Palpable

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Palpable, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Monterey Bay (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNCERTAIN

Hello Palpable, I was banned from the topic of COVID-19 origins last year [1], and may soon be banned from Wikipedia completely [2]. I saw your recent edits to 2022 monkeypox outbreak and I wanted to bring your attention to WP:MEDRSNOT, which I recently wrote but will likely soon be deleted or userfied. I would appreciate if you, StN, Mhawk10, Mr Ernie, Gimiv, SmokeyJoe, SmolBrane and JPXG​​ could expand WP:UNCERTAIN and propose it as a WP:SUPPLEMENT to WP:SCHOLARSHIP on WP:VPP. Completing this draft and incorporating it into our WP:PAGs will be far more productive and impactful than arguing with strangers online. If you require policy guidance, try pinging DGG, Wbm1058, or Boing! said Zebedee, and maybe they will respond. Thank you. CutePeach (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. If the concern is misuse of WP:MEDRS, the right thing is to improve the language there rather than trying to contradict it with another guideline. The authors of WP:MEDRS include more actual scientists and doctors than the people using it for WP:WL, and their intentions are better.

But I have to stress that if you are at risk of getting banned, you have already lost. That will be used to invalidate your statements regardless of their validity. In a bureaucracy, process is a higher value than truth. If you can't remain outwardly calm and polite at all times, you will damage your cause and your allies.

Sadly I expect that any efforts to improve the state of affairs will require more "arguing with strangers online" than I am really up for. Good luck. - Palpable (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Difficulty of Correcting or Updating WP Articles

I resonated with your User Page entry "Wikipedia was my favorite thing on the web. Until I started trying to contribute." I had a similar experience in 2020 editing and then walked away from both contributing and donating. It is unfortunate that in many cases, Wikipedia is just another repository of mis and dis-information zealously guarded but what seem to be troll editors. I discuss some aspects related to this: https://bachrachtechnology.com/wp/troubles-in-the-universe-of-the-mind/

I also appreciated your comments and perspective on the Feldenkrais Method Talk page.

The current article is incorrect, mis-categorized, ideologically biased and out of date with respect to current peer reviewed literature. Prominence is given to irrelevant sources like surgical oncologist, David Gorsk who made some snide comments on his Blog. From reading his blog and other writings, he does not seem to appreciate Medicine is both an Art and Science.

In a recent communication with an academic in the Health Field,

" I am very grateful that there are people who understand our frustration with the Wikipedia situation and the damage it does to a gentle educative method that makes no claims for medical effects.

In recent times we have felt the negativity profoundly and ironically. We were recruiting for a well-designed randomized controlled trial using Feldenkrais with people with stroke. A potential participant pulled out because he read the Wiki page. Another was going to withdraw for the same reason but fortunately stayed and realized the page was misleading and emotional. So it is ironic that we are being thwarted in our attempt to try and investigate the effectiveness in an evidence-based way."

This has encouraged me to try again and go through the escalation process.

Wikipedia is not supposed to be an information resource that redefines subjects or the meaning of words.

Note: This is not meant to be a discussion topic but a personal note to you. Bbachrac (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.

Unfortunately I think you are wasting your time trying to improve the Feldenkrais article. Too many editors want to make it worse rather than better. In its current state at least readers can see that it's a hit piece.

This and other articles are collateral damage in a struggle against quackery that had legitimate roots. It takes a particular kind of aggressive personality to counter repetitive nonsense, and some of those same editors have done valuable service in that area. But now they see enemies everywhere - once the people who like quack hunting ran out of quacks they started looking for other targets. You probably know the Nietzsche quote: "Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster". What's disappointing is that the more reasonable admins are unable to intervene effectively. The site is still interesting for a lot of topics though.

It would be great to see more studies of Feldenkrais work. There is something there, but it's not clear what or how much.

Best wishes - Palpable (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

It would be great if the principles and guidelines were actually enforced on that topic. - Palpable (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

For example, someone on that article recently tried to tell me that only RS could be discussed in Talk space. This was a senior editor who certainly knew better - textbook GAMING. But of course if I complained about it the editor would summon all their friends and call for a boomerang, which apparently skips the due process normally accorded to the accused.

It's no wonder the COVID origins articles are so out of date. - Palpable (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It's good advice. Discussing non-RS is not usually productive. It's hard to imagine doing good encyclopedia writing with non reliable sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not the general advice that bothered me, it was the misrepresentation of SELFPUB. I never proposed Weissman's analysis for use in the article.

Though for what it's worth, Weissman is a subject matter expert in statistics who has published on COVID origins in a respectable stats journal, and would be a fine source for an attributed quote though certainly not wikivoice. He'd be in the article just fine if he'd reached the preferred conclusion.

Instead, you are telling me that his analysis shouldn't even be discussed in the Talk page. Surely you can see how this looks?

I do appreciate that you are polite, thank you for that. - Palpable (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The trouble with quoting self-sourced material (even of experts, and Weissman has no domain expertise in biomedicine) is - where would it stop? Would you then have to quote the self-published tweet of an actual epidemiologist who was unimpressed[3] with the argument? We have quite a reasonable amount of RS on Lab Leak now, so there is no need to stoop to lesser sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's just cut to the chase: please do not return to my talk page until you have learned some manners. - Palpable (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)