Konanen

Question for any administrator available

No idea, whether I am doing this correctly, but I have a problem with Italian phonology, because, and I don't know how this happened, it has headings, which say "6-10 months", "18 months", "12 months", etc. And I cannot find the edit thereto, otherwise maybe I would have reverted it. Could somebody look into that weird thing? Much appreciated,

-Konanen (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think those headings are intended to be there. That section explains the ages at which an Italian child begins to use the different sounds. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Cool beans, thank you! -Konanen (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Konanen!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to complementary and alternative medicine, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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) 19:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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) 19:58, 5 June 2024 (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 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) 16:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Please do not badger my talk page. Thank you. -Konanen (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Hello

Hi there. While I appreciate your recent efforts at NPOVN, I do have something to say ...

I haven’t heard of any policies saying that the comments/opinions of a tbanned user have any problems and shouldn’t be quoted or need to be striked out. Currently my name appears in your recent post as + Dustfreeworld (topic banned). I don’t mind as much that you don’t include my comments as you include others’, but I *do* mind my presence appears as something like “+ Dustfreeworld (topic banned). If you don’t want to include my comments, that’s fine, just don’t mention me at all.

BTW, it would be great if a few words can be added to make it clear that most opposing comments only appear recently (well ...after my edit of the article), as I don’t want people to think that I’ve misinterpreted a no-consensus situation as the opposite (as the no-consensus situation only appears later).

Thanks so much. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I am very sorry, I did not mean to imply that your opinion was not worthwhile, but I was not sure if it was countable/considerable given the (very overreacting) tban. I also did not want to hide their existence, because you do raise some good points, and they are part of the public record! How would you like me proceed here? -Konanen (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2024 (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 Konanen. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello again

@Konanen; thanks for the reply :-) Just in case you haven’t noticed, we have a gadget that can "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" if it has been enabled through Special:Preferences § Gadgets. [1] I don’t think that’s a good idea. There are many alternative ways to indicate the same thing (e.g. User Bob**). In real life, even for someone who was dead or for criminals who committed the most serious crime, we don’t “strike out their names” in news reports. This is not the issue at hand though.

It would be much appreciated if “+ Dustfreeworld (topic banned)“ can be changed to “+ Dustfreeworld”, as I’m still around and what it looks like now can be confusing / misunderstood and potentially disparaging. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from Reiki, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned per this AE report.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello 03

--Dustfreeworld (talk) has hugged you! Hugs promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better (and hopefully wasn't meant as an invasion of personal space). Spread the WikiLove by hugging at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Hug others by adding {{subst:Hug}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

How are you ?

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)