Ducornius

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! tgeorgescu (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to complementary and alternative medicine, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Original research and fringe views

I realize you don't know me but the discussion on ANI isn't going your way right now but I wanted to make one more stab at explaining Wikipedia to you. The project doesn't care about your opinions or my opinions. It doesn't matter how much you have studied the literature, how knowledgeable you think you are. And you very well may be an expert! But content on Wikipedia is not based on your ideas or original research, in fact, editor interpretation is specifically not just discouraged but editors can be blocked over inserting their own original research into articles and it can result in articles being deleted. Wikipedia articles rely on reliable sources which are independent, secondary sources (not primary sources like scriptures) that provide significant coverage of a subject. So, if you can't accept that the content of articles might disagree with your own beliefs about a subject, I don't see how you can work on a collaborative editing project like this one. Perhaps your writing is more suited to a personal blog or website where you don't need to maintain these standards. Or, you could set about writing a book yourself and if it is accepted and reviewed by the academic and literary community, then we might possibly use it as a source. But as a regular editor, today, you can't introduce your own interpretations of any type of literature or concept into articles. It will just be removed or reverted.

If you can agree to abide by this "no original research" policy, then I think Wikipedia might benefit from your contributions. But if you find this policy unacceptable, then your tenure here is likely not to last much longer. We all have to live with policies that might not agree with, and we don't just tolerate them, we have to enforce them as well. It's the core of Wikipedia and you'll have to decide whether or not that's something you can live with. Thank you for your contributions so far. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)