User talk:QuackGuru/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Question

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)

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 (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)

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

Why are you linking "fortnight"?

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)

WP:LEAD

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)

(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.--208.54.64.207 (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick question

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)

The ref citation is verifying only the text inside the orthographic signs. That's the way it is done in journals. I do not know if there is a policy for this. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've always seen references _after_ periods, colons, semicolons, references go after it, at least on english wp; I don't remember anybody reverting me before. But then I've found nothing on the help pages about the topic. 87.8.88.240 (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

For the text inside the orthographic signs I have seen the ref placed both ways. I could not find any guideline on this. QuackGuru (talk) 00:00, 19 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)

See MOS:REFSPACE: "Exceptions: ref tags are placed before dashes, not after; and where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis." Also see "Example: Kim Jong-un (Korean: 김정은;[10] Hanja: 金正恩[11]) is the third and youngest son of Kim Jong-il with his late consort Ko Young-hee." The ref belongs just before the closing parenthesis. I am following the guideline. QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Failed to go far enough. Thanks! 87.8.88.240 (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Buona. QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, uhh...

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)

Wikipedia:Failed verification span listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Reflist

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)

The purpose of the "close=1" ref format is make it easier to click on them. See WP:CAPTION for wording for captions. The word "some" may be original research. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC at Plummer

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)

They withdrawn the RfC and started a new RfC with the same proposal except for a quote. It was not really withdrawn. It was closed to archive the oppose votes and to start it up again. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a bit heavy handed way to work through versions but the 2nd is an improvement. there is nothing wrong here, process-wise. Thanks for keeping your eye on that aspect. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This is weird. It is like I am talking to this editor. They act the same. QuackGuru (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Third revert

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)

Here is basically what I've notice on Wikipedia. There are 3 subject which constantly received unwarrented deletion due to extreme bias. First is topics involving porn (pro-porn editors lost and now most porn has been removed), then its topics of critical of modern feminism. Despite topics against feminism being notable, editors will delete and remove it despite being written from an NPOV due to the possible backlash against feminism. The third is FRINGE which I know you are aware of. Talking with DGG, he also notice the trend of merging articles particularly those in eCigs and quackery with the intention of later removing it entirely. I've always fought this and always well. I think we should document fringe so people can be informed of what quackery is. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit I was leaving a friendly message? Do you want me to revert your edits on my page. Do you have an issue with me? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The KST technique is duplication. It was consolidated. It does not benefit the reader to have a separate article for another Pax brand. There is also not enough content for a stand alone article. QuackGuru (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand I find you to be reasonable given our recent interactions and you caught some good errors. I hope you're revert was an accident, I was not attacking you. I'm looking for advice sometime I turn to those would I've disagreed with in the past. The difference is PAX makes more than one eCig, Juul has got significantly more coverage than the PAX 2 cig. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

My revert was no accident. I am trying to work on a draft. You are distracting me from working on the User:QuackGuru/Draft. QuackGuru (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh sorry. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Koren Specific Technique

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)

It is a technique developed by a chiropractor. The videos online resemble a spinal adjustment with using a device. QuackGuru (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Curious question

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)

There are claims e-cigarettes are about 95% safer than smoking. But recent reviews contradict this position. I can't go into the details until this matter is resolved. QuackGuru (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Quackery

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, — PaleoNeonate — 22:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No page number was given. Any editor can add a citation. All the paragraph is unsourced. It is better to start over. I can expand it if more sources are found. QuackGuru (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Heat Not Burn

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)

Another editor reverted your last edit. It is the only image available containing the charger, holder and tobacco stick for a heat-not-burn tobacco product. The infobox at the top illustrates what the product is. QuackGuru (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Shadow missing

File:IQOS 01 A.png

Shadows added.

Regards PawełMM (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Done as requested. PawełMM (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the image was centered during edition, the shadow for the handheld stick is like in the original file, so I won't do anything else. PawełMM (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Re citation underkill

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)

I recommend you don't call it Wikipedia:Citation overkill (contrary opinions). I don't see any gap between overkill and underkill. Underkill discourages too many citations. See "Controversial claims usually require only single citations,..." If there is anything missing from underkill it can be included. Or if Citation overkill goes too far then it can be corrected. If overkill continues to harm article content it can be redirected to a better essay. QuackGuru (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Bathsheba

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)

I rewrote it for now. There may be better sources to summarize it. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Community editing restriction

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:

1. To ask for review of the closure at WP:AN if you think I have not assessed consensus correctly;
2. To appeal the sanction itself at WP:AN; or
3. To appeal to the arbitration committee.

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)

Edit warring

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)

How was the content "There was no indication that she gave David consent for sex" OR? I added a different wording. I did not "revert" to any other version. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice

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)

August 2017

User:Roxy the dog, I will continue. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

message on alt left

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

WikiProject Chiropractic

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)

alt-left edit

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)

Thornton shooting

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)

Quackery?

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)

The paragraphs under "Meta-analyses" seems to be unruly. Someone who is familiar with the research would have to improve it. That requires reading many recent reviews. In the future I will be calling a lot of things what they truly are. QuackGuru (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no desire to do the research. Frankly Wikipedia doesn’t deserve what little effort I do contribute. But I don’t like people reading bullshit and believing it is true because they read it here.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is free to copy provided the license information is included in the citation. QuackGuru (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

A revert of my contribution to Regulation of electronic cigarettes

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)

There is no need for a table for an entire section. It is easier to read without the distracting table. I usually add a table for supplementary content. QuackGuru (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

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)

Thank you for fixing your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

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)

I am replacing the content with other sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thug Wikipedia

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.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "save page" button and below the edit summary field.

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 Xmas

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. Happy editing, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Apology

Sorry, I didn't mean to remove your comment at RfD! I got confused. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries. QuackGuru (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Newest stuff on PSA

here

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 18:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Appears to be an editorial. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

discussion on adding sources you removed

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)

Please read the talk page. "Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes" is from January. Public Health England is from February. I have moved on to other sources. The National Cancer Institute has many studies. You need to be more specific which one. For more information on iQOS you can search Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tedd Koren

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)

While I have negative opinions about this guy, he might pass GNG. I'll removed the PROD if you are willing to defend it at AfD. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I have not had a chance to try to find more sources. Right now I am neutral. An AFD could help expand the article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you want me to removed the PROD, I would only do so if you are willing to participate in the AfD in support of retaining the article. This guy is a quack, I hope more sources come out over this fraud of a technique, but it does not mean I don't think this guy is notable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

At moment it would be a weak keep. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok I've removed it, frankly I would prefer a merge into the redirected KST article, but I would support its inclusion. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Tedd Koren for deletion

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)

FV

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)

60 is a different number than 54. The word pamphlets does not mean patient education. What does the other source state to verify the current claim? QuackGuru (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

True, I'm looking at dates and 60 is more recent than the 54 I got in another reference (the other one listed). I've added info to the quote since it's not readily available online. I also changed the phrase patient education though I do believe that's why he was sued by the FTC. What do you think? SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Now the other source fails verification. QuackGuru (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Why don't I just remove it then? I figure readers are able to figure out for themselves that as a publisher grows so, too, will their amount of publications. Therefore we should understand that in the 11 years between citations the number of publications reported by sources are apt to change. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Both citations do not verify the same claim. See "If more than one source is being used to verify a claim and you are changing the wording that is verifiable to only one source, then be sure to remove the other sources that do not verify the new claim."[2] QuackGuru (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and thanks for correcting my edits to the first sentence. Will keep this in mind going forward. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-related, I don't think the publications section needs to be included. It seems it's just the titles of the pamphlets he published.. of which we know there are over 60, so in my opinion we should either list them all (which is ridiculous) or just remove the section entirely. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It can be merged with the other section and include only a few titles. QuackGuru (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Might we be better stewards here, I'm trying to see progress in Article content. What is your goal?

(talk)Thank you for correcting the recent Regulations source from a blog on Traveling with ecigs... in the future, might I ask, especially in the case of brand new accounts like the editor in question, that you offer what a good source might be, ie TSA.gov . We are all here (I hope) to see that WP is the best possible resource for its end-user. That said, we need to work together (and that does include your eagle eye oversight TO A CERTAIN POINT) and the more you take the role of MENTOR to newbies, as well as your inclusion of good detail in plain speak as to why your changes are bing made. NOT always via WP:XYZ123, which we need to know, but if so cited, think who you are speaking to and add the info to their user page for educational purposes please.

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)

You mentioned "I ask, especially in the case of brand new accounts like the editor in question". I do not know who you are referring to.

Have you edited Wikipedia with other accounts? Do you understand you added sources that are MEDRS violations along with content that failed verification, among other problems? Another editor deleted the sources that I mentioned were MEDRS violations. QuackGuru (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to your removal of Pauldavs poor choice of this item you removed.

}}</ref>

|}

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. They are concerned that the nicotine pouches may raise the risk of cancer, heart disease, and reproductive or developmental harms. They also stated that there is no reliable research that demonstrates nicotine pouches are safer than regular cigarettes.

After my rephrasing he added CN and FV tags all over the place, despite the reference being very clear. It's like he sabotages content that he didn't write himself by adding ridiculous tagging requirements after every single sentence. Related sentences can be combined together, as long as the reference listed next applies to them all. He seems to use CN and FV tags in order to discourage participation on "his articles".KristofferR (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

References

It is "Organizations in Kenya" not "They" The word "also" failed verification. Why was the citation removed from the sentence? How come the spam and failed verification content has not been removed from the article? QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

My point exactly. He takes issue with the word "also" being used to string related sentences together, and requires a reference for it. "Organizations" were removed because the reference mentions a single organization.

Many of the other "failed verification" are also completely invalid, he puts it on pages from the government of Norway...KristofferR (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

See "Lobbies have raised an alarm, saying the pouches could result in increased risk for cancer, heart disease and reproductive or developmental effects."[3]

"Organizations" were removed but the sentence does not mention any single organization. The source does not verify the current claim. Sourced content was replaced failed verification content throughout the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, the sentences are connected and should be read together.

The article should perhaps be considered unreliable, considering how it consistently misspells the name of the organization Ketca as Ketco. "Lobbies" is too vague and unspecified to rely on, it could very well be another language error. KristofferR (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The word "Lobbies" does not mean "Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance". That's the reason it fails verification. "Organizations in Kenya" passed verifiability. Sourced content was obviously replaced with failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The article is clearly speaking about Ketca and not other organizations. "Organizations" (plural) is completely unsourced in the article. "Lobby" (singular) is used in the article title and ingress ("Lobby has raised an alarm, saying the introduction of pouches could result in increased risk for cancer"), it is clear that it is referring to the only lobby mentioned in the article. "Lobbies" is unusable as evidence of plurality.KristofferR (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

See "Lobbies have raised an alarm,...".[4] That is plural not singular. The source is making a more general claim. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been continued here: Talk:Nicotine_pouch#Alarming_amount_of_Ownership_and_unreliable_source_about_Kenya, as it became more relevant for an article talk page than a user talk page. KristofferR (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you add the company website to the article? QuackGuru (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, QuackGuru. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.FULBERT (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not often use this feature in WIkipedia, though thought this is warranted. --- FULBERT (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom Notification

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)

Blocked as an Arbitration Enforcement action

To enforce an arbitration decision and per special:diff/941577627, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months from. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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."

•  Note: I have modified this block for the sole and express purpose of participating at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine, where you have been named as a party. Please do not edit outside the case and case talk pages. –xeno^talk 00:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine opened

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)

• I've modified your current block to allow you to participate in this case, but please do not edit outside the case and case talk pages. –xeno^talk 00:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:List of drug prices concern

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)

Arbitration proposed decision posted

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)