NpsychC

September 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to a Wikipedia article appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Who is saying what I am writing is a minority or fringe viewpoint? I am providing evidence based research to balance out the clear bias and outdated information. I have spent a considerable amount of time tidying it up and creating a more balanced view of the research. Out of respect and in the interests of presenting a balance of information I have left in a lot of information that I consider to be blatantly incorrect, so please restore my changes. NpsychC (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

With respect, that is what everyone who adds fringe viewpoints to Wikipedia tends to say in response. Wikipedia does not do 'balance', see WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

With respect, a psychological disorder which is listed in the DSM-5-TR and explains the concept that people associate with repressed memory is not a fringe viewpoint or presenting false balance. There are balanced arguments all through the article, you are just blocking mine for some reason. NpsychC (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

NpsychC - I understand this is frustrating to you, but let me one more time offer you some advice, take it or ignore it. We are all speaking English, but because you are not experienced as a Wikipedia editor, you do not seem to understand that these (all senior) editors have explained the issues they are having with your edits. You have only been editing a few days, and you still have only edited the Repressed memory article. It can take months or years here on Wikipedia to learn the rules (and the culture) of editing. I suggest that you take a break from this specific article and work in other areas, read talk pages and essays written by senior editors that will hopefully give you insight into the problems you are having. Your passion for this specific topic is making you come across like someone obsessed with it, and that is not a good look here. I know you don't like being accused of trolling and arguing, but it appears this way when you are not understanding. It's not a lack of English skills or lack of education, I think it's just that you are pushing changes that they keep telling you are not allowed. The problem is you are lacking experience HERE on Wikipedia, not with the topic. There are thousands of other articles that badly need attention and I suggest you take a look at those. You can always come back to this topic, it's not going anywhere. Sgerbic (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It is honestly less about obsession and more about the deep, deep disappointment I have about some of the editorial processes behind the article. I have really valued Wikipedia over the years and have contributed financially, thinking there was science behind the articles and opportunity to debate with the open editorial processes. I would never presume to edit an area I didn't have expertise in, but I can see that is not the culture here. It seems that it is more about who has more editorial knowledge, and that is alarming for a source of information that is so widely used and which google refers to often as one of its first sources. I really didn't know it was run like this. I tried dispute resolution, but was asked to try the talk page again. I think that was a mistake as people were already frustrated and didn't seem to be able to engage with the content. I can see how you would interpret my actions as obsessive, but my persistence is due to a desire to rectify misinformation and the degree of resistance I am experiencing in trying to talk about the content of the edits. NpsychC (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

DR case

The Dispute resolution case you started here lists only yourself as an Involved user. That is clearly an error. You should, per the instructions in the blue box at the top of the WP:DRN page, add all the involved users to that case (that is, all the editors who have participated in the discussions at Repressed memory) and notify all of them on their Talk pages. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you JoJo, I can see the dispute resolution has been closed by someone else so I have am not able to make the changes and add the editors involved. As part of the comments for closing the DR it advises to go back to the talk page for 24 hours. I do not think that will help as the quality of the rebuttals has diminished and people are obviously quite frustrated, but I will try. NpsychC (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

And it was an error, I realised after I had submitted it but was unable to find how to go back in and change it. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to fix it even if it was closed down shortly after. NpsychC (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Just stop

Hiya. Can you just stop it please? Whatever you are trying to do is not working, and it is time to move on. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is time for you to move on. In an effort to help you to understand why, I will try here to present some information about how Wikipedia (WP) works. It is not necessary for you to like or respect any of this, but you do need to accept it. It is the reality of WP.

A primary model for how content is determined on WP articles is consensus. Consensus is a WP policy, and I encourage you to read it. I emphasize the word policy because it is precisely that: a fundamental, long-established rule through which article content is determined, and which is not up for debate/discussion/argument, at least not here or article Talk pages or most all noticeboards. The evidence is clear that your desired content is unlikely to achieve consensus, and your persistence in promoting that content, using the same arguments over and over again, reflects a tendentious approach to editing (please read this essay). Editors are routinely blocked for such disruptive behavior, as it violates one of WP's behavioral guidelines (please see WP:DE).

It simply does not matter how correct/right you are (see WP:RGW), or how wrong/ignorant everybody else is. I will repeat that: it doesn't matter. I have been around long enough to know that you have exhausted all available mechanisms for getting your desired content added to the Repressed memory article. Repeating the same arguments, as you have been doing, has not and will not work. Opening new threads on additional boards or Talk pages will not achieve your goal, and will instead be interpreted as an escalation of your disruptive behavior. You have not, and will not, achieve consensus for your desired content. Full stop. If you do not drop the stick immediately you are likely to be blocked from editing. No one wants that to happen, but it will happen if you continue beating this dead horse. Let it go. Now.

Lastly, and for what it is worth, you are not alone. Every editor has, at some point(s), desired content that fails to achieve consensus. That's the reality of WP. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for your time in reaching out. I will indeed let it go as you suggest. I had taken advice in reading the 'one against many essay' suggested in DR, and from the NPOV editor page that NPOV was non-negotiable even in the face of a lack of consensus. For whatever reason however, my attempts to respond to requests for information and evidence are not being received well and are seen as tendentious. I am deeply disappointed to learn about the processes behind articles that pertain to mental health and child abuse (the only significant area that recovered memories are contentious in the literature), particularly given that Wikipedia is often referenced first or second on google, however I have no intention of continuing to open myself up to aggression. I also genuinely have no desire to waste people's time (including my own), but I also did not like being shut down in a way that really was amounting to gatekeeping of up-to-date medical information. I accept now that this is how Wikipedia is, and will not continue with my attempts to update the article at this time. Thank you again for your time, and for taking steps to help me understand the Wikipedian culture. NpsychC (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course this is a very controversial subject in a rapidly evolving field. The English Wikipedia has ~6,894,691 articles and an overwhelming majority of them are fun to edit and completely uncontroversial. I believe we should warn new accounts who edit controversial topics; something like "Warning: you have made less than 100 edits and you are entering a minefield. Turn back." Polygnotus (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)