User talk:AlexClwn

Discretionary sanctions

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 Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know and that I have not necessarily broken any rules. I realise there is a lot of quackery around and do understand the need for discretionary sanctions (keeping a close eye) on these articles. I'm not interested in pseudoscience as a whole and am as keen as the next rabid skeptic to disprove the quacks. However I do know for a fact that some things can be experienced that science doesn't know about. I take issue with the rabid skeptics who want to stomp on everything that can't be proven empirically as this is actually a fanatic and unscientific attitude. I hope you will assume good faith that I am not one of these lunatics that you take issue with. Argue the case on its merits on the talk page and please don't confuse what I'm saying with things that other people may have written. AlexClwn (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to any place on Wikipedia where any article disagrees with the claim "that some things can be experienced that science doesn't know about"? Because I can't find anything like that anywhere. The problem is that your edits don't just say "that some things can be experienced that science doesn't know about". That's already in the article. Your edits start there and then go on to imply that these things some people experience are real. They aren't. Ghosts aren't real no matter how many people experience them. Esoteric energy isn't real no matter how many people experience it. If you wake up tomorrow and and angel visits you or you start hearing voices of dead people in your head, they aren't real. That does not imply that people who claim to see angels or hear voices are lying. The experiences are real. The voices and the angels aren't.

As of Tuesday, 19 November 2024, 18:40 (UTC), The English Wikipedia has 48,288,523 registered users, 122,190 active editors, and 852 administrators. Together we have made 1,253,682,979 edits, created 61,869,614 pages of all kinds and created 6,913,030 articles. You have been here for two days and have made seven edits to one page.[1] Perhaps you need to acquire a bit of humility and consider the possibility that you don't know how to write an encyclopedia article better than we do. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon could you review what you have said because it makes no sense. I think you are confusing what I have edited with something someone else may have done in the past. For example I never edited anything that implies the experiences are real, only that they have been subjectively reported. Currently this article does not imply in any way that some things can be experienced that science doesn't know about – contrary to your claim. In fact the article has been acid washed to be effectively a warning page against alternative therapies. I am capable of humility as I hope you are too. Do not continue making personal remarks on my talk page – continue the chat on the talk page, not here thanks. AlexClwn (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors have disagreed with you. Nobody agrees. See WP:1AM for advice on how to deal with the situation you are in.

Re: "...not here, please...", request granted. I am unwatching your talk page and using the mute feature (it's in the preferences under "notifications") so that I will no longer see any pings from you You can reply to this if you wish but I will not see the reply. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlexClwn, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi AlexClwn! 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 I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Shiatsu. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Psilocybin mushroom. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:High-fructose corn syrup, you may be blocked from editing. We do not edit talk page comments by other editors. Also, WP:NPA for that editor. Zefr (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Green tea has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. You copied directly from a published report, which included spam information. Zefr (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did with this edit to Shenkui. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. ArglebargleIV (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]