User talk:Rock climber02
Welcome
[edit]
|
Edits at Chiropractic
[edit]Hi rock climber, welcome to Wikipedia...Ocaasi (talk)
A heads up on your recent edits to Chiropractic (and to Stephen Barrett). One, these are two of the most controversial articles on the entire encyclopedia, so expect that changes will encounter some resistance. Two, because of the articles' content and history, changes which are proposed first on the Talk page, or at least discussed specifically after being reverted (read WP:BRD) have a better chance of remaining in the article.
I agree with the general direction of your changes, to remove what I see as an anti-chiropractic slant in the article, but there is a way to do it more effectively, and it will have to go through a consensus debate involving other editors.
Here's my suggestion. Find a sentence, assertion, or reference which you have a problem with it and list it in a new section on the Talk page. Say why you think it is biased. You'll typically be asked to provide a source for your claim, so you have to be familiar with (WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR as well as WP:MEDRS). In short, you need published evidence from a reliable publication and from a noted medical source for specifically medical claims. They can not based on your personal experience. That said, these rules apply to all editors, and if you think the article has a bias which is present in spite of these policies or in violation of these policies, any criticism is warranted. Sorry to bombard you with this on your first day, but if you're serious about improving the article, they will help. Let me know if you have any questions, Ocaasi (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on whether the article is unduly slanted one way or the other--what I do know is that removing information on a tendentious topic is never a good idea. This edit, of course, is much more acceptable: adding is better than removing, provided the information is solidly sourced (though some editors might want to improve the wording). I did not enjoy rolling back your edits, but they were unexplained and clearly biased (that the article may be biased as well doesn't really matter in that regard). As I mentioned before, the talk page is the best place to start improving/changing the article: this is going to need consensus (but I'm merely repeating Ocaasi's useful comments, above). Good luck, Drmies (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- One more heads up. Signs of inexperience on Wiki are sadly cause for editors to quickly dismiss others. You'll have fewer issues if you follow custom that would have you always (or almost always):
- Sign your posts by typing four ~~ ~~ after your comments (remove the space so they're connected). Or, you can click the signature/pen icon in the editing bar and it will do this automatically
- Leave an informative edit comment after your edits. On more controversial articles, nearly any change benefits from an explanation since they are so highly watched by others.
- Resist marking edits as minor unless they are truly non-substance oriented (e.g. spelling, grammar, formatting, etc.) Anything someone might object to should not be marked as minor, and even minor edits can use an edit summary.
- Like any thing on Wiki, these are subject to your discretion (read WP:IAR), but keep in mind that the only purpose of anything here is to build a great, fair, and accurate encyclopedia without killing eachother. Enjoy! Ocaasi (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, while you're at it I'll throw an update into the mix. You made edits and then were reverted with the edit comment 'reverted misinterpretation'. You reverted it again asking for an explanation on talk. That seems reasonable. Here are some things to consider:
- One more heads up. Signs of inexperience on Wiki are sadly cause for editors to quickly dismiss others. You'll have fewer issues if you follow custom that would have you always (or almost always):
- All articles on Wiki operate under a WP:3RR rule, meaning you can't revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. The spirit of the policy is not to push edits through without discussion. You asked for more discussion. Now you shouldn't engage in reverts until it happens, maybe even if you are reverted again. Try not to get hung up on who edited first and who reverted first; it's a technical point, but you'll do better to focus on the discussion, and editors will [usually, hopefully] come around to the right point regardless of what draft is currently on the page. For example, rather than reverting Arthur Rubin, you could have posted a discussion on talk yourself, explained your edit, asked for feedback and then waited. If no one responded you might reasonably put your edit back. WP:Consensus explains the talk page process.
- For your background info, Arthur Rubin happens to be an WP:Administrator which means he has certain tools available to him, such as the ability to block other users. This doesn't mean his opinion is more valued than yours or that he can influence content disputes with the threat of a block, but it does mean that he is an experienced editor about whom the community has expressed some meaningful degree of confidence. I don't want to tell you not to revert an administrator, but if you are doing so, there's a chance that you're not fully informed about policy. So, per the community's guidelines, be WP:Bold but not reckless. Let me know if you have any questions, Ocaasi (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Rock climber02, please read the [[WP:3RR] guideline - you are close, if not at, the limit on the Chiropractic article. That's a considered a bright-line rule on Wikipedia - if you revert too much, you will be blocked. Period. You've had multiple editors disagree with your changes (including me with my recent revert), you need to use the talk page. Your last revision mentioned using the talk page in your edit summary, but as of this post, you have not posted anything on any article talk page. Please get concensus on the talk page before making the change again. You will end blocked if you don't. Ravensfire (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- @ Rock Climber Sorry this blew up a bit. I tried to give you an idea that this was a very controversial article... FYI, Ravensfire was not the editor who left the 'reverted misinterpretation' message. That was Arthur Rubin. Articles have tens, sometimes hundreds or more editors watching them at a given time, and any one can swoop in and change or revert a change to them. That's another reason why the talk page is so useful, because it keeps discussions in one centralized place. I take you at your word (WP:AGF) that you were making a sincere effort to follow policies more closely, but to the uninvolved editors watching the page, your recent revert might have looked like just another in the sequence. Why not take a bit, read through all of the policies I've posted on the page, and see if you have any questions. For example, the PubMed study you posted is included in the article. The reason it doesn't have prominent placement in the WP:LEAD is because it is a single study and not a systematic review. Although we only have one systematic review addressing the risk/benefit of Chiropractic, it still has a lot of weight given the guidelines in WP:MEDRS. Anyone will explain this to you on the talk page, and they'll be less WP:BITEy if you put it up for discussion first. Ocaasi (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I assure you that I was equally frustrated by the initially biased appearance of the article. The line that struck me was that the risk by far outweigh the benefits. But, this is indeed what E. Ernst has reported, and has the weight of being systematic reviews. Some editors are working on improving the article's coverage and balance but there is a strong contingent of editors concerned that Chiropractic not be described in the terms Chiropractors see the field, but in the consensus of the best scientific research.
- So, it's a mix of things, and the field is not settled; there are many open questions. Doctors tend to favor the precautionary principle, and the connection between VBA stroke/death and spinal manipulation is reason enough for them to recommend against that specific practice because studies have not shown conclusive benefits from spinal manipulation compared to other less 'rigorous' techniques.
- For certain issues it is almost equally important to do things by established guidelines than to try and push them through otherwise. It keeps the place sane. If you want, there are 32! pages of archived talk discussions listed at the top of the Talk:Chiropractic page. I highly recommend 30-32 for a good idea of what goes on here. As for your efforts, keep a list of the places/issues that are imbalanced and post it on Talk. Do it constructively, as if to say, I think these issues could be improved and lay out each one, your alternative, and your sources. If you do that, people should be receptive (though not necessarily persuaded).
- I'll also set up a page at User:Rock_climber02/sandbox if you want to draft your list there, or take notes, or just screw around. Ocaasi (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
October 2021
[edit]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Yasmani Grandal, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
August 2024
[edit] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kursk Oblast. 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. Mellk (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.