User talk:Tiddlypeep

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


Hello, Tiddlypeep, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, try Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then type {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page.

Rod of asclepius.png

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to visit the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (sign up here or say hello here).

Again, welcome!  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


The amount you are paraphrasing is not enough. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that interesting source. If you look at these changes, you can see how Doc James has tried to make it sound even less like the original source (while still being factually true to it). WP:Close paraphrasing is a problem because it opens up the risk of copyright lawsuits, and the community is pretty paranoid about it. So we try to aim for a standard of "not even the most ambitious lawyer could possibly pretend that this is a copy of his client's beloved masterpiece", rather than just meeting the bare legal minimum.
By the way, if you're interested in medical articles, then there's a group of us who talk about them at WT:MED. A lot of people bookmark the page and check it regularly. Everyone's welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Promotional edits[edit]

Please stop adding promotional material. You have been reverted by at least three other editors, and you have made no obvious attempt to gain consensus for the text you wish to include. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

the point is that this new UK research network by prestigious scientists in Oxford, Cambridge and other institutions showcases that cryonics has some scientific acceptance. Basically, it demonstrates that reputed scientists support research into cryonics, even though I am aware that cryonics will not win any popularity contests. As such, I think it is relevant to the topic of the paragraph on whether cryonics is scientifically feasible. but if I'm mistaken then I'm happy to be proven wrong. Tiddlypeep (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)