User talk:Wikigonish

Archive

Thank you for your contributions to the above-linked article. Please, however, consider that Wikipedia is about collating and presenting the work of

Thanks for the comment. I understand the objective nature of the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia itself and not just my own bias one way or another. My point 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.Wikigonish (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- you say that you are using the discussion forums to let your opinions be known. In fact, Wikipedia 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 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) its a bit different.
Specifically,

• Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, 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.
• Be positive: 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
  biographies of living people
  . 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.
• Stay objective: 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 neutral and objective (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 Wikibate proposal).
• Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to
  verification
  . 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.

I hope the above helps you see the difference between a discussion group and a Wikipedia Talk page.

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

list of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, my comments have 1) been on topic, 2) have suggested ways to improve Wikipedia, 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.Wikigonish (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia.Wikigonish (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.Wikigonish (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit comment. 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. --Rob (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 on. And in any event, I had fixed it before you left your rant on my talk page.Wikigonish (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current