AntiSemanticCanard
AntiSemanticCanard, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi AntiSemanticCanard! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
April 2021
edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Post-finasteride syndrome. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi AntiSemanticCanard! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AntiSemanticCanard reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: ). Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. I find it highly unlikely that this person isn't you or someone you are acquainted to in real life. Continuing down your current path of screaming bloody murder at the page is not going to get you anything but a longer block. At this point, I would recommend User:Cullen328 upgrade this to an indefinite block for inappropriate use of Wikipedia, but if he doesn't do so and you make any similar edits after this block is over, I will ask another admin to do so myself. Advocacy is not allowed on Wikipedia - we aren't some "breaking truth" website, and will not permit our articles/talk pages be used to advocate for something. If you truly are here to build an encyclopedia and not just advocate for something, show us by stepping away from anything finasteride related and edit some other topics for a while. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
No, that is not me. I'm not sure why editors keep accusing every person of being a sock puppet. I do not know this individual "in real life" or his/her online identity. It is possible for more than one person to know about a given topic. I'm also not sure what "advocacy" it is you keep accusing me of. I've never advocated for anything. My only edits are the removal of an obviously fraudulent claim. (Dermatologists being called scientists; dermatologists with a COI making extraordinary claims about "mass psychosis" in a predatory journal) I was told the hard and fast rule is this: "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." Claims of mass psychosis is an extraordinary claim, and it carries no weight when a dermatologist with a history of writing quack papers, makes the claim in a predatory journal. That doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Keeping that on the site devalues the entire project AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- You must advocate for your goal without violating the policy against edit warring. While you are blocked, please familiarize yourself with the legitimate forms of Dispute resolution. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- The claim (and the source) was so egregious I'm not sure how any editor on Wikipedia can think that's acceptable (when the rules explicitly state it isn't).AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- I am going to assume that you're here for the right reasons and offer some advice. You've said the claim is "obviously fraudulent" - then why is it not retracted from the journal it was published in? You've said the journal is "predatory" but you've provided absolutely no evidence that it is - you may wish to review what that actually means. You've also opined that a "dermatologist isn't a scientist" - and that's flat out baloney. Clinicians are at their core scientists - they may not be the ones doing the research, but any clinician is a scientist who reviews available data and makes decisions about patient care based on that. You've claimed that it's a "claim of mass psychosis" - which it isn't. It simply says that some people believe it may be a psychiatric disorder - which is not "extraordinary" when you actually read the review article which reaches that conclusion. You've said that the dermatologist has a "history of writing quack papers", and I've seen no evidence of such.Put simply, you're doing a lot of talk, but not providing a lot of evidence to back your claims up - or if you are, they're getting drowned out by your hyperbole and edit warring. If you intend to comment on this after your block, I encourage you to avoid words like "obviously fraudulent" and simply describe the facts - not your opinion. An example of this would be to say "I believe this is a predatory journal per [insert evidence here which proves it publishes substandard articles for pay]". Or, you could say "I do not believe this author should be allowed here because [link to papers of the author which have been retracted previously]". The advocacy you seem to be engaging in is an "anti-medical" advocacy - the type where you are arguing that the entire medical field is wrong, and there is an extremely dangerous thing that is being overlooked by everyone, and you're attempting to use Wikipedia to "legitimize" things that have no true clinical/scientific backing. The same tactics you're using (primarily WP:BLUDGEONING with WP:WALLSOFTEXT) have been used in other topics from vaccine safety to a purported biological link between someone's race/ethnicity and intelligence. So, if you're truly here in good faith and don't want to be lumped in with advocates like that, please take a step back and actually put some "meat on the bones of your comments" as the saying goes - back up your claims that it's a "predatory journal", "dermatologists aren't scientists", "history of writing quack papers", etc. Provide clear, hard evidence that will convince others of your viewpoint. If you can't do that, then nobody is going to change to your viewpoint just because you continue beating the point without providing proof. If you continue repeating the same thing over and over again, people will stop responding to you, and the claim will not have gotten consensus for removal (you've just forced everyone to leave the discussion alone) - which results in you being like the boy who cried wolf and nobody listens to you even if you may be right.I'm writing you this message in the hopes that maybe you are a good faith editor who simply is finding difficulty getting into the concept of an encyclopedia and consensus - please don't prove me wrong the second your block ends. I'm trying to help you form your arguments better in the chance that some of them are valid - and I'll be quite annoyed if you return to the behavior you exhibited before your block after. You can't use your talkpage right now to request others edit for you, but I don't think anyone would have a problem if you wanted to draft your evidence for the claims you're making here so people can help you identify where they're weak and need more evidence - so please feel free to do so while you are blocked, and you can ping me (use
{{ping|Berchanhimez}}as it appears on the page, not the edit window, to do so) if you'd like my input on your evidence for your claims. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez
- I am going to assume that you're here for the right reasons and offer some advice. You've said the claim is "obviously fraudulent" - then why is it not retracted from the journal it was published in? You've said the journal is "predatory" but you've provided absolutely no evidence that it is - you may wish to review what that actually means. You've also opined that a "dermatologist isn't a scientist" - and that's flat out baloney. Clinicians are at their core scientists - they may not be the ones doing the research, but any clinician is a scientist who reviews available data and makes decisions about patient care based on that. You've claimed that it's a "claim of mass psychosis" - which it isn't. It simply says that some people believe it may be a psychiatric disorder - which is not "extraordinary" when you actually read the review article which reaches that conclusion. You've said that the dermatologist has a "history of writing quack papers", and I've seen no evidence of such.Put simply, you're doing a lot of talk, but not providing a lot of evidence to back your claims up - or if you are, they're getting drowned out by your hyperbole and edit warring. If you intend to comment on this after your block, I encourage you to avoid words like "obviously fraudulent" and simply describe the facts - not your opinion. An example of this would be to say "I believe this is a predatory journal per [insert evidence here which proves it publishes substandard articles for pay]". Or, you could say "I do not believe this author should be allowed here because [link to papers of the author which have been retracted previously]". The advocacy you seem to be engaging in is an "anti-medical" advocacy - the type where you are arguing that the entire medical field is wrong, and there is an extremely dangerous thing that is being overlooked by everyone, and you're attempting to use Wikipedia to "legitimize" things that have no true clinical/scientific backing. The same tactics you're using (primarily WP:BLUDGEONING with WP:WALLSOFTEXT) have been used in other topics from vaccine safety to a purported biological link between someone's race/ethnicity and intelligence. So, if you're truly here in good faith and don't want to be lumped in with advocates like that, please take a step back and actually put some "meat on the bones of your comments" as the saying goes - back up your claims that it's a "predatory journal", "dermatologists aren't scientists", "history of writing quack papers", etc. Provide clear, hard evidence that will convince others of your viewpoint. If you can't do that, then nobody is going to change to your viewpoint just because you continue beating the point without providing proof. If you continue repeating the same thing over and over again, people will stop responding to you, and the claim will not have gotten consensus for removal (you've just forced everyone to leave the discussion alone) - which results in you being like the boy who cried wolf and nobody listens to you even if you may be right.I'm writing you this message in the hopes that maybe you are a good faith editor who simply is finding difficulty getting into the concept of an encyclopedia and consensus - please don't prove me wrong the second your block ends. I'm trying to help you form your arguments better in the chance that some of them are valid - and I'll be quite annoyed if you return to the behavior you exhibited before your block after. You can't use your talkpage right now to request others edit for you, but I don't think anyone would have a problem if you wanted to draft your evidence for the claims you're making here so people can help you identify where they're weak and need more evidence - so please feel free to do so while you are blocked, and you can ping me (use
- The claim (and the source) was so egregious I'm not sure how any editor on Wikipedia can think that's acceptable (when the rules explicitly state it isn't).AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
(User/say hi!) 20:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sigh. A lot to digest here. You asked this question: 'You've said the claim is "obviously fraudulent" - then why is it not retracted from the journal it was published in?' Because the journal is low-quality/predatory. It was published in a Dermatology journal and dermatologists have a financial interest in finasteride. There's a lot of misrepresentation and inaccurate data about Finasteride in dermatology journals. A lot of crap gets published in "peer-reviewed journals," which brings me to the next point. "You've said that the dermatologist has a 'history of writing quack papers', and I've seen no evidence of such." Oh boy. Here we go again. I've made the editors aware of the quackery this "scientist" has published. His "peer-reviewed" papers include such gems as "St. Agnes of Rome: patron saint for women with hair loss?" and "Minoxidil for endocrine therapy-induced alopecia in women with breast cancer-saint Agatha's blessing?" This is the third time I've had to post this. The editors are too lazy to research what this "scientist" has published. And the mental gymnastics you used to call this individual a "scientist" is quite frankly, embarrassing. This person is not a credentialed PhD and even if he were, that does not give him the expertise on "mass delusions." And yet again, here is another person accusing me of "advocacy" when I have engaged in exactly none of it. It is you who cannot distinguish between quality medical research/evidence based medicine and medical quackery. (Hint: Dermatologists making claims of "mass psychosis" and patron saints miraculously restoring hair is not medical science but quackery). I'll reiterate once again, I've never advocated for anything other than the removal of the claim made by a dermatologist (not a scientist, certainly not a scientist qualified in "mass psychosis"). Yet I'm being accused of all sort of vicious claims of sock-puppetry. And the ridiculous straw-man you used accusing me of "anti-medical advocacy" (whatever that is) and other ridiculous claims only bog this discussion down even further. 'And you're attempting to use Wikipedia to "legitimize" things that have no true clinical/scientific backing.' What are you even talking about? You must be reading something that isn't there, or suffering from some form of "mass psychosis" because I have never made any such claim trying to "legitimize" anything. It is YOU and other wikipedia editors trying to "legitimize" claims of "mass psychosis" and saints performing miracles of hair restoration. It appears Wikipedia editors like Alexbn have made it clear they have no interest in the discussion but only his crusade of what he calls "advocacy." Hence his histrionic war cries, "advocacy is not going to prevail." AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Publishing things you disagree with does not make them "quack papers". People without PhD degrees can be scientists too - and in fact there's a significant portion of the research community that considers an MD, DO, or other "professional doctorate" equivalent for research purposes. You once again here have gone from trying to provide evidence to a bunch of hoopla that doesn't matter whatsoever here. If this is the only evidence you have for these claims, that's not in line with what Wikipedia considers a predatory journal or quack paper. You don't have to agree. But Wikipedia runs on consensus, thus if people don't agree with you, you need to drop the stick and move on if you want to keep editing. Nobody is doing gymnastics here except you - you've gone and made some extraordinary claims that someone is a quack and you've provided nothing other than conspiracy theories to support those claims. Maybe you aren't in the medical field, but the medical field certainly does interest themselves with religion's impact on healthcare. Maybe you are an academic in that you believe the only people who are valid are those with PhDs, but that's not how the rest of the world operates. I could continue, but this response here made very clear that I'd be wasting my time, as you quickly (after about 2 sentences) went back into your crusade against this source. Your research on this author and journal are fine for whatever you want to believe, but we don't just listen to you about it on Wikipedia and you've provided no secondary sources that call this author a "quack", nor have you provided any secondary sources that call it a "predatory journal". Best of luck to you in your life, as I suspect that you'll be quickly indefinitely blocked as you're going to continue this crusade after your block expires. I can't tell what annoys me more - that you ignored my advice, or that you seriously are saying people with professional degrees can't be "scientists" because they don't have a PhD. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Substance-free reply. Exactly as expected. My "attack on the source" has been my only activity on this site, but for some reason you accuse me of trying to "legitimize" something (I'm not sure what exactly, you never did say.) I will continue my "crusade" (how nice of you to steal my verbiage) against medical quackery as it's important because people fall prey to charlatans like dermatologist (not scientist) Trueb. Falsely claiming someone to be an authority figure like a scientist is a massive breach of ethics. And the fraudulent claim that Trueb is a scientist will be archived and reported, as will the edits. Trueb has no business inserting his religious beliefs into medical practices. And his vested interest in finasteride gives him no right to call those harmed by the drug "delusional." Trueb has made it clear from the papers he has authored that he cannot separate his religious beliefs and personal interests from his professional responsibilities. It's extremely disheartening that Wikipedia gives someone like Trueb a platform. It devalues the site greatly AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Publishing things you disagree with does not make them "quack papers". People without PhD degrees can be scientists too - and in fact there's a significant portion of the research community that considers an MD, DO, or other "professional doctorate" equivalent for research purposes. You once again here have gone from trying to provide evidence to a bunch of hoopla that doesn't matter whatsoever here. If this is the only evidence you have for these claims, that's not in line with what Wikipedia considers a predatory journal or quack paper. You don't have to agree. But Wikipedia runs on consensus, thus if people don't agree with you, you need to drop the stick and move on if you want to keep editing. Nobody is doing gymnastics here except you - you've gone and made some extraordinary claims that someone is a quack and you've provided nothing other than conspiracy theories to support those claims. Maybe you aren't in the medical field, but the medical field certainly does interest themselves with religion's impact on healthcare. Maybe you are an academic in that you believe the only people who are valid are those with PhDs, but that's not how the rest of the world operates. I could continue, but this response here made very clear that I'd be wasting my time, as you quickly (after about 2 sentences) went back into your crusade against this source. Your research on this author and journal are fine for whatever you want to believe, but we don't just listen to you about it on Wikipedia and you've provided no secondary sources that call this author a "quack", nor have you provided any secondary sources that call it a "predatory journal". Best of luck to you in your life, as I suspect that you'll be quickly indefinitely blocked as you're going to continue this crusade after your block expires. I can't tell what annoys me more - that you ignored my advice, or that you seriously are saying people with professional degrees can't be "scientists" because they don't have a PhD. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sigh. A lot to digest here. You asked this question: 'You've said the claim is "obviously fraudulent" - then why is it not retracted from the journal it was published in?' Because the journal is low-quality/predatory. It was published in a Dermatology journal and dermatologists have a financial interest in finasteride. There's a lot of misrepresentation and inaccurate data about Finasteride in dermatology journals. A lot of crap gets published in "peer-reviewed journals," which brings me to the next point. "You've said that the dermatologist has a 'history of writing quack papers', and I've seen no evidence of such." Oh boy. Here we go again. I've made the editors aware of the quackery this "scientist" has published. His "peer-reviewed" papers include such gems as "St. Agnes of Rome: patron saint for women with hair loss?" and "Minoxidil for endocrine therapy-induced alopecia in women with breast cancer-saint Agatha's blessing?" This is the third time I've had to post this. The editors are too lazy to research what this "scientist" has published. And the mental gymnastics you used to call this individual a "scientist" is quite frankly, embarrassing. This person is not a credentialed PhD and even if he were, that does not give him the expertise on "mass delusions." And yet again, here is another person accusing me of "advocacy" when I have engaged in exactly none of it. It is you who cannot distinguish between quality medical research/evidence based medicine and medical quackery. (Hint: Dermatologists making claims of "mass psychosis" and patron saints miraculously restoring hair is not medical science but quackery). I'll reiterate once again, I've never advocated for anything other than the removal of the claim made by a dermatologist (not a scientist, certainly not a scientist qualified in "mass psychosis"). Yet I'm being accused of all sort of vicious claims of sock-puppetry. And the ridiculous straw-man you used accusing me of "anti-medical advocacy" (whatever that is) and other ridiculous claims only bog this discussion down even further. 'And you're attempting to use Wikipedia to "legitimize" things that have no true clinical/scientific backing.' What are you even talking about? You must be reading something that isn't there, or suffering from some form of "mass psychosis" because I have never made any such claim trying to "legitimize" anything. It is YOU and other wikipedia editors trying to "legitimize" claims of "mass psychosis" and saints performing miracles of hair restoration. It appears Wikipedia editors like Alexbn have made it clear they have no interest in the discussion but only his crusade of what he calls "advocacy." Hence his histrionic war cries, "advocacy is not going to prevail." AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)