Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Evidence presented by ScottishFinnishRadish: will amend, per my talk page. |
Tgeorgescu (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 45:
How I've been saying this should be handled since the beginning: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053518583&diffmode=source] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053684382] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&diff=1054775924&oldid=1054774317&diffmode=source]
==Evidence presented by tgeorgescu==
There is [[WP:CONSENSUS]] to oppose edits contrary to: [[WP:FRINGE]], [[WP:MEDRS]]; [[WP:LUNATICS]]; [[WP:CHOPSY]]; [[WP:GOODBIAS]]; [[WP:DUE]], [[WP:PSCI]] and [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]; [[WP:ARBPS]] and [[WP:ARBCAM]]. So, this isn't a case against [[organized skepticism]]. Organized skepticism is highly valued in societies based upon science and technology. Skeptics are in this respect welcome to edit Wikipedia, since they endorse science well-done and scholarship well-done. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 16:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
==Evidence presented by {your user name}==
| |||