Misplaced Pages

User talk:QuackGuru: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:22, 5 December 2014 editLevelledout (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,042 edits Electronic cigarette← Previous edit Revision as of 04:47, 6 December 2014 edit undoQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits archive - drama overNext edit →
Line 53: Line 53:


I agree with your edits to that page. Please let me know if the issue comes up again. ] (]) 07:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC) I agree with your edits to that page. Please let me know if the issue comes up again. ] (]) 07:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

==Discussion Notification==
Hi there Quack, I have started a ], if you want to contribute then please do so.] (]) 13:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

== Electronic cigarette ==

Hi again QuackGuru. Can you tell me what you were doing , and comment specifically on how it matches with the source, with NPOV and finally where you had consensus to add that material. Thanks in advance. --] (]) 18:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:{{u|John}} Hello, I also re-added this text at least once. There is no consensus to either include or exclude this content, so far as I know. Because this information is covered in a scientific review which itself cites JAMA and BMJ articles specifically on this issue, it seems reasonable to me to include this information unless someone challenges the sources. Here is the copyrighted text from the source, and I assert that the summary of this information seems reasonable.
{{collapse top|original text}}
The tobacco companies address e-cigarette issues as part of their policy agenda. As they did beginning in the 1980s,110,111 they continue to engage in creating and supporting “smokers’ rights” groups, seemingly independent groups that interact with consumers directly on political involvement in support of their agenda.111 Altria and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company maintain Web sites called Citizens for Tobacco Rights and Transform Tobacco. E-cigarette news and action alerts are featured on the home pages of these websites and include instructions for taking action against bills designed to include e-cigarette use in smoke-free laws. E-cigarette companies engage in similar tactics, using the same political and public relations strategies as the tobacco companies (most notably featuring organized “vapers” like the organized smokers). They also use social media that is tightly integrated with their product marketing campaigns to press their policy agenda.22 These strategies were successfully deployed in Europe to convince the European Parliament to substantially weaken the proposed EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013.112
{{collapse bottom}}
:Can you say something helpful about how to reach consensus on what to do with this information, when it seems equally controversial to include and exclude it? ]] 20:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Perhaps I can but I do need QuackGuru to give some explanation for this edit as it appears to resemble other edits for which he has been blocked in the past. --] (]) 07:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages does not have a rule against making ] edits. ] (]) 10:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::John has sanctioned QG in the past, under somewhat strained conditions. John has been canvassed by another editor to have another go, having been unable to get the result required at ANI. -] (]) 10:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Yup. Likely we need someone neutral / not involved to look at this. John and QG are involved. ] (] · ] · ]) 13:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:I'm wondering why anyone needs to specifically justify making an edit that adds a good summary of material from a high quality source. That would seem to be the type of behavior we should be encouraging, not questioning. ] (]) 14:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::Because even if the source was accurately represented (which I don't agree that it was), verifiability is not the only principle of Misplaced Pages. Here's ] QuackGuru inserted into the article yesterday: "A traditional cigarette is smooth and light, while an e-cigarette is rigid, cold and a bit bulky."
::Why would anyone bother to insert such opinionated non-information into the article except to try and sway the reader that cigarettes are better than e-cigarettes or otherwise influence the reader's opinion regarding e-cigarettes. If it is inserted then it should be neutrally worded. It's QG's flagrant disregard for things like NPOV that is much of the problem.] (]) 16:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, you've made it clear you want to get QG into as much trouble as possible. I think any reasonable look at the material he added from Grana would see that it is a reasonable summary, and not the over the top dramatic "violation of ]" you made it out to be. ] (]) 17:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Fine. Well lets allow that reasonable assessment of QuackGuru's conduct to take place then.] (]) 19:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again QuackGuru. Can you tell me what you were doing , and comment specifically on how it matches with the source, with NPOV and finally where you had consensus to add that material. I wouldn't recommend continuing to edit without replying to my reasonable request. --] (]) 19:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed the from the first sentence because the text was sourced to a . Please read "The electronic cigarette is a battery-powered electronic nicotine delivery system that looks very similar to a conventional cigarette and is capable of emulating smoking, but without the combustion products accountable for smoking's damaging effects."

Previous text: "Tobacco and e-cigarette companies recruit consumers to push their ].<!-- <ref name=Grana2014/> --> The companies use ]s, ], and ] to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws.<!-- <ref name=Grana2014/> --> This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers.<!-- <ref name=Grana2014/> --> The companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013.<ref name=Grana2014/>"

Proposed compromise: "A 2014 review stated that tobacco and e-cigarette companies interact with consumers to push their ].<!-- <ref name=Grana2014/> --> The companies use ]s, ], and ] to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws.<!-- <ref name=Grana2014/> --> This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers.<!-- <ref name=Grana2014/> --> It was concluded that the companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013.<ref name=Grana2014/>"

<ref name=Grana2014>{{cite journal|last=Grana|first=R|author2=Benowitz, N |author3=Glantz, SA |title=E-cigarettes: a scientific review.|journal=Circulation|date=13 May 2014|volume=129|issue=19|pages=1972–86|pmid=24821826|doi=10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667|pmc=4018182}}</ref>
{{reflist|close=1}}

Please read: "The tobacco companies address e-cigarette issues as part of their policy agenda. As they did beginning in the 1980s,110,111 they continue to engage in creating and supporting “smokers’ rights” groups, seemingly independent groups that interact with consumers directly on political involvement in support of their agenda.111 Altria and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company maintain Web sites called Citizens for Tobacco Rights and Transform Tobacco. E-cigarette news and action alerts are featured on the home pages of these websites and include instructions for taking action against bills designed to include e-cigarette use in smoke-free laws. E-cigarette companies engage in similar tactics, using the same political and public relations strategies as the tobacco companies (most notably featuring organized “vapers” like the organized smokers). They also use social media that is tightly integrated with their product marketing campaigns to press their policy agenda.22 These strategies were successfully deployed in Europe to convince the European Parliament to substantially weaken the proposed EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013.112"

The disagreement at the time was it did not have . It was controversial to exclude it at the time because the disagreement was with writing it in . The consensus could be in-text attribution. So rather than delete it, I will propose in-text attribution. The I (and others) made is sourced using a . I summarised the source. For example, I wrote "The companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013." The source says "These strategies were successfully deployed in Europe to convince the European Parliament to substantially weaken the proposed EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013". The text is relevant for the ] section. There is another statement in the same section that is also an opinion: "Pharmaceutical manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson have lobbied the US government, the FDA, and the EU parliament for stricter regulation of e-cigarettes which compete with their products Nicorette gum and nicotine patches." It is reasonable to include completing interests. I think it is also reasonable to include statements specifically on activates of tobacco and e-cigarette companies that used strategies that were successfully deployed in Europe to lesson the proposed EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013. Although there is ], sources with opinions are ] according to content guideline. The ] for '']'' is . A good compromise can be in-text attribution and tweaking the text if there are concerns with the text. ] (]) 19:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::@QG, based on what the source says, it might be a good idea to leave out the part about the tobacco companies pushing an agenda in your proposed compromise, since that language is not included in the source and "pushing an agenda" can have negative connotations. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 20:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:::See . I tweaked the wording on the talk page. See ]. ] (]) 20:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
:I appreciate the time and trouble you have taken to explain your edit. I always did think you had good intentions, and now I have seen reasoning as well. I think the key problem I have in looking a that edit is that it was a ] edit, albeit with justifications, at a time where such a bold edit was not helpful to the process of consensus-building. It might even be seen as aggressive, or edit-warring (I haven't checked the edit history in enough detail to say for sure). I think you should be a little more patient, and work on building consensus in talk before making any more bold edits like that. The reason is such behaviour will promote collegial editing at the article and will actually lead to a much faster resolution with less friction than boldness or edit-warring will. I really appreciate the willingness you show above to seek compromise in future. --] (]) 20:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::Do you have any suggestions for improving the text. You can make any here or at ]. ] (]) 20:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::Yes thank you ] and also ] for taking the time to look at this. My intention was not to simply to get QG into trouble, but to try and get further towards the stage where editors work together to achieve consensus at the e-cig article.] (]) 21:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|User:John}} This is not an attempt to get QG into trouble, but it may. While the last few days he has tried to discuss the EC article on the talk page. Previous constructive discussion was non existent. In fact the <nowiki>{{FV}}</nowiki> tag is a perfect example of this. He added the claim, I couldnt find it, so I placed the tag and left a comment that pointed to the talk page on it. Instead of pointing me to the language he used on the talk page, he deleted it. Another instance is that while the page was protected QG didnt involve himself in the talk page, but edited in his sandbox and then made one massive edit without any discussion at all. The page is now protected, section dealing with controversial bold edits have been setup. The consensus appears to show that they be removed, or if someone thinks 2 comments against 10 is not consensus they be reverted per ]. Instead of having his say and discussing it QG has acted like he is not hearing the others ] . Launching into ad hominem attacks "] to edit" . I hope his behaviour improves. Because while he may have edits that could be added, his actions are causing disruptions. I hope he changes. ] 20:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Yeah some of this (such as the "massive edit") has already been covered in the conversation above. What is a bit concerning is that since the previous conversation Quack has still been complaining that consensus is against him on keeping the "massive edit". It wouldn't be so bad if he was focusing on content but he isn't, he's doing it by making conduct accusations on the article talk page, sometimes bringing up alleged conduct issues that are not related to the discussion: ], ], ]. I think it would be better for all involved, including Quack if we stuck to content as much as possible on the article talk page.] (]) 23:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:47, 6 December 2014

This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuackGuru.

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.

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#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)
I agree, I think your collaborative skills could use some significant improvement QG. Before I interacted with you, I actually had a fairly positive opinion about you, but you really do not work collaboratively (and it shows) even on issues of minor importance. The importance of collaboration is one of Misplaced Pages's most emphasized values. I do hope you take some time to reflect on this and work on communicating with other Misplaced Pages editors in a friendlier and more collaborative manner. It is not a sign of weakness to do so and it poses no threat to your integrity or principles to work this way. If anything, I think it will make your experience (and that of others) more pleasant (and it should be) and make your editing more effective. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:53, 10 November 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)

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)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

QuackGuru (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

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 reverted my edit. When I reverted my own edit 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 Talk:Ayurveda#Inclusion of pseudoscience within article body. QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Very well, I accept that you did not intend to be disruptive and that you will not continue to edit war. Please review the restrictions at Talk:Ayurveda#Going forward as you were advised here several days ago before continuing to edit here. John (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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. The talk page RfC is about adding the category pseudoscience. That is a different issue than the text I added. 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)

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)

Sometimes the best thing you can do is to walk away and let the article deteriorate into a bad condition. With luck it will become so glaringly bad that no reasonable person takes it seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.167.123.150 (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your edits to that page. Please let me know if the issue comes up again. Djcheburashka (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)