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 dispute has bubbled over to ArbCom

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

Chiropractic

Hi QuackGuru! I appreciate your help on Chiropractic, but thought you should know about a couple Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 ^{(talk | contrib)} 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 Wikipedia articles. Chiropractic had a lot more mid-clause refs than is typical. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 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 ^{(talk | contrib)} 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 ^{(talk | contrib)} 18:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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 ^{(talk | contrib)} 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 Wikipedia's guideline is at MOS:CAP. How it is capitalized off of Wikipedia is really of no consequence. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 06:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)