User talk:Playon51

August 2016
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and have been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. GABgab 18:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Feldenkrais method. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with a problem with this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldenkrais_Method

The editors seem to have a strong bias against alternative health modalities, so that even minor edits are instantly undone. You can check out the talk page and see some of the issues being raised. I do not think that the spirit of collaboration which is supposed to be part of wikipedia is being fulfilled here.

Playon51 (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * help me is really best used for questions about using Wikipedia rather than content/consensus issues. Your request is definitely a discussion to have on the talk page. There are over 100 people that watch the page, and they will receive notifications about it being changed. If you feel that other editors' personal bias are negatively affecting the page you can request a third opinion from an uninvolved user. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Playon51 (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Being a Wikipedia editor
Hi Playon51. You have made it clear from your first comment at the Feldenkreis talk page that you arrived at Wikipedia as a trained Feldenkreis practitioner who was upset with the article content.

I understand where you are coming from; this happens quite often, actually.

The thing is, that Wikipedia is not some blog; it is not any kind of Wild West where anything goes. We actually have a kind of "rule of law" here. There is a foundation here, on which everything takes place - a set of policies, guidelines, and norms that govern content and behavior.

It takes time to learn how this place works.

When people arrive angry, as you have, with a very clear perspective on a topic based on their life experience (whatever that may be), they have no patience for any of that. Their passion gets in the way of learning, and prevents them from even realizing that they have a lot to learn about how this place works.

There is really no point, at this time, in discussing the content that has upset you so much. It is really clear that you are not coming from a place of understanding how Wikipedia works and what Wikipedia's mission is, and trying to realize that mission. Instead you here to advocate for Feldenkreis. This leads to false discussions, where we are not working from the same assumptions and toward the same goals, or even speaking the same language. (for example, "reliable source" is a technical term here in Wikipedia; when we say "reliable source" or "RS" there is a whole world of meaning in that, which you don't understand)  We have an essay about advocacy that is useful: see WP:ADVOCACY. It is a common problem.

I have seen lots of people come and go, who start out where you are. There are three outcomes, generally. The two most-taken paths, are that they stomp away angry and frustrated that they couldn't make the changes they wanted, or they get thrown out of here (editing Wikipedia is a privilege,not a right, and the community bans people who refuse to respect the nature of this place and act in ways that we call "disruptive".). Sometimes, rarely, they have the self-insight to realize that there is a whole world in Wikipedia that they need to learn and come to terms with, and they set their anger and passion aside and try to start learning, and come back to the original topic later when they understand things better. They almost always find that things look different then.

If you want to learn, I would be happy to provide you with an overview of how this place works, to get you started. Let me know. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the reply. I am not such a newbie as you may think, and have successfully created a wiki page in the past. I am not trying to promote Feldenkrais, but was attempting to insure that it is presented fairly. I do not think that is the case in this instance, and the quote from Groski is absurd and unfairly damaging to a modality that has helped many, many people. There are peer-reviewed studies of the method -- will you accept adding them to the page if I can get some links to them?  I still think you guys are lawyering like crazy, and it seems you are unwilling to respond to some of the key points that I made. I'm not sure what the motive is with the Feldenkrais entry, but fairness and consensus do not seem to be one.Playon51 (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying! Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this "" in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages. That is how we know who said what. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for replying. I am sorry to contradict you, but you clearly don't understand a lot of things about Wikipedia.  For content about health, the guideline for sourcing is WP:MEDRS which you cited part of on the Talk page.  And no, papers that are "studies of method" sound like primary sources, and we don't use them for content about health.


 * New editors who are unfamiliar with WP and are all on fire about something, often take a quick glance through the policies and guidelines and find something supports what they already want to do and kind of throw that into the discussion.  This is entirely backwards from how a Wikipedian works -- we start by understanding the mission and the policies/guidelines/norms that govern things here, decide what topic to work on, and working through the policies/guidelines, find sources that are "reliable" about that topic, read them, and generate content from them.  Do you see what I mean?   You are starting with strong ideas about Feldenkreis and you are looking for how to express those ideas in WP.   Backwards.


 * And in these situations, when experienced editors bring up the actual reasons in policy/guideline why X doesn't work, we get accused of "lawyering."  This kind of disrespect for the community, and the policies and guidelines that the community itself has put in place over the 15 years this place has been around, is again another typical thing that advocates do.   Instead of trying to understand the system and its complexities, they just dismiss it as "lawyering."    There is a deep beauty to how this place is set up - in the way that the community's values are expressed in the network of policies and guidelines and how the mission is enabled, in this very strange working environment.  I know it is bewildering but dismissing our efforts as "lawyering" is just... well as I said, a sadly typical human response when people who are full of passion won't take the time to understand their context - and cannot even see what they are doing.    Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Whether or not I know everything about how wikipedia works is really not the issue. The issue is truth and fairness on this particular page. There are independent, peer-reviewed studies, and you will not allow them to be referenced on the page, but will allow blog posts from a Mr. Gorski? What research has Mr. Gorski done on this subject to suggest that he knows what he is talking about?  The easiest thing to do would of course, to actually try the method oneself before making a judgement, then but that would risk opening one's mind.Playon51 (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is true. Everybody has to learn how Wikipedia works.   The question is here is whether you will engage with the learning process or not.  You are continuing down the typical path of advocates.  Talking about "truth" in Wikipedia is also something that advocates do (see WP:The Truth -- yes, we have an essay for it.  Really, there is nothing new under the sun here).   And it isn't personal  - another mistake that advocates make is to personalize it, when other editors oppose what they want on the basis of policy or guidelines.  Wikipedia has policies and guidelines; the community follows them.  (It is not about what "i" am doing; any experienced editor would be telling you the same things).  Finally, again - everything in WP is based on reliable sources, not on the (claimed) authority of editors.  If you stop and think about that for a minute, I hope you can see what a nightmare it would be if editors actually claimed that their edits could stick because "I know this is true".  Zoiks. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)