User talk:SamwiseGSix

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! tgeorgescu (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Very helpful links and impressive work/track record, it's good to be here :) SamwiseGSix (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Rudolf Steiner are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes of course - all very good resources no doubt and happy to keep discussions very focused in the topic-specific talk pages, especially the more sensitive ones. Hopefully information and perspective relevant to improvements of the pages in question (shared NPOV standards, ontological/epistomological comparison etc) can be shareable within reason in such a setting as well.

On the subject of user talk pages, in browsing through your talk and homepages I did very much appreciate (if I may say so) the inclusion of reference to the heroic service of V. Admiral Arkhipov and Col. Petrov - they sure did help save humanity by not launching their nuclear payloads in '62 and '83 respectively, nice add there :)

Their service in helping preserve humanity’s existence in the face of existential nuclear threat deserves great accolades, especially in these turbulent times today where the exponential explosion of AI on top of the continued lack of a comprehensive diplomatic framework seems to compound existential/catastrophic risk to ever higher levels.. We may genuinely want to to see similar capabilities and sense in our fellow humans and leadership (has humanity yet developed common sense in the face of the AI? Common decency? Etc) in the short term here as well..

Very interesting related existentialism mentions also (applicable in philosophy of technology et al) and quote in Latin around homeland and Plato you’ve featured also, a bit more of an Aristotelian here though maybe myself I suppose ;)

Heidegger as you mention while indeed quite interesting (including in philosophy of technology) did flow somewhat with the materialistic presuppositions of his times right (common refrains of existence precedes essence from the Existentialists etc) and has also been recently more closely scrutinized for latent party affiliations hm

Ah and yes sure Jung was quite the fellow, somewhat of a focus on the unconscious though perhaps eh - I suppose an appropriate primary focus at this point could be somewhere around 'how might we be able to help humanity even survive' the turbulence etc we're experiencing these days, and/or perhaps 'how could we help humanity even continue to exist' as AI and AGI develop in the coming years as well? Certainly open to follow up thoughts in this area on my user talk page here in addition where helpful - including perhaps around philosophy of technology and diplomacy etc, onwards and upwards ;) SamwiseGSix (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Anthroposophy for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Anthroposophy, you may be blocked from editing. Your shenanigans about materialism have become tedious. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to complementary and alternative medicine, 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2023 (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.
• We are biased towards Oneirology, and biased against Oneiromancy.

And we are not going to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

References

November 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Anthroposophy. For inane arguments like for the sake of a decent and humane future. Humanity faces existential risk. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Anthroposophy. See WP:PSCI, which is part and parcel of WP:NPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

RSN notice

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Anthroposophy. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want to know why you might be blocked, read WP:REHASH. Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is SamwiseGSix. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

AE discussion closed

Hello SamwiseGSix. Please see the decision related to the AE request opened November 13th relating to pseudoscience. No sanctions have been applied against you but you have been formally warned for not following directions of reviewing administrators to cease constant editing of your statement and going over the 500 word count without permission. It is politely suggested that you might want to find other areas of interest on Wikipedia to edit, at least for a while, to let things calm down. Please review the comments from the reviewing administrators as there are suggestions in there that could be useful. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes thank you and fair enough, I have been closely reviewing the helpful comments from the reviewing administrators here as well. As filing editor had been going over on wordcount I had been encouraged to add response comments below my statement at limit and thought I had also requested permission in the process via edit comment, apologies if this was the incorrect channel to do so - it does appear in hindsight that going through a talk page for example would be better. It being first my AE encounter here (good to see editors acknowledging other more fitting resolution channels in hindsight) I did not fully understand all of the statement editing instructions initially (again, apologies) but do believe that I have a much better understanding of them now. Yes I am happy to work on editing in other areas of Wikipedia as things settle, including recommended articles for neutral or encyclopedic tone, and also around themes of AI alignment, diplomacy, existential risk, philosophy of technology, and more. Thank you for your and your team's help in administrating this process, and for the fair update overall here as well. SamwiseGSix (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Rudolf Steiner. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)