| Revision as of 13:18, 21 August 2008 editJefffire (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers4,518 edits →Comment on the article, not the contributor← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:57, 22 August 2008 edit undoJason Quinn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators43,657 edits →spoilers: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| :::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) | :::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) | |||
Revision as of 13:57, 22 August 2008
- /Archive the first: November 2005 to June 2006. Welcome, questions, collabarations and controversy.
- /Archive the second
- /Archive the third
- /Archive the fourth
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
NLP
I am proposing deletion of the entire set of articles on Neurolinguistic programming. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Neuro-linguistic programming. 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. Peter Damian (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Peace process: pseudoscience
See my message 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 the points I discussed with Guy. Peter Damian (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Identifying reliable sources
I've left a note on the NLP talk page describing the problem of identifying reliable sources for possible pseudoscience. Any help appreciated. Peter Damian (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment on the article, not the contributor
Please respect WP:Civil. Hgilbert (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please respect WP:OR, and cease your PoV pushing campaign for your religion. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT the place to enact your little paradigm shifts. Jefffire (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ummm...go back to the top of this section. And where have I made use of original research??? Hgilbert (talk) 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 ;). Jefffire (talk) 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 Misplaced Pages:Spoiler policy. Thanks for pointing that out. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)