Misplaced Pages

User talk:Valjean

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AED (talk | contribs) at 19:44, 29 December 2005 (→Discussion of my editing at Alternative Medicine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:44, 29 December 2005 by AED (talk | contribs) (→Discussion of my editing at Alternative Medicine)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Discussion of my editing at Alternative Medicine

Your latest edit to the Alternative medicine page appears to be a copy/paste, and maybe a copyvio. I've reverted it, could you perhaps write up a summary, and reference to the study itstead? Ronabop 16:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks much more consistent with the rest of the page now. :-) Ronabop 23:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm still learning and appreciate the helpful suggestions. Now I need help with the Alternative medicine section about "Problems with the label "alternative"". It's far too shallow and needs supporting arguments, but AED doesn't seem to think so. -- Fyslee 06:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Check the talk archives and article history for some of the discussions on the labels used, but let me warn you, the archives and history are *filled* with acrimonious and contentious debates on the labels used (CAM, C/AM, AM, etc.). Some of the old POV warriors may have left, but to drag out an old cliché, "there be monsters there". I guess if nothing else, the history of that article can teach you a lot about the difficult sides of wikipedia. :-) Ronabop 07:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not at all surprised...;-) As the Assistant Listmaster for the Healthfraud Discussion List, I'm used to dealing with this stuff daily, and often feel we are dealing with cultists, rather than people who use rational arguments. There are some who do stick to reason and evidence, but not many. If the subject interests you, you're welcome to join.....;-) -- Fyslee 09:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If you want to know what I think, please feel free to ask rather than speculate. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, so copying and pasting abstracts or quotes is a lazy, inappropriate way to build an article. By referencing "POV warriors" and "monsters", I'm not sure if Ronabop is referring to me or not, but I'm quite sure an examination of the article and Talk page histories there will show that there are no double standards in my edits. I would suggest paraphrasing the information you would like included with appropriate references. AED 17:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi AED,

As a newcomer here, I appreciate all the help I can get. I can see what you mean about too many quotes, etc. I have a suggested solution. I'm not sure if it's proper to do it, so let me know what you think.

How about if I create another page for the quotes and references, and then just leave a link to that page in the article?

I would also appreciate your help with a creating a sandbox (see below). -- Fyslee 19:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Per WP:WWIN, Misplaced Pages is not the proper place for a collection of quotes. If you're interested in doing that, check out Wikiquote for links to the Wikiquote websites. References and citations should go at the bottom of the article in a section entitled "References". I've created a sandbox for you at User:Fyslee/Sandbox. Keep up the good work. AED 19:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Help with creation of "Personal Sandbox"

While I have you guys "on the line", I'm wondering if it would be possible to create a tab at the top of user pages called "Personal Sandbox"? It should be locked and invisible to others. Each registered user would then have a place to do their own experimenting and screwups, without anyone else interfering, vandalizing, spying, etc. -- Fyslee 19:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My Current Sandbox

For the new Quackbusters entry:

Definition

Quackbusters is a term used in two senses:

  • 1. As a derogatory term used to denigrate opposers of quackery. This use is self-incriminating, since it identifies the user as one who opposes those who oppose quackery. (see: double negative)
When used in this sense it is an ad hominem abusive attack, especially of the type known as Poisoning the well. It's most prominent user operates the Quackpotwatch website.
  • 2. As a fitting description proudly born by some opposers of quackery, since it clearly identifies their relation to it.

What it is not The term has no relation to its use here:

Related links