Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:22, 26 August 2008

Welcome

Greetings...

Hello, QuackGuru, and welcome to Misplaced Pages!

To get started, click on the green welcome.

I hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Xp54321

Happy editing! Xp54321 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

QuackGuru, enough, you are now arguing with two different administrators about the definition of "revert". I recommend that you take a break, and avoid posting at Talk:Quackwatch for a day. If you disagree, I can upgrade this to a formal ban, but I'm hoping that simply asking you to take a break will suffice. Please go work on something else for awhile? --Elonka 19:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there was a misunderstanding. The text is sourced.

I was in the middle of writing this comment. Can I finish posting this comment.

This information was deleted. but criticizes its rhetorical style as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people."

Ludwigs2 restored the deleted information.

This was a revert by Ludwigs2. QuackGuru 19:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I would rather that you didn't, because you are again mis-defining the term "revert". I am keeping close tabs on Ludwigs2's edits, and have been engaging him in discussion at his talkpage. If he makes a real revert, I assure you I'll be dealing with him very rapidly. --Elonka 19:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 restored the identical part of the sentence that was previously deleted. It was a real revert. QuackGuru 19:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Still not a revert, because he substantially changed the paragraph. Yes the wording in that specific quote is the same, but it's a quote, so of course it is going to be the same. To call it a "revert", I'd want to see something that was more specific, where the edit obviously removed or re-added just the text in a previous edit, without changing anything else towards trying to find a compromise. --Elonka 19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It was still a revert based on what is a revert. QuackGuru 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What is a revert?

A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page.

An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted.

Please read WP:3RR. Ludwigs2 edit was a revert because Ludwigs2 restored deleted content. QuackGuru 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am very familiar with 3RR. The definition of "restoring deleted content", would more apply to something like what Jossi did, which was just copy/pasting information in from a previous version of the article, but without making any attempt to change the text. Let me try and explain it another way: The goal of the editing conditions, is to help the editors on the page try to find a compromise wording. This will probably involve having some text by some editors, and some text by others. That's okay, and that's not a revert. Or to put it another way: If one editor adds "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ" to the article, and another editor deletes half, leaving "ABCDEFGHIJKLM", and then the first editor changes it to "ABCDEFGHIKJKLMSTUVXY", and then the other editor changes it to ABCDEFGHIJKLMNSUV", and the other editor says, "Okay, I can live with that." Neither one of them is reverting. They are both changing the text, in a back and forth method, trying to find a compromise. Does that make more sense? --Elonka 20:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no change to the specific text and that's a real revert.

Elonka wrote in part: Yes the wording in that specific quote is the same, but it's a quote, so of course it is going to be the same.

Based on what is a revert Ludwigs2 made a real revert. Is that clear enough for you? QuackGuru 20:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To prove it was a revert, I would like to see a diff that shows an exact one-to-one correspondence between an original edit, and a new edit. If the wording is changed, or new sources are added, it is not a revert. It is clear that you are not understanding the definition of revert, in the context of the editing conditions. But that's why we have uninvolved administrators here. In the future, when you see something that you think is a revert, you can bring it up, but if an uninvolved admin says, "No, that's not a revert," then you should accept that and move on. Continuing to bring up the same thing over and over, is not helpful. Also, in terms of Ludwigs2's edits, he is obviously embarked on a major series of changes to the article. Rather than scrutinizing every edit, better would be to wait a few hours, until he's done, and then look at the entire set of changes. If he's just bit by bit reverting to an earlier version (which I don't think he is), it'll show up when he's done. There's no need to critique each small change. Please, try working on something else for awhile? There are many other areas of Misplaced Pages which could benefit from your attention. Check something at WP:CLEANUP, or add a stub to fill in a redlink, such as at Misplaced Pages:Missing journal articles. Or, just click on Special:Random a few times. I usually find that within a dozen clicks, I have either found something that I want to fix, or at least tag as needing cleanup.  :) --Elonka 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka wrote in part: Yes the wording in that specific quote is the same, but it's a quote, so of course it is going to be the same.

Elonka acknowledged the text is the same. Readding the same text is clearly a revert per WP:3RR.

but criticizes its rhetorical style as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people."

but criticizes its rhetorical style as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people."

Ludwigs2 restored deleted content.QuackGuru 21:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the wording of that specific phrase is identical to a previous version of the article. If that was the only thing that he was restoring, then it would be a revert. But it's not the only thing he's restoring. He also is making many other changes, which seem to be a good faith effort to be sensitive to previous concerns, in an attempt to try and find a compromise version. That's not a revert, that's more of a "negotiative edit". Now please, stop calling it a revert, otherwise you may run afoul of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I recommend waiting a day, letting Ludwigs2 finish with his edits, and then you (or anyone else) can go in and continue to edit the article, in an attempt to change wording to something that you like better. Then Ludwigs2 (or anyone) can make their own edits, and back and forth. If certain phrases get restored and deleted in this back and forth process, that's okay, as it's part of consensus-building, as long as each side makes a good faith effort to try and find a compromise from previous versions. --Elonka 21:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka acknowledged: Yes, the wording of that specific phrase is identical to a previous version of the article.

Restoring deleted content is the definition of a revert. That's a revert, and not a "negotiative edit".

Making other changes does not change the fact that it was revert. The same text was restored which counts as a revert according to WP:3RR.

It is a revert (readding the same exact text) based on what is a revert per WP:3RR. QuackGuru 21:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, Elonka, I think you just gave the Wikilawyers an "out". Be prepared for lots of "reverts + other edits". I did warn you that you had to come down heavy on your side of the fence rather than just SA + Ronz. Shot info (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit clearly was a revert and Elonka should stop claiming it was not a revert. QuackGuru 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

*Quackguru, obviously you disagree with several of the uninvolved admins over this particular edit and that's fine. However, continuing to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong isn't going to change our opinions or get the other editor in trouble. Starting to make attacks, like accusing Elonka of lying, really isn't going to help your situation any and may end up with you being sanctioned. So please, lets just drop the concern over this one edit and get back to working on articles, ok? Shell 18:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not disagree with several of the uninvolved admins over this particular edit. Elonka is the only admin who commented specifically on this particular edit. Who are the several adims who disagree with me over this particular edit? QuackGuru 22:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, aside from debating about what is or isn't a revert, I would ask this: Do you like the Quackwatch article now? Personally, I have been pleased with how the article seems much more stable now, within just a few days. There is no longer any edit-warring, and the article has not needed to be re-protected. So, do you like it? Or is there anything that you think should be changed? If so, you are welcome to edit the article to make modifications. --Elonka 19:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The only way I could fix the article would be to make some changes and make a partial revert to some text that was recently added. There was no consensus to readd the disputed text. I will not violate the conditioning of editing. QuackGuru 22:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your change to the talkpage.  :) As for editing the article, if you try to change the text to something different than it was before, that is not a revert. If you change the text, you would not be violating the conditions. I promise that if you try to make a change, in good faith, that I will not ban you by surprise. I would give you a warning first, and give you a chance to change what you did. A ban would only be used on someone that keeps breaking the conditions, and ignoring the warnings. So I encourage you to try and make changes if you want to.  :) --Elonka 20:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to make changes and improve the article. However, it may be precieved as a revert if I remove the weight violation from ref 43. QuackGuru 20:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as you make a change that is a try to compromise, and is different from what has been tried before, it will probably not get in you in trouble. --Elonka 20:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The entire paragraph is a weight violation. The information from each ref in the usefulness as a source section is a summary or a shgort sentence. A lengthy paragraph is a weight violation. It was shortened before then someone restored the lengthy parargraph.

The only way to fix the weight violation is to delete the entire paragraph and to keep the shorter sentence from the same ref. QuackGuru 17:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, QuackGuru, if I chime in here with my opinion. The way I see it is that the 3RR rule allows a certain amount of room for interpretation; therefore whoever is the admin handling a particular case has some freedom to use their judgement. Some things are clearly reverts; some are clearly not reverts; and some are in a gray area. When an uninvolved admin handling a case makes a decision on one of those, I think it's best if everyone just accepts it. I think the edits Elonka was describing above were in that gray area. If there has been a lot of disagreement over whether a certain word can appear in the article or not, then an edit including that word is probably a revert (although it might be in a gray area if you put a word like "somewhat" just before it); but just putting in something that happens to contain the word "and", when the word "and" had been deleted along with some other words previously, is almost certainly not a revert. Similar reasoning can apply to longer passages. Anyway, that's my interpretation of the policy, for what it's worth. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you see that the 3RR rule allows a certain amount of room for interpretation and what specific text of policy you came across to conclude your interpretation of policy.

Why do you think it's best if everyone just accepts it when an uninvolved admin makes a decision.

Why do you think the edits Elonka was describing above were in that gray area when the text was identical? QuackGuru 19:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, what do you think about this documented revert below.

Elonka, what are you going to do about this revert.

Here was my edit.

Here was a clear revert.

Where should this be reported? QuackGuru 18:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, unfortunately QG, certain editors will not have have action taken against them by certain admins. At least that is the evidence to date. Mind you, it would be very constructive to see the certain admins break out of their POV shells. Shot info (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, Shot info has been cautioned about reverting, and if he does it again, will be banned and/or blocked. However, it was a violation of WP:POINT for you to strike through the editing conditions. Better would have been for you to start a section on the talkpage with a diff of the revert, or post a note on my own talkpage. Thanks, --Elonka 16:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a violation of WP:AGF by Elonka to accuse me of a point violation.

Ludwigs2 has made revert after revert but Ludwigs2 was not banned.

Here was my edit.

Here was a clear revert.

Elonka did a revert too. 0RR is not being strictly enforced. QuackGuru 17:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Here was a revert. The neutrality tag was removed a while ago. QuackGuru 17:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, your expose your biases. Shot info (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at QuackGuru's diffs. The first two do not show a revert, they show a legitimate change to the text. The article was not reverted to an earlier version, but instead changed to something different. The third diff was my change to the talkpage to fix the conditions for editing, which QuackGuru should not have been changing in the first place, since that section is for administrators only. The fourth diff does not look like a revert to me, but I am willing to review further evidence... When was the last time that the tag was on the article? --Elonka 22:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a location on the article's talkpage for you to clarify the rules. I have also returned the tag to the article. It will probably stay until editors can understand exactly how NPOV the article needs to be such that the tag can be removed to your satisfaction. BTW, Lugwids revert is clearly a revert, but it's not surprising that you miss it. Shot info (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You can check the article history for the last time the tag was in the article.

The conditioning of editing has failed the community. There is currently a WEIGHT violation in the article. Only a revert would fix it.

Elonka, please see WP:3RR. You should understand by now what is a revert. QuackGuru 02:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(<<outdent) Sorry, when I commented earlier I didn't know the context of this discussion. At Talk:Quackwatch, Elonka has posted a 0RR rule, and this rule includes a definition of "revert". This definition is different from the definition at 3RR. For this 0RR rule, it makes sense that it's the definition posted by Elonka that applies. Every definition, except perhaps in mathematics, has some gray areas. Since Elonka wrote the definition, I think Elonka has the prerogative to specify what it means in those gray areas. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The defintion of a revert is explained at WP:3RR. We don't make up our own definitions. QuackGuru 02:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Words have a variety of definitions. The person using a word usually gets to specify its meaning. Dictionaries usually list several meanings for a given word. In this case, Elonka has spelled out the definition to be used with this rule, like a good mathematician. I don't think you'll find any Misplaced Pages policy saying that defining words isn't allowed. Defining words is a normal part of communicating.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case, redefining 3RR is unexplained. WP:3RR should not be changed without consensus. Elonka is misdefining 3RR. QuackGuru 03:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Elonka is redefining 3RR. I think the three-revert rule still applies, just the same as ever. What Elonka has done is write a new rule. Elonka wrote, in part (points 1,2 and 5 in the original):

::::* 0RR, meaning No reverts, except for obvious vandalism.

• A "revert" is defined as something that might be done with the "undo" or "rollback" buttons, or any manual edit which effectively does a clean revert to a previous version of the article. However, changes to the work of other editors are allowed, and even encouraged, as long as an attempt is made to try different compromise wording than what has been tried in the past. ...
• If you see someone add something that you disagree with, don't revert it, change it. Specifically: Try to change it to a compromise wording, or add some (sourced) alternate view wording nearby.

::::*Do not use the "undo" or "rollback" button or do a clean revert to a previous version of the article, unless you're reverting vandalism. However, changes to the work of other editors are allowed, and even encouraged, as long as an attempt is made to try different compromise wording than what has been tried in the past.

• If you see someone add something that you disagree with, don't do a clean revert of it to a previous version of the article; instead, change it. Specifically: Try to change it to a compromise wording, or add some (sourced) alternate view wording nearby.

According to what rule we can make new rules and ignore 'what is a revert' per WP:3RR. QuackGuru 00:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

When interpreting 3RR, one uses the proper definition of the word for that. When reading my paraphrase above, the same definition can be used. I see no problem with using the same word in a different context to mean something different, as Elonka has done. However, no one is ignoring that when applying the 3RR, the "what is a revert" section of that policy has to be used. Please note that at WP:3RR#What is a revert?, it says "A revert, in this context, means..." (emphasis mine). Elonka's rule is a different context. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If Elonka's rule is a different context that means 3RR is not being applied. When "what is a revert" section of that policy is not used it is being ignored. QuackGuru 01:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to temporarily ignore a definition which is irrelevant in the context one is currently considering. We naturally do that all the time, since most words have several possible definitions. Doing that is quite different from "ignoring" a policy in the sense of carelessly violating it. When considering whether 3RR is being violated or not, the definition of revert from the 3RR page is used. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We should not ignore the defintion of a revert when it is relevant to the article. What is a revert is relevant and should not be changed to a new definition of a revert without consensus. QuackGuru 01:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree to disagree about that? I believe that a person expressing themself in a signed comment on a talk page can use words to mean what they want them to mean. You believe definitions of words should be more constant. I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other. I don't think there's any policy supporting one view or the other.

However, I'm guessing that what you may be concerned about is that if you assume Elonka's definition is being applied and edit on that basis, then another administrator may use the 3RR definition of revert and block you for violating 0RR. I think you're wise to proceed with caution and discuss things on the talk page first, to be on the safe side; although, on the other hand, Elonka has encouraged you to change the article if you have a problem with it. Coppertwig (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be more wise not to proceed and avoid such editing conditions that are vague and against standard Misplaced Pages policy. QuackGuru 17:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(<<outdent) Unfortunately, the result may be, then, that only the boldest editors continue to edit the page, leading to greater conflict. However, others can contribute on the talk page and may have a moderating influence by doing that.
I wouldn't say that it's against standard Misplaced Pages policy: I'd say that it's in addition to standard Misplaced Pages policy, and I don't think it's any more vague than the standard Misplaced Pages policy is. Are you saying it's "against" standard Misplaced Pages policy because a different definition of "revert" is used? What about the paraphrasing I gave above, which doesn't use any new definitions?
You could try, perhaps, asking on the talk page whether a certain edit would be considered a revert; though it probably makes more sense to ask whether an edit has the support of other editors. In any case, I think it's a good idea to be careful. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The see also section has an unnecessary link. There is also duplication in the article. The same ref and similar sentences are duplicated in the article. If I remove one of the similar sentences it would count as a revert. Clearly, the conditions of editing will never work. QuackGuru 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean; however, I think removing a sentence would probably not violate Elonka's rule. She didn't apply 0RR using the definition of revert from 3RR, in order to avoid the sort of stagnation you describe. However, whether the conditions will "work" may depend on one's goals. If the primary goal of the uninvolved admins is to minimize wikidrama, then even if the problems you describe cannot be overcome, the conditions may still "work" almost as effectively as page-protection.

What's your goal in this discussion?

Why aren't you making suggestions for edits at Talk:Quackwatch? You had made a suggestion on July 22; why not make a more specific version of the same suggestion, involving other changes too aimed at trying to reach compromise, in order to comply with Elonka's rule? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka's rule is against Misplaced Pages policy.

Here are two refs I was going to add to the article. The article can be improved but I think I have lost interest. QuackGuru 03:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets see what happens

I wonder if the powers that be will regard this as being different to this? Wonder it will be yes more evidence of bias? Will be interesting to see what happens. Shot info (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, a prediction - I bet you that this will receive a warning while others with a shared POV won't :-). O only to have the faith to overcome the evidence. Shot info (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with false statements

Re your comment "Shell Kinney has made false statements on my talk page to support Elonka. ... I striked the dishonesty"

Shell implied you were accusing Elonka of lying. I think Shell was wrong about that. I think you weren't accusing Elonka of lying.
But I think it's better not to say "dishonesty". It's better to just say "that's false".
It's all because people disagree about definitions of "revert". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I see people misdefining what is a revert and creating new defintions which are not based on any Misplaced Pages policy. Elonka knows it was a real revert in the context of 3RR. I could explain more if needed if Elonka denies it. QuackGuru 06:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you're talking about 3RR, it could be a revert by that definition. I thought nobody was anywhere near 3 reverts, though, so 3RR seems irrelevant in that situation. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

By the definition of 3RR all of the edits that I explained were reverts and it is relevant to this situation because there is a 0RR. 0RR means no reverts. Elonka made up a new defintion of a revert that is confusing and not part of Wikiupedia policy. I was part of an experiment. Now the experiment failed. QuackGuru 17:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka initially falsely stated I was misdefining the term revert but Coppertwig agreed with me what is the definition of a real revert. QuackGuru 03:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Please be careful to quote correctly. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I know you did not say it but you wrote it.

Coppertwig wrote in part: OK, if you're talking about 3RR, it could be a revert by that definition.

I agree with Coppertwig. QuackGuru 03:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you wrote, "Coppertwig agreed with me what is the definition of a real revert." That's not true. I did not agree with you what is the definition of a real revert. In the edit summary, you wrote, " Evidence that Elonka misdefined what is a revert according to Coppertwig." I object to your saying "according to Coppertwig" because it gives the impression that I stated something that I didn't state: I didn't state that Elonka had misdefined what is a revert, and I didn't support a definition of revert that made anything Elonka said into a misdefinition.

After I pointed out above that you had misquoted me, you said, ":I know you did not say it but you wrote it." That's not true. I didn't write anything to support your claim "Coppertwig agreed with me what is the definition of a real revert." In the edit summary you said, " Evidence that Elonka misdefined what is a revert according to Coppertwig's agreement what is a real revert" This is misquoting me. I didn't agree "what is a real revert" in this context.

Please be very careful not to misquote me. Here's a suggestion: you can greatly reduce the chances of accidentally misquoting me by doing this: avoid indirect speech, quote only my exact words and quote only entire sentences. Thanks.

Whenever you quote this: "OK, if you're talking about 3RR, it could be a revert by that definition," I would appreciate it if you would always also include my following sentence, " I thought nobody was anywhere near 3 reverts, though, so 3RR seems irrelevant in that situation." Otherwise, you're quoting me out of context. You may agree with only the first sentence if you choose, but please don't give the impression that I support a position I don't support. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig wrote: OK, if you're talking about 3RR, it could be a revert by that definition. I thought nobody was anywhere near 3 reverts, though, so 3RR seems irrelevant in that situation.

The first part Coppertwig wrote was: OK, if you're talking about 3RR, it could be a revert by that definition.

Clearly Coppertwig acknowledged it was the definition of a revert in the context of 3RR but Elonka originally claimed I was misdefining what is a revert.

Coppertwig, I don't think I misquoted you. I think you agreed what is a real revert in the context of 3RR. Coppertwig, See WP:HONEST. QuackGuru 16:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, when Elonka said you were misdefining revert, maybe she misunderstood: she probably thought you were talking about reverts in the context of the 0RR editing condition on that page, which has its own definition of revert. If you were talking about the 3RR rule, I think she didn't understand that. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

At first, Coppertwig claimed it was gray area about the reverts when it was not. I did not misdefine anything. The 3RR does apply to the Quackwatch article. Elonka never wrote 3RR does not apply. Elonka's explanation on the talk page leaves room for interpretation. Elonka does understand what is a revert and I don't see Elonka saying there was a misunderstanding. QuackGuru 17:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV discussion on Talk:Ronz

Thanks for the comment. I agree. I also think that we've made some great progress in learning how to work toward NPOV in the Barrett-related articles. Of course, that progress is relative and ongoing. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

I added a comment on the article's talk page relative to your question. Basically, I changed my mind. But I think the article could benefit from a clearer statement that the field isn't medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calamitybrook (talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I was just looking at the "rational skepticism" page and notice you're a member. I'm trying to refrain from an edit war (with a single editor) on the page "wilderness diarrhea." The phrase is, among other things a pseudo-category of medicine. It's the subject of much deeply entrenched folklore, as well as much research that suggests that a fair bit of the concern is based on folklore and confusion.

I added an item to RS talk page, trying to make a low-key suggestion that the page could benefit from some comment, attention, whatever.Calamitybrook (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

0RR is a game

The bigger problem with 0RR is that quality work can be written over. The new text can be poorly written and nobody can revert back to quality text. The editing conditions at Quackwatch is gaming the system. QuackGuru 23:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

0RR is a method for POV to be fixed. I'd never follow it. OrangeMarlin 23:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Orthomolecular

Hi there. I've been trying to find a form of words that might cover the same ground as that pseudoscience box and be acceptable to everybody involved. I think most of the editors on the page would agree that OM isn't as unreal as homeopathy or therapeutic touch, but is obviously seen as not mainstream science. Could you live with "This lack of serious testing of orthomolecular medicine has led to its practices being classed with other less plausible forms of alternative medicine and regarded as unscientific." diff? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bates method

Please join the discussion so it doesn't look like you're just edit-warring, as it appears another editor is doing. --Ronz (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest just ignoring Levine2112. He seems to think, judging by his reverts, that WP:SELFPUB excludes NPOV and OR concerns. He's offered a solution to resolve this: a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:V. Until he follows through with that solution, I suggest ignoring any comments of his that ignore the NPOV and OR concerns.

PSWG1920, on the other hand, is asking good questions, making good comments, and generally following WP:TALK and WP:CON. I don't want the talk page disrupted in such a way that it would prevent or otherwise discourage PSWG1920's patience and good faith efforts to resolve the concerns.

Given that the editors ignore all my suggestions on how to improve the article so it's not violating NPOV and OR, would you like to work together on it? I've already outlined the steps, and the first is already started: listing the independent references. PSWG1920 has already listed three. We should finish the list, then start summarizing each in a few sentences on the talk page so we're clear what these sources say about the Bates method. If you haven't looked at them, you'll notice none are favorable. You certainly wouldn't guess that by reading the article though. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just ignoring an editor would violate the WP:CONSENSUS policy. Please try to find a common understanding. Ronz, while Levine2112 may seem to you to be using SELFPUB to ignore NPOV and OR, on the other hand I think you seem to Levine2112 to be using NPOV and OR to override SELFPUB. In fact, I think both of you are trying to follow all three policies, but just have different interpretations of how to apply them to this situation. It requires discussion to untangle that.

You see the descriptions of the Bates method as being "interpretive" etc. Levine2112 sees them as being merely descriptive. Could you go into more detail about what it is about those descriptions that seems "interpretive" etc. to you? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Ignoring an editor is recommended in cases of disruption, baiting, etc. As I've pointed out above, I'm concerned that the back-and-forth between Levine2112 and QuackGuru is rapidly becoming disruptive to the other editors.

I'm going ahead with my suggestions outlined on the article talk page and above. I've suggested that QuackGuru might want to assist. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What do we do when editors violate NPOV. We have a choice, NPOV or consensus. Take your pick. QuackGuru 02:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to choose between NPOV and CON. Simply, when other editors cannot follow WP:TALK and CON themselves, they're contributions to become less and less relevant. --Ronz (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Independant sources v. unreliable sources

Just a comment regarding Ronz's statement that "none {of the independent sources} are favorable {to the Bates method.) You certainly wouldn't guess that by reading the article though." If you see it that way, then the more immediate (and more constructive) step toward a solution is to add to the article rather than delete from it. Certainly there is criticism in the sources which has not yet been incorporated into the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Independent sources are considered more reliable on Misplaced Pages. We should not also add "favorable" sources when reliable sources are available. QuackGuru 04:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think independent sources are always considered more reliable. A primary source may be a more reliable source for describing details; for example, a person's writings may in some circumstances be a more reliable source to establish what that person said or believed, than someone else writing about that person. Citing of primary sources is allowed as long as it's only descriptive etc. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The problems with primary sources are that they cannot be used alone without risking OR and POV problems. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. Just quoting some material can often imply a POV, depending on the context and manner in which it's quoted. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

References for Quackwatch

Here are two references I was going to add to the Quackwatch article but I forgot what I was going to write. Please give it a try if anyone is interested. I have lost interest in editing the article. Thanks. QuackGuru 04:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is medical reliable sources discussion?

I've seen you post about it, but can't find the article. It's from one of the projects where they discuss not cherry-picking research papers and similar topics related to RS, NPOV and OR. Thanks for your help! --Ronz (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Found it: WP:MEDRS --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

medicare website unreliable?

I find it incomprehensible that you are suggesting the official government Medicare (Australia) website is not a reliable source of information about Medicare (Australia) over at Chiropractic --Surturz (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

All three refs are unreliable. Please remove them. QuackGuru 05:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

On what basis are you arguing that the official Australian government Medicare website is unreliable? --Surturz (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I revieved all threee refs and they are all unreliable. See WP:V. QuackGuru 05:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

On what basis are they unreliable? Which part of WP:V are you referring to? I replaced the first link with , is that satisfactory to you? --Surturz (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Only one ref is V. The other two will be removed. See WP:SOURCES.

What is the relevancy of this information to cost-effectiveness. QuackGuru 05:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I ask for the third time, on what basis are you saying that the Medicare website is an unreliable source? Simply pointing out WP policy pages is not helpful unless you indicate which part of the policy is relevant. As for your relevancy doubts, are you saying that "cost" is unrelated to "cost-effectiveness"? "Who pays" is very relevant to any discussion of cost-effectiveness. Unlike medical care in Australia, the cost of chiropractic is usually paid by the patient. I haven't included the funding comparison in the article (yet) because I don't want to be accused of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR--Surturz (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You have not explained how the refs are reliable. So WP:PROVEIT.

The section is called cost-effectiveness. All the refs and info will be deleted. The irrelevant info will be deleted. QuackGuru 05:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My god QG! Start behaving. The guy is asking a legitimate question and you aren't answering. Tell precisely what was unreliable about the last two refs. Just be reasonable and cooperative.

As to whether the information is in the wrong section, then suggest a better alternative instead of claiming the sources are unreliable. -- Fyslee / talk 06:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)