61:
about the above-linked article is MAINLY that the list is automatically biased simply by its title. The term "pseudoscience" is a derogatory label applied to topics that the labeler deems unworthy. The problem with this is that the list does not include a clear definition of what constitutes pseudoscience, and so what ought to be included in the list and what not. Instead, this is a list of topics that various people have declared pseudoscientific. This ends in a variety of opinions coming together with their own individual definitions of what constitutes pseudoscience. For instance, why are out-of-the-body experiences on this list? The entry even states that these are genuine human experiences. There has been a lot of scientific work done with OBEs. What exactly is being labeled pseudoscience here? And OBEs are only one example. The list is filled with such examples. As such, the entire list is flawed in its conception.
359:. Saying Harper was the first non-Catholic elected PM was a flat out falsehood. The first PM was the first elected non-Catholic PM, and others followed (soon after, and well after). What you said wasn't remotely close to what the source said, and wasn't remotely close to the truth. Your edit was grossly and massively misleading, and reflected a profound lack of knowledge of Canadian history. So, of course, I didn't reword it, I reverted it. For you to pretend that this is about a little detail is sheer nonsense. --
167:, my comments have 1) been on topic, 2) have suggested ways to improve Knowledge (XXG), namely by eliminated biased and damaging articles, 3) I have attempted to be objective by, 4) dealing with the facts and expressing my argument as clearly as I can. My argument against this list, again, is that the list is entirely biased in its present form. As such, it needs to be either removed or seriously reworked in order to remove POV and unclear definition.
228:
286:
332:
Where do you get off calling my edit vandalism?? That is a completely false and uncalled for allegation. I have already discussed the need for this list to be re-named in order to mitigate its bias POV issues, a point which has received support from other editors. That nobody else has yet changed the
374:
Read the most recent post before making these kinds of statements. I edited the statement to read: "the first non-Catholic elected PM since
Trudeau," which is exactly what the ref, McLean's magazine, says. Sure, by leaving out "since Trudeau" what I said was inaccurate...but grossly misleading? Come
60:
Thanks for the comment. I understand the objective nature of the
Knowledge (XXG) project. I'm letting my opinion be known through the discussion forums, however, but I hope that it is an opinion that relies on the spirit of Knowledge (XXG) itself and not just my own bias one way or another. My point
87:
Hi -- you say that you are using the discussion forums to let your opinions be known. In fact, Knowledge (XXG) has no discussion forums in the usual
Internet sense of the word. What it has is Talk pages to discuss the aasociated article. Now you might say 'what's the difference', which is a good
124:: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is
300:
205:
Thanks for the note. I looked at the refs, but they do not seem to assert true notability. I'm leaving my vote for deletion since this appears to be a relatively minor band, of which there are far too many to give them all an article in
Knowledge
142:. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it.
243:
prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
114:: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages of
411:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
108:, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
128:(which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the
236:
164:
185:
333:
name encouraged me to go ahead and make the change. I did not vanadlise the name, but simply changed the wording in order to better reflect the contents of the list.
118:. However, if you feel something is wrong, but are not sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others.
88:
question. In a web discussion forum normally it's fine to express your opinions in general on a subject. On an article Talk page, however, (or in an article) it
31:
Thank you for your contributions to the above-linked article. Please, however, consider that
Knowledge (XXG) is about collating and presenting the work of
191:
Just in case you do not have it watchlisted, I wanted to let you know I have added sources to the article, which might address your concerns. Thanks,
436:
125:
320:
273:
432:
261:
49:
16:
245:
240:
163:
I don't see your point in terms of what I've been using the discussions for. If you are commenting on my approach to the
423:
describes the
Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
308:
251:
428:
312:
265:
256:. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
146:
I hope the above helps you see the difference between a discussion group and a
Knowledge (XXG) Talk page.
25:
424:
296:
257:
232:
376:
334:
207:
168:
151:
62:
400:
391:
420:
404:
364:
44:
40:
416:
408:
94:
419:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
412:
155:
115:
36:
147:
32:
301:
List of fields or concepts that have been labeled as pseudosciences and pseudoscientific
349:
192:
227:
139:
360:
375:
on. And in any event, I had fixed it before you left your rant on my talk page.
285:
129:
440:
384:
368:
342:
326:
279:
215:
199:
176:
70:
54:
407:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Knowledge (XXG)
138:: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to
39:
of we editors are irrelevant. You may also wish to peruse the
356:
186:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Amoebic
Ensemble
237:
List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts
165:
list of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts
399:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
8:
293:you will receive for your disruptive edits.
235:according to the reverts you have made on
231:You currently appear to be engaged in an
299:Knowledge (XXG) again, as you did to
7:
260:among editors. If necessary, pursue
104:: Talk pages are for discussing the
14:
425:review the candidates' statements
37:personal opinions and conclusions
284:
226:
82:
431:. For the Election committee,
401:Arbitration Committee election
392:ArbCom elections are now open!
1:
441:13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
116:biographies of living people
427:and submit your choices on
385:22:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
369:16:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
343:19:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
327:16:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
280:15:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
216:14:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
200:02:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
456:
433:MediaWiki message delivery
177:15:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
156:06:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
71:00:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
55:18:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
380:
338:
211:
172:
66:
26:List of pseudosciences
405:Arbitration Committee
126:neutral and objective
409:arbitration process
248:. If you continue,
83:'Discussion forums'
421:arbitration policy
262:dispute resolution
90:s a bit different.
357:this edit comment
325:
278:
246:three-revert rule
241:three-revert rule
198:
53:
447:
323:
319:
317:
288:
276:
272:
270:
239:. Note that the
230:
197:
195:
47:
33:reliable sources
455:
454:
450:
449:
448:
446:
445:
444:
429:the voting page
395:
353:
321:
313:
311:from editing.
274:
266:
224:
193:
189:
136:Deal with facts
85:
29:
12:
11:
5:
453:
451:
398:
394:
389:
388:
387:
352:
350:Stephen Harper
347:
346:
345:
294:
223:
220:
219:
218:
188:
183:
182:
181:
180:
179:
144:
143:
133:
122:Stay objective
119:
109:
91:
84:
81:
79:
76:
74:
73:
28:
23:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
452:
443:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
393:
390:
386:
382:
378:
373:
372:
371:
370:
366:
362:
358:
351:
348:
344:
340:
336:
331:
330:
329:
328:
324:
318:
316:
310:
306:
302:
298:
292:
287:
282:
281:
277:
271:
269:
263:
259:
255:
253:
247:
242:
238:
234:
229:
221:
217:
213:
209:
204:
203:
202:
201:
196:
187:
184:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
161:
160:
159:
158:
157:
153:
149:
141:
137:
134:
131:
127:
123:
120:
117:
113:
110:
107:
103:
102:Keep on topic
100:
99:
98:
96:
93:Specifically,
92:
80:
77:
72:
68:
64:
59:
58:
57:
56:
51:
46:
43:guideline. -
42:
38:
34:
27:
24:
22:
19:
18:
396:
354:
314:
304:
291:only warning
290:
289:This is the
283:
267:
254:from editing
249:
225:
190:
145:
140:verification
135:
121:
111:
105:
101:
89:
86:
78:
75:
30:
20:
15:
250:you may be
222:August 2008
148:Doug Weller
112:Be positive
417:topic bans
377:Wikigonish
355:Regarding
335:Wikigonish
208:Wikigonish
169:Wikigonish
132:proposal).
63:Wikigonish
35:, and the
413:site bans
297:vandalize
258:consensus
194:Paul Erik
233:edit war
130:Wikibate
45:Eldereft
41:WP:POINT
309:blocked
295:If you
252:blocked
106:article
95:WP:Talk
17:Archive
403:. The
315:Verbal
303:, you
268:Verbal
206:(XXG).
97:says
50:cont.
437:talk
381:talk
365:talk
339:talk
322:chat
305:will
275:chat
212:talk
173:talk
152:talk
67:talk
397:Hi,
361:Rob
307:be
264:.
439:)
415:,
383:)
367:)
341:)
214:)
175:)
154:)
69:)
435:(
379:(
363:(
337:(
210:(
171:(
150:(
65:(
52:)
48:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
