User talk:QuackGuru/Archive 4

Why did you archive everything from Talk:Electronic cigarette?
I am particularly interested in why you chose to archive the section in which I asked for comments on and  after less than a week? I consider this to be an extremely questionable breach of talk page protocol. EllenCT (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion was over. The Lancet is an editorial. See WP:MEDRS. I added a better source earlier. We can't add an editorial to argue with a 2015 Public Health England report. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes you think you are the arbiter of when a discussion is over? Talk page archiving exists because talk pages get too big, you archived the full content of most e-cig related talk pages even though some of them were tiny. It was poor form. SPACKlick (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a difference of opinion as to whether the discussion was over. Now you have accused me of edit warring over the size of the archives. I recommend you practice relaxation techniques. EllenCT (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion is over for the editorial. No editor is interested in adding it to the article. The talk page is used for discussing improvements to the article. The talk page is not for a general debate about e-cigs. EllenCT, I don't think you have any interest in adding the The Lancet editorial to the page. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My proposal was not to summarize the editorial, but to summarize the letters published by the editor in response to the editorial. WP:LEAD says that major controversies should be discussed in the article's introduction. If the contentions in the letters are true, and presumably they would not be published if the editor didn't think they were, then I think they form a sound basis for the discussion of further improvements to the article. EllenCT (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The response to the editorial (PMID 26342728) is not a review and not MEDRS compliant. If there is a response to this in a review we can discuss that. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 13:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Quack, what is the harm in leaving the discussion open pending further eyes, who may relate that discussion to newer sources? Archiving is designed to reduce the size of unweildy talk pages not hide discussions from new editors. SPACKlick (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When there is a MEDRS compliant source then we could include the response to this using a new source. I will make a note on the talk page for "new editors". QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The question of whether a controversy is prominent, consequential, or significant enough to meet the WP:LEAD criteria for inclusion in an article's introduction is not a medical question, and therefore facts establishing the prominence of such controversies are not required to be supported by MEDRS sources. Therefore, trying to hide the letters to the editor from talk page readers was a breach of talk page rules. EllenCT (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion was over a while ago. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Making edit wars messier
I noticed that you were making strings of very minor edits like and  in fast succession during the edit war today at Acupuncture whenever your preferred revision was reverted to. Please don't do that, it just makes things messier. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban
When I imposed your 0RR restriction in May ( and ) I warned you that Battleground, Tendentious or Gaming behavior would result in a complete topic ban. Upon reviewing the events leading up to the recent edit war at Acupuncture, I found evidence that you were in fact "Gaming" to get around the revert restriction and enforce your preferred revision of the article. Because of this, I have decided to change the 0RR restriction to a simple topic ban. I have made a list of some of the events leading to my decision.


 * 7-10 September: User:Johnuniq proposes creating a sandbox version of Acupuncture where editors could try to rework the article, discuss the changes, and perhaps implement them in the article if they're good. Editors seem open to the idea, except for User:JzG who worries the that it will be abused by "needlers" to subtly insert bias "under the radar" because changes wouldn't be able to be compared line by line. (Relevant talk page section)
 * 12-15 September: You make a series of edits to the sandbox version that includes the blanking of two sections, reorganization of paragraphs, reordering of material, and a whole bunch of smaller changes, many of which are difficult to be compared line by line (see for instance this "edit").
 * 14-15 September: Johnuniq notices the edits, likes them, and implements them in the article (with a couple minor changes of their own). JzG likes the changes, User:Herbxue expresses concern.
 * 15-16 September: Herbxue performs a partial revert ("Please discuss on talk page first"), but is reverted by User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc ("Let's actually discuss the removed content on talk"). (I note that Herbxue did discuss on talk, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc did not.)
 * 16-17 September: Herbxue reverts again and so does I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc  after which you make a series of minor and mostly inconsequential edits like reordering the fields inside reference templates.
 * 18 September: User:LesVegas reverts and is reverted by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc  and you make more minor edits (linking laser light, removing spaces from reference fields).
 * Meanwhile there's a discussion on the talk page with consensus to at least shorten/summarize the removed section that was the subject of the edit war. If I'm not incorrect the content of that summary is still a topic of discussion. Also, I have a discussion with Johnuniq on their talk page about the problems of them making edits for someone who is all-but topic banned for WP:Gaming the system among other things. (relevant talk page section) I made sure to ping you so you'd be aware of the discussion.
 * 19 September: There are two more reverts LesVegas McSly before the edit war ends. LesVegas complains to me about the massive edit on my talk page and I advise them that if they want to revert it to only do a partial revert of the parts they see as problematic and that didn't have consensus. (relevant talk page section)
 * 3 October: LesVegas, after some absence, makes a huge (and clumsy) revert, and then tries to self-revert back the pieces that did have consensus on the talk page (including re-removal of the Medical org guidelines section). You make a post to the Fringe theories noticeboard saying there was "broad consensus" for your changes and "the edits should be reverted".
 * 4 October: User:CFCF, an editor who you had substantial interaction with at the E-cigarette articles, but who had never edited the Acupuncture article, reverts LV's changes. You remove the request for intervention at FT/N.
 * 4 October cont.: LesVegas reverts saying "These were proxy edits of an edit restricted editor under DS which he made from a sandbox" CFCF reverts saying "Take up those edits on the talk page LesVegas". User:Jayaguru-Shishya reverts CFCF reverts  you make some more very minor edits.
 * 4 October cont.: Jayaguru reverts again You repost your request at FT/N  JzG reverts in your favor  and you make more inconsequential edits   and again remove your canvassing post from FT/N
 * 4 October cont.: LesVegas and CFCF make one more revert each, you make 6 more inconsequential changes  (switching the order of fields in ref templates) and the edit war dies with LesVegas and CFCF getting warnings from myself and User:NeilN. I warn you (above) about making edit wars messier with strings of minor edits.
 * 5 October: LesVegas complains to me (again) on my talk page, alerting me to your posts to FT/N that I hadn't seen before,  bringing us to this point.

In my research for the list above I also came across the following bizarre talk page warning and follow up conversation you had during the 1st edit war on 16 September, that had some influence on my decision. I can't think what would have motivated you to do that, other than perhaps you really just didn't like CorporateM adding a paragraph on History to the lede and in your edits to the sandbox you had changed the focus of that "History" paragraph. (???)

Your initial edits in the sandbox, I believe, were in good faith and not "gaming". However, I did find evidence of bad faith gaming in your disruptive editing during the edit wars, canvassing for other users to engage in proxy edit warring, and in some edits and talk page posts not included in the above section. Specifically (using language from WP:GAME) I found evidence of "abuse of process", finding "new creative ways to achieve the same disruption", wikilawering, mischaracterizing other editors' actions, and "borderlining".

As a more general note, I also took some time to read some of the stuff in the open E-cigarette case at Arbcom. I think you, and your Wikipedia career, would benefit from a close reading of User:S Marshall's complaints here and a concerted effort to avoid the behaviors he describes. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

diff of edit to Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015


 * , what do you think should be done about POV-pushing that is happening at acupuncture? Do you think acupuncturists should be allowed to revert the page back to a version that doesn't frame the subject as being plagued by pseudoscientific argumentation and wishful thinking? jps (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Is this hypothetical? If you're talking about Herbxue, then what I saw there was an unusually clear-eyed acupuncturist reverting a bold edit, asking for discussion, contributing to that discussion, and then respecting the consensus. Isn't that how Wikipedia is supposed to work? If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest that my talk page might be a better venue than here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I will point out that I was alerted of these edits after having watchlisted the page quite a while ago after LesVegas proposed changes to WP:MEDRS aimed at helping him gain content-dispute advantages in altmed topics. The edits that were reverted were both WP:pointy and of very low scientific rigor. CFCF   💌 📧 20:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good to know, thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm also confused as to why my username is included in evidence against QG. If I'm at fault, why are you topic banning QG? jps (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I owe you an apology for saying you revert warred without participating on the talk page. I was mistaken because I didn't realize your signature doesn't match your user name. I linked you because I figured you'd want to know if you were being talked about. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize for that, it's an honest mistake. What I don't understand is the justification for banning QG on the basis of other people's edits. Is the claim that QG is a bad influence? Stirring up trouble? Or are you making a different sort of accusation? Just trying to understand. jps (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a long answer to that question, and you can probably get some of it by reading the links to the previous edit restriction above. The short answer is that this is the just latest episode in a very long history of borderline behavior, an episode in which you also happened to participate. Specifically, listing the reverts wasn't to accuse you of edit warring, but to illustrate the pattern of QG abusing the "uncontroversial ref maintenance" provision of their previous 0RR restriction to participate in the edit war -- making bursts of inconsequential "minor" edits whenever their preferred revision is reverted to. (In the 9 reverts to QG's revision I listed above this happens 5 times.) Does that answer your question? ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just so I'm clear, you think it was problematic for QG to do minor edits whenever their preferred version is reverted to. I guess this is because you think it somehow muddies the waters for other editors? I'm curious, though, if other editors found this behavior to be disruptive. I would never have guessed that this is what would have led to a topic ban. jps (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe it is was problematic, though not enough by itself for a topic ban. If you read closely above you'll see that I had noticed the minor edits before, left a warning, and was going to leave things alone, but there were other things that came to my attention as well. The weird canvassing and talk page warnings were somewhat of a last straw for me. It wasn't so much the disruption itself of these individual incidents, but the intent to game the system to the fullest extent, no matter what, to achieve a desired result. As for whether other users find this kind of thing disruptive, I can't speak for them, but there are scores of AN/I threads, a couple RFC/Us, and a few Arbcom cases/requests (one open now) where users have expressed their frustration. There are probably a few users watching this page who could answer your question, but I think it would be inappropriate to do that here, and I don't think QuackGuru would appreciate their talk page being used in that manner. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Dead links
QG, how about using Google to do a quick search for an sources title before placing a tag on a reference? AlbinoFerret 18:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Morafic
Thanks for patrolling Morafic. I have a question, though, about why you linked "Mabrouka" from the article. Morafic wasn't from the town Mabrouka; he was given birth to by a mare named Mabrouka (which is what "out of" means in horse talk). She may have been named after the town and she may not have. Thanks. White Arabian mare ( Neigh ) 13:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Another editor linked to "Mabrouka". QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I thought it was you; I unlinked it. She doesn't have an article, although his sire Nazeer does. White Arabian mare  ( Neigh ) 01:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
 * I think it is possible to create an article for her. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Enough
Stop harassing me. I'm allowed to fix errors.--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My evidence of harassment is that every time I make an edit you post threatening messages on my talk page. If I've broken any rules, fine, but if I haven't - and I don't seem to have - stop trying to intimidate me.--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop harassing me, and I will. Now leave me alone.--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

ASF
Hi, I noticed that you created ASF once upon a time.

Would you care to enlighten the world on what ASF stands for? — Smjg (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:WikiVoice. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Article Barrier cream
I have removed your reference to the marketing history of "shielding lotion" (again). Please stop adding this. It is completely irrelevant to the article and the majority consensus is that the term "shielding lotion" has no business on an article about barrier creams. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus was a merge. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I know you are aware of the ANI thread since you have already responded there, but I had not mentioned you as party. After reviewing diffs, I noticed that you also edited against the consensus reading as well, so you have now been added to my original post. Thank you. LesVegas (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You should not be changing your original comment after editors replied. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision posted
Hi QuackGuru, in the open Editor conduct in e-cigs articles arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 13:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Elvey(t•c) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I think you reverted against the close. Please read this comment. There is a discussion on the talk page with unanswered questions. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The uninvolved closer editing against their own close? Think about that for a bit QG. AlbinoFerret  20:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit contradicted the close. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop gaming the system. You were edit warring against consensus as determined by the many participants in the RfC and you know it. I put a lot of effort into determining, creating, and formulating a fair close for that RfC.  I feel very disrespected.  Likewise, by Whatamidoing's repeated gross misrepresentations of what I said in my closing.  --Elvey(t•c) 20:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You contradicted your own close because it did not include a caveat. People are still waiting for explanation. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The RfC close included a clarification, not a caveat.  So the edit that implemented the RfC close did not include one either.  I responded to that.  I explained.  I can't shove the explanations given into the ears of those who refuse to hear them and claim to still be waiting for one.  WARNING: Please stop gaming the system.  You were edit warring against consensus as determined by the many participants in the RfC and if you didn't know it you sure should know it now. --Elvey(t•c) 20:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Others interpreted the close differently than you. You cannot change the close after the close. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see that diff as showing that; there is no contradiction. Again, your edit was simply in violation of the close.  The premise of your latest comment is ridiculous; my close hasn't changed.  And that's to be my last comment. (I corrected a one-letter typo tho. Speaking of which, my computer makes an autocorrect edit to "burntorange" in your signature when I reply to you.  I've told it to ignore it/treat it as a correct spelling so it shouldn't  happen again.) --Elvey(t•c) 22:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors do not agree with claiming there is no issue with "country of origin". Editors have presented evidence there is bias literature. You deleted the part about country of origin. With that change the sentence is ambiguous. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Revert 1.
 * Revert 2.
 * Revert 3.
 * Revert 4.
 * Revert 5.
 * User:Elvey, it is clear there is no consensus for the text. While there is ongoing discussion on the talk page I did not think it was wise to archive it. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

E-cigs case closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * 1) General Sanctions for the Electronic Cigarette topic area are rescinded. In its place, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the Electronic Cigarette topic area, broadly construed.
 * 2) Discretionary Sanctions are explicitly extended for the Electronic Cigarettes topic area. Specifically, single purpose accounts may be topic banned or blocked (indefinite or otherwise), if in the view of an uninvolved administrator, they are being disruptive in the topic area.
 * 3) Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
 * 4) Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;
 * 5) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
 * 6) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning. The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.
 * 7) is warned that continuing to engage in a pattern of disruption to Wikipedia will result in further sanctions.
 * 8) is restricted to one revert per article per every 72 hour period in the Electronic Cigarette topic area, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Amendment request
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, AlbinoFerret  23:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration request
This acknowledges your withdrawal of your arbitration request. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  20:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban
Spartaz Humbug! 08:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement of restrictions---Information
Quackguru, I have had issues with your editing, but we are to assume Good Faith. I am informing you on what provision your 6 months was based, it may have been overreach by 5 months. This is not a dialogue. Its just a heads up, again I have had issues with your editing. I don't want to talk about anything. I could well be wrong, on it all too.

Enforcement of restrictions 0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles#Enforcement_of_restrictions Mystery Wolff (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Topic Ban Violation
It has been reported to me that you patrolled a page about e cigs in AlbinoFerret's userspace. On the face of it, this is a straightforward violation of your topic ban and also rather provoking of one of your main adversaries in the e cig page and deserving of a block. Before I decide whether to block, I would to hear any comments you may wish to make. Spartaz Humbug! 21:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not know patrolling a page is a topic ban violation. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That I cannot accept. Broadly construed means all spaces and you have been blocked previously for messing around in other users sandboxes. There is no way to interpret this as anything except testing the line while tweaking Albinoferret's nose. I have blocked you for a period of 24 hours for an arbitration enforcement violation. The next block is likely to escalate so I would suggest that you try to resist any further temptation to see how close to the line you can get. I won't insult you with a template as you surely know the drill by now. Spartaz Humbug! 22:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Notifying of the archival of an amendment request
Hi _QuackGuru, this is a notification that an amendment request pertaining to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles has been archived with no action. You can now find it here. For the arbitration committee, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 03:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Copyright violation
Template:Copyright violation has been nominated for merging with Template:Copyvio link. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Vani Hari
I think it has been mentioned on the talkpage, but the reason for over-sourcing is unfortunately a common one in this area - the demands of the true believers. Anything critical has to be oversourced or the followers claim it does not represent scientific consensus etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not every source verified the claim. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

About the recent RfC
About the recent Rfc : I had the following conversation with Nyttend:. Any comments at all?  --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like the RfC close was a WP:VOTE like many RfC closes. Comments are usually irrelevant on Wikipedia. It is about the votes not who said what. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Reform of Wikipedia
Thanks for your contribution at User:Biscuittin/Reform of Wikipedia. I have re-located it within the page. Hope that's OK. Biscuittin (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: RFC
Your position was rejected by many participants; when one side interprets an idea one way, and the other another way, the closer can't just assume that one interpretation is right and the other wrong. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A closer should assume one side is right and another side is wrong otherwise the closer is not policing content. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you know what you're asking for? If I do that, I'll ignore a discussion and close it in favor of whichever side seems right to me; the whole point of a discussion is to see whether consensus is in favor of one thing or another, not to convince a closer that one side is right and that the other side is wrong.  Nyttend (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing based on what side might be right is how to close. You have confirmed you did not review who might be right. But Wikipedia is not a WP:VOTE. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:REFORMCOMMUNITY listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect REFORMCOMMUNITY. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:REFORMCOMMUNITY redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:REFORMWIKIPEDIA listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect REFORMWIKIPEDIA. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:REFORMWIKIPEDIA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Before you start..
..Wholesale rewriting the lede at the paleo diet. Please read the talkpage where most of the changes you wish to make have been discussed repeatedly and rejected. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You restored unsourced text. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You edited against consensus. Feel free to use the talkpage to discuss further. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You editing against WP:OR. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, see talkpage where you will find many many discussions on the changes you wish to make. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no discussion on you restoring OR. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So you do not intend to go to the paleo diet talkpage and discuss changes you wish to make there? Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I read the sources and removed the WP:OR and non-encyclopedic text. I added well sourced new text. You have not given an explanation for restoring OR. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So thats a no then? Got it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why did you restore OR? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See paleo diet talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The talk page does not give a reason for you restoring OR. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Discuss contested changes you wish to make on the paleo diet talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Mass OR along with non-neutral text was restored without explanation. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia
Well done QuackGuru. You are doing a grand job at Reform of Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I decided to keep it short and focused. Long essays tend to be boring. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ARTICLERETENTION listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ARTICLERETENTION. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:ARTICLERETENTION redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BULLYFREEZONE listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect BULLYFREEZONE. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:BULLYFREEZONE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NEWUSERRETENTION listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect NEWUSERRETENTION. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:NEWUSERRETENTION redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:REFORMWIKIPEDIA listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect REFORMWIKIPEDIA. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:REFORMWIKIPEDIA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Unusual
May I ask you what you meant by, "Compromised account? See User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia." I agree that it looks weird. GABHello! 01:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Some things are better not said. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for giving me a reason to read about a new topic. Cheers. J bh Talk  20:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I could show you many alternative medicine articles where sources are being misrepresented in the lede. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I am not familiar or interested enough in the area to want to wade into the deep end. Generally I pick out articles based on what shows up on the noticeboards or from working with new editors. Otherwise I am basically a wiki-gnome since that fits the irregular bits of free time I have for Wikipedia. Best of luck with your reform essay. I completely and fervently disagree with your solutions but the problems are worth discussion. Reform, like politics, is the art of the possible. That is because it is politics else it would be revolution and revolutions more likely to destroy than they are to fix or create. Anyway, enjoy your weekend. Cheers. J bh  Talk  02:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Things are so interesting on this blog site that you could randomly select an alternative medicine article and I could point out the OR. You could select the article. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Final warning
About this. I again urge you to consider your behavior on the talk page very carefully. The purpose of DR is resolve disputes among actual editors, and to do that, the arguments being made by actual editors matter. The next time you make another unserious edit or comment I will take you to ANI seeking a topic ban. There is very little chance that my effort will not succeed. Doing that will not be good for me, but I will do it if you continue. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant the first question was irrelevant to me. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The clarification was very helpful and changes that remark significantly. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We can still improve the wording for fad in the lede. It does not need to be in the first sentence. We might be able to avoid a RfC. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Faith Healing
QuackGuru, you remember ? Its been months now and it is impossible to ignore that there are enough sources that consider Faith Healing as pseudoscience. I could see though that you agreed a lot with that. Should I open an RFC or you would? Raymond3023 (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources are on the talk page. See Talk:Faith_healing. For now I left a note at a noticeboard. See Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Opposition in Chess
Hi,

in the Opposition (chess) article you contributed to, there's a study (teaching tool) by Ortvin Sarapu to illustrate maneuvers using distant opposition. Please can you give a reference for this study ?

Thanks

90.55.46.164 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You might be able to find the study in the book 'Mr Chess', the Ortvin Sarapu Story. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. However, is it just a suggestion or does that book actually features the study/teaching tool ?

193.48.0.3 (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a suggestion. There are more books you can check. See Opposition (chess). QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The actual last warning
Do not make WP:POINTy edits like this. Please stop being disruptive. This really is your last warning before I bring you to ANI, where I will seek a site ban (yes, I have raised the stake over my prior "last warning"). You pushed one step too far with that, and I am now out of patience. One more disruptive thing and I will post the ANI that I have already prepared. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What's pointy about that edit, and why the snarling? SageRad (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * QG i forgot to mention. You do plenty of good around here, and I would rather not see you site-banned, so please don't edit disruptively any more.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe QG is not editing disruptively and maybe your judgment is off. Why the intimidating tone? SageRad (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at a source for the Wikidata article?
The article is currently lacking a criticism section, despite valid concerns from within the volunteer community. Here's a recent critical source. I would add it myself, but I have a C.o.I. (the author is my husband). Thank you for your time. DracoE 03:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your edit. Please note, the author is Andreas Kolbe, not Andrew Orlowski (who is married too, but not to me). :) DracoE 22:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Please have a look
at this: Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into the local language

Thanks again :) -- Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Two barnstars for Quackguru in one day. hooray!  you get no love, and you should get some. (you do piss a lot of people off, but you deserve some love too) Jytdog (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Heads-up
Hey QG! I hope this finds you well. Apologies for disappearing on short notice after confirming that your translation was indeed correct. I only just saw your messages. But I did see this comment by Mr Google-Translate-is-Teh-Shiznit without logging in at the time. As I didn't feel like wasting time by indulging that contributor's need for an argument, I decided to back off and not look at this site for a while.

Of course, this whole discussion would have been easier if James Heilman had been more forthcoming about what actually happened. Having followed his statements on here and on the Wikimedia-l list to some incomplete extent, I can only think of two reasons why he chose not to do so. The first one involves legal threats to his person from the WMF, the second a desire to be reinstated as a board member. As for the latter, the realistic outcome is probably something along the lines of "snowball, meet hell" so long as Jimbo Wales remains an unelected Board member. But hope springs eternal, as they say. Given that Wikipedia is still the site that lets its co-founder get away with smearing a former fellow trustee's reputation while ensuring that calling an idiot an idiot will get you blocked and calling a Jimbo Juicer a Jimbo Juicer will probably get you banned, my presence on here will continue to be sporadic. Best wishes, DracoE 13:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for The Signpost (Wikipedia)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for Chiropractic

 * Please sign your comments. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!
Appreciate the Wikignoming at Project Accuracy. It makes things a little more accurate, and that's the point, right? Atsme 📞📧 18:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey
A while back, I asked you to stop posting to my talk page. I just wanted to let you know that (though I know there's no reason for you to do so at the moment) I wasn't asking you to never again post to my talk page. I honestly believe we had some communication difficulties, and while there probably was a real disagreement at the heart of it, it was the inability to communicate effectively that caused me to ask you to stop posting to my talk page. I haven't since had any real trouble getting your meaning. And of course, no hard feelings. Feel free to post to my talk page. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  21:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

My edit warring
Thanks for helping me at the edit warring discussions. But it is good to know that undoing policy violations counts towards 3RR blocks. Now that I really learned this, I will behave differently. Still there is a problem: an user inserts made up content and it is not obvious vandalism, so it is a content dispute. So for the hours needed to settle it, Wikipedia will display wrong content. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Admins usually refuse to enforce V policy. We don't have super admins to train admins how to edit and read sources. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban for Vani Hari and its talk page
My dear QuackGuru, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you to refrain from participating in Vani Hari and the talk page. It seems clear to me, as an uninvolved administrator, that you are a stumbling block in an otherwise ordinary discussion, dragging out over weeks what could have been resolved in days or less. I do this in reference to Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience; you were notified back in 2008 already, you were cautioned a few times, and you were notified again in 2014. I am topic-banning you from those two pages for three months, and from discussing the general topic anywhere else on Wikipedia, hoping that a. that article will continue to improve and b. that you will not act similarly on other pages. Kind regards, Drmies (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Berylliosis
Can you please clarify your tagging? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You think sources over 50 years old are reliable? There is no need for all the sources. See WP:OVERCITE. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is the "duplicate" source for GE moving away from beryllium-based phosphors? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will try to shorten it to three sources next time. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This really belongs at Talk:Berylliosis, rather than here.
 * I see the Army pamphlet as quite useful as it's a simplistic overview of the whole issue, from the viewpoint of explaining occupational hygiene to the layman. I see the Scribd source as robust, because the likelihood of it having been corrupted by a conspiracy is too far-fetched. Nor is anything about it suspicious. If you really want rid of it though, there are plenty of comparable sources so it's no great loss.
 * The GE paper though is significant because it discusses one of the very first industrial reactions to beryllium exposure for occupational hygiene. I must make some phone calls and get a copy of it ordered. I know of nothing else that covers the same issue, although the 1949 journal is close. I just don't see the RS issues on this paper - these pre-computer index technical papers are poorly indexed and hard to find online (NASA have had an interesting project to put some pivotal 1930s NACA work online) but this is GE we're talking about, they're a robust publisher and archivist of technical publishing for a century.
 * There is also a possibility that, in the great re-organising of the two beryllium poisoning articles, the fluorescent tube content belongs with acute poisoning, rather than chronic berylliosis. As the phosphors in the tube were more soluble than beryllia, their risk is of the acute form. There is a strong correlation for beryllium between the chemistry of the risk material and the clinical condition that develops, the articles still need to make this clearer.
 * There's also perhaps scope for some more on generalised sarcoidosis and its confusability with berylliosis. Outside of manufacturing towns familiar with it, this has been a regular mis-diagnosis for berylliosis. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The WP:TRIVIA content is still in the article. I don't think it is necessary to include the Army pamphlet. I don't think the Army pamphlet is even reliable. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What's the "trivia"? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The part "It is most classically associated" is unclear. Is it still associated with them are not? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So clarify it. There are many sources available, from the Army pamphlet onwards.
 * No one develops berylliosis naturally. No one develops it unless they are exposed to industrially refined beryllium compounds, which have only existed since the 1930s. Even amongst miners its rare, although it was initially high amongst smelter workers. This is not fluorosis, where some obscure forms of natural geology can generate problematic levels of exposure. This is an entirely occupational disease (in the sense of caused by industry, as it may also affect those around it but not directly involved).
 * The text in the article is reasonable (but can always be improved). These are the industries that have always had the high risk for beryllium exposure. I fail to see how any of this is "trivia". Even in a "medical article" (which isn't a narrowness we recognise at WP anyway) the industrial occupational hygiene aspects are essential: there is no exposure and no condition without them. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See "Industries using beryllium in their products include aerospace, automotive, biomedical, defence, energy and electrical, fire prevention, instruments, equipment and objects, manufacturing, sporting goods and jewellery, scrap recovery and recycling, and telecommunications.[13]"
 * The article says "It is most classically associated with aerospace manufacturing, microwave semiconductor electronics, beryllium mining or manufacturing of fluorescent light bulbs (which once contained beryllium compounds in their internal phosphor coating)."
 * "It is most classically associated" does not make sense." Which source said "most classically associated"?
 * Where does the article say it may also affect those around it but not directly involved? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Classically" is obviously used here in the sense of "archetypally" which is reasonable editorial lattitude for copywriting. If you object, you may of course edit this. It's not a sourcing issue.
 * The article does not say that those around it may be affected, so that still needs to be added. I only mentioned it here to try, fruitlessly, to avoid a challenge to the narrow claim of being "occupational" when those not directly on the payroll are affected too. In the past those downstream of smelter plumes have been affected, in today's post-industrial age it's often about re-using old factory sites for housing. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Those around may be affected can be added to which section using which source?
 * It's not a sourcing issue? It is a sourcing issue according to WP:V policy. I think the wording can be clearer. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Add it to whichever section you like, with whichever source you like. Berylliosis and occupational ABD has a huge literature - just check PubMed (I presume you have access?). Aluminium smelters are the more interesting search term, as there's more beryllium as an impurity in bauxite aluminium ore than there are pure beryllium production plants. You might also find Harriet Hardy at Los Alamos interesting as a name - she was instrumental in the recognition of the long term hazards to workers in the US nuclear industry. From what's there already, the Cooper & Harrison (2009) paper is a good start. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I started a new discussion on the talk page. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Query
Regarding this, thank you, but perhaps you could give some evidence at the case page ?

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you're more familiar with those older accounts than I am, perhaps you can explain it better at the case page ? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of NUCCA for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NUCCA is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/NUCCA until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HealthyGirl (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC) I wonder why you got this notice, QG? The Grostic Technique, oh my. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder about a lot of things. EditorDownUnder is another new account. Could it be Sockpuppet investigations/Renameduser024? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 11:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Gonstead technique
I don't believe your own opinion overrules the agreement made on the deletion page to keep the article. Please remove your edits. EditorDownUnder (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Reform of Wikipedia
This might interest you 79.64.199.8 (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Many chiropractors
It seems perfectly okay to use a citation that states that US chiros see themselves as primary care providers to support the sentence that "many chiropractors" see themselves as such. Ideally, this sentence would be supported by a few citations that cover respective geographic areas. Delta13C (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The source you added did not verify the current claim. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 06:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the quote from the source I added: "Chiropractors are, in their own view, primary care physicians who treat the entire population – neonate to geriatric patient – for a broad range of conditions and diseases," which is supported by four references. This is a great secondary reference to use in the article. Delta13C (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See "Many chiropractors believe they are primary care providers,[4] including US chiropractors.[56]" QuackGuru  ( talk ) 06:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That is pretty acceptable. Having an additional citation in the lede is a matter of style, something I find to be useful. Delta13C (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding it to the lead only verifies US chiropractors. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 06:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but since they are part of the many, there is little sematical problem with this. Delta13C (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The general claims belong in the lede using a source to verify the specific text. For the body there is claims for the US and UK. See "Many chiropractors believe they are primary care providers,[4] including US[56] and UK chiropractors.[57]" QuackGuru  ( talk ) 07:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Reinstating (possible) copyrighted image
You reinstated this image with a revert. Which may be the correct thing to do - but there has been a copyright claim made on the image here - i removed the image because advertising is not in any way or form acceptable, nor is having a copyrighted image without attribution.

So please, can you confirm that you are aware of the issue, and relate the policy reasons that make you capable of just ignoring the copyright claim? --Kim D. Petersen 20:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no copyvio. All images have been attributed. The link added was a spam link. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you know? Personally i asked the contributor for hir comments here.
 * You will need to explain how you just know this - and why you think that WP:COPYVIO can just be ignored on a whim? --Kim D. Petersen 20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Click on the image. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vape-cloud-montage.jpeg#Licensing QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes? I've been around wikipedia for long enough to know that even images on commons with seemingly good pedigree can be copyvios. So let the contributor make his comment. You can't just ignore that we have a claimed copyvio! [and had you followed my links above, you would know that i've addressed this on commons! --Kim D. Petersen 20:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * https://www.flickr.com/photos/micadew/16582794210/ (micadew – Smoke Screen)
 * https://www.flickr.com/photos/sodaniechea/8819220638/ (Sodanie Chea – Smoke-Fall)
 * http://www.ecigclick.co.uk/ecigclick-images/ (Jonny Williams/www.ecigclick.co.uk)
 * https://www.flickr.com/photos/127173209@N05/16348069932/ (TBEC Review/the-best-electronic-cigarette-review.com)
 * This is the source of the original images. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Only two of those images are under Creative Commons license. One of the images, states that it needs attribution. The last one has (to me an) unknown licensing --Kim D. Petersen 20:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:People accused of pseudoscience has been nominated for discussion
Category:People accused of pseudoscience, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Diet promoters has been nominated for discussion
Category:Diet promoters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Promoters of pseudoscience has been nominated for discussion
Category:Promoters of pseudoscience, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - MrX 16:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of the word some
Quack, some can be used to summarise a source where the source indicates by words or context that the subject in question is a subsection of the whole. So if the source says "x can be y" that is accurately paraphrased as "some x are y". If a source says "there are x-type y's. There are z-type y's. There are even w-type y's" that can be accurately summarised as "some y are x, some y are z and some y are w". Your incessant tagging of the word some as FV or Weasel is disruptive. SPACKlick (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please don't make changes that don't affect the rendered text
This is purely my personal opinion, not official WP policy or guideline or even an essay—but speaking strictly personally, I would like to ask you to refrain from edits that do not affect the rendered text, such as this edit that you made to Ohm's law.

The extra spaces you removed don't affect the text seen by the reader. For example, the previous sentence has two spaces after it, while this one has just one. You'll notice that they render the same. Specifically re spaces at the end of sentences, many editors prefer to do that to make sentences visually easier to find in the edit window. And others do it just out of old typewriter habits. (Similarly, it is a habit with many to hit the space bar at least once after every period, even if the period is at the end of a paragraph. And again, there is no effect on the rendered text, so there is no reason to remove it.)

I'm not reverting these changes and I certainly am not going to bring any "cases" anywhere. But I'm leaving you this note to ask you to consider: While such edits do not affect the text seen by the reader, they do increase editor workload. They complicate and clutter the editing history of the article and make diffs between versions more time-consuming to go through. Many of these non-rendering changes can be difficult to see and evaluate in the diffs display. This can sometimes cause a lot of wasted time and effort for later editors trying to figure out what previous edits have done.

All because of edits that do not change, let alone improve, the article for the reader, not in the slightest detail.

I realize you are acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia as you see it, but please consider that you are making unnecessary work for those who follow you. Thank you for considering this suggestion. Jeh (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I noticed another user (User talk:Whoop whoop pull up) who has been adding double spaces. This reminds me of a joke:


 * Two men were going down the side of a road. One was digging holes and the other was following behind filling the holes in.


 * I asked them what they were doing, and one of them said "planting trees. I dig a hole, Carl puts a tree in the hole, and Fred here fills it in."


 * I pointed out the rather obvious lack of trees, and the other fellow said "Carl called in sick today, but that's no reason why the rest of us can't work."


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * LOL. A good parable for certain types of wikignoming. Jeh (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

WURT
WTF is WURT ? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * it is the self-name of someone who is socking who is upset with me and guy per at least two messages they have left. see Sockpuppet_investigations/Renameduser024 Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is the Wikipedia Urgent Reform Team. You can join. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * QG, what does this and this have to do with improving Wikipedia? Real question.  A second real question - these socks are specifically targeting me and Guy.  Why do you support that?  Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with improving. I don't support it. This all started with Reform of Wikipedia. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That essay unfortunately attracted a bunch of disoriented and disgruntled editors who don't really understand this place. I have been sympathetic to what you were trying to do but the clamor of people like whoever is doing this socking has dragged your effort down.  And your not distancing yourself and your effort from them, hurts you and your effort.  They are stealing your brand and trashing it. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * One of them who supported the essay is probably the sock. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I get that. I don't want to tangle with you QG - you do some great work here. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I know who the master is but there is a small chance I could be wrong. An admin could run a checkuser with all the accounts who supported the essay. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Your take on a WP:Synthesis and terminology issue
Hey, QuackGuru. Given your recent concern about a WP:Synthesis issue, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind weighing in on the following RfC: Talk:Slut-shaming.

In addition to advertising the RfC at Wikipedia talk:No original research, the WP:Original research noticeboard, and WP:Village pump (policy), I've individually queried a few editors to weigh in on the matter. Most declined to weigh in on the RfC or haven't yet done so. The RfC doesn't have many participants and has slowed. I want a variety of opinions on the matter, so I am also asking for yours. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the post. Unfortunately there is a political and economic reason for the bias. The sides are uneven in terms of population so one always wins. It's unfortunate. Semmendinger (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Things started going in the opposite direction about two years ago. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In the favor of medicine or chiro? Semmendinger (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither. Bias articles are not in the favor of medicine. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I misunderstood. Regardless, that's good. The less bias the better. Thank you for your contributions, I see you very often. Semmendinger (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

E-Z wider
How does this rolling paper brand not have a Wiki? They are in every store am I not searching right? Valoem talk  contrib  15:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I added it to the "List of rolling papers". There are very few sources on it. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)