User talk:LordKracken

January 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Easy Way to Stop Smoking have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Materialscientist (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tired of big companies lying for profit, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Tired of big companies lying for profit! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like John from Idegon (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

??[edit]

Can you explain how deleting a biased opinion in not constructive? Tired of big companies lying for profit (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Hello! While neutrality is one of the core tenants of the encyclopedia, that doesn't mean statements you disagree with have no place on Wikipedia. The section you deleted was backed up by reliable sources (one of which was a scientific aggregate study of ways to quit smoking). Unless you have a valid reason for deletion, or a source that rebuts the current statements, it will stay. The statement appears to be a simple statement of the conclusions of the report, and is not biased nor an opinion. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 12:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i quote,

“he concludes that doctors should advise against Allen Carr’s Easyway method.[4]”

That is his opinion. If that was a fact then the thousands if not millions of people who have quit using this book would not have. Doctors advise using nicotine replacement. They are using their position to fund and continue the drug addiction to nicotine or nicotine replacement. 99% of the traffic to this page is from people who are researching the validity of the book. It is morally wrong to suggest to those people that this method doesn’t work. It is up to them to make that decision for themselves. Tired of big companies lying for profit (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took more issue with your deletion of the NICE study. However I note that the paragraph about the pneumonologist was poorly written. If you go the page, you'll see that another editor has changed the paragraph to make it more neutral, instead of straight up deleting it. I suggest you study what they did and see if you can learn something useful. Wikipedia prefers to improve rather than delete, when possible.

I also note that the Dr's "opinion" comes from what appears to be a reliable source. It isn't just the statement of some random dude, but rather a trained medical doctor published in a peer reviewed journal. Also careful about making assumptions you don't have any evidence to back up, such as "99% of traffic". If you can find a source supporting Carr's method, please provide it. But for now the sources we have suggest that Carr's method shows no clinical significance. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 12:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Tired of big companies lying for profit", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because your username appears to a disruptive username. Accounts who are WP:NOTHERE (i.e. to push a particular agenda) may be banned or renamed. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. If you truly do want to improve Wikipedia, I ask that you change your name, and read up on our policies. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 12:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My username[edit]

My username is why I have decided to try and make wiki a better place. I believe it is an important vessel for freedom of information. Not freedom of speech like how you are suggesting, but freedom of the truth. My username is a fact. Tired of big companies lying for profit (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tired of big companies lying for profit. Concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it at the page for requests for comment on usernames. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name at Wikipedia:Changing username following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 12:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My username.[edit]

Hello again, I agree that my username could be deemed as problematic. I will proceed to rectify this. I will be happy to leave what was already written if I can also provide evidence to the contrary. Tired of big companies lying for profit (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your missing my point.[edit]

I’m not a vandal or just some ‘dude’ as you put it. I’m a regular user of Wikipedia and have been for many years. I’m not interested in how much of the Wikipedia law and red tape you know about and I don’t, I’m not trying to compete with anyone. The reason I have tried to get involved in this matter is one of morality. Can I ask if you have ever read the book or have ever been a smoker? I appreciate that you can only see this from your ‘Wikipedia pro editing godly’ view point. I’m asking for your help to rectify this. My point is this- how is it morally correct to dismiss an idea to somebody before they have even tried it. The book works by empowering the reader and giving them the inner strength they need to go cold turkey. If they read ‘medical professionals should not promote this method’ (or whatever it was) then this instantly cuts down the books validity. Any method that can stop someone from smoking without the need for vapes or pills or lozenges or whatever else pharmaceutical companies want you to be addicted to surely must be tried first and promoted by platforms such as Wikipedia. Tired of big companies lying for profit (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's "red tape" exists to ensure that we build a quality encyclopedia and have pleasant interactions. If you would like to not follow policy, you ought have a very good reason and should expect resistance. In terms of Carr's smoking book: it is not Wikipedia's job to "surely try" or "promote" something. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. It is a place to gather notable knowledge from reliable sources. And from what the reliable sources say on Carr's method, it is not supported by the medical literature. Lastly, Wikipedia does not base content off of morals. While we try to use common sense and be civil, the inclusion/non-inclusion of material is based off of its notability and reliability (among other factors) and not whether it is "moral". Wikipedia is not censored. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 21:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bla bla[edit]

You’re ability to dodge around the issue is laughable. LordKracken (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]