User contributions for 76.178.169.118

Search for contributionsshowhide

⧼contribs-top⧽

Username, IP address or CIDR range:

Namespace:

Invert selection

Associated namespace

Tag filter:

Invert selection

Only show edits that are latest revisions

Only show edits that are page creations

Hide minor edits

⧼contribs-date⧽

From date:

To date:

Show only edits pending review

Hide probably good edits

23:0823:08, 8 April 2024 diff hist +805‎ Talk:Project 2025 ‎ →‎A "List of Proposals" would be beneficial to the reader.: new section Tag: New topic
21:2521:25, 8 April 2024 diff hist −1‎ Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard ‎ →‎Open solicitation for partisan collusion
21:2421:24, 8 April 2024 diff hist +95‎ Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard ‎ →‎Open solicitation for partisan collusion
21:2421:24, 8 April 2024 diff hist +215‎ Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard ‎ →‎Open solicitation for partisan collusion: Reply Tag: Reply
21:0721:07, 8 April 2024 diff hist +87‎ Talk:Project 2025 ‎ →‎Conspiracy theory
21:0421:04, 8 April 2024 diff hist +679‎ Talk:Project 2025 ‎ →‎Conspiracy theory: Reply Tag: Reply
21:0021:00, 8 April 2024 diff hist +337‎ Talk:Project 2025 ‎ →‎Conspiracy theory: Reply Tag: Reply
20:5720:57, 8 April 2024 diff hist +213‎ User talk:Robert Sacomeno ‎ →‎WP has rules
20:5420:54, 8 April 2024 diff hist −25‎ Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard ‎ →‎Open solicitation for partisan collusion on an article's content.
20:5220:52, 8 April 2024 diff hist +450‎ Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard ‎ →‎Open solicitation for partisan collusion on an article's content.: new section Tag: New topic
20:4620:46, 8 April 2024 diff hist −513‎ Talk:Project 2025 ‎ Open solicitation for partisan collusion on article content. This is a severe NPOV violation. Tag: Manual revert
20:4520:45, 8 April 2024 diff hist +118‎ User talk:Robert Sacomeno ‎ →‎WP has rules
20:4520:45, 8 April 2024 diff hist +344‎ N User talk:Robert Sacomeno ‎
WP:NPOV
rule. In other words, overt partisan strategizing is one of the worst offenses an editor could make on Wikipedia.'

23:3523:35, 5 April 2024 diff hist +604‎ Talk:Project 2025 ‎ →‎Regarding attribution for the Insurrection Act claim and other instances of third-party sources as only source: Reply Tag: Reply
23:2823:28, 5 April 2024 diff hist +210‎ Talk:Project 2025 ‎ →‎Delete this: Reply Tag: Reply
23:2723:27, 5 April 2024 diff hist +2,814‎ Talk:Project 2025 ‎ →‎Delete this: Reply Tag: Reply

17:2417:24, 12 March 2024 diff hist +14‎ Talk:Candida hypersensitivity ‎ →‎Stephen Barrett and Steven Novella cites require attribution
17:2317:23, 12 March 2024 diff hist +50‎ Talk:Candida hypersensitivity ‎ →‎Stephen Barrett and Steven Novella cites require attribution
17:2217:22, 12 March 2024 diff hist +1,607‎ Talk:Candida hypersensitivity ‎ →‎Stephen Barrett and Steven Novella cites require attribution: Reply Tag: Reply

19:2019:20, 7 March 2024 diff hist +71‎ Talk:Candida hypersensitivity ‎ →‎Stephen Barrett and Steven Novella cites require attribution
19:1919:19, 7 March 2024 diff hist +1,959‎ Talk:Candida hypersensitivity ‎ →‎Can previous editors please explain this weird usage of some of the citations?: new section Tag: New topic
19:0619:06, 7 March 2024 diff hist +813‎ Talk:Candida hypersensitivity ‎ →‎Stephen Barrett and Steven Novella cites require attribution: new section Tag: New topic
18:2918:29, 7 March 2024 diff hist +77‎ User talk:76.178.169.118 ‎No edit summary current
18:2618:26, 7 March 2024 diff hist +207‎ User talk:76.178.169.118 ‎No edit summary
18:2118:21, 7 March 2024 diff hist +213‎ User talk:76.178.169.118 ‎No edit summary
17:4817:48, 7 March 2024 diff hist +104‎ User talk:ScienceFlyer ‎ →‎Quackwatch as a source on AAEM
17:4617:46, 7 March 2024 diff hist +103‎ User talk:ScienceFlyer ‎ →‎Quackwatch as a source on AAEM
17:4317:43, 7 March 2024 diff hist +286‎ User talk:ScienceFlyer ‎ →‎Quackwatch as a source on AAEM: Reply Tag: Reply
17:4217:42, 7 March 2024 diff hist +119‎ User talk:ScienceFlyer ‎ →‎Quackwatch as a source on AAEM
17:4117:41, 7 March 2024 diff hist +948‎ American Academy of Environmental Medicine ‎ Undid revision 1212265969 by ScienceFlyer (talk) Your changes have no consensus. Addition of QW has no consensus since the beginning. There's no deadline on WP. You ignore attempts at discussion with you, only revert. Shall we go to third opinion or something else? QW itself has had numerous RfCs, and the edits I make are in keeping with those.
Undo
Reverted

22:0622:06, 6 March 2024 diff hist +948‎ American Academy of Environmental Medicine ‎ Quackwatch is to be evaluated case-by-case, and this particular use has been criticized many times in talk and in edit history. I have taken the guideline suggestion of "in-line" attribution, recognizing that Barrett's opinion is the driving force behind this statement. I also put back in the cited sentence that AAEM is CME accredited, which was removed recently without any discussion. I also removed the sentence about regulatory actions against 29 doctors, added at the same time, undue and pov. Tag: Reverted

21:1721:17, 29 February 2024 diff hist +3,939‎ User talk:ScienceFlyer ‎No edit summary

22:4522:45, 28 February 2024 diff hist −411‎ American Academy of Environmental Medicine ‎ No, it really isn't fine. Quackwatch is not a peer review, it is not a medical board, it is not a governing body, and so on. It is the opinion of one person, and one who has many times provided unreliable information on some topics, "appeals to authority" not withstanding. Further, the want for WP editors to disallow QW is plethora, as evidenced by the "what links here" page of that article. Discuss in talk page if you want consensus for including that information, and bring better sources. Tag: Reverted