| Revision as of 20:35, 29 July 2016 editKimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,610 edits →Reinstating (possible) copyrighted image: Not good enough that you can point out the pictures - they each have licenses themselves.← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:41, 29 July 2016 edit undoQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits archiveNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| :::::::I get that. I don't want to tangle with you QG - you do some great work here. ] (]) 23:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | :::::::I get that. I don't want to tangle with you QG - you do some great work here. ] (]) 23:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::I know who the master is but there is a small chance I could be wrong. An admin could run a checkuser with all the accounts who supported the essay. ] (]) 23:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | ::::::::I know who the master is but there is a small chance I could be wrong. An admin could run a checkuser with all the accounts who supported the essay. ] (]) 23:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] 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.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 01:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| I wonder why you got this notice, QG? The Grostic Technique, oh my. ] (]) 02:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :I wonder about a lot of things. EditorDownUnder is another new account. Could it be ]? ] (]) 11:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Gonstead technique == | |||
| I don't believe your own opinion overrules the agreement made on the deletion page to keep the article. Please remove your edits. ] (]) <small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 23:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Reform of Misplaced Pages == | |||
| This might interest you ] (]) 20:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Many chiropractors == | |||
| It seems perfectly okay to use a citation that states that US chiros see themselves as primary care providers to support the sentence that "many chiropractors" see themselves as such. Ideally, this sentence would be supported by a few citations that cover respective geographic areas. ] (]) 06:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :The source you added did not verify the current claim. ] (]) 06:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here is the quote from the source I added: "Chiropractors are, in their own view, primary care physicians who treat the entire population – neonate to geriatric patient – for a broad range of conditions and diseases," which is supported by four references. This is a great secondary reference to use in the article. ] (]) 06:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::See "Many chiropractors believe they are primary care providers, including US chiropractors." ] (]) 06:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is pretty acceptable. Having an additional citation in the lede is a matter of style, something I find to be useful. ] (]) 06:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Adding it to the lead only verifies US chiropractors. ] (]) 06:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, but since they are part of the many, there is little sematical problem with this. ] (]) 07:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The general claims belong in the lede using a source to verify the specific text. For the body there is claims for the US and UK. See "Many chiropractors believe they are primary care providers, including US and UK chiropractors." ] (]) 07:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Reinstating (possible) copyrighted image == | |||
| You reinstated this image with a revert. Which may be the correct thing to do - but there has been a copyright claim made on the image here - i removed the image because advertising is not in any way or form acceptable, nor is having a copyrighted image without attribution. | |||
| So please, can you confirm that you are aware of the issue, and relate the policy reasons that make you capable of just ignoring the copyright claim? --] 20:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :There was no copyvio. All images have been attributed. The link added was a . ] (]) 20:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ec}}How do you know? Personally i asked the contributor for hir comments here. | |||
| ::You will need to explain how you just ''know'' this - and why you think that ] can just be ignored on a whim? --] 20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::Click on the image. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Vape-cloud-montage.jpeg#Licensing ] (]) 20:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ec}}Yes? I've been around wikipedia for long enough to know that even images on commons with seemingly good pedigree can be copyvios. So let the contributor make his comment. You can't just ignore that we have a claimed copyvio! ] 20:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::https://www.flickr.com/photos/micadew/16582794210/ (micadew – Smoke Screen) | |||
| :::::https://www.flickr.com/photos/sodaniechea/8819220638/ (Sodanie Chea – Smoke-Fall) | |||
| :::::http://www.ecigclick.co.uk/ecigclick-images/ (Jonny Williams/www.ecigclick.co.uk) | |||
| :::::https://www.flickr.com/photos/127173209@N05/16348069932/ (TBEC Review/the-best-electronic-cigarette-review.com) | |||
| :::::This is the source of the original images. ] (]) 20:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Only two of those images are under Creative Commons license. One of the images , states that it needs attribution. The last one has (to me an) unknown licensing --] 20:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:41, 29 July 2016
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuackGuru. |
Check sources
www.scoop.it/t/the-future-of-e-cigarette
http://www.economist.com/topics/electronic-cigarettes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/electronic-cigarettes/
WURT
WTF is WURT ? — Cirt (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- it is the self-name of someone who is socking who is upset with me and guy per at least two messages they have left. see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Renameduser024#Comments_by_other_users Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is the Misplaced Pages Urgent Reform Team. You can join. QuackGuru (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- QG, what does this and this have to do with improving Misplaced Pages? Real question. A second real question - these socks are specifically targeting me and Guy. Why do you support that? Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with improving. I don't support it. This all started with Reform of Misplaced Pages. QuackGuru (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- That essay unfortunately attracted a bunch of disoriented and disgruntled editors who don't really understand this place. I have been sympathetic to what you were trying to do but the clamor of people like whoever is doing this socking has dragged your effort down. And your not distancing yourself and your effort from them, hurts you and your effort. They are stealing your brand and trashing it. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- One of them who supported the essay is probably the sock. QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I get that. I don't want to tangle with you QG - you do some great work here. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I know who the master is but there is a small chance I could be wrong. An admin could run a checkuser with all the accounts who supported the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I get that. I don't want to tangle with you QG - you do some great work here. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- One of them who supported the essay is probably the sock. QuackGuru (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- That essay unfortunately attracted a bunch of disoriented and disgruntled editors who don't really understand this place. I have been sympathetic to what you were trying to do but the clamor of people like whoever is doing this socking has dragged your effort down. And your not distancing yourself and your effort from them, hurts you and your effort. They are stealing your brand and trashing it. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with improving. I don't support it. This all started with Reform of Misplaced Pages. QuackGuru (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- QG, what does this and this have to do with improving Misplaced Pages? Real question. A second real question - these socks are specifically targeting me and Guy. Why do you support that? Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)