| Revision as of 06:58, 12 January 2008 editOrangemarlin (talk | contribs)30,771 edits Archiving.← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:03, 12 January 2008 edit undoRichard001 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers24,850 edits Now this I don't follow... what's going on here my friend?Next edit → | ||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
| :::You do know I was just joshing, right? ] (]) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | :::You do know I was just joshing, right? ] (]) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::We didn't know you had a sense of humor????? :) ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 01:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | ::::We didn't know you had a sense of humor????? :) ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 01:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==This edit== | |||
| I'm a little confused what happened there in the rush to remove that section... What exactly is creationist POV? I don't know you very well but you seem to edit evolution related articles, so I doubt you are a creationist... and I'm certainly not a creationist... who are we talking about here? Have I missed something? (Does creationist POV mean anti-creationist POV?) Have you? ] (]) 07:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:03, 12 January 2008
|
|
 Archives |
Scary articles
Below are articles articles, mostly medical but some in the sciences, that promote ideas or POV's that might endanger human life. Feel free to add your own, but I'm watching and cleaning up these articles. Please sign if you add something.
- List of medicinal herbs-lacks any references, and implies these drugs can help.Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Herbalism-same as above Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Homeopathy-ridiculous Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Attachment therapy-don't let your children go there Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC) This has been rewritten since User:AWeidman (Dr Becker-Weidman) and his 6 socks were indef banned. Fainites 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Medicinal plants of the American West-more unsourced POV edits Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Alternative medicine-more of the same Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Naturopathic medicine-Actually not completely off the wall, but some parts are bad. Orangemarlin 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Er, Duesberg hypothesis and poppers could both use more work, and talk about endangering lives... especially the former. MastCell 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd also add ephedra to the list... I did a lot of work cleaning it up and it's not so bad anymore (it actually references the serious harms and deaths associated with ephedra supplements in a way that goes beyond referring to the FDA as jackbooted thugs, now). But much of the same material is duplicated in ECA stack, which I haven't been as successful with, and which I fear gives an erroneous impression as to the safety record of ephedra-containing dietary supplements. MastCell 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Arguably, Reflexology, though that's probably not actually dangerous, just ridiculously oversold. Adam Cuerden 00:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Vaccine controversy. Anti-vaxers are really dangerous. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hulda Clark. A dangerous scam. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Gary Null. Advocates nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Joseph Mercola. Advocates nonsense and repeated run ins with the FTC. -- Fyslee / talk 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- rebirthing, reparenting, Power therapies. Primal Scream therapy. I would treat Neurolinguistic Programming as the main hub for many of them though. Its a subject that seems to be the main pseudoscientific umbrella that is used by most of them to give the false impression of scientific appearance. Its incredibly widespread and extremely misleading to the less scientifically literate. Here is a good source; . Phloem (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
tools for checking refs?
Hi, I think i saw some back 'n forth between you 'n Sandy 'n Colin about tools for checking references... I would be very interested in learning anything you've learned (both now & in the future). Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hope you don't mind me butting in here. There are two great tools for checking references. The first, older one, is user:Gimmetrow's Reference Fixer, located here. The talk page has instructions on how to install and use it. It is a wonderful tool for fixing the punctuation so that it precedes the footnote. It also moves citation needed and other such tags to the end of a sentence, all automated. The second, brand-new tool is Dispenser's Linkchecker, which is causing quite a stir on FAC. It uses spider software to search for dead links and references in FACs. It can also be used manually to check individual articles. The link to the spider version for FAC is here. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks again! Those both look like very good tools. Will check them out... Ling.Nut (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- You do know I was just joshing, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- We didn't know you had a sense of humor????? :) OrangeMarlin 01:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You do know I was just joshing, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks again! Those both look like very good tools. Will check them out... Ling.Nut (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This edit
I'm a little confused what happened there in the rush to remove that section... What exactly is creationist POV? I don't know you very well but you seem to edit evolution related articles, so I doubt you are a creationist... and I'm certainly not a creationist... who are we talking about here? Have I missed something? (Does creationist POV mean anti-creationist POV?) Have you? Richard001 (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)