User talk:65.163.112.128: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:50, 29 December 2007

Your addition to WP:3O

Hey. I saw your post on the third opinion page, and I'm confused as to what your question is. Is the question about the inclusion of ufowatchdog.com on the pages? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is used to infer that pro paranormal people and investigators are conmen/conwomen while skeptics such as Philip Klass remains uncriticized, and when evidence is found, on the SAME site, it is not allowed. The evidence criticizing Philip Klass is on ufowatchdog.com, the "Hall of SHAME 1, 7th on that list. I and others have placed it, it gets removed, while ufowatchdog.com is used as evidence of criticizim of people who are pro paranormal, investigate paranormal matters, and that IS allowed to remain in their articles. Either allow evidence that UFO Watchdog to be used as evidence of criticizisim of skeptices, which it does, as well as evidence of criticizisim of pro paranormal people, investigators or remove it out of articles, such as Linda Howe and Richard C. Hoagland. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well. First, ufowatchdog.com does not seem like a reliable source. Wiki policy states that trustworthy secondary and tertiary sources are to be used - things like newspapers and books. Primary sources are discouraged, as are self-published sources (see WP:SPS) which is what ufowatchdog.com is, more or less. I looked around, and the only place I can find it being cited is on Richard C. Hoagland, and that's only for a comment on a radio show. As for the section on Linda Moulton Howe, I believe that section is entirely inappropriate. It suffers from WP:OR and WP:POV, but that's beyond the issue here.

I'm still confused as to what you want, though. Is it your belief that ufowatchdog should be used on all the pages, or none? Third opinions will only help here if there's been a discussion between you and another editor, and you need a third party opinion. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 03:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just being fair to both sides. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ::Okay, well. First, ufowatchdog.com does not seem like a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. Wiki policy states that trustworthy secondary and tertiary sources are to be used - things like newspapers and books. Primary sources are discouraged, as are self-published sources (see [[WP:SPS]]) which is what ufowatchdog.com is, more or less. I looked around, and the only place I can find it being cited is on [[Richard C. Hoagland]], and that's only for a comment on a radio show. As for the section on [[Linda Moulton Howe]], I believe that section is entirely inappropriate. It suffers from [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:POV]], but that's beyond the issue here.
 ::I'm still confused as to what you want, though. Is it your belief that ufowatchdog should be used on all the pages, or none? Third opinions will only help here if there's been a discussion between you and another editor, and you need a third party opinion. &mdash; [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <span style="font-size: .7em;">[ [[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/HelloAnnyong|c]] ]</span> 03:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
+::Just being fair to both sides. [[Special:Contributions/65.163.112.128|65.163.112.128]] ([[User talk:65.163.112.128#top|talk]]) 03:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)