User talk:Ian Oelsner

October 2020

Hello, I'm MrOllie. 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 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. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

May I suggest the following revision to the Wikipedia definition of Polyvagal Theory:

Polyvagal theory, first presented by Dr. Stephen Porges in 1994, proposes a hierarchy of the autonomic nervous system based on evolutionary development. The theory suggests a connection between an individual’s sense of safety and their social engagement. Polyvagal Theory is cited in over 8,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers (including biomedical engineering, critical care medicine, neurology, neuroscience, obstetrics, pediatrics, psychiatry, psychology and substance abuse) and is integrated into numerous treatments in the field of trauma; however, it is not widely known in the broader community of traditional medicine. Also suggest removing the template message re “fringe theories.”

I would also like to suggest removing the template message re “fringe theories" esp in light of the number of articles citing the theory.Ian Oelsner (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

{{admin help}}

[[User: Hemiauchenia]] has unilaterally closed the above RfC, and declared a consensus,  one day after it was posted, before anyone could participate but them. I am asking for its closure and finding of “consensus” to be reversed by a Wikipedia administrator. Their stated reasons have no basis in Wikipedia policy. While I am a new editor, I did extensive Wikipedia policy research in advance of this RfC and now to reply to the immediate RfC closure. This RfC is in an appropriate format and poses a legitimate question under the guidelines of [[WP:RfC]] and sample RfCs. There has been limited discussion and no consensus on this question since the specific changes in the article being questioned in the RfC were made on January 4, 2022 ] and March 3, 2022 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polyvagal_theory&diff=1074990509&oldid=1074835038, according to my research into the article history. In the two unresolved sections ([[Talk:Polyvagal theory#Polyvagal theory proven]] [[Talk:Polyvagal theory#Criticism of the criticism]]) discussing these same issues since this new language was added to the lead, two of the four participating editors unambiguously support my positions (neither is me); one is opposed (the same person who inserted the language); and one supports inserting balance to the Criticism section.  I started this RfC because these two discussions did not lead to consensus.

I have declared prominently in the RfC that I am a researcher on Polyvagal Theory – there’s no prohibition on subject matter experts editing articles about their field of expertise, and even citing themselves within reason, according to the policy I found called [[WP:SELFCITE]].  (FYI, I have not cited my own research in the article.) There is also the directly analogous example of encouraging experts to participate from  [[WP:Wikipedia Fellows]].

In this case, participation on Talk, with an explanation of my field of research, is especially non-problematic. Even if an editor believes I have a [[WP:COI]] because my work is supported by an organization focused on Polyvagal Theory, nothing I read in that policy prevents me from initiating Talk discussions. In fact, the opposite – Talk is where COI editors are encouraged to participate. [[WP:COI]].  Ian Oelsner (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)