User talk:Zad68/Archive 2016 Apr

The Signpost: 1 April 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Has it really been 5 months
since I last stopped in? I thought it was just a few weeks. I can make no promises but hope to do some editing again. Life's been busy. 14:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling. Good to see you still around. Happy editing! Yobol (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As usual, I agree with Yobol... Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yay! Hi! Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Zad68! You have been missed. I've lost count of how many times an editor/admin has pinged you on a discussion so you could offer a comment when you were on your Wikibreak. Glad to see you back for whatever time you can devote to the project. Liz  Read! Talk! 13:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! It feels nice to be missed.  I'm just going to do what I can.   14:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yay! Good to see you back. Alexbrn (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Outing
It's long standing fact that you don't ask people to identify themselves on this project. But I guess if you're covering for your buddy than we can just throw that out the door.--v/r - TP 17:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it perculiar that you came back at the exact right time to help out your friend, can you be clear here - were you or were you not contacted off-wiki about this issue?--v/r - TP 17:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * your comments don't appear to be connecting to the history, and that's disappointing to see, but I don't feel like I'm going to change your thinking on that at this time, so I'm not going to pursue it. To answer the question you asked:  No.   17:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleting research that you don't agree with
If you don't like my citations to and quotations of research articles, then post your own research that furthers your POV since that seems to be your game. My edits added research on both sides of the issue. Your further improper reverts will be challenged. Post research -- don't censor research that you don't like. Antisoapbox (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * sorry that you feel that way. On Wikipedia there are many content policies that cover things such as high-quality sourcing, verifiability and due weight, that direct what's appropriate for articles and what isn't.  I see that others have disagreed with your changes as well, those are best handled at the individual article Talk pages if you'd like to pursue.   12:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Wpegden (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Think my comment speaks for itself. My reply to you on said talk page speaks for itself also. Notice how Smokefoot has introduced a  secondary clarifications on my talk page. I was not born yesterday! please. Just don't just head the section on my talk page as just April 2016. I wouldn't do it normally to you -so why do you do it to me? --Aspro (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

notice
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wpegden (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Water fluoridation
Where you added cn--The citation for the statement about naturally occurring fluoride, and public water supplies possibly having added fluoride, occurs after the next sentence. (number 50). Do you think that that cite should be added at the end of both sentences?

Also-I agree that the old ref did not exactly say anything whatsoever about fluoride, BUT--- but there are 3 sources of fluoride in bottled water in the US, and only ONE must be on the label, and that would be fluoride that is ADDED to the water by the manufacturer. As far as I can tell. The, now deleted FDA info. stated how they are in charge of labeling, and how added ingredients MUST be on the label, and then the (ref #50) says exactly, "The FDA does not require bottled water manufacturers to list the amount of fluoride on the label unless the manufacturer has added fluoride within set limits.".....so we are not saying that now in the article, and probably we could say it with only the one ref, (#50)? Somehow I think that we should say this, that it is not mandatory for bottled water to say if it has fluoride, unless it has been added by the bottler. And that it can contain fluoride if the bottler got it that way from the tap, or spring etc.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * thanks for pointing me to the cn fix, I'll do that. The rest should really be at the article Talk page, can I move it there?    20:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank-you, yes, and I agree, since it is not so clear there either way.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Great, moving...  12:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

delated edition birth control
Why did you remove edition 14:41, 29 April 2016‎ 83.4.81.122 of the article Birt control? Is the prescribing information by the producer of emergency contraception not a reliable source for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janusz M 87 (talk • contribs)
 * are you editing as both a logged-in editor and an IP? Re this edit, see the edit summary of the revert, the source added was not MEDLINE-indexed, see WP:MEDRS for standards for medical sourcing.  Also it was a Catholic journal, would not expect that journal to be a high quality medical source on birth control.   15:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Have started a discussion here . Please join. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

SPI you've expressed interest in
FYI, I didn't realize you were going to look into the possible sockpuppetry yourself until after I'd already filed this SPI at. Geogene (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)