring. I don't think you are assuming good faith. I reverted an edit that removed cited material with a spurious comment. I do not think this is outside of wikipedia's rules as we are admonished to not remove cited content, but rather to add balance. This is clearly not happening at parapsychology at the moment. Maybe I shouldn't have made the following revert, even though I believe the claim of the reverter is unjustified, but one revert is not edit warring. Editors at parapsychology have continually removed cited content, even content from peer reviewed academic journals. Surely this is just as deserving of your attention as my one revert? Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Believe me, I almost got blocked for edit warring in order to apply policy. Whatever is not clearly vandalism, BLP violation or such and can reasonably be construed as a content dispute, is no exemption from being blocked for edit warring. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Expanding a bit on the above excellent comment, the exact exceptions are all listed at WP:3RRNO, and anyone who reverts while claiming one of the exceptions must say in the edit summary exactly which of the exceptions at WP:3RRNO is being claimed. Examples: "clear copyright violation" or "clear copyright violation (see talk page)".

The right way to deal with someone violating a Wikipedia policy or guideline is to revert ONCE with a clear explanation of what policy is being violated, and if the material is reintroduced, report the policy violation at WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I was told ANI is only for serious and persistent violations, not for one time errors of a newbie. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

That's true for the kinds of edit disputes you or I are likely to end up having with other editors, because we both try to follow Wiki[pedia's policies and guidelines. For us (not for Morgan Leigh), it would probably be fine to follow this procedure:

1. Editor X makes an edit that violated a policy, but is not listed at WP:3RRNO.
2. We revert with a clear edit summary that explains exactly what policy was violated
3. Editor X reverts.
4. We post a warning on Editor X's talk page. In almost all cases, there is a template for that at WP:USETEMP.
5. Optionally, we revert a second time. If we do, we post a message on the article talk p[age, explaining in detail why. Or we can just post the message without reverting. In most cases someone else will revert soon after we post it.
6. Case 1: Someone reverts editor X and Editor X reverts whoever reverted him. We follow the advice at Wikipedia:Edit warring#What to do if you see edit-warring behavior.
7. Case 2: Nobody reverts editor X. We wait at least 24 hours to see if he respond on the article talk page. If he doesn't respond, we post a "no response, so I am reverting" message on the article talk page, revert, and treat it as Case 1.

That's for us. Morgan Leigh is different from us in three ways. [A] He habitually reverts instead of discussing. [B] he thinks that what he is doing isn't edit warring. [C] he fails to make it clear what policies he thinks are being violated (likely because he misunderstand the other policies just as badly as he misunderstands the edit warring policy).

Given those three things, he is headed towards ANI anyway, and so he might as well post the ANI report himself and try to paint his actions in a positive way. Or he can wait until someone else reports him and he gets blocked, and complain about how unfair it all is. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You thought wrong.

On Talk:Parapsychology you wrote:

"Have you considered that perhaps it is you skeptics that are the true believers? You appear to believe quite fervently that parapsychology is not science, despite wikipedia findings and rules calling for balance. You seem to have a quite fundamentalist position on expunging all parapsychologists from wikipedia. How is it that you can see the mote in my eye but not the beam in your own? I thought the goal was to give a balanced view."[1]

You thought wrong. It is most definitely NOT our goal to "give a balanced view".

The actual rule is at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. Read it carefully, keeping in mind that pretty much everyone is telling you that the rules don't say what you think they say.

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!"

We don't present a "balanced view" between those who believe the holocaust never happened and those who do. We don't present a "balanced view" between those who believe that the earth is flat and those who think it is a sphere. And we don't present a "balanced view" between those who believe that parapsychology is a science and those who think that it is pseudoscience.

As Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ clearly states, "Wikipedia's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such and using the words of reliable sources to present strong criticisms. Fairly explaining the arguments against a pseudoscientific theory or verifiably describing the moral repugnance that people feel toward a notion is fully permitted by NPOV." --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has already ruled "here that "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking." Moreover I am not asking for equal weight. I am asking for some mention. There are currently no less than nineteen citations disparaging parapsychology in the lede alone. I am trying to add at least some for balance. Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Now that several arbitrators have responded to my request for clarification,

"Arbitrator Premeditated Chaos: "Using the scientific method to study something doesn't automatically make it a legitimate branch of science. I could make any number of studies using the scientific method (hypothesis, testing, analysis of results) about my cat's ability to predict my week by meowing. They can be as technically correct as anything, but that doesn't make meowology a real science. The statement in the ArbCom case wasn't wrong; there are people who do attempt actual studies of parapsychological phenomena. The fact that those people do that, and that ArbCom remarked on it in 2007, doesn't invalidate the consensus of the overall scientific community that parapsychology is pseudoscience."

Arbitrator Worm That Turned: "1) The quote is taken out of context, which starts by saying that mainstream science does not include the paranormal. 2) Saying that there scientific methods are being used does not stop an area from being a pseudo-science. 3) Consensus (and the real world) can change over such a long period and Wikipedia does not have to remain fixed based on one finding 11 years ago. 4) Most importantly, content decisions are made by the community and by consensus for a reason - Arbcom does not decide on content issues."

Arbitrator Callanecc: "There are a number elements to consider here, the first is PMC's point, the second is Worm's point that the quote has been taken out of context, the third that some common sense needs to applied to a decision made more than 11 years ago, the third is that ArbCom doesn't, and can't, make rule on what content should be in articles, the fourth is that, as Worm notes, the comment has been taken out of context, and the fifth is that this is a finding of fact (in the case) not a remedy so is not binding on anything anyway."

I believe that it is now perfectly clear that:

• Your previous "Wikipedia has already ruled" statement[2] was wrong.

• Arbcom does not issue rulings on content issues.

• It is the opinion (not ruling) of the arbitration committee that parapsychology is [A] pseudoscience and [B] not real science.

• Your quote from the 11-year-old arbitration request was out of context.

I await your retraction. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree I shouldn't have said "ruled" but instead should have said "found".

I do not agree that my quote was taken out of context. You abridged it in your request but I included the entire quote, as can be seen here.

I agree that the rules of arbcom have changed since the finding I mentioned and that it now does not rule on content. This does not change the fact that it used to, and when it did its findings were exactly as I mentioned, as arbitrator Worm That Turned said "The firm concept of 'Arbcom does not rule on content' is more recent than that ruling so lines have been blurred in the past.".

Given that arbcom does not now rule on content any opinions the arbitrators may have expressed on content are irrelevant. As arbitrator BU Rob13 said "Content issues are decided by the community, and ArbCom can't step in here to decide the content dispute other than to say that relevant policies and guidelines apply (such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE)".

I also note that in response to your comment "If Morgan Leigh now agrees that arbcom does not issue rulings on content disputes, then the point is indeed moot, but I would like to see him explicitly state that rather than assuming it and then watching him continue to claim that arbcom has ruled in favor of his preferred content and having to re-file this clarification request.", arbitrator Worm That Turned said "@Guy Macon: as much as it would be nice for Morgan Leigh to acknowledge our points of view, you asked the question, we clarified, he changed his RfC. As far as I'm concerned, that should be the end of it with regards to the ARCA." Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Committee Clarification Request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, --Guy Macon (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The clarification request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Clarification request: Paranormal (October 2018). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Acupuncture

I saw you were asking about sources at acupuncture. If you have not seen them, you might find my Questions to Arb Candidates (and their answers) regarding this subject of interest:

• Gorilla Warefare: [3]. See answers Q7 and 8.
• Silk Tork: [4]. See answer to Q7 and 8.
• DGG: [5]. See Q6 and Q7.
• Joe Roe: [6]. See Q7 and 8.
• Lourdes: [7]. See Q6 and 7.
• AGK: [8]. See Q1 and 2.
• Fred Bauder: [9]. See Q1 and 2.
• Mkdw: [10]. See Q7 and 8.
• Kelapstick: [11]. See Q1, 2, and 3.
• Courcelles: [12]. See Q1 and 2.
• Robert McClenon: [13]. See Q1 and 2.
• Drmies: [14]. See Q7 and 8.

--David Tornheim (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

If you (or any other editor) wants to copy this information to the talk page of acupuncture (and/or any other articles about alternative medicine) and refer to this comment, that's fine with me. But, if you do, please put your name under it, not mine. I'm not sure if the candidates whose answers are referred to would want to be pinged--probably a good idea if their answers are mentioned on article talk pages. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Sealioning & truthiness

Hi Morgan, just a friendly nugget of advice. I don't think you're sealioning at Talk:Acupuncture when you correctly point out that some other editors are soapboxing and failing to provide specific answers about e.g. why a source is good or bad. Indeed, I think the sealioning accusation is a facile attempt to brush off the valid concerns you raise.

Unfortunately, your repetition of valid complaints starts to look like sealioning. One thing I've learned (and it took me a long time to) is that the more one repeats oneself on WP, the less credible, and more ridiculous, one looks -- however valid one's points may be. Conversely, the more concise you are, the more people will actually read your comments, and the more credible you'll be. Right now you're dealing with editors who are both highly opinionated and highly experienced. They're not going to change their behavior because you ask them to more than twice. And they understand how Wikipedia works and how your actions will be perceived.

Consider how an editor coming to the talk page for the first time would perceive your remarks. The impact of a single, valid, incisive comment is inherently diluted by its repetition. The cumulative effect grows from eyes-glazing-over to annoyance. In that case, an accusation like sealioning may stick not because it's true, but because it's truthy (not fair, but is what it is). Now, on the bright side, this applies also to the soapboxing behavior you're objecting to: editors will pick up on that too, so no need to muddy the waters by seeming (emphasis on "seeming") like another bad actor.

So, just a word to the wise. Let it go. Obviously the NPOV issues being debated will come before a larger audience at some point. Wait until then to re-state your concerns, and in the meantime use the talk page more parsimoniously. My $0.02, FWIW, IMHO, with happy editing and sugar on top.  :-) Best regards, Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 20:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC) | copy-edit 20:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC), 22:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. You are absolutely correct. I guess I'm just shocked. I've been a big proponent of Wikipedia and an editor for 13 years and, because of my field of expertise, have always been editing contended articles, but I have never experienced anything like the level of hypocritical, pseudoskeptical POV pushing that I am seeing now. It's hurting Wikipedia. The amount of press on it is getting embarrassing. I've always defended Wikipedia to my colleagues in academia but its getting much harder to do. IMHO it's a big factor is in the decline in editors and current processes are not dealing with it. As with everything, the most interesting stuff happens at the edges, but the edges are being deleted from Wikipedia. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit to the lede of Pseudoscience without talk first

Greetings Morgan Leigh and thank you for your substantial contribution to the encyclopedia. I noticed you recently changed the lede of a controversial and arbcom discretionary sanctions tagged article, Pseudoscience without discussion on talk. I have to respect your experience as an editor, AGF, and I support a strong interpretation of BRD, but not to open a discussion when changing the lede of an article with a very extensive history of work to get consensus support for a fairly stable version? Cheers. MrBill3 (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@MrBill3:I do not believe I have violated any provisions of discretionary sanctions. If you believe I have please specify which provisions you believe I have breached. My edit was only to add more specific information about a citation that was not correctly representing what the source said. I suggest that the talk page for the article is the correct place to have a more detailed discussion about the edit and so I shall be more explicit at that venue. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I was not suggesting you had violated the discretionary sanctions. I found it unusual that an experienced editor would change the lede on a controversial article without seeking consensus first. The article has substantial notification and explanations on the talk page. Just raising a concern. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I do apologise if I have misinterpreted you. Thank you for clarifying that. See further my comments on the article talk page. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

MrBill3 there’s no need for an experienced or inexperienced editor to seek consensus before boldly making an edit to any part of an article. Achieving consensus is the initial part of a dispute mediation process, not a barrier to making bold edits on controversial articles. As has been plastered at the top of most controversial articles the following applies:

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless.

In future you can use the standard ds notice rather than a hand written note, which will avoid imparting the idea that DS terms somehow impede or supersede wp:bold - they don’t. Edaham (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Editor Retention

Just really unhelpful. You are having a hard time pushing a proposal forward on an alt-med health article, and you are using this discussion involving a new user to air your already well-tended concerns, which span a number of projects and have had a lot of attention from serious editors. The editor in question is getting to grips with policy and bumping into some copyright and image policy issues. It has nothing to do with your crusade to insert favorable reviews of fake medicine. Please express at least some concern for the project as a whole. Please. Thank you. Edaham (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Edaham: "fake medicine", your biases are showing. What you are saying is that my contributions don't agree with your POV. At editor retention I am using examples from my own personal experience to demonstrate points the user brought up. I am deeply concerned for the entire project that is Wikipedia, otherwise I woudln't still be involved after thirteen years. These issues need addressing. It is this kind of attempt to silence those with different opinions that is at the root of many of Wikipedia's problems. Also, pot, kettle, black: "Hi, I'm one of the uneducated, red icon cops on a power trip, just issuing a friendly reminder to all the technically fired-up super-intelligent Neophites out there to take a second to sign your posts with four keyboard tildes (~) at the end of each post you add to a talk page. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)"

Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:ARBPS we do seek to silence certain opinions. We're a serious encyclopedia, not means of promotion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I am massively biased against fake medicine. It killed a friend of mine recently in Shanghai who was a cancer patient who delayed treatment. That's why I don't edit core content on those articles despite having a number of them lingering on my watchlist. I can't see the comparison you seem to be making about (albeit tongue-in-cheek) reminding new users to sign posts, and carrying one's soap box to discussions about editor retention and expounding on the failings of the project as a whole, per its inability to acquiesce to the promotion of your products. If you are genuinely concerned about the issue at project-ER you'd have seen that the editor with an issue there has some easily corrected issues with copy-vio and other basic editorial policies and possibly even offered to help. Edaham (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

That user clearly didn't know about how to sign posts. If you were genuinely interested in helping them (see how patronizing that sounds) you might not have replied with what you call tongue in cheek but which just looks like super sarcastic to me. How was I helping? I was sharing experiences with an editor who had been given a hard time for expressing their opinion about the toxic editing culture here to let them know they are not alone. Why are you accusing me of a COI violation? What products are you suggesting I am promoting? Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy new year. Edaham (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd try to change the subject too if I had made an unwarranted accusation against another editor. Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The toxic editing culture is because fringe pushers don't really belong among us and stir trouble. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

So it's ok to be toxic because the other guy is bad and wrong... At least we agree it's toxic. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

One week we are dealing with holocaust deniers. The next week it's creationists. Then the sellers of cancer pills try it. Then the acupuncturists. Then the psychics. After that we get the satellites control my thoughts crowd. (Guy Macon). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.

In the section above, Morgan Leigh says " 'fake medicine', your biases are showing. "

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing 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.[15][16]"

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards Mendelian inheritance, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that excellent example of the institutionalised bias at Wikipedia, where Jimmy Wales sets a fine example by libeling people by calling them lunatic charlatans and pseudoskeptical POV pushers cheer him on. That petition is interesting, 11436 people v Jimmy Wales... if that was on Wikipedia it would be no time till someone trotted out WP:1AM... Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand: Why is it wrong for us to have an encyclopedia which takes a biased stance against dubious, fraudulent and wrong scientific/medical claims? Judging by your tone it sounds like you believe you are tearing the mask off of some kind of conspiratorial secret plot. We make it really clear in all of our policies that we support and give due weight to mainstream views on fringe subjects. Zero minority groups get to have their promotional views printed here, whether it be the Dalai Lama or David Irving or - pick from the above. I personally like the laundry ball example. There's people grumbling about bias on that page too, but to be fair to them, they aren't actually making any of my friends die of stomach cancer. Edaham (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Morgan : You also need to educate yourself on what the word "Libel" means! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Guy : I told you about the balls. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

And your argument in favor of laundry balls actually working is every bit as good as Morgan's arguments in favor of acupuncture actually working. Can we stop talking about your balls now? [17] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I plead guilty to your charge above Guy. I too offered no evidence for my claims, beyond insisting on my expertise.I could provide a diff, if I could remember where it happened. nvm. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 01:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

If only it were as you say. What actually happens is that high quality evidence is removed and reputable professors are libeled because of pseudoskeptical bias. See here where editors argue that an IPD meta review, the gold standard of systematic review, is claimed to be not a reliable source. Or here where a meta review published in American Psychologist i.e. the official peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Psychological Association is claimed to not be a reliable source. The only thing these two sources have in common is that pseudoskeptics have arbitrarily decided that these topics are pseudoscience and so cannot be cited under any circumstances. This is not appropriate coverage of good quality research. How about here where a reputable professor of psychology who authored that paper published in American Psychologist is libeled to wit "This is nothing new, it's just yet another psychologist who got outside his lane and started expounding the magic is real." Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

That list gives me an idea for a new lede for the acupuncture article:

Thousands of years ago in ancient China, astronauts visited the people of a remote Tibetan region. While visiting the earthlings, the indigenous tribespeople had occasion to witness the spacefaring aliens performing medical operations on their crew persons. Medical assistance was even given to some of the tribespeople. After spending time among the tribespeople, they infused the prehistoric society with an impression of their culture. In the years following their departure, charismatic leaders of the eastern tribes developed a technological cult in which shamanic healers would lure people to undergo procedures which superficially resembled those carried out by the aliens, using pins as a representation of surgical operations. They made imagery and recited incantations, which in an example of sympathetic magic were thought to be able to reproduce the same healing effects. Of particular note, was a chart they had made after seeing a pollen sensitive alien sneeze on a diagram of the human nervous system, which they called, “Qi!” Believing the noise made by the alien to be the name of the image.

Don’t thank me. The honor is to serve Wikipedia. (My cat ate the sources unfortunately, but I mean its so obvious when you think about it). I’ll let you do the honors over at the acupuncture page guy.

Edaham (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

So rather than actually respond to the issues I raise and the evidence I offer you sink to parody. You are just proving my case. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

So assuming for the sake of argument that you have "proven your case", it appears that the logical thing for you to do is to leave Wikipedia and find some online forum that doesn't have the rules that you so strongly oppose. We certainly are not going to change to suit you. Here are some places that might be more accepting of your POV:[18][19][20][21] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

SINK! To parody? That was solid comedy and you know it! Edaham (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

More red herrings instead of addressing the issues. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Multiple editors have attempted to address the issues. You just aren't willing to hear them. You have convinced yourself that are defending The Truth and are determined to Keep Digging. Do you imagine that you are the first person who has come here to straighten us all out? Or that your sarcasm and bogus arguments are original? We have seen it all again and again, going back many years. One week we are dealing with holocaust deniers. The next week it's creationists. Then the sellers of cancer pills try it. Then the acupuncturists. Then the psychics. After that we get the satellites control my thoughts crowd. The mocking is a direct result of the fact that you and all the others like you are just so damn funny. When you defend the ridiculous with such an astounding amount of self-righteousness, you should expect a certain level of ridicule.

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

So rather than actually respond to the issues I raise and the evidence I offer you sink to parody. You are just proving my case. Indeed. They can't respond to your points, because they have no defense. And guess what? They don't need one. If the Skeptic Movement decides it is WP:FRINGE and pseudo-science, no amount of real science, no amount of high quality reliable sources, no amount of asking them to follow the rules of WP:NPOV, posting at a Noticeboard, appealing to ArbCom, or anything else is going to change their minds. They don't like it; they have decided it doesn't and can't possibly work; and that's really all that matters. No amount of evidence is going to change that. If science or reliable sources say otherwise, they will simply say that source is unreliable and WP:FRINGE. If 100 sources say otherwise, then all 100 are WP:FRINGE. If the World Health Organization says otherwise, then it is Fringe. Why? because it goes against what they believe. It's no different than arguing with someone who believes everything said on Fox News. Anything that disagrees is fake news.

Does it go against Wiki rules? Yes. Can you do anything about it? Probably not. Numerous editors will show up to defend their viewpoint, because the Skeptic Movement has done a fantastic job of recruiting editors with the same belief system and biases. And they are exceptionally good at ejecting any new editors who disagree with their version of reality and truth.

You can argue with them until you are blue in the face, but this just makes them happy--it just shows how crazy you are to think your opinion will matter to them and will in any way make a dent in their dominance and power over Wikipedia to impose their view on the content. If out of frustration, you make one wrong statement, they'll find a diff to take you out for challenging their hegemony here. I have seen it done countless times.

Anyway, I do appreciate your comments. I just hope you don't get too worked up. Can't you see they are enjoying not answering your questions? Because they know they don't have to. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

no amount of real science... You have it completely backwards, and that's the problem. No amount of evidence sways the fringe practitioners and believers, because it's not about evidence to them. Projecting this mindset on others just shows why the primary role of an editor, "to further the interests of the encyclopedia" is at risk. --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

So you are saying we should just add good quality evidence to articles? Like the seven Cochrane reviews I tried to add to the acupuncture article here but was prevented from doing... Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying the in-world mindset is anti-evidence, and anti-science, so best to use edit requests and have others judge the situation. --Ronz (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

How is citing Cochrane reviews anti science? Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

You don’t mean these ones do you? Edaham (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is dominated by science, not by (pseudo)skeptics. Of course, in its turn science is organized skepticism. If you have a problem with that, you have to change how science works, not how Wikipedia works. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Now now. He is doing his best to change science. He wants science to stop recommending medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and start recommending medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible. We already know exactly why Morgan Leigh isn't listening to us, will never listen to us, and will never change his position no matter what the evidence says: We know that it doesn't matter where you put the needles in. We know this from actual studuies by real researchers and we know it from the fact that there are mutually incompatible schools of acupuncture. We even know that the acupuncturists know that it doesn't matter where you put the needles in. If they thought that it mattered, the different schools of thought about where to stick in the needles would be putting in a huge effort to figure out which was wrong. Instead they get along just fine. We know that doesn't matter if you put the needles in or not![22][23] The only ethical course of action for Morgan Leigh is to stop accepting money for sticking needles into people, admit that qi isn't a thing,[24] and instead get a real job. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

That's harassment. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not comment about other editors' lives or business outside. Beyond identifying and addressing WP:ADVOCACY, WP:COI, etc, we need to avoid making comments personal or making Wikipedia a battleground. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I just looked over my comments and I stand by them. I will, however, do my best to dial it down on all article talk pages, where I agree that there is a significant cost. He is a COI editor, editing Wikipedia for personal financial gain. I see no good reason to avoid bluntly telling him that he is wasting his time on his own talk page, same as I say to the the cryptocurrency pushers and the sellers of cancer pills. Those who don't want to see criticism of a disruptive COI editor should stay away from the COI editor's talk page.

I appreciate and welcome your criticism on my talk page, but criticizing me on his talk page simply encourages more of the same bad WP:IDHT behavior from him. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)