User talk:Flowcode

Welcome!
Hello, Flowcode, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Mediumship does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Betty Logan (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
Your recent editing history at Mediumship 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. Betty Logan (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Flowcode, you are invited to the Teahouse!
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello
Since you're getting into some trouble, I just wanted to mention that several editors participating at Mediumship are experienced and also participate in making the encyclopedia neutral; they also know of WP:PSCI, the policy on pseudoscience. As you are discovering, Wikipedia is also a project that heavily relies on reliable sources. This takes time and the processes can require patience. Of interest to you may be WikiProject Skepticism (WP:SKEPTIC) and the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (WP:FTN). I'm one of the participants and the latter is how I learned about the recent discussion at the Mediumship article. Also, even when we're convinced that we're right, all editors must avoid edit warring, WP:BRD is excellent advice. The WP:TEAHOUSE is also a great place to receive general advice from experienced editors. — Paleo Neonate  – 01:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, see WP:POINT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Here are two of the many examples of mediums failing to demonstrate any psychic ability in a scientific trial.
 * Scientists put psychic's paranormal claims to the test
 * Controversial psychic ability claim doesn't hold up in new experiments
 * Please post an example of a mediums successfully demonstrating psychic abilities in a scientific trial. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You may find Russell's teapot to be enlightening. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
--Guy Macon (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverts at Mediumship
Hello Flowcode. You are risking a block for edit warring if you revert again at Mediumship, unless you have obtained prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. If agreement can't be reached on Talk, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Flowcode again. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. User:Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)