Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:39, 19 May 2009

Template:Archive box collapsible

Since you are very policy driven

I think your thoughts might be very useful at Talk:Internet homicide#Name. I thought of you because 1, you are uninvolved and 2, you are extremely policy driven which in this case might be well served. If you are interested pop over. If not, as usual, just ignore. :)

On a different note, I hope you are well. Things here are about the same but I see a neurosurgeon this week and I have high hopes that I will get some simple help with things. I know, I am opening the door to being let down, depressed and frustrated. I'll email when and if I learn anything new. You take care, I'm off to go lie down again. My heating pad is my best friend these days. Thanks, and be well, --CrohnieGal 12:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That looks like the brewing of a messy fight. Hm...if there are a series of notable murders that happened because of meeting someone on the internet, it seems like the smart option would be to have a separate article for each one that is notable, and perhaps a list of the less notable and a couple {{main}}. Flatly, for me if you can't find the name in a reliable source on a search engine, it shouldn't be here. Really, the only thing linking these murders together are the use of the internet, right? How is it therefore related as a topic? I'm not sure it is. But that's a lot of reading for something I'm not really interested in.

Glad you're talking to a doc, but I wish it could be more promising. I don't envy anyone with an obscure condition and long medical history, it makes recovery to perfect health almost impossible :( The human body is an amazing and complicated thing. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea I'm afraid with the different editors there it's going to get messy. The problem is that the editor who initiated this article also wrote a few more in just a few days during a problem apparently starting at Craigs list. The editor is also a journalist and if I understand correctly, she writes about things in this area and this article is to coin a new term to use. If you just look at the article though, the refs fail and badly. I did a search of Internet homicide and internet killer and I can't find anything to support this article with WP:RS without breaching core policies. I am not the only one having this problem either. What I see as another problem is the use of inclusionist by editors. Now I've seen talk about editors who are inclusionist and do whatever they can to make sure things don't get removed even if they should be. This is the first time though that I have interacted with them and boy are there a lot of words to read. It's kind of overwhelming for me right now that I am just watching. I may weigh in again after a few of them slow down a bit so that what I say, or for that matter anyone else says, doesn't get flooded away with long rambling posts. I just thought that you are one editor who is a stickler for policy in a positive way for the project that you might be able to bring more focus on policy norms. I do understand though if you want to pass on this one, I may too. :) I am going to watch for another day or two but if it keeps going the way it has been I'll be unwatching it. It is involving a bunch of other articles that I am not even aware of nor have I read. But I can get a taste of how many by just some of the postings on the talk page.

My health surely doesn't seem like it going to get better anytime soon if at all. My health keeps getting worse with the immunne system shutting itself down it seems but hopefully my next appt the doc will have something to tell me to help me out. This has gotten so old already. I mean just typing this actually is painful to do. :( I'll let you know offline when I get any info. Thanks my friend, take care of yourself, --CrohnieGal 11:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you know, you have an email from me which has nothing to do with the project. It's apparrent I will be going on wikibreak here soon, the email tells you why. I sure could use some good thoughts about now, I guess I am getting a little worried now. Be well, --CrohnieGal 12:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis

I've made the case here indicating some of the imbalance I'm seeing in the Aquatic ape hypothesis article. Can you do a considered response? It strikes me that the arguments for AAH are excluded, while many of the counter arguments we're quoting are really quite feeble - or down-right wrong. I can provide more examples than what I've done so far, but here's another - Morgan makes a powerful claim (that we don't include) "Only two kinds of environment are known to be conducive to nakedness in mammals - a totally subterranean one, like that of the naked Somalian mole-rat, and an aquatic one" - and the article pretends to counter it with "most similarly-sized aquatic mammals have dense, insulating fur ... swim very well". We can't solve this argument, but neither should we be erecting (or allowing others to erect) straw-man arguments that bear no relation to the theory. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS and WP:OR - what counts is not what we think of an argument, it is what the reliable sources say. We do not get to challenge or support a theory directly. Morgan's status as a popular publisher with no real academic support or scholarly credibility. She bypassed scientific press and peer review by using a popular publisher. In cases like these, there is a significant limit of what can be claimed; this is a fringe theory within mainstream science and not really considered credible. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying hard not to apply any form of my own research to the arguments - what I'm saying is that the article is seriously deficient, excluding good arguments in favour while presenting, supposedly in the "neutral voice" rather bad arguments against. It's not OR to say "this is an AAH argument we can cover" nor to say "this is an argument that looks as if it's a snipe and doesn't address any of the issues".

Nor is it OR to say that Morgan has a firm grasp of how much can be discovered from fossils and how they can mislead. It might be OR to compare Morgan directly with Darwin, but she does point out that the naturalists were ignored repeatedly - that's an argument easily powerful enough to be included if, as seems to be happening, specialists from one discipline oppose claims from another. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So find and cite the appropriate sources. If you're not sure, check at the fringe theories, reliable sources or neutral point of view noticeboards. If the page is deficient in arguments, the appropriate action is to find the arguments in good sources and expand the page based on them. It is OR (and POV) for us to say Morgan has a firm grasp, but we could cite someone else who says this as well. If the AAH is well-embraced by mainstream scholars, per WP:UNDUE it should be easy to find good references to this fact on google scholar, pubmed, google books, etc. The limiting factor is, and always should be the sources. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

We've got the appropriate sources, the world expert on AAH. We've got criticism for which we don't provide the original statements - in some cases because, as best I can tell, because the original statements don't say what one might suppose of them. Most of all, we have a badly written article that won't satisfy anyone (other than a rabid hater of AAH), and certainly not satisfy anyone seeking to understand the topic. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If the "world expert on the AAH" you are referring to is Morgan, then she is most certainly not an expert. She is not a paleontologist, she has no university position, her works are not published by academic press, and though referred to by peer-reviewed journals, the substance of supporting and refuting the work does not rely on her analyses. At best, her works could be used to give her ideas on the subject, framed solely as "Morgan has said..." followed by a brief summary. The substantive arguments for and against the AAH must come from peer reviewed journals and books published by university-press and other academic publishers. The AAH page should simply be used to give the mainstream academic opinion of the AAH, whether for good or bad. From my understanding, it is not generally accepted. If you want confirmation, try asking at the fringe theories noticeboard - your edit count is less than 500, so you probably aren't as familiar with the relevant policies and mores as some of the more experienced editors. We can give voice to minority opinions, but it is important that we give more weight to the relevant scholarly opinion. To expand the page in a substantive way, please be sure to use the best sources you can find, which means scholarly press rather than popular press. Per our policy on undue weight, the emphasis on the page should be placed on acceptance by scholars, not popular audiences. Accordingly, if you are portraying the AAH as proven, accepted or meritorious, make sure you can source it to academic, peer-reviewed journals and books. If you're not sure, a lot of the publishing houses have wikipedia pages that can tell you what sort of quality to expect, or you can ask for an opinion on the reliable sources noticeboard. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Mediation's been started on a Mediation Cabal case where you have been listed. I'd appreciate it if you and the parties involved show up and we can solve this issue. Concrete 22:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Impersonation?

Um, you're not running multiple accounts for any reason, are you? Would you take a look at this note left on my talk page, supposedly signed by you? (It's in response to this pointed message about a blatant, but repeatedly denied, copyvio.)

It might have been an inadvertent mistake, but this user is not "winning friends and influencing people", so I'm not sure how much good faith is appropriate to assume. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

3rr

Sadly he's at four now. I will report it unless you are doing it currently.--Slp1 (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Slp1 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't even notice. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar of Persistance

Yep, I stuffed up. Didn't realise that your sig was at the bottom of the box. Apologies for the whole mess up. And i'm not an AIDS denialist, just someone trying to even up the balance of bias. Anyway, that doesn't matter, sorry again MrAnderson7 (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is a joke or relationship I am not aware of, it strikes me as extremely uncivil. I don't care if my signature was accidentally included, but I do take umbrage to bastardizing one of the few gestures we can use to acknowledge good works into an insult, irrespective of how WAID took it. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You have made your point overtly clear and I'll take it on board for future reference.MrAnderson7 (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Parental alienation

You keep taking off valuable links scontent that meets of exceeds all standards for Misplaced Pages. You falsely claim that the content on the wesbite of the virutal library of the Canadian Children's Rights Council is a copyright violation. It isn't.

You have reduced the web page to nothing in a destructive manner.JaniceMT (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)