Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gill Langley: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:29, 16 July 2006 editSmile a While (talk | contribs)Rollbackers16,852 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 21:32, 16 July 2006 edit undoSmile a While (talk | contribs)Rollbackers16,852 editsm →Peer reviewNext edit →
Line 3: Line 3:
BlueValour, you're well out of order. I'm assuming you have something against animal rights. If you do, fine, but nominating this for deletion, and then trying to make derogatory edits about the subject is going too far. We do not normally add next to every publication whether or not it has been peer-reviewed. It is an irrelevance. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC) BlueValour, you're well out of order. I'm assuming you have something against animal rights. If you do, fine, but nominating this for deletion, and then trying to make derogatory edits about the subject is going too far. We do not normally add next to every publication whether or not it has been peer-reviewed. It is an irrelevance. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


*First of all, please read ]. Why am I 'well out of order'? I notice that you have reverted my edit with the comment 'delete nonsense about peer review; who cares about that?'. Why is a factual addition to provide balance 'trying to make derogatory edits about the subject is going too far'. I have no interest in animal rights but I do have an interest in a balanced Misplaced Pages. The paper 'Next of Kin' is pivotal to this article, particulalry since the article quotes extensively from it. Since it is a scientific report on a controversial subject it requires peer review to establish if it has merit. I quote from the WP article ]: "The peer review process is aimed at getting authors to meet the standards of their discipline and of science generally. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields." If you revert my edit again then it will be clear that you have no interest in NPOV. ] 21:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC) *First of all, please read ]. Why am I 'well out of order'? I notice that you have reverted my edit with the comment 'delete nonsense about peer review; who cares about that?'. Why is a factual addition to provide balance 'trying to make derogatory edits about the subject is going too far'. I have no interest in animal rights but I do have an interest in a balanced Misplaced Pages. The paper 'Next of Kin' is pivotal to this article, particularly since the article quotes extensively from it. Since it is a scientific report on a controversial subject it requires peer review to establish if it has merit. I quote from the WP article ]: "The peer review process is aimed at getting authors to meet the standards of their discipline and of science generally. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields." If you revert my edit again then it will be clear that you have no interest in NPOV. ] 21:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:32, 16 July 2006

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Peer review

BlueValour, you're well out of order. I'm assuming you have something against animal rights. If you do, fine, but nominating this for deletion, and then trying to make derogatory edits about the subject is going too far. We do not normally add next to every publication whether or not it has been peer-reviewed. It is an irrelevance. SlimVirgin 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • First of all, please read WP:AGF. Why am I 'well out of order'? I notice that you have reverted my edit with the comment 'delete nonsense about peer review; who cares about that?'. Why is a factual addition to provide balance 'trying to make derogatory edits about the subject is going too far'. I have no interest in animal rights but I do have an interest in a balanced Misplaced Pages. The paper 'Next of Kin' is pivotal to this article, particularly since the article quotes extensively from it. Since it is a scientific report on a controversial subject it requires peer review to establish if it has merit. I quote from the WP article Peer review: "The peer review process is aimed at getting authors to meet the standards of their discipline and of science generally. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields." If you revert my edit again then it will be clear that you have no interest in NPOV. BlueValour 21:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Category:
Talk:Gill Langley: Difference between revisions Add topic