![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hey why did you mark my changes as spam? That was not my attempt, I thought I could add the link there. Can you please explain why you changed back? Thank you, appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniorlol ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay QuackGuru I understand now. This was my mistake then. Please make sure, this is not marked as spam because this was not my attention. Thank you for correcting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniorlol ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC) I meant it was not my INTENTION, sorry for that. So please make sure this is not marked as spam because it could affect the owner of the link. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniorlol ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The linking of common terms needs strong justificaiton under the guidelines. Tony (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Will most of WP's readership know what the term fortnightly means? Keeping in mind MOS:OVERLINK, is it a word that our worldwide readership will usually understand? It does seem to me that WP:NAD refers to articles created as dictionary entries not to internal linkage, content, or giving our readers a clearer understanding of what a term might mean within the context of an article. Maybe editors don't like the style of an efn notation in this case, maybe the linkage coupled with the explanation was redundant, but I think it is a good idea to always keep in mind that Wikipedia is not created for us editors, it is created for readers and those two groups of people can be very different things. 18:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Go read the leads of some WP:FAs. Maybe some FA leads have been corrupted, but generally they do not have citations in them. The citations belong in the body.-- 172.56.33.50 ( talk) 06:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.. clpo13( talk) 18:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Say, QG,
aren't citations supposed to be outside any ortographic signs? Periods, I'm sure of; other signs no reason I can see why not.
Thanks, 87.8.88.240 ( talk) 20:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, then it appears that there is no intrinsic "right" way to place citations. Thanks for your time and patience. 87.8.88.240 ( talk) 08:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
ADDENDUM: I've found this, which is a guideline, and, according to some, not mandatory. For the sake of consistency, I'd follow it, but feel free to ignore it if you so wish. 87.8.88.240 ( talk) 11:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Any hints as to when that SPI (informal SPI?) is coming? If you don't wanna say on-wiki per BEANS that's cool. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Failed verification span. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Failed verification span redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Apparently you don't have to add "close=1" to reflist anymore. Personally I like having the refs tucked away at the end of each section, but having them after the relevant comment works too. -- tronvillain ( talk) 17:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It is OK for the proposer of an RFC to withdraw it at any time - see the first bullet at WP:RFCEND. Please don't exacerbate the situation. Thx Jytdog ( talk) 16:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
That article passed AfD, it should default to retention. I know it is the third revert, I hope you understand where I'm coming from. RexxS has been attacking me at the Juul article, so here we are. Valoem talk contrib 14:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
One of the reason I am against a merge is because I am not sure KST is consider chiropractics. Both Koren and many within the community have said it's not chiropractics. This is the core reason I am against the merge. I answered you here because it has nothing to do with the ownership accusation. There are also some additional expansions that can be added which were removed. Honestly, I think its better to remove the entire section in Chiro methods and just keep the stand alone article. Valoem talk contrib 01:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I've notice that the fringe noticeboard is heavily involved in eCigs, why is this? Were there many false claims of healthy benefits? I am not too involved to know the history, but eCigs doesn't seem fringe at all. Valoem talk contrib 21:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I thought I would explain why I declined to pursue the discussion at
Talk:Quackery#Cyclical_ailments_and_confirmation_bias. Your talk page is probably appropriate because I don't see the point in posting the following too publicly.
Very similarly to what occurred at
User_talk:ONUnicorn/archived_talk_9#Your_change_is_still_OR, I was not the editor who added the information. Being part of Citation Cleanup WikiProject, I noticed the broken citation syntax and reformatted it. I unfortunately don't have the necessary time right now to properly verify the accuracy of the citations used at the Quackery article, and had not planned to do this at current time.
On the other hand, I agree with you that accuracy is important. Moreover, if the claims were original research or unproperly sourced, they did not contradict common sense and as such had not raised particular alert flags for me. Also being part of the Skepticism WikiProject, I added Quackery to its To-Do list in case other editors (or myself) can eventually look again at it.
If your concern is that undo is easier when there is only one change to undo (sorry if I'm stating the obvious) it is easy to go back to any previous revision of the article (as explained here:
Help:Reverting#Manual_reverting). I appreciate your interest in accurate sourcing, and apologise if my edit caused confusion. Thank you, —
Paleo
Neonate —
22:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You keep reverting the page. Thank you for your edits and cleaning up grammer, etc. but the page looks like it's showing favoritism. Why does iQOS have more than one picture? It's also the first picture at the top which shows favoritism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACBSA ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Regards PawełMM ( talk) 16:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Quack... Just wanted to say that, while I still disagree with some of what you are saying at WP:Citation underkill... It is turning into an excellent essay. There are a few points where the essay has convinced me to re-think. Well done. (I am actually thinking of working on a third essay, to bridge the gap between overkill and underkill... but it will take more thinking). Blueboar ( talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
About this edit note. One thing about the style of narrative in the Hebrew Bible is that it is generally very terse; details that would seem very important are not discussed at all, all over the place. This is what it is; interpreters through the centuries have filled in the gaps in many ways.
Please also be aware that there is content that in Samuel that clearly discusses rape - see Samuel 2:13 which is about one of David's sons raping his own sister Tamar, and she definitely says "no".
The David/Bathsheba text is very terse. "So David sent messengers to get her, and she came to him, and he lay with her. " It is invalid in WP (and really everywhere in life) to say that the text says something that it doesn't, or what its lack of saying something actually means. This is an OR thing that you are usually very sensitive to.
The lack of clarity around Bathsheba is remarkable. Jytdog ( talk) 16:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Per this discussion at AN/I, you are indefinitely banned from all articles and edits related to religion, broadly construed. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not restrict you from making edits to noticeboards (eg WP:FTN), so long as your edits are not related to religion.
If you wish to appeal this sanction, your options are:
Options two and three can be done now, on the grounds that the sanction is somehow wrong, or in the future, on the grounds that the sanction is no longer required. In the latter case, I would recommend leaving a considerable amount of time before appealing — at least six months and probably a year. GoldenRing ( talk) 09:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at David shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog ( talk) 16:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
sometimes it is such a great pleasure to edit alongside you! this made me laugh in a nice way. Jytdog ( talk) 02:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Roxy the dog, I will continue. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Alt-left also read these and think about what the reliable and expert sources say versus these primary sources https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/ https://altleft.com/ https://www.facebook.com/alternativeleft/ https://altleftjournal.wordpress.com/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeLeft/ http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.il/2016/09/a-proposal-for-alt-left-political.html https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/liberal-race-realism-precursor-to-the-alt-left/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8noaimoNzk ??mark ames?? http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/why-the-alt-left-is-a-problem 2001:8003:117E:6D00:8C99:FABD:3B38:A0F7 ( talk) 03:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC) ... ive been thinking , yes im wrong goodbye 2001:8003:117E:6D00:8846:A4A6:2C55:FEC4 ( talk) 04:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi QuackGuru. As you're one of the most prolific contributors to the chiropractic-related pages, and in my opinion one of the top NPOV editors on those pages, I was wondering if you'd be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chiropractic which I made active today. I noticed you're semi-retired now, and there is a list of long-term objectives planned on the project page, but if you're interested at all I figured I'd share with you the link. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 00:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
It looks like you just removed an errant line break/piece of white space? Sorry and thanks for cleaning up after me. I hope you can see the validity of my edit per wp:COMMENT. I think your edit summary regarding under-cite belongs on the talk page. The dodgy IPs are starting to throw their weight around on that article Edaham ( talk) 01:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder to use the template given at Template:Cite web or Template:Cite news to add new references instead of simply a link between brackets.-- EdgarCabreraFariña ( talk) 16:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Would you please take a look at Affective neuroscience. It smells like bullshit to me. And you like calling bullshit bullshit. Thanks. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 07:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Special:Diff/813745321: Would you mind explaining, please? I initially though about converting it to an unordered list for accessibility, but then changed it to a table at the last second. Now there's no semantic hints, no colons.
A table could also have {{
Yes}}
, {{
Maybe}}
, {{
No}}
and {{
Dunno}}
. What do you think?
84.250.17.211 (
talk)
07:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font>
tags, which are causing
Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Furthermore, your two colors, vermillion (also vermilion) and burntorange, are not on the list of 16
HTML colors or the list of 124
X11 colors. The replacement markup for <font>
recognizes only color names on these lists. For vermillion/vermilion, I found online references giving the RGB hex code equivalent. For burntorange, I found numerous online references, but none of them are correct, so I experimented and came up with a very close approximation. So, with that preamble out of the way,
You are encouraged to change
[[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]])
:
QuackGuru (
talk)to
[[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]])
:
QuackGuru (
talk)Respectfully, Anomalocaris ( talk) 00:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, this is a friendly invitation to discuss disputed content on the talk page rather than speculating about reasoning in edit summaries; the latter approach is error-prone. Kind regards! VQuakr ( talk) 20:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the
preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces
edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up
recent changes and the
page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Trivialist ( talk) 19:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018! |
Hello QuackGuru, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Sorry, I didn't mean to remove your comment at RfD! I got confused. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 17:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I may not be the most adept at editing a sound wiki page, but I do believe your deletion of the Feb 2018 Position Statement from the AMerican Cancer Society regarding Electronic Cigarettes and their merit for use as part of Tobacco Harm Reduction is pertinent to this article. As is the three year Evidence Review Public Health England Released the week before that as a followup to changes made after the 2015 Study by the Royal College of Physicians first made headline. You might recall that they first alerted the world on the dangers of Smoking in 1964 (?). I will leave that alone for now, have you read any of the 590 pages released by the National Academies on January 23, 2018 "Health Consequences of Ecigs" or some title to that effect. It was a federally mandated independent study of all current research. I know wiki already has that cited somewhere, but has a good summary of its content been done for wiki yet. The two references made after the January study where accentuated by another from the National Cancer Institutes H.I.N.T.S. a national trends study on perception and reality. I would not know how to include that sort of information in wiki, it isn't soap it is enlightening. Soap boxing would be to link articles from every major newspaper which felt Americans needed to know our Head of the CDC had to step down from their position (just like the person at the desk prior to her start) for a conflict of interest as demonstrated by stock portfolio trades of 1) Japanese Tobacco Companies (the holder of the brand Camel in their parts) as well as vaccine stocks.I know any suggestion of that having relevance to this e-cig page is not prudent. But I think it merits a second look at what GB has tried to help us better understand for some time.
Also, what has wiki included on PHI's IQOS application with DC from January for their Heated Tobacco Product, currently the leader in Japan, 3 million sales in Germany, and if they are moving to separate vaping from tobacco before Brexit but if the IQOS is in the same stores as Vape products, taxes go very high. I know wiki is not a news outlet. I'm just keeping you abreast as you seem to have taken an interest in this pages health.
No harm, No foul. Just a newbie wondering how to approach things from a sensible and neutral place. I find the pictures of mods to be quite amusing. Do not fear, I will not be offering any new ones. Best, your headache PhilEdits ( talk) 15:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The article Tedd Koren has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Author admits to lack of notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Septrillion (
talk)
15:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tedd Koren is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tedd Koren until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Septrillion ( talk) 22:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey QuackGuru! [1] You put a FV on this sentence: "His publications cover over 54 topics for patient education in chiropractic." The source states, "His publications have included more 60 pamphlets....[for] conditions for which 'spinal checkups are vital'." Is that not saying the same thing? SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 15:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
In general, I find your activity here to be oversight not contribution, but I have not pried into any of your activities other than what shows on my watchlist. I DO HOPE YOU MAKE POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF NEW INFORMATION TO ARTICLES. I am aware of your past charges in the area of acupuncture and such, lets not see you return to those discussions. "Those who can't = teach"? Respectfully Mrphilip ( talk) 08:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I was referring to your removal of
Pauldavs poor choice of this item you removed.
<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).|}
My rephrasing (moved to Opposition), CN and FV tags are his |
---|
The Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance objected to the entrance of nicotine pouches in Kenya. citation needed They are concerned that the nicotine pouches may raise the risk of cancer, heart disease, and reproductive or developmental harms. failed verification They also failed verification stated that there is no reliable research that demonstrates nicotine pouches are safer than regular cigarettes. [1] |
References
I do not often use this feature in WIkipedia, though thought this is warranted. --- FULBERT ( talk) 00:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Medical pricing and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Thryduulf (
talk)
12:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:List of drug prices, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The proposed decision in the Medicine arbitration case has been posted, and contains one or more remedies or findings of fact which relate to you. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hey why did you mark my changes as spam? That was not my attempt, I thought I could add the link there. Can you please explain why you changed back? Thank you, appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniorlol ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay QuackGuru I understand now. This was my mistake then. Please make sure, this is not marked as spam because this was not my attention. Thank you for correcting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniorlol ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC) I meant it was not my INTENTION, sorry for that. So please make sure this is not marked as spam because it could affect the owner of the link. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniorlol ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The linking of common terms needs strong justificaiton under the guidelines. Tony (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Will most of WP's readership know what the term fortnightly means? Keeping in mind MOS:OVERLINK, is it a word that our worldwide readership will usually understand? It does seem to me that WP:NAD refers to articles created as dictionary entries not to internal linkage, content, or giving our readers a clearer understanding of what a term might mean within the context of an article. Maybe editors don't like the style of an efn notation in this case, maybe the linkage coupled with the explanation was redundant, but I think it is a good idea to always keep in mind that Wikipedia is not created for us editors, it is created for readers and those two groups of people can be very different things. 18:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Go read the leads of some WP:FAs. Maybe some FA leads have been corrupted, but generally they do not have citations in them. The citations belong in the body.-- 172.56.33.50 ( talk) 06:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.. clpo13( talk) 18:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Say, QG,
aren't citations supposed to be outside any ortographic signs? Periods, I'm sure of; other signs no reason I can see why not.
Thanks, 87.8.88.240 ( talk) 20:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, then it appears that there is no intrinsic "right" way to place citations. Thanks for your time and patience. 87.8.88.240 ( talk) 08:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
ADDENDUM: I've found this, which is a guideline, and, according to some, not mandatory. For the sake of consistency, I'd follow it, but feel free to ignore it if you so wish. 87.8.88.240 ( talk) 11:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Any hints as to when that SPI (informal SPI?) is coming? If you don't wanna say on-wiki per BEANS that's cool. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Failed verification span. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Failed verification span redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Apparently you don't have to add "close=1" to reflist anymore. Personally I like having the refs tucked away at the end of each section, but having them after the relevant comment works too. -- tronvillain ( talk) 17:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It is OK for the proposer of an RFC to withdraw it at any time - see the first bullet at WP:RFCEND. Please don't exacerbate the situation. Thx Jytdog ( talk) 16:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
That article passed AfD, it should default to retention. I know it is the third revert, I hope you understand where I'm coming from. RexxS has been attacking me at the Juul article, so here we are. Valoem talk contrib 14:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
One of the reason I am against a merge is because I am not sure KST is consider chiropractics. Both Koren and many within the community have said it's not chiropractics. This is the core reason I am against the merge. I answered you here because it has nothing to do with the ownership accusation. There are also some additional expansions that can be added which were removed. Honestly, I think its better to remove the entire section in Chiro methods and just keep the stand alone article. Valoem talk contrib 01:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I've notice that the fringe noticeboard is heavily involved in eCigs, why is this? Were there many false claims of healthy benefits? I am not too involved to know the history, but eCigs doesn't seem fringe at all. Valoem talk contrib 21:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I thought I would explain why I declined to pursue the discussion at
Talk:Quackery#Cyclical_ailments_and_confirmation_bias. Your talk page is probably appropriate because I don't see the point in posting the following too publicly.
Very similarly to what occurred at
User_talk:ONUnicorn/archived_talk_9#Your_change_is_still_OR, I was not the editor who added the information. Being part of Citation Cleanup WikiProject, I noticed the broken citation syntax and reformatted it. I unfortunately don't have the necessary time right now to properly verify the accuracy of the citations used at the Quackery article, and had not planned to do this at current time.
On the other hand, I agree with you that accuracy is important. Moreover, if the claims were original research or unproperly sourced, they did not contradict common sense and as such had not raised particular alert flags for me. Also being part of the Skepticism WikiProject, I added Quackery to its To-Do list in case other editors (or myself) can eventually look again at it.
If your concern is that undo is easier when there is only one change to undo (sorry if I'm stating the obvious) it is easy to go back to any previous revision of the article (as explained here:
Help:Reverting#Manual_reverting). I appreciate your interest in accurate sourcing, and apologise if my edit caused confusion. Thank you, —
Paleo
Neonate —
22:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You keep reverting the page. Thank you for your edits and cleaning up grammer, etc. but the page looks like it's showing favoritism. Why does iQOS have more than one picture? It's also the first picture at the top which shows favoritism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACBSA ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Regards PawełMM ( talk) 16:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Quack... Just wanted to say that, while I still disagree with some of what you are saying at WP:Citation underkill... It is turning into an excellent essay. There are a few points where the essay has convinced me to re-think. Well done. (I am actually thinking of working on a third essay, to bridge the gap between overkill and underkill... but it will take more thinking). Blueboar ( talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
About this edit note. One thing about the style of narrative in the Hebrew Bible is that it is generally very terse; details that would seem very important are not discussed at all, all over the place. This is what it is; interpreters through the centuries have filled in the gaps in many ways.
Please also be aware that there is content that in Samuel that clearly discusses rape - see Samuel 2:13 which is about one of David's sons raping his own sister Tamar, and she definitely says "no".
The David/Bathsheba text is very terse. "So David sent messengers to get her, and she came to him, and he lay with her. " It is invalid in WP (and really everywhere in life) to say that the text says something that it doesn't, or what its lack of saying something actually means. This is an OR thing that you are usually very sensitive to.
The lack of clarity around Bathsheba is remarkable. Jytdog ( talk) 16:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Per this discussion at AN/I, you are indefinitely banned from all articles and edits related to religion, broadly construed. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not restrict you from making edits to noticeboards (eg WP:FTN), so long as your edits are not related to religion.
If you wish to appeal this sanction, your options are:
Options two and three can be done now, on the grounds that the sanction is somehow wrong, or in the future, on the grounds that the sanction is no longer required. In the latter case, I would recommend leaving a considerable amount of time before appealing — at least six months and probably a year. GoldenRing ( talk) 09:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at David shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog ( talk) 16:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
sometimes it is such a great pleasure to edit alongside you! this made me laugh in a nice way. Jytdog ( talk) 02:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Roxy the dog, I will continue. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Alt-left also read these and think about what the reliable and expert sources say versus these primary sources https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/ https://altleft.com/ https://www.facebook.com/alternativeleft/ https://altleftjournal.wordpress.com/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeLeft/ http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.il/2016/09/a-proposal-for-alt-left-political.html https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/liberal-race-realism-precursor-to-the-alt-left/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8noaimoNzk ??mark ames?? http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/why-the-alt-left-is-a-problem 2001:8003:117E:6D00:8C99:FABD:3B38:A0F7 ( talk) 03:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC) ... ive been thinking , yes im wrong goodbye 2001:8003:117E:6D00:8846:A4A6:2C55:FEC4 ( talk) 04:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi QuackGuru. As you're one of the most prolific contributors to the chiropractic-related pages, and in my opinion one of the top NPOV editors on those pages, I was wondering if you'd be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chiropractic which I made active today. I noticed you're semi-retired now, and there is a list of long-term objectives planned on the project page, but if you're interested at all I figured I'd share with you the link. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 00:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
It looks like you just removed an errant line break/piece of white space? Sorry and thanks for cleaning up after me. I hope you can see the validity of my edit per wp:COMMENT. I think your edit summary regarding under-cite belongs on the talk page. The dodgy IPs are starting to throw their weight around on that article Edaham ( talk) 01:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder to use the template given at Template:Cite web or Template:Cite news to add new references instead of simply a link between brackets.-- EdgarCabreraFariña ( talk) 16:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Would you please take a look at Affective neuroscience. It smells like bullshit to me. And you like calling bullshit bullshit. Thanks. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 07:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Special:Diff/813745321: Would you mind explaining, please? I initially though about converting it to an unordered list for accessibility, but then changed it to a table at the last second. Now there's no semantic hints, no colons.
A table could also have {{
Yes}}
, {{
Maybe}}
, {{
No}}
and {{
Dunno}}
. What do you think?
84.250.17.211 (
talk)
07:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font>
tags, which are causing
Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Furthermore, your two colors, vermillion (also vermilion) and burntorange, are not on the list of 16
HTML colors or the list of 124
X11 colors. The replacement markup for <font>
recognizes only color names on these lists. For vermillion/vermilion, I found online references giving the RGB hex code equivalent. For burntorange, I found numerous online references, but none of them are correct, so I experimented and came up with a very close approximation. So, with that preamble out of the way,
You are encouraged to change
[[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]])
:
QuackGuru (
talk)to
[[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]])
:
QuackGuru (
talk)Respectfully, Anomalocaris ( talk) 00:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, this is a friendly invitation to discuss disputed content on the talk page rather than speculating about reasoning in edit summaries; the latter approach is error-prone. Kind regards! VQuakr ( talk) 20:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the
preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces
edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up
recent changes and the
page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Trivialist ( talk) 19:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018! |
Hello QuackGuru, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Sorry, I didn't mean to remove your comment at RfD! I got confused. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 17:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I may not be the most adept at editing a sound wiki page, but I do believe your deletion of the Feb 2018 Position Statement from the AMerican Cancer Society regarding Electronic Cigarettes and their merit for use as part of Tobacco Harm Reduction is pertinent to this article. As is the three year Evidence Review Public Health England Released the week before that as a followup to changes made after the 2015 Study by the Royal College of Physicians first made headline. You might recall that they first alerted the world on the dangers of Smoking in 1964 (?). I will leave that alone for now, have you read any of the 590 pages released by the National Academies on January 23, 2018 "Health Consequences of Ecigs" or some title to that effect. It was a federally mandated independent study of all current research. I know wiki already has that cited somewhere, but has a good summary of its content been done for wiki yet. The two references made after the January study where accentuated by another from the National Cancer Institutes H.I.N.T.S. a national trends study on perception and reality. I would not know how to include that sort of information in wiki, it isn't soap it is enlightening. Soap boxing would be to link articles from every major newspaper which felt Americans needed to know our Head of the CDC had to step down from their position (just like the person at the desk prior to her start) for a conflict of interest as demonstrated by stock portfolio trades of 1) Japanese Tobacco Companies (the holder of the brand Camel in their parts) as well as vaccine stocks.I know any suggestion of that having relevance to this e-cig page is not prudent. But I think it merits a second look at what GB has tried to help us better understand for some time.
Also, what has wiki included on PHI's IQOS application with DC from January for their Heated Tobacco Product, currently the leader in Japan, 3 million sales in Germany, and if they are moving to separate vaping from tobacco before Brexit but if the IQOS is in the same stores as Vape products, taxes go very high. I know wiki is not a news outlet. I'm just keeping you abreast as you seem to have taken an interest in this pages health.
No harm, No foul. Just a newbie wondering how to approach things from a sensible and neutral place. I find the pictures of mods to be quite amusing. Do not fear, I will not be offering any new ones. Best, your headache PhilEdits ( talk) 15:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The article Tedd Koren has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Author admits to lack of notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Septrillion (
talk)
15:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tedd Koren is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tedd Koren until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Septrillion ( talk) 22:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey QuackGuru! [1] You put a FV on this sentence: "His publications cover over 54 topics for patient education in chiropractic." The source states, "His publications have included more 60 pamphlets....[for] conditions for which 'spinal checkups are vital'." Is that not saying the same thing? SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 15:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
In general, I find your activity here to be oversight not contribution, but I have not pried into any of your activities other than what shows on my watchlist. I DO HOPE YOU MAKE POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF NEW INFORMATION TO ARTICLES. I am aware of your past charges in the area of acupuncture and such, lets not see you return to those discussions. "Those who can't = teach"? Respectfully Mrphilip ( talk) 08:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I was referring to your removal of
Pauldavs poor choice of this item you removed.
<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).|}
My rephrasing (moved to Opposition), CN and FV tags are his |
---|
The Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance objected to the entrance of nicotine pouches in Kenya. citation needed They are concerned that the nicotine pouches may raise the risk of cancer, heart disease, and reproductive or developmental harms. failed verification They also failed verification stated that there is no reliable research that demonstrates nicotine pouches are safer than regular cigarettes. [1] |
References
I do not often use this feature in WIkipedia, though thought this is warranted. --- FULBERT ( talk) 00:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Medical pricing and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Thryduulf (
talk)
12:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:List of drug prices, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 01:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The proposed decision in the Medicine arbitration case has been posted, and contains one or more remedies or findings of fact which relate to you. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)