User talk:Jaypronx

Welcome
Hello, Jaypronx, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Help Request
Hey man I attempted to correct some wording on Dean Radins biography page (as to make it more neutral) but accidently deleted the references.
 * Hi Jaypronx, I think I fixed the problem. Did this resolve your issue?  --Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I am frustrated with Dean Radin's biographical article. I feel as though information has been purposely omitted and the article itself has been made to be largely one sided and skeptic based. There are plenty of supporters of Dean Radin's work and research and I'm at a loss as to why this article has been allowed to continue to be so bias. I don't have the necessary editing skills or knowledge of policies to be able to make much of an impact at this point in time since I just started, however I could use advice from an experienced editor. Jaypronx (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm responding to your help request, although I'm not closing it because I don't know that my answer alone will help here. I think you might benefit from the opinions of a few editors. I know nothing of the subject and I know nothing of his work. I can speak from my experiences here, that an article's subject is considered notable when they receive significant coverage, from independent reliable sources. Now though the subject's notability may have already been established, it seems that to achieve the neutral point of view that you're asking for, you'd have to balance the existing references with (again), independent reliable sources.
 * I do a lot of editing in the frivolous world of television, and on a daily basis I gotta shake my fists at children to get off my lawn, and also to stop adding "fan-cruft" (fan-based trivia) and "crush-cruft" like "Banana might possibly have a crush on Strawberry", which is usually sourced to Wikia.com. The content is not worthy of inclusion, and the source, Wikia.com, is an unreliable fan site. Now, I'm not trying to denigrate your complaint by equating it to what the kids do, I actually just wanted to just blow off some steam about the crap I have to deal with on a daily basis. Thank you for listening! But to get to your issue, unless you can demonstrate that the subject has received comparable positive coverage in independent reliable sources, you are waging an uphill war. Arguing that because the subject has "plenty of supporters", doesn't mean that the opinions of those supporters are notable. That sounds like an "appeal to popularity" logical fallacy, to me.  Also, have you read WP:FRINGE?  Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You appear to have intentionally asked this question in two places, while being unspecific here, in one of them. This question is already discussed. If necessary, a helpme may be placed there, with a specific question arising from the previous discussion there. --Gryllida (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternative
Jaypronx, the Rupert Sheldrake article is about the same. Let me know which version of this article (by edit date in the history) is the most balanced and I will port it to Citizendium. There, it is possible to further develop it into a balanced article. Tom Butler (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * the current version is probably close to the best and most balanced you will find. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * TRPoD Of course you know you are delusional if you really believe that. Thanks for the input, though. Tom Butler (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)