User talk:PyramidalCellWelcome!
June 2017Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Michael Persinger has been reverted. Hello. I saw your edits to the page on Michael Persinger. You might like to look this one over, as it concerns the debates over Persinger's work, which I found recently: http://www.nrgarchive.gdk.mx/2016-reply-to-neuroscience-for-the-soul.pdf 2601:601:8601:CCC0:28C9:8EAD:87EF:6BAF (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC) PyramidalCell, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Whatever you think of me, or my opinions of Michael Persinger is irrelevant. An atheist, a Muslim, or a Buddhist is free to edit the article on Jesus whatever they think or believe about that historical figure. As long as they support their edits with reliable sources. Are you going to start trying to discredit editors who support Tottenham Hotspur as unreliable or biased whenever they edit articles on Manchester United? Are only Nazis allowed to edit the article on Adolf Hitler? Are only communists allowed to edit Karl Marx? No, because that would generate more bias, not less. If you care about unbiased, truthful information on Wikipedia, shut up, stop trying to discredit other editors, and read the policies WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV, WP:PA and WP:COI. My edits are always supported by independent, reliable sources, because that is how we determine the truth, not by snide comments intended to discredit me in the edit description. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 09:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
OK. I promise I won't.
Thank you, user. I think the point would be best received if you or anyone other than myself made it. First, I've been wrongly banned from editing that page - no doubt a consequence of FamousDog's recruitment of administrators and fellow editors that recently hacked away at the article. Second, if I'm the only editor with the sense to oppose FamousDog's vendetta, he'll just conspire to gather more of his fellow editors to remove me again and again. As you can see from his comments above, he told me to "shut up" and I was the one accused of abuse. He is clearly abusing his power as an "experienced" editor. PyramidalCell (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
A couple of discretionary sanctions notices regarding an article you have edited 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 that 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 14:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC). 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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 that 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 14:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC). What are the implications of thus notice?
Thank you for the clarification - that was very helpful. I understand the implications. However, no one can be expected to listen to the advice of a more experienced editor that makes his/her bias for the specific article in question flagrant and uncontroversial. It's a total breach of reasonable expectation of honest editing. PyramidalCell (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC) May 2018
I'm sorry Doug, but that's absolute nonsense. FamousDog is Craig Aaen Stockdale, a known hostile critic of Dr. Persinger's with an expressed personal agenda (you can read it on his personal page). If Wikipedia is to preserve any sense of legitimacy, hostile editors - experienced or not - must not be allowed to make swiss cheese of articles because they don't suit their personal narratives. Assumptions of good faith are not reasonable when the editor is transparently biased. Your welcome is not accepted and your condescending tone and suggestions will be disregarded. PyramidalCell (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course he should be able to edit. If you read the original disagreement, I make my view on this explicit. However, he and the Nazi (to use your example) should be exposed publicly as biased. As long as the public record reflects a disclosure of bias, anyone should be able to write what they want assuming inclusion of referenced materials. All I did, which earned me an "abuse" strike, was point out that the edit history should include a note that FamousDog is Craig Aaen Stockdale - a hostile critic with a written, expressed agenda on this very platform who, when confronted, told me to "shut up". I'm certain his senior status shielded him from any action against him. On an unrelated note, it seems clear to me that the consensus opinion of editors and administrators on Wikipedia is that a small group of experienced editors are the anointed keepers of facts. You (Doug) don't appear to be exceptional in this regard since you contrasted my 41 edits with your >180,000 following an injunction only a fool could follow in this situation - a kind of "humble brag" which serves to diminish my contributions. Believe it or not, there's an entire civilization outside of this forum that is filled with experts and non-experts that 1) know how to type on a keyboard, and 2) can reference basic statements (i.e., the required skill set). Experience does not confer authority in the real world. The task of aggregating knowledge is basic stuff - that's why AIs can so effectively do it and why Wikipedia can use bots to police the limited set of rules. Make 1,000,000 edits - your authority on a given subject is orthogonal to the time you spend in front of the screen. PyramidalCell (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Look, this is peripheral to the main point which is that FamousDog is a bad actor. His admission of bias on his personal page and hostility toward me as well as his recruitment of editors to remove large swaths of text en masse over the past few days are evidence enough for anyone that can conjure a thought. But I won't avoid your comment: Indeed, experience does give someone a better understanding of how Wikipedia works - such is the case for any learned task. Of course that's true. That's not what our disagreement is about. I'll repeat myself: Experience does not confer authority. Yes, you are more familiar with the rules. That's true. So are several other editors and administrators I have written to (nearly all of them, I'm sure). However, I was referred to these rules as if they were relevant - which they were and are not. First I was instructed to assume good faith. I'm sure all of you think that's a great rule - and maybe it is generally - but it doesn't apply when no assumption is required and the actor in question is indeed acting in bad faith. We have what we need to know to make that judgement call. Assuming otherwise is just mindless, rule-following behavior. Sure, you have a rule which is supposed to be followed but it assumes something that is not true. The person for whom I would have to assume good faith has written out his bad-faith-intentions clearly for everyone to see. You can repeat that rule ad nauseaum and it will continue to be irrelevant. Then I was told that I should give reasoned arguments for my edits as if "to disclose clear bias" was not reasoned. I think we should resume this conversation after I've made my 180,000 edits and receive my capacity to reason by mail. Will it come by Fedex or UPS? |
