Talk:H. Hugh Fudenberg

Casewatch / Quackwatch
We mention "Casewatch" here in respect of this article on casewatch.org. Casewatch is a subsidiary site of Quackwatch and, since we do not have a Casewatch article, the wikilink has been to a section of the Quackwatch article dedicated to its subsidiary sites. Recently Milwaukeewobbly, in a series of edits with increasingly uncivil summaries, has been changing the link text to "Quackwatch" which is just ... wrong. Would appreciate a second opinion for a sanity check. Alexbrn talk 07:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If you follow the link "Casewatch," it takes you to a page subsection about QUACKWATCH. I am merely correcting an error. If you want the link to point to an article or website specifically about CASEWATCH, then, please provide that link.

Since you provided no explanations for your reversions of my edit, and since your revisions contained the original error, I concluded that you were vandalizing the page.

If, in the future you plan to edit Wikipedia pages, please provide an explanation for your edits I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milwaukeewobbly (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article being mentioned appears on casewatch.org; your edit provides false information by suggesting it's on Quackwatch. How about we get a third opinion from WP:3O? Please say if you agree on seeking a third opinion. Alexbrn talk 18:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I agree so much that I have already requested one: WP:3O. Jinkinson  talk to me  19:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion
I do not see any reason why the link text should not read 'Casewatch' (but still link to the same WP article). The text specifically refers to a web site and the site in question is Casewatch.org. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Potassium???
Both the article and the source refer to misuse of the drug 'Potassium'. Surely there is a word missed out somewhere. Potassium is not a drug. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Maher, Gorski and anti-vax
Per WP:PSCI it needs to be plain Maher is espousing an extreme fringe view here, as Gorski makes explicit: his view is being presented too obliquely for this to be clear. My edit did the trick well, but has been reverted (twice). Alexbrn talk 21:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Gorki made his "in depth" investigation by doing a Google search and choosing the first website he saw. this is absurd and not wikipedic. Gorki is getting undue weight anyway. The original sentence is enough. this is not the crank website RationalWiki79.182.136.188 (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on H. Hugh Fudenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140318193345/http://www.legacy.library.ucsf.edu/documentStore/d/y/s/dys61f00/Sdys61f00.pdf to http://www.legacy.library.ucsf.edu/documentStore/d/y/s/dys61f00/Sdys61f00.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405091230/http://www.nitrf.org/cirriculum.html to http://www.nitrf.org/cirriculum.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405085951/http://www.nitrf.org/career.html to http://www.nitrf.org/career.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)