User talk:SPACKlick: Difference between revisions
Line 1,055: | Line 1,055: | ||
{{re|SPACKlick}} it's not so much offensive as offputting. The article is already annoying. I could care less about the topic. Have fun with QuackDoc or whatever his nsme is [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 13:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC) |
{{re|SPACKlick}} it's not so much offensive as offputting. The article is already annoying. I could care less about the topic. Have fun with QuackDoc or whatever his nsme is [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 13:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
::As you're so knowledgeable about this, can you explain why {{ping|NeilN}} put a similar notice on my talk re Muhammad images when that was dealt with by individual arb sanctions with no general sanctions whatsoever? [[Special:Contributions/87.81.147.76|87.81.147.76]] ([[User talk:87.81.147.76|talk]]) 16:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Please comment on [[Talk:Minority language#rfc_7A37D8B|Talk:Minority language]] == |
== Please comment on [[Talk:Minority language#rfc_7A37D8B|Talk:Minority language]] == |
Revision as of 16:16, 12 April 2015
Older Discussions
2012 x2
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
2014 x25
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2015 x 7
| ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Current Discussions
Electronic Cigarette
Hi SPACKlick, further to our quick discussion on the article talk page I am now going to start going through the article, correcting the grammatical mistakes and re-wording sentences where the text either does not flow well or read easily. I'm fairly sure that there is quite a lot of this material in there so this should keep me occupied for a while! But I see that you have started making lists that are obviously intended for reordering things so I will try and leave the sentencing structure as untouched as possible and maybe we can combine our efforts at some point? I will also post a section on the article talk page soon linking to my sandbox so the issues can be discussed with other editors. In the meantime feel free to comment on any edits that I am making.Levelledout (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds cool, my overall listing is for topic structure rathern than grammar and wording within topics, if yu can neaten som eof the language and writing up then I can patch it into the revised structure at a later date, if I can ever finish the structure. It's soul destroying reading Quack's gibberish. SPACKlick (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
General sanctions
Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to electronic cigarettes.
The details of these sanctions are described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Bishonen | talk 22:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC).
Please don't edit war
Hi, SPACKlick. Please don't WP:edit war on Electronic cigarette. Why exactly do you reject the second half of "E-cigarettes are regulated as a medical device in some countries, but are not permitted to be used as a smoking cessation aid"? The source says: "Some countries do not accept e-cigarettes as a cessation tool for smokers, yet regulate it as a medical product." Yet you repeatedly claim that "Source says nothing about countries permitting people to use them as cessation aids."[6] Did you read the full version of the article? Bishonen | talk 08:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: First this ought to be on the talk page of the article rather than my talk page however. I have read the full article and several others. Permit, Allow, and all other words relating to regulation have a significantly different meaning that accept. Accept relates to understanding. Different words mean different things, the words used in the article don't mean the same as the words used in the source. I don't know how else to say it.
- Second, I didn't edit war. I removed content which failed verification, the onus is then on the user adding content to show that it is verifiable in a reliable source. That has not been achieved. I reverted once yesterday after giving QG time to fix it, he did a non-fix, I reverted once today. SPACKlick (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, you really do think that failed verification? Then please do take it to article talk, rather than merely using those less-than-explanatory edit summaries. Tell the editors of the page about the difference between accept and permit and see if you get agreement for removing the text on that score. You have reverted twice, for a highly technical reason, and then you tell me I ought to take it to talk? No. I have no intention of editing the article. I'm warning you as an uninvolved admin. Your page is the place for that. Bishonen | talk 09:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: If you look on the talk page you'll see it's ALREADY under discussion. It was under discussion BEFORE I reverted it. The editor who "Boldly" added it before I discussed it and then reverted it, re-added it without explanation or truly engaging in the discussion. He added it by the way along with 17K of edits which were prepared without discussion during the pages protection on his Sanbox (note the missing d so it's not easy to find) without ever mentioning it to any other editor. I note you're not warning Quack for re-adding without reaching consensus through discussion.
- And drop the sarcasm
Oh, you really do think that failed verification?
Of course I think it failed verification, which is why I've said at all stages that it failed verification. - Second I ask you to remove any implication that I have been warned for behaviour in an admin capacity where I haven't even come close to crossing a line. Also, if you're warning someone as uninvolved and admin might be worth using the words warning and admin rather than just looking like some user who's decided to come to my talk page and comment on a valid edit of unsourced material without reading the discussion on the talk page.
- Really starting to remember why I was fucking done editing that mess of an article.SPACKlick (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I looked for a discussion of the wording in the article as compared to the sourcing when I was writing up my note to you after I noticed this edit, and didn't find it. For domestic reasons, I had to wait a few hours to post, and I now see you added some discussion not long after your edit. Sorry about that, bad timing on my part.
- I would hope you'd take the advice of experienced editors (="some user who's decided to come to my talk page") seriously whether they're admins or not. As for mentioning my admin status, I see on your page that you'd like to be an admin some day. If that happens, you'll discover that admins are always either reproached for not saying they're admin, oder, if they do mention it, accused of throwing their admin weight around. There's no pleasing people in that regard, which is one of the delights of the job. My warning stands, you know. Also, while users are traditionally given more leeway on their own pages, it really would be better for all concerned if you avoided this kind of throwaway attack in all public places. If you must talk like that, take it to e-mail. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC).
- That's not an attack. That's a discussion of content. The wording of the edit's that Quack has made is barely English and I will not refrain from saying so unless consensus is formed that Quack's prose is fluent, at which point I will bow to consensus. I'll never say that kind of thing behind someone's back because I'd rather keep my thoughts in the open so they can be modified by the actions of others and so nobody is lied to.
- I'll happily take the advice of experienced editors, but with no prior knowledge of your experience I opened with a response that a discussion about whether a revert of content was justified would likely be more productive on the talk page where as it happened discussion was already happening and then I explained in the venue of your choosing why I reverted the addition of unsourced POV material.
- In short, I think your warning is bullshit, completely against BRD and in identical circumstances there is every chance I would revert twice in two days again, ESPECIALLY if the editor involved has the same history of lack of comprehension that I have found with QuackGuru. This is the kind of thing reverts are for. When an editor reads "red car's are not obligatory in Peru" and adds "Red cars are banned in peru" there is no edit for that, there is no statement worth having on the wikipedia from that source so you revert and on the talk page say "the source doesn't say it's banned it say's it's not obligatory" and the editor adding the nonsense has to justify it's inclusion. Quack justified NOTHING and was left to revert in peace. I reverted the addition of unsourced bullshit and got warned. It's fucking ridiculous.
- I'm steaming fucking mad right now so I'm walking away from any e-cig editing until I've calmed down. Especially as I've just twigged it was you who said you'd ban Levelledout for reverting Quack for doing EXACTLY what admins told him not to do. Why is Quack untouchable when he's been one of the main causes of issue in the article? Paid editors never got anything in that shouldn't have been there for more than a few hours. Advocates have never slanted the page into too pro e-cig a stance. Information about risks has never been removed for more than 24 hours. Thanks to the work of Med Editors like Doc James, editors who can check their POV like KDP and unbiased editors like S Marshall but the page is a barely readable disjointed mess because of the way Quack writes, bulk edits, ignores context & flow and takes ownership. It's just bullshit, bullshit being supported by admins.SPACKlick (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would hope you'd take the advice of experienced editors (="some user who's decided to come to my talk page") seriously whether they're admins or not. As for mentioning my admin status, I see on your page that you'd like to be an admin some day. If that happens, you'll discover that admins are always either reproached for not saying they're admin, oder, if they do mention it, accused of throwing their admin weight around. There's no pleasing people in that regard, which is one of the delights of the job. My warning stands, you know. Also, while users are traditionally given more leeway on their own pages, it really would be better for all concerned if you avoided this kind of throwaway attack in all public places. If you must talk like that, take it to e-mail. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC).
"It's soul destroying reading Quack's gibberish"
is a discussion of content? OK, I'm done for now. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC).- Yes, to call the content of an article so badly written that it's impossible to read through in one go is a discussion of content. You'll notice several other editors making similar comments on the articles talk page if you care to read it.
I don't really have words for what Quack did, but it's a mess. I'm going to remove a few contradictions, but the text needs cleaned up. Again. I wish he'd leave the writing to others because he's shit at it.
FergusM1970The way the article is written right now is atrocious. Much of it is rambling, meandering, ungrammatical and has appalling syntax. It urgently needs to be made concise and readable.
...For example this mess:
same author- in response to QG saying something was too wordy
That's somewhat ironic coming from you, QG!
Johnbod I think the actual problem we have here is methodological.
...It leads to paragraphs that are at once choppily-phrased and convoluted in meaning.
S. MarshallYeah, much of the article is unreadable, worse than typical label fine print.
Tsavagethis endless medical and legislative rambling that we have right now
TheNorloThe Quack is coming and will probably quack every thing up.
TheNorlothe intro of this article is now ridiculously long and littered with crap
I find it very disjointed and hard to read as it stands.
- and many many more. It's an issue of concern with the contents of the article. Is it phrased somewhat cheaply? Sure but Quack has been told time and time again that he needs to work on the phrasing and positioning of his edits and refuses to listen. He doesn't get kid gloves because he's shown a lack of WP:CompetenceSPACKlick (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Old Boys of The Scots College (Sydney), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Stanford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Lead section ordering
Hello again SPACKlick, I'm practically finished with the lead which wasn't in a terrible condition but still needed some work (I think the rest of the article is likely a lot worse). Have you had any thoughts about ordering for the lead? We have the intro paragraph. Then we have two paragraphs on Safety (instead of one) for no apparent reason although I can see it being very controversial some editors trying to get that changed. Then the 4th paragraph is the one I have the problem with and is pretty much impossible to fit into any kind of coherency at the moment. It's a jumbled summary of the Usage section, the History section and the Legal section. Any ideas? If not I'll propose what I've got soon as I think it's still an improvement.Levelledout (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank You
Your talk page pointed me towards closing RFC's. I am a firm believer in the RFC process and I love being able to read them. It gives a very good opportunity to look at the application of policy by other users. It also satisfies a ferrets constant curiosity. AlbinoFerret 13:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, it was a real boon getting on the feeback request service although it does tend to fill the talk page a little. I get 1 a day and respond to about 20% but you can set it to any pace you want. SPACKlick (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Might want to have a look again
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.22Phantom.22_Consensus_Talks --NeilN talk to me 19:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- @NeilN: did you notice the </humour> tag? Added to imply the previous was a joke? SPACKlick (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Saw it, but not sure what you mean. I was referring to the post by the Islamic calendar IP. --NeilN talk to me 13:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- @NeilN: Sorry, completely miscontrued you there, didn't see the comment from the IP and so will have a more detailed look. SPACKlick (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Saw it, but not sure what you mean. I was referring to the post by the Islamic calendar IP. --NeilN talk to me 13:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
RFC's
2014
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
January 2015
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
February 2015
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of economic thought. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of cities proper by population. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Los Angeles City Attorney. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Capital accumulation. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nazi Germany. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC) |
Please comment on Talk:Magneto (generator)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Magneto (generator). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Proper noun
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Proper noun. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
And you're leaving an unsigned template on my talkpage why?
And you're leaving an unsigned template on my talkpage why? I have never edited that article, or at least not in the last five months. --B (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- @B: Apologies for the unsigned, I was under the impression GS messages were meant to be left unsigned. As for editing the page my scan showed you as editing the talk page for Electronic cigarette on the 8th of April. I see now that it was just removing a use of the bat symbol logo. SPACKlick (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please sign them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Images used under a claim of fair use outside of the article namespace are not permitted and are to be removed anywhere they are found. I have a list at User:B/Fair use images used outside of mainspace that I am using that shows the offending uses. I have no opinion on the any dispute that may exist about the electronic cigarettes article. I would humbly suggest, though, that if this article is under probation (well, for that matter, even if it isn't), you may wish to not use edit summaries like [7] as they could be considered incivil. --B (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
what's this general sanctions thingie about?
Haven't even been in there in a week and as far as I know all of my edits were welcome. This is isn't a good way to attract the copy editors you all seem to agree that you need. Elinruby (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Elinruby:As the notice says, the warning doesn't imply any kind of misbehaviour on your part it is to let you know that administrators have extra powers to sanction behaviour at those articles. Users editing in that space should receive the warning to be aware of te extra scrutiny. SPACKlick (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
er... pretty sure that's on the page somewhere Elinruby (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: It's not my system, it's just how general sanctions work. As I said it isn't there to imply impropriety in your editing it's just a notice for your awareness. SPACKlick (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@SPACKlick: erm but why did you feel moved to send it to me is what I am wondering? I see that you also sent it to a lot of other people, I do get that, But do we not already know? I'm confused. Presumably you have issues with someone's behaviour, I take it. But that's been going on for a while too. Why now? Elinruby (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: Sanctions came into effect April 1st and I noticed a fair few editrs hadn;t been notified so I took a dump of everyone who edited since April 1st and notified them if they weren't on the already notified list. You pinged as edting 18 times on the main page and talk for the main page on April 4th and 5th. SPACKlick (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@SPACKlick: yes, all copy edits that nobody had any issues with as far as I can tell. Lots of use of the talk page. Everybody agrees the page needs editing. Quackdoc is pretty defensive though. Already on the verge of saying life was too short before I got warned, sheesh, people skills man, people skills.
- @Elinruby: Well I apologise if it's offended you or put you off but it's a standard piece of wiki bureaucracy to inform editors editing on pages where general sanctions apply with the standard template. s you can see from the sanctions page, every editor, whether there are behaviour issues or not is informed of the sanctions. The template is for information, not for warning or sanction and says so clearly. SPACKlick (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@SPACKlick: it's not so much offensive as offputting. The article is already annoying. I could care less about the topic. Have fun with QuackDoc or whatever his nsme is Elinruby (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- As you're so knowledgeable about this, can you explain why @NeilN: put a similar notice on my talk re Muhammad images when that was dealt with by individual arb sanctions with no general sanctions whatsoever? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Minority language
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Minority language. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)