Misplaced Pages

User talk:Prof.Silas

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) at 14:59, 4 November 2022 (→{{UTRS|Billyball998}}: unblock comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:59, 4 November 2022 by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) (→{{UTRS|Billyball998}}: unblock comments)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

I am not a sock, i am currently appealing the ban

Welcome!

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

Yes. We are biased.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Misplaced Pages, once wrote:

Misplaced Pages's policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Misplaced Pages will cover it appropriately.

What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.

So yes, we are biased.

And we are not going to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance
NPOV clearly says not to include bias. Also you should use quotation marks. Bias is not good for anyone, if you want to clearly inform the public of the positions and their scholarly weight, that is commendable, but you cannot refuse to list other views because you don't like them, and I hope you understand the distinction between 1) proven science, ie, the earth is round (no other views NEED to be presented, it is a fact, it is proven and 2) theories that are unproven and contested, ie The Torah is a composite of 4 sources, for example, even if its popular amongst bible critics, that does not make it more of a fact; it is one view and other views have to be present also. Even if they are less popular. Popularity, even amongst scholars, does not make something more true, it does not become a fact because enough people agree on it. What you are imagining is nothing more than an appeal to authority, where all the authorities you don't agree with, you disqualify from having an opinion. Billyball998 (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Your problem, not mine. For more than a hundred years, every other view than "the Book of Daniel is a 2nd century BCE writing" is dead in the water, as far as the mainstream academia is concerned. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
You know for a very very long time every mainstream scientist said the earth was infinitely old, with no beginning, until the 60s when it was discovered that it wasn't. Just because people believe something doesn't make it a fact... if there is another position to an UNVERIFIED, especially an unverifiable debate, it is crazy to choose one as fact for everyone else. You should disseminate all positions and allow readers to use their minds, wikipedia is not a propaganda machine it is an encyclopedia.
We should report what people have said about it rather than what is so. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ#"There's no such thing as objectivity" Billyball998 (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. Farley, Tim (25 March 2014). "Misplaced Pages founder responds to pro-alt-med petition; skeptics cheer". Skeptical Software Tools. Archived from the original on 19 October 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
  2. Hay Newman, Lily (27 March 2014). "Jimmy Wales Gets Real, and Sassy, About Misplaced Pages's Holistic Healing Coverage". Slate. Archived from the original on 28 March 2014. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
  3. Gorski, David (24 March 2014). "An excellent response to complaints about medical topics on Misplaced Pages". ScienceBlogs. Archived from the original on 19 October 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
  4. Novella, Steven (25 March 2014). "Standards of Evidence – Misplaced Pages Edition". NeuroLogica Blog. Archived from the original on 20 October 2021. Retrieved 4 November 2021.
  5. Talk:Astrology/Archive 13#Bias against astrology
  6. Talk:Alchemy/Archive 2#naturalistic bias in article
  7. Talk:Numerology/Archive 1#There's more work to be done
  8. Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 60#Misplaced Pages Bias
  9. Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 13#Strong Bias towards Skeptic Researchers
  10. Talk:Energy (esotericism)/Archive 1#Bias
  11. Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 12#Sequence of sections and bias
  12. Talk:Vaccine hesitancy/Archive 5#Clearly a bias attack article
  13. Talk:Magnet therapy/Archive 1#Contradiction and bias
  14. Talk:Crop circle/Archive 9#Bower and Chorley Bias Destroyed by Mathematician
  15. Talk:Laundry ball/Archives/2017
  16. Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 15#Suggestion to Shed Biases
  17. Talk:Torsion field (pseudoscience)/Archive 1#stop f**** supressing science with your bias bull****
  18. Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 3#Biased Article (part 2)
  19. Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 12#Blatant bias on this page
  20. Talk:Flat Earth/Archive 7#Disinformation, the EARTH IS FLAT and this can be SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN. This article is not about Flat Earth, it promotes a round earth.
  21. Talk:Scientific racism/Archive 1#THIS is propaganda
  22. Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory/Archive 3#Problems with the article
  23. Talk:Santa Claus/Archive 11#About Santa Claus
  24. Talk:Flood geology/Archive 4#Obvious bias
  25. Talk:Quackery/Archive 1#POV #2
  26. Talk:Ancient astronauts/Archive 4#Pseudoscience

November 2022

Information icon Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Book of Daniel. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Misplaced Pages policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Billyball998 (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
If my account is not going to be unbanned... am i allowed to make a new one to continue my discussion? This feels targeted and out of nowhere... I have only the one account... thanks. Billyball998 (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I think the whole point of blocking you is to stop you from continuing the discussion with multiple accounts. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #Billyball998

is closed. BTW, you are blocked. There would be no point in blocking one account and allowing you to continue with a new one. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: The link above to the UTRS appeal does not work.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
UTRS:64967. --Blablubbs (talk) --Blablubbs (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/public/appeal/view?hash=ed2538da4011efadd0fe688545a65721 Billyball998 (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
deepfrieddorka... i do not know why my edits merited blocking... i don't believe they did merit blocking. I was actively engaged in an academic talk page discussion. I think i was blocked simply because bbb23 believed, spuriously, that i was a certain blocked troll user making a new account, not because of the nature of the edits. Billyball998 (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Bbb23 could you let me know what made you think i was that user, thanks Billyball998 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Billyball998, based on technical data, my block was incorrect. I've therefore, unblocked you and removed the tag from your userpage. My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)