User talk:Milliongoldcoinpoint

Poor quality edit
In this edit you made the claim that a primary source was a systematic review. Please be more careful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes I did. I think we can agree I've made plenty of great edits since starting on the page, but this was clearly not one of them. Thanks for pointing it out!Milliongoldcoinpoint (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Query
What is your rationale to use an older source from 1997 to make such strong statements? QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting
That you posted this with no warning. No notification on my page. And two of the difs count as one as they occured one after the other without any intervening edits  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely
See user page notice and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Klocek. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)