Bradypus Tamias
Bradypus Tamias, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi Bradypus Tamias! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC) |
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! edit
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Interstellarity T 🌟 17:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Attempts at Promoting Pseudoscience on Wikipedia edit
I get that you're a cryptozoologist and you're keen to promote the subculture, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Attempting to present figures such as Bernard Heuvelmans as academically accepted biologists rather than founding figures of cryptozoology is unacceptable. Before moving forward, I recommend that you review WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- I am not trying to promote anything, certainly not any "subculture," which cryptozoology is not. Bernard Heuvelmans was a trained zoologist, and I fail to see why his opinion on a supposed animal, an opinion cited in a peer-reviewed article by a different author, should be considered unreliable. Leaving out any information about the fact that in earlier folklore the mapinguari is described as ape-like, not sloth-like, creates an inbalanced view of the subject. It is clear to me from your inexplicable actions regarding the Edentata article that you are heavily biased and are not acting in good faith. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- We stick to reliable sources on Wikipedia, and reliable sources describe cryptozoology as both a pseudoscience and a subculture. If you have reliable sources discussing the folklore record on this particular entity, bring them to the table. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- I added two reliable sources which you knew to be reliable, but which you still removed. You finally stopped removing this information in the end, but not after much wrangling and deliberate evasion of the question. I would appreciate an explanation, because from where I am, it looked like you were being pointlessly obstructive, especially when you removed all the information because I hadn't cited the page number. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Page numbers are a requirement for verification, and the article contained misattributions (as I mentioned), which is obviously why the material was removed. I'm also hoping you have reliable sources for Ennedi tiger (with page numbers), as this article is next on the rewrite slate. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of pseudoscience and fringe concepts. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- The article did not contain any misattributions, and I do not understand why you persist in insisting it did, so you have yet again failed to explain your former removal of my academic sources. And you might easily have found the page references yourself, or let me know on my talk page or on the article's talk page, instead of removing it all. One of my first edits on Wikipedia was to fix a faulty accessdate on a history article reference by going through the article's edit history and finding when the ref was added. I suppose you would've just removed the entire paragraph? Regarding the Ennedi tiger article, I consider my sources to be reliable, and I will (eventually, and after some preparation) contest your belief that they are not. Also, apologies for going back to the start of this conversation, but I have to say that I am not a cryptozoologist, nor do I consider myself anything near an expert on the subject. Cryptozoology is simply one of my many interests. And again, I am not "promoting" anything, I am trying to fix bad articles. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Again: Cryptozoology#Reception_and_pseudoscience, WP:RS. Find reliable sources—with page numbers, rather than expecting others to clean up behind you—or please wait until you do, as you're otherwise simply wasting my time and your own. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- I was not aware that page numbers were a total requirement. Thank you for once again addressing only one of my comments and totally ignoring my other complaints about your sloppy, biased editing, and for citing something you wrote yourself. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- "Citing something you wrote yourself"? What on earth are you talking about? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- I was intending for my previous message to be my last, but I suppose I owe you an explanation. I assume, based on a quick look at page history, and on your other edits, that the content of "Reception and pseudoscience," which I assume you are citing as proof of how the subject is viewed on Wikipedia, was written or added by yourself. If it wasn't, and/or if you are not citing it for that purpose, then I apologise in advance. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- In fact, I am not the sole author of said section, though this fact is irrelevant. If you have a problem with how the academic community views pseudosciences like cryptozoology, ufology, and Young Earth creationism, I suggest you reach out to them rather than me (or Wikipedia, for that matter). :bloodofox: (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- I simply felt that it was a bit off to link to something which I believed (wrongly, apparently, for which I apologise) was added by you to try and prove some sort of consenseus. And in fact, I do intend to try and get general agreement for a more neutral coverage of cryptozoology on Wikipedia, but not any time soon. Also, please don't assume that I'm a creationist or even religious at all, because I'm neither. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Having reviewed the article, I should apologise for one of my comments above, regarding Heuvelmans' opinion, which I wrongly believed you had removed in its entirety. I had described Heuvelmans as a zoologist instead of a cryptozoologist because you had removed similar statements using the term "cryptozoologist," and I expected you would do the same to that sentence. Whether he's described on the page as a zoologist or a cryptozoologist doesn't matter to me at all, I just think it's important for the primate viewpoint to be mentioned. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- In fact, I am not the sole author of said section, though this fact is irrelevant. If you have a problem with how the academic community views pseudosciences like cryptozoology, ufology, and Young Earth creationism, I suggest you reach out to them rather than me (or Wikipedia, for that matter). :bloodofox: (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- I was intending for my previous message to be my last, but I suppose I owe you an explanation. I assume, based on a quick look at page history, and on your other edits, that the content of "Reception and pseudoscience," which I assume you are citing as proof of how the subject is viewed on Wikipedia, was written or added by yourself. If it wasn't, and/or if you are not citing it for that purpose, then I apologise in advance. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- "Citing something you wrote yourself"? What on earth are you talking about? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- I was not aware that page numbers were a total requirement. Thank you for once again addressing only one of my comments and totally ignoring my other complaints about your sloppy, biased editing, and for citing something you wrote yourself. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Again: Cryptozoology#Reception_and_pseudoscience, WP:RS. Find reliable sources—with page numbers, rather than expecting others to clean up behind you—or please wait until you do, as you're otherwise simply wasting my time and your own. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- The article did not contain any misattributions, and I do not understand why you persist in insisting it did, so you have yet again failed to explain your former removal of my academic sources. And you might easily have found the page references yourself, or let me know on my talk page or on the article's talk page, instead of removing it all. One of my first edits on Wikipedia was to fix a faulty accessdate on a history article reference by going through the article's edit history and finding when the ref was added. I suppose you would've just removed the entire paragraph? Regarding the Ennedi tiger article, I consider my sources to be reliable, and I will (eventually, and after some preparation) contest your belief that they are not. Also, apologies for going back to the start of this conversation, but I have to say that I am not a cryptozoologist, nor do I consider myself anything near an expert on the subject. Cryptozoology is simply one of my many interests. And again, I am not "promoting" anything, I am trying to fix bad articles. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Page numbers are a requirement for verification, and the article contained misattributions (as I mentioned), which is obviously why the material was removed. I'm also hoping you have reliable sources for Ennedi tiger (with page numbers), as this article is next on the rewrite slate. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of pseudoscience and fringe concepts. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- I added two reliable sources which you knew to be reliable, but which you still removed. You finally stopped removing this information in the end, but not after much wrangling and deliberate evasion of the question. I would appreciate an explanation, because from where I am, it looked like you were being pointlessly obstructive, especially when you removed all the information because I hadn't cited the page number. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- We stick to reliable sources on Wikipedia, and reliable sources describe cryptozoology as both a pseudoscience and a subculture. If you have reliable sources discussing the folklore record on this particular entity, bring them to the table. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived edit
|
|
Hi Bradypus Tamias! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Jérôme Becker has been accepted edit
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: Olivier Pain (journalist) has been accepted edit
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Worldbruce (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)