User talk:ThomasKCH

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 12:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Graham Hancock seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Removing a hidden notice telling you not to change text should have been a hint it was a bad idea and that you should use the talk page. Please never do this again, use talk pages to get consensus. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear Mr Weller, I appreciate your response.

I edited the article as it stated that Hancock supports pseudoscience , he dose not. He is an investigative journalist who has developed a theory supported by geological and historical studies, studies conducted by academics who followed accepted scientific methods. The inaccuracy of the statement alongside the instruction “Do not change it to softer words (e.g., unconventional) or it will be reverted” clearly demonstrates that the author of the page did not intend to be neutral, violating clause 3.3 of Wikipedia’s Universal Code of Conduct, as the miss-use of the term Pseudoscientific is libelous and is a clear disregard of the fundamental principles of objectivity enshrined within this encyclopedia’s mission.

I find it intriguing that the guidelines contained within the hyperlink that you provided regarding Neutrality do not appear to have been followed by the author of the article to which you are referring, the use of the term Pseudoscientific has a strong sense of judgment and contempt. Likewise the use of phrases such as “He attempts to show…” is once again condescending and undue. Hancock’s work is supported by scientific evidence and similar views are held by members of the scientific community, admittedly it’s is a minority, however calling him a Pseudoscientific writer is not justified. The author also did not spend sufficient time in their explanation of Hancock’s theory, in two cases proving links to biographical articles rather than paleoclimatology. My edit did not alter any factual content contained within the article, but removed the term pseudoscientific as it implies an absence of scientific evidence or consensus, however Hancock has repeatedly cited academic studies in his work.

I find that the original article was the one that was the one that “seemed less than neutral”, it was my primary intention to remain objective. My edit was solely based of factual information rather than opinion. I apologise that I used the wrong method to conduct the rectification, I will conduct myself in a more orthodox manner and request the appropriate change over the talk page. I was confused at the time as it stated that “this channel is now closed” when I opened the page.

Yours sincerely Thomas H ThomasKCH (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)