Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:32, 10 September 2014

Krill oil

FYI, Josve2014 has been in #wikipedia-en-help recently, trying to get help with the drama with this article. He doesn't seem to be trying to act in bad faith, and we've given him some clue about copyvios, and tried to give him some clue about editing in general, including asking him to not make huge edits to something that has already had drama, and to keep things on the talk page for now. I'm currently trying to go through the last six months (joy) of edits that got reverted and see if there is anything usable that can be pulled out of it.

Unfortunately, the whole thing has recently been heated up by edit warring (some of which was legitimate removal of copyvios, admittedly) and huge reverts, so the history is confused. I'm not a 'content writer', and not going to try to write anything new, but see what I can get out of the past. Since edits were made on top of unusable content, I'm probably going to end up with something that's hacked together as hell for a bit, so I'd appreciate some patience if it gets mangled. We'll see what I can do, and then hopefully get the interested parties to agree on a NPOV about it. Revent 15:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I like your user page, btw. :) Revent 16:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No problems here, I haven't been able to make sense of what Joka is trying to say since he mangled Prak Mann's comments on the Talk page. I know Prak from another place, his skills at assessing the technicalities of papers of this type are good. I am hoping he will contribute to discussion soon, but we will have to wait and see.

As to my user page, I rather like its laconic style, with a little bite too. Thank you;) Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, show me the section where it's stated that the ID proponent said that

Remember that the article was written by the natural selection proponent. Here are the parts I could find where an acknowledged ID proponent is being quoted:

• “Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem … we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’—but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.” (direct quote made in article)

• “I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked-out scheme.” (direct quote made in article)

• I mentioned in the debate that I thought this difficulty—acknowledged as it was by other ID theorists—was the deepest and most interesting challenge facing ID. But Meyer assured me that this is no longer an issue and that they now had a theory (paraphrased in article as here)

• The response was that ID was under no obligation to satisfy the expectations of the scientific community for what a theory should look like. (paraphrased in article as here)

• My presentation was dismissed as a “bunch of pictures—characters from The Simpsons (a cartoon of Homer evolving); a baby with a tail, webbed feet, a strange-looking whale creature with legs (ambulecetus, a well-established and very significant transitional fossil connecting sea mammals to their terrestrial ancestors); and a pretty picture taken at vacation home.” In contrast, my debate partner’s presentation was “sleek, professional, and chock-full of evidence and data.”

• Meyer’s presentation was very technical, although anything but “chock full of evidence.” My rather serious claim that ID had no theory and thus no evidence at all was dismissed, not addressed. The ID folk are now assuring their readers that their guy won; my defense of evolution was apparently pitiful: “Where was the new evidence?” the reviewer asks. “Where were the cutting-edge studies supportive of view?”

• My debate partner in Virginia was articulate, educated, likable, and familiar with a vast range of relevant scientific research.

Unless I've missed some parts of this article (please correct me if I did, but do so reproducing a quote from the cited article, or provide an alternative reliable source supporting your statement), the amendment, "conceding that they have yet to have any kind of scientific evidence" cannot stand as nobody in the cited article conceded such a thing. The point here is that nobody has been quoted as explicitly conceding that they have no evidence. This can therefore not be adopted into the article.

Let me make a few further points about this:

1. We must avoid original research. Our job is to collate material from reliable sources, not to interpret them. That, by contrast, would be the job for an essayist such as the one referenced.
2. I'm not sure how relevant it is to reproduce what can be seen as slips of the tongue of one proponent or another, as this has happened to both sides. Particularly the lede of an article should represent a consensus view of a subject. I'm aware that ID proponents are sometimes quick to latch on to any ambiguity or unfortunate phrasing. However, what may or may not be common practice by the proponents of one theory cannot also become the basis of Misplaced Pages's style.
3. The reputation of Misplaced Pages as a reliable source of information is more important than any role - forced upon us, it seems to me, but perhaps inevitably so - as a soapbox in debates. This is made very clear in the policies that we as a community have given ourselves.

I have no interest in what views you or User:Dr.Brock.Schuman hold. I will simply ensure that Misplaced Pages's contents accurately reflect what its cited reliable sources say. I would therefore greatly appreciate it if you could change the article to a version that complies with our policies and the cited sources. As the article receives close to a thousand views per day, I expect a swift response.

Thanks in advance,

Samsara (FA • FP) 17:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:DEADLINE and the source for that sentence. Its there. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

ALSO it might be a good idea to be a little more polite in your demands, especially when you are in the wrong. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Just show me the line. The request is pretty simple. Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have moved this content discussion to the article Talk page, where it belongs. Please respond there. thanks -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

kombucha change

Hi Roxy the Dog, I have seen your note on revert of my change of the part of kombucha article about “kombucha originating in Northern East China or Manchuria” - which I changed "as one of the possibilities". Do you know the source of such claim that it is really for sure from there? I have been working with kombucha for many years both as hobbyist and professional and I have not seen any proof of origin of the culture which would be lets say well funded, the same applies to the age of the culture - when it was created or it “happened to exist”. That applies to both scientific journals and popular literature. I am very interested to know where is the culture from and “when”, however I'm afraid that for really sound answer quite serious research would have to be done, I don’t think that even historical sources would be enough as prove - unfortunately especially from China, the claims about variety of subjects coming out from this country in last several decades are sometimes really ridiculous (which I'm sorry for, great history and I believe future). Please let me know if you know the person or source of the information if not I would suggest to change the "origin" to unknown or speculative because I do believe it is better not to give false evidence - I'm biotechnologist by training. Thanks a lot of any info and keeping an eye on the article, it is one of the ones which I check from time to time - biofilm based polycultures are what I’m into.

Sincerely FAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algoldor (talk • contribs) 13:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Not the nearest ended decade, It's the nearest decade.

Per above. No reverts are made to prevent escalation to Edit War.CloudComputation
_CloudTracker 09:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael Corby as rock deity

I can see how the reference to Michael Corby as a rock deity may be viewed as not enhancing the article, but his and the late Adrian Millar's contribution to popular music through the formation of a seminal group such as The Babys does deserve greater mention. It is one of the most controversial matters I have ever come across in my study of popular music. It needs a fresh approach from someone who is prepared to give themselves to a truly accurate historical picture of the group's origins and development.

All that we seem to have is a Facebook Fan Page, although extensive in its content, detailing his role as financier and founding member. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Michael-Corby-Fan-Site/263555143795620. Other internet articles seem to refer to Corby in a dismissive fashion.

In case you are in any doubt (because of their humorous name) about the musical ability of The Babys, tracks such as "World In A Bottle" and "I'm Falling" should dispel any reservations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.149.29.17 (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

question from inspector gadget, pasted from Roxy's User page

hello im inspector gadget and my edit was removed. I did online research and person to person and its well known in Caribbean history. Personal i feel its ridiculous but its what they really believe so if theres anything i can do to fox this please let me know thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspectorgadget101 (talk • contribs) 26 August 2014 15:49 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) the above comment is about this edit by Inspectorgadget101 and this reversionby Roxy. InspectorGadget added it to Roxy's User page - I cut it and pasted it here. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gadget! What you need to do before you put something like that into an article is to find a reliable source for it. See WP:RS for guidance. That there wasn't a source was the reason I removed your contribution. It seems that you've stumbled across a bit of Caribbean folklore, and if you can find a source, I think it should go back in the article. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding DangerousPanda's block of Barney the barney barney. I briefly mentioned your many helpful but completely ignored suggestions. I thought you made good points and did not get listened to and that's pretty much what I think I said at ANI. But it is ANI, so I think I'm required to give you a formal notice that I mentioned you, in case you wish to comment. The thread is What started it all. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)