| Revision as of 02:40, 6 May 2016 editHughD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,133 edits →Direct appeal: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:47, 6 May 2016 edit undoZad68 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,355 edits →Direct appeal: decline at this timeNext edit → | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| Hello. On my talk page you wrote, "You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page)". I am appealing the sanction extension on the grounds that there was no topic ban violation, no disruptive editing, no incivility, no edits except good faith efforts to improve our encyclopedia, no grounds for sanction. Thank you. ] (]) 02:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC) | Hello. On my talk page you wrote, "You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page)". I am appealing the sanction extension on the grounds that there was no topic ban violation, no disruptive editing, no incivility, no edits except good faith efforts to improve our encyclopedia, no grounds for sanction. Thank you. ] (]) 02:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :{{u|HughD}} I see there's an active AE request concerning your recent edits in relation to the topic ban you're appealing so I decline the appeal at this time because I think the discussion there needs to continue. Thanks for your understanding. <code>]]</code> 02:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:47, 6 May 2016
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
notice
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wpegden (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 April 2016
- Special report: Update on EranBot, our new copyright violation detection bot
- Traffic report: Two for the price of one
- Featured content: The double-sized edition
- Arbitration report: Amendments made to the Race and intelligence case
Water fluoridation
Where you added cn--The citation for the statement about naturally occurring fluoride, and public water supplies possibly having added fluoride, occurs after the next sentence. (number 50). Do you think that that cite should be added at the end of both sentences?
| Moved to Talk:Water fluoridation |
|---|
|
Also-I agree that the old ref did not exactly say anything whatsoever about fluoride, BUT--- but there are 3 sources of fluoride in bottled water in the US, and only ONE must be on the label, and that would be fluoride that is ADDED to the water by the manufacturer. As far as I can tell. The, now deleted FDA info. stated how they are in charge of labeling, and how added ingredients MUST be on the label, and then the (ref #50) says exactly, "The FDA does not require bottled water manufacturers to list the amount of fluoride on the label unless the manufacturer has added fluoride within set limits.".....so we are not saying that now in the article, and probably we could say it with only the one ref, (#50)? Somehow I think that we should say this, that it is not mandatory for bottled water to say if it has fluoride, unless it has been added by the bottler. And that it can contain fluoride if the bottler got it that way from the tap, or spring etc.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC) |
- TeeVeeed thanks for pointing me to the {{cn}} fix, I'll do that. The rest should really be at the article Talk page, can I move it there?
Zad6820:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank-you, yes, and I agree, since it is not so clear there either way.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Great, moving...
Zad6812:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Great, moving...
delated edition birth control
Why did you remove edition 14:41, 29 April 2016 83.4.81.122 of the article Birt control? Is the prescribing information by the producer of emergency contraception not a reliable source for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janusz M 87 (talk • contribs)
- Janusz M 87 are you editing as both a logged-in editor and an IP? Re this edit, see the edit summary of the revert, the source added was not MEDLINE-indexed, see WP:MEDRS for standards for medical sourcing. Also it was a Catholic journal, would not expect that journal to be a high quality medical source on birth control.
Zad6815:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)- Have started a discussion here . Please join. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
SPI you've expressed interest in
FYI, I didn't realize you were going to look into the possible sockpuppetry yourself until after I'd already filed this SPI at . Geogene (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 2 May 2016
- In the media: Misplaced Pages Zero piracy in Bangladesh; bureaucracy; chilling effects; too few cooks; translation gaps
- Traffic report: Purple
- Featured content: The best ... from the past two weeks
- Arbitration report: Two editors unbanned; Wikicology case enters workshop phase; Gamaliel restricted from Gamergate at his own request
- Recent research: The eight roles of Wikipedians; do edit histories expose social relations among editors?
Direct appeal
Hello. On my talk page you wrote, "You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page)". I am appealing the sanction extension on the grounds that there was no topic ban violation, no disruptive editing, no incivility, no edits except good faith efforts to improve our encyclopedia, no grounds for sanction. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- HughD I see there's an active AE request concerning your recent edits in relation to the topic ban you're appealing so I decline the appeal at this time because I think the discussion there needs to continue. Thanks for your understanding.
Zad6802:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)