| Revision as of 01:58, 10 December 2008 editShock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk | contribs)15,524 edits edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:19, 10 December 2008 edit undoGoodDamon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers6,271 editsm Reverted 1 edit by Short Brigade Harvester Boris identified as vandalism to last revision by Orangemarlin. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <!--Message bar--> | |||
| ] | |||
| <div class="plainlinks" style="font-size: 120%; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 5px; border: 1px solid #6688AA; background: #E9ECFF; text-align: center"> | |||
| '''''' | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!--Main section--> | |||
| {| cellspacing=0 style="width: 100%; background: #F9FFFF" | |||
| | valign="top" style="width: 100%" | | |||
| {| cellspacing=3 style="width: 100%; border: none; background: #F9FFFF" | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| <!--Archives--> | |||
| <div style="margin-top: 5px; padding-left: 4px; background: #EAEAEA; text-align: left; border: solid #999999 1px"> | |||
| ==Archives== | |||
| </div> | |||
| <div style="padding: 4px; background: #FFFFFF; font-size: 95%; text-align: left; border: solid #999999 1px; border-top: 0px"> | |||
| ]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|] | |||
| </div> | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| <!--RFA, FAC, FAR--> | |||
| <div style="margin-top: 5px; padding-left: 4px; background: #EAEAEA; text-align: left; border: solid #999999 1px"> | |||
| ==Important Items to Watch== | |||
| </div> | |||
| <div style="padding: 4px; background: #FFFFFF; font-size: 95%; text-align: left; border: solid #999999 1px; border-top: 0px"> | |||
| <br /> | |||
| {{ArbComOpenTasks}} | |||
| {{RfarOpenTasks}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report}} | |||
| {{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}} | |||
| {{User:Tony1/FAR urgents}} | |||
| </div> | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| <!--Quackademic articles--> | |||
| <div style="margin-top: 5px; padding-left: 4px; background: #EAEAEA; text-align: left; border: solid #999999 1px"> | |||
| ==Articles on == | |||
| </div> | |||
| <div style="padding: 4px; background: #FFFFFF; font-size: 95%; text-align: left; border: solid #999999 1px; border-top: 0px"> | |||
| Below are articles articles, mostly medical but some in the sciences, that promote ideas or POV's that might endanger human life. Feel free to add your own, but I'm watching and cleaning up these articles. Please sign if you add something. | |||
| *]-lacks any references, and implies these drugs can help.] 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *]-same as above ] 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *]-ridiculous ] 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *]-don't let your children go there ] 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) This has been rewritten since ] (Dr Becker-Weidman) and his 6 socks were indef banned. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *]-more unsourced POV edits ] 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *]-more of the same ] 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *]-Actually not completely off the wall, but some parts are bad. ] 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Er, ] and ] could both use more work, and talk about endangering lives... especially the former. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * I'd also add ] to the list... I did a lot of work cleaning it up and it's not so bad anymore (it actually references the serious harms and deaths associated with ephedra supplements in a way that goes beyond referring to the FDA as jackbooted thugs, now). But much of the same material is duplicated in ], which I haven't been as successful with, and which I fear gives an erroneous impression as to the safety record of ephedra-containing dietary supplements. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Arguably, ], though that's probably not actually ''dangerous'', just ridiculously oversold. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * ]. Anti-vaxers are really dangerous. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * ]. A dangerous scam. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **This one has been stable in reasonable shape for awhile now. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * ]. Advocates nonsense. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Working on this one. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * ]. Advocates nonsense and repeated run ins with the FTC. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * ], ], ]. ]. I would treat ] as the main hub for many of them though. Its a subject that seems to be the main pseudoscientific umbrella that is used by most of them to give the false impression of scientific appearance. Its incredibly widespread and extremely misleading to the less scientifically literate. Here is a good source; . ] (]) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :anyone who wants to work on this complex of article, I'll be glad to help. Time we got to the pseudo-psychology. ''']''' (]) 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :try Eisner in ''The death of psychotherapy'', Chapter 3 "Cathartic Therapies:From Primal to ''est''". A little out of date but .... ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * ]. I just put in some references, but there is a lot more that can be done. That someone would think that coral calcium can be used as a panacea for all types of cancer when in fact excess calcium can, in some cases, be detrimental to certain cancer treatments means that we should be very careful how the claims of the coral calcium fanatics are treated. ] (]) 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **This is pretty much fixed, at least until the next SPA... ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * ]. An article about a company that purveys ''sugars'', calling them health products ('']s''). <font color="#0000b0">]</font><sup><font color="#b00000">]</font></sup> 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I tried on this, & only very partially succeeded. ''']''' (]) 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * ] and ]. You've got to be kidding. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 14:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * ] I'm sorry, but this just cracked me up. I need to read the references, but my side hurts. Juvenile, I am. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 06:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *: The section in question seems okay to me, as it more or less just states the recent research and puts it in context. There might be something to it, might not. However, that study has bolstered support for ], which is, erm, unfortunate... --] (]) 18:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * ]{{ndash}} After hearing radio commercials dozens of times for supplements, I had to do something. - ]] 03:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * ]. Some ] medicine/religion attempting to hide it's snake-oil medicine by using religion. Intelligent design used the same method, and it didn't work there. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 06:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| <!-- Best medical articles --> | |||
| <div style="margin-top: 5px; padding-left: 4px; background: #EAEAEA; text-align: left; border: solid #999999 1px"> | |||
| ==Medical Articles== | |||
| </div> | |||
| <div style="padding: 4px; background: #FFFFFF; font-size: 95%; text-align: left; border: solid #999999 1px; border-top: 0px"> | |||
| Below are articles that I believe, along with any trusted science and medicine editors who may wish to contribute, meet the simple test of being well-written, do not give ] to ], and are either ] or ]: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| </div> | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| <!-- The Kerfuffle --> | |||
| <div style="margin-top: 5px; padding-left: 4px; background: #EAEAEA; text-align: left; border: solid #999999 1px"> | |||
| ==]== | |||
| </div> | |||
| <div style="padding: 4px; background: #FFFFFF; font-size: 95%; text-align: left; border: solid #999999 1px; border-top: 0px"> | |||
| If you are here to read about all of the Wiki-drama surrounding the secret hearings (so secret that no one on the ArbCom knew about them apparently), you can read it ]. No editing allowed. One day this will be funny. I hope. | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |} | |||
| | valign="top" | | |||
| |} | |||
| == Question about voting comments == | |||
| You expressed that you felt my answer to the science question was a bit weak. Would you tell me what you found lacking in the answer? Would you tell me what you found more positive about the answer? I appreciate your support and I want to make sure I understand your reservations. Thanks! ] (]) 05:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Your answer is very weak and hard to understand. In fact, with most science articles the Science = NPOV. (Science itself has no POV, it's a methodology to determine what makes the natural world run, in very simplistic terms.) Please look at Risker's answer to the same question. Very clearly understood, and her answers are backed up by her contributions. I'm scared that you will be part of the FT2 anti-science group in Arbcom. But there are candidates I despise more, so you get my vote. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for responding. I agree with your statement that with most science articles Science = NPOV. In fact, I would go much broader and say with the vast majority of academic subjects that the established scholarly view(s) = NPOV. My main experience and expertise is in "softer" fields, but the principle remains the same. My answer was an attempt, obviously flawed, to answer the question heavily focused on the underlying policy and related principles. Let me attempt to restate it. NPOV says we present topics as they appear in reliable sources, especially as it relates to proper weighting. With science topics, the overwhelming majority of sources will be reputable scientific literature in (by far) most cases. Thus, my agreement with your statement. Does that help clarify where I stand? Do you have any remaining questions or concerns? ] (]) 04:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I appreciate this answer. I'm going to revise my vote (I was support, but revise my comments). ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 16:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Arb vote response == | |||
| I've posted two responses to your concerns on my vote page, under oppose 67, SLR's vote. I've also paste them to my questions page. Let me know if you have more concerns. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 15:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You have the anti-science interpretation of NPOV. In fact, I'm rather shocked that someone at your level has such a poor understanding of NPOV. Your responses solidify my opinion that you will be no different than FT2 in being one of the strong anti-science votes on ArbCom. This is sad. You use words like "mainstream science" which is the anti-science codeword to make it sound like a bunch of closed minds decided that snake oils don't work. And to cover up your obvious anti-science attitude, you pick easy to defend attitudes like flat-earth. That's an easy one. What about acupuncture? Anyways, your anti-science attitude is clear. And that's why many anti-science editors are supporting you. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 18:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I haven't read the specific question/answer involved, but I have noticed that a lot of candidates have unintentionally ended up saying the wrong thing - i.e. that NPOV is the concern, and that there can somehow be a conflict between NPOV and science (as opposed to the scientific consensus ''is'' NPOV, and the problem is limiting the presence of claims in contradiction). I think what's happening is that these people aren't really fluent with the problems in this area, and haven't spent much time thinking about the issue. It seems unlikely that they're all actually anti-science. ]] 15:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm still surprised at how experienced editors confuse this issue. It's one of the major problems with Misplaced Pages is inexperienced, or worse yet, POV-pushing, admins don't understand NPOV. How can we trust an Arbcom member who either intentionally confuses NPOV or is just plain confused. Disappointing, but he can join FT2 in the anti-science wing of Arbcom. Maybe they can have a group hug. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 16:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:19, 10 December 2008
Click here to leave me a message. Remember, if you leave a message here, I'll reply here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Question about voting comments
You expressed that you felt my answer to the science question was a bit weak. Would you tell me what you found lacking in the answer? Would you tell me what you found more positive about the answer? I appreciate your support and I want to make sure I understand your reservations. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Your answer is very weak and hard to understand. In fact, with most science articles the Science = NPOV. (Science itself has no POV, it's a methodology to determine what makes the natural world run, in very simplistic terms.) Please look at Risker's answer to the same question. Very clearly understood, and her answers are backed up by her contributions. I'm scared that you will be part of the FT2 anti-science group in Arbcom. But there are candidates I despise more, so you get my vote. OrangeMarlin 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding. I agree with your statement that with most science articles Science = NPOV. In fact, I would go much broader and say with the vast majority of academic subjects that the established scholarly view(s) = NPOV. My main experience and expertise is in "softer" fields, but the principle remains the same. My answer was an attempt, obviously flawed, to answer the question heavily focused on the underlying policy and related principles. Let me attempt to restate it. NPOV says we present topics as they appear in reliable sources, especially as it relates to proper weighting. With science topics, the overwhelming majority of sources will be reputable scientific literature in (by far) most cases. Thus, my agreement with your statement. Does that help clarify where I stand? Do you have any remaining questions or concerns? Vassyana (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate this answer. I'm going to revise my vote (I was support, but revise my comments). OrangeMarlin 16:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding. I agree with your statement that with most science articles Science = NPOV. In fact, I would go much broader and say with the vast majority of academic subjects that the established scholarly view(s) = NPOV. My main experience and expertise is in "softer" fields, but the principle remains the same. My answer was an attempt, obviously flawed, to answer the question heavily focused on the underlying policy and related principles. Let me attempt to restate it. NPOV says we present topics as they appear in reliable sources, especially as it relates to proper weighting. With science topics, the overwhelming majority of sources will be reputable scientific literature in (by far) most cases. Thus, my agreement with your statement. Does that help clarify where I stand? Do you have any remaining questions or concerns? Vassyana (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Arb vote response
I've posted two responses to your concerns on my vote page, under oppose 67, SLR's vote. I've also paste them to my questions page. Let me know if you have more concerns. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- You have the anti-science interpretation of NPOV. In fact, I'm rather shocked that someone at your level has such a poor understanding of NPOV. Your responses solidify my opinion that you will be no different than FT2 in being one of the strong anti-science votes on ArbCom. This is sad. You use words like "mainstream science" which is the anti-science codeword to make it sound like a bunch of closed minds decided that snake oils don't work. And to cover up your obvious anti-science attitude, you pick easy to defend attitudes like flat-earth. That's an easy one. What about acupuncture? Anyways, your anti-science attitude is clear. And that's why many anti-science editors are supporting you. OrangeMarlin 18:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't read the specific question/answer involved, but I have noticed that a lot of candidates have unintentionally ended up saying the wrong thing - i.e. that NPOV is the concern, and that there can somehow be a conflict between NPOV and science (as opposed to the scientific consensus is NPOV, and the problem is limiting the presence of claims in contradiction). I think what's happening is that these people aren't really fluent with the problems in this area, and haven't spent much time thinking about the issue. It seems unlikely that they're all actually anti-science. Avruch 15:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still surprised at how experienced editors confuse this issue. It's one of the major problems with Misplaced Pages is inexperienced, or worse yet, POV-pushing, admins don't understand NPOV. How can we trust an Arbcom member who either intentionally confuses NPOV or is just plain confused. Disappointing, but he can join FT2 in the anti-science wing of Arbcom. Maybe they can have a group hug. OrangeMarlin 16:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)