User talk:Gillcv

Welcome

 * }

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Gillcv. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
Your recent editing history at Cupping therapy 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) 16:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * You did not read the answer at your complaint.
 * I am not in an edit war. You are! Why did you delete without talking to me? You accuse me of ways that you actually practice. Gillcv (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It usually takes two to edit war. It looks like you've been blocked from editing this particular page; I'd advise taking some time to become familiar with the site and how it works and edit some non-controversial pages before diving back into complementary medicine.  GoldenRing (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you read my page you'll see I'm a freelance researcher. The regulations of Wikipedia are complex and I have no time to read them all not to mention studying them. When I read a Wikipedia entry and and I think that a correction or addition should be made, I do it. And that is all. Gillcv (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Gillcv, no offense, but your repeated edit is not welcome inside Wikipedia. Sometimes Wikipedia Community reacts to your edits and even admins take action against your edits, so you'd better pause and learn that the Wikipedia Community does not appreciate writing "scientific" medicine with "scientific" between scare quotes, nor is Wikipedia to be used as a WP:SOAPBOX for the patent quackery you're defending. We have strict rules about medical claims, and if you don't obey these rules, your edits get rejected. As I said earlier to someone else, it is easier to publish in The Lancet than in Wikipedia. This is not the proper website to argue that cupping is not quackery, such claims get summarily rejected according to WP:REDFLAG. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2022 (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 an old Earth, 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) 17:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Cupping therapy) for disruptive editing. 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:. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Black Kite
 * Quote from Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks to appealing blocks : that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead.
 * I was in good faith when I entered that paragraph. My testimony about my mother's treatments (which were not included in the paragraph) is also true. "we are biased" does not mean "we block/delete". So, I refuse to apologize for an intervention in Wikipedia that I still believe is correct. Gillcv (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

redirection of morphodynamics is not correct
I have no personal interest in this issue, but I don't know how else can I use Wikipedia to explain the mistake made by redirection. The problem is that the word morphodynamics has a wider meaning than the phrase "coastal morphodynamics". As can be seen even from the etymology of the word in Wiktionary, it is about the dynamics of the shape. Any shape not just the coastal one! Here is how the word is used in the article Morphodynamics facilitate cancer cells to navigate 3D extracellular matrix: The significance of cell morphodynamics, namely the temporal fluctuation of cell shape ... So I think the redirect should be removed and the phrase "coastal morphodynamics" should be seen as a particular case.

Incidentally, in the article Review and précis of Terrence Deacon’s Incomplete Nature: How mind emerged from matter, the author uses (in page 5) a definition from Wiktionary (accessed on 31 July 2012): The standard definition of morphodynamics is “of or pertaining to dynamic changes in morphology”. That definition was the correct one.

Here is also a use in the plant kingdom: Morphodynamics of plants.

Or with reference to coral reefs, definition: Eco-morphodynamics is the interaction and co-adjustment of coral reef structure, morphology, and physical hydrodynamic and ecological processes that is mediated by the production, transfer, and deposition of calcium carbonate.

Or Morphodynamics of Fluid-Fluid Displacement in Three-Dimensional Deformable Granular Media.

Or the morphodynamics of cells migrating in the body: T cell morphodynamics reveal periodic shape oscillations in three-dimensional migration.

Again in Biology we have Systems morphodynamics: understanding the development of tissue hardware. Gillcv (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I closed this as answered because this looks more like a content dispute instead of a request to change something because you have a conflict of interest. I suggest that you work on getting unblocked, then consider having a discussion on the article's talk page to get consensus. However, please note that using high quality sources (such as academic articles) when proposing changes will make it more likely that others will agree with your proposal. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you took it to be a dispute. It's obviously a request for change, but I don't know how to present it. I clearly mentioned "I don't know how else can I use Wikipedia to explain the mistake made by redirection.", which means I didn't know how to formulate a request to change the redirection. Also I clearly stated that "I have no personal interest". As for your suggestion about scholarly articles, I'm sorry to say it, but I don't think you've consulted any of the references I've indicated. Here, for example, Terrence Deacon is a renowned neuro-anthropologist who is featured in Wikipedia. And the journal Nature is featured in Wikipedia and also The Royal Society which is "the United Kingdom's national academy of sciences." In short, "coastal morphodynamics" is a special case of "morphodynamics". I believe that morphodynamics should be presented in its own entry and a reference should be made from it to coastal morphodynamics. I'm not good at doing this, but I think we all have an interest in wikipedia containing quality and correct information. Gillcv (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)