Misplaced Pages

Templates

• User:Fyslee/Template_privacy
• User:Fyslee/Template_vandalism

• {{Usr:Fyslee/Template vandalism}}

• User:Fysee/Templates
• User:Fyslee/Background

• {{User:Fylee/Background}}

Created List of alternative medicine subjects

Done. -- Fyslee / talk 04:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Subpages

• Quackery definitions throughout history
• Alternative medicine critics
• User:Fyslee/List of alternative medicine subjects

• Watchlist: List of alternative medicine subjects

• User:Fyslee/Vandalism templates
• User:Fyslee/Presidents
• User:FysleePseudoscience stuff

Music groups Supergroup (article), Traffic, Blind Faith, Blood, Sweat & Tears, Dire Straits, The Yardbirds, Cream, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Spencer Davis Group, Rolling Stones, Fleetwoo Mac, Aersmith, Queen, Big Brother and the Holding Company

Musicians

Steve Winwood, Dave Mason, Eric Clapton, Mark Knopfler, Jim Capaldi, Ginger Baker, Elton John, Sting, Phil Collins, John Mayall, Jimi Hendrix, Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page

It's all about our learning curve

Let's start with a quote from Dave Mason, a great musician and entertainer:

• "As for me, if I'd have known better, I'd have done better. It's all been lessons, and everybody's got their lessons to learn. I'm trying my best, and I'm certainly trying to learn from my mistakes. But I'd like to thank all the people that fucked me, because is been quite an education."

It's all about one's learning curve. None of us is perfect oal and redeemability should be judged by their Wikipedian learning curve, not by exceptional and occasional displays the line" when under fire, which is quite human, or do they operate on the other side of the line most of the time, finding incivility and the personal attack mode to be their natural element? A look at the totality of an editor's ontributions is essential before making judgments. A positive learning curve is what it's all about. - Fyslee

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Request to amend prior case:Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Thought you'd want to know I've asked for a finding related to you to be amended. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG! I have just complained about this particular issue. It looks like we're on the same page. I'll go there now and make a statement. Done. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Now located here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Motion

Motion in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

The Arbitration Committee has altered the above-linked case by successful open motion. The header of the finding which previously read "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (Finding of Fact 3.2) has been changed to "Sources used by Fyslee".

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! There is some justice here after all. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Parsing of WP:PSCI

I have previously parsed the ArbCom decision's four groupings, here reproduced and tweaked:

There is an obvious demarcation line that the ArbCom members seemed to recognize, and that is "who is supporting or criticizing what."

They made four groupings, and the first two are always recognized by the scientific mainstream as fringe=alternative (often alternative medicine) ideas opposed to the mainstream, but supported by believers in pseudosciences. The scientific mainstream criticism is allowed to be stated, IOW that the fringe=alternative believers are wrong, and that their position is pseudoscientific, all by the use of V & RS, and can (in addition) even be so characterized by editors at Misplaced Pages (by using the ] tag). IOW, the ArbCom decision is supporting scientific mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors:

• 1. Obvious pseudoscience
• 2. Generally considered pseudoscience

The next two are quite different, since they are about ideas on the mainstream side of the demarcation line mentioned above. They are mainstream ideas that may or may not be firmly entrenched, but are somewhat trusted or still being researched in a legitimate manner. They may actually be experimental. No matter what, they are not considered fringe or alternative medicine ideas. They are sometimes accused by the fringe side as pseudoscientific (in true pseudoskeptical style - see Carroll), and the ArbCom decision forbids the fringe editors here from categorizing those mainstream ideas as pseudoscientific. Again, the ArbCom decision is supporting mainstream editors and limiting fringe editors:

• 3. Questionable science (IOW, things like psychoanalysis, which is considered mainstream and is specifically addressed by the ArbCom, and would not be allowed in this list).
• 4. Alternative theoretical formulations ("are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process," IOW also considered mainstream, and would not be allowed in this list. "Experimental alternatives are unproven but have a plausible rationale and are undergoing responsible investigation.")

I think this parsing is more accurate and it makes sense. The ArbCom members would hardly be expected to disallow V & RS, but they certainly would set limits on what certain fringe=alternative editors have occasionally tried to do - editorially calling mainstream ideas pseudoscientific by categorizing them as such. The ArbCom members support mainstream science and set limits on how far fringe editors can go in (mis)using Misplaced Pages categories. They are not addressing the use of V & RS in lists and articles.

Changing the title of the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts would help to enable the use of all V & RS, as required by inclusion criteria. The current title is not NPOV. We need a List of subjects alleged to be pseudoscientific or List of subjects asserted to be pseudoscientific, or better yet, List of topics referred to as pseudoscientific. That would be the primary inclusion criteria (IOW what was "on-topic"), and would allow well-sourced criticisms by scientific academies, various organizations, and even individuals who are quoted in V & RS. At the same time the ArbCom decision would disallow the disruptive POINT violations of pseudoskeptics who attempt to include more-or-less mainstream ideas in this list (such as vaccinations, antibiotics, etc., as has happened). Such sabotage attempts would not be allowed. Those who are still acting in a protectionist mode will of course attempt to retain a hard title "List of pseudosciences", since that will allow them to keep their widely criticized pet ideas out of this list. That's unwikipedian and such attempts should be defeated. It limits the list by disallowing many very notable opinions in V & RS.

-- Fyslee (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Mysterious huffings in Mindinao.

Whoops, I belatedly noticed your request to respond here. Alas, I have only general ideas to offer. NickyMcLean (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)