Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:12, 9 December 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Havermayer, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! —chris.lawson (talk) 00:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quackery on Reiki

I noticed that you added Quackery to Reiki and Homeopathy. This is good - we need more rational and scientific editors in the area, but since you seem to be somewhat new and you don't seem to have dealt with articles on pseudoscience and quackery before, I should inform you that your edits will be reverted by supporters, and you will most likely be attacked for making these edits, especially if you are persistant in making them (take a look at my user page, for example). In order to keep changes like this, you need to monitor the articles, and be able to support your changes with policy and the core tenets and spirit of Misplaced Pages. The latter is important, so that you do not become bogged down in wikilawyering. Supporters of quackery and pseudoscience often have quite a bit of time to think about such things, and often will have more time to edit than others. If you have any questions, or need any help, feel free to ask on the WikiProject Pseudoscience talk page (the notice at the top about PNA isn't actually followed by anyone, as can be seen by reading the rest of the page), which usually covers quackery as well. And have fun watching me get attacked for writing this note. --Philosophus 21:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

First attack then. I removed the category link. You take the view that Reiki is quackery, which is your right. It is certainly not generally accepted though, which is why we can't allow Reiki to be added to the category. Please take care to avoid adding your own point of view to articles. -- Ec5618 21:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I should have also mentioned that adding Quackery as a category probably can't be justified, though it depends on the meaning of the categories, which isn't quite clear. I believe this was discussed in regards to BDORT and Yoshiaki Omura. The consensus was to use See Also instead of categories for such things, rather than more complex resolutions like creating Alleged * categories. More importantly, we need editors to check the actual texts for POV, and make sure that the mainstream scientific view is properly and proportionally represented. Especially useful is the finding of reliable sources that promote the scientific point of view on such subjects explicitly, so that criticism that is added can be justified. Often, some editors will insist on sticking so strictly to NOR that it is difficult to add content saying that the mainstream scientific community considers something to be pseudoscience even if the NSF has published materials calling it pseudoscience. --Philosophus 22:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Empirical Skepticism

Hi, I noticed you made some changes to the skepticism article recently. Do your changes mean that you don't consider religious skepticism and activist skepticism to be sub-categories of empirical skepticism? The reason I ask is that they were previously listed as types of empirical skepticism, but after your changes they are not. However, the activist skepticism section still says, "Activist skeptics, self-described 'debunkers' are a subset of empirical skeptics." This means that the text of the article is not consistent with your organizational changes. --JHP 23:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Misplaced Pages:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! --apers0n 12:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Penn and Teller's Bullshit!"

Sorry, Honest mistake.

I thought that it was vandalism insultig Penn and Teller (calling their show BS). I guess that I should have followed the link to see that it was the name of a real program.

I'll edit the text a little to make it clearer for other reader who might also be unfamiliar with the program (Opps again, looks like you've already done that. Cheers).

perfectblue 07:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

SNIyer 12

Honestly, I don't know. I know he had an RfC against him about a year ago that went nowhere. I just revert the edits now out of habit. If you find out the next step, I'll join you. Sraan 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Tactics ogre

Hi, I've just started the game using ePSXe and the rom from home of the underdogs. Since I've only just started the plot is not at all clear to me yet. Do you know anywhere where there is a good outline of the plot that I could use to write that section? I'm kind of at a loss at the moment. Cheers, jaco♫plane 20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Spurious AfD

Your input is urgently needed on a spurious AfD . -- Fyslee 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)