This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WLU (talk | contribs) at 12:27, 16 October 2009 (→A couple of notes: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:27, 16 October 2009 by WLU (talk | contribs) (→A couple of notes: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Re: Balticon
That kind of data is not encyclopedic and doesn't belong in an article about a given SF con. There are a lot of mundanes out there who would love to see all fandom-related articles deleted; the last thing we need to do is to provide fodder for their arguments by padding articles with trivial detail about what's on the program at a given con (which changes every year anyway. (When was the last con you went to that had a banquet, once a fixture of convention programming?) Concentrate on providing evidence (preferably from the mundane press, or at least sources known to mundanes like Locus) to prove notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- The article needs more substantial, encyclopedic content. Examples would be information derived from articles in reliable sources explaining its history (putting it into a context as part of the history of SF and fandom, etc.) or stating what role Balticon plays in SF culture in the Mid-Atlantic states. This is a reference work, not a con-goer's directory. Look at Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News, etc. for relevant information. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
David Standish Ball
I understand; uncited claims in biographies should be tagged or removed. Yes, I've heard the jokes about Canon Ball. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Questions
Hi,
In this edit you state " While the meaning you espouse is perfectly valid, and we are not trying to negate it..." - may I ask who the "we" is? Do you represent an organization?
Second, have you ever previously had a[REDACTED] account? The request for comment is an unusual step.
Third, have you read the talk page as I suggested? This discussion has happened before. Also, have you reviewed the relevant content policies I have pointed out, notably WP:OR and WP:NPOV? My edits are not based on not understanding the definition of bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, it's based on how they are discussed in peer-reviewed journals. It is therefore important for you to understand these policies, and be able to demonstrate that the relevant sources are in fact discussing bioidentical hormones in the way you suggest before editing towards this point. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 16:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please review WP:NPOV - we represent issues as found in the appropriate literature. The majority of references portray bioidentical hormones as I have; unproven, misrepresented, borderline dishonest and with the same expected benefits and risks of conventional hormone replacement therapy. Also review WP:MEDRS and WP:CANVASS. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 14:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
A couple of notes
Boothby does not have an "e" in it.
Why should we highlight Boothby's work in particular? By using both a quote and using a name, a reader's attention is drawn and leads to the question "Who is Boothby and why should I care"? That's why we link to the various agencies making claims and statements.
If you don't like the wording, pick a wording that you think better represents the sources. Don't just blanket revert the addition of a half-dozen sources that converge on and support these points. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 12:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)