In this edit you made the claim that a primary source was a systematic review [1]. Please be more careful. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, yes I did. I think we can agree I've made plenty of great edits since starting on the page, but this was clearly not one of them. Thanks for pointing it out! Milliongoldcoinpoint ( talk) 14:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
What is your rationale to use an older source from 1997 to make such strong statements? QuackGuru ( talk) 17:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
That you posted this [2] with no warning. No notification on my page. And two of the difs count as one as they occured one after the other without any intervening edits [3] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
See user page notice and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Klocek. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
In this edit you made the claim that a primary source was a systematic review [1]. Please be more careful. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, yes I did. I think we can agree I've made plenty of great edits since starting on the page, but this was clearly not one of them. Thanks for pointing it out! Milliongoldcoinpoint ( talk) 14:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
What is your rationale to use an older source from 1997 to make such strong statements? QuackGuru ( talk) 17:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
That you posted this [2] with no warning. No notification on my page. And two of the difs count as one as they occured one after the other without any intervening edits [3] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
See user page notice and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Klocek. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)