User talk:Tribscent08

Welcome!

Hello, Tribscent08, 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.

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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ad Orientem (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Universal Medicine. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please seek consensus on the talk page before making major changes to the article. Some of your recent edits appear to be aimed at muting coverage of well documented aspects of the subject. This article has seen a number of attempts by agenda oriented editors to improperly influence the tone and content of the article. The article is being closely watched by experienced editors to ensure that all changes are WP:NPOV compliant. Thank you. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly reminder of the above paragraph. Please seek consensus on the articles talk page before making changes to this article. 79616gr (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience topics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Bishonen | talk 08:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Universal Medicine

I agree Guy should probably not have closed the talk page discussion since he's WP:INVOLVED in it with a strong opinion, but frankly any other admin would also have closed it the same way. (I"m not an admin myself, just a WikiFossil.) I'm not sure what the original dispute was about with regard to the section in question, since there is no section called "Religious background", and "Religion and philosophy" or whatever the alternative suggestion was would probably have been fine, but the core of the matter as I've skimmed it is entirely about verifiability and neutral point of view.

XRii most concisely identified the problem with the source's reliability: "the author of the Bath Magazine advertorial, Otto Bathurst, has written promotional blogs for UniMed websites; has a Twitter account tweeting UniMed promotions ... Not a reliable source. Not neutral."

It really doesn't matter whether Bath Magazine has a big subscriber base, because the cited item is a one-sided editorial, making it a primary source which we do not use for anything controversial. If I somehow convince a publication to run my article claiming that Mojo Nixon is the most influential musician of all time, that doesn't somehow make my article a reliable source for such a claim. I am not an authoritative source on pop culture, and the author of the piece in question is not an authoritative source on modern philosophy, never mind his clear direct connection to the subject. Wikipedia relies mostly on independent, secondary sources, from reputable publishers, i.e. those demonstrated to exercise editorial oversight independent of the writer. That editorial's content is also directly promotional, making it problematic under WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE policies. Basically: Show us the BBC or Time magazine or a book from Oxford University Press writing about this. A "we publish anything you send us that we think is kinda interesting" webzine is essentially just a form of user-generated content, not a reliable source. That said, it might be a reliable source for how people within UM conceptualize and promotion UM to the public, and could even be quoted for that purpose. It simply isn't a reliable source for any objective facts about the organization, its claims, or its leaders.

Also, the idea that the publication is trustworthy because it has a "large" readership isn't really applicable here. A bloggy online "magazine" with 25,000 readers is not a reliable source for anything controversial. Back when the Internet was comparatively small, I ran an online publication with 10,000 more subscribers than that by 1997. Today, 25,000 is nothing, for that sort of publication (it would be for an academic journal published by a university or institute, but the reliability of such publications come from peer review, not size of readership).

No, it's really more about the content and who's written it for what purpose. I could start a new religious movement (NRM) tomorrow, and if my newly minted "high priestess" writes a promotional op-ed about it on some minor clone of Salon.com or Slate.com, that doesn't magically constitute a reliable source for any facts about my group.

I'm not saying UM one is not notable, nor that the article does not need to be improved, but the problem for UM and Benhayon (about whom I had no preconceived notion – they're new to me) is that they are making medical as well as spiritual claims, and this forces them into the policy sphere of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE: The sourcing demanded is going to be more rigorous than it would be for something like the Neopaganism article, because medicine is a matter of scientific fact, not just faith/belief, and the potential harm from WP reporting on dubious medical claims as if proven, reliable fact is extraordinarily high compared to passing on poorly researched material how how to do Wiccan solstice dances or whatever. Any NRM making such claims is going to have the same hard time on Wikipedia; read some of the archives of Talk:Church of Scientology and related articles; every argument you are ever likely to encounter or make regarding UM has already been hashed out 100 times with regard to Scientology. Familiarity with those arguments and how consensus has developed from them would save you (and others) a lot of time, effort, and blood pressure.

Hope this helps. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Al Clark (producer) has been accepted

Al Clark (producer), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]