Misplaced Pages

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)

Thanks for your vote of confidence. Surely enough, the title will be changed and the list of articles will continue to be built. --QuackGuru 23:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Title change

I'm glad the list survives. There is also Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Bubba73 (talk), 03:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Interpsersing my comments on the deletion review

QG, I apologize for iterspersing my comments in your text on the deletion review talk page. I had never realized that it was unWikilike as Fyslee and I do it all the time, but I see how it can make things confusing. At first I did not realize why you were complaining, then Arthur set me straight. Now I understand. Please accept my sincere apology and know that I will never do that again. --Dematt 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

categories

Top: If you want to make the categories at the bottom of your main page clickable (without adding yourself to those categories), use , etc. Bubba73 (talk), 20:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

new article

I saw that you deleted an entry on the talk page by Kesh, saying that he is a troll. I do not believe he is a troll, so be careful with that. But I was going to make acomment back about his suggestion about putting it in a category. The mess before started because of a category. Bubba73 (talk), 23:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"The new and improved list of articles is well referenced now. It has undergone a "massive remodeling." It will withstand any attempts at deletion, period. "

I hope so (about deleting it). These are related to scientific skepticism (as far as I've looked). You are right about the massive remodeling. A tremendous number of references! I have about 80 books on pseudoscience and rational skepticism, but you must be much more familiar with the references than I am. There was an arguement going on for a long time (it may still be going on) at pseudoscience about what is and is not pseudoscience. I know that Kesh has an opposing view, but I don't think is is a troll. Bubba73 (talk), 01:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)