Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:52, 14 January 2015

Archives

2004-7 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Thank you

Thanks for carrying out the edits to E-cigarette. But edit requested in OR accusations was not included in first revert. The line "With observable differences among various brands, drugs like rimonabant for weight loss and amino tadalafil for erectile dysfunction are included in the cartridge solution." can still be found in the e-liquid subsection. Thanks for your time and if this should have been placed elsewhere or if the request wasnt clear enough I apologize. AlbinoFerret 21:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, but the request was not clear to someone not familiar with the article :) I'll take a look again later. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably my fault, and I will remember to do that the next time a change has to be made to a protected page, this was the first time I have had to request edits. Whenever you get to it. AlbinoFerret 22:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No consensus

There were more than one RFC. There is no consensus to move the sections. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Edit_Request. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The RFC found no no consensus for a medical order and the order it was in was POV driven.link There was rough consensus for the move. Late comers like yourself are now complaining. One problem about the move is that 3.6 Device generations 3.7 Atomizer 3.8 Power and 3.9 E-liquid were Sub sections of Construction, they were not moved.AlbinoFerret 21:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I see the majority of contributors making progress and reaching compromise, and 1 or 2 bleating "no consensus" from the sidelines, without actually specifying their objection to the proposed change. In these situations I give those objections the weight they merit. Of course, consensus can change and nothing is set in stone. But I believe the change was appropriate at this time. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. However as AF pointed out it looks like you accidentally left some sections that belong under Construction behind, so they're now under Health Effects. Those are 3.6-3.9. It would be great if you could move those. Thanks again!--FergusM1970 21:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha, will do shortly. I was trying to sort everything out on Draft:Electronic cigarette first, obviously failed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. It's a mammoth article, despite most of the content being utter crap.--FergusM1970 22:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Would recommend you revert here . The previous discussion was closed as no consensus. It is currently 4 to 4. And the discussion has been one a grand total of ONE day. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No. this is the relevant RfC, and it found no grounds for retaining the medical ordering.--FergusM1970 06:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc James just tried to revert the page order. AlbinoFerret 19:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

One needs consensus for a change. "No consensus" means that change does not occur. It does not mean that User:FergusM1970 and User:AlbinoFerret should now edit war like mad to get their prefered version into place. Time to take this to ANI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who's edit-warring, Doc. I have asked for an admin to look into this.--FergusM1970 20:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So your solution is edit warring by reverting the page over and over? I think there is a problem here. AlbinoFerret 20:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus wept. So Doc James started an edit war and as a result the page has now been locked again, with his preferred version frozen in. MSGJ, any chance you could restore the edit from yesterday? Thanks.--FergusM1970 20:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There are now 5 against the change and 4 in support of it. MSGJ closing a discussion after 1 day is not appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

What would be appropriate is if editors accepted the consensus and the change and then moved on. As a side note, nobody appears to have notified interested editors of this discussion. Misplaced Pages makes decisions based on consensus not on a vote, but in any case the reported 5-4 against the change is not accurate.

• Editors who supported the change: Levelledout, FergusM1970, Bluerasberry, AlbinoFerret, A1candidate, TheNorlo, SPACKlick (7)
• Editors who opposed it: DocJames, Cloudjpk, QuackGuru, Formerly98 (4)

That certainly represents a majority, but more importantly none of the editors who opposed it gave detailed explanations of their reasons for opposing the change, most of them gave barely any explanation beyond an "it isn't necessary" type response which is not adequate enough to consider.Levelledout (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you all still here? There's not much I can help with. I just pop around answering {{editprotected}} requests. I can't know the full history behind every article, so all I do is try and assess consensus that I see at that point in time. If there is a future request, I may well be the one who looks at it. I see the article is again protected - this is probably needed - although another valid solution would have been to block Doc James for edit-warring. I wonder if this was considered. I advise you all to return to the article talk page and continue the collaboration and compromise. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes; in fact I took Doc James's behavior to AN/I, but it's fizzled out unfortunately.--FergusM1970 03:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy!

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine

E-cigs

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello MSGJ, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Advice, please..?

Thank you for undoing those pre-emptive changes.

What do you make of this..? The most recent post leaves me wondering how best to proceed. (If there's someone or somewhere else I should ask, please advise.)

Hoping your New Year was/is sufficiently peaceful, Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

PS In case you haven't already seen it, this also adds some context.

Did you feel unable or unwilling to advise or indicate that there'd be no response..?  If I've offended you in some way, please indicate how and accept my apologies. Sincerely, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I just wasn't sure how to respond and didn't have much time to look into the circumstances then. I remain concerned by the interactions between yourself and Edokter. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I also remain concerned, although the Incidents thread is now archived and, for the past few days, Edokter has been less evident here. Having said that, I've just noticed this and this. (Is his rationale sufficient? If so, perhaps {{Start div col}} and {{End div col}} should, therefore, be protected..?)

Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If you prefer that name, then request a move. -- ] {{talk}} 12:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sardanaphalus, if you want them protected, you'll need to get the community to approve the foundation's superprotect or get Edokter de-sysoped. I don't find either likely in this scenario. I remained concerned as well about the interactions. More so concerned with how you are handling it than he. If I may, I'd recommend just letting it go. This is only Misplaced Pages after all, and there is no need to stress yourself out over something so trivial. You can always propose a change later once you've gotten some more experience in (if you still feel it is necessary). That's all the advice I can give at this time, good luck! — {{U|Technical 13}} 15:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

What does superprotect have to do with it? Redirects can be semi- template- or fully-protected just like any other page, by filing a request at WP:RFPP. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Redrose64, he or she suggesting that the page be protected so that Edokter, who is an admin, can't edit it further. The only way that I know of a page could be protected to prevent an administrator from editing is with superprotect. — {{U|Technical 13}} 20:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not what Sardanaphalus is asking for. They are suggesting that if the redirects Template:Start div col and Template:End div col have the same protection as the templates that they point to, Edokter wouldn't be able to use "redirect is unprotected; use protected template" as a reason for bypassing the redirect. As things stand, either or both of the redirects could be repurposed or vandalised, compromising those pages where they are used. If they were to be given full protection, any repurposing would probably be reverted as undiscussed, and the risk of vandalism would be pretty much eliminated. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I made this suggestion here (first paragraph) but, it seems, to no avail. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

PS (@Redrose64:) Did you receive a ping a few days ago from Template talk:Div col..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardanaphalus (talk • contribs) 00:21, 14 January 2015

No, I didn't. I've been back through the last six months of notifications, and there are none where you mentioned me. Notification of talk page mentions can fail easily, the rules under which a notification is triggered are very sensitive to errors (see WT:Echo for some common complaints). It would help if you stated which edit you are referring to, since I have been mentioned several times on that talk page. Assuming that you mean this edit, I expect it didn't notify me because it appears that you modified an existing post. I also didn't get a notification for being mentioned in the post to which I am now replying: in this case, the notification failed because you didn't sign it. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks for these reports – although, as the attempted "ping" was only a few days ago, six months seems quite extensive (or has datestamping previously gone awry..?). Edokter has again taken it upon himself to decide not only that a discussion has ended but that it should be marked as such, but, as I'm interested to know what you make of my response to your most recent comments there. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That didn't notify me either. There must be something wrong with the way that you attempt to notify people. And did it not occur to you that since I've said (several times) that I can't work out what the heck you want at Template talk:Div col, I'm simply ignoring it? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

My main problem with the redirect is that they are created to circumvent proces. If Sardanaphalus wanted 'Start div col' to be the primary name, he should request a move, not create a redirect and then changing all current invocation to point to the redirect. For one, that leaves it open to vandalism (which could be fixed by protection), but my main concern is increase in maintenance. As WP:REDIRECT#Template redirects states: "Redirects for templates can cause confusion and make updating template calls more complicated." That is the reason they are strongly discouraged. He should have requested a move instead, but I think he knows it would fail, so he creates the redirect instead so he can 'force' the use of his preferred name anyway. I find that sneaky and underhanded. That is why I will keep reverting, until Sardanaphalus will see the light and follow the proper procedures. -- ] {{talk}} 00:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This whole issue is of incredible triviality and not worth the energy you two are expending. Replacing template calls en masse with redirects would be disruptive. I really don't see this happening here, as they are being used either when the template wasn't called before, or as part of other more significant changes. Therefore I don't see your reverting as beneficial Edokter. Surely there are more important things you could be worrying about? And the charge of "circumventing process" is a little rich considering your actions earlier this month for which you were roundly criticised. I suggest you both find something better to do - this bickering is unbecoming. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It's the "or as part of other more significant changes" part that I find extremely disturbing. But what's more, it's Sardanaphalus' unwillingness to discuss it. What other choice do I have to force him into dialogue? -- ] {{talk}} 10:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If I spend time working on a template, I will quite often change the code spacing to my preferred format, bypass redirects, etc. It's analogous to an editor who, when rewriting an article, decides to change the style of the references. None of these activities would be deemed acceptable if they were made en masse or without significant other changes, but are perfectly fine on a case-by-case basis. Why does this bother you so much anyway? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Because he's doing the exact opposite. He's not bypassing redirects; he is intentionally pointing to them. He replaces instances calling a protected template with calls to unprotected, self-created redirects, and all that only because he prefers another name. I tried explaining this in the RfD, and why the redirect guidelines prohibits this. But it all seems to fall on deaf ears. It is extremenly frustrating to try and explain this to non-technical editors, but I am the one ultimately having to deal with the technical ramifications; it only takes one act of vandalism of a redirect that has slipped under the radar to do some real damage, and the tech guys are left searching for the source. That is why I am making such a big deal out of it. -- ] {{talk}} 12:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Martin, here's an example of adding redirects rather than bypassing them. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you an ArbCom clerk?

In reference to this edit, are you an ArbCom clerk? If not, you shouldn't be modifying other editor's posts without their permission. Even if you are, you shouldn't mark such huge changes as minor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No I am not, although there is no prohibition to other editors making such edits and Misplaced Pages:Be bold is a whole site guideline. (I see you have reverted, as is your prerogative.) I do not regard it as a "huge change" and I did not see it as modifying other editors' posts because I only adjusted the heading and not the content of their post. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I award you this barnstar in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service BlastMan 456 (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists