User talk:Pedromoralesffwp

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Pedromoralesffwp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JarrahTree 02:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017:[edit]

Hello, Pedromoralesffwp. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this statement comes from? What COI are you referring to? Making a statement like that without any valid reason would be extremely discouraging to anyone wanting to contribute objective and verifiable information. The last contribution I made was to add " "author of several books including a NY Times and Amazon bestseller list" to the description of Dr. Joe Dispenza. Previously the description of him said had the title Dr, between parantheses and a question mark to the side. That implies doubt as to his credibility or his credentials. The information that confirms his title as well as more is readily available on the net. The first time I admit I placed too much information, something that may go better in a biography. But this was what was in the content of his description: "chiropractor, former longtime staff member at JZ Ramtha School of Enligtenment, reputed neuroscientis (credential?), contemporary New Age personality." That does not sound like a NPOV which is a cardinal principle of Wikipedia articles. In fact, the talk page on the article brings out just that criticism. I added information that is objective and verifiable about one of the characters being criticized. I am placing information that helps provide a more balanced view and you erased it. According to Wikipedia guidelines "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject", yet the articles hardly expresses any sympathy towards Dr. Dispenza by the manner in which it describes him. I neither work for him, know him personally or am related to him. I have read a couple of books and seen the free videos on youtube.com. Never knew that immediately disqualified a person to express a fair judgment on someone.

NPOV continues to give clear guidelines: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage" DO NOT REMOVE SOURCED MATERIAL. The information I first added, though lengthy, had the sources from which it came. When you remove everything I added just the fact that Dr. Dispenza is the author of an Amazon and a NY Times bestselling book and you for some reason thought that such information merited deletion. I would like to know what is your basis for deleting sourced material that lends some balance to the article and enhances the NPOV? If you cannot answer my concern I will add the information again. Finally, I have nothing against the tone of the article. Reliable sources have questioned the contents of the movie "What the Bleep do we Know?", particularly the metaphysical meaning given to the some of the conclusions of quantum physics. That does not mean one should question a person's credentials without any solid basis. Finally, Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort. Pedromoralesffwp (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]