User talk:QuackGuru: Difference between revisions
→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>]] [[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>]] [[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
This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuackGuru. |
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)
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)
Yo Ho Ho
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.
Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
- Not every source verified the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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)