Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:17, 30 November 2015

Mystery Wolff, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mystery Wolff! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you copied or moved text from Construction of electronic cigarettes into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Misplaced Pages's content, here or elsewhere, Misplaced Pages's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Misplaced Pages, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Doug Weller (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. If I read it correctly you have addressed this instance. There are not other instances. I will go to the original page and put in some attribution, and also on the new page. The intent of this page is to be the Greater Detail page. Even if E-Liquid is part of the "Construction of Electronic Cigarettes" page. E-Liquid sold without any hardware is a multi-billion dollar industry so it worthy of its own page. I have asked experts in E-Liquid to come on and contribute content, so hopeful it will expand. If there is anything else I can do....please tell me thanks. Mystery Wolff (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your edit in the electronic cigarette article

I am a bit concerned about this edit . Specifically, it looks to me that you changed the text based on your personal opinion instead of sources.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. The statement itself simply does not make any sense. There are two types of smokers, those that want to smoke, and those who want to quit smoking but are unable. There are no other types possible. Unwilling means they want to smoke. If there is something else that wants to be quoted out of the article that would stand on its own. It is just that item does not, and can not ever make sense to a reader.

The study in question is a review of other studies. There are some works that I have read that have said that Electronic Cigarettes should only be undertaken by smokers, and not new users altogether. This item was not saying that. In general a lot of commentary (not research) of early papers says there is no data. As time has gone by data is now available. Mystery Wolff (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS

I have noticed some of the comments on sources you have made. WP:MEDRS is the guideline for medical sources. You should familiarise yourself with it if you have not already done so. All of the health related stuff should use MEDRS sources. AlbinoFerret 02:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I do believe I understand the guidelines. If you are talking about Electronic Cigarettes, the US FDA is intending on regulating them on the basis of tobacco. This is not completed yet, but it is the direction. E-Cigs are not medical devices, Nicotine is not a created drug, it is a plant distillation. Tobacco is regulated not as food, and not as drug. Its it own classification. Nearly all of my cites are published in peer-reviewed journals, which corespond well with the MEDRS. I do believe there is some gamesmanship going on by QuackGuru. Mystery Wolff (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You are a relatively new editor, and I just want to help you avoid problems. MEDRS tells us to use secondary sources, and to avoid primary ones. That doesnt mean they cant be used at all. But the only way they can come in for a medical claim is with consensus of the editors. Peer reviewed journals are a good sources, but look for reviews which are secondary sources. Studies and other things which are primary are best to avoid, if you think one is useful start a talk page discussion and see if there is consensus or agreement before adding it. AlbinoFerret 02:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Please stop reverting there is a rule called the WP:3RR rule that says you cant revert more than 3 times per article in 24hrs. You may be banned if you do. AlbinoFerret 02:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of the MEDRS reverts with QuackGuru. I did use the UNDO button twice on that. I am not sure if you are talking about those. Or if you are talking about the Smoking Cessation. The one regarding Smoking Cessation, QuackGuru just reverted my edits. AFTER your comment immediately above. I do not intend to get into an edit war with him. He backs out my contributions through a mass of his edits. I do not believe any of my cites are not conforming to MEDRS. Mystery Wolff (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You are using studies to argue against reviews, you added original research, you deleted text cited to reviews and you cut and pasted text directly from the source without rewriting it. QuackGuru (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

A review needs to be at a time where the study was available. Pointing to 2013 when 2105 exists becomes problematic. No Original research was done. All items were and are cited, that I included. Suggesting that I was so true to the cited source that quoting with attribution to authors, is a copyright violation would be a laugh...if it were not for you causing myself and other editors all the unnecessary time to fight to have valid content remain in the page. Yes I read where you are proud that 90% of the content in this page was created by you. Whether that is true or not I won't check. However YOU DO NOT OWN THE ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE page. Even if you have a valid point in the Smoking Cessation section on an item, you have gone much father when you back out my edits. You usually do them with 10 edits. At least you did the last one with a full UNDO. I hope it make it easier for the someone to review on the merits. Thank you for that at least. Mystery Wolff (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Mystery Wolff the easiest way to revert is the undo button. We cant revert, or bring the page back to a previous state more than 3 times in 24 hours. Both completly reverting an editor, or even partially undoing an edit is a revert. Since your new you were probably unaware of this. In some cases even reverting three times can get you into trouble for "edit warring" thats where two or more edits keep reverting each other. Its best to stop after 1 revert and discuss things on the talk page and try and come to an agreement. Everything on wikipedia should be done with consensus or agreement. AlbinoFerret 03:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

These two are studies. After I tagged the OR you restored it again, among other problems. QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru, I do not think you know the definition of OR, citing the conclusions of peer review journals in topic is appropriate. Again I saw your comments that you are responsible for 90% of the content in Electronic Cigarettes and that you don't want others to change things. Tagging something in error does not give you special abilities of control. When you claim copyright violations is over the top. When you claim the Journal of Addiction is not a credible resource, I think you are simply using gamesmanship. After spending time to correct problems, like content that has no relationship to the citations given. And to update 2013 information with information done in the last 2 years....it is zapped away by you. Yes I am frustrated by this. Mystery Wolff (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Electronic cigarette topic area, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33 L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

(I'm a arbitration clerk, but this is not taken in that capacity.) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Large removal of talk posts at Talk:Electronic cigarette

• Talk:Electronic cigarette (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Note your recent edit. Can I ask for your reasoning for removing 171,000 bytes of posts by others? EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)