User talk:Logrus9090

July 2023
Hello, I'm Miner Editor. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Manifestation (popular psychology), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Miner Editor (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Manifestation (popular psychology), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Manifestation (popular psychology) 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; read about 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) 22:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I was not aware I am engaging into an "edit war". I am pretty sure no one else besides me was editing this page. Logrus9090 (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See where all edits are shown.  Doug Weller  talk 07:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023
You have recently made edits related to pseudoscience and fringe science. This is a standard message to inform you that pseudoscience and fringe science is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. Cullen328 (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * cullen. Do you know why my edits have been removed? I provided reputable sources including webmd source. This is my first edited article and I would like to know what is going on Logrus9090 (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Replied at . tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * TikTok is not a reliable source in any way, shape or form. It is the opposite of a reliable source. WebMD may be useful to its users, but Wikipedia has very stringent requirements for references used in medical content, described at WP:MEDRS. I suggest that you read Fringe theories and Lunatic charlatans. Cullen328 (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand the concerns raised, but I would like to emphasize the cultural phenomenon aspect of my edit. While TikTok may not be considered a traditional academic source, it has undeniably become a prominent platform where a wide range of individuals discuss various topics, including manifestation. The usage of the manifestation hashtag alone has garnered billions of views and indicates its significant presence on the platform. In my edit, I aimed to highlight this trend without delving into the efficacy or scientific validation of manifestation.
 * Additionally, I acknowledge the guidelines for medical content on Wikipedia. However, it's worth noting that WebMD is a reputable source widely recognized in the medical community. While it's important to ensure accurate representation and proper attribution, the inclusion of information from WebMD can provide valuable insights for readers. Logrus9090 (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * TikTok will never be a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. If actually reliable sources report on the self-indulgent foolishness that takes place on TikTok, then we can use those sources. WebMD will never be a reliable source either, because it dies not meet WP:MEDRS standards. Cullen328 (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Logrus9090, and welcome to Wikipedia. I’m going to disagree slightly with the other editors here. While I do think that your edits as they were warranted a revert, there is absolutely some room for a discussion about the rise of popularity of manifesting as a result of social media. For example, I can think of a few higher profile instances of scholars of religious studies (as in academics with PhDs, not people inherently popular on TikTok) addressing the surge in popularity of the concept. That said, I don’t think a guide on how to will ever have a place here. Would you like to try a sandbox and I can help you as much as you’d like in getting the addition to the article up to Wikipedia’s standards? Warrenmck (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the welcome. I'll definitely consider whether I want to contribute further to this page or make any additional edits on Wikipedia. I'm not interested in getting into a war over topics. My time is valuable, and I have to say that my experience here hasn't been particularly pleasant. However, I want to acknowledge and appreciate you for addressing me with respect and not talking down to me. It's refreshing to encounter someone who can engage in a respectful discussion. Logrus9090 (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "I have to say that my experience here hasn't been particularly pleasant"
 * I think people were harsh, but I do think that an instant revert of what you added was warranted. Remember this is an encyclopedia, and you wouldn't look at Encyclopedia Brittanica for TikTok tips. There's basically no articles on any spiritual practice on Wikipedia which contain a "how to" guide I'm aware of. I think the harsh response you got was because your edits were clearly not what Wikipedia is for, but I do think that there's a chance that others are missing that there is some academic interest in this topic resulting from the surge of popularity, which is in part driven by TikTok, so there's room for your edits if you'd like to work on an encyclopedic entry that's less a self help guide and more a scholarly approach to the surge in interest it's seen recently, with real (non-TikTok) sources. Warrenmck (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

 * I must admit, the experience I've had with the Wikipedia community thus far has been quite disappointing. Despite my sincere efforts to contribute by adding valuable information and improving the page, I've consistently encountered the frustration of having my work removed without receiving clear explanations for these actions. Additionally, it's disheartening to see members of the community openly attacking and being rude, as exemplified by Andy the Grump.
 * I had hoped that the Wikipedia community would provide a supportive and collaborative environment, where constructive feedback and guidance would be offered to newcomers like myself. Unfortunately, this has not been my experience thus far. Logrus9090 (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, we are very tough on bizarre crank theories, and that is not going to change. Cullen328 (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your perspective, and it's valid to consider treating certain theories or ideas, even those labeled as "bizarre crank theories," with a similar approach as religious beliefs. Learning about different concepts does not require personal belief in them; instead, it allows for a broader understanding of diverse perspectives and their cultural significance. Logrus9090 (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we must use impeccably reliable sources, not credulous baloney. Cullen328 (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I had two reasons for reverting you:
 * you maimed already existing references;
 * you introduced a lot of original research. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)