| Revision as of 14:35, 29 September 2006 editChris is me (talk | contribs)2,462 edits Notability← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:35, 30 September 2006 edit undoDr. Imbeau (talk | contribs)699 edits →Is this a game you are playing ?Next edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| One more thing, I am not the one who is reversing edits without prior discussion on the talk page. Finally it should be noted that some editors are nitpicking at the article, posting {{citation needed}} tags to items supporting the risks posed by amalgam but doing very little to find such references or making edits with a one sided view. It is easy to nitpick but another matter to provide a constructive contribution. ] 06:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | One more thing, I am not the one who is reversing edits without prior discussion on the talk page. Finally it should be noted that some editors are nitpicking at the article, posting {{citation needed}} tags to items supporting the risks posed by amalgam but doing very little to find such references or making edits with a one sided view. It is easy to nitpick but another matter to provide a constructive contribution. ] 06:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| : Dear Jersyko. Shall I expect a reply ?? ] 05:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Notability == | == Notability == | ||
Revision as of 05:35, 30 September 2006
| Click here to start a new message thread. Please sign your posts (you can do so with ~~~~). |
Is this a game you are playing ?
Dear Jersyko, I fail to understand your comment about not reaching a consensus on the dental amalgam controversy page, especially since I did raise the issue clearly on the talk page and , after being twice interrupted by Dozenist who felt the urge to interject on a different issue, I specifically asked to resume the discussion on the topic at hand.
However after about two days waiting for a reply , I assumed that, after reading WP:EL which appears to be clear about non-reliable links that should be removed from WP, you did not object to the reasons I gave so I went ahead and removed the link. As I pointed out the issue is not about what you and I may think about the other links in general but about verifiable and credible information that is currently available about the quality of the information posted on QW. Also there is the issue of the title of the QW article in question which is very sarcastic and accusatory, providing further support to the conclusion of the review. I was under the impression that you agreed to have a well documented, referenced quality article.... Did I misunderstand your intention ?
One more thing, I am not the one who is reversing edits without prior discussion on the talk page. Finally it should be noted that some editors are nitpicking at the article, posting tags to items supporting the risks posed by amalgam but doing very little to find such references or making edits with a one sided view. It is easy to nitpick but another matter to provide a constructive contribution. Dr. Imbeau 06:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Jersyko. Shall I expect a reply ?? Dr. Imbeau 05:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Notability
I don't think you're in to userboxen, but I saw your comment on the talk page of WP:N talk page, and thought you might like User:Ccool2ax/Notability hurts for a userbox. -- Chris chat edits essays 14:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)