Jump to content

User talk:QuackGuru: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Re: RFC: new section
Line 40: Line 40:
About the recent Rfc [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_%28medicine%29&curid=7933684&diff=697593001&oldid=697592647]: I had the following conversation with Nyttend: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mrjulesd&oldid=698036203#Biomedical_.28and_health.29] . Any comments at all? <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;">[[User:Mrjulesd|<span style="color:orange;">--Jules</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mrjulesd|(Mrjulesd)]]</b> 19:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
About the recent Rfc [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_%28medicine%29&curid=7933684&diff=697593001&oldid=697592647]: I had the following conversation with Nyttend: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mrjulesd&oldid=698036203#Biomedical_.28and_health.29] . Any comments at all? <b style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive;">[[User:Mrjulesd|<span style="color:orange;">--Jules</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mrjulesd|(Mrjulesd)]]</b> 19:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
:It looks like the RfC close was a [[WP:VOTE]] like many RfC closes. Comments are usually irrelevant on Wikipedia. It is about the votes not who said what. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 20:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
:It looks like the RfC close was a [[WP:VOTE]] like many RfC closes. Comments are usually irrelevant on Wikipedia. It is about the votes not who said what. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 20:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

== Re: RFC ==

Your position was rejected by many participants; when one side interprets an idea one way, and the other another way, the closer can't just assume that one interpretation is right and the other wrong. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 22:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:05, 4 January 2016

Check sources

http://www.scoop.it/t/the-future-of-e-cigarette

http://www.economist.com/topics/electronic-cigarettes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/electronic-cigarettes/

Notifying of the archival of an amendment request

Hi _QuackGuru, this is a notification that an amendment request pertaining to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles has been archived with no action. You can now find it here. For the arbitration committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Copyright violation

Template:Copyright violation has been nominated for merging with Template:Copyvio link. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vani Hari

I think it has been mentioned on the talkpage, but the reason for over-sourcing is unfortunately a common one in this area - the demands of the true believers. Anything critical has to be oversourced or the followers claim it does not represent scientific consensus etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not every source verified the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the recent RfC

About the recent Rfc [1]: I had the following conversation with Nyttend: [2] . Any comments at all? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the RfC close was a WP:VOTE like many RfC closes. Comments are usually irrelevant on Wikipedia. It is about the votes not who said what. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RFC

Your position was rejected by many participants; when one side interprets an idea one way, and the other another way, the closer can't just assume that one interpretation is right and the other wrong. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]