Misplaced Pages

User talk:Moulton: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:35, 30 August 2007 view sourceMoulton (talk | contribs)897 edits →[]: I abhor the practice of negative reframing. It is insidious and pernicious. Please avoid it.← Previous edit Revision as of 09:57, 30 August 2007 view source Hrafn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,179 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 77: Line 77:


::I was not writing about a ''person'' there. I am writing about two competing ''practices''. One is the practice, which I support, of adhering to the protocols of the scientific method. The other is the practice, which I abhor, of adopting the propagandist technique of ] which is both dishonest and unethical. I am utterly appalled that you would engage in the insidious and pernicious practice of ], in gross and egregious violation of ]. ] 09:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC) ::I was not writing about a ''person'' there. I am writing about two competing ''practices''. One is the practice, which I support, of adhering to the protocols of the scientific method. The other is the practice, which I abhor, of adopting the propagandist technique of ] which is both dishonest and unethical. I am utterly appalled that you would engage in the insidious and pernicious practice of ], in gross and egregious violation of ]. ] 09:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

::The statement which she put her name to was anti-evolution when she put her name to it, and it remains anti-evolution today. No reframing need be involved to reach that assessment. But regardless of that, you violated the ] guidelines by making a ''controversial'' edit to the article on her, and none of your hair-splitting can change that fact. ] 09:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:57, 30 August 2007

Welcome!

Hello Moulton, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  bd2412 T 04:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Please do not add unreferenced or inadequately referenced controversial biographical information concerning living persons to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Rosalind Picard. Thank you. Hrafn42 18:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rosalind Picard. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. ornis (t) 04:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a US or Canadian phone number I will call you. Email it to me and let me know.--Filll 04:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moulton, please do not revert edits on the article. The rules (sorry I know you hate the rules) are that you cannot revert more than 3 times in 24 hours or your access will be blocked. You are well over that limit I am afraid. You can end up getting blocked for days, or even have your IP blocked. So just let things continue as we investigate. Do not get overanxious, or they will block/ban you.--Filll 13:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing or editing others comments

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at talk:Rosalind Picard. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ornis (t) 14:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism was the insertion into the page of a controversial issue which has no bearing on the subject of the page. The material had evidently been inserted because some previous editors erroneously believed and took at face value some recent propaganda published by a Seattle public relations firm that had no connection to the subject. The previous editors evidently adopted the unwarranted assumption that the propaganda amounted to a verified fact.
Moulton 06:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Request to Misplaced Pages Administrator

Joshua, would you be kind enough to nominate an ombudsman or mediator to resolve a perplexing conflict between myself and User:Hrafn42 regarding alleged violations of WP:BLP? I am concerned about the recurring publication of libelous falsehoods causing serious harm to scientists and academics with whom I am affiliated. Please feel free to E-Mail me if you need further information. Many thanks. Moulton 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsman

I don't think I can help you out with that since having reviewed the issue, I completely agree with Hrafn42 and Guettarda and disagree with both your position and actions there. My advice is take some time to better learn how Misplaced Pages actually handles these issues then revisit the articles; I think you'll find then your concern is unwarranted. FeloniousMonk 05:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a higher authority than you that I can appeal to?
Is there some way we can talk over the phone so that I can explain to you (or anyone else you care to nominate) what I am concerned about and why? I am frustrated by my inability to get to the ground truth in this vexatiously crippling rule-bound system, as it only seems to be able to get to what most editors happen to believe, without providing any reliable functional process for getting past misconceptions into the ground truth. Science itself provides such a functional process known as the scientific method, but Misplaced Pages doesn't operate on that paradigm. Instead it operates on an anachronistic rule-based paradigm that wobbles to what the most dominant Misplaced Pages editors believe. When it comes to characterizing living persons, that paradigm is demonstrably fraught with errors that are nigh impossible to fix.
There are famous cases in history when the vast majority of people held laughable misconceptions. But science is an arduous process, and many dedicated scientists have suffered grievously for having the temerity to displace a popular misconception with a superior theory grounded in evidence and reasoning.
Getting people to honestly question their assumptions and conscientiously examine both their assumptions and the evidence for them is one of the recurring challenges in science education.
As a science educator, it pains me beyond words to observe how badly we have failed to inculcate a scientific mindset into the educable public.
Moulton 13:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
For more information on how Misplaced Pages works, please refer to the highest authority on truthiness and wikiality:
“ You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true. ... We should apply these principles to all information. All we need to do is convince a majority of people that some factoid is true. ... What we're doing is bringing democracy to knowledge. ”
Hopefully this helps clarify the inner workings of Misplaced Pages. :) (Coincidentally and conversely, one could also apply such theories to the re-emergence of creationism, i.e. it doesn't need to be true for it to become fact as long as enough people insist it is.) Romperomperompe 08:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your perspective and your levity. Please see Misplaced Pages and Ethics in Online Journalism for a more analytical version of the same sentiment. Moulton 12:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Please make yourself familiar with WP:POINT and avoid stunts like this again . Odd nature 22:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So-called "anti-evolution" petition controversy redrafted

Having had a look at your concerns, I've added a section Talk:Rosalind Picard#Anti-evolution petition controversy redrafted. Feel free to comment. Please realise that Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source, and can only reflect published information that can be verified from reliable sources. .. dave souza, talk 16:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your assistance, Dave. I'll go take a look at your suggestions now. Moulton 21:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Rosalind Picard, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
  3. linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have conflict of interest, please see Misplaced Pages:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Misplaced Pages:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Hrafn42 08:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not writing about a person there. I am writing about two competing practices. One is the practice, which I support, of adhering to the protocols of the scientific method. The other is the practice, which I abhor, of adopting the propagandist technique of negative reframing which is both dishonest and unethical. I am utterly appalled that you would engage in the insidious and pernicious practice of negative reframing, in gross and egregious violation of WP:NPOV. Moulton 09:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The statement which she put her name to was anti-evolution when she put her name to it, and it remains anti-evolution today. No reframing need be involved to reach that assessment. But regardless of that, you violated the WP:COI guidelines by making a controversial edit to the article on her, and none of your hair-splitting can change that fact. Hrafn42 09:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)