Welcome to my talk page. Please start all conversations at the bottom of the page. Older discussions will be archived. |
|
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Dispute resolution re McNeill for Electronic cigarette article
I requested dispute resolution with respect to this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Violation_of_consensus
Please join the discussion. Mihaister (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks I have left a statement and will be joining in. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Civility
Just because we may disagree does not mean we should begin to insult each other. This comment is not appropriate. [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- That was in response to Quack calling another editors additions ridiculous. This is just overboard. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Electronic cigarette. 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:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
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. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 22:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- The sections were added without consensus, if you want the material in another location, fine. But the majority of the responses to the RFC do not support a medical page. Adding medical sections is without consensus. AlbinoFerret 22:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is nothing that authorizes you to take it upon yourself to blank well-sourced content on that page, let alone to do so repeatedly. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 22:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didnt think about the information Alexbrn, which was already on the page. I have reverted the content and removed the section headers. AlbinoFerret 22:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Cool - that's better :-) (Add: though actually the article is now becoming an unreadable wall of text. I'm not sure you're helping the article here, and these edits smell rather pointed. Just because there's an RfC doesn't mean common sense shouldnt apply). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 22:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Alexbrn, The thing is, more than half of the answers to the RFC prefer a consumer or defacto page order over that of a medical one. Adding medical sections goes against the wishes of the majority of responses. Though they may be sub sections now, nothing is written in stone and the next step is making them full sections as I have seen happen with Positions. As I have learned adding major organizing of the page without consensus is not allowed, and without consensus it goes back to the way it was. Positions was added that way. Perhaps after the page order is decided we can add them again, but at this time its premature. AlbinoFerret 23:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- AlbinoFerret, it is indeed clear that the !votes are roughly 50/50. The actual RfC question is confirming the status quo: it seems likely that if another RfC were posed asking if the structure should be changed away from MEDMOS, the outcome would again be about 50/50 - again no consensus. In cases where there is no consensus, the status quo remains as is until there is consensus to change it. Please see WP:NOCONSENSUS. The writing is on the wall with that. So for what it is worth, I recommend you concentrate on improving the article within that framework. And, if you do have a long-term interest in changing the structure, you should aim at building WP:CONSENSUS - trying to work with other editors, not just to "win". good luck. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Jytdog Even if I follow your line of reasoning, which I already have, your facts are wrong. The question posed by the RFC by the person who started it is "Is this article primarily medical in nature and should it follow the section ordering suggested at WP:MEDMOS?" , which at present it does not match any medical listing there. The article is not in a medical category so it is by default not already a medical article. So it defaults back to being a non medical article. The page order may not change, but adding additional medical sections would be against what already exists. There is no consensus to add additional sections. By removing them it shows there is no consensus. So the default if there is a question, that is not consensus, is to not add them. AlbinoFerret 00:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- AlbinoFerret, it is indeed clear that the !votes are roughly 50/50. The actual RfC question is confirming the status quo: it seems likely that if another RfC were posed asking if the structure should be changed away from MEDMOS, the outcome would again be about 50/50 - again no consensus. In cases where there is no consensus, the status quo remains as is until there is consensus to change it. Please see WP:NOCONSENSUS. The writing is on the wall with that. So for what it is worth, I recommend you concentrate on improving the article within that framework. And, if you do have a long-term interest in changing the structure, you should aim at building WP:CONSENSUS - trying to work with other editors, not just to "win". good luck. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Alexbrn, The thing is, more than half of the answers to the RFC prefer a consumer or defacto page order over that of a medical one. Adding medical sections goes against the wishes of the majority of responses. Though they may be sub sections now, nothing is written in stone and the next step is making them full sections as I have seen happen with Positions. As I have learned adding major organizing of the page without consensus is not allowed, and without consensus it goes back to the way it was. Positions was added that way. Perhaps after the page order is decided we can add them again, but at this time its premature. AlbinoFerret 23:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Cool - that's better :-) (Add: though actually the article is now becoming an unreadable wall of text. I'm not sure you're helping the article here, and these edits smell rather pointed. Just because there's an RfC doesn't mean common sense shouldnt apply). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 22:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didnt think about the information Alexbrn, which was already on the page. I have reverted the content and removed the section headers. AlbinoFerret 22:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is nothing that authorizes you to take it upon yourself to blank well-sourced content on that page, let alone to do so repeatedly. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 22:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- i am with you on the not adding sections bit. i wasn't commenting on that. on what i was commenting on - the overall structure, you ignored what i wrote. i will say it again. to actually change the structure of the article as it stands today, you will need consensus. you are not going to be able to get consensus to change it. so it will remain as is . do see WP:NOCONSENSUS Maybe I need to play that out a bit. If the closer finds that the RfC closes with no consensus, you will take that as a license to change the structure. You will be reverted. It will lead to an RfC. That RfC proposing a new structure, will also very likely end in "no consensus" Per WP:NOCONSENSUS the article will remain as it was. Does that make more sense now? Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Jytdog, No, I never planned that, I have some concept of consensus. The only thing I have said or have plans with the RFC at present is that the slight majority of votes may give some bargaining position in a compromise. The compromise isnt guaranteed, but it would be nice. I am not one for banging my head into a wall, so dont look for me to redo RFC's that have failed. I see some people are masters at using consensus as a tool to stop things they dont want. As I said I have some concept of consensus and the last RFC or two has shown me what a great tool it can be as well as correctly worded RFC's. AlbinoFerret 01:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- i am with you on the not adding sections bit. i wasn't commenting on that. on what i was commenting on - the overall structure, you ignored what i wrote. i will say it again. to actually change the structure of the article as it stands today, you will need consensus. you are not going to be able to get consensus to change it. so it will remain as is . do see WP:NOCONSENSUS Maybe I need to play that out a bit. If the closer finds that the RfC closes with no consensus, you will take that as a license to change the structure. You will be reverted. It will lead to an RfC. That RfC proposing a new structure, will also very likely end in "no consensus" Per WP:NOCONSENSUS the article will remain as it was. Does that make more sense now? Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)