User talk:Dino monster/Archive 1

Archive 1

Newbie

Here you issued a level 4 to a newbie on rather dodgy grounds. The user had made two edits only a few minutes apart. In between, they got a rather over-the-top warning, which they very well may not have even read before their second edit. To be sure, much of naturopathy could be characterized as belonging on the stable floor, but some of it is also legitimate. New editors blunder all the time, this one got bitten for it. The user edits were made at 11:48 and 11:51 (UTC). Warnings were given at 11:48, 11:52, 13:25, and 15:25 (UTC). So, one ill-considered edit at 11:51 garnered three warnings. Care to reconsider? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you now that I am taking a closer look at the time stamps. I think perhaps the time stamps on the pages of the page history on that user's talk page were in different time zones, or I misread them. I though that user had made edits after being warned once already. I'll remove the warning.Trhermes (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michael Uzick (October 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Michael Uzick and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Delta13C, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! LaMona (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathy

I noticed you seem to have a bias against naturopathy and doctors who practice it, even though you say on your userpage that you "resent the POV-pushing of lunatic charlatans". Wikipedia doesn't allow bias either way. Your edits to Nigma Talib were out of line and you appear to be trying to start an edit war with a newbie. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 20:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

User:White Arabian mare, I do not have a bias against naturopathy. My bias is fully for the scientific consensus. I think you will find a review of my contributions to reflect an adherence to WP:FRINGE/PS, which do happen to currently involve the topic of naturopathy. I was not trying to start an edit war, that user editing Nigma Talib was not using the talk page and acting bold to remove templates. Delta13C (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Help needed

You seem to be an expert around Naturopathy, your help is solicited at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.Ireneshih (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate the recognitition that I know a lot about naturopathy, I do not appreciate being solicited to vote on articles for deletion. This is the second time you've tried to stack votes. I kindly warned you the first time. There is now a discussion on the incident noticeboard for this repeated violation in what seems like a deliberate attempt to entrap me. Delta13C (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Notability of athletes

I have noticed that you have listed a large number of articles for deletion. Please note that athletes are considered notable if they are national champions or have represented their country at a major championships. See WP:ATHLETE for details. --Racklever (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess these can be sorted out through the AfD process then? Delta13C (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Delta. I've just seen a few of these. You can always withdraw them, if you feel they will end as keep. I think some of the doctor ones who are not athletes are def. non-notable, but I'm not familiar with the notability for that area. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Notability of state legislators

Hi-I noticed you tagged several articles about people who served in state legislatures as not being notable; state legislators are notable. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion

Hi!

I appreciate the work you're putting in to cleaning out some of the areas at Wikipedia that may need cleaning. I did this with ufologists a few years back and continue to work on UFO sightings.

The trick is to see if we can't figure out where the notability line lies. Clearly a chiropractor such as Daniel David Palmer or Jean-Robert Gauthier is worthy of an article. The bigger question lies, when does a chiropractor become famous for being a chiropractor? I'm not sure that's an easy answer. One option might be that when the chiropractor becomes famous enough that people who aren't chiropractors write biographies or at least personality sketches of the person. Another option might be that the person should have to pass something like WP:PROF which is basically the standard used for medical doctors who aren't other sorts of media personalities or even ufologists!

Anyway, just thoughts for now.

Best,

jps (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, jps. I noticed that many chiros with articles are not notable for being chiros, but rather have notability for other aspects of life, such as having been an elected official or an olympic athlete. I learned fast about WP:ATHLETE and WP:POLITICIAN this way. Delta13C (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Rosepine High School

Hi. We have removed some of your edits. (Please see page history). High schools underlie different notability requirements from most articles and are not generally deleted. For more information please see WP:WPSCH and if you need help don't hesitate to leave a message at WT:WPSCH. For the WOP SChools project, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Your contributions relating to fringe theories for the last few months have been outstanding. Keep up the excellent work! jps (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dino monster. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food Matters (2nd nomination).
Message added 02:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Prange

There has been new information/refs/nominator withdraw added to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Prange discussion. Can you take a look and provide input if you see fit? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thanks for the notice. I made a short comment. I think that user will come to his/her senses. Delta13C (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment at the chiropractic talk page

Why haven't you removed the sources you added that did not support the word "pseudomedicine"? Only one source supports the word pseudomedicine. All the other sources do not. There is still OR in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Request on 16:51:03, 10 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Justin Jaron Lewis

• Justin Jaron Lewis (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Yitzhak Buxbaum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You have just rejected my draft article "Yitzhak Buxbaum".

The current draft attempted to address the problems raised by the previous reviewer, and includes citations from books and newspaper articles independent of the subject. I am at a loss to understand how these sources and their content don't establish notability.

In addition, we are talking about the author of several well-received books published by well-established publishers, who is also a very widely known storyteller and teacher. Do these achievements not qualify someone as notable? Would adding a bibliography of Buxbaum's books be a help here, or a waste of time

I am also confused by the comment that some citations establish notability but not very well. If they establish notability, isn't the subject notable?

Your note said "problems of self-promotion remain" but a) it isn't self-promotion as I am not Yitzhak Buxbaum; b) I don't know what those problems are at this point. Is the issue the one remaining link to Buxbaum's website? It seems to me that articles on other people and institutions do include their websites; would moving this to a list at the end of the article help?

Please help me out. Any specific guidance you can offer would be most appreciated.

Justin Jaron Lewis (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Justin Jaron Lewis, have you tried The AfC Help Desk? Delta13C (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

AFC decline

Hi Delta13C, references don't have to be available online in order to support notability.[1] Please keep this in mind for future AFC reviews. Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Help on article for creation: Britt Marie Hermes

Hi Delta13C, I noticed you edit the naturopathy page often. I have written a draft article for Britt Marie Hermes, who is a former naturopath/now whistle blower and I could use your help shaping it up. It was originally rejected due to not meeting GNG and being too promotional. I've added recent sources, but I am not sure how to reduce the promo as it seems to be neutral to me. I think the article now meets WP:BASIC. Thank you. Medicalreporter (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for commenting on my "Tabbah" article. What do you mean by "Formatting" inconsistencies? I am not aware of any, so please advise. Rainopal (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"The Love Witch" page

You have asked me to clean up references for my page "The Love Witch." Since I first put up the Draft, a professional Wikipedia editor already came in and cleaned up the references. The references seem fine to me, and I don't see how they could be cleaned up much more. The reason there are so many references is because the articles was provisorily rejected for having too many references.

Also, you say there is not enough notability. When the Draft was rejected before, it was because the editors said there were mostly personal blogs as references, but that actually was not true. Shock Till You Drop, Rue Morgue, and Dread Central are horror websites that are very popular that publish hundreds of movie reviews, and since then not only has the New Yorker been added, but also The Baltimore Sun, The Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Reader, Variety, and Film Comment, all very prestigious publications with long histories that have both print and online versions. It's been listed on other prestigious websites are well, such as Indirewire. Also, the film has recently been picked up for theatrical distribution by a major distributor, which should also qualify it for inclusion.

Let me refer you to a Wikipedia article on a similar film that came out at about the same time, which is playing the festival circuit in many of the same festivals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Sister_(2016_film)

This film has only one reference - Variety. It also has no distributor, but it premiered at a major film festival, SXSW. It has only one review so far. There are plenty of other films listed on Wikipedia that are notable merely for having been in an important film festival. The Love Witch is no exception, for it premiered at the International Film Festival Rotterdam, an even more notable festival than SXSW. Usually this would be enough for inclusion in and of itself, So I don't see why there are so many problems getting this article approved. Please take another look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnival Honey (talk • contribs) 11:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Geospatial Summary of the Juneau Icefield

As to your comment about combining those pieces of content, I agree completely. The unfortunate reality is that messy content such as this is what we get for encouraging editors to emphasize filling up articles and lists with images and tables and templates and questionable sources, rather than usable prose, the best sources or other actual substance. However, the real problem here is that you sent this message to the wrong editor. This is the problem I've had with AFC from the beginning: evidently, it's just too much to ask for me to expect that other editors employ actual human judgement and not just engage in mindless script editing. It took me all of ten seconds to access and peruse the revision history, which was necessary as I had zero clue as to what your message was even about at first. As you can see for yourself, this was created by Kirkjamesmiller and boldly moved to draftspace by DragonflySixtyseven. My only role in this was to discover after it was moved that a draft contained live categories and to disable those category links. From this, RHaworth has taken it upon himself to decide that this single edit somehow makes me "responsible" for this draft, rather than the other editors I mention (speaking of mindless script editing...). In reality, all of this is willfully wasting my time, in that I had to clean up after a plenty experienced editor who should know better in the first place (DragonflySixtyseven), and now I'm having to clean up a mess created by another experienced editor who should know better (RHaworth) in replying to a message on my talk page over a matter which has little or nothing to do with me to begin with. Except for the simple fact that drama boards are ultimately a waste of time, this episode and all the related events sound like something which really needs to be brought to light at ANI. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, RadioKAOS . Delta13C (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This is proving my point about "waste of time". What was the purpose of replying if you really have nothing to say to me? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not think you are being constructive here. I did not mean to cause you to waste your time. I move through AfC with diligence, and it is unfortunate that you got caught up in what you call a "drama board." Delta13C (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Delta13C:

While I appreciate the welcome, I do not appreciate the simple undoing of all changes that were made and given your comment regarding sources, I have to question whether you actually looked at the changes made or simply reverted the page to the previous content.

I believe that the content should not be biased and worked to state facts and not opinions. The changes made were to address the concerns identified on the page by reducing/eliminating references to the Bastyr website and adding references to sources such as the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. DOHS National Institutes of Health's National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, reputable professional organizations, and peer-reviewed scientific journals. And I believe the Washington Health Alliance is as reputable as the Quackwatch currently cited.

If I did enter the information so the references displayed correctly, I would have appreciated knowing that versus simply undoing the changes.

Your specific feedback is welcome as I will be working to revise the page again.

Roadcat8 (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)RoadCat8

Hi there Roadcat8, contributions are always welcome. I think for your intended goals it would be best for you to make your changes in the Sandbox or make specific proposals on the talk page of the article. Delta13C (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

17:00:28, 25 June 2016 review of submission by 82.13.85.122

• 82.13.85.122 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lucy Jones (journalist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Delta13C Just wondering if you received my last message about the Lucy Jones (Journalist) page I had created. Apologies I'm not that smart at wiki and just find it difficult to navigate when it comes to messaging : ). Best wishes Bumbledog 82.13.85.122 (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Charles Raymond Gurney

You have commented on my draft article on Charles Raymond Gurney, saying that it appears to be very well researched (thank you), but that the biographical details need to be referenced. Please could you clarify specifically what you mean by "biographical details" in this case, as most elements of the article regarding his life & work already have references (i.e. what is missing?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjudall (talk • contribs) 09:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sjudall, Biographical details mean the key points in his life. Take a look at the "Early life" section. In it, there are no in-line citations, which would provide a means to verify the information. Oten time the reader wants to know where this information was derived, and while this is not a biography of a living person, which have stricter requirements, it is generally best practice to cite all detials in WP articles. Delta13C (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for clarifying. I will see what I can do. Most of this information came from my own family, as the subject is actually my great-uncle (so the family just knows). I will try to find third-party references to make this better.Sjudall (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sjudall, You're welcome. Please read this WP:OR. Delta13C (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Christian Steinhäuser

Thanks @Delta13c.

I am still not understanding how communication on Wiki works or how to reply directly to your comment. I hope this is getting to you directly.

I received your comment but i do not understand what portion of my article for submission on Christian Steinhäuser is in question. I have over 40 references. How can i discuss this with you to better understand what is in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtothez (talk • contribs) 16:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, Jtothez. We need sources that talk about her, not sources by her. Delta13C (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Delta13C - there is only one reference in the entire list that is by him (Christian) and that is the one linkiing to his company website when it mentions he founded the company. All the other 43 references are by someone else about him. If you could point out specific references you feel are examples where this is not the case, that would be more helpful, then I can understand what exactly you are finding fault with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtothez (talk • contribs) 13:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Disregard my comment about needing refs about her. When you posted to my talk page, you did not make a new section, so I thought you were referring to a different AfC draft. I just looked at your draft, and the problem is the sources do not convey notability per WP:NMUSIC or WP:BASIC. Please read these, so you understand the requirements. It looks like Christian is not yet notable, so please also read WP:TOOSOON. Delta13C (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

18:38:04, 20 June 2016 review of submission by Bumbledog

• Bumbledog (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lucy Jones (journalist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Delta13C thanks so much for taking the time to review my page about Journalist Lucy Jones. I was just wanting some help to figure out how to move forward with the page. I took on board previous advice I was given on the page (from a reviewer and the permissions team too) and managed to cross-link my Lucy Jones wiki page with at least 20 other wiki pages where Lucy is mentioned given her work in music journalism. I can send you the links if you wish. Also Lucy is a well respected music and now wildlife journalist who in recent times has also launched a best selling book which has had many objective reviews and has appeared on national TV and radio. I have added all this info in too with weblinks to prove this. I'd be so grateful to know what else I can do to prove notability? Sorry I'm just terribly confused? Many thanks for any advice you can give! Kind regards, Bumbledog

Hi there, we need sources that talk about her in-depth from reputable publications. Delta13C (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Delta ah thanks for the answer ...just to check do the TV and radio interview links count? I included 3 TV /radio interviews. I think - Maybe some of the notability links I've put on the page are probably a bit swamped by links to her work. I'm just looking at Helen Macdonald (writer) page and am just struggling with how this page is accepted but mine somehow is lacking on notability?

Many thanks Bumbledog Bumbledog (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Delta13C I just wanted to check if you received my message of 25th June above? Thanks. I had already included interviews on the wiki page which talk about Lucy but I think the links to all her work in top UK newspapers may have obscured this from you. It is an element of notability to get interviews on prime time national television surely? It is impossible to get interviews like this unless TV feels you are notable enough. There are many wiki pages I've seen which don't contain this at all. Thanks Bumbledog Bumbledog (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bumbledog, I got your message. Please list here the sources that you think provide the most in-depth coverage of her. The top five will be fine. Thanks! Delta13C (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Delta13C Thanks. The best media links I can see are number 28, 29, 30, 31 and 33 on my draft page. The BBC Springwatch programme alone is a very popular programme and has almost 3 million viewers in th UK. Lucy was on the first programme of this 2016 series which is a real privilege as I understand it. On top,of that I've just checked her Twitter and she has 12k followers given her profile in music industry and wildlife journalism. Best regards Bumbledog Bumbledog (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look in a bit. Delta13C (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Those sources do not convey enough coverage for her to pass notability. While they help establish that she has received some attention, there needs to be more in-depth coverage of her by multiple sources that are independent of one another. Twitter followers do not matter for notability. She seems to be having a great career, but now it looks like it is too soon. Delta13C (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Delta13C Really sorry but I'm very confused, this is the kind of coverage that most people wouldnt get ...prime time TV and radio plus a music journalism career that has spanned at least ten years reporting in national newspapers on the worlds top music stars - she has a great reputation and so to me it's not too soon and is notable. Presumably I can get live online help with this page and it won't be deleted ??? - I'm at a total loss when I look at other wiki pages which have zero info and notability references. Sorry but there's so much inconsistency. Best regards Bumbledog Bumbledog (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, you can certainly seek help from a variety of sources here. You can also choose to resubmit, but I think you may want to explore acquiring more sources. Delta13C (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

17:08:08, 5 July 2016 review of submission by Karibsouders

• Karibsouders (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gavin Becker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have a question regarding your review on Gavin Becker I wanted to know if I changed the web page to say Singer, songwriter and actor his page wouldn't be declined because he has had more public newspapers written about his if his acting is included? Can you make any other specific suggestions because I'm very confused? I sincerely appreciate your assistance.

The problem is not an issue of nomenclature, but the fact that there are no reliable sources to show significant coverage in major media sources that are intellectually independent of the topic. This means that there would need to be a major news source that talks about his career/life in detail. This does not mean appearances in theatrical publications only that do not talk about him as the main subject of the articles. If there are other sources which you did not cite in the article, I'm happy to look at those if you include them in the draft. Delta13C (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naturopathy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fredericksburg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Erika Schwartz

Please don't include content sourced to the Daily Mail. It's a completely unreliable source for anything related to medicine (especially quackery). Guy (Help!) 09:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Guy, I totally agree with you about that source being terrible for medical claims. I think it should be used in the article to cite her birthplace, additional criticism against her, and that she treated her children with hormones. Delta13C (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree - the Mail is so bloody awful that any link to an article it prints on a health topic has the potential to seriously mislead the reader. Sure, it may be right about the birthplace, but that is almost accidental with that source as they basically don't fact-check. Any points significant enough for Wikipedia should, IMO, also be available in other, more reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Scientist in Wonderland: A Memoir of Searching for Truth and Finding Trouble, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Whole30

Hi, I saw you added article improvement tags to Whole30. I am currently trying to improve the article. Do you have any specific suggestions? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Naturopathy article.

The reason I added the Huffington Post link was because of the recent false claim that "there is no such thing as a naturopathic doctor" by a biased editor who removed the term from the article. The link also stated that naturopaths and naturopathic doctors are not the same. I think the link should be reinstated. If you disagree then at least be aware of this issue by the biased editor who wants to remove the term. Afterwriting (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The term is okay because it is actually in use, both in laws that regulate NDs and by those who are calling themselves naturopathic doctors. I think this particular editor is being nitpicky, and is affected by a classic case of I don't like it. The HuffPo article is extremely problematic since it is a known source of low-quality information and written by an ND pushing an agenda. The distinction between "naturopathic doctors" and "naturopaths" is already addressed in the main body of the article. Delta13C (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Naturopathy is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

You're being alerted to the sanctions since you recently edited Naturopathy and that article had to be protected due to edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Pseudomedicine

You added naturopathy to list but where does the source verifies it is specifically pseudomedicine? QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:QuackGuru, I put another citation there. Delta13C (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

On page 68 it does mention pseudomedicine and naturopathy. QuackGuru (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced content

No source verifies the entire sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fixed. Thanks. That sentence had lacked citations for too long.Delta13C (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I would move the word "pseudoscientific" to later in the lede. I'm sure most editors like it in the first sentence. What people like and what creates a high-quality encyclopedia are often different. WP:CON trumps all other policies. QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I am contributing to Wikipedia for years. Yes, you can see the discussion going on talk page regarding Homeopathy.Deepeshdeomurari (talk) It is violating Wikipedia guidelines : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal (Read #7 and #9). Wikipedia does not provide such strong conclusion as something is effective or not effective. It is for informative purpose and not research or scientific journal.

• Deepeshdeomurari, I strongly disagree with your reading of that WP policy. The facts are clear on homeopathy, so it is Wikipedia's purpose to provide those with solid referencing, which is how the material is written on the homeopathy page. Delta13C (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how can you refer books or articles as Solid References. Anyways, further such editing will make it to report to Wikipedia Admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshdeomurari (talk • contribs) 10:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't taken part of the rest of the discussion, but the position put forth here that "Wikipedia does not provide such strong conclusion as something is effective or not effective" is laugable, please ignore it. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Techtimes is a poor source

FYI: Techtimes is a poor source for medical articles. See WP:MEDRS. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi CFCF, the source was not used to cite a medical claim. It was used to cite where the individual got the PhD degree in question and that she promotes quack ideas about electromagnetic radiation. I do not think this is a violation of MEDRS. Delta13C (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it may have been wrong to point to MEDRS — however I consider that sources weak overall, and the others that were already present are far better. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You know what, you're right. I was thinking of International Business Times — feel free to reinstate if you wish, though be wary of WP:OVERCITE. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. Delta13C (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Curcumin.co.uk

Hello Delta13C,

Thank you for your message. I believe that the link I posted provides more information than the two existing links that you have already included about Curcumin. I am growing the site daily and intend to build it into a repository for all things Curcumin related. I cite many NCBI published studies and constantly refer to journal publications. I therefore, respectfully request you reconsider as I believe that my link adds to the user experience.

Many thanks Darren86.1.253.44 (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

No, please read WP:LINKSPAM. Delta13C (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Macrobiotic Diet

Hello,

I recently published some edits to what I felt was an unnecessarily negative description of macrobiotics. There is a clear bias in the original description and my goal was simply to remove things like the first sentence reading, "Macrobiotic diet is a fad diet." This is obviously a very one-sided page that uses each section to discredit a well-documented lifestyle based around healthy living.

My edits were not intended to secure only a positive point of view, but to eliminate previously negative-leaning perspectives that are unfair to readers. Please review the entire page and notice the negativity and how these edits I made were done to bring the discussion back to neutral. If you have any additional comments on exactly what sentence you felt was not neutral, please let me know and I will revise accordingly.

Thanks,

IvanIvan Reed (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ivan Reed. Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. It seems like you have a vested interest in the topic, so please be aware that could affect your ability to adhere to a WP:NPOV. The page is not negative, it is factual and based on reliable sources to the greatest extent. Wikipedia pages are not meant to promote one way or another, but are there to provide people with facts. Delta13C (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification

This change did not comply with WP:VERIFY policy. QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It looked good to me. I will check again. Delta13C (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Some chiropractors argue" is not verifiable and the extra verbiage decreased readability. Don't worry about. It was fixed. I can spot original research and text that failed verification very easily. There is other content in the article that fails verification. It will be interesting how many days or months that content will remain in the article against policy. I am not obligated to fix everything. All the sources support all the content I added. No editor can spot any text I added that is not supported by the sources. QuackGuru (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This change deleted sourced content and replaced it with content that failed verification. See "Chiropractic has taken on many of the attributes of an established profession, improving its educational and licensing systems and substantially increasing its market share in the past two decades." and "Chiropractic has survived, and it has begun to embrace the values and behaviors of a mainstream health profession." and see "Chiropractors have many of the attributes of primary care providers and often describe themselves as such (24). Others point out that chiropractic has more of the attributes of a limited medical profession or specialty, akin to dentistry or podiatry (1)."[2] QuackGuru (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

My problem with some of those sentences is they are sourced to published articles written by DCs, which means they are not independent from the subject of the article. It is important not to give wrong impressions about chiros. Delta13C (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The previous content does not give any wrong impression. Original research is the problem. Why are you replacing sourced content with content that failed verification?[3][4] It is important to not to violate WP:VERIFIABLE policy. QuackGuru (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the line that said, "Chiropractic combines aspects from mainstream and alternative medicine," and I rephrased the rest to be clear about who is saying it. That article in Annals of Internal Medicine is written by chiropractors and repeatedly cites chiropractic sources, therefore, it is fair to keep my changes. My mods do not fail verification. Delta13C (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You removed the line that is sourced and you rephrased it to include an unsupported weasel word. QuackGuru (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Delta13C (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Editors are not allowed to add unsupported weasel words. See WP:WEASEL. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I just reviewed WP:WEASEL, and I do not understand how you are accusing me of violating this. The source is specific that chiropractors have trouble defining what their practice is all about, and now the content in the article reflects that unambiguously. Delta13C (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The word "some"[5][6] is not found in the source and it is an unsupported weasel word. Another unsupported weasel word is claim. QuackGuru (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Minor FYI

Greetings and thank you for your contributions. Just thought I'd shoot you a quick note and let you know you don't need an access date for a book. If you provide the year of the book (clarifies editions, pagination etc.) and an ISBN the date you looked at the book is not needed. No big thing, I do lots of ref work and verification. If you access the book via Google Books or Amazon a link and a access date are appropriate. Best wishes. MrBill3 (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)