| Revision as of 07:04, 16 March 2015 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Your closing of the AN/I thread: I wrote most of the page. See Safety of electronic cigarettes.← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:00, 18 March 2015 edit undoLevelledout (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,042 edits →E-cig original research?: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| :::::I'm not surprised. He had permission to do exactly that. I think the case request at Arbcom will be closed for other reasons not related to my close. Most likely they will want to first give the community a chance to solve the problem with discretionary sanctions, as proposed on the AN/I thread. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 06:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | :::::I'm not surprised. He had permission to do exactly that. I think the case request at Arbcom will be closed for other reasons not related to my close. Most likely they will want to first give the community a chance to solve the problem with discretionary sanctions, as proposed on the AN/I thread. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 06:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::That's good they will give the community a chance to resolve the disputes as long as things gets resolved. I need a break from editing because of all the sources I read. ] (]) 07:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | ::::::That's good they will give the community a chance to resolve the disputes as long as things gets resolved. I need a break from editing because of all the sources I read. ] (]) 07:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == E-cig original research? == | |||
| Hello Quack, do you get what I am saying in ? It's not that I am trying to be rude just that there must be some sort of misinterpretation going on somewhere. I would be quite happy to elaborate if you need further clarification. Also what I was trying to say was that making claims about individual words being original research that are in fact simply paraphrases is probably not all that productive and that we could be working on more important things.] (]) 21:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:00, 18 March 2015
| 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. |
Talk page
Hi QuackGuru, I noticed that you made the link to this page in your signature the exact same color as the uncreated page links. Could you change that? It's a bit confusing. Thanks, Iwilsonp (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- I removed it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Request for arbitration
I have requested ArbCom resolution of the issues you are involved in on electronic cigarette articles.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- And we've agreed that a sock can't bring a case, so it's been removed. Any editor in good standing can file a new case. Dougweller (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Your closing of the AN/I thread
You are an involved party (!!) and should not have closed that thread. I have re-opened it. Please don't close it again. BMK (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I left a note that it can be reopened. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- It was a bad move to close it, from many perspectives. BMK (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi QuackGuru, I appreciate your boldness in trying to get things moving at AN/I. I wanted to let you know that I have re-closed the thread, and that AlbinoFerret will be taking a 6-month break from e-cigarette articles. He has agreed to leave the disputes behind him, and I expect that you will do the same. Best, ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Now that the thread is closed at ANI editors can move on from the previous disputes and get back to improving the pages. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- That is my hope. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- The thread at Arbcom will probably be closed now since you closed the thread at AN/I. The good news is that I found several new sources for the main page for discussion.
- I'm surprised that AlbinoFerret wants to continue discussing previous disputes. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_User:AlbinoFerret. QuackGuru (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised. He had permission to do exactly that. I think the case request at Arbcom will be closed for other reasons not related to my close. Most likely they will want to first give the community a chance to solve the problem with discretionary sanctions, as proposed on the AN/I thread. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's good they will give the community a chance to resolve the disputes as long as things gets resolved. I need a break from editing because of all the sources I read. QuackGuru (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised. He had permission to do exactly that. I think the case request at Arbcom will be closed for other reasons not related to my close. Most likely they will want to first give the community a chance to solve the problem with discretionary sanctions, as proposed on the AN/I thread. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- That is my hope. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Now that the thread is closed at ANI editors can move on from the previous disputes and get back to improving the pages. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
E-cig original research?
Hello Quack, do you get what I am saying in this post? It's not that I am trying to be rude just that there must be some sort of misinterpretation going on somewhere. I would be quite happy to elaborate if you need further clarification. Also what I was trying to say was that making claims about individual words being original research that are in fact simply paraphrases is probably not all that productive and that we could be working on more important things.Levelledout (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)