User talk:Anonypedia31

May 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Apple A12 have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Apple A12 was changed by Anonypedia31 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.911229 on 2021-05-11T12:06:38+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 15:04, 11 May 2021 (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) 15:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Means you will now impose sanction nice good cool enjoy your powers and enjoy making articles more biased Anonypedia31 ([[User

FYI this notice does not mean you are under any kind of sanction at all. Adding this notice is a common thing for some editors to do when they disagree with your edit. Please don't feel intimidated by it, and you are free to delete it from your talk page if you like. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anonypedia31 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We are biased.

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 homeopathy.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.
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 mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.
We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against young earth 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) 15:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy wales is absolute dictator of wikipedia Anonypedia31 (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So? If you do not like Wikipedia, try Conservapedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Means now jimmy wales will decide which is true science and which is not and when there will be reasearch in ayurveda so what? Anonypedia31 (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or even i homeopathy then also you people will say this pseudoscience Anonypedia31 (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have clear rules for what is pseudoscience. You cannot change our mind. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And i dont want also to change your mind you carry on expressing your views using reliable sources Anonypedia31 (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anonypedia31, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Anonypedia31! 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 GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Shut up you bot Anonypedia31 (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]