User talk:Qthefirsttimelord

Welcome!
Hello, Qthefirsttimelord, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Mystery Spot, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 16:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please ensure that your edits use reliable sources and not opinions to justify content. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 16:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. There currently is one at Mystery Spot to explained the observed effects. If you are going to assert that there is a gravitational anomaly there, you must cite reliable sources that mention it. Arguably, you must show that multiple, independent reliable sources have written about the claim and support it, as a local gravitational anomaly is within the scope of WP:FRINGE. —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Your recent editing history at Mystery Spot shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —C.Fred (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The journal article in question
This is the article I refer to. "Illusion" is right there in the title, and much better than a vague "phenomena". Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Qthefirsttimelord, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Conflict of interest
Your edits suggest you are related to the Mystery Spot site. Is that the case? Doug Weller (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You need to sign with 4 tildes, eg ~ We shouldn't skew our articles so that they affect income of a site or company in any way - in other words, we shouldn't be concerned that if an article has a negative effect if it meets our guidelines and policies. So I suggest you forget about that and post your other comments to the talk page. Material in the article needs to be sourced to sources that discuss the Mystery Spot. I've change the word "claim" to "state". There's nothing wrong with calling an illusion and illusion however, and the statement that the laws of physics and gravity don't apply there are clearly nonsense. 20:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, here goes
First and foremost, I didn't realize that wikipedia was in the business of debunking witchcraft.

Second, the 'peer reviewed' article dismisses a portion of the optical illusions presented by the Mystery Spot, but that doesn't serve to invalidate the whole, for instance, balls and water rolling uphill, levels used to demonstrate perceptual balance and more.

That's bad science at work leveraging one simple 'peer reviewed' article to publicly debunk and discredit the entire experience..

In any case, no I am not affiliated with the Mystery Spot. I have a Bachelor's Degree of Science in Marketing and a Master's In Business Administration in International Management, with 30 years in Information Technology - and I am considering pursuing a Doctorate in Theoretical Physics based on the anomalous nature of time and space.

I came across the Mystery Spot in my research, having visited the place and similar locations myself in the past, and there's very real conditions occurring (not explained by the 'dismissive' peer reviewed research - all which defy natural explanations and/or invalidate the outright dismissive claim of illusion - which is what I am pursuing with my education.

On that note - As a marketer - I noticed several word choices used in the original description use debunking and skeptical verbage - as if to challenge the assertions of the organization and many who have experienced the site.

And here I thought that wikipedia claimed to be unbiased?

The word claim is used several times, this is subtle psychology manipulation questioning the validity of the assertions. The use of the word 'small' when referring to the site psychologically diminishes those assertions.

And leveraging simple Marketing 101 (my educational background) and seeing the reference to the effect as an 'illusion' is akin to calling it fiction and sets a negative impression by publicly debunking the claims in the potential consumer's mind.

Now let's use some common sense here - with Wikipedia being top of the results in Google, it's naive to not understand this debunking and skeptical description will adversely influence the public perception of the site, and not only does it negatively effect the business, but it also manipulates the public mindset adversely to disbelieve alternative explanations.

Alternative explanations I would like to do research on.

So no, I am not affiliated with the organization, it's not rocket science to understand the negative and skeptical vocabulary used to describe the location can negatively effect the psychological understanding and description of it and thus the income of the site.

Weird. I feel like I am being ganged up on every time I try to make any changes to wiki.

I suppose that's why it's no longer regarded as a reputable source. ~
 * The main reason I reverted you repeatedly was due to this edit summary. I assumed, since you seemed motivated by concerns about the income of the Mystery Spot, that you were connected to them financially.  I apologize for making that assumption. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Qthefirsttimelord! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 20:46, Monday, September 7, 2015 (UTC)

I'm currently banned
I'm currently banned for reversing the edits, and not knowing a proper way to provide feedback. And while I am still learning Wikipedia and it's nuances, I am still trying to figure out how one 'scientific' article which debunks a portion of the experience can be used to justify framing the article on Wikipedia in such a derogatory light and ban someone who's trying to paint a more realistic and less biased description of the location? Qthefirsttimelord

As it stands now, my edits were far less emotionally charged than what's currently presented, which make the place sound like a farce and hall of illusions.

That's not just unfair to the organization, but also makes Wikipedia's unbiaed nature reek.

I'm going to stick with this user id for my future edits to start obtaining more history with you - unfortunately I've changed emails frequently in the past - but my past history with Wikipedia has seen similar biases introduced and quick reaction by the 'overseers' who refuse to look at themselves and acknowledge there's any biases in their descriptions.

Tone neutral, my friends, let the consumer be the skeptic. You're not even allowing that here.


 * Thank you for confirming you have a "past history with Wikipedia". If it's found that you are banned, or indefinitely blocked, from your previous actions here, don't be surprised if this account is blocked indefinitely. —C.Fred (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the notification of your snipe hunt. No such bans in the past, I just attempted to make edits as I forgot past emails and passwords, and the experience was roughly as confrontational and derogatory as this has been. Almost as if I am dealing with one single collective personality with a huge chip on its shoulder thinkin it's crap doesn't stink. Qthefirsttimelord
 * On that note, what's with this 'assuming the absolute worst about everything I do' attitude and total refusal to ask me questions about why i am doing what I am doing before reacting with animosity? I mean. Are you all Vulcans regressing back to your warrior mentality? You're better than that.


 * Are you willing to name your previous accounts?
 * We don't have a "tone neutral" policy, we have a "neutral point of view" policy at WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." As is often the case, the details of this policy are key to how we report subjects such as this one. WP:UNDUE needs to be read, but for this subject and in light of your "tone neutral" comment you need to understand that we present fringe subjects as clearly that, see the sections on balance and fringe theories.
 * There is absolutely no way Wikipedia is going to call this "a gravitational anomaly". Not until peer reviewed scientific sources say that there are such things on earth and specific this as one of them. See WP:VERIFY. Doug Weller (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality
I have no access to my previous accounts, and have actually forgotten which accounts I tried (note the keyword) editing with, so I finally gave up and created this new account.

My only point to this all has been - The entry in question is constructed in such a way that it openly diminishes the value of the corporation based on Wikipedia's dependency on the accuracy of biased peer reviewed articles. This is a common occurrence on Wikipedia, where science and statistics is used as a religion like a surgeon's scalpel to create an incision in just the right place and dismantle the entire presentation of public and professional people and organizations.

The peer review based article addresses the location in question from a skeptical perspective to begin with, and then only addresses one fifth of the presented. It doesn't broach the subject of balls and water rolling uphill, contradicting the level. This is a biased peer reviewed article created with the sole purpose of debunking the credibility of the facility's assertions.

So whoever edited this article before me feels this entitles them - as a 'scientific researcher' - to invalidate the facility in it's entirety.

Having a Bachelor's degree in Marketing, scientists don't realize how often they are set on a goal of providing support for a single perspective and invariably they will find evidence to support that perspective. The pharmaceutical companies have long demonstrated this logical fallacy.

This isn't a 'neutral point of view'.

You are using science as a religion and invalidating things based on your religion and claiming it's neutral.

My question to you all editing this is: What's wrong with calling it a gravitational anomaly? Not only is this a hotly discussed topic in modern theoretical physics, but if a business purports itself to have a gravitational anomaly, this invites REAL scientific investigation to prove it.

My advice to you all is to read up on skewed statistics. Read the book Freakonomics. And understand you are NOT just serving the scientific community with this web site. You are serving the world, and by these edits are trying to imply that science is the only religion out there.

I expect my ban to persist. You can't have people like me willy-nilly making edits that your religion doesn't currently align with. Qthefirsttimelord (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)