User talk:QuackGuru: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:59, 13 February 2008 editQuackGuru (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits WP:COPYVIO See: Talk:Chiropractic#copyright violation ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:19, 13 February 2008 edit undoCorticoSpinal (talk \| contribs)1,880 edits →Credibility: new sectionNext edit →
Line 74:		Line 74:

	<big>http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Chiropractic#copyright_violation</big> Copyright violation. Is anyone reading this? ] (]) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)		<big>http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Chiropractic#copyright_violation</big> Copyright violation. Is anyone reading this? ] (]) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

			== Credibility ==

			You have been exposed, GQ. You have blatantly deceived all the editors on the chiropractic and other CAM pages you edit by suggesting that you did not write, insert and try to maintain your original research. Your practice styles section is a direct ] from many sites. You even admitted to authoring it yourself on your chirotalk forum.

			Your profound ties to ], ] and ] leave little room for you contribute in an honest and constructive manner on the chiropractic page. Many experienced editors have questioned your ability to work towards a consensus, and your continuous attempts to cite quackwatch and stephen barrett as scholarly equivalent research is disingenius to say the least. Please refrain from ] me and suggest that you move to a more productive and cooperative style. Thanks. ] (]) 02:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:19, 13 February 2008

Welcome!

Hello QuackGuru! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Cool Cosmos 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting started
Misplaced Pages tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The "perfect" article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Chiropractic#copyright_violation Copyright violation. Is anyone reading this? QuackGuru (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Credibility

You have been exposed, GQ. You have blatantly deceived all the editors on the chiropractic and other CAM pages you edit by suggesting that you did not write, insert and try to maintain your original research. Your practice styles section is a direct text dump from many sites. You even admitted to authoring it yourself on your chirotalk forum.

Your profound ties to quackwatch, chirobase and stephen barrett leave little room for you contribute in an honest and constructive manner on the chiropractic page. Many experienced editors have questioned your ability to work towards a consensus, and your continuous attempts to cite quackwatch and stephen barrett as scholarly equivalent research is disingenius to say the least. Please refrain from wikistalking me and suggest that you move to a more productive and cooperative style. Thanks. EBDCM (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)