This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fences and windows (talk | contribs) at 23:52, 22 March 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:52, 22 March 2009 by Fences and windows (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome
|
Hi
Hi, have you previously edited Homeopathy or related articles under a different account? If so could you provide a link to them or name them here. Be aware that homeopathy and other pseudoscience articles are under special editing measures, as detailed on the talk page. All the best, Verbal chat 08:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- No.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- No to which question? Verbal chat 07:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've never edited the article on Homeopathy (because of the controversies) nor have I had a different account here. I haven't even had time to edit much on Misplaced Pages.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- No to which question? Verbal chat 07:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Homeopathy
Please be aware that Homeopathy and other pseudoscience and fringe topics are under special measures, as described on the talk page, and that large or controversial edits should be discussed on the talk page first. Also, please familiaries yourself with WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. I'm afraid homeopathyworld.com and similar meet neither criteria. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Homeopathy, quackery and consensus
"Not wedded to" doesn't mean that I might not side on including "quackery" in the lead. You shouldn't leap to conclusions on consensus like that, and immediately trying to make naturopathy following your lead on removing quackery is not good practice, nor is it logical. Fences and windows (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)