| Revision as of 13:57, 12 February 2014 editCoquidragon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,633 edits →WP:BURDEN: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:24, 16 February 2014 edit undo76.107.171.90 (talk) ←Blanked the pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == I like you == | |||
| That is all. ] (]) 19:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Notability is not temporary == | |||
| see ] - notability is not temporary. and while real scientists deny any actual lasting/real impact from studies at PEAR, the papers they generated are widely touted by the psy community. its likely that any meta analysis would come to the conclusion that the claims and pseudo authority granted them because of "Princeton" name in the title ''did'' have an impact on convincing non scientists and providing support for the psy community for those 30 years of its existence. | |||
| since there are multiple reliable sources that have covered the subject in a more than trivial manner - for example the "obit" in the NYT - as such it meets the "presumed to be notable". If you wish to question that presumption, it will need to be done at an AfD. -- ] 18:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :i have very little concern that time spent there will be futile with regard to deletion. the battle to keep it appropriately non promotional in the face of pseudo sci pushers - there i have concerns about futility! but I have enough hopes to plug on. -- ] 18:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Let me know your opinion on this article, I believe it should be redirected to ]. ] (]) 17:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == February 2014 == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> - ] (]) 11:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Please remember that according to ], "All material in Misplaced Pages articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, ''whether or not it is cited in the article''." - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 11:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Please, if you are going to cite wikipedia rules, the least you can do is read the entire rule and avoid selective reading. I have included the full paragraph you made reference to, and please, pay attention to the section I have emphasized. | |||
| :''Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. <u>Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a ] tag as an interim step.</u> When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. <u>If you think the material is verifiable, ] before considering whether to remove or tag it.</u>'' | |||
| Thanks.--] (]) 13:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC) | |||