User talk:S Marshall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pronuncation in infobox person[edit]

Hi, I just reverted you here. Please reclose, addressing the issue of whether pronunciations should be removed from the lede when added to the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Thank you, but I see no reference to the issues you mention in "However, when dealing with ethnic or hard-to-pronounce names it may be a good idea, so the matter is left to editorial judgment.", which appears to be editorialising, not summarising the discussion. I would have made very strong objections to exceptions on either of those poorly-defined grounds, had they been made during it. I suggest you re-open the discussion, and express your views as a participant, in order that they in turn can be discussed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I was editorialising, Andy. I summarised the discussion ---- roughly, I don't perceive a clear consensus to remove the pronunciation guide from the lede in all cases, but on the strength of the arguments I see clear grounds to remove it in many cases ---- and then "editorialised" by introducing examples of circumstances where editors might want to include the information in the lede anyway. I don't think I'm wrong. But would you like an independent close review?—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chulbul Pandey[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chulbul Pandey. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DerevationGive Me Five 16:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your assistance at a BLP[edit]

May I impose and ask for your assistance at Steven Emerson? There has been a rash of attacks on this BLP, perhaps rightly so over his bungled interview on Fox and incorrect statements about Birmingham. Unfortunately, my BLP clean-up attempts keep being reverted. I requested PP, but as soon as it was off, the swarming began. I requested PP again, but nothing happened. Now Emerson is being demeaned with the addition of a dreaded Islamophobia label which was cited to a partisan source. A blanket criticism was also added to the lead, unsourced of course. The hive activity is overwhelming. Anyway, I thought since you closed the IPT BLP-N last year based on (BLPGROUPS), you might be able to inject some wise advice over at Emerson. Thx in advance. AtsmeConsult 19:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Atsme, and thanks for getting in touch. I think that Steven Emerson's remarks on Fox News were very stupid indeed. They were completely false, and they were about a city I know well. They have received an awful lot of attention here in the UK: hundreds of hours of air-time. He's been the butt of thousands of jokes. Our Prime Minister has called him "an idiot" on national television, and I fully agree. I can't think of any clearer evidence he could possibly provide that he is ignorant and islamophobic, and I see the consensus at the BLP noticeboard agrees. I think Mr Emerson's current difficulties are completely self-inflicted. I'm afraid I'm disinclined to help him here. All the best—S Marshall T/C 21:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Totally understood. Thank you for responding. Happy editing! AtsmeConsult 01:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Review of your RFC Close[edit]

I asked for a review of your RFC close. The thread can be found here.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Review_of_the_Closing_for_a_WP:RFC_for_America:_Imagine_a_World_Without_Her . Casprings (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC closure[edit]

Are you sure that your closer of this thread[1] was absolutely correct? Given that 2 of the remaining users on the thread, TopGun and Nawabmalhi got topic banned and all of the sources are not supporting the results, they were in fact tagged with failed verification and one of them was a primary source. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 00:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Yup, I'm positive it's correct. Would you like a formal close review from independent editors?—S Marshall T/C 00:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Leggo : WP:AN#Reviewing RfC closure : Battle of Chawinda. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 00:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you discuss here instead? I don't want to make long discussions there. 25th regiment defeated other small force, not that the nation defeated other nation. Also "bloodbath" is not equivalent to "defeat" or "victory". OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 14:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks![edit]

Thanks for your comment and help. Mr. Marshall, could you help me? You said: Hmm, Wikipedia does discuss whether Constantine I was baptised by Sylvester I. Our page is called Symmachean forgeries, and it says it's based on a nineteenth century German source. It's possible that the page on Symmachean forgeries is, itself, a forgery but when I check other sources (such as the Catholic Encyclopaedia here), I see that the Constitutum Sylvestri is described as "apocryphal". For all I know the Catholic Encyclopaedia might also be wrong, but we as Wikipedians would want to see some evidence that's been analysed by the scholars before we'd be prepared to say that.—S Marshall T/C 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC): I have reason to believe just the opposite, as regards the so called "Symmachean forgeries", and the "Donation of Constantine", as well as the heretical deathbed "baptism" of Constantine. My question is: how much evidence must I present, to get my side printed on the actual page? I keep getting reverted when I post most things? Thanks. philipofBVMPhilipofBVM (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC) PhilipofBVM (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Philip

    I think Wikipedia's coverage of Christianity is rather poor. Although we have large amounts of content about Christianity, a fair proportion of it was originally created by copying wholesale from public domain sources such as old editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica or the Catholic Encyclopaedia. Since the public domain versions of those texts date back to 1911 and 1922 respectively, we're often a century behind the times.

    You asked how much evidence you have to present, and the answer is "one piece of evidence", but what I said was "evidence that's been analysed by the scholars" and the scholarly analysis is absolutely vital here. Wikipedia doesn't publish the truth. We publish what the mainstream experts think. So the evidence that you need is one (1) book, article or paper, written by a scholar (university professor, academic historian, highly-regarded theologian etc.), and published by a reputable mainstream publisher. The book or article has to say that there's a controversy about the Symmachean forgeries or the baptism of Constantine, or ideally both.

    If such a book or article exists, then this will mean that Wikipedia publishes information about the controversy including information about what both sides believe, but Wikipedia will still prefer the mainstream academic opinion (so the mainstream view will appear first in the artice and receive more attention).

    If no such book or article exists, then it's not us you need to convince, but the academics!

    I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 10:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Insight[edit]

Its nice to have a editor with fresh perspective on the article. While I did have an insight section on my user page I have since removed it. One of my major edits to the page was the creation of the Harm Reduction section. I think this is one area the medical sources defend and while it is unclear exactly how much harm reduction there is, some is better than none. I think you will find that point of view on most of the non medical editors. Just a little insight.
I think if you continue to edit the page you will see other things. I dont want to go into details. But there is a lot going on an editor new to the article may miss. Its impossible to gleam it other than to edit.
By the way great job trying to fix the lede, I have been talking on the issues it has for a long time. AlbinoFerret 20:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Unarchiving subject on Electronic cigarette[edit]

Thank you for unarchiving the discussion, but this article has a whole lot of discussion normally. Currently most of it is over at Safety of electronic cigarettes, which means it may look as if a section that is a month old isn't ready to be archived, but rest assured comments are more than daily if a subject is still relevant, these are extremely active articles. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  • It's relevant.—S Marshall T/C 19:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annabelle (doll)[edit]

Can you get you opinion on that article? Do you see significant coverage from reliable sources? Valoem talk contrib 12:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, I was wondering if you would be interested in being involved in a AfD for Mia Khalifa? I think sources suggest she is clearly notable, but currently does not pass WP:PORNBIO, but passed WP:BIO. Valoem talk contrib 22:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Valoem, thanks for asking me. I'm a bit worried that if I respond to these requests we might be accused of forming some kind of tag team, so I'll reluctantly decline the invitation. All the best—S Marshall T/C 22:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem, I think we see the same issues on Wikipedia, I was going for another DRV of involuntary celibacy which was my main concern I was hoping for some extensive participation, since you have been involved in that DRV, it seems impossible to win with the growing anti-NFPOV pushing I've experienced on this encyclopedia, much of which violates established guidelines. Valoem talk contrib 22:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Things have gotten a bit more ridiculous. Which version here or here? I cannot revert him without another editor, but its is quite clear that he is ducking right now. He is hoping that as consensus turns against him an admin may see this and redirect based on the content. He even removed the word alleged in an attempt to have this article deleted immediately. I've never really seen this type of aggression before. Valoem talk contrib 21:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Valoem, please don't get stressed about Wikipedia. It's not necessary. The closer almost always looks at the article history carefully and properly. Occasionally they don't, but if that happens and it leads to an unjustified deletion, then WP:DRV will fix it. Wikipedia has survived so long and become so important because generally, things work properly here. I sense that particular editor's frustration and I think he's misguided, but I think he's in good faith.—S Marshall T/C 23:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The issue I am having is he specified the fact that the article has too many sensational claims. Then he responds by restoring the claims? It's a bit concerning and questionable. Valoem talk contrib 01:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy[edit]

RFC is up, comments would be appreciated. This anti-fringe agenda is too much since you participate in the past, I thought it would not be considered canvassing. Valoem talk contrib 20:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I would certainly have seen that and participated in the discussion without your note, so I don't think WP:CANVASS is an issue in this case.  :)—S Marshall T/C 01:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply, CorporateM has listed some sources regarding why the article should remain as involuntary celibacy. An article on sexual inactivity is long over due though. A good amount of information on that article should belong in sexual inactivity, but its more of a one step at a time kind of thing. I really do not understand the extreme hostility at the RfC, someone requested I get a topic ban ridiculous indeed. Valoem talk contrib 18:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You can safely disregard Tarc. He's a deletionist of the special needs variety who's never quite offensive enough to trigger Wikipedia's sorry and lame disciplinary processes, but usually offensive enough to get under your skin. Wikipedia's full of them.—S Marshall T/C 19:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It is reasonable for Tarc to be angered, @User:S_Marshall, and I am angered at the disrespect of applying a social science and educational term used of people with true special needs as a WP pejorative. Please be careful in expressing your disapproval of others here. The foregoing borders on actionable (though you too seem adept at the skirting ability to which you have called attention). Note, I have left a message for Tarc as well, that while your Talk entry was not honourable, he also needed to take care in answering such insults tit for tat. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Lulz, "special needs"? That's pretty funny coming from the towering intellect of a man who has never been able to figure out how to edit by sub-section, and leaves a generic "Remark" edit summary on just about every comment he makes. Still bitter about the Evil League of Deletionists breaking the back of the Rescue Squad like a chicken bone? Tarc (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Declined ArbCom Case[edit]

The arbitration request concerning electronic cigarette articles has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

See Arbitration request. It was the opinion of some of the arbitrators that the issue may still be resolved by the community. For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of closure needed[edit]

You closed a debate at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what? - can you provide some clarification on the following points?

  1. Did you understand the consensus as being globally prescriptive, such that an editor otherwise uninvolved with an article should feel entitled to make corresponding changes throughout Wikipedia?
  2. In your closure, you referred explicitly to "a one-word entry". Did you understand the scope of the debate as including, and hence applying to, cases where the faith of a person changed, where therefore several affiliations are listed, and where the change of faith is the cause of their notability?

Thanks for clarifying, Samsara 22:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi, Samsara and thanks for contacting me.

    I understood the consensus as applying to Template:Infobox Person. It would therefore affect all 186,000+ articles on which the template appears. I did not understand the consensus as being "prescriptive" in any sense, though. I wouldn't want someone to write a script to go through every affected article deleting the parameter! If an editor in good standing did it with all due care and thought, after discussion in difficult cases, then I would see that as a reasonable thing to do on the basis of the RfC.

    The discussion didn't bottom out what to do in cases where someone changed their faith and that was the cause of their notability. I expect the best thing to do would often be to list their most recently-declared religion. Did you have a specific article in mind?—S Marshall T/C 23:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

    • Thanks for clarifying. There is a debate with an editor who has gone through a lot of articles making aforementioned changes, at Talk:Ayaan Hirsi Ali#Infobox religion. I wouldn't say "all due care" is necessarily my impression of the debate so far. From my perspective, the important detail is that Ms. Ali is mostly notable for being a Muslim-come-atheist and critic of Islam and some connected practices some of which occur under other traditional beliefs as well. The newly proposed insertion for that parameter is "None (Prev. Islam)", from a previous version reading "None (Atheist)[linebreak](Prev. Islam)". So it seems there was a prior compromise made which has now been pushed over the edge. In any case, if you want to give input, it's probably best to do it on that talk page. Thanks and regards, Samsara 00:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

General Sanctions: Electronic Cigarettes[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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.

QuackGuru (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summaries[edit]

Hi, S Marshall. Most of your edit summaries on talkpages are simply "Remark", and I see this is a long-established habit of yours. It's not very helpful, as talkpage posts are typically remarks, all of them. For instance, I got quite frustrated searching for a particular post of yours on Talk:Electronic cigarette today. Please try to provide edit summaries that give the readers of histories some clue about what your remarks contain. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 13:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC).

  • Bishonen, I'm surprised that you can look at that page and decide the highest priorities to deal with are KimDabelsteinPetersen's mistake with the tag and my use of edit summaries. I'd invite you please to look again at what's going on in the topic area.—S Marshall T/C 18:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Wasting my time here, I see. Well, I often do. Bishonen | talk 18:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC).
  • And that's it from you, is it?—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
For now. I'm sorry your unhelpful edit summary usage doesn't interest you, and I'm surprised you're so up in arms about it, but yes, that's it. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC).
  • I didn't say it didn't interest me. Notice any change in my use of edit summaries on talk pages since your message? (OK, I stuffed up once, it's a habit.) But... yes, I'm actually very confused and upset that you think this is the most important thing for a sysop to do in relation to this article.—S Marshall T/C 22:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edit at Electronic cigarette naming another editor in hidden content[edit]

In this edit at Electronic cigarette you added hidden content to the article, naming another editor. That's not appropriate. Yes the article has had a contentious history over the past few months, but the article is now under Discretionary Sanction and an uninvolved admin, Bishonen appears to be actively monitoring, so doing stuff like that isn't either necessary or well-advised. Thanks... Zad68 21:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, you're right: I'm allowing my extreme frustration with QuackGuru to interfere with my judgment.—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Black Kite[edit]

Is it worth any sort of official warning or sanction process for Black Kite? I think her assumption is a symptom rather than the problem but it's a boil that needs lancing. I kind of burned out my wikieffort yesterday but am indecisive enough I wanted another "Shill"'s opinion. SPACKlick (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Certainly not. Black Kite is one of Wikipedia's more competent admins. He has a good brain, he just didn't engage it before posting. If he decides to take a good look at that article to see what's really going on, he'll be a real help.—S Marshall T/C 15:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I actually wasn't referring to you there (as I've made clear at the case page). As for some of the others involved, however ... Black Kite (talk) 07:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't take my comments to accuse S Marshall of being a shill, either. I disagree with him on many things, but not on that. The point is that QG gets energized and problematic on articles that are disrupted by charlatans and shills, but taking QG out of the picture without simultaneously taking steps to remove the charlatans and shills isn't the right answer. Only by removing both is there any reason to believe that normal editing processes will result in an acceptable result.—Kww(talk) 01:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, thanks you two, but also, not thanks, because that solves exactly nothing at all. I'd like to improve the article. I can't because QuackGuru is making it impossible. It's traditional to describe his issues in terms of WP:OWN and WP:IDHT but the problem goes deeper than what we usually mean by that: he's got this compulsion to control what happens in that article at the word-by-word level. I've noticed that if I make a small but substantive change to the article, QG will tag individual words with {{fv}}, then revert me, then go back and think about what he's done and re-add my change with slightly different wording so it's been written by him rather than me. It's not battleground mentality as we understand it. It's QG's self-perception that he is the only person competent to edit the article in a policy-compliant way, combined with a big dollop of Dunning-Kruger effect about his article-writing abilities: he doesn't know how bad at it he is.

    I need admins like you two to rein him in and give me a bit of latitude to fix the article. Bishonen with all due respect isn't really paying attention and Mr Stradivarius is too nice to do the job.—S Marshall T/C 13:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

[2]. Bishonen | talk 13:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC).
I actually read the problem slightly differently: he's been hammered so hard for his edits that he has retreated into this mode of gluing quotes together instead of writing, which he then perceives as making him completely immune to OR complaints while he makes OR complaints against his opponents. The only upside is the complete bloody-mindedness with which he approaches the task: the article may not wind up good, but it doesn't wind up being a commercial for quackery, either, no matter how hard people try to make it that way.
I'm quite willing to help: I just need to ensure that the sanctions enable me to block people that promote quackery simply for promoting quackery, without regard to whether they are polite and skilled about it (or, in the specific cased of e-cigarettes, "persistently editing to remove discussion of risks and dangers of e-cigarettes"). Without that, after you get the article clean and nice, it's going to fall back apart in a few months.—Kww(talk) 13:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Just to take from the above, You repeatedly refer to charlatans/shills/quacks needing someone to take care of them on the article. Do you have any evidence any current active editors are shills? Do you have any worry that between S Marshal, CloudJPK and DocJames shills wouldn't be taken care of and their edits sufficiently scrutinised?
I mean I'm pro-ecig and I'm sure at times that POV will enter my edits. I've been told it before in other articles and when my contributions are amended for balance, I leave them be although occasionally take it to talk if I feel it's false balance. I have also at times re-written contributions on reading them back after a night's sleep and feeling they're not with the facts. I know there are and have been users with even stronger POV's who lean their edits more often and some of them maybe even deliberately, however no-one has ever unbalanced the article or left in dangerously POV statements for long because most editors there were looking for consensus so anything wildly out of the loop is hammered hard. I just don't see that Quack is the only solution to the problem you say he solves and when it comes at the cost of his editing style I personally don't think it's worth it.
@S Marshall you say It's traditional to describe his issues in terms of WP:OWN and WP:IDHT but the problem goes deeper than what we usually mean by that: he's got this compulsion to control what happens in that article at the word-by-word level. I'd call that a perfect example of Own and Own induced IDHT. SPACKlick (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't take it personally. Actually, I wasn't referring to the e-cig article article specifically (read my comment again). But in the list of people queueing up to castigate QuackGuru I can see alternative "medicine" proponents, fringe science proponents ... etc. As for company shills, do I think you are one? Not necessarily. But in the end, the problem is that the edits of company shills and "pro-ecig" editors can tend to be functionally indistinguishable. That was my point. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to drag this out, it's not worth a long discussion but I think you might consider if you weren't referring to the e-cig article why bring it up at all on a discussion of QG's behaviour at the e-cig article. I mean, you see how it could have read like aspersions on some of the 3 or 4 editors active at the article? And how it looks like a defense of QG's bad practice because it is the lesser of 2 evils. SPACKlick (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes Quack, S Marshall and I both think the lede should be less detailed. (I think ultimately it will end up a similar length but about a paragraph or two worth of the current stuff could likely go), I made an attempt LAST YEAR to change it, there was a lack of consensus and so I didn't make more changes to it and took it to the talk page. I removed several sentences that I believe are not pertinent to the article containing very similar content to existing sentences. It was objected to and I stopped making changes to it and went to the talk page to discuss it. S Marshal gave you sound policy reasons for quotes in one specific instance and you threw your toys out of the pram. Of the three editors mentioned in this post only one failed to follow wikiquette. Would you like to play a game of "one of these things is not like the others"? The things you are complaining about are that S Marshall and I want edits you don't want. That's not a violation of wiki policy. S Marshall and I and You have three different ideas of what the article should look like. S Marshall and I (intermittently because god knows it gets tiring) engage in thorough discussion on the talk pages about changes. You don't engage in discussion, you shut down discussion and so no consensus can be reached and the article ends up in the state it's in today. SPACKlick (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You are repeatedly calling for me to be banned so that you can chop the lede in half again? Both SPACKlick and S Marshall want to delete different sentences from the lede. If both did what they wanted the lede would not summarise the body according to WP:LEDE. I paraphrased the sources and you think that is a serious problem? You still think this is a "content dispute"? QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
1) I apologise to S Marshall for this discussion now happening on his talk page as well.
2) I am calling for you to be banned so that several editors can work in collaboration to improve the readability of the electronic cigarette article and my belief, which will obviously be tested against consensus, is that to do that several sentences saying similar things will need to be removed from a lot of the article.
3) While I wouldn't make that linked edit again (even if no editors disagreed with me) I would suggest some removals and re-words in the lede, again dependent on achieving consensus.
4) If I did what I wanted it would summarise the article because the article would be less repetitive and less detailed so the lede could afford to be less of both.
5)I didn't say you paraphrasing sources was a problem. I said I thought it was a problem that you were not discussing the PAG argument in one specific case of quoting vs paraphrasing but would slap OR tags on single words other people had paraphrased.
6) I think that there are content disputes at the article. I think the dispute with you is a dispute with an editor who is tendentious, obstructive, disruptive and displays WP:OWN and WP:IDHT issues while making massive additions of text which add very little to the informational quality and content of the article. You dispute over content by taking ownership of content so there have been behavioural issues with you.
Now, can you wait for the ARB and ANI discussions to be sorted by other editors before hounding me about this anywhere else on the wiki? SPACKlick (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You are calling for me to be banned so that the pro-cig editors can delete a lot of relevant sentences from the article. You probably still think this was an improvement. But you don't realise the edit did not improve the lede. It appears some editors want to shorten the lede so that it would be ambiguous (incoherent). QuackGuru (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I literally just said I wouldn't make that edit again now even if no other editors disagreed with me. Because I no longer believe it improves the lede. It was too much. It removed things that were badly written without replacing them with well written versions of the same content. As we have said, we want to shorten the lede because it is currently poorly written and hard to read. Just as an example, I recently asked my partner, who isn't exactly unfamiliar with research based topics given they have a doctorate in cell biology (specifically developing novel assays in 3d cancer cell migration modelling) but doesn't edit wikipedia to read the article for a second opinion from a never smoker never e-cig user. She got less than 2/3 the way through the lede and said "I can't read this". Skipped to part of the construction section and said "I must have missed something I'm not sure I get this" skipped to somewhere in the health or safety section (can't remember where) and said "I give up, it's unreadable". I'm looking to stop that from happening because wikipedia is somewhere potential users should ba able to go to dispel the myths being spread by marketers, BT and BP. I don't want the article to be pro-ecig. There's a huge amount of uncertainty. But the article shouldn't repeatedly say "A study found there was insufficient evidence to disregard the null hypothesis about x. A study found there was insufficient evidence to disregardthe null hypothesis about y. A study found there was insufficient evidence to disregard the null hypothesis about z. Scientists are unsure about w." The article needs a root and branch trim. Several sections almost certainly should be rebuilt from the ground up.SPACKlick (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You want to shorten the lede because you are claiming it is "badly written" or do you really think it is "negatively written". I and others disagree with shortening the lede. The reasons were previously explained on the talk page. Various statements summarise different sections of the body. QuackGuru (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You can choose not to act in good faith if you want. I've made it clear my overall problem with the article is that it is badly written for several reasons. Sentence structure is poor, paragraph construction is poor, several identical or near identical claims are repeated, lots of qualifying statements are repeated, some sections are excessively technical. The lede suffers from a little of all of those. I think the lede ought to be vaguer, referring to the huge amount that's unknown and the lack of strong evidence in any direction on the product rather than referring to specific reviews as finding or not finding this positive or negative thing. The fact that the article is trying to be so specific when the overall picture is very bitty due to the sheer lack of data and complete absence of overall consensus means the article and therefore the lede is very bitty. I also think, although again pending a serious search for consensus that the article is in language too technical. It reads like a medical article and while there are certainly medical influences in the article, more of it should be written for the general reader. As I say, my concern is that someone comes to the article having heard a few things about e-cigarettes sourced to "my mate down the pub says..." and won't get far enough into the article to see what is known, and what isn't known and what is likely and what isn't likely an effect of e-cigarettes. If the level of detail was trimmed I think the safety daughter article could likely be part of the main article. Over time, as consensus is reached positions of medical organistations will likely return. Legal status will always be excessively detailed for the main article. SPACKlick (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears you want the wording to be vaguer, which would make it less understandable, and thus more ambiguous. That would make the article less readable for the general audience. QuackGuru (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • See that ^? It's what we technically call "tendentious". It's fairly simple, Kww and Black Kite: if one of you doesn't intercede and deal with this, then at some point in the next couple of weeks, one of Wikipedia's other sysops is going to, and some of them are dumb enough to block QG instead of working with him.—S Marshall T/C 20:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm mean and evil and nasty.—S Marshall T/C 20:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)