Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 08:34, 25 March 2015 (→A few administrator interpretations of RS: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello Popish Plot (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Popish Plot, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Misplaced Pages Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Misplaced Pages.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Circumcision, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The truth is I deleted one of my own comments on that talk page which was out of line and that I regretted! Popish Plot (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That's totally fine; we appreciate your reconsideration. The above WP:Template was not very useful, then: Arthur shuold have pointed you to Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Own comments. That policy says that, in your situation, it's best to put <s>…</s> around the comments you'd like to strike out of the record, and then put <u>…</u> around whatever you'd like to add, such as Sorry, I've reconsidered the above comment and no longer stand behind it. Edited ~~~~~. If you do that, other users will almost never hold the "struck" comment against you, and the conversation will remain intelligible. Arthur was probably confused because nat all the comments you removed were added by your logged-in username; another good reason to always log in if you can remember. Thanks, and welcome! FourViolas (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes one thing I keep forgetting is four tildes to put my name down. I see why that is a key thing. Popish Plot (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Note to a new editor

FYI: Ordinarily, if an editor states or asks specifically that an editor not comment on his personal talk page, as Arthur Rubin has on his, you should not then continue to post on his or her talk page. It is considered uncivil. There is an exception to this for posting required notifications or warnings (e.g. about Administrative Noticeboards' discussions). That is to say, if you bring a complaint to the noticeboards you are required to alert the involved editor. Other than that it is best to stay off the personal talk pages of those who have stated that an editor's comments are not welcome at their personal pages. As a new editor I thought you should be alerted to this. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't post on my user talk page. :) Popish Plot (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My, my Popish - you certainly are off to a good start. I just dropped by to say "hi" and maybe welcome you to WP, but I see others have beat me to it. I read your response to me at Griffin, but thought it best to respond to you there just in case you issued a wiki-wide myTPBan (for which there is no such thing). Even if there was, it wouldn't include me though, would it? New editors are such fun. Happy editing! Atsme☯ 22:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

pleased to meet you Atsme Popish Plot (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - CAM

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

Referring specifically to the G. Edward Griffin article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

sounds like basically, don't mess around, don't go editing without reliable sources. Understood. Popish Plot (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Callan has also placed the article under PP. Atsme☯ 17:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

what's that?Popish Plot (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Protection_policy#full You will also notice a lock on the article page - top right corner. It means you cannot edit the actual article without first getting consensus on the TP, then requesting the edit be made by an admin or editor who has the tools to do so. Atsme☯ 21:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully that's lifted soon but till then I suppose there is no problem with just bringing a source to the talk page to discuss whether it is reliable or not. Some of that discussion I see is about some other sources that people say are no good but what I'm wondering if wikipedia should make it clearer on what makes a source reliable. I think a lot of times it's too confusing on purpose. Popish Plot (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we have RS-N (Reliable Sources Noticeboard) for such discussions. I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to add a section to your TP which I hope you'll find helpful. You are asking many of the same questions I've asked in the past, and what many editors still ask and don't understand today. Atsme☯ 16:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!Popish Plot (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

A few administrator interpretations of RS

What I posted on Griffin Talk, , is the result of knowledge I acquired after quizzing admins, reading questions and results at RSN, and thoroughly reviewing WP:V, specifically the NOTES section at the bottom of the article. I tend to think the latter is often overlooked, even by a few of our veteran editors, perhaps by design, but it is always best to WP:AGF. I also believe it is very important for new editors to acquire a thorough understanding of BLP policy which also relies on strict adherence to the 3 core content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. New editors eventually come to realize that 3RR, ARB DS, and BLP violations are at the top of the list of priorities.

Another excellent explanation in less complex terms that helped me grasp the proper application of WP:RS was provided to me earlier this year at Misplaced Pages:RSN by admin TenOfAllTrades. (my bold and underline for emphasis)

A common misunderstanding among editors who don't have a medical or scientific background is that PubMed is a 'source' or publisher; it is not. PubMed is just a really big index (sort of like a library catalog) that collects citation information for a vast amount of science- and medicine-related content from thousands of different journals. of this material is of high quality, some...not so much. For instance, the first "PubMed" link above (this one) is just a pointer to a catalog entry for a 2003 paper by Fukuda et al. published originally in Biological & pharmaceutical bulletin.
A second common misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. Some of the most important guidelines for evaluating the use of specific sources to support specific claims can be found in WP:MEDRS. (Of course, a source can be reliable for a particular claim and yet still be omitted from an article for reasons of (ir)relevance, undue weight, or to avoid implying conclusions not actually supported. The greater context of the article matters.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Atsme☯ 17:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not the reslt of knowledge, it's a result of studiously ignoring those who have sought to explain the problem to you. You've proposed conspiracy crank sites as sources. YOu simply don't understand what a reliable source is, you are weighin them by how well they support your agenda, not by actual quality. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I do think once someone resorts to insults, they have been proven wrong. What is atsme's agenda? Popish Plot (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

To represent G. Edward Griffin's book World Without Cancer as something other than what it is - a book promoting the worst fraud ever perpetrated on American cancer victims; to represent his book The Creature From Jekyll Island as a work of legitimate scholarship, rather than what it actually is, a barely-coherent conspiracist ramble in support of the "hard money" fringe; to represent his self-published books and videos as works of critical scholarship, rather than what they are, conspiracist maunderings; and to make the article pass GA criteria by watering down critical responses to his nonsense. Along the way Atsme has proposed a variety of unreliable sources and in several cases has entirely misrepresented what those sources say (e.g. a book by Kissinger called New World Order presented as if it were an endorsement of the New World Order conspiracy theory which Griffin advocates. Atsme is a lovely person and up to now I think a very good editor, but she has acknowledged that she tends to settle on an angle and write from that perspective, and in this case the angle is simply wrong, and she can't seem to let go of it. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Griffin

Popish, in response to your request that I state all of the issues and WP policies to which I referred you on the Griffin talk page: I don't think that it's likely that I or any other editor will invest the time and effort to bring you up to speed on this. I would like to see you participate and I would like the group to have the benefit of any informed views or suggestions you may wish to offer there, however I think it is up to you to invest the time and energy to contribute constructively there. I hope you'll do so. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It's ok I figured it out, angry pov pushers, not wanting to discuss because they knew they were wrong. Popish Plot (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)