User talk:AlbinoFerret/Archive 2

This page is an archive of my talk page. Please do not edit this page. AlbinoFerret (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC
I added the RfC to two additional categories, but I am not sure if the RfC bot will pull this into their lists. You will want to keep an eye on it. Arzel (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Arzel I asked the question on the rfc talk page about the widest exposure because I was planing on asking the statement in my oppose statement as a rfc. But Doc James got there first, regardless of his RFC I will ask it to the widest group as soon as I get a answer. I'm thinking the village pump might be good. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wider is better. I am not really familiar with the village pump, but anyplace that supplies some fresh eyes is probably a good idea.  It appears that this has been an issue for some time now.  Arzel (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Arzel Its a problem I first noticed when I started editing the page. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read WP:CANVASS notifing editors that have edited the article is ok. The only people I have left messages for are people who have edited the article in the last two weeks or so. I also only asked them to look at the RFC in case they want to comment. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

revert on Talk page
please pardon me but i reverted your changes to your comments on the Talk page. you should not change your comments on Talk after others have responded without marking them up. please see the talk page guidelines, specifically WP:REDACT. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info I will keep it in mind and fix my edits. Please do not revert my comments as that is changing them I am sure the page mentions not doing that. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for showing your changes! :) Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Electronic Cigarette
Is there anything I can do to convince you to join the compromise discussion started by Jytdog? I can understand that you might see little value in doing so, as the Rfc currently seems to be going your way. On the other hand, it would probably allow us all to go back to our real lives if we could reach a compromise and put an end to the confrontation. If the decision is won by a close vote, I suspect we will continue bickering well into 2015. Best Formerly 98 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Formerly 98A rfc is not decided by a vote, but by consensus usually by working out a compromise. I think there are enough comments opposing at this point that it will be difficult to force the desired outcome of the person who started the rfc, and the oppose votes seem to have a common point of view whereas the support votes have a variety of views. To me that would indicate the oppose being the starting point and working from there.
 * I also think the way the rfc has been handled so far is a perverting of the process by posting a biased original wording, and also false accusations of canvassing in direct violation of assuming good faith is a shame. The whole process should have been a discussion leading to a formation of a question that addressed all concerns. I will join in a discussion at some point, but I think I want to look at the actions of others a little more before I do. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

TPG
the e-cig talk page is a disaster... i'm trying to help get it on track. the problems with this that prompted me to comment, were:
 * 1) you wrote that other editors were "soapboxing", "speculating", and using "scare tactics"
 * 2) you talked a bunch about what "users" may or may not think or want....


 * With respect to 1)
 * ... you don't seem to be acknowledging (or maybe you are not aware) that there are many reliable sources that discuss the risks of e-cigs.
 * it would be a valid Talk page discussion, to say something like "the article puts WP:UNDUE weight on sources describing the risks. Here (xxxxx) are the most important sources on e-cigs, and they do not put nearly much weight on the risks, as our article shows."   A statement like that, opens the door to further rational discussion.  Others can say, "the list of key sources has to include (aaa and bbb  etc), because WP:MEDRS says (sdfasdfsdf)."  and then off you go.  Do you see what I mean?   Your statement in 1) closes the door to further discussion - you attribute bad faith (as opposed to assuming good faith) about the other editors.  There is just no way to respond to that, no way forward...


 * With respect to 2), we don't write articles based on what users of products think or want, we write them based on what reliable sources say, per the policies, WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFY. Again, making that statement is not a way to move forward.  It is not a valid argument in Wikipedia, as it is not based on our policies and guidelines.

What I am trying to communicate to you, is that the talk page guidelines advise us to discuss content not contributors, think about sources, and base our work and discussion on what policies and guidelines say. Really... what you wrote there, is a conversation stopper. I literally had nothing I could write in reply to you; your statement was that derailed. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 1.with respect to risks, valid risks, with evidence of a problem is one thing. But the article relies to heavily on what isnt known. This creates a problem in that it is a common misconception that size of a section equals importance.
 * 2. When I mention users, I am also referring to articles and video I have read and seen about components and community, sadly I have not been able to expand these areas, an area of the article I have real interest in, because of constant talk page distractions. The views of users are usable in reference to community, and slightly usable to components depending on if the reference is reliable. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * on 1), if there is specific content that you feel is not supported by a reliable source in the Health section, i suggest you open a Talk section to discuss removing it (or just be Bold and delete it, and if you are reverted, calmly open a section to discuss that on Talk; your discussion on that should focus on why the source is not reliable per RS or MEDRS. If your issue is that there is WP:UNDUE weight given to discussion of legitimately-sourced risks, then you can open a discussion about UNDUE, and maybe propose an edit that gives what you see as appropriate WEIGHT (again, based on what NPOV says)  (notice, that none of that said anything about other editors!) Handwavey statements like the ones you are making are not helpful because they  are vague and don't help fix any actual content, and they appear to be based on how you feel, which is not a legitimate grounds for discussion in WP.
 * on 2), you choose to use your time, however you see fit. if you care more about other parts, why are you wasting your time on parts you care about less?  i don't get why you are bringing that up.  if you have RS for content about devices, you should  build it.  WP content is generated by Bold editors.  one way to fix WEIGHT issues is simply to add content that you care about it.  right now you appear to be the one making arguments about hypotheticals.  build the content you want to, using the best sources you can.  at some point folks will step back and look at the whole thing -- all the sources -- and think about WEIGHT again.  but if sources you care about are not even in the article and are not being considered.... i would say that is your fault.  WP is a beautiful place when people work on what they care about it, and if, when they disagree, they talk in good faith with each other, based on policies & guidelines and the best sources available!  Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC

just a last note for you. i don't know how old you are or what you do for a living (if you work at all!) so please forgive me if you already know the following. but i suspect you don't. leaders in society (government, institutions, etc) are actually responsible for what happens in many ways. we hold them responsible, too. so when new technologies come out - and especially when they explode like e-cigs have - government and institutions need to respond; it is their job. sometimes our institutions help thI dont think it addat new thing go (the internet); sometimes it is to try to stop it (crack cocaine); sometimes it is just to regulate it (fracking, and e-cigs) so that people can enjoy it/exploit it/whatever, in a way that doesn't harm themselves or society. (they need to make sure that vapers don't start dropping like flies next year, or in five years, or all develop some terrible lung condition... right?) a lot of this is about risk management which is a really arcane field, but really important. Remember what hurricane katrina did to new orleans? lots of people were angry that the flood protection wasn't better. now, if we spent ten gazillion dollars we could make sure that new orleans would never flood again - we could build walls like the pyramids of giza. but is that a good use of our tax dollars? (that is a real question) at some point, somebody needs to make a decision (and people made these decisions in the past) on how much money to spend to defend new orleans - not too much, but not too little. a question of risk management. it is really important. a lot of the content in the health section of the e-cig article covers the discussion of that, that has gone on as e-cigs have emerged and our institutions are catching up to that emergence. there probably is too much - there is a bunch of recent content in the article that will eventually fall out. but some of that sticks. (if you look at the genetically modified food controversies article you will see that there is "risk management" stuff brought up thirty years ago that people still fret over.) anyway, i hope that was helpful, to help you understand why mainstream media has covered health risks so much, and why the WP article does too. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as wikipedia has a deletion criteria for speclutive articles, it must have some guidelines on speculative information. I dont think it adds to the article. Regardless of who is doing it, its just a guess. I do believe some people have placed it in there to bulk up the sections. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * oh the curse of handwaviness. better way forward. could please you quote a sentence or two that you find to be particularly ..."speculative", and while you are at it, comment on the source provided? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is one "Because these things are mostly unknown, it isn't clear if the particles in e-cigarettes have health effects similar that produced by conventional cigarettes." nothing is clear, its speculative if they have any health effects. It serves no real purpose, it gives no information except something is unknown. Its implied they might. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * i was reading that section over, and thought you might pick that out. are you familiar with this? Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That video is funny, but can you see why I have concerns about material like this? AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * i already i told that i thought you would pick that out. you don't seem to understand the relevance of the rumsfeld video. do you?  in light of what i wrote above about risk management? i am not arguing to retain the sentence you picked out, i am just talking about why someone put it there, in good faith. if you and others cannot understand that, there is zero hope of ever settling the page down - the question is important. so, do you? Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see why someone would want to place it there. Perhaps even place a good motive to it. But the sentence I posted here is very questionable, not everything that can be sourced should be in the article. This is one that I probably would say should go. But I am in no hurry to move it out. I did remember as I looked for sentences that a lot of the sentences that existed like this have been improved, they really didnt say what the source said, or some editor at some time left out information that was added. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

this conversation is not interesting to me. you are just arguing, not talking. outta here. Jytdog (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)