User talk:Levelledout/Archive 1

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

You have made three reverts so far in the last 24 h. As a heads up making more may result in your ability to edit being restricted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you, as well!

For not losing temper, giving reasoned explanations, and not going into a rant when things get hot at Electronic cigarette, for future cooperation, i give you this kitten, since it is such a nice calming influence :)

Kim D. Petersen 00:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) I think you have had your patience thoroughly tested as well to be fair and stayed more calm. I'm fairly inexperienced so I'm still learning as I go.Levelledout (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've learned the most important lesson: Do not editwar, and be persistent in pushing forwards problems and issues on the talk-page. WP:AGF is extremely important, assume that people will eventually get the point. And sometimes, despite how silly it may seem, one needs to back away from something, and focus on something else. (not that i'm good at this myself), I do see progress on the article sometimes backwards, sometimes forward, but eventually we'll reach a good spot :D --Kim D. Petersen 00:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atomizer picture

Hey there, First of all, thanks for that picture. Secondly, whenever you have a chance, can you take the same picture but with a "clean" atty. I don't mean to say that the atomizer is dirty by any means, I mean that it looks defective. It seems that the mesh material that surrounds the ceramic cup touches the coil, which would short the atty out. Im being uber anal, so.... no rush! but if ever you feel as anal as me (that didn't sound right) , feel free to change it :) Thanks TheNorlo (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheNorlo, sorry for the delay in reply. Yeah I did notice that and admittedly now you mention it I guess it could conceivably create a short (I've not used that atomizer before so I don't know if it actually does). I'll update the picture when I get the chance. Levelledout (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been active at the article or talk page, so here's a note about Anarcho-capitalism

I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of the Beanfield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Windsor. 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) 10:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Electronic cigarette. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! AlbinoFerret 02:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru called you an SPA

Thought you should be aware that over at ANI QuackGuru has called you an SPA. diff

I didn't know before this message (and subsequently saw the recent posts on ANI) so thanks for the heads up SPACKlick.Levelledout (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

Can you please alter the sections to reflect what BR and I agreed to. Put Usage first and we can work out the language next. AlbinoFerret 19:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the discussion [here] and it definitely would seem to me that whilst you were proposing Usage (statistics) to go at the top, Bluerasberry was proposing that Uses (Medical indications etc) should go at the top of the article. I'm not sure whether the two of you realised at any point that you were both referring to entirely different sections. However I note that there was eventually some agreement that a section called Usage should go at the top. I will change the edit request but am going to make clear that this issue of Usage/Uses still needs to be sorted out.Levelledout (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AlbinoFerret I did not clear the difference in explanation on "uses" with Albinoferret but in my opinion, any interpretation of "uses" would be a good first section. I favor starting the article with an explanation of why the product is used, how it works, then physically what it is. These could be "uses" and "construction" sections. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: I dont have a problem with a simple section called Uses that basically follows the first paragraph in the lede without all the "aerosol" definitions being first. I think we can come to an agreement on the wording relatively quickly. If we need wording for now just use the first paragraph in the lede and we can modify it later. AlbinoFerret 20:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheNorlo ban request

Hi there, please feel free to support or oppose the ban proposal concerning me. Thanks. TheNorlo (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic cigarette

Hello Levelledout. I see that you've just made a revert at the Electronic cigarette article. Rather than reverting wholesale, please discuss changes on the talk page, otherwise it could result in a block. I'm sure that you've read it already, but if not, then please familiarise yourself with the edit-warring policy. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Mr. Stradivarius. Whilst I didn't consider it edit-warring I do accept that it was not completely necessary to perform a wholesale revert. Is there any chance that you could look into the fact that a particular user managed to get the full page protection lifted, then almost immediately made 17 edits in two hours including a 9k edit? It seems very difficult to actually work together to achieve consensus when this is happening.Levelledout (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again User:Mr. Stradivarius, would you mind giving me a bit more feedback on this issue please? I know it's been a few days since you sent the original message but I'm wondering whether you are asking me not to revert whole/multiple edits at once just on e-cigarette articles or something else? Does this restriction apply to me or all editors? I ask because as I hope you understand I don't want to get blocked. Also, I wonder if you would mind pointing out to me which policy or guideline I was in violation of in order to receive the above warning? If I am perfectly honest, in spite of what I originally said, I did consider the edit necessary as I felt that the user in question was attempting to force through large-scale changes without consensus almost immediately after that user single-handedly managed to have full-page protection removed. I have read through the edit-warring policy and am at a loss to how that particular revert could have been considered edit-warring. There was no back-and-forth reverts, the process was simply 10k of changes from user > I reverted. It was also, to my recollection, the first time I have ever reverted multiple edits at once, therefore not something that I do routinely.Levelledout (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My previous message wasn't an official restriction, but rather a warning, and I was only warning you about the Electronic cigarette article. The article isn't under any special sanctions, but as it is obviously controversial I'll be enforcing the edit-warring policy strictly there. (In particular, note that even if you don't break the three-revert rule it can still count as edit warring and still result in a block.) And yes, it was the edit-warring policy I was referring to. To be clear, one edit by itself usually doesn't constitute edit-warring; rather, I wanted to warn you about the policy before the situation got out of hand. Hope this clears things up. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK yes understood, thank you for the information.Levelledout (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign

Please sign your comment. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment already signed at 14:57.Levelledout (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

25k is more accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware you provided old diffs, yet you are trying to sanction me at the Arbitration/Requests/Case under the new sanctions? QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]