User talk:Severina123

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Severina123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Comment regarding your edit at Quackery
Your edits to Quackery have been reverted. Please discuss on the article's talk page, rather than edit warring.

As your edits seem to be directed at removing references to Quackwatch, which is considered a reliable source when used as it is in that article, I suggest you do some reading on the subject:


 * Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery


 * Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

As to the reasons why Quackwatch criticizes alternative medicine, Quackwatch just happens to be right. The criticized methods don't work, as illustrated by the old joke: "What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine."

Read the following section carefully, especially the part about where the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) (which is pro-alternative medicine!) hasn't found evidence for efficacy after ten years of large studies:


 * Relation to evidence-based medicine

Happy reading, and Happy New Year! -- Brangifer (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would question the user of a "vandalism"-warning here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC) :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have refactored the heading and warning since learning of this editor's status as a newbie at the noticeboard. We can discuss the matter on the article's talk page.


 * Before Severina123 does that, she needs to read the policies that are linked to in the welcome message. Her comments on the noticeboard reveal a failure to undersand our NPOV policy, which requires coverage of all sides (positive and critical) of the issues, and of our reliable sources policy, which governs how and why we constantly use biased and non-neutral sources. If we didn't allow them, we wouldn't have many sources left to use, since it would also eliminate the use of sources that mention a subject positively. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

quackery
Severina,

go a bit slower and calmer. really large posts and edits overwhelm people, and they will often skim such on talk pages and revert them without reading in article space. until you get established, you'll do much better to make small edits and small talk posts - if you want to make a large edit, leave a note in talk saying you're going to do a large cleanup of section X, and don't do anything in your edit that will trigger people. do anything controversial in its own edit, and give people a while to respond to it before you go on to do something else. it's slow work, yes, but it's hard for others to keep track of things that come at them in big chunks.

If you need any help or advice, leave a (brief) note on my talk page. -- Ludwigs 2 01:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

technical FYI
Severina - when you edit a section on an article or talk page, the edit summary box will contain a bit that looks like this: /* section name */. don't delete that from the edit summary box unless you have to - that becomes a link to the section in the watchlist and diffs, and makes it much easier to find the changes you just made. not a huge issue, but it does make like easier for the rest of us. -- Ludwigs 2 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for your help Ludwigs. Sorry i dont know what the /* section name */. is. Do you mean when i start a new title on the talk page or just when i write my suggestions on a title that someone else had already started? I havnt deleted anything when i have added on the talk pages,i have just put what i wished to say and then had signed with the Severina123 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)(4 squiggles) unless i have deleted something inadvertantly? Severina123 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs2 is talking about the "edit summary" box at the bottom of the edit window. Try making a test edit and look at the blank box right below the edit window. You are supposed to always leave an edit summary. That box already contains the heading of the section you are editing. Normally you should leave it in place and add your edit summary after it. That's what Ludwigs2 is trying to tell you. You should click the "edit summary" link and read about how to use that box. Your edit summary will appear above the edit you made when you look at your edit in the edit history. You should accustom yourself to use the edit history as your primary tool, rather than just reading the comments on the talk page. That history contains vital information visible only to those who are editing. Others can see it if they want to look, but ordinary readers don't usually do that. You are an editor here and need to use the software, including the edit history. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)