User talk:Aldep77

Welcome!
Hello, Aldep77, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Vsmith (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits to the Eskimo article; please start a discussion and state your concerns on talk:Eskimo rather than edit warring. Vsmith (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC) '''

Regarding your recent edits to the Eskimo article; please start a discussion and state your concerns on talk:Eskimo rather than edit warring.''' --Moxy (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Since the late 20th century, numerous Canadian indigenous people have viewed the use of the term "Eskimo" as offensive, because it is extrinsic and has been used by people who discriminated against them or their forebears.
 * --Moxy (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Fascism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.  General Ization  Talk   03:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

January 2021
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI_JS_signature_icon_LTR.svg located above the edit window.

Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

AAPS
Your proposed changes to this article have been repeatedly reverted by multiple editors, who have explained to you why your edits are objectionable. You have a duty to engage on the article talk page and discuss your proposed changes, supporting them with reliable published secondary sources. If you cannot get a consensus for your changes, then your changes will not be implemented. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
Your recent editing history at Association of American Physicians and Surgeons shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

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.

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 an (approximately) spherical earth, and biased against a flat earth.
 * 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 the existence of Jesus and biased against the existence of Santa Claus.
 * 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) 22:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the references. They are actually very good example of what I mean. Let's take the last two "pseudo-science" entries from your list. phrenology and ancient astronauts. Look at the first paragraph (summary) of each of them. There are 18 references for phrenology. Each and every claim is justified by a reliable source right up there. There are 9 references in ancient astronauts. The authors were able to confirm each accusation with a reliable source reference. How many references the AAPS article have in its summary? Zero! So my intent was to try to make AAPS article to follow the standards of the articles you have provided, which it is currently not following.Aldep77 (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:CITELEAD. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read WP:CITELEAD. From there: "The lead must conform to verifiability". And " The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged ... should be supported by an inline citation." Obviously (since roughly 50% of Americans are Republicans), the statement that "association that promotes medical misinformation" is likely to be challenged and thus needs to be supported by inline citation and/or references. See for example the above to articles where the claims of pseudo science are confirmed by two and four references correspondingly. And the theory of ancient astronauts is probably less likely to be challenged than views of AAPS.