Knuteson
|
Philosophy of Conspiracy Theories edit
Nomination of Philosophy of conspiracy theories for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Philosophy of conspiracy theories is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of conspiracy theories until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A loose necktie (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
October 2019 edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
An extended welcome edit
Hi Knuteson. Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.
Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.
Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.
If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.
Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.
I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you! edit
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Bravo for the hard work and intelligence, towards a very needed page on Wikepedia, to counter the prevailing editorial attempt to rewrite the dictionary definition of "conspiracy theory" so aa to make it automatically pejorative. Joseph Rowe (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC) |
November, 2009 edit
Are you the author of or in any way connected with Conspiracy Theory: A Philosophical Defense ( https://www.amazon.com/dp/194438863X/ )? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- My understanding is that seeking to out the identity of an editor against his or her wishes is a no-no around here. In any case, my identity and relationships are not relevant. The only issue is this: have I presented a fair, balanced, and neutral account of the relevant scholarship? No one has presented a shred of evidence thus far that I have done anything but that. I’ve offered some suggests for checking—such as looking at the introduction to Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate. Since you seem to be looking for a shortcut, let suggest another one. Why don’t you simply reach out to one or more of the content experts for this area, and just ask them to take a look at the page and tell you whether or not it is fairly represents the field (up to about 2012 so far). Perhaps they could even offer suggestions for improvement. Knuteson (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Partially true, He cannot demand you say who you are, but COI requires you to say if you have one or not, you are just not required to say what kind.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Knuteson. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Philosophy of conspiracy theories or Conspiracy theory, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is User:Knuteson. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Using talk pages edit
You should add new comments at the end of discussions. In particular you should never break up someone else's comment like that by inserting your new comments in the middle of it, changing the context of what they said and making it difficult for others to determine who wrote what because the earlier parts of their comment now leave off without a signature. See Help:Talk pages for further details. - MrOllie (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. I really screwed that up. Sorry. I noticed it a few minutes later, and tried to fix it right away, but not fast enough. For clarification, I assume that adding comments that answer questions or requests directly after the question/request, rather than at the bottom of the page, which is what I had intended, is appropriate. Otherwise the context is unclear. Knuteson (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Adding signed text after the signature of the post you are responding to with one added colon to indent the reply is normal. No need to go to the bottom of the section or the bottom of the page. Adding or deleting anything -- signed or unsigned -- in the middle of someone else's comment is not allowed. One relevant exception; on your own talk page you are free to delete entire comments or entire sections. Just make sure you delete the whole thing. WP:TPOC has all of the rules for what you can and cannot delete or edit in detail. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Self Introduction/Disclosure edit
I am the originator of the philosophy of conspiracy theories page. Disclosure: I have written, taught, and/or made scholarly presentations on the philosophy of conspiracy theories. Regarding this, I have observed the rules regarding self-citation. In addition, I know or have communicated with some of the people cited on the page. Beyond that, I prefer to retain my anonymity.
Like everybody, I have my own view on this and related matters. But I have tried to present the relevant material straightforwardly, discussing the main contributors roughly in proportion to their contribution, considering both the number and quality of publications and also the degree to which their contributions relate to a significant theme in the literature. I have addressed themes roughly chronologically up to about 2012, but I included more recent material if it related closely to a theme that emerged earlier. I have not yet covered themes emerging after 2012 and have not yet addressed the ethics of conspiracy theories. I would particularly welcome contributions that fill those gaps.
However, someone has recently deleted about half of the page, so much of what I just said is of only historical relevance. Knuteson (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)