User talk:NoFapeditor

Alert

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.

Crossroads ^-talk- 20:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NoFapeditor, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi NoFapeditor! 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 Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to NoFap appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Until my comments on the talk page will be suficiently disscussed I will stand by my edits NoFapeditor (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you to refrain from edit wars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at NoFap shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to NoFap. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, explain why the logic behind my edits is incorrectNoFapeditor (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page of the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NoFapEditor, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you continue to make biased, unsourced changes based on your personal opinion, you will be blocked. Please take some time to cool off before continuing to engage in an edit war. Auberginandjuice (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These edits were sources as you can see in the edit history. They are not based on my opinion but on the opinion of the scientific community.NoFapeditor (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good bias

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

"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.[1][2][3][4]"

So yes, we are biased.

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 actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
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 holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
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 mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere above does it states that wikipedia is biased towards politically motivated editors who edit-out scientifically backed positions on the basis of dissagreeing with them.NoFapeditor (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We kowtow to WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP, i.e. to WP:CHOPSY. This should be clear to everyone, that is what Wikipedia is. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again there's nothing about vicious editors like yourself having the privilege to harrass others, ignore science and use intimidation as a tool to silence proper disscussion. NoFapeditor (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, NoFapeditor. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page NoFap, 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any relationship with the NoFap organisation other than my name so please stop spamming my talk page with nonsense. On the other hand you seem like someone who has conflict of interestNoFapeditor (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence at WP:COIN or back off from this discussion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided relevant sources for my edits. Until you have a prove that I'm in the conflict of interests I will not back off so stop threatening me. It seems like you're the one motivated by something else than facts in this debate NoFapeditor (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above was an invitation to reply to the obvious correspondence between your username and NoFap. I did not claim to have any evidence about your WP:CONFLICT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Until there will be any evindence pointing to me being in the conflict of interest I will not bend over in response to your threats. I am editing in a factual and nonbiased way. You seem to want intimidate me by threats and unfounded criticism. I'm sure that itself is a violation of the Wikipedia principles. NoFapeditor (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See [5]? I wasn't even the first one to notice the possibility of WP:CONFLICT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of hard to miss, frankly. Your username includes a reference to a trademarked term, and you are a single-purpose account who only edits this topic. Since you obviously created this account for the purpose of making these edits, please carefully read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. If you have had an account in the past, make very sure that your account meets WP:VALIDALT. The possibility of a COI, and of being a sock, is being discussed because of your behavior, nothing else. Grayfell (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:NoFap, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to personal attacks by Tgeorgescu

WP:NOTTHEM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm feeling patient, I've only blocked you for 48 hours instead of indefinitely. Be aware that any more personal attacks against other editors who have the temerity to disagree with you will bring an indefinite block. Acroterion (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I take my punishement but seriously these attacks were started by Tgeorgescu. Will he receive no punishement? I don't mind that he dissagrees with me but the way he's been harrassing me is far fetched. He is not in for an honest discussion NoFapeditor (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not punishment, blocks are used to stop disruption, like what you've been doing. To keep you from continuing your disruption, I've removed talkpage access for the duration of your block. If it resumes, you will have your editing privileges permanently removed. Acroterion (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]