Welcome
I’m an economics instructor at a major university so I make my best effort to be objective in my discussions. If you feel there is a npov issue please let me know. My main motivation is to keep Wikipedia objective. I hope there are plenty of other users whose goal is to keep biases out of Wikipedia. Let's hope we can work together to keep each other in check and construct an objective reality.
MoralMoney (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome!
Hello, MoralMoney, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Vision Thing -- 16:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In cases like this it is best to start a discussion on talk page of the article. If dispute continues it is advisable to follow steps outlined in dispute resolution policy. -- Vision Thing -- 16:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this you: User:Moralmoney. If not (I doubt it), do you want to take action? Impersonation can lead to problems... Soxwon (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's me. Apparantly I registered twice with the same password but once was with MoralMoney and the other time was with Moralmoney. Thanks for checking. I'll try to fix that and make sure to capitalize both terms when I sign in.MoralMoney (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor is questioning the lack of sources in the lead for Capitalism. If you would like to discuss this please reply on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Valor Christian High School, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Really? A blog, and a 2011 source used to support a claim about something that happened in 2013? Tone it down and use reliable sources or don't add it. Meters (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be interested in Wikipedia:Alternative medicine#Comparison. Merely being ineffective isn't enough to label something as pseudoscientific. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. I responded to you on the talk page. Reiki is a pseudoscience because it makes faith-based claims that a "life-force energy" exists. Practitioners then go on to formulate the untestable hypothesis that this unobservable energy is effective for medical treatment. This is why it is a pseudoscience. It's the perfect example. And yes, the use of faith instead of observable reality is exactly what makes it a pseudoscience. MoralMoney (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I repeat: Nothing that makes a claim based on Religious faith is pseudoscience.
- Also, that hypothesis isn't untestable. It has been tested and found false. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a reference for this claim? I would be interested to see how someone was able to test the hypothesis that a "life-force energy" exists and was able to find evidence that it does not. I can't imagine how this claim is falsifiable, so any source would be very interesting. MoralMoney (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read about Emily Rosa? Therapeutic touch is apparently a spinoff of Reiki. We have proven that they aren't using "life-force energy" to do anything, by proving that they aren't actually able to do anything in the first place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
