User talk:Skalidrisalba

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Bon courage (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hypnotherapy. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? Why are you sending these "warning" messages that seem automatically generated while they aren't? Are you trying to scare me? You're the one who's heading in the direction of edit warring: you did not mention your reasons on the talk page and I did. Why on earth don't you want to talk on the talk page and are so determined in reverting every single one of the edits I make without proper explanations on the talk page? Skalidrisalba (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeatedly changing an article to your own view. A conventional way to proceed is WP:BRD, not to keep mashing the revert key. The warning is just that; if you are to be reported for edit-warring (which will happen if you continue) it will be necessary to show you were warned. This above is the standard wording approved by the community. Bon courage (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for you buddy. Especially since you're the one who reverted the changes without proper reasons and without seeking consensus on the talk page.

Being an experienced user doesn't mean you're above the rules.

But don't worry, I probably won't be here for long, this message I received "On checking its methodology: Wikipedians are considered unqualified to do that, by default." made me lose hope for accuracy. If you rely on subjective assumptions to determine whether a source is reliable or not, I don't even know how you can think your articles have any credibility, at this point, you might as well put your uncle in the sources and justify it as "he's a very serious guy because he doesn't believe in fringe ideas" xD

At this point even AI is less biased than any slightly controversial wiki article. Skalidrisalba (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have revealed some problems in the hypno* articles which need addressing. It would be good to have more of the WP:BESTSOURCES in this area to build on (I assume you have some knowledge of it). Wikipedia has a reasonably good reputation for its medical content, particularly its FRINGE medical content. You may find Wikipedia:Academic studies of health information on Wikipedia of interest. Bon courage (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]