| Revision as of 01:03, 24 August 2014 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,168 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:QuackGuru/Archive 2) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:17, 24 August 2014 edit undoQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits archiveNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| |archive = User talk:QuackGuru/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:QuackGuru/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Question == | |||
| Have you authored any medical articles? If so please list. - ] (]) | |||
| == Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion == | |||
| Hello, QuackGuru. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:NPOVN-notice--> Thank you. | |||
| == Undoing other people's work == | |||
| Mr. Quack, | |||
| It is inappropriate to delete my material based on an assertion that my few additional sentences and documented references somehow makes the section on chiropractic regulation too-long. For someone unfamiliar with regulatory and licensing constructs, my contributions would be quite helpful. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| {{talkback|Talk:Chiropractic#Kshilts' edits 15-18 July 2014}} ] (]) 23:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Mr. Quack, | |||
| Thank you for your recent comment. I agree that the entire Chiropractic WP page is ridiculously too long. I think the frivolous comments about 4th-year student stress, personal struggles and student infighting are not important to this section. I also think the unsoursed inflammatory statement about educational equivalencies is inappropriate. I'll fix these for you, this should help shorten this section. | |||
| My objective is to have the LICENSING, EDUCATION and REGULATORY section of any regulated profession accurate, pertinent and informative. I believe the current chiropractic page information lacks this essential information. And yes, write it as brief as possible. ] (]) 15:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Refs into body == | |||
| Why move refs into body? I find having them in the reference section makes working on them easier. Any policy either way? - - ] (]) 19:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Refs are usually in the body on the articles I edit. I don't know if there is a specific policy on this. ] (]) 19:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your contributions. I find them in both places. I find having them in a list in the refs section makes working on them easier. I reverted you for my convenience. If you have strong objections you can redo. Best. - - ] (]) 20:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::When I initially tried to it was a bit confusing where the sources were. I think at WikiProject Medicine they may guidance for the placement of sources. ] (]) 20:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: There are MoS statements which say that either style is allowed, but the one who created the article usually has some right to decide which style they will use. If they were to object, their wishes should probably be respected, but with old articles there may not be any special preference anymore. Just be careful. | |||
| :::: I have always used the most common method, which is having the references spread around within the text, but it is messy and makes editing harder. So, when I created the ] article, I decided to try the "list-defined references" style. If you click on the References link there, you'll see this note: | |||
| ::::* This article uses "list-defined references", per ]. | |||
| ::::* To ease editing and avoid confusion and duplication of sources, the references below are in alphabetical order by ref name. | |||
| ::::* While other citation templates are not forbidden, this basic template has been used for most references: | |||
| ::::* <nowiki><ref name= >{{Citation |last= |first= |date= |title= |publisher= |url= |accessdate= }}</ref></nowiki> | |||
| :::: That means the article only has the short "name" references in the text, which makes for a cleaner editing experience. When anyone adds references, I move the ref to the bottom and use that citation template, unless another citation template has been used and is working fine. I have also tried to follow the advice from my essay: ]. -- ] (]) 20:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If an article has many refs in the Reference section it is difficult to find any ref if someone wants to update or the remove the ref. The alphabetical order by ref name definitely makes it easier to find each ref for that particular article. ] (]) 20:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent|:::::}}I posted a query at Proj Med. As I do a lot of work on references I will make note of the alphabetization and try to do that in reflists. Thanks for the discussion QG and input BR. I hope this sort of collaboration isn't seen as an activity of the . As a result of the "hit squad" comment I choose to limit my interaction and discussion on user talk pages. I will state here I act completely independently and have been known to raise objections to QG's edits and comments. I have noted a positive increase in collaborative tone in such comments. Best wishes and happy editing. - - ] (]) 20:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :], thanks for that diff above. I didn't notice that. If there are a lot of refs it is easier for me if the refs are in the body. | |||
| :Technophant is actually Stillwaterising. | |||
| :Stillwaterising is from Texas. The is also from Texas. See http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/99.35.189.129 | |||
| :The edit by the IP appears to be . The IP is also from Texas. See http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/71.40.3.92 I think a SPI would clarify this matter. See ]. | |||
| :The IP 71.40.3.92 calls ] a "pit bulldog" https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:The_Banner&diff=prev&oldid=618267342 | |||
| :It was odd the IP 71.40.3.92 claims "I'm new to this debate, however there seems to be a pattern." | |||
| :Technophant call BullRangifer "The Pit Bull" https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Technophant&diff=next&oldid=618435864 | |||
| :There appears to be evidence of socking. I'm busy right now but others are free to investigate this incident. ] (]) 21:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You can add to the list. A very feeble attempt to seem foreign. -- ] (]) 04:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I still differ with QG on the refs in body vs list. Can't you easily locate them by using the search feature on your browser by ref name? Also if they are in the reflist you can leave them in place but remark them out so if consensus leads to support for them they can be used with ease. We may just have to agree to disagree (congenially I hope) and hope it doesn't make for problems in editing. As BR said CITVAR sides with the original author or prevailing format. I often boldly take things into my own hands as references are a bit of a specialty for me <small>humor: I know how to get them ''right''</small>. | |||
| ::I am staying off the drama boards as best I can. If there is serious suspicion of puppetry someone should make a report. - - ] (]) 21:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The rule is that you leave them the way they are unless their is clear consensus to use one versus the other. The editing community is split on which style they prefer. I like the inline others prefer them at the end. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I have to admit to being a "consensus of one" in many cases where I work on references. I frequently find references in a very poor state and Boldly edit them to uniformity. I realize this may not be in keeping with the letter of policy but I will stand by the quality of my editing. I don't usually move refs to the reflist but I Boldly apply templates. I also find DOI's (pmids, pmcs etc.) working links, archive versions, full author lists and add parameters that make the source of the reference clear. I generally don't encounter objection and when I do I engage on talk and occasionally begrudgingly yield to policy and/or consensus. Although I think my efforts substantially improve the encyclopedia, I don't want to make things harder on other editors or be ''too'' pig headed. Thanks for the input. - - ] (]) 23:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Rest of that has majority support. Most are happy with cite journal templates. Most do not like cite pmid or doi. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :], the guideline is ], and the basic upshot is that nobody should change whatever system is in use, without first getting consensus on the talk page for that article. ] (]) 01:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::What about, "Imposing one style on an article with incompatible citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the formatting consistent"? That's generally considered helpful. I won't be moving refs to the reflist without consensus, but when I encounter an article with refs in six different formats I generally use my preferred style. Few and far between are the articles with a clean uniform citation style. I think it is also valuable to put refs into full detail templates as that supports data collection. When the parameter author is used for a list I break it out first1 etc. I also feel emBoldened when I encounter a mess. As a note I have reworked the references on many articles and ''very'' rarely are any objections raised. Despite my fervent self defense here, I am interested in making sure what I do is helpful and useful and particularly ''not'' creating difficulties for other editors. I will endeavor to pose the issue on the talk page of each article before editing the references. We should really be having this conversation at Project Medicine or some other public forum. - - ] (]) 01:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is ] for ref improvements. See ]. ], there is no need to discuss things on the talk page first for helpful edits. ] (]) 03:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Sorry for the confusion. == | |||
| Hello QuackGuru, I am sorry if my sudden appearance and relative familiarity startled you, I don't blame you for thinking I am a sock puppet if that is something you have previously encountered. I am a long-time lurker of talk pages and edit histories who is fascinated by the wikipedia project, and have watched many pages evolve over a long time as I familiarized myself with the standards and policies of the project. I hope my request for clarification has not offended you and I thank you for your diligent efforts on this project so far. I hope that I can do my own small part in a productive and collaborative manner as well. ] (]) 02:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:17, 24 August 2014
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuackGuru. |