32.211.200.100

Red link categories

Hi, please don't add non-existing categories to articles, per WP:REDNOT. Also, the label "quack" is not appropriate for a BLP without proper sourcing. Gap9551 (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I was not aware of the red link policy on Wikipedia.

No problem. Category:Pseudoscientific diet advocates already covers this aspect in more neutral terms. Gap9551 (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Quackery 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) 03:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP warning

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Quackery. Thank you.

---