| Revision as of 23:02, 12 January 2007 editI'clast (talk | contribs)1,511 edits →who's a troll: re: pointing← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:00, 14 January 2007 edit undoQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits .Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| === Quack Talk Discussion === | |||
| Hello, and ] to the ], QuackGuru! Thanks for creating the "List of articles related to quackery" article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your ] into the Misplaced Pages experience: | Hello, and ] to the ], QuackGuru! Thanks for creating the "List of articles related to quackery" article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your ] into the Misplaced Pages experience: | ||
| * Take a look at the ], the ] and the ], and If you still need any ], you can always post your question at the ]. | * Take a look at the ], the ] and the ], and If you still need any ], you can always post your question at the ]. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 15: | ||
| I got your message about moving it to a project page. Is there going to be a Wikiproject about quackery? The problem I have with it being moved to a project page is it makes it harder for users to find it. With the list as an article, you can find it with "search". You can also add it under "see also" on each of the articles, so if you get to one of the articles you can easily get to the rest. If it is in the project space, it doesn't show up in a search. You can have the template for the project, but it goes on the article's talk page, so a reader would have to go to the talk page and see the template to get to the list. I rarely do that except with a few projects that I'm in. OTOH, maybe it is time for a project on quackery - there is a category for wikipedians against quackery, etc. A formal project would be a good thing. ] ], 22:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | I got your message about moving it to a project page. Is there going to be a Wikiproject about quackery? The problem I have with it being moved to a project page is it makes it harder for users to find it. With the list as an article, you can find it with "search". You can also add it under "see also" on each of the articles, so if you get to one of the articles you can easily get to the rest. If it is in the project space, it doesn't show up in a search. You can have the template for the project, but it goes on the article's talk page, so a reader would have to go to the talk page and see the template to get to the list. I rarely do that except with a few projects that I'm in. OTOH, maybe it is time for a project on quackery - there is a category for wikipedians against quackery, etc. A formal project would be a good thing. ] ], 22:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==]== | |||
| I have added a "{{]}}" template to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the ] process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "]" and ]). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at ]. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to ], where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the ]. ] 19:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == re List of articles related to quackery == | == re List of articles related to quackery == | ||
| Yeah, I'm a little surprised by this, and no, I don't really get how BLP applies. Yes I guess it is kind of unprecedented, but I wouldn't halt it. I think it's reasonable for the people to review the deletion. How about if you rename it to "list of articles of interest to this project" or something? That might help. Over at my project, ] I have both a section named "internal links of possible interest" (which is a list of articles) and an ], which is also a list of articles. I find both useful. I certainly hope nobody decides they indicate a bias and are deletable. This whole thing is silly IMO. ] 03:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | Yeah, I'm a little surprised by this, and no, I don't really get how BLP applies. Yes I guess it is kind of unprecedented, but I wouldn't halt it. I think it's reasonable for the people to review the deletion. How about if you rename it to "list of articles of interest to this project" or something? That might help. Over at my project, ] I have both a section named "internal links of possible interest" (which is a list of articles) and an ], which is also a list of articles. I find both useful. I certainly hope nobody decides they indicate a bias and are deletable. This whole thing is silly IMO. ] 03:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==who's a troll== | |||
| Please WP:AGF. I have avoided characterizing a number of your edits that I found biased & less appealing. Similarly, I notice that your edit summary labeled Levine's edits so. I will point out from WP:TROLL, ''"...Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling. ...only trolling when they are motivated by a program of malice...strive to assume they are not. Explain errors politely and reasonably;..."'' You did not; if you tried interacting rather than presumptive editing, you might find they consider things that you don't, that you are not aware of, or can't accept w/o more background. Parts of psychiatry as a pseudoscience? Did you want your brains fried (ECT), chopped (surgery), marinated ("interesting" drugs, restricted/banned elsewhere) or jawboned (psychodynamic/talk) today? Psychiatry has among the lowest specialty requirements, USMLE scores and med student interest - is there a message there? A number of current drugs / practices in the US have been '''''' in UK or Europe, e.g. SSRI for school kids?. "Psychiatric science" may seem radioactive to some, with a half life well under their lifetime.--] 23:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:00, 14 January 2007
Quack Talk Discussion
Hello, and Welcome to the Misplaced Pages, QuackGuru! Thanks for creating the "List of articles related to quackery" article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Misplaced Pages experience:
- Take a look at the New contributors' help page, the Misplaced Pages Tutorial and the Manual of Style, and If you still need any help, you can always post your question at the Help Desk.
- When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Misplaced Pages and Assume good faith, but please keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
- Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
- Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!
And some odds and ends: Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Best of luck, QuackGuru, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 20:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! --QuackGuru 22:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Check the spelling on your user page....;-) -- Fyslee 09:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
vote
I got your message about moving it to a project page. Is there going to be a Wikiproject about quackery? The problem I have with it being moved to a project page is it makes it harder for users to find it. With the list as an article, you can find it with "search". You can also add it under "see also" on each of the articles, so if you get to one of the articles you can easily get to the rest. If it is in the project space, it doesn't show up in a search. You can have the template for the project, but it goes on the article's talk page, so a reader would have to go to the talk page and see the template to get to the list. I rarely do that except with a few projects that I'm in. OTOH, maybe it is time for a project on quackery - there is a category for wikipedians against quackery, etc. A formal project would be a good thing. Bubba73 (talk), 22:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
re List of articles related to quackery
Yeah, I'm a little surprised by this, and no, I don't really get how BLP applies. Yes I guess it is kind of unprecedented, but I wouldn't halt it. I think it's reasonable for the people to review the deletion. How about if you rename it to "list of articles of interest to this project" or something? That might help. Over at my project, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch I have both a section named "internal links of possible interest" (which is a list of articles) and an artificial watchlist, which is also a list of articles. I find both useful. I certainly hope nobody decides they indicate a bias and are deletable. This whole thing is silly IMO. Herostratus 03:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)