Basiliki96

Welcome!

Hello, Basiliki96, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions 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!  McSly (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with... Hello, I am accused of not being conform to wikipedia standards. There is an article with too much false information, and I don't get how this is conform to your standards, but comments aren't. I changed it adding a lot of scientific bibliography and sources and they rechanged it saying it is my personnal view. But it is also the personnal opinion of whoever wrote it first. His references were ridiculous, where I added many scientific articles. So I believe that you need to mark this article as disputed. So that people who read it pose questions and do their research elsewhere, as your platform unfortunately does not leave place to real scientific disputes. They cannot call a practice they don't agree with pseudoscience, when there are many scientists studying it and practicing it. They neglect a reality. And you cannot call all complementary and alternative medicine pseudoscience on wikipedia (they did the same with acupuncture), when it is recognised by the WHO and by doctors everywhere, just because someone who wrote an article first doesn't believe in it. I am an anesthesiologist and pain doctor, I practice real hard medicine (like lung transplantations and other big surgery), interventional pain techniques etc and I don't mind helping some patients with a complementary medicine that does no harm and helps many of them. But studying for 2 years in medical scool in Paris the auricular neuromodulation between doctors and then having someone call it pseudoscience on Wikipedia and being put to my place for responding to this, I this it discredits a lot Wikipedia. Thank you. Basiliki96 (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to find a different topic area to work on instead for now, as the article in question falls under two separate contentious topics. A topic area doesn't get declared a contentious topic without a long history of aggressive partisan editing, and the declaration is basically a nuclear option opening up anyone in the defined topic area, writ large, to Arbitration-strength sanctions.

I will not close out this helpme, as this doesn't exactly answer your question, but please consider my words. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 20:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You need to discuss the matter on the article's talk page if you have been reverted multiple times. If you need extra opinions, ask at one of the related WikiProjects (listed at the top of the talk page), ask for a Third Opinion, or try Dispute Resolution. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice! Actually I am completely new to editing on Wikipedia, I knew nothing of all this and I was just shocked to see that kind of misinformation or strong opinions and no healthy dialogue beneath it. I was also shoched to see the same thing on the acupuncture article (I don't practice it but every doctor knows about it). I believe in western medicine and it is funny for me to be the advocate for alternative medicine, but I feel insulted when they call, on such a popular site, a practice that I use often at my hospital (because it is demanded and many collegues do it and it helps people) as pseudoscience...I'll abandon the topic but it is just sad for Wikipedia. Basiliki96 (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)