| Revision as of 23:08, 7 November 2014 editAlbinoFerret (talk | contribs)11,178 edits →November 2014← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:10, 7 November 2014 edit undoAlbinoFerret (talk | contribs)11,178 edits →November 2014Next edit → | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
| :::Sorry, I didnt think about the information ], which was already on the page. I have reverted the content and removed the section headers. ] 22:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC) | :::Sorry, I didnt think about the information ], which was already on the page. I have reverted the content and removed the section headers. ] 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). ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 22:19, 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). ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 22:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::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 |
:::::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. Perhaps after the page order is decided we can add them again, but at this time its premature. ] 23:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:10, 7 November 2014
| 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 Misplaced Pages 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/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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
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) 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 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 22:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- 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. 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 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 22:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)