No edit summary |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
If you want to watch the fur fly, intervene with a few level headed comments, or give me some advice on my talk page it would be appreciated. [[User:DavidWis|DavidWis]] ([[User talk:DavidWis|talk]]) 19:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC) |
If you want to watch the fur fly, intervene with a few level headed comments, or give me some advice on my talk page it would be appreciated. [[User:DavidWis|DavidWis]] ([[User talk:DavidWis|talk]]) 19:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
== June 2010 == |
|||
[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] This is the '''final warning''' you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. <br> The next time you [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox|use Wikipedia for advertising]], as you did with [[:Acupuncture]], you may be '''[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Blocks|blocked from editing]] without further notice'''. [[Category:User talk pages with Uw-advert4 notices|{{PAGENAME}}]]{{Do not delete}}<!-- Template:uw-advert4 --> ''Since it is clear you make money from promoting yourself as a practitioner of acupuncture who benefits monetarily from censoring the fact that qi meridian manipulation is considered by all independent, reliable sources as rank pseudoscience, you are not allowed by the rules of [[WP:COI|our conflict of interest guideline]] from making edits which remove this information from our articles.'' [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 00:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:52, 6 June 2010
(What's So Funny 'Bout).... The Golden Rule
Wonderful essay: WP:DGAF
Caveat: Before asserting that I or any other editor has a conflict of interest in X topic area, please note this: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." - from WP:COI. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, since you make money by bilking the public in an alternative medicine scheme that has no evidence basis, I suppose that means you have no conflict of interest? If you truly believed this, you wouldn't be arguing so heavily for misrepresenting sources as you did in these edits. Despicable. I have warned you, but if you pursue this line of argumentation, I have no other choice but to report you for resisting WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE in favor of your conflict-of-interest. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Minchen quote and RS policy
While I may or may not (still thinking about it...) revert your deletion, you should know that I disagree with your edit summary:
- "rm comedian's rap - not at all a V RS -- Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a group blog, right?"
Not true. Read the RS policy again. We have plenty of comedy here, and also comedians, and use them as RS on many subjects. In this case Minchin happens to be a notable skeptic who uses comedy to get a serious message across. In this case he's basically condensing what other notable skeptics have said, and it's not even a funny comment in itself. It's dead serious. His quote doesn't sound funny, and if it weren't mentioned that he was a comedian, but instead it was presented as the POV of a skeptic, it would be viewed in a very different light, and properly so.
His quote happens to be an excellent condensation of several of the statements in this section right below its location. In fact, it probably belongs in that section, so rather than deleting it, how about moving it and rephrasing it?:
- "Tim Minchin, a skeptic who uses comedy to get his message across, has stated that alternative medicine is that which "has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work", and then he quips "You know what they call 'alternative medicine' that’s been proved to work? Medicine."[1]
Now, if we were to use his website as the source, all this may be moot, as he has removed the comment from his website! Of course it is duplicated hundreds of other places.
BTW, we have already discussed the use of the quote when it was in the lead. Look near the top of the talk page. There was a discussion about removing it. It ended up getting deleted during an edit war over other matters. Whatever the case, Minchin's quote is a RS for the opinions of a noted skeptic and doesn't deserve to be removed from the body of the article. We just need a better link. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Brangifer - You're absolutely right. Tim Minchin is self-evidently an outstanding MEDRS, as well as a V RS for all scientific topics and pretty much anything of a scholarly bent. What on earth could I have been thinking? I must need a reality check. Self-rv'd, so WP is again on the path to being a wonderfully reliable source. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- As to a link, an animated version of his routine is in production as "Storm the movie". The official trailer, linked to on the production company's website, is also found here. Now YouTube is generally not considered a RS, but when it's the official trailer for an upcoming movie, I'm not sure what the RS/N would say. I suspect this would be one of the situations when it would be allowed. To avoid problems, the official link on the website would be preferable. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Glad you took the sarcasm in the friendly way I intended it -- it seemed like the most economical way to say what I meant. In all seriousness, I just do not get your criteria here: someone who passes WP:N for any reason suddenly becomes a V RS if they parrot other, good V RS's who are themselves skeptical? Does this reliability-drift apply to other viewpoints or just the skeptical one? And why isn't it better just to cite the sources who say essentially the same thing? Because you like the pithy phrasing the comedian guy used? Really -- what is your standard here? --Middle 8 (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Middle 8,
I notice your level headed comments on the acupuncture discussion page.
I recently added a link to an interesting new Wiki article entitled Bonghan Systemto the acupuncture and meridians articles. After reading these articles I have noticed a strong critical/skeptical bias against acupuncture theory. I expect that my link and the Bonghan System article will be attacked by those who believe that "There is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians".
If you want to watch the fur fly, intervene with a few level headed comments, or give me some advice on my talk page it would be appreciated. DavidWis (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
June 2010
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you use Wikipedia for advertising, as you did with Acupuncture, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Template:Do not delete Since it is clear you make money from promoting yourself as a practitioner of acupuncture who benefits monetarily from censoring the fact that qi meridian manipulation is considered by all independent, reliable sources as rank pseudoscience, you are not allowed by the rules of our conflict of interest guideline from making edits which remove this information from our articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- ^ Tim MinchinHomeopathological, 18 February 2009