User talk:QuackGuru

Request

Would you stop blanking your talk page? Instead, I can help you set up an archiving bot that puts away conversations 7 days after they end. If you agree to this, I will watch your talk page and try my best to ensure that nobody is harassing or hounding you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with blanking your talk page whenever or however you see fit. With all due respect, I find Jehochman's request to be highly inappropriate. Dlabtot (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

An edit that is normally allowed may be prohibited if it is leading to disruption. I'm trying to help this editor avoid being banned. They would be wise to at least consider what I suggest and discuss it if they have concerns. Jehochman ^Talk 05:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis

I don't time to look closer today, but changing the wording won't help if the format is "statement A about Wikipedia" (refs) "statement B about Citizendium" (refs) when the references themselves don't make a comparison. --Onorem♠Dil 19:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If the purpose is to compare the two sites, the references need to make the comparison. Two separate paragraphs doesn't fix the issue either. Also, please don't use email for generic content discussion. I have no interest in conversing off-wiki for what should be available for all to discuss. --Onorem♠Dil 19:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Community ban discussion

QuackGuru. Sorry to say so, but I felt it was appropriate to open a discussion about placing you under a community site ban. you can see and comment on the discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_for_user:QuackGuru. --Ludwigs2 02:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, have you disclosed any and all prior editorial conflicts between you and Quackguru? May I remind you that WP:BATTLE is currently in vogue as a reason for topic or site banning editors. It takes at least two to have a battle. Jehochman ^Talk 05:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You're addressing me on QuackGuru's talk page, for some reason? You do know I have one of my own, I assume... At any rate, outside of the debacle at NPOV, I don't believe I've had more than passing interactions with QG since the last time I tried to edit Quackwatch (that was back in late 2007, I believe). He may also have weighed in briefly at Weston Price while I was having a dispute with Ronz, but I don't remember him being particularly concerned about Price - he was still upset about NPOV. Oh, and of course he filed an ANI complaint on me out of the blue (again over NPOV) just a few days ago. I won't claim that he's someone I invite over to play Canasta on tuesday evenings, but I haven't frequented his pages-of-choice much and he hasn't frequented mine, so we haven't had much to do with each other at all. maybe an interaction here and an interaction there...

If you'd like to try to turn this around on me, please feel free. I have become unfortunately accustomed to that particular gambit on wikipedia, so it's not a huge imposition for me to defend myself against that kind of thing. However, I'll point out that if you were to offer to mentor QuackGuru, and if he would publicly accept your mentorship, I would be satisfied sufficiently to withdraw the request and we could all get on with life. Wouldn't that be more productive all around? My main concern (which I think is shared by everyone who has had interactions with QG) is that he needs to take discussion far more seriously than he currently does. I have no doubts you could guide him down the path towards more collaborative editing. --Ludwigs2 06:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic Draft

Do you have or know of any problem if Puhlaa drafts an alternate version of Chiropractic sections in his/her userspace? Would that change depending on who worked on it? I'm asking, because I don't know the full protocol on this, and since your view has been in opposition to his/hers, presumably the draft would be different from what you would write. Thanks Ocaasi (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I posted at project medicine about cause/causality. Ocaasi (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

VAD

A discussion over the inclussion or not of a reference is not enough to stop the article being a GA, but an independent issue that should be addressed in the talk page.--Garrondo (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

QuackGuru, the discussion has been through a number of iterations. Opponents of the inclusion of "Ernst-death" have provided a number of contradicting sources of their own. Not every systematic review needs to be included, especially when it makes a number of staggering presumptions (e.g. the condition was not properly recognised until the 1970s, making all prior cases questionable). Your quest to use the article as a WP:COATRACK is becoming a bit frustrating. By all means use the WP:FTN to get more views, but I don't think you'll get far. JFW | T@lk 20:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have clear now, after what I have seen the last few days that your disagreement with the actual article is quite unimportant in relationship with the literature of the disease. Having one more or one less line on an article will not modify my opinion regarding the GA status. Moreover for what I have seen in the talk page of the article it seems right now that you are the only one in your quest. Finally from what I have red with your comments and the articles you provide (And I have to say that it is not much, a few abstracts, and that is why I do not give my opinion formally in this discussion and I prefer to stay neutral), I am beginning to think you are the one giving undue weight to a single article not directly related to VAD. This said I would greatly appreciate that you found consensus for adding or deleting your proposed conclusions on the Ernst article in the talk page of the article with the regular editors, or any other appropiate place in wikipedia, but kept such discussion away of my talk page and other GAN-related sites since I am now fully sure that it is fully independent of the article fullfilling the GA criteria. Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflicts of talkpage

This edit was not a deliberate deletion of your comments. The Wiki did not flag it up as an edit conflict. Apologies for any inconvenience. JFW | T@lk 21:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)