User talk:Xenek

This is my own intended post on the New Wikipedia Interface. I put it here, because it is stated that this is my personal sandbox, and therefore, I assume this first attempt of adding content is safe from the three pillars policy - in particular - that of the "No original Content". I also put it here because I don't want to burden the readers of the comments on the new interface with trying to understand why this is first an interface issue.

I have also added this content to the article mentioned, in the talk, as a new section. But I assume it will be removed from there, so leave it here.

Enjoy.

(subject follows)

Wikipedia FAILS as a reference and learning tool because it doesn't provide or guide users to share or view original research and places too much value on historically false tertiary & second sources.

(content follows)

My subject explains the problem.

Presently, Wikipedia is nothing more than a slowly developing weak reference source of occasionally false facts, furthering pseudoscience where this is the case. This can be resolved by a simple interface change.

The article on tinnitus is a classic example.

There was once in this article a single line someone posted saying something like (not word for word correct) "tinnitus may be the sound of the nervous system itself". This has since been removed, by a well meaning individual.

Removing lines like this (with key words like 'may' or 'might') because they are as yet unsubstantiated by primary or secondary research, stifles human development, not improves it. This results in Wikipedia today being just as poor a single general reference as are old version of Encarta, Britannica or Funk & Wagnells.

This original line led me to studying myself for a few years.

I have subsequently confirmed through persistent scientific observation that my tinnitus IS the sound of my brainwaves, specifically, areas of my neocortex. I haven't proven this in a laboratory - yet. For me, it isn't a sound in my 'ear' as the current painfully incorrect Wikipedia article falsely asserts. Yet I can confirm I experience identical symptoms as most other 'sufferers' described in the article. The term is the correct one to define my learned ability. The article is simply poor because it tries to abide by severely limiting policy.

My next paragraph is a statement of my thoughts after careful observation. This paragraph demonstrates and describes in the form of a concrete example, why it is so important to me to be able to (according to policy) reinsert a more accurate line "Tinnitus may be the sound of the nervous system itself, and is believed by some individuals to be the sound of the neocortex, and is completely unconnected to hearing loss apart from being more noticeable in the event of." into the current article on tinnitus.

Balancing and controlling left and right hemispherical activity and analyzing your brain by observing tinnitus is an ability that should be taught at preschool level for it probably takes decades to develop in the average person. I have been well aware of it since early primary school but never met a doctor or audiologist intelligent or knowledgeable enough to explain it clearly. Most people don't study their tinnitus closely enough, or for long enough, to be able to hear the different pitch or timbre of each distinct brain region at the different loudness levels. They probably won't either if they continue to be told it is a disorder, so tinnitus might never become the tool that it is - a very well connected and capable brainwave monitor able to be used for biofeedback of neurological features and functions. Biofeedback is the future of self-regulating individual brain management, which if harnessed correctly and taught may allow each individual to manage enabling or disabling superior mental abilities in self-chosen specific areas. Having tinnitus is a gift, claiming to be suffering from it is little different than to be claiming to be suffering because we can see.

I can't post a single line of my thoughts and conclusions on this original research in the Wikipedia article on tinnitus, because it would violate policy. This is terrible, because the present article has much pseudoscience written and believed by representatives of or individuals who are products of the established medical and educational institutions that, in this good example, demonstrates their propensity to continue supporting false and misleading secondary documentation that vaguely tries to explain something that is in hindsight obviously incorrect but hasn't yet been recognized as such.

To put this politely, in my opinion the present knowledge described in the article on tinnitus is a steaming pile of self supporting rubbish, that is far from scientific, even though it has been developed out of the combined work of a massive number of incredibly capable individuals. They misled themselves from the start, so all their work is in the wrong direction. Wikipedia only furthers this problem.

To resolve this issue so I can reward both Wikipedia, the writer of that single line, and the global community of humans with something tremendously important, all you need is a single additional tab across the top of the tinnitus, to the right of the article and discussion tabs. For this explanation I propose it be called 'Possibilities'. I expect someone can come up with a better appropriate term.

This tab would provide people with the ability to contribute their own original research to a secondary persistent article containing information that would inspire and encourage independent thought, through publishing and supporting developing knowledge and new directly relevant and key associated ideas. It need not be academic or institutionally supported, but does need to be clear and must contain words that accurately describe the content as 'possible not factual'. It would follow most or all of the usual article rules, apart from additionally violating the pillar of 'no original research'. It doesn't deserve or want to be in a separate wiki, for it really needs to be in article form 'side by side' the old article, for comparison reasons and so that a cohesive summary of new information is made immediately available to the editors of the primary article as written according to the three pillars policy, and to readers of the primary article that is assumed to be completely factual.

My own concerns of deliberately false or misleading data appearing in this tab, or of organizations using the content of this tab as proof of fact are valid, but insubstantial. All entries in the Possibilities tab would be removed (or persistently marked up as such) if they could be proven to be false, or had been proven false in a variety of possibly incorrect or inadequate studies, while simultaneously claiming to be factual. This tab would contain the key points of the original article with additionally simply described memes of a 'different viewpoint', 'supposed', 'developing' or of a 'only possibly correct' nature organized much as the original article. To repeat - all content on this tab would need to always be clearly worded as 'possible' using terms such as 'may' - as I use in my proposed single line above.

Without enabling a second tab containing a revised article supporting new possibilities, Wikipedia actively restricts allowing capable people to assist with improving the quality of existing human knowledge and instead frequently further reinforces or supports sometimes false or misleading knowledge. This is a fact which makes Wikipedia very dangerous, in my opinion.

If my conclusions are wrong, or this interface feature and policy already exists in an obvious form, then please correct me.

Xenek (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm over 10 years later. Reread, a bit embarrassing but I’ll not change my words above as there’s nothing better than reading something you concluded and wrote, and laughing at the wrong/stupid aspects of it, but letting it remain as it’s a true and accurate record of a thought or perspective you had at a time in life. Ps. I see the ‘remember, we are humans therefore please be kind message’ so I’ll just apologise to Wikipedia as a human organisation - sorry for calling you a failure. If it helps at all, I also wrote that privately about Facebook and Google if I remember correctly, with Google I said recently I trust them as far as I can piss. Anyway, I hope you’re all not too stressed by some light verbal abuse and can all laugh a bit, remembering that sometimes it’s important to laugh at harsh words. Anyway, (yeah, repeating myself, sorry, eat it) have a great day if you read this! And share a smile or frown with another, preferably a smile! :) Xenek (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Tinnitus, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Winreducer moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Winreducer, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Akevsharma (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you Akevsharma, I appreciate you moving it to draft, another inadequately prepared addition that was related was auto-removed immediately by a bot, in a discouraging way. I'll try to make time to improve on the winreducer & related articles. Xenek (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Winreducer
Hello, Xenek. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Winreducer, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)