| Revision as of 23:17, 3 March 2015 editBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,404 edits →Records of Awesome Editors Who Truly Want To Help: Nat Gertler has not edited this page. Don't copypaste comments from elsewhere to make it appear he has. I'll remove your privilege of editing this page if you post anything else disruptive.← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:24, 4 March 2015 edit undoDcrsmama (talk | contribs)97 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions|ts=]<sup>]</sup> 16:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions|ts=]<sup>]</sup> 16:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)}} | ||
| ==Records of Awesome Editors Who Truly Want To Help== | |||
| 'As this is not a study of people's hesitancy, it is not a suitable source for claims about the reasons for people's hesitancy. It would appear to be at best a study making claims about vaccines themselves, not a study about hesitancy or about controversy. If this study is the reason for people's hesitancy, then we should be pointing to a reliable third-party source that states that it's the reason, not to the study itself. If we say people stopped going to the beach because of the film Jaws, we use as a reference the source that makes that statement, not the film itself. So no, it's not a reliable source for what you claim you want to use it for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| That has got to be the clearest explanation yet. So what you are saying is cite a source that says there is controversy over the vaccine schedule because there is a correlation with infant mortality, then cite both sources? Or should I use opinion pieces like most of the other references in the article? Even the journal of medicine piece is an opinion piece. Is this where wiki gets the facts, from opinions, then excludes peer reviewed journal articles because it is WP:OR? It is built by popular opinion of the editors, from opinion pieces, not allowing facts...if this is indeed true....though I hope notDcrsmama (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| No, I'm not saying cite both sources. References are there to verify the facts that are being stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. If the statement being sourced is that there is a controversy due to correlation with infant mortality, then we cite a source that is discussing the controversy - there is no need to cite the study. Even if the source says that there is a controversy because of this particular study, we might mention this study in the text, but the study itself is not reference for the statement. And I am addressing the specific request for input that you made in your initial posting. If you have concerns about the other sources in the article, you may wish to raise them in a specific post about the specific concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)' | |||
| From WP:RPS | |||
| ==Observations== | ==Observations== | ||
| Was attacked en mass in very impolite manner with people questioning very rudely my education and my viewpoint. Ultimately, I was blocked by Bishonen for stating in response to another accusation, that it would be naive to believe pharmacology companies do not have wiki editors just like politicians and other large companies. Although the block was for repeated personal attacks, that is the best quote he could publish...not very repeating. A two day hiatus will be a nice respite. It is clear now, with the censorship I've faced, why wiki is not considered a reliable source in academia.] (]) 22:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | Was attacked en mass in very impolite manner with people questioning very rudely my education and my viewpoint. Ultimately, I was blocked by Bishonen for stating in response to another accusation, that it would be naive to believe pharmacology companies do not have wiki editors just like politicians and other large companies. Although the block was for repeated personal attacks, that is the best quote he could publish...not very repeating. A two day hiatus will be a nice respite. It is clear now, with the censorship I've faced, why wiki is not considered a reliable source in academia.] (]) 22:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| Bishonen is abusing his blocking power. Has blocked under the guise of repeated personal attacks, yet cannot reference anything I have said in accordance with ]. It further appears I am being blocked for observations of a non personal nature, and making statements contrary to those with much time to patrol the pharma related pages. ] (]) 12:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:24, 4 March 2015
Welcome!
Hello, Dcrsmama, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- WP:MEDRS - this is our guideline for sourcing health-relating content in Misplaced Pages - it tells you what "counts" as a reliable source for health content. Another guideline, WP:RS, describes what a "reliable source" is for other content.
- WP:MEDMOS - this our manual of style, for how we write about health-related things.
- WP:CONSENSUS - Misplaced Pages has plenty of policies and guidelines, as I mentioned, but really at the end of the day this place is ... a democracy? an anarchy? something hard to define. But we figure things out by talking to one another. CONSENSUS is the bedrock on which everything else rests. WP:BRD
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by LouiseS1979 16:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.
Records of Awesome Editors Who Truly Want To Help
'As this is not a study of people's hesitancy, it is not a suitable source for claims about the reasons for people's hesitancy. It would appear to be at best a study making claims about vaccines themselves, not a study about hesitancy or about controversy. If this study is the reason for people's hesitancy, then we should be pointing to a reliable third-party source that states that it's the reason, not to the study itself. If we say people stopped going to the beach because of the film Jaws, we use as a reference the source that makes that statement, not the film itself. So no, it's not a reliable source for what you claim you want to use it for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
That has got to be the clearest explanation yet. So what you are saying is cite a source that says there is controversy over the vaccine schedule because there is a correlation with infant mortality, then cite both sources? Or should I use opinion pieces like most of the other references in the article? Even the journal of medicine piece is an opinion piece. Is this where wiki gets the facts, from opinions, then excludes peer reviewed journal articles because it is WP:OR? It is built by popular opinion of the editors, from opinion pieces, not allowing facts...if this is indeed true....though I hope notDcrsmama (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying cite both sources. References are there to verify the facts that are being stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. If the statement being sourced is that there is a controversy due to correlation with infant mortality, then we cite a source that is discussing the controversy - there is no need to cite the study. Even if the source says that there is a controversy because of this particular study, we might mention this study in the text, but the study itself is not reference for the statement. And I am addressing the specific request for input that you made in your initial posting. If you have concerns about the other sources in the article, you may wish to raise them in a specific post about the specific concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)'
From WP:RPS
Observations
Was attacked en mass in very impolite manner with people questioning very rudely my education and my viewpoint. Ultimately, I was blocked by Bishonen for stating in response to another accusation, that it would be naive to believe pharmacology companies do not have wiki editors just like politicians and other large companies. Although the block was for repeated personal attacks, that is the best quote he could publish...not very repeating. A two day hiatus will be a nice respite. It is clear now, with the censorship I've faced, why wiki is not considered a reliable source in academia.Dcrsmama (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Bishonen is abusing his blocking power. Has blocked under the guise of repeated personal attacks, yet cannot reference anything I have said in accordance with WP:NPA. It further appears I am being blocked for observations of a non personal nature, and making statements contrary to those with much time to patrol the pharma related pages. Dcrsmama (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)