Uncensored-reiki

Uncensored-reiki, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Uncensored-reiki! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Masumrezarock100 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Uncensored-reiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

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 Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I know, I felt your apprehension.

Information should be presented in an unbiased way. Going into obsessive detail and having 6 citations on a single paragraph is obviously a form of bias.

The information should present both sides or neither. It should explain what the topic is about, and not give opinions on whether or not it is true.

It’s no wonder a lot of people don’t consider Wikipedia a valid resource for information, when a lot of people editing on it are very bias. I was pretty sure that “bias” was one of the things editors are not supposed to do. I was merely editing out a lot of excessive bias, since it seemed more like it was trying to convince the reader of believing in a certain point of view, rather than just giving information about the topic.

That’s my reasoning. Uncensored-reiki (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

Wikipedia's policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.

So yes, we are biased.

• We are biased towards science, and biased against pseudoscience.
• We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
• We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
• We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
• We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy.
• We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
• We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.
• We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
• We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
• We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
• We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
• We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
• We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
• We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
• We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
• We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.
• We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
• We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
• We are biased towards evolution and an old Earth, and biased against young Earth creationism.
• We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
• We are biased towards an (approximately) spherical earth, and biased against a flat earth.
• We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
• We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
• We are biased towards the existence of Jesus and biased against the existence of Santa Claus.
• We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
• We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
• We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
• We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
• We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Interesting. I guess it shows the psychological makeup of this person. People who go out of their way to disprove something have never taken the time to learn about it. Uncensored-reiki (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I just want to add: it’s always easy to regurgitate every else’s opinion but it’s hard to think for oneself. Uncensored-reiki (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't make assumptions about what I did read and I did not read. This is my score sheet from the University of Amsterdam: [1]. I got a 7.3 out of maximum 10.0 for Western Esoteric (Hermetic I). tgeorgescu (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright that’s cool, I didn’t ask but alright.

But why are you trying to constantly prove something to to me — a stranger — anyway? Shouldn’t your knowledge be enough that you don’t need to prove it? Uncensored-reiki (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The point was: not only that I'm acquainted with esoteric works, but I also know to write about such works with academic objectivity. And that's precisely how Wikipedia handles it. We don't write "Rudolf Steiner is the best!" or "Jiddu Krishnamurti is the best!", but we write about them like we would write an academic dissertation about them for the University of Amsterdam. I.e. we don't state that Steiner was right or wrong about how to know higher worlds, but we certainly state about him that he was a pseudoscientist pur sang. You see, Wikipedia is a hard-core encyclopedia like Britannica and Larousse, it cannot afford to be "neutral" in respect to mainstream science. We fully endorse mainstream science, that's what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Read Carl Jung

As far as I know he is a more credible person than Jimmy Wales. Uncensored-reiki (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

C.G. Jung was basically an impostor: his theory of archetypes lacks empirical evidence, besides he conflated the context of discovery with the context of justification. Woolly x wooly = extremely fluffy. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Where are your 6 citations? Are you saying he didn’t exist or he was a different person?

The guy has many books out there. Have you read any of his work? - or are you one of those people who doesn’t see both sides of a story before you come to a conclusion? Uncensored-reiki (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The young man who stated he saw the phallus of the Sun was not uneducated, and Mithras Evangelium was a popular reading in his social circles. Jung lied that it happened before the publication of that book. And speaking as someone who has studied epistemology, it was an unnecessary lie: who cares about what Jung did in the context of discovery? What matters is the context of justification, and the story about the phallus of the Sun does not belong in the context of justification. WP:CB uttered in order to fool the world that his theory had empirical evidence.

Source: https://www.hgi.org.uk/resources/delve-our-extensive-library/interviews/mysterious-jung-his-cult-lies-he-told-and-occult tgeorgescu (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think you fully comprehend what he meant by that.

I won’t bother explaining it because anything I explain to you, you won’t believe anyway since that is in your personality.

Do you know what the word “neurotic” means? Uncensored-reiki (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yup, "neurotic" is an old-fashioned term which psychiatrists no longer use.

Also check Storr, A. (2015). Feet Of Clay: The Power and Charisma of Gurus. Free Press. ISBN 978-1-5011-2208-8.: Storr was deeply into psychoanalysis, but certainly not blinded by its personality cult (both Freud and Jung). tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That doesn’t prove you know what it means. Can you define it for me? Uncensored-reiki (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, you're barking at the wrong tree. I don't use outdated psychiatric diagnoses from the garbage bin of psychiatry. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I was just trying to imply that you would probably be what the use to consider neurotic.

Let’s just say my telepathy tells me this. Uncensored-reiki (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

"Neurotic" no longer means anything: it is an abandoned term, no longer used by mainstream professionals. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It means a state of heightened excitability and anxiety. It still has a definition you know.

Of course it’s been abandoned, most psychiatrists are probably neurotic. Most of the ones I have met seemed to be self-medicating or self-prescribing.

Did you know Freud had a fondness for cocaine? Uncensored-reiki (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Tell me tell you straight: Kekulé's dream revealing the formula of benzene belongs to the context of discovery. It is an anecdote he told to his friends. It is not how he justified the formula of benzene in scientific publications. It does not belong in the context of justification.

Also, the point was: Wikipedia Community has norms and values. One of the norms is that you don't perform many WP:PROFRINGE edits. I mean: admins will block you if you make too many WP:PROFRINGE edits, or you could receive topic bans so that you may no longer edit articles upon specific topics, like having to do with pseudoscience. I'm not jury, judge, and executioner, but you should know that WP:AE is just around the corner. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that doesn’t bother me at all. I know Wikipedia is not a good place to get esoteric information. It’s useful in some aspects, but I would be better off going to the source material. I prefer books anyway.

It’s a shame when personal opinion tries to present itself as factual information.

It would be nice if they stick to presenting information without saying whether or not it’s true. I mean they have a lot of information posted about various gods and goddesses, from various religions, but they don’t go on preaching it like it’s all fabricated mythology.

So I am guessing you don’t want to discuss Freud and cocaine? Just joking. Uncensored-reiki (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)