User talk:Wikid

Cool. Feel free to expand the section as you go if there is more stuff that is interesting. The article can grow a bit (hehehe) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about OraTaiao: New Zealand Climate and Health

Hello, Wikid, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OraTaiao: New Zealand Climate and Health whether the article OraTaiao: New Zealand Climate and Health should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving OraTaiao: New Zealand Climate and Health, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede 66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
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) 07:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I edited my comment to (hopefully) reduce contention. Wikid (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reflections

Turns out I've had an account for 22 years, rightly described as a WikiGnome. It's amazing that Wikipedia functions at all, when there are so many different strongly held views. I've avoided editing, because of my tendency to lapse in etiquette - I have my own strong views. Can editors who sometimes step out of line still usefully contribute? The best approach seems to be to apologise and withdraw. Does anyone see themself in this? Wikid (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a machine for generating consensus upon facts, according to the WP:RULES, among those willing to be persuaded by WP:BESTSOURCES. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your engagement and like the machine analogy. There is some quite deep philosophy there. I'll go to those pages. Wikid (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I carelessly stuck my finger in the gears and got it pinched. I can see that the definition of pseudoscience is a high level function for this machine (a big cog), and I can see why it needs to be protected. It is philosophically fascinating but I'm hesitant to engage with it because it is so important, is not my specialist topic, and I know people think about it deeply. On the other hand, WP:BOLD, and there are good sources in the literature. Do I dare to go to the pseudoscience page and start talking. No answer is expected. Wikid (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]