| Revision as of 08:07, 7 May 2011 editSuggestBot (talk | contribs)Bots288,182 edits SuggestBot recommends these articles...← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:22, 18 May 2011 edit undoQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Pseudoscience: The proper procedure is for you to stop edit warring against core Misplaced Pages policies.Next edit → | ||
| Line 197: | Line 197: | ||
| If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on ]. Regards from ] (]), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- ] (]) 08:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC) | If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on ]. Regards from ] (]), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- ] (]) 08:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == Pseudoscience == | |||
| === Repeated pattern of violating core policies === | |||
| You replaced sourced text with a that did not verify the claim. | |||
| The previous reference you deleted against V policy verified the claim "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious issues that are a threat to ]." | |||
| You added . The sentence "Pseudoscience can negatively impact health, politics and education." was also OR. | |||
| You added . The sentence "Some forms of pseudoscience such as ]s, and medical quackery can be serious threats to ]." is OR. The sentence "The ], has called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud." is also OR. | |||
| You added "." The sentence is OR. For example, you were . | |||
| Please stop adding unsourced text or text that failed verification to the article. Do you agree to stop adding ]? ] (]) 18:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Solid mainstream source in accordance with V === | |||
| The Mattel et al. ref is a . Your objection is with V policy. You seem to have a personal disagreement with the authors. It is inappropriate behaviour to suggest the source is unreliable. | |||
| It is OR if you take the source out of context. We must include the public health issue because the authors think pseudoscience is a serious matter. | |||
| One of the main pseudoscience points from full text is: "As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved." | |||
| The authors thought it was so important they summarised the public health issue in the abstract. According to the authors pseudoscience is a serious matter that threatens public health. It ius OR if we don't summarise the main pseudoscience points. | |||
| From abstract: "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved." | |||
| {{cite journal |journal=Br J Psychol |year=2010 |volume= |issue= |pages= |title= Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience |author= Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA |doi=10.1348/000712610X532210 |pmid=21092400 |url=http://bpsoc.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/bjp/pre-prints/bjp898 }} Do you agree the ] compliant source must be restored and sumarised at Pseudoscience? ] (]) 18:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:22, 18 May 2011
primary sources
Hello, I noticed you deleted all the information i put down on the Grameen Foundation because they were primary resources. I am fairly new at editing and I am doing this for a class project for my University. I would very much appreciate any help or advice you could give me regarding my edits as well as allow me to make edits. Jvele (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC) jvele
 Archives | |||||||
|
|||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
| Here are some tasks awaiting attention: |
TUSC token d73206ce5ea814e8bf250d064215ba6f
My toolserver user screening control (TUSC) ID is d73206ce5ea814e8bf250d064215ba6f.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Pseudoscience
Repeated pattern of violating core policies
You replaced sourced text with a 1965 reference on quackery that did not verify the claim. The previous reference you deleted against V policy verified the claim "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious issues that are a threat to public health." You added OR. The sentence "Pseudoscience can negatively impact health, politics and education." was also OR.
You added OR. The sentence "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions, and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health." is OR. The sentence "The National Science Foundation, has called for better public education about pseudoscience in order to combat scientific misinformation, misrepresentation and fraud." is also OR.
You added "Pseudoscientific explanations and concepts acquired by students outside of school can be obstacles in science education." The sentence is OR. For example, you were unable to verify the claim.
Please stop adding unsourced text or text that failed verification to the article. Do you agree to stop adding WP:OR? QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Solid mainstream source in accordance with V
The Mattel et al. ref is a high-quality source. Your objection is with V policy. You seem to have a personal disagreement with the authors. It is inappropriate behaviour to suggest the source is unreliable.
It is OR if you take the source out of context. We must include the public health issue because the authors think pseudoscience is a serious matter.
One of the main pseudoscience points from full text is: "As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved."
The authors thought it was so important they summarised the public health issue in the abstract. According to the authors pseudoscience is a serious matter that threatens public health. It ius OR if we don't summarise the main pseudoscience points.
From abstract: "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."
Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Do you agree the WP:V compliant source must be restored and sumarised at Pseudoscience? QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)