Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:16, 11 August 2008

I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:

Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Elonka

Hey SA. On this RFC, you've signed on as having certified the basis for this dispute. This implies that you have had the same or a similar dispute as ChrisO. Seeing as how that's being heavily disputed, could I see proof of you tryign and failing to resolve the dispute? The RfC looks like it'll be a fairly heavily trafficked one, I don't want to have to delete it on a technicality. Wizardman 00:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment Psychophysical parallelism

Hi. I was wondering if you could take a look at the aforementioned article. It is my feeling that this at least falls in to the domain os psychology, but really could be AFDd. That said, I am in a bit of a debate with a user that had a pseudoscience type page deleted and he is attempting (it seems to me) to re create it. I trust your judgement on this. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

science-frontiers

Hi. Could you sum-up your reasons for considering this website to be an unusable source? I'm sure you're right, I'm just curious what specific grounds you object to it on. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like sound reasoning. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested too. William R. Corliss appears to be a physicist, and his books are catalogued in various bibliographic databases, eg. ADS

In taking a random example here, the reference to the "Novaya Zemlya Effect" is based on an article in Physics Today. Another example here references the page on "New England Seamounts Once Near Surface" which is based on an article by American Scientist.

What's the objection to Science Frontiers, AND, to excluding the references to Physics Today and American Scientist? --Raevaen (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If "Using Physics Today and American Scientist articles directly is not only fine, it's commendable", then why did you exclude them? All you had to do was replace the references to Science Frontiers with the given original refereed source.

Can you provide a source which indicates that Corliss "has obvious POV issues given his particular spin", as I find no evidence of spin, or even negative reviews. Sources indicate the exact opposite.

I find your accusations of sockpuppetry to be insulting. --Raevaen (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

RSN vs. Fringe

Hi. I'm familiar with the fringe guidelines and NB, but when I thought about the core of the matter, it was less about the fringe aspect than it was about the nature of the publication venue. When a piece of fringe nonsense makes it into a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, then the POV-pushers cite chapter and verse from the WP:RS guidelines to defend their position; "If it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, then it is a reliable source and cannot be excluded from WP simply because you disagree". Basically, they DENY that their work is "fringe" and refuse to acknowledge that WP's fringe guidelines are applicable. Therefore, since they're intent on exploiting WP:RS to their advantage, the logical place to seek a counteracting principle is via the RS forum. The situation in the Morgellons article is less than ideal, but relatively stable (thanks to sprotection), and there are also SOME mainstream criticisms that can be cited in that case. The other article in question has not gotten out of hand yet, but I'd very much prefer to anticipate and avoid a conflict there, by having an appropriate response formulated in advance, rather than having to ad-lib things and violate WP policy myself. That's why I phrased the question in generalized terms: how do you justify prohibiting a citation when it comes from a reliable source, and has no reliable sources that criticize it? If there was a "DO NOT PROMOTE HEALTH SCARES THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDICAL COMMUNITY DOES NOT RECOGNIZE" policy, that would be wonderful, but we don't have any such policy, so truly wacky health scare rumors like Morgellons can be very hard to quell if no one in the medical mainstream feels compelled to comment on them. Why don't people feel compelled? The response I've gotten (the two times I've been in a position to ask) is "Frankly, anyone stupid enough to believe this nonsense is a lost cause. I have better things to do than worry about some idiotic rumors circulating in Misplaced Pages." - but that response completely abdicates responsibility, and ignores the fact that Misplaced Pages is a VECTOR for potentially dangerous memes. If someone wrote in WP that kiwifruit caused colon cancer, citing a peer-reviewed source, and NO ONE REFUTED IT, that could do irreparable damage to the kiwifruit industry. How does one prevent such abuses? Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the NB and on my talk page. I've copied some of the more significant points to the talk page of the editor who tried - repeatedly - to insert the "single pro-fringe reference", and hopefully this will either get them to acquiesce, or at least engage in a dialog rather than simply edit-warring. If it's all right with you, I'll keep your link on file in case this issue arises again. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch: Hufford

I hope you don't mind the following suggestion: Since there have been multiple discussions on how to appropriately present his credentials and bias, I think it would be helpful for you to explain your recent edits on the article talk page. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Well put. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ayurveda‎

I am puzzled to see Ayurveda‎ is not considered a pseudoscience in wikiepdia. This brach of alternative medicine relies on the concept of Tridosha system which has no scientific basis. Can you add it in List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You can quickly review these two references . Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Civility

That you have your own personal process for dealing with it might suggest that there's a problem. The basic rule is simply to talk about the topic. Arguments ad hominem don't work unless you can provoke people into fighting back and then it becomes a question of patience.

I have no interest in getting into a screaming match. If you have a specific problem with my comments, bring it up on my talk page. If you can't argue the point and can only attack the person making the point, you have lost the argument. SDY (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If it works so well, why do you need a comment on your talk page about how to deal with apparent incivility? There may be a reason that I'm not the first person to have a concern. SDY (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time I've dealt with you, so I do know a bit about your history. No, I will not follow your procedure, I care about the attitude, not this particular circumstance. I can't force you to change, but that does not mean I accept the way that you are. SDY (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh. Given that you have your impressive fortifications, I will invade Czechoslovakia instead. Or was there some other eastern European country I was supposed to blitzkrieg? Ah, yes, I almost forgot Poland! Don't worry, I'll circle around your Great War era tactics soon enough! SDY (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentor

I have a mentor in mind for you. With different tactics I think your editing could be much more beneficial for Misplaced Pages. Jehochman 15:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:AGK has agreed to be your mentor. I recommend that you back away from all conflicts and focus on one or two articles in need of cleanup. Try to get them to good article or featured article status. If you run into problems, please avoid conflict. Instead, ask User:AGK to check the dispute and provide advice. If any administrative action is needed, I will remain uninvolved and available. Jehochman 01:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)