User talk:DeTandarts

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While editors are encouraged to be bold, original research and editing from a biased point of view is not tolerated. I understand that I may not be an expert on Co-enzyme Q10 like yourself, but making the accusation that "On their website Pharma Nord links to even more "scientific" articles "proving" the effectiveness of coenzyme Q10 on periodontal disease, all of very poor quality" is biased, uses loaded language and use of quotes, and is un-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, i.e. it only reports on things that have already been reported on. Claiming studies contradictory to your point of view are "aged and to much in-vitro focused, had to small numbers of test subjects and/or erroneous statistics and trial set-up, or were originating from a research sponsored by a manufacturer of the product" without providing a source where that has already been stated is considered original research. I am going to revert your edits, as by rewriting that entire paragraph you have destroyed encyclopedic work, but I will attempt to integrate the study you have cited into the text. Please be aware I am not attempting to repress your point of view, I am only wanting to improve Wikipedia. Also, please fill out the edit summary box when making an edit, it is very helpful to other editors. If you have any other concerns please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Regards, HMman (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It would appear I need to start a second message to adequately reply to the further accusations leveled against me. Personal attacks are a very poor way of arguing your side; by attacking my integrity as an editor it gives me the impression you are not interested in the benefit of Wikipedia, instead it seems you perceive yourself as "right", myself as "wrong", and come hell or high water you are going to make sure Wikipedia reflects what is "right". I am sorry if by reverting your edits I have wounded your pride, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox on which to broadcast your ideas. I will try to include your BDJ review in the text, but do not make personal attacks towards me because you disagree. Regards, HMman (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So again, it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing; it's a matter of applying science as it should be or not - rather a technical discussion. And if you don't agree how evidence based medicine works, well than, that's a whole different discussion. If you don't want to acknowledge the fact that the review study superseeds all the others on the matter of dentistry, fine, but than don't call it Science anymore and that's against Wikipedia guidelines.--DeTandarts (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The pyramid of Evidence Based Medicine and I rest my case! --DeTandarts (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I welcomed you to Wikipedia because you are a new account and you haven't made very many edits. I'm sorry if I offended you with my attempts at courtesy, but it was in the spirit of being polite. I had not known of other discussions of this sort unfolding on other language Wipipedias, as I speak only English; you cannot expect me to know everything that is unfolding within all Wikipedia language branches. If I may try and sum up my rational for originally reverting your edits: it was done by a brand new account (possible sock puppet), I am inherently suspicious of additions to Wikipedia that "rock the boat" (most of my experience with such edits has been subtle vandalism), and, quite frankly, the grammar was a bit poor (another point that made me suspicious). I cannot read the report done by the BMJ, as I do not have a subscription; so I could not verify for myself what was said. I realize suspecting your edit's integrity because of its grammar was an unfair judgement on my behalf, and really I have no excuse, but by "observing" my lack of courtesy and accusing that I deleted "the whole paragraph because of one sentence that maybe could be translated differently" was, I feel, an unfair judgement on your behalf. You are absolutely correct, I do not know as much about dentistry as yourself, I am no dentist. I am sorry that I have erroneously edited, I truly am, and as this discussion isn't really going anywhere I'm going to drop the issue. I had not reverted with malicious intent, and I don't understand why it was assumed to be such; if you have questions about my edits in the future, please ask me about them first. Regards, HMman (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Toothiologist


The article Toothiologist has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This is an non-notable term.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Toothiologist for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Toothiologist is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Toothiologist until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  role player 15:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this is a REAL PROFESSION and I have given enough references so you can check the very existence of the professional at stake. There is no other English word to describe this alternative medical profession other than calling him a Toothiologist.
 * And YES, the irony is that the term was first used in a sketch of an Irish stand-up comedian. This however shows the irony of this professional.


 * So is there a "better" term to describe alternative medicine therapists working in the dental field? I challenge you to find me a better one that this one! --DeTandarts (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Osfinancials


A tag has been placed on Osfinancials requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. West Eddy (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Osfinancials
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for taking the time to contribute.

I'm a bot designed by another Wikipedia editor, and I'm here to help you with our deletion process. I noticed that while working on an article recently, you removed a speedy deletion template that tagged it for deletion. Don't get discouraged! Deletion discussions happen on Wikipedia all the time.

If you don't want the article to get deleted, please [ click here].

The link will take you to the talk page, where you can explain why the article should be kept. If you have any questions about this or need help with editing, you can ask at the Help desk.

We really hope you'll stick around to help make Wikipedia better! Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Comparison of dental practice management software (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Proprietary


 * Dental software (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Proprietary

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Comparison of dental practice management software for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of dental practice management software is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Comparison of dental practice management software& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Praxidicae (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)