Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:54, 8 September 2006

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Hello NATTO! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, ask me on my talk page, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. And remember, no question is "stupid"; if you have anything, absolutely anything that you'd like to know, feel free to drop on by and leave me a message! :D Happy Editing! Getting Started Misplaced Pages Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Misplaced Pages Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Misplaced Pages rules Policy Library Getting Help My Talk Page New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

GeorgeMoney ☺ (talk) ☺ (Help Desk) ☺ (Reference Desk) ☺ (Help Channel) 09:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Modifying

#Modifying

Thanks

Thanks for finding the link. It sounded correct enough, but I couldn't find precisely that wording. Good you found it. Verifiability is important, especially in criticisms of living persons. Even then one must be careful.

Jimbo Wales has some interesting things to say about criticisms of living persons:

• "..... editors who don't stop to think that reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do." - Jimmy Wales

• "If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as , please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page." - Jimmy Wales

• Steve Bennett wrote:

> I'm happy to be corrected, but I was under the

> impression that as long as we can convey that the information is not

> guaranteed accurate (by the use of cite tags), then "speculative"

> information is better than none.

Absolutely not. Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia. - Jimmy Wales

• Philip Welch wrote:

> On May 18, 2006, at 2:48 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

>

>> If we don't want unsourced material, why have we tolerated it so long?

>>

>> This could be a change in what's considered acceptable rather than an

>> eternal law. Early in Misplaced Pages's development, we took what we could

>> get. Now that we have a crapload of content, we can set stricter rules.

Absolutely.

We have how many new articles a day? If people had the good sense to nuke 100 articles a day, just on the grounds of being BAD in the sense we are discussing (having unsourced claims about living people which would be libel if false), our growth rate would hardly suffer at all.

We are a massively powerful text generation engine. People have to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious. Crap is crap. Yank it. - Jimmy Wales

-- Fyslee 08:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Modifying

Usually it is not good to edit someone else's comment unless it contains personal attacks or incivility. If you do modify comments with personal attacks and incivility, usually you would put "" where the attack was. Read more: WP:REFACTOR. GeorgeMoney 08:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Barratt

Just to clarify. i noticed that tehre are some people very close to this subject commenting on this page. i had never heard of barratt untill recently and I'm not even sure how I stumbled across the page. i would like to think the comments i have made to date are from an outside perspective. Please don't think i am in any camp with regard to this issue. David D. (Talk) 08:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read your edits and find them well sourced; too bad some others have a specific point of view which causes them to delete factual and well documented statements. RalphLender 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I see the same sort of problem on the article, Advocates for Children in Therapy, which has a loose connection to Quackwatch and SB. regards. RalphLender 14:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hi NATTO, I have invited TimVickers and Peter_morrell to give their opinion on the Barrett page. FYI, I feel that they represent both sides of the spectrum with respect to alternative medicine. David D. (Talk) 17:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)