User talk:YeshuaAdoni

Hi

Pseudoscience DS alert

I sent you the alert notice because you've been editing articles connected to antigravity research. Typically, no explanation is supposed to be provided. These notices are not intended to imply there is anything wrong with your contributions. It's not a warning, it's not punitive, and it has nothing to do with whether or not your edits were problematic. See Template:Ds/alert. It's a standard operating procedure to notify editors of the enhanced sanctions in the topic area, just so you are aware of the enhanced scrutiny your edits may undergo. It's up to you whether or not you keep it in your DS/aware box, the point is to prevent people from alerting you again.— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are peer reviewed papers on gravity anomalies (many are in Podkletnov a d Ning Li's Wikipedia articles), and I don't think the scientist that worked on or reviewed those papers would call it pseudoscience. Just because "anti-gravity" is in science-fiction doesn't always mean it's always pseudoscience. YeshuaAdoni (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To follow-up, Wikipedia does not list general "anti-gravity" as pseudoscience. It only lists "Electrogravitics", steming from claims of Thomas Townsend Brown. YeshuaAdoni (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And there was issues with my edits, because after the alert a half dozen edits were changed or reverted (some of them they restored clear errors). YeshuaAdoni (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee decision also covers so-called "fringe science." It also allows broad interpretation of what qualifies. See WP:FRINGE. I have no idea what edits you're talking about.— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Fringe theories in a nutshell: 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"

Peer reviewed science papers do not meet this description. The WP: FRINGE also says: "Peer-reviewed sources help establish the level of acceptance".YeshuaAdoni (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. I no longer find this conversation productive or useful and will no longer respond. I have notified you of the sanctions in place, and therefore have done my due diligence. Good luck, I hope you find what you're looking for on Wikipedia. Remember to read the relevant guidelines, and happy editing!— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]