User talk:Tunsa

Pseudoscience arbitration enforcement warning
Under the terms of WP:ARB/PS those attempting to make edits that are not compatible with WP:FRINGE will be dealt with appropriately. Be aware of this. If you have any questions, please let me know. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The diff says all there is to be said, really.  No, you can't make strategic revisions to the content of the article that make it incompatible with WP:FRINGE.  Furthermore, I suspect you know full well what you're doing, I can see straight through the attempt to appear naive.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And what makes you think that you will be more successful than the dozens of other fans of "fringe theories" that try to whitewash articles to make them less WP:FRINGE-compatible? Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Reason was given
regarding your edit summary,, if you look, there WAS a reason given : "whitewash". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You also might want to look at WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, which seems to be applying in WP:BUCKETLOADS here. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Your fringe edits on parapsychology
Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. The journal of parapsychology is not a reliable source. It is considered a fringe journal that promotes pseudoscience. When you keep adding paranormal papers to articles, they will get deleted. If you want reliable sources look for legit peer reviewed science journals or academic books. Take care. Lone skeptic (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

When a specific individual is publishing in a journal, the reference is not a supporting reference, but rather an informative direct link for the reader who is interested in more information. Also, when a quote is provided about an individual or an event, sometimes it is necessary to go to the original source to understand the context. Of course, I understand that the Journal of Parapsychology is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia editors, and I would never provide it as a primary source of information on this forum.

Despite the postings by a very aggressive editor who, in the past, characterized my edits as "fringe", my efforts are to add value to Wikipedia while maintaining a balanced voice without bias or violation of community standards. Tunsa (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)