User talk:QuackGuru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Check sources[edit]

Why are you linking "fortnight"?[edit]

The linking of common terms needs strong justificaiton under the guidelines. Tony (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I think most people are not familiar with the word. QuackGuru (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
It was the link that prompted me to substitute it for different wording. Tony (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I updated the lede and body because it is no longer bi-weekly or weekly. QuackGuru (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Why is "fortnightly" linked? Tony (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Because the word is not commonly used and I think most people do not know the meaning of the word. QuackGuru (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Some think it is also a dictionary. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
No, it's definietly not a dictionary. We have Wiktionary for that. Tony (talk) 02:37, 8 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)

The reason for this was because the word is not often understood. I think the WL is enough. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
No, it is objectionable. Common words should not be chosen if they require a link to understand. Tony (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
It is stated both ways. See "Managed by the Wikipedia community, it is published online every two weeks with contributions from Wikipedia editors.[1]" QuackGuru (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
With a footnote? Why use a word that requires a link AND a footnote just to convey that it's published every two weeks? Tony (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I removed the footnote. QuackGuru (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

E-Z wider[edit]

How does this rolling paper brand not have a Wiki? They are in every store am I not searching right? Valoem talk contrib 15:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I added it to the "List of rolling papers". There are very few sources on it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 17:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You claimed you corrected the format. That's not what you did. I did not change it back. I fixed the dead link and removed a source that was not part of the AHC journal. The source says "Bester Chiropraktiker deiner Stadt". That translates to "Best chiropractors in your city". Ich glaube nicht, dass es ist ein Vorteil für das Hinzufügen von dieser Quelle. Seniorlol, verstehen Sie mich? QuackGuru (talk) 03:29, 20 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 13:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries. It was fixed. If you want to see spam see User:Pasqbay1/sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 18:41, 20 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.-- (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Citations belong wherever they're needed. The very page you link in this section title says 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)
There is no explicit prohibition against a plus-size model becoming Miss Universe either.-- (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

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, (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)