User contributions for Flowcode
Results for Flowcode talk block log uploads logs global block log global account filter log
A user with 23 edits. Account created on 17 January 2021.
24 January 2021
- 00:5200:52, 24 January 2021 diff hist +23 Mediumship Better phrasing. Tag: Reverted
- 00:5100:51, 24 January 2021 diff hist +120 Mediumship Science cannot disprove mediumship. I've been told that I'm "edit warring" over calling mediumship pseudoscience, but I've learned my place now. Mediumship is not pseudoscience. Hence it is important to point out that science has been unable to disprove it's mediumistic abilities. Tag: Reverted
- 00:4300:43, 24 January 2021 diff hist −24 Mediumship I'm sorry, but there is no proof that this doesn't exist, hence there is no reason to have that word in there. Please respect MOS:WEASEL. Tags: Undo Reverted
23 January 2021
- 12:5012:50, 23 January 2021 diff hist −24 Mediumship Purportedly is offensive to genuine mediumistic believers, and surely doesn't comprise its definition. Tag: Reverted
22 January 2021
- 21:2221:22, 22 January 2021 diff hist −24 Mediumship Purportedly has no reference, hence I'm removing it. Tag: Reverted
- 21:1921:19, 22 January 2021 diff hist −5 Mediumship Better phrasing to show the mediumistic validity. Tag: Reverted
- 21:1621:16, 22 January 2021 diff hist +79 Mediumship Making the favored viewpoint (non-scientific) of this article stronger. Doing my part in contributing to an enlightened society. Tag: Reverted
21 January 2021
- 16:1116:11, 21 January 2021 diff hist +73 Crystal gazing No edit summary Tag: Reverted
- 16:1016:10, 21 January 2021 diff hist +205 Crystal gazing Non-neutral article. The scientific view is extremely downplayed by using terms to "suggest" it "may not" be possible to see the future by gazing at a crystal ball. I have made some minor corrections to make it less offensive from a scientific perspective. Tag: Reverted
19 January 2021
- 20:4520:45, 19 January 2021 diff hist +1,295 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents →Non-neutral editing at Mediumship by Flowcode
18 January 2021
- 20:0320:03, 18 January 2021 diff hist +1,195 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents →Non-neutral editing at Mediumship by {{u|Flowcode}}
- 19:0319:03, 18 January 2021 diff hist +1,942 User talk:Betty Logan →January 2021: new section Tag: Reverted
- 19:0219:02, 18 January 2021 diff hist +454 Mediumship Making the article more neutral, the scientific view has not been demonstrated in the introduction. Adhering to WP:NPOV. Tag: Reverted
- 17:0817:08, 18 January 2021 diff hist +311 Talk:Mediumship →Mediumship is not a "pseudoscience"
- 17:0617:06, 18 January 2021 diff hist +1,010 Talk:Mediumship →The article is not neutral: new section
- 16:5516:55, 18 January 2021 diff hist +1,026 Talk:Mediumship No edit summary
17 January 2021
- 21:5721:57, 17 January 2021 diff hist +662 Talk:Mediumship →Consensus on whether or not mediumship is pseudoscience
- 21:0521:05, 17 January 2021 diff hist +650 Mediumship Please see the talk page. Mediumship appears to meet the pseudoscience definition perfectly. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 21:0421:04, 17 January 2021 diff hist +977 Talk:Mediumship →Consensus on whether or not mediumship is pseudoscience: new section
- 19:5719:57, 17 January 2021 diff hist 0 Mediumship Switched the ordering of two paragraphs to emphasize scientific view, which appears downplayed throughout the whole article. Tag: Reverted
- 19:3919:39, 17 January 2021 diff hist +650 Mediumship It is important to make it clear that "the practice of communicating with the dead" is pseudoscience, it doesn't matter whether or not the article is a "scientific article". Tags: Undo Reverted
- 14:1614:16, 17 January 2021 diff hist +650 Mediumship "Spirtiualism" is not recognized by science either. Spiritualism is basically the definition of pseudoscience. Hence, "mediumship", as you say yourself, is a type of spiritualism, is also pseudoscience. Q.E.D. Please don't start an edit war. Tags: Undo Reverted
- 10:4310:43, 17 January 2021 diff hist +650 Mediumship The article is written as if the scientific point of view is a mere mild "skepticism", as if it holds little authority. This has been somewhat addressed. Furthermore, the scientific explanation is not presented properly in the introduction. This has been somewhat addressed. I encourage others to find better references, an overview paper to summarize the academic consensus on the matter would be good. I have reused the references from the scientific section, please correct the syntax if needed. Tag: Reverted
