Misplaced Pages

User talk:QuackGuru

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Littleolive oil (talk | contribs) at 20:11, 14 May 2015 (→oops: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:11, 14 May 2015 by Littleolive oil (talk | contribs) (→oops: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuackGuru.

Thanks

Thanks for the tip about WP:QUACKS, and I appreciate the advice to leave the essay alone. When you edited the essay, the changes I'd put in had already been reverted. Some have been put back in but I think my version was better than what's there now - or as better as this essay can get. Given that there's still pressure to make it about finding Wifione-type editors and at least one editor is (mis)using the essay to claim that editors at Organic food are advocates because they're against this editor, I don't see much hope for it. I don't necessarily think it'll be deleted if it goes to mainspace but I also don't think it's that useful since it doesn't fill much of a gap. I've done what I could to improve it and I don't see the point in trying to make it better now so I'm done with it. Anyways, thanks again. Ca2james (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The essay has little focus. I think the real question is what is an advocacy duck? The original essay was accusing others who closely follow WP policy of having a COI. I noticed the new essay has been improved recently but I don't see how it can help anyone. The new essay says "COI ducks are ducks of a different color." That does not make sense. The essay seems to claim that a duck is an editor who has a COI. QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Ca2james after reading this comment I think the confusing essay should be deleted. The essay is being (mis)used to make accusations against others. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The essay is being described as "the Quackers essay" after I deleted the text from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Ca2james, what happened? It is back where it was before. See Misplaced Pages:Advocacy ducks. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The dispute has bubbled over to ArbCom

See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Complementary and Alternative Medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Since nothing is being done at ArbCom I think something has to change. A1candidate was notified of the sanctions on 26 June 2014. A1candidate was also notified of the sanctions for acupuncture on 12 January 2015. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; I have been following the dispute, though I have not had the time to do anything other than watch. (I've spent the last two days packing for a move across town tomorrow.) In any case, I probably won't be doing anything until the arbcom case is rejected and the COI noticeboard thread closes. The discussion seems to have had the positive effect of bringing a new editor to the article to finally trim down the Lead section. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Adjwilley, things are getting very interesting. QuackGuru (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was talking about...the trimming of the Lead section. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The lede should be four paragraphs, especially for a complex topic. I am working on shortening it. QuackGuru (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually 4 is the maximum. (The guideline says 3-4.) I am actually more concerned about this post of yours, which seems to be in part copied from above. In the post you refer to User:A1Candidate 11 times complaining about several things they did. Yet here you said,

"Rather than make comments on the behaviour of others I will collaborate with other editors better by using the talk page to resolve disputes. I agree to focus on content and not comment on the motives of others at the talk page...It was also a mistake for me to comment on editors at the talk page rather than solely on content. To help resolve this situation I am committed to stop accusing editors of doing things and will interact with others civilly, calmly, and in the spirit of cooperation."

In my experience posts like that, ratting on other editors, don't encourage collaboration. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I changed the wording to "This edit" and made the text more focused. QuackGuru (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Hi QuackGuru! I appreciate your help on Chiropractic, but thought you should know about a couple Misplaced Pages style guidelines:

  • "...citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods and commas."
  • "...it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph..."

Both of these are defined in the WP:CITEFOOT guideline. Exceptions are rare (like only for very controversial wording), and I'm sure you'll find that 99% of the time elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, citations are indeed after the punctuation at a natural break in the sentence. The reason for this is to not breakup sentences with little blue citation marks, which would make them somewhat choppy to the eye. Thanks, and happy editing! – voidxor  05:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"The citation should be added close to the material it supports,..." See WP:CITEFOOT. QuackGuru (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
True, although the end of the clause or sentence is "close to". And "close to" differs from "on top of", which is your practice. Furthermore, if "close to" meant immediately after the word, then WP:CITEFOOT would be contridicting itself when it says "...citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods and commas."
I suggest comparing the way citation placement is done on Chiropractic to other random Misplaced Pages articles. Chiropractic had a lot more mid-clause refs than is typical. – voidxor  06:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
This is controversial text likely to be challenged. QuackGuru (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
What's controversial? The text of WP:CITEFOOT? – voidxor  06:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I already explained it is the text. QuackGuru (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
If the text has a history of being contentious, we'll leave the ref on the controversial word. Sorry for assuming it wasn't contentious.
Changing the subject, I saw you reverted my attempt to make the ref syntax more readable to new editors. Your edit summary was simply "cleanup". Understand that this is patronizing, and not assuming good faith. Basically, you assumed that my edits weren't helpful (the opposite of cleanup) because you didn't understand them. Instead of discussing it or explaining why you believe your way is better, you asserted that my edits needed to be "fixed" or "cleaned up". Please try to be more collaborative in the future. Thanks! – voidxor  18:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Innate intelligence

It is Innate Intelligence not Innate intelligence IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Since it's not a proper noun, I dropped the capitalization. See MOS:CAP. – voidxor  06:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
It is known as Innate Intelligence. QuackGuru (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
That's a grammatical issue, and Misplaced Pages's guideline is at MOS:CAP. How it is capitalized off of Misplaced Pages is really of no consequence. – voidxor  06:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
How it is used by straight chiropractors (the only ones who use it) is very significant. It's a proper name and a parallel construction to Universal Intelligence (a pantheistic "god"), Innate Intelligence ("god" in you), and Educated Intelligence ("god" functioning better in you because of your education/indoctrination by chiropractors). Once indoctrinated, the patient is essentially part of the chiropractic religion.
The words are always capitalized in their literature and books, and we are supposed to reflect how those RS do it. It is thus not a matter covered by MOS:CAP. This is a notable exception. The fact that article titles only allow the first word to be capitalized (at least when the article was created) is something we've just had to accept in this case. In text, we can still capitalize it properly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Again, check your facts BullRangifer. You keep trying to pass things off as policy that aren't:
  • Any letter in a page name can be uppercase. The first letter of the first word just can't be lowercase. This has always been the case. However, around 2007 the {{Lowercase title}} template came about to give the appearance of a lowercase initial letter for articles like iPod and eBay.
  • While we should indeed capitalize it if it's a proper noun (per MOS:CAP), nowhere does policy state that we should capitalize non-proper nouns if the sources do (which would be a grammatical error on their part). In fact, MOS:CAP, WP:NCCAPS, and WP:LOWERCASE all explicitly say not to do that.
I'll let you and QuackGuru debate if it's a proper noun as you guys have more experience with the topic. Ideally, you should bring it up on the article's talk page so that other interested editors can get their say. – voidxor  03:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
See "In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. See God. QuackGuru (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Stop trying to convince me. I said I don't care and will let you and BullRangifer hash it out. User-talk pages aren't a very appropriate place to discuss the course of an article; the appropriate place to do that is the article's talk page. That way, you open the discussion up to other interested editors. – voidxor  03:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC

See Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC_on_COI_for_alt-med_practitioners. QuackGuru (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

oops

I seem to have inadvertently removed your comment onAN/I. So sorry. Never had that happen before. Ack (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC))

User talk:QuackGuru Add topic