User talk:AvantiShri
October 2021[edit]
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Timnit Gebru, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. WesGeek (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Now 22[edit]
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.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Welcome![edit]
Hello, AvantiShri, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Pam Reynolds case does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! jps (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- What is your basis for asserting that the Journal of Near Death studies does not count as "print"? Even if you claim that their peer review is flawed, the statement I objected to the removal of was that that this was the perspective of researchers of near-death phenomena. Wikipedia's own policy regarding peer review states that even when you have doubts about a journal's peer review, the journal is reliable for showing "the views of the groups represented by those journals". AvantiShri (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- JNDS is a so-called "pocket journal". You are correct that it promotes the perspective of credulous researchers of near-death phenomena (that is, they do not accommodate skeptics, for example, as the organization that runs the journal does not admit that the skeptical approach is valid). The only way we can include the opinions of such is if they have been noticed by third-party sources who are independent of the community of believers. This is because there is no other way for us to decide what is a prominent or notable claim that the near-death believers make and what is one that is so out-of-the-way that it is has been essentially ignored. To do otherwise would be a different approach: a "credulipedia" that would "accept all comers". It's just not what the consensus rules for this website are. jps (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- I have brought this up in other places, but to repeat it here for anyone else reading this: Wikipedia's policy states that "views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth)". Even if one believes that flat earth claims are in the same category as the idea that the formation of awareness (a long-standing open problem in physics) is linked to a phenomenon that involves distortions in spacetime (literally all that you'd need to postulate to allow for an explanation of these events; no need to involve the "paranormal", physics at very large and very small scales is weird enough to make room for this), wikipedia's own policy states that you should make room for those views in articles devoted to those claims. AvantiShri (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- JNDS is a so-called "pocket journal". You are correct that it promotes the perspective of credulous researchers of near-death phenomena (that is, they do not accommodate skeptics, for example, as the organization that runs the journal does not admit that the skeptical approach is valid). The only way we can include the opinions of such is if they have been noticed by third-party sources who are independent of the community of believers. This is because there is no other way for us to decide what is a prominent or notable claim that the near-death believers make and what is one that is so out-of-the-way that it is has been essentially ignored. To do otherwise would be a different approach: a "credulipedia" that would "accept all comers". It's just not what the consensus rules for this website are. jps (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that you have a soft spot for poorly considered research that makes a variety of paranormal claims. That's fine, Wikipedia covers that, but only to the extent that third parties have considered such research. You have yet to demonstrate that anyone who is an expert in, say, physics, takes your claims about a physical model for awareness seriously and using this as a motivation for editing Wikipedia is a classic issue we encounter here when WP:PROFRINGE editing happens. This is what I think you are running afoul of here. jps (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jps (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)