Jump to content

User talk:QuackGuru/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Shotgun approach is going to lead to trouble again

You know that of any of the admins on this site, I'm one of the most sympathetic to your cause. I can also tell you that you are being your own worst enemy again. Bringing three people that you are in a conflict with to ANI and SPI simultaneously without some very good evidence connecting the three accounts looks more like a temper tantrum than a serious effort to use our noticeboards properly.

Can I ask you to talk with me before you bring things like this to noticeboards? I can help you see where you are being unconvincing and where you are making leaps of faith. The woowoo articles have always attracted problematic editors, so no single report is going to fix the world. You can make reports so badly that no one listens and nothing gets fixed, though, and that seems to be the path you are going down.—Kww(talk) 18:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I am here to back Kevin's suggestion up. Please do not make any further reports at AN/I or SPI without getting an admin to look at them first. It looks terrible to continually report people you are in content disputes and it will not be allowed to continue. If you continue to make reports like this it will become necessary to block you again, something I am sure we would all prefer to avoid. --John (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we should apply the same rules for all editors. Just like administrator Kww wrote on my Talk Page[1]: "The next sign of abusing administrative noticeboards to further pseudoscientific POVs will result in an indefinite block.". Whereas Kww would have blocked any other editor, should we allow QuackGuru some special privilege in this case? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
During my editing history, this is already the third case concerning QuackGuru where Kww is stepping in (the others: a ANI case filed by QuackGuru which Kww closed against me without any give reason, and [2]). I think Kww should step aside with regards to this case. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Jayaguru-Shishya, I don't think your comment here is helpful. Everybody (including yourself and Quack Guru) needs to focus less on other editors. Hypothesizing about what Kww would have done in other situations isn't going to help resolve the dispute. Also, it's common for administrators to intervene multiple times in the same dispute. I trust that Kww is experienced enough to know when he has become too involved in a case to use the admin toolset, and as far as I've seen myself, he hasn't used any admin powers in this dispute since May of this year. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes we seriously need to have all editors who comment about one another on the talk pages to stop. This is only a slight improvement [3] and the comments really should have been removed entirely.

With respect to raising concerns at ANI. It is better than continuously raising them on the article talk pages. Yes agree raising three is too much at one time. QG; however, did picked up a bunch of socks just a couple of days ago [4] so yes his involvement in this topic area is very important. He provides some balance. In fact we got a very positive review of our alt med content in this journal article here [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Positive reinforcement is no bad thing (so to speak), and that's truly good news about WP getting a good review. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 00:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect to Doc James and Kww, I feel like you guys are missing the point with QG. He started edit wars soon after getting topic banned for a week, then he wasted everyone's time with an ANI, and Kww you give him advice on how to do that better? And talk about the other editors as problematic? Come on. Herbxue (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Part of this process has to be letting go of bad feelings you guys have for each other. If you can all remember that the other guy is here to try to improve the encyclopedia, that'd be great. If anybody sees real-time evidence of the contrary on any side, please let me know. Until that happens, can we stay positive? We need a clean slate now going forward. Can you all try? --John (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

A clean slate would be great. We need one pretty badly. Among other things, there has been a pendulum-swing such that some fringe topics are treated overaggressively and disruptively. Jytdog described the dynamic well (leave aside the context of his comments; they are broadly true): [6]


On WP it's become common to label editors as "fringe pushers", "woo proponents", and "civil POV-pushers" (a label that, cf. Jytdog above, seems to suggest that incivility is an acceptable remedy). This is especially bad when it means that an editor's contributions are devalued irrespective of their merits. Can we agree that a clean slate also means that we stop NPA vios such as these (all from the past six months or so)?

It would be great to get more light and less heat into CAM and other fringe topics, and it would help a lot to include more editors, especially experienced ones. Not all topics are equally fringe, but they are sometimes treated as such. Criticism of CAM has become a one-way ratchet, and when a topic is depicted too negatively, any pushback is condemned as fringe-POV-pushing (an example would be the relative safety of acupuncture; paragraphs are devoted to adverse events that are very, even exceedingly, rare). It's all become too polarized and we need fresh eyes. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 21:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, you guys could stop fringe pushing. That would be more in the wikipedia spirit. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Roxy every single edit I have ever seen from you says the same thing, often going into ad hominem attacks, lumping everyone you disagree with into a homogenous group. I have never seen you actually engage in a debate about the merits of a source, or the wording we choose to present the findings of a source, its always "you fringe pushers are pushing pov" Seriously, do you have anything of value to contribute? If not, then why chime in? The rest of us are actually discussing content and wording, not just insulting each other.Herbxue (talk) 06:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Perfectly said Herbxue, thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 12:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You're doing it again

Please slow down and TRY to actually gain some consensus for your edits at Acupuncture. Yet again you are flying in the face of several editor's objections and exhibiting ownership behavior. You may have some legitimate reason to question some of million gold coin's recent edits, but that does not give you the right to undo all the work of Middle8 and others over the last few days. I believe you are sneaking around discussion by using MGC edits to justify undoing Middle8's. Don't do that. You have been clearly edit warring and I suggest you stop since you have a history of getting banned for that. Herbxue (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not making the controversial edits or adding original research to the lede. On the contrary, you continue to edit war[7] and you ignored the problems. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
My edit history is so mild and congenial compared to yours, thanks for pointing that out :).Herbxue (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
You are not helping to fix the problems.[8] See Talk:Acupuncture#Duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Removing verifiable reliable sources for not having a Impact Factor index is not helpful. The books and websites you use in your citations also have a factor of zero. Please take a look at [9] where you removed an article that has be cited 365(!) times. That is a very high number of citations. I have made this edit[10] which should remain live unless removed by consensus. Please see talk and The Misused Impact Factor - Technophant (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, you added/restored primary sources and poor sources. QuackGuru (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I'd expect certain consistency with the use of impact factor with respect to approving/discarding sources. Maybe you should bring few sources like that to discussion at the article Talk Page? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on UserTalk:Techphant. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I've asked you to stop harassing me, especially on my talk page. Next stop ANI Technophant (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Claiming I made a personal attack with no supporting diffs is not appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at [[:User_talk:Technophant]]. Technophant (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, claiming I made a personal attack with no supporting diffs is not appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI-notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks from User:QuackGuru. Thank you. Dustin (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I was late with the notice

It's late here and I need to get to sleep. The last thing I need is to have to spend an hour of my precious time putting together a ANI request. If you had simply respected my first warning this wouldn't have happened. - Technophant (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Proving reliable sources

It's not my job to prove they are reliable sources. It's your job to prove they are not. - Technophant (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Techno you must simply use high quality sources. This means at least review articles from the last 5 to at most 10 years in well respected medical journals. Or major textbooks or positions of major national or international bodies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

The Barnstar of Diligence
For all your work trying to conform our alt med articles to some semblance of decent sourcing and accuracy, you deserve a barnstar. I'm sorry that I can't always help out. jps (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

Have you authored any medical articles? If so please list. - Technophant (talk)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, QuackGuru. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Undoing other people's work

Mr. Quack, It is inappropriate to delete my material based on an assertion that my few additional sentences and documented references somehow makes the section on chiropractic regulation too-long. For someone unfamiliar with regulatory and licensing constructs, my contributions would be quite helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshilts (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello, QuackGuru. You have new messages at Talk:Chiropractic#Kshilts' edits 15-18 July 2014.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jim1138 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Quack, Thank you for your recent comment. I agree that the entire Chiropractic WP page is ridiculously too long. I think the frivolous comments about 4th-year student stress, personal struggles and student infighting are not important to this section. I also think the unsoursed inflammatory statement about educational equivalencies is inappropriate. I'll fix these for you, this should help shorten this section. My objective is to have the LICENSING, EDUCATION and REGULATORY section of any regulated profession accurate, pertinent and informative. I believe the current chiropractic page information lacks this essential information. And yes, write it as brief as possible. Kshilts (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Refs into body

Why move refs into body? I find having them in the reference section makes working on them easier. Any policy either way? - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Refs are usually in the body on the articles I edit. I don't know if there is a specific policy on this. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions. I find them in both places. I find having them in a list in the refs section makes working on them easier. I reverted you for my convenience. If you have strong objections you can redo. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
When I initially tried to remove the primary/poor sources it was a bit confusing where the sources were. I think at WikiProject Medicine they may guidance for the placement of sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
There are MoS statements which say that either style is allowed, but the one who created the article usually has some right to decide which style they will use. If they were to object, their wishes should probably be respected, but with old articles there may not be any special preference anymore. Just be careful.
I have always used the most common method, which is having the references spread around within the text, but it is messy and makes editing harder. So, when I created the Charlotte's Web (cannabis) article, I decided to try the "list-defined references" style. If you click on the References link there, you'll see this note:
  • This article uses "list-defined references", per WP:LDR.
  • To ease editing and avoid confusion and duplication of sources, the references below are in alphabetical order by ref name.
  • While other citation templates are not forbidden, this basic template has been used for most references:
  • <ref name= >{{Citation |last= |first= |date= |title= |publisher= |url= |accessdate= }}</ref>
That means the article only has the short "name" references in the text, which makes for a cleaner editing experience. When anyone adds references, I move the ref to the bottom and use that citation template, unless another citation template has been used and is working fine. I have also tried to follow the advice from my essay: Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
If an article has many refs in the Reference section it is difficult to find any ref if someone wants to update or the remove the ref. The alphabetical order by ref name definitely makes it easier to find each ref for that particular article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I posted a query at Proj Med. As I do a lot of work on references I will make note of the alphabetization and try to do that in reflists. Thanks for the discussion QG and input BR. I hope this sort of collaboration isn't seen as an activity of the hit squad. As a result of the "hit squad" comment I choose to limit my interaction and discussion on user talk pages. I will state here I act completely independently and have been known to raise objections to QG's edits and comments. I have noted a positive increase in collaborative tone in such comments. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:MrBill3, thanks for that diff above. I didn't notice that. If there are a lot of refs it is easier for me if the refs are in the body.
Technophant is actually Stillwaterising.[11][12]
Stillwaterising is from Texas.[13] The previous IP sock is also from Texas.[14] See http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/99.35.189.129
The edit by the IP appears to be IP socking. The IP is also from Texas. See http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/71.40.3.92 I think a SPI would clarify this matter. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek.
The IP 71.40.3.92 calls User:BullRangifer a "pit bulldog" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Banner&diff=prev&oldid=618267342
It was odd the IP 71.40.3.92 claims "I'm new to this debate, however there seems to be a pattern."[15]
Technophant call BullRangifer "The Pit Bull" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Technophant&diff=next&oldid=618435864
There appears to be evidence of socking. I'm busy right now but others are free to investigate this incident. QuackGuru (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
You can add this IP to the list. A very feeble attempt to seem foreign. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I still differ with QG on the refs in body vs list. Can't you easily locate them by using the search feature on your browser by ref name? Also if they are in the reflist you can leave them in place but remark them out so if consensus leads to support for them they can be used with ease. We may just have to agree to disagree (congenially I hope) and hope it doesn't make for problems in editing. As BR said CITVAR sides with the original author or prevailing format. I often boldly take things into my own hands as references are a bit of a specialty for me humor: I know how to get them right.
I am staying off the drama boards as best I can. If there is serious suspicion of puppetry someone should make a report. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The rule is that you leave them the way they are unless their is clear consensus to use one versus the other. The editing community is split on which style they prefer. I like the inline others prefer them at the end. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit to being a "consensus of one" in many cases where I work on references. I frequently find references in a very poor state and Boldly edit them to uniformity. I realize this may not be in keeping with the letter of policy but I will stand by the quality of my editing. I don't usually move refs to the reflist but I Boldly apply templates. I also find DOI's (pmids, pmcs etc.) working links, archive versions, full author lists and add parameters that make the source of the reference clear. I generally don't encounter objection and when I do I engage on talk and occasionally begrudgingly yield to policy and/or consensus. Although I think my efforts substantially improve the encyclopedia, I don't want to make things harder on other editors or be too pig headed. Thanks for the input. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Rest of that has majority support. Most are happy with cite journal templates. Most do not like cite pmid or doi. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
MrBill3, the guideline is WP:CITEVAR, and the basic upshot is that nobody should change whatever system is in use, without first getting consensus on the talk page for that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
What about, "Imposing one style on an article with incompatible citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the formatting consistent"? That's generally considered helpful. I won't be moving refs to the reflist without consensus, but when I encounter an article with refs in six different formats I generally use my preferred style. Few and far between are the articles with a clean uniform citation style. I think it is also valuable to put refs into full detail templates as that supports data collection. When the parameter author is used for a list I break it out first1 etc. I also feel emBoldened when I encounter a mess. As a note I have reworked the references on many articles and very rarely are any objections raised. Despite my fervent self defense here, I am interested in making sure what I do is helpful and useful and particularly not creating difficulties for other editors. I will endeavor to pose the issue on the talk page of each article before editing the references. We should really be having this conversation at Project Medicine or some other public forum. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
There is WP:CON for ref improvements. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_47#Replace_.22cite_pmid.22_with_.22cite_journal.22. User:MrBill3, there is no need to discuss things on the talk page first for helpful edits. QuackGuru (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion.

Hello QuackGuru, I am sorry if my sudden appearance and relative familiarity startled you, I don't blame you for thinking I am a sock puppet if that is something you have previously encountered. I am a long-time lurker of talk pages and edit histories who is fascinated by the wikipedia project, and have watched many pages evolve over a long time as I familiarized myself with the standards and policies of the project. I hope my request for clarification has not offended you and I thank you for your diligent efforts on this project so far. I hope that I can do my own small part in a productive and collaborative manner as well. OnceTheFish (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

AGF, de-escalation

I think you and I seriously need to bury the hatchet and move forward. Whatever issues you have with my editing, please tell me, and I'll try to address your concerns. I've posted on my talk page and elsewhere [16] about instances where I've felt you've acted in an underhanded manner. I think you have some idea of what I'm talking about, and hope you take it to heart.

On the issue of AGF (cf. [17]), you could heed WP:OPPONENT, which would mean, e.g., not nitpicking good evidence that seems "pro"-acu (as you did above with A1Candidate's review article), and not arguing to include poorer evidence that's "anti"-acu (which is what you did last month with Moffet; see Alexbrn's mention of WP:FRIND in archived talk). Do you see what I mean? --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 07:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Your comments re OR at Talk:Acupuncture

For the record, re [18] and [19], where you incorrectly characterized my edits to the lede of acupuncture as OR: This is in fact a correct description of the basics of acu study design, and not OR; I'm surprised at your claim, given your topic area knowledge. And this was my attempt to help bring your desired wording, re sham, in line with what the source actually says -- IOW, collaboration. But better still, let's base our wording on sources rather than trying to make sources fit our preferred wording. Please stop calling others' edits "OR" when they're not OR, but simply a choice of wording different than your own. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 08:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Overwritten edit

Hi QG, I just wanted to add to my apology at Talk:acu [20] and say again that am very sorry for accidentally overwriting your edit yesterday [21]. It was a hardware malfunction on my part (glitchy keys on my trackball acccidentally selecting a block of text, which my next a keystroke then deleted). I would never do something like that on purpose. You must have wondered what on earth was going on, and I'm sorry for the stress that probably caused. Happy editing. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 13:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Accusations against User:Jayaguru-Shishya

Your accusations of hounding and stalking don't appear to have any solid foundations. The two of you are interested in the same topics (albeit in opposite directions), and an overlap on a few articles and careful attention to each other's edits doesn't rise to the threshold of stalking or hounding. He probably will revert many of your changes, just as you revert many of his.

You are a valuable editor. I'd hate to lose you. That said, you need to chill out a bit. There will always be editors like JG, and it's the nature of Wikipedia that they are going to edit articles that interest them. If you let your tension and annoyance get the better of you, you are the only one that will lose.—Kww(talk) 22:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture

You're fast - and even faster! You mean, "to verify one statement"? Yes, I have; see the lead of Hinduism. But it's a clear sign of heated dispute. If those medical centers use acupuncture, so what? Their policy; we decided if we want to be threated or not, right? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractic treatment techniques

Could you hold off a bit? You're really screwing up my attempts to clean up the article. Let me know you got this message. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractic treatment techniques 2

Since you're not using your talk page for its intended purpose, which is communication, I'll have to assume that you'll just do your own thing, as you usually do, so forget what I wrote before. As the talk page there indicates, I had an agreement with another editor that I'd consolidate the refs and make other necessary improvements. He trusted a skeptic to do that, and I was working on it. I might as well give up on that article now. Bye. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard

Hey Quack Guru! I mentioned you in a post I made over on the NPOV noticeboard, and wanted you to know in case you wanted to respond! Hope all is well! Peace! LesVegas (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

OnceTheFish

Where was this edits back in 2008? QuackGuru (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC) My young friend says that it was at his local college in a modern media class when the instructor had every student go on Wikipedia and make a minor edit or two so as to acquire familiarity with the edit process. His contribution was "inconsequential and forgettable" and occurred prior his current interest in TCM, acupuncture and such. David G Anderson (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC) OntarioBoy 21:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

OnceTheFish is blocked. You can discuss this with an admin. QuackGuru (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ten wikistalking edits; why?

Hi QuackGuru. May I ask the reason for these 7 wikistalking edits a month ago, and these 3 last week? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 06:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your sourcing help at Hitachi Magic Wand.

I don't suppose you could help me get access to the text of this source:

  • Baba, Lisa R. (July 2010). "The Efficacy of Mechanical Vibration Analgesia for Relief of Heel Stick Pain in Neonates: A Novel Approach". Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing. 24 (3): 274–283. doi:10.1097/JPN.0b013e3181ea7350. ISSN 0893-2190. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

?

— Cirt (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You can request the full text. It is best to use reviews rather primary sources. See WP:REX. QuackGuru (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, but do you think you could help finding reviews as well somehow? — Cirt (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The best way to update the article is to link to the pmid links and check for reviews. I could search for reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Any help with finding additional sources, including reviews, would be most appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
If I updated the article I would delete a lot of dated sources. QuackGuru (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Please, please don't. It's been a great deal of effort on my part. IFF you have additional sources, please let me know, okay? — Cirt (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
That's what I do for any medical related claims. I delete old sources but I usually find newer reviews. It's not a bid deal to me to keep the dated sources for that article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay phew thanks for saying it's not a big deal to keep the sources I've used so far for that article, because I'm trying to present an overview of the entire History of the subject from a chronological perspective. — Cirt (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the PMID links, I really appreciate it.

I've found in the course of my Quality improvement projects that unfortunately the Internet is prone to linkrot.

So I'd very very very much prefer to keep both the PMID links and the archive links.

Especially when folks at review places like WP:FAC always Check status of links at Checklinks. — Cirt (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The pmid links should replace all the archive links IMO. I have never seen a linkrot for a pmid link. QuackGuru (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but more generally I've seen linkrot for all sorts of random things. I'd rather have the double protection of the archive links. — Cirt (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Linkrot is never an issue with pmid links. The archive links should be replaced with the pmid. QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree -- not only because of potential for linkrot -- but also because sometimes links can change paths and they never do with archived links. — Cirt (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
There has never been a problem with PUBMED. They are reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree they're reliable, but they may change link paths and keep the old links as redirects. That never happens with archived links. — Cirt (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
FYI: "PubMed RSS Feeds Suffer from Link Rot". Unfortunately, link rot can happen in loads of reliable places. — Cirt (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay but I never has has a problem with the links to PUBMED. QuackGuru (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I know, and neither have I, but in those Checklinks results sometimes anything but Internet Archive shows up as "200" in the results, meaning slower response times. I just want the best possible scenario for Checklinks at all stages of Quality improvement review for this project, including GA review and perhaps one day WP:FAC. — Cirt (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

PMID request

Is there a PMID for https://escholarship.org/uc/item/48q9s83p ?

It's the only one currently that's still a "200" result on Checklinks -- so I'd gladly remove that link in favor of PMID instead!

(Looks like it's not available to be archived on Internet Archive at this time.)

— Cirt (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

See (PMID 15530291). QuackGuru (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Checklinks looks perfect now! — Cirt (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on Acupuncture, with at least 3 reverts already

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. LesVegas (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Warning: Mark reverts as reverts - and do not use misleading commentary.

That is what you did here[22] - it is a clear-cut revert of this[23], and it is not really your commentary, since you did a copy-paste of an earlier list of MEDRS's. --Kim D. Petersen 17:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you reread the talk page on E-Cigarette and change your edits to comply with the Wikipedia copyright policy. I am very close to reporting your edits to WP:CP. AlbinoFerret (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Which edit is this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at the ecigarette talk page. You cant miss it, and you replied to one of them early on. QuackGuru has a habit of adding almost direct copies from journal articles. Only changing a word or two. AlbinoFerret (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

In this edit[24] QG added

"Two infant deaths were the result of choking on the e-cigarettes cartridge and facial burns were attributed to an e-cigarette exploding"

Source says

" The two were infant death caused by choking on an EC cartridge and facial burns caused by EC exploding"

This is borderline paraphrasing. Best to paraphrase a little more. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Have paraphrased as "Two severe outcomes in the United States included, a deaths when an infant chocked on the cartridge and burns when one blew up." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

October 13, 2014

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Middle 8 accused QuackGuru of socking without evidence

Speaking of socks.... QuackGuru, I've long suspected you're a sock of the banned User:KrishnaVindaloo. User:Jzg/Guy blocked KrishnaVindaloo on 2 December 2006, and KrishnaVindaloo's last edit was 5 December 2006. Your first edit as QuackGuru was 31 December 2006. Both accounts edited the same topic areas and made similar arguments on talk pages (though the QuackGuru account isn't as chatty as KrishnaVindaloo); both write with a touch of the Indian English style, and of course chose similarly irreverant, Hindu-parody usernames. If WP records IP addresses of logged-in editors it shouldn't be hard to confirm this, and I think it's at least somewhat relevant. (pinging Bishonen on this) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 11:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Middle8 I think Wikipedia stores IP data for 3 months. Bishonen would likely know better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
(Please mind WP:BEANS, doc.) No, IPs aren't recorded. The IPs of accounts can be seen (by CheckUsers only) for a limited time back in the database, certainly not back to 2006. I understand what you mean, Middle 8, especially about the Hindu parody usernames, but this is impossible to either confirm or disprove, and IMO it's not truly interesting either. I mean, you know — 2006. Who would care, in 2014? Bishonen | talk 11:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC).
Thanks, Bishonen. Mostly agree with you but arguably it does weigh some, to the extent there are conduct issues, as Guy pointed out at WP:AN (in this subsection of a larger thread). Some of the WP:OWN issues Guy raised remain, cf. these remarkable results from Wikichecker [25][26]; QG has edited acupuncture and chiropractic more than the next 20 (yes, twenty) editors combined. Also note the ratio of talk page edits [27][28] -- other editors have more (sometimes a lot more) talk page edits than article edits; QG is the only exception on either page. Following Guy's AN post, QG seems to have backed off at chiropractic but persists at acupuncture (recent history); he's repeatedly been asked to chill out on that article and I (and I know others) wish he would take it to heart. So, QG -- could you? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 12:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised

Your attitude towards this discussion[29], considering that this was almost the same text that resulted in you getting blocked in May[30]. --Kim D. Petersen 19:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@KimDabelsteinPetersen: I'm also surprised he is still edit warring and making disruptive edits here and here on E-Cigarette despite having an open 3RR report pending. In those edits, he claimed a source did not belong in the lede, but he removed them from the body. Edits like these are routine for him on other pages. LesVegas (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@KimDabelsteinPetersen: To be fair, it was User:Jmh649 who added the disputed text this time. [31] ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@Adjwilley:Yep, i know. I mentioned it in the commentary for my removal of the text. What surprised me, is QuackGuru's comments displaying an ignorance and lack of comprehension of why the text is problematic, despite having been through the above mentioned process. --Kim D. Petersen 22:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sock?

Hi, QuackGuru. I see you say at AN3 that you think LesVegas is a sock. Sock of who, Klocek? (Why, exactly?) Or do you just mean they could be a sock of some/any previous editor at Acupuncture with the same POV? I could check it out (not CU it, I don't have those permissions, but just look at behavior) if you have something substantive. Regards, Bishonen | talk 12:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AKlocek Confirmed sock on 10:51, 2 June 2014.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/LesVegas New account created on 17:39, 4 July 2014, a couple of days after it was confirmed Klocek is a sock.
LesVegas is well aware of the sanctions and intentionally made a fake 3RR report. A confirmed sock Milliongoldcoinpoint also made a fake 3RR report. If you think the evidence is too weak for a duck block he should at least be banned from acu.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=prev&oldid=622416238 OnceTheFish wrote, "Hello QuackGuru,". OnceTheFish was acting like Klocek.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=627909352 LesVegas wrote "Hello QuackGuru,". I would run a CU with both Klocek and OnceTheFish. QuackGuru (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) what about BenGoldberg2014 and George1984? They're almost identical behaviourally. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I've read the Klocek SPI (all the archived reports); very thorny! Obviously the situation is complicated, and the Acupuncture page has seen a lot of socking. But, no, reading LesVegas's contributions, there's not enough for a duckblock; frankly it doesn't even look likely to me, at least as far as Klocek is concerned. LesVegas, behaving like a pretty normal newbie, created an account on 4 July and edited various pages before being canvassed by Technophant on 20 July and asked to help resist the "hardened core of skeptics" on Acupuncture.[32]. (That was a breach of Technophant's topic ban which apparently nobody noticed, but he was blocked for breaching it again a few days later.) I guess that message brought LesVegas to Talk:Acupuncture on the same day. Unless… well, anyway, there's not enough for a sockblock. I'll take a look later at the question of disruptive editing that you raise, no more time today. Incidentally, I don't think it's possible to CU Klocek vs LesVegas; Klocek is too old. But OnceTheFish could probably be checked, if either you or I can see enough indications to interest a CU, QuackGuru. I'll take a look at yours, too, Roxy, but of course there are quite a few things that all pro-acupuncture editors are likely to have in common, without necessarily being the same person. Bishonen | talk 23:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC).
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=623659935 Ontarioboy claims to know who OnceTheFish is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=623916804 Ontarioboy claims His edits were "inconsequential and forgettable" and occurred prior his current interest in TCM, acupuncture and such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OnceTheFish&diff=prev&oldid=622917755 OnceTheFish claims For number two, the first account I made was in 2008 or so and had maybe one or two edits in classical literature spaces. It was not particularly memorable.
I would run a CU with OnceTheFish, Ontarioboy and LesVegas. QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've inquired of a checkuser, we'll have to see if they think a check is warranted. Roxy, BenGoldberg2014 seems to edit Talk:Homeopathy exclusively — that doesn't look like a familiar pattern to me. I can't find a User:George1984. (There is a George19842010 who edited once in 2011.) Did you mean someone else? Bishonen | talk 15:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC).
Bishonen I apologise, my memory is poor and I don't systematically record these things. It is actually George1935 that I meant, and I'm not going to link for ping reasons. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Perfectly all right, Roxy, no worries. But did you know the {{noping}} template can be useful for these occasions? See how I linked to BenGoldberg above. Bishonen | talk 22:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC).
P.S. Looking at your George. They were a homeopathy SPA, appropriately topicbanned from homeopathy topics and articles after a mere three weeks of editing.[33] They haven't edited much since (at least not under that account). Mainly their own talkpage and Brian Josephson's, and they stopped altogether in May. That means the account is "stale" from a CU point; contributions that old can't be checked. Clearly, it's not altogether unlikely that they now have another account. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC).

Edits to Electronic cigarette

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Electronic cigarette. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. The discussion on the Talk page indicates consensus against using the primary source you suggested, yet you proceeded to use it through multiple sections. Thank you. Mihaister (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


Sock suspicions

Hi again, sorry for the delay. A checkuser (User:Ponyo) has now run checks comparing the three users you expressed concerns about. The results are inconclusive. (Which means a connection is not ruled out, but there's no smoking gun either.) Nothing to be done, sorry. Bishonen | talk 10:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC).

Electronic cigarette

Another user has complained about your edit-warring and tendentious editing at electronic cigarette. Having looked at your edits and read the talk page, I can see their point. Can I warn you not to make any more bold edits or reverts there until you have consensus to do so? I can see your intentions are good but editing like you have been doing is disruptive. Thanks for your understanding. --John (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Electronic_cigarette has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. At least every sentence referenced to Grana is a Copyright violation in the first paragraph you added to section Second Hand Aerosol. I recommend you go right to work fixing it. A section has been created on the Ecigerette talk page with the diff of you adding the sentences. My next step if it is not fixed asap is to file a copyright violation based on derivative works and plagiarism on the Copyright Violations notice board. Since this is an ongoing problem with your edits, I will be filing complaints on any further copyright violations. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have answered your post in the new section of the talk page. Rewrite the sentance, or remove it, or I am going to the Copyright notice board. You were already warned today about copyright violations. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution re McNeill for Electronic cigarette article

I requested dispute resolution with respect to this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Violation_of_consensus

Please join the discussion. Mihaister (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

What "update"?

I reverted your edit at Acupuncture. Please explain, what is this "update"[34]? No explanations given ever so far. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The "rheumatoid arthritis[156]" 2005 Cochrane review was moved to Acupuncture#Rheumatological conditions.
See: "A 2005 Cochrane review concluded that acupuncture use to treat rheumatoid arthritis "has no effect on ESR, CRP, pain, patient's global assessment, number of swollen joints, number of tender joints, general health, disease activity and reduction of analgesics."
Casimiro, L; Barnsley, L; Brosseau, L; Milne, S; Robinson, VA; Tugwell, P; Wells, G; Casimiro, Lynn (2005). Casimiro, Lynn (ed.). "Acupuncture and electroacupuncture for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2005 (4): CD003788. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003788.pub2. PMID 16235342. Archived from the original on 13 April 2008. Retrieved 6 May 2008. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
I updated and expanded the section. QuackGuru (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion Notification

Hi there Quack, I have started a [discussion here regarding your conduct], if you want to contribute then please do so.Levelledout (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette

Hi again QuackGuru. Can you tell me what you were doing here, and comment specifically on how it matches with the source, with NPOV and finally where you had consensus to add that material. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

John Hello, I also re-added this text at least once. There is no consensus to either include or exclude this content, so far as I know. Because this information is covered in a scientific review which itself cites JAMA and BMJ articles specifically on this issue, it seems reasonable to me to include this information unless someone challenges the sources. Here is the copyrighted text from the source, and I assert that the summary of this information seems reasonable.
original text

The tobacco companies address e-cigarette issues as part of their policy agenda. As they did beginning in the 1980s,110,111 they continue to engage in creating and supporting “smokers’ rights” groups, seemingly independent groups that interact with consumers directly on political involvement in support of their agenda.111 Altria and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company maintain Web sites called Citizens for Tobacco Rights and Transform Tobacco. E-cigarette news and action alerts are featured on the home pages of these websites and include instructions for taking action against bills designed to include e-cigarette use in smoke-free laws. E-cigarette companies engage in similar tactics, using the same political and public relations strategies as the tobacco companies (most notably featuring organized “vapers” like the organized smokers). They also use social media that is tightly integrated with their product marketing campaigns to press their policy agenda.22 These strategies were successfully deployed in Europe to convince the European Parliament to substantially weaken the proposed EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013.112

Can you say something helpful about how to reach consensus on what to do with this information, when it seems equally controversial to include and exclude it? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I can but I do need QuackGuru to give some explanation for this edit as it appears to resemble other edits for which he has been blocked in the past. --John (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have a rule against making bold edits. Cardamon (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
John has sanctioned QG in the past, under somewhat strained conditions. John has been canvassed by another editor to have another go, having been unable to get the result required at ANI. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Likely we need someone neutral / not involved to look at this. John and QG are involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering why anyone needs to specifically justify making an edit that adds a good summary of material from a high quality source. That would seem to be the type of behavior we should be encouraging, not questioning. Yobol (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Because even if the source was accurately represented (which I don't agree that it was), verifiability is not the only principle of Wikipedia. Here's [another example] QuackGuru inserted into the article yesterday: "A traditional cigarette is smooth and light, while an e-cigarette is rigid, cold and a bit bulky."
Why would anyone bother to insert such opinionated non-information into the article except to try and sway the reader that cigarettes are better than e-cigarettes or otherwise influence the reader's opinion regarding e-cigarettes. If it is inserted then it should be neutrally worded. It's QG's flagrant disregard for things like NPOV that is much of the problem.Levelledout (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you've made it clear you want to get QG into as much trouble as possible. I think any reasonable look at the material he added from Grana would see that it is a reasonable summary, and not the over the top dramatic "violation of WP:5P" you made it out to be. Yobol (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Fine. Well lets allow that reasonable assessment of QuackGuru's conduct to take place then.Levelledout (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again QuackGuru. Can you tell me what you were doing here, and comment specifically on how it matches with the source, with NPOV and finally where you had consensus to add that material. I wouldn't recommend continuing to edit without replying to my reasonable request. --John (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed the failed verification tag from the first sentence because the text was sourced to a 2012 review. Please read "The electronic cigarette is a battery-powered electronic nicotine delivery system that looks very similar to a conventional cigarette and is capable of emulating smoking, but without the combustion products accountable for smoking's damaging effects."[35]

Previous text: "Tobacco and e-cigarette companies recruit consumers to push their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. The companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013.[1]"

Proposed compromise: "A 2014 review stated that tobacco and e-cigarette companies interact with consumers to push their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. It was concluded that the companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013.[1]"

[1]

  1. ^ a b c Grana, R; Benowitz, N; Glantz, SA (13 May 2014). "E-cigarettes: a scientific review". Circulation. 129 (19): 1972–86. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667. PMC 4018182. PMID 24821826.

Please read: "The tobacco companies address e-cigarette issues as part of their policy agenda. As they did beginning in the 1980s,110,111 they continue to engage in creating and supporting “smokers’ rights” groups, seemingly independent groups that interact with consumers directly on political involvement in support of their agenda.111 Altria and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company maintain Web sites called Citizens for Tobacco Rights and Transform Tobacco. E-cigarette news and action alerts are featured on the home pages of these websites and include instructions for taking action against bills designed to include e-cigarette use in smoke-free laws. E-cigarette companies engage in similar tactics, using the same political and public relations strategies as the tobacco companies (most notably featuring organized “vapers” like the organized smokers). They also use social media that is tightly integrated with their product marketing campaigns to press their policy agenda.22 These strategies were successfully deployed in Europe to convince the European Parliament to substantially weaken the proposed EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013.112"[36]

The disagreement at the time was it did not have in-text attribution. It was controversial to exclude it at the time because the disagreement was with writing it in Wikipedia's voice. The consensus could be in-text attribution. So rather than delete it, I will propose in-text attribution. The change I (and others) made is sourced using a 2014 MEDRS compliant review. I summarised the source. For example, I wrote "The companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013." The source says "These strategies were successfully deployed in Europe to convince the European Parliament to substantially weaken the proposed EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013". The text is relevant for the Electronic cigarette#Legal status section. There is another statement in the same section that is also an opinion: "Pharmaceutical manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson have lobbied the US government, the FDA, and the EU parliament for stricter regulation of e-cigarettes which compete with their products Nicorette gum and nicotine patches.[116]" It is reasonable to include completing interests. I think it is also reasonable to include statements specifically on activates of tobacco and e-cigarette companies that used strategies that were successfully deployed in Europe to lesson the proposed EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013. Although there is no dispute among other sources, sources with opinions are considered reliable according to content guideline. The impact factor for Circulation is 15.20. A good compromise can be in-text attribution and tweaking the text if there are concerns with the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@QG, based on what the source says, it might be a good idea to leave out the part about the tobacco companies pushing an agenda in your proposed compromise, since that language is not included in the source and "pushing an agenda" can have negative connotations. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
See diff. I tweaked the wording on the talk page. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Proposed compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the time and trouble you have taken to explain your edit. I always did think you had good intentions, and now I have seen reasoning as well. I think the key problem I have in looking a that edit is that it was a WP:BOLD edit, albeit with justifications, at a time where such a bold edit was not helpful to the process of consensus-building. It might even be seen as aggressive, or edit-warring (I haven't checked the edit history in enough detail to say for sure). I think you should be a little more patient, and work on building consensus in talk before making any more bold edits like that. The reason is such behaviour will promote collegial editing at the article and will actually lead to a much faster resolution with less friction than boldness or edit-warring will. I really appreciate the willingness you show above to seek compromise in future. --John (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions for improving the text. You can make any suggestions here or at the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes thank you QuackGuru and also John for taking the time to look at this. My intention was not to simply to get QG into trouble, but to try and get further towards the stage where editors work together to achieve consensus at the e-cig article.Levelledout (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
@John: This is not an attempt to get QG into trouble, but it may. While the last few days he has tried to discuss the EC article on the talk page. Previous constructive discussion was non existent. In fact the {{FV}} tag is a perfect example of this. He added the claim, I couldnt find it, so I placed the tag and left a comment that pointed to the talk page on it. diff Instead of pointing me to the language he used on the talk page, he deleted it. Another instance is that while the page was protected QG didnt involve himself in the talk page, but edited in his sandbox and then made one massive edit diff without any discussion at all. The page is now protected, section dealing with controversial bold edits have been setup. The consensus appears to show that they be removed, or if someone thinks 2 comments against 10 is not consensus they be reverted per WP:NOCONSENSUS. Instead of having his say and discussing it QG has acted like he is not hearing the others WP:IDHT link link2. Launching into ad hominem attacks "WP:CIR to edit" diff. I hope his behaviour improves. Because while he may have edits that could be added, his actions are causing disruptions. I hope he changes. AlbinoFerret 20:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah some of this (such as the "massive edit") has already been covered in the conversation above. What is a bit concerning is that since the previous conversation Quack has still been complaining that consensus is against him on keeping the "massive edit". It wouldn't be so bad if he was focusing on content but he isn't, he's doing it by making conduct accusations on the article talk page, sometimes bringing up alleged conduct issues that are not related to the discussion: [diff1], [diff2], [diff3]. I think it would be better for all involved, including Quack if we stuck to content as much as possible on the article talk page.Levelledout (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Sourced text was replaced with original research at the electronic cigarette page

Is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports reliable for the content? User:LeadSongDog explained it at the Talk:Electronic cigarette page here. Other editors claim the CDC reports are unreliable.

The two sources above were removed from the article. The relevant part of MEDRS is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Medical and scientific organizations. Read under: "The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements..."

Can we go back to the version before the original research was reverted back into the article? Trying to remove original research from the article should be easy at the electronic cigarettes article if there were more collaborating.

"While some raised concern that e-cigarette use can be a cause of indoor air pollution,[2] the only clinical study currently published evaluating passive vaping found no adverse effects.[37]" Original research ans misleading text.

"A 2014 review found that at the very least, this limited research demonstrates it is transparent that e-cigarette emissions are not simply "harmless water vapor," as is commonly claimed, and can be a cause of indoor air pollution.[3] As of 2014, the only clinical study currently published evaluating the respiratory effects of passive vaping found no adverse effects were detected.[38] A 2014 review found it is safe to presume that their effects on bystanders are minimal in comparison to traditional cigarettes.[38]" Sourced text and neutrally written text (that was blindly reverted). See Electronic cigarette#Aerosol.

I removed the original research and replaced it with sources text. I clearly explained it in my edit summary the problems with the article. I removed the POV selected quotes. I expanded the safety section a bit. I replaced original research with sourced text for the second-hand aerosol section. Then an editor blindly reverted back in original research and deleted sourced text. I think we should go back to here before the blind revert was made. I hope editors will help remove the original research from the electronic cigarettes page and help restore the sourced text. Blindly replacing sourced text with original research in a revert is very disruptive. Another editor blindly reverted back in the original research and other problems. QuackGuru (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The person who is not collaborating is you.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree, I think your collaborative skills could use some significant improvement QG. Before I interacted with you, I actually had a fairly positive opinion about you, but you really do not work collaboratively (and it shows) even on issues of minor importance. The importance of collaboration is one of Wikipedia's most emphasized values. I do hope you take some time to reflect on this and work on communicating with other Wikipedia editors in a friendlier and more collaborative manner. It is not a sign of weakness to do so and it poses no threat to your integrity or principles to work this way. If anything, I think it will make your experience (and that of others) more pleasant (and it should be) and make your editing more effective. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Canvassing talk page lurkers as well? Nice. To those i'd say that they should join the above discussion at WT:MED#Electronic cigarettes --Kim D. Petersen 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Medical and scientific organizations for the CDC reports as well. QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

I have blocked your account for one week in response to this edit and others which disrupt the editing process there. If you are willing to refrain from making such edits in the future I or any admin may happily reverse the block. This can be accomplished either by pinging me here or by using the {{unblock|your reason here ~~~~}}. I hope that you will see the error of your ways and wait until consensus is achieved in the talk page RfC before making any further edits to the article. Best wishes. --John (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

QuackGuru (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The talk page RfC is about the tag. It was not about the text. I did previously add the material[37][38][39] but this time I made a proposal and I reverted my edit. When I reverted my own edit that shows I am waiting for consensus. Once more, I did not restore the material again when I reverted my last edit. There is a discussion at Talk:Ayurveda#Inclusion of pseudoscience within article body. QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Very well, I accept that you did not intend to be disruptive and that you will not continue to edit war. Please review the restrictions at Talk:Ayurveda#Going forward as you were advised here several days ago before continuing to edit here. John (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admin

The edit QG is highlighting was not one of the ones I blocked for. I see one, two, three attempts to add the material in question to the article, yet I do not see any firm consensus in the talk page discussion that this material belonged there. Three edits in three days is edit warring and is disruptive. Once again, if you can indicate you know what you did wrong and are willing not to repeat the behaviour I am happy for you to be unblocked. --John (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this. Normally I'd say this block (and Bladesmulti's) were pretty aggressive, but now I see the article and talk page have been problematic for a while, and John read the riot act to people back in October. At the risk of being accused of being part of the thin blue line, I'm inclined to give pretty broad discretion to admins willing to try to keep a lid on things that are constantly boiling, as long as it's being done evenly and fairly. "Evenly" seems true. I guess my only question about "fairly" is: Was QG aware of this rule about not adding anything to the article without prior consensus? My admittedly quick look shows QG first edited the page well after the riot act was read.
QG, it looks like John is being pretty flexible about unblock conditions. Do I understand right (John) that you'd take a promise not to reinsert anything significant without prior consensus as reason to unblock? Is this something you (QG) are willing to agree to? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I was not aware about a rule about discussing editing first before making them. The talk page RfC is about adding the category pseudoscience. That is a different issue than the text I added. For my last edit I did revert myself and I was waiting for consensus first. I was not going to repeat adding the material back in at that point. When I reverted my last edit that indicates I was agreeing to wait for consensus. I did self-revert and I agree to wait for consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions

I don't think there is anything that can be done about the rather high handed restrictions and now sanctions John has imposed. Ride them out and start afresh.

For my part, I haven't made any useful contribution to the AV article, except to attempt to hold back the wave of fringe pushing, woo supporting ignorance that resides on that page. It is a terrible shame, but those editors who have decided to not bother because of the silly imposition of restrictions are probably right. True believers have won, the spread of ignorance ratchets onwards. I haven't decided if I will dewatchlist or not. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes the best thing you can do is to walk away and let the article deteriorate into a bad condition. With luck it will become so glaringly bad that no reasonable person takes it seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.167.123.150 (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your edits to that page. Please let me know if the issue comes up again. Djcheburashka (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Deepak Chopra Draft is mis-located

There is no Deepak Chopra Draft article, so we can't keep a talkpage of it. Assuming it's for public discussion and work associated with the current Deepak Chopra article, it can go as a subpage of that one's talkpage (Talk:Deepak Chopra/Draft for example). DMacks (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The rollback along with merging the current article has been done. The draft page will be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. DMacks (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

New section on acupuncture talk

QuackGuru, on the acupuncture talk page there is a section, "TCM is Pseudoscience according to the source presented." You made a thread towards the bottom that doesn't have anything to do with this particular section. It starts with:

"I deleted the WP:MEDRS violations. They are not reviews. I also fixed the wording for the 2011 review and added safety information from a review. I also fixed the formatting for refs in the other conditions section. QuackGuru (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)"

Would you mind creating a section for this? The talk page is very disorganized and it's hard to see when new comments are made. If you're too busy, would you mind giving me permission to create this section? It's hard to know what's going on there. Thanks! LesVegas (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I tried to fix it. If not you can fix it. QuackGuru (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Good, that works. Thank you. LesVegas (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Apology

I would like to apologize for my behavior of last week. As noted on my user page, I am given to short term episodes of childishness and petulance. This was a particularly egregious example of such an episode. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year QuackGuru!

Happy New Year!

QuackGuru,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

User:John is an WP:INVOLVED admin

Interesting diffs.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

John was edit warring on my talk page to restore comments made by other editors. In May, I complained to the admin John that he was reverting on my talk page on 19:14, 29 May 2014. He then immediately blocked me on 19:18, 29 May 2014. This was only four minutes later he decided to block me. He wrote "Very well, I will not restore any more items that you delete from your talk page. I will block you instead."[40] I was involved in a dispute with him in regard to comments made by other editors on my talk page. This appears to be a violation of WP:INVOLVED. An admin should not block an editor because they did not like being warned to not restore comments on an editor's talk page.

In June, I was in a content dispute with John. I reverted the original research he added to a BLP. I even explained it to him on John's talk page.

In November, after I reverted my edit at Ayurveda and was waiting for consensus I got blocked without any prior warning of the 0RR restrictions at the article. I think this was a violation of WP:BEFOREBLOCK. Note: The admin John has been notified of the sanctions. I previously explained that any uninvolved admin can sanction the admin John from this topic area at this point. Roxy the dog disagreed with the actions by the admin John. Then the admin John suggested there should be further sanctions against both me and Roxy the dog without a logical reason. User:Kww explained John's comment was "problematic".

In November, User:Roxy the dog was asking User:PhilKnight for advice.[41] User:Phil Knight replied on November 15, 2014 that "I'm somewhat concerned with actions of John (talk · contribs), and think we would should perhaps consider a WP:RFC/ADMIN."[42]

John was previously warned not to restore comments on my talk page. John agreed. Later in November 2014 John restored comments after I deleted them.[43][44] John appears to be WP:INVOLVED in edit warring on this talk page on two separate occasions. Please remember that John has been notified of the sanctions.

User:Doc James wrote on December 4, 2014 "Yup. Likely we need someone neutral / not involved to look at this. John and QG are involved".[45]

Arbcom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Acupuncture

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

ani section retitled

Hi, please note that I retitled an ANI section in which you have participated, to "Personal attacks alleged" from a non-neutral title ("Personal attacks by QuackGuru", per guideline wp:TALKNEW, in this diff. Nothing against you or against the opener of the ANI section...I have been re-titling other ANI sections recently...the title was within usual practice, but I am hoping to help change, with others, what is usual practice. This is a small, side point relative to ongoing ANI discussion. About the discussion, by the way, I am not involved and haven't followed. Best wishes, --doncram 14:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

You have no right to comment on AlbinoFerret's private life whatsoever, let alone assume he's lying about things you can't know anything about, as you did here. Back off, and don't do it again. Bishonen | talk 19:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC).

Ok. Now I will archive. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru/Archive_2&oldid=1136151336"