Archives
Archive 1 (December 2012 – May 2013)
Archive 2 (June 2013 – August 2013)
Archive 3 (September 2013 – December 2013)
Archive 4 (January 2014 – April 2014)
Archive 5 (May 2014 – July 2014)
Archive 6 (August 2014 – April 2015)
Archive 7 (May 2015 – )

Thanks![edit]

BMK (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome! --I am One of Many (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Remember to use secondary sources[edit]

Per WP:MEDRS Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Remember that it is incumbent upon editors to search for sources rather than delete content, especially when as of today there are 1137 review articles on resveratrol and at least some of the material removed is pretty commonly covered in review articles.--I am One of Many (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Joe Blahak page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

South African farm attacks[edit]

I posted a lengthy but proper rebuttal on the talkpage, so I'm not sure why you didn't respond there and instead accused me of POV on my user talkpage. I know what POV and RS means, you're claim of "right-wing websites are not reliable sources" can easily be debunked (and is not to mention POV-pushing) - Wikipedia is WP:NPOV, and both left-wing and right-wing sources are acceptable if they meet the RS requirements. Of course, the article already contains left-wing sources like The Guardian, thus violating WP:UNDUE

To copypaste my argument from the talkpage here for your convenience:

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate? The article ALREADY has POV. That's why there's the tag, and the talkpage is littered with complaints. The current sources (The Guardian, Reuters, New York Times) all range from liberal to very liberal. That's WP:UNDUE. Per that policy, there's no reason for high-quality reliable conservative sources, like National Review or FrontPage Magazine, to not be in the article. The current version of the article is textbook POVPOSHING and makes no mention of genocide, despite that theory being popular amongst conservative sources so it's definitely not WP:FRINGE. Also, I never removed the liberal sources - merely balanced it out with conservative ones. Not sure what you're up in arms about, apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, most RS make mention of race. There's no reason to have race minimized.

Also, stop your condescending tone. Summaries like "do not keep introducing you biases" do not assume good faith and you don't WP:OWN the page.

I can't revert again because 3RR, but will expect a reply here. SweetSpicySour (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)