Misplaced Pages

User:BruceSwanson: 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 16:10, 28 May 2010 editBruceSwanson (talk | contribs)974 edits this particular← Previous edit Revision as of 19:38, 28 May 2010 edit undoBruceSwanson (talk | contribs)974 edits One simple rule.Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
I am a copy editor and proofreader living in the Los Angeles area. I've begun a on proofreading and its management; and have posted a speculative essay on our probable lottery-based, crowd-sourced future, .
⚫ The orthodox ] hypothesis as it is found in Misplaced Pages articles and Talk pages cannot be maintained ''in detail'' by editors using their real names. That's because it is so fundamentally dishonest that anyone trying to validate its logic and assumptions would necessarily damage their personal and professional reputation. However, the existence of , of which I am a layman , would seem to indicate that AIDS-dissident viewpoints ''can'' be maintained by people using their real names. I recommend three simple rules to guide their edits:


⚫ Since many of my current edits deal with ] I should probably point out that as a ] in excellent health whose only recreational drugs are found in ], ], and an occasional ], my viewpoint is merely that of an incredulous bystander. From that perspective I've come to realize that the orthodox ] hypothesis as it is found in Misplaced Pages articles and Talk pages cannot be maintained ''in detail'' by editors using their real names. That's because it is so fundamentally dishonest that anyone trying to validate its logic and assumptions would necessarily damage their personal and professional reputation. However, the existence of , of which I am a layman , would seem to indicate that AIDS-dissident viewpoints ''can'' be maintained by people using their real names. I recommend one simple rule to guide their edits:


]: {{cquote|''All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.''}}


⚫ ]: {{cquote| ''Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge.''}}
and


This alone would eviscerate the HIV=AIDS hypothesis.
]: {{cquote| ''Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources ''}}


and

⚫ ]: {{cquote| ''Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge.''}}




Since many of my current edits deal with ] I should probably point out that as a ] in excellent health whose only recreational drugs are found in ], ], and an occasional ], my viewpoint is merely that of an incredulous bystander, not someone active in or threatened by this particular carnival of lies passing through our time.




Revision as of 19:38, 28 May 2010

I am a copy editor and proofreader living in the Los Angeles area. I've begun a blog on proofreading and its management; and have posted a speculative essay on our probable lottery-based, crowd-sourced future, here.

Since many of my current edits deal with HIV/AIDS I should probably point out that as a heterosexual in excellent health whose only recreational drugs are found in wine, beer, and an occasional cigar, my viewpoint is merely that of an incredulous bystander. From that perspective I've come to realize that the orthodox HIV/AIDS hypothesis as it is found in Misplaced Pages articles and Talk pages cannot be maintained in detail by editors using their real names. That's because it is so fundamentally dishonest that anyone trying to validate its logic and assumptions would necessarily damage their personal and professional reputation. However, the existence of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, of which I am a layman signatory, would seem to indicate that AIDS-dissident viewpoints can be maintained by people using their real names. I recommend one simple rule to guide their edits:


WP:NOR:

“ Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. ”

This alone would eviscerate the HIV=AIDS hypothesis.