Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:21, 4 November 2014

Sourced text was replaced with original research at the Electronic cigarette page

Is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports reliable for the content? User:LeadSongDog explained it at the Talk:Electronic cigarette page here. Other editors claim the CDC reports are unreliable.

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (April 2014). "Notes from the field: calls to poison centers for exposures to electronic cigarettes--United States, September 2010-February 2014". MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 63 (13): 292–3. PMID 24699766.

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC) (6 September 2013). "Notes from the field: electronic cigarette use among middle and high school students – United States, 2011–2012". MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 62 (35): 729–30. PMID 24005229.

The two sources above were removed from the article. The relevant part of MEDRS is Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Medical and scientific organizations. Read under: "The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements..."

Can we go back to the version before the original research was reverted back into the article? Trying to remove original research from the article should be easy at the electronic cigarettes article if there were more collaborating.

"While some raised concern that e-cigarette use can be a cause of indoor air pollution, the only clinical study currently published evaluating passive vaping found no adverse effects." Original research ans misleading text.

"A 2014 review found that at the very least, this limited research demonstrates it is transparent that e-cigarette emissions are not simply "harmless water vapor," as is commonly claimed, and can be a cause of indoor air pollution. As of 2014, the only clinical study currently published evaluating the respiratory effects of passive vaping found no adverse effects were detected. A 2014 review found it is safe to presume that their effects on bystanders are minimal in comparison to traditional cigarettes." Sourced text and neutrally written text (that was blindly reverted). See Electronic cigarette#Second-hand aerosol.

I removed the original research and replaced it with sources text. I clearly explained it in my edit summary the problems with the article. I removed the POV selected quotes. I expanded the safety section a bit. I replaced original research with sourced text for the second-hand aerosol section. Then an editor blindly reverted back in original research and deleted sourced text. I think we should go back to here before the blind revert was made. I hope editors will help remove the original research from the electronic cigarettes page and help restore the sourced text. Blindly replacing sourced text with original research in a revert is very disruptive. Another editor blindly reverted back in the original research and other problems. QuackGuru (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The person who is not collaborating is you.--FergusM1970 23:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing talk page lurkers as well? Nice. To those i'd say that they should join the above discussion at WT:MED#Electronic cigarettes --Kim D. Petersen 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Medical and scientific organizations for the CDC reports as well. QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 18 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) 22:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

I have blocked your account for one week in response to this edit and others which disrupt the editing process there. If you are willing to refrain from making such edits in the future I or any admin may happily reverse the block. This can be accomplished either by pinging me here or by using the {{unblock|your reason here ~~~~}}. I hope that you will see the error of your ways and wait until consensus is achieved in the talk page RfC before making any further edits to the article. Best wishes. --John (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=The talk page RfC is about the tag. It was not about the text. I did previously add the material but this time I made a proposal and I . When I that shows I am waiting for consensus. Once more, I did not restore the material again when I reverted my last edit. There is a discussion at ]. ] (]) 21:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=The talk page RfC is about the tag. It was not about the text. I did previously add the material but this time I made a proposal and I . When I that shows I am waiting for consensus. Once more, I did not restore the material again when I reverted my last edit. There is a discussion at ]. ] (]) 21:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=The talk page RfC is about the tag. It was not about the text. I did previously add the material but this time I made a proposal and I . When I that shows I am waiting for consensus. Once more, I did not restore the material again when I reverted my last edit. There is a discussion at ]. ] (]) 21:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Note to reviewing admin

The edit QG is highlighting was not one of the ones I blocked for. I see one, two, three attempts to add the material in question to the article, yet I do not see any firm consensus in the talk page discussion that this material belonged there. Three edits in three days is edit warring and is disruptive. Once again, if you can indicate you know what you did wrong and are willing not to repeat the behaviour I am happy for you to be unblocked. --John (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this. Normally I'd say this block (and Bladesmulti's) were pretty aggressive, but now I see the article and talk page have been problematic for a while, and John read the riot act to people back in October. At the risk of being accused of being part of the thin blue line, I'm inclined to give pretty broad discretion to admins willing to try to keep a lid on things that are constantly boiling, as long as it's being done evenly and fairly. "Evenly" seems true. I guess my only question about "fairly" is: Was QG aware of this rule about not adding anything to the article without prior consensus? My admittedly quick look shows QG first edited the page well after the riot act was read.

QG, it looks like John is being pretty flexible about unblock conditions. Do I understand right (John) that you'd take a promise not to reinsert anything significant without prior consensus as reason to unblock? Is this something you (QG) are willing to agree to? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware about a rule about discussing editing first before making them. For my last edit I did revert myself and I was waiting for consensus first. I was not going to repeat adding the material back in at that point. When I reverted my last edit that indicates I was agreeing to wait for consensus. I did self-revert and I agree to wait for consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What "update"?

I reverted your edit at Acupuncture. Please explain, what is this "update"? No explanations given ever so far. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The "rheumatoid arthritis" 2005 Cochrane review was moved to Acupuncture#Rheumatological conditions.

See "A 2005 Cochrane review concluded that acupuncture use to treat rheumatoid arthritis "has no effect on ESR, CRP, pain, patient's global assessment, number of swollen joints, number of tender joints, general health, disease activity and reduction of analgesics."

Casimiro, L; Barnsley, L; Brosseau, L; Milne, S; Robinson, VA; Tugwell, P; Wells, G; Casimiro, Lynn (2005). Casimiro, Lynn (ed.). "Acupuncture and electroacupuncture for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2005 (4): CD003788. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003788.pub2. PMID 16235342. Archived from the original on 13 April 2008. Retrieved 6 May 2008. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)

I updated and expanded the section. QuackGuru (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions

I don't think there is anything that can be done about the rather high handed restrictions and now sanctions John has imposed. Ride them out and start afresh.

For my part, I haven't made any useful contribution to the AV article, except to attempt to hold back the wave of fringe pushing, woo supporting ignorance that resides on that page. It is a terrible shame, but those editors who have decided to not bother because of the silly imposition of restrictions are probably right. True believers have won, the spread of ignorance ratchets onwards. I haven't decided if I will dewatchlist or not. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock