User talk:Annemarieverschoor

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Annemarieverschoor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page HIV/AIDS did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Kleuske (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary[edit]

First off, I am not an admin. Secondly, Wikipedia demands sources, especially for medical subjects (WP:V, WP:MEDRS). Thirdly, personal attacks and edit warring are not tolerated. (WP:NPA). Kleuske (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at HIV/AIDS, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know the guidelines. I have these kind of discussions before with moderators. I have made edits with many sources on other pages, but sometimes I am honestly wonder i ng why I can't change something without using sources to support. Because on some pages (like HIV/AIDS) there already is information that is not sourced at all. Why can information be pit in there without source, while someone else must use reliable sources? I understand why, but still it is unclear to me. Assumptions and subjectivity are the problem here. Do you have nay knowledge about science, literature and philosophy dear moderator? What happens on Wikipedia is a shame. And lots of people are reading it and get false impressions and knowledge because some moderators are maintaining false, unresourced information that only can be changed with srourced information. Altough, slmetimes it is impossible. It is a system that is false and educate people in the wrong way. Annemarieverschoor (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability, doubly so in medical subjects and good articles. Wikipedia cannot just take your word for it. This is not a blog, after all. So, sources are required for every medical claim and those sources need to conform to WP:MEDRS. Please stick to that. If you feel you need to report me, the place to do that is WP:ANI. Kleuske (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You May also want to read up on WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Kleuske (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse with your words you think you have explained me how it works, as if I don't know it... On this page, containing medical subjects, are things written that are not grounded with any source. Again, according to some moderators, when I want to change I actually do need to ground them (with sources). It is a very strange construction on Wikipedia. And you all claim to be very trustworthy, following 'right' guidelines that is supposed to protect the reliability of what is written on Wikipedia. It is really laughable. And worrying at the same time. It has nothing to do with anything that is mature. And far, far away from being scientific. Actually, sometimes it actually looks like a blog instead. Annemarieverschoor (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you called my edits "Personal attacks". Is this statement of yours grounded?

Also on one point I added 'vaginal' to the including list. So ai need to ground this with sources? But 'oral' and 'anal' in that list are not grounded at all?

The assumption of you, and some others here, that what is already written, is supposed to be trustworthy and untouchable, unless addings i ncluding sources, is really unmature and almost dogmatic. Altough that term is usually used in different contexts. Annemarieverschoor (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you “know how it works”, why don’t you stick to how it works?

personal attacks:

The gist of it is that instead of addressing the concerns mentioned, you rail against the person raising the objections.

If you do have concerns about the content of an article, you can a) make a WP:BOLD edit, which may get reverted or b) raise the issue on the talk page. The choice is yours. Expecting no contest when adding unsourced materials to an article on a medical subject is unrealistic. Kleuske (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised by the fact how little you seem to understand of what i've written. I quit here. It is hopeless. Wikipedia must change. Annemarieverschoor (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

Please be sure to read WP:RS, especially WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:NOR, including WP:PSTS. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I added sources to support my change. It wasn't enough? Annemarieverschoor (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have read a message that said that my sources are not reliable enough. But to be honest, there are things written on the page that I wanted to edit that also don't contain sources that are reliable. Btw, I think that some of my sources were in fact reliable in order to 'fact-check'. Also, I see that ALL my changes were made undone. While there were some stylistic changes also. So basically all of what I is wanted to edit was 'wrong'? I have experienced this more often on Wikipedia. There is too less room for discussion to change. This way maybe some false information is on Wikipedia that is kept untouchable. Such a pity because many people read fromt his platform. Annemarieverschoor (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annemarieverschoor, There is no article information that is untouchable. Multiple editors have tried to explain the problems with your edits. If you are still here I will explain further what the problem was, and possible ways forward. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]