User talk:QuackGuru: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:28, 5 May 2015

This is a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The dispute has bubbled over to ArbCom

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Complementary and Alternative Medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 :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. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 04:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 :[[User:Ca2james]] after reading [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_%28medicine%29&diff=prev&oldid=659790037 this comment] I think the confusing essay should be deleted. The essay is being (mis)used to make accusations against others. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 04:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
+== The dispute has bubbled over to ArbCom ==
+See [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Complementary and Alternative Medicine]]. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 03:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)