→Chiropractic: re |
|||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
:: Since it's not a proper noun, I dropped the capitalization. See [[MOS:CAP]]. – [[User:Voidxor|voidxor]] <small><sup>([[User talk:Voidxor|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Voidxor|contrib]])</sup></small> 06:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC) |
:: Since it's not a proper noun, I dropped the capitalization. See [[MOS:CAP]]. – [[User:Voidxor|voidxor]] <small><sup>([[User talk:Voidxor|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Voidxor|contrib]])</sup></small> 06:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::It is known as Innate Intelligence. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 06:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC) |
:::It is known as Innate Intelligence. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="vermillion">'''QuackGuru'''</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<font color="burntorange">talk</font>]]) 06:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::: That's a grammatical issue, and Wikipedia's guideline is at [[MOS:CAP]]. How it is capitalized off of Wikipedia is really of no consequence. – [[User:Voidxor|voidxor]] <small><sup>([[User talk:Voidxor|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Voidxor|contrib]])</sup></small> 06:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:39, 8 May 2015
Thanks
Thanks for the tip about WP:QUACKS, and I appreciate the advice to leave the essay alone. When you edited the essay, the changes I'd put in had already been reverted. Some have been put back in but I think my version was better than what's there now - or as better as this essay can get. Given that there's still pressure to make it about finding Wifione-type editors and at least one editor is (mis)using the essay to claim that editors at Organic food are advocates because they're against this editor, I don't see much hope for it. I don't necessarily think it'll be deleted if it goes to mainspace but I also don't think it's that useful since it doesn't fill much of a gap. I've done what I could to improve it and I don't see the point in trying to make it better now so I'm done with it. Anyways, thanks again. Ca2james (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- The essay has little focus. I think the real question is what is an advocacy duck? The original essay was accusing others who closely follow WP policy of having a COI. I noticed the new essay has been improved recently but I don't see how it can help anyone. The new essay says "COI ducks are ducks of a different color." That does not make sense. The essay seems to claim that a duck is an editor who has a COI. QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- User:Ca2james after reading this comment I think the confusing essay should be deleted. The essay is being (mis)used to make accusations against others. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The dispute has bubbled over to ArbCom
See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Complementary and Alternative Medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Chiropractic
Hi QuackGuru! I appreciate your help on Chiropractic, but thought you should know about a couple Wikipedia style guidelines:
- "...citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods and commas."
- "...it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph..."
Both of these are defined in the WP:CITEFOOT guideline. Exceptions are rare (like only for very controversial wording), and I'm sure you'll find that 99% of the time elsewhere on Wikipedia, citations are indeed after the punctuation at a natural break in the sentence. The reason for this is to not breakup sentences with little blue citation marks, which would make them somewhat choppy to the eye. Thanks, and happy editing! – voidxor (talk | contrib) 05:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- "The citation should be added close to the material it supports,..." See WP:CITEFOOT. QuackGuru (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- True, although the end of the clause or sentence is "close to". And "close to" differs from "on top of", which is your practice. Furthermore, if "close to" meant immediately after the word, then WP:CITEFOOT would be contridicting itself when it says "...citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods and commas."
- I suggest comparing the way citation placement is done on Chiropractic to other random Wikipedia articles. Chiropractic had a lot more mid-clause refs than is typical. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 06:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)