Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jefffire: 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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:57, 22 August 2008 editJason Quinn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators43,657 edits →spoilers: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:14, 14 October 2018 edit undoGalobot (talk | contribs)Bots9,149 editsm Task 1: Fix lint errors (multiple unclosed formatting tags) 
(9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
{{busy}} {{busy}}


== NLP == == Reviewer granted ==


]
I am proposing deletion of the entire set of articles on ]. See ]. NLP is an extraordinary pseudoscience that is so successful at disguising itself as real science that it had many people fooled for a long time. I'm amazed this has gone on for so long but enough is enough. I would appreciate any help on this as there is bound to be a bitter fight - there are a number of commercial interests involved and there is evidence of some inside support in Misplaced Pages itself. I have a separate file of information if you are interested, but for obvious reasons that cannot go on-wiki. Best. ] (]) 10:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "{{mono|reviewer}}" userright, allowing you to ] on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a ] scheduled to end 15 August 2010.


Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not ] to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only ], similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at ].
== Peace process: pseudoscience ==


When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious ] or ], and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see ]). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found ].
See on FT2's talk page and suggesting of mediation process. I think there are some important lessons to be learned from recent incidents, and would value your input. Let me know on my talk page. See also I discussed with Guy. ] (]) 06:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. <!-- Template:Reviewer-notice --> ] (]) 05:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
== Identifying reliable sources ==

I've left a on the NLP talk page describing the problem of identifying reliable sources for possible pseudoscience. Any help appreciated. ] (]) 15:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

== Comment on the article, not the contributor ==

Please respect ]. ] (]) 12:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:Please respect ], and cease your PoV pushing campaign for your religion. Misplaced Pages is ] the place to enact your little paradigm shifts. ] (]) 12:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

::Ummm...go back to the top of this section. And where have I made use of original research??? ] (]) 13:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Your belief that AM is a legitimate field of science. WTF? Why not make a RfC on the subject, see how that goes ;). ] (]) 13:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

== spoilers ==

Hi, Jefffire. You are right. So the question is "if" the article should contain them. The Nethack article is pretty good and it was spoiler-free except for just a couple very minor ones. I think removing them is the appropriate thing to do as the article benefits more from it than it loses. I was unaware that Misplaced Pages has changed somewhat regarding the ] policy. Thanks for pointing that out. ] (]) 13:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:14, 14 October 2018

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)