Jo Esoteric

Welcome

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Homeopathy, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, see:

• Policy on neutral point of view
• Guideline on spam
• Guideline on external links
• Guideline on conflict of interest

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and how to develop articles
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Article wizard for creating new articles
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Verbal chat 19:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You should also have a look at our Reliable Source policy (blogs aren't suitable sources), and from your username it seems you may be connected with the url you are adding, so you should probably review the conflict of interest policy - though that's probably not a huge problem. Thanks, Verbal chat 19:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

In reply to your email, if I remove the reference (which is not a valid reference, see above), then I have to also remove the now unsupported text. If there are changes you think should stand, either make those changes and attach a source that does meet our (wikipedia) criteria, or start a discussion on the article talk page. There was nothing personal in my actions. Please review the above guidelines. Best, Verbal chat 20:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Sibiu, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Sibiu. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The current information on Sibiu and Hahnemann is incorrect, and it doesn't cite any sources anyway. Hahnemann was in Sibiu in 1777, not 1797 and he did not establish a laboratory there. Keeping the information on Wikipedia would be perpetrating false information which becomes a sort of 'authority'. I have added the link to Esoteric Coffeehouse because this is where I have published the results of my research, performed in Sibiu, which I also presented at an international conference in Strasbourg, France last year.

I read the policy regarding original research, but I am wondering if this inhibits serious researchers in making corrections or bringing details that corrects some of Wikipedia's assertions.

So my question is: would Wikipedia be willing to perpetrate something false because the truth does not fit its policies? Or what do you recommend to do? Jo Esoteric (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If you've done research, then great. Just cite your source(s), rather than your own body of work. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability,

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

If the "truth" doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies, then how would you know it's the truth? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My answer would be: because there is a high probability that it is the truth. I don't believe that we know the absolute truth (in fact that is a whole philosophical discussion), but I think we can do our best to approximate it. In practice, and since I'm talking about a specific issue: Wikipedia stated in the 'Sibiu' page that Hahnemann was in Sibiu in 1797 and opened the first homeopathic laboratory. There was no citation to this affirmation, so I would consider it from the start possibly untrue. Secondly, I went to the source, in Sibiu, and talked to some reputed sources there (the curators and historians of the chief Sibiu museums) and they confirmed that Hahnemann was there in 1777 and never opened a homeopathic laboratory. The problem of course is that nobody published this, so the only source I have is my conference presentation, where I acknowledge those primary sources. The problem I have with Wikipedia's policy is that, according to it, I cannot cite my own work, even though it has been presented at a scholarly conference and reiterated in my blog (a report on the conference). Since I can't do that, Wikipedia cannot benefit from the research. In the meantime, since I have deleted the Hahnemann's mention because it is uncited, Wikipedia would not propagate what I call a 'myth', but it does not have the 'truth' (or most likely truth if you will) either. Eventually, this is fine by me - I'm not seeking Wikipedia celebrity, I believe in my own research too much to seek that, but I was just mentioning this because I think that the policy inhibits Wikipedia acquiring up-to-date research quickly and from its source. If a reputed scholar who is also a computer fanatic would try to add his own published work on Wikipedia, it would be rejected just because he 'self-added' it. There you go - it's just my two cents really. In any case, all this discussion and rather cold reception of my contributions (due to what I perceive as an inflexible application of policy) has put a damp on my interest in contributing to Wikipedia, but those are just my personal feelings. The irony is that I have noticed some people have quoted from my work, but referred to my Scribd site rather than the Esoteric Coffeehouse one, and for that sole reason it wasn't erased - apparently Scribd is more reliable than my blog (even though in Scribd I have re-published EC articles)! Jo Esoteric (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are contesting something that has no WP:RS then you can just remove it, or place a {{cn}} tag, and then say why you have done that on the talk page. Your own research can't be used unless you get it published by a reputable journal, or it otherwise reaches the RS criteria. The main problem with your contributions was the addition of your blog. Once you understand RS, and use the sources you have found that qualify to be RS, I'm sure you'll make much better progress. Verbal chat 09:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)