User talk:Skinnytony1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Skinnytony1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC) thxSkinnytony1 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliably published sources are required[edit]

Content, particularly content relating to living people, must be supported by reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight, this is particularly true in claims about medically related content.

In addition, content in an article must be from sources that are directly discussion the subject of the article, not merely something related to the subject of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

THanks bro but I think the Centre for Disease Control couldn't be more reliable http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5326a3.htm Skinnytony1 (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
while the CDC is "reliable" in the general use of the term, it will generally be a "primary" source and of little use to Wikipedia because Wikipedia editors gather the analysis and commentary of others that have looked at the primary sources; we dont provide any of our own analysis in article content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Particularly when dealing with content about a living person, Wikipedia is not here to provide "pro" and "con" sides. Setting up something as "controversy" or "criticism" sections are almost always a bad idea. And setting out to show how bad something is really has no place here. Content must always be from sources that are directly and explicitly actually discussing the subject of the article.

And I should have linked the abbreviations: WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. If you type WP:___ (fill in the appropriate letters) into the search Window you will get directed to one of the pages that outlines the Wikipedia policy or guideline .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ervin Laszlo[edit]

I appreciate your attempt at editing the Ervin Laszlo article. Unfortunately the references you cited I.e. (YouTube, blogs etc) are not reliable sources for Wikipedia so they were removed. You need to either cite reliable books (look on Google books for any books that discuss Laszlo etc) or scientific papers (PubMed or JSTOR are useful). If you look at the Dean Radin article, or Russell Targ, have a look at the "reception" sections, I heavily edited these. I believe something similar should be done on the Laszlo article (are there any reviews for his books?), perhaps we can work together on trying to improve the article but only if reliable sources are used. I am in agreement with you, Laszlo's views are complete pseudoscience but we need reliable references if we are to include this in his article. Cheers. Goblin Face (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Totes agree Goblin Face. Let's do it. I dumped my edit onto the article at rational wiki so that write up wasn't in vain. wikipedia has a bigger audience so i think it's important to get this one done properly. I hear you about "reception" section...it's sad tho, i've noticed a transition in articles away from "criticism" which is usually the only interesting section. protecting their ass. Skinnytony1 (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)