| Revision as of 05:53, 27 August 2007 view sourceFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits →Request to Misplaced Pages Administrator: decline, and why← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:02, 27 August 2007 view source Moulton (talk | contribs)897 edits →Ombudsman: Appealing to a Higher AuthorityNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| 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. ] 05:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | 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. ] 05:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Is there a ] 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 ] 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 ]. Science itself provides such a functional process known as the ], 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. | |||
| ] 13:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:02, 27 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:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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.
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.