Talk:Common Misconceptions

I believe that this is a very important subject, as it pertains to us all, particularly, when it comes to deciphering and analyzing media reports. Our world view is shaped by our understanding of our environment. Thus, our personal decisions, whether it's related to consumerism or socio-political in nature, depends on our individually obtained or influenced perspective. Not only is it a matter of consciousness and being conscientious, but a matter of being wrong or right as active partners in a global village.

Therefore, I hope that this article helps those who visit the site, and hope that people will make further contributions to it for the benefit of us all, and the future of humanity. (The shaman poet (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

That's not what I asked for

DMacks, You erased my entire article cause it was "completely uncited" as you stated. Did you miss where Laxnesh LOKEN asked readers to help me cite sources? Yes, I need help with this article.

On the other hand, You were not able to argue any points made as invalid or false. What's your problem? If you are not able to make useful contributions, then please refrain from erasing mine. Let others judge for themselves and "talk" about any perceived issues. I much rather have your contribution than your ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shaman poet (talk • contribs) 03:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is a site policy, the opposite of WP:OR collections or personal analysis. And WP:Content fork is quite clear that we should not have more than one article on the same topic. We already have an article on this topic. And it does have cites. DMacks (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"We already have an article on this topic." IS NOT CORRECT. The like titled topic is a blank page redirecting the topic to a list (of common misconceptions). Thus, there is no description whatsoever as I have compiled regarding the issue. I believe it is important for the reader to acknowledge why there are so many common misconceptions, and how they persist, as well as ways to minimize them in mind. This aspect is completely ignored by the list. If you or any other editor or reader would like to help enhance this article, I very much appreciate it. What I am against is a disregard for my efforts in bringing some enlightenment to the subject by removing the topic all together.

In fact, I prefer that the typed search inquiry "Common Misconceptions" would redirect to this article first prior to going straight to the list. (The shaman poet (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Here we go again

After talking things over with one editor, now Andy Dingley erased this article with this contradictory claim :"Take this to talk: don't just repeat adding duplicate unsourced articles."

If he had only pulled his head out long enough to read this 'Talk' section before impulsively removing the article, he would not have contradicted himself.

And as for "unsorced", there are plenty of linked sources to other wiki articles that support what is mentioned. Perhaps the next person attempting to delete this article would be more courteous and try to prove any portion of it being plagiarized first. Do editors here give that much thought to their role or are they lazy programmed robots who take delight in messing with other people's contributions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shaman poet (talk • contribs) 03:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When haranguing editors on talk pages, it's considered courteous to at least link their names so that they're notified.

This has now been removed for a third time. The problem is still the same, it is a WP:CFORK of an existing article at List of common misconceptions. You need to address that, not just abuse other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was proposed in this section that Common Misconceptions be renamed and moved to Common misconception.

result:
Procedural close. Apologies to the nom – redirects are ineligible to be current titles in move requests. Perhaps you had something else in mind? Good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 23:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move logs: source title · target title

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Result:
Procedural close. Apologies to the nom – redirects are ineligible to be current titles in move requests. Perhaps you had something else in mind? Good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 23:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Common Misconceptions → Common misconception – Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) Eurohunter (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary? It looks like both of those are just redirects to List of common misconceptions. WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP, so I don't see a need here unless I'm missing something.... Dohn joe (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.