Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:40, 25 July 2021

My Talk Page

Please never post to my Talk page again. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Tendentious_editing, "Some editors routinely tell other editors that they disagree with to "Stay off my talk page." The editors who do this tend to have long lists of folks that have been "banned." Talk pages are the fundamental medium used for editors to interact. Except in specific and clear cases of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, such "banning" is highly problematic and an indication that the banning editor is having serious problems cooperating with others." I have been nothing but civil in my discussion of the Shiatsu matter, you have participated in edit warring, and you were repeatedly abusive to me in your talk page revision history. MarshallKe (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, you're on a short list of editors banned from my Talk page; most of them are blocked or banned. I regard WP:POINTy and irrelevant templates, like yours, as trolling. Alexbrn (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". My additions to your talk page were in good faith. Remember to WP:AFG. Your accusation of my disrupting Misplaced Pages is false and smells of retaliation. MarshallKe (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallKe: As uninvolved party and as a sidenote to this discussion I would kindly remind you that before making warnings like this: ; you are at best expected to provide evidence. I also agree with you that banning from talk pages may be done only in cases of gross WP:PGs violations and there is no necessity for such rude summary comments like this:17:00, July 24, 2021 - ...: Fuck right off». (talk page stalker) AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha. I think my "This is in reference to your "fuck off" comment in the revision history." was sufficient evidence. Should I have provided a link? MarshallKe (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it is worth pointing out that if you continue with such behaviour, you need to get used to such responses to it. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Just so we're clear

As a gesture of good faith, I'd like to share that I personally strongly suspect accupuncture and most of Chinese traditional medicine to be quackery. I scheduled a massage the other day and I discovered that the therapist was an accupuncture/pressure/Chinese traditional medicine practitioner. The things she was trying to get me to believe came across as some of the most quack stuff I've ever heard. We need to promote scientific skepticism, and the way to do that is to promote the scientific method and discourage making claims that can't be proven. Negative claims such as "qi does not exist" is itself, a claim that cannot be proven. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, regardless of whether it is a negative claim or a positive claim, and a Proof of impossibility is an extremely high standard that is usually not achievable outside the realm of mathematics.

WP:FRINGE is not a blank check to make unproven negative claims against pseudoscientific topics. It is an obligation to hold accepted scientific sources in higher regard than nonscientific sources. We must not fall into the same trap as pseudoscience believers by making unproven claims. We must adhere to the principles of science and faithfully paraphrase the scientific sources, which I have done, which has been reverted now in favor of text that reads as a dogmatistic fundamentalistic afterthought and misleads the reader into thinking that science operates in the same way as a religion. MarshallKe (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)