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.
:::Others already have weighed in. There is an increasing level of concern at the repeated removal of any information that doesn't support a certain narrative. For example any study about efficacy as a smoking cessation aid is immediately deleted, while the WHO's increasingly outdated statement about there being no studies apparently must remain. POV, much?--]<sup>]</sup> 11:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
:::Others already have weighed in. There is an increasing level of concern at the repeated removal of any information that doesn't support a certain narrative. For example any study about efficacy as a smoking cessation aid is immediately deleted, while the WHO's increasingly outdated statement about there being no studies apparently must remain. POV, much?--]<sup>]</sup> 11:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
::::Funny... ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
::::Funny... ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
What the fuck is your problem?
You have just deleted one of my edits AGAIN, claiming "did not show a benefit compared to placebo e-cigs." Well SO WHAT? Did I claim it did? No, I did not. I was citing a study to show that e-cigs - nicotine or otherwise; it doesn't matter - are effective for smoking cessation and THAT'S WHAT THE STUDY SHOWS. As far as I'm concerned ] is right out the window with you. You have repeatedly deleted properly sourced information while leaving misleading edit summaries. Stop pushing your POV.--]<sup>]</sup> 13:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages.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:Doc_James.
How Sati is a suicide? When it was done by the women, only for escaping from the invaders, like it's mentioned in main page? It's wasn't just practiced in India either, plus it's forbidden by hindu texts, so how it's a "hindu practice" either? It was never legal to do, but still women had to do, so that they can save themselves from getting abucted by the invaders. There's no proof if it was ever legal, it's same as saying that murder was legal everywhere until the court were established.. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Also the source it self doesn't mentions anywhere that "herself on her husband's funeral pyre, either willingly or under pressure from the family and society." It's obviously made up by some editor here. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The ref says "A woman has burned herself alive on the funeral pyre of her dead husband in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, committing the sacred but outlawed Hindu practice of 'sati'" What do you think our text should be changed to? No were do we state that it was ever legal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you whether remove that whole sentence again, or write like.. "Sati, a practice in which the widow used immolate herself on her husband's funeral pyre, in order to save herself from getting abducted by invaders."
Kurien, Prema (2007). A Place at the Multicultural Table: The Development of an American Hinduism. Rutgers University Press. p. 171.
Some people still do it per the BBC ref. And page 171 of the ref does not support the text in question . Page 121 supports that the practice was banned in 1829. It also supports that it is sometimes due to social pressure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Do or did? Well, there has been total of 40 cases in last 66 years, so basically it's nothing. The practice is obviously dead. That's what the point is. The practice may have been constitutionally banned, because of the establishment of court, but then any crime or suicide can't be said as legal, before the formation of court. Maybe this would be correct?:-
"Sati, a now outlawed practice, expected the widow to immolate herself on her husband's funeral pyre, usually in order to save herself from getting abducted by invaders, either willingly or under pressure from the and society." Bladesmulti (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Would you do me a favour (no hurry) and take a look at Mark Hyman (doctor)? I think there was a G11 involved somewhere along the line, but it's late here, and the redirect trail has boggled me a bit for the moment. Thanks. Begoon16:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Concerning the edit on Anencephaly, I have restored the previous format of the article which I believe has been decided after considerable debate on Talk:Anencephaly#Image move. We aim to WP:Request for comment to decide the ultimate form of the article.
The goal is to make Misplaced Pages easier and more intuitive to use.
and
Style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole.
In my opinion the collapsible gallery makes Misplaced Pages easier when it comes to conveying information to both the general public as well as medical professionals, and the departure from WT:MOS may be a acceptable compromise.
I see an RfC is in order, but the last edits you did was disruptive. It removed a perfectly valid X-ray image as the header, completely from the article to prove a point. If you are going to revert edits, you may at least see to it you don't remove content that was legitimately placed.CFCF (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
According to WP:PHARMMOS we are meant to use INN names as drug article titles. Yet for some reason that escapes me the dexamfetamine article is titled Dextroamphetamine which is the USAN. I don't know how to change the name of article but I assume it would be involve moving the article to the newly named article which I think is something only an admin, like yourself, is able to do. Fuse809 (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
That's also the case for amphetamine and levoamphetamine, but for those 3 articles the INN is much less common usage than the USAN (#1 in WP:CRITERIA); I also don't know why they replaced the ph with an f, because I've never seen phenethylamine written as fenethylamine. There's a similar issue with the formerly titled Adderall, which was recently discussed here. Seppi333 (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Administrator request to add new task force
Hello, I hope you are enjoying your holiday! I was wondering if you would be so kind as to make the changes to the {{WP:MED}} template to include a new task force, society and medicine. It looks very complicated to make a change, and I'm not sure non-adminstrators are able (WP:MEDTF) The task force page is here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Society_and_medicine_task_force, and I've already created the relevant categories. I hope through this task force we can make a positive change to a growing subset of articles under the scope of WP:Med. LT910001 (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Can you please move Shwachman–Bodian–Diamond syndrome to Shwachman–Diamond syndrome with the page history and redirect the other accordingly. Reason: The latter term in widely used in scientific literature whereas the former is not commonly used. Even the article lead uses the latter directly and not the former. I do not think that there would be any issue with the move. Diptanshu10:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Jmh649: I added the "See Also" section because I think The China Study adds something important to the discussion about why many people develop hypercholesterolemia. Why did you delete it? Are you familiar with the book? Hill's Angel (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDMOS we do not really do see also sections. I am aware of the book. The link to it on the main hyperchol page in its very own section is IMO undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you're the only admin I know so I thought I'd ask you how I would put four images in a single cell. On the Sceletium tortuosum pages I have been trying to add four images of the plant's constituent alkaloids and I'd like to put them into a single cell at the end of the pharmacology section. Fuse809 (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey Jmh, how do I format the user:WPMED on my own page? Somehow mine is formatted differently and I'm unsure how to fix it. Any advice on that would be appreciated since it looks pretty bad ATM. Thanks buddy! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Perfect, thank you! I had no idea to put in those specific characters. I appreciate the help! Let me know if there's anything I can help you with or any interesting projects you're working on at the moment. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I will when I have more time to edit/focus on a given topic. I'm relatively unfamiliar with the criteria used to assess articles to determine if they are GA status or better so I will need to review those beforehand. Did you have a specific article in mind? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jmh649, I noticed you reverted the "article alerts" page on WPMed. I'm guessing this was an accident, as it is pretty useless to see PRODs and AFDs etc from last month, so I've reverted back to the up-to-date version. --LT910001 (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Telling me to look at policy when you yourself have failed to observe it is a smarmy and incongruous exercise. I have already discussed it. YOU are challenging it without discussion. I will keep reverting this everyday until you start discussing this. Now do I have your attention? -- Jodon | Talk12:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I just tried to insert a new information about cataract and cataract surgery. This is very useful to share some new classification and new procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pardianto (talk • contribs) 03:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
First of all it is copy and pasted from another source. Second is that if it is your material has it been published in a high quality source? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Doc James. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Emailed you entire history of me and that user. I know, I should have walked on and ignored it. Sorry for all the trouble.
Thank you,
I will wait and see if the picture of the melaonocyte will be OK to still be on Misplaced Pages. Also thanks for your help to direct me to the right page to answer your letter. I am still learning!
Yours,
SK10DPB — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK10DPB (talk • contribs) 09:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see justification of semi-protection except panicking over growing newer editors before enabling. Lower to "pending changes" instead? --George Ho (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I simply wanted to say I found the "Burn" article extremely helpful. Not being an expert I cannot comment on its technical merits, but it was quite useful to me as a layperson - comprehensive, thoroughly cited, and easily understood. It was exactly what I was searching for. Mary Chipman (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Doc, are you at UCSF this week? If so, I will wait to take this on, but the addition of the "up to 50%" here concerns me relative to optimal/better sourcing for a vauge statement of that nature. I can attempt to address that myself, but I am always limited to what free full text I can locate, so I need help in fixing it.
Because of your edit, I realized that article is highly cited to a less-than-best source, European guidelines focused on adults. First, it is 2010 and we have more recent. Second, the Europeans aren't exactly at the forefront when it comes to childhood neuropsychiatric disorders (in ADHD, most roads lead to Boston and at least in the realm of TS, one of the two top UK researchers just acknowledged in a journal article that the Europeans aren't in the forefront). Third, an article focused on adults in ADHD brings in a whole nother realm of issues: individuals who are adults now (and particularly in Europe) did not likely have a childhood diagnosis or receive adequate treatment, so we need to be careful with prognostic statements about outcome based on adults who were unlikely to have benefited from adequate treatment as children. And, because of the European healthcare model, ascertainment bias is a bigger issue there in terms of sample populations and the number of comorbid issues likely to show up in clinics. One sample, there is more:
We can do much better than make parents of children today (prospective, retrospective) fearful that their children have a 50% chance of ending up in substance abuse because we're quoting a 2010 European guideline, with vague "up to 50%" language, and we have many, much better, and more recent sources. I could go on about the problems in the European healthcare model that lead to that kind of writing, particularly when focused on adults today who may not have received childhood treatment, but ... do you or User:Zad68 have time to help with this? It needs to be fixed, but I have restrictions as to what sources I can access. My preliminary searches on what free full text is available confirm to me that "up to 50%" is implying a level of certainty that doesn't seem backed by other reviews in this case.
But more, I think that entire article, besides being outdated, needs to reflect better, higher quality, and more recent sources. In brief, considering the European healthcare model, we shouldn't be looking to European guidelines relative to adult populations as the major source for a childhood neuropsychiatric disorder, when we have much better and newer journal reviews from the top US researchers, who are leaders in the field. The editor who incorrectly added a primary source about nicotine was correct in that recent reviews say what s/he was saying, and review source should be added for that, and the vague 50% removed ... if you and Zad can help, we need to fix this, but I don't have access to enough sources. I'm no longer convinced that article should be a GA. If you are able to corral a UCSF student into working on this article, I would be willing to help-- my assumption is that the student would be able to access sources I can't access. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
What you need to understand is that different cultures may provide different statistical results due the variations in their own populations, how an issue is diagnosed, and the ability of all the population to access good quality health care to obtain a diagnosis. And the motivations of the various medical professionals and researchers may also vary between cultures. dolfrog (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
We do not disagree! Which is why a blanket, but vague, statement about up to 50%-- based on only European reports-- isn't optimal. IMNSHO, with TS, because mild cases are rarely ascertained in the European medical model, they see a much higher incidence of comorbidity and severe cases than in the US. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
It's at Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, regarding the comorbidity with substance abuse,this edit, adding the 50%, based (correctly) on that source, but I'm not sure the preponderance of sources bears this out. Need more journal research, which I can't do, but I gave you a sample review (above). We got off on TS because of my experience with US v European research in that realm, which is not unlike the ADHD situation. I'd like to remove that 50% for now, it it's OK with you, but think we could stand to really rework that article to broader (than European) sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I would not have used that source to support a "50% have substance abuse" statement. The underlying stuff the source cited seemed to indicate that at a particular point in time, samples taken from those with ADHD had estimated 50% positive test for substance abuse. I don't think that "present in 50%" quite summarizes that accurately. This is a separate issue from whether Kooij is a good-quality source in the first place; it was well-used in the article when I passed it as GA and I didn't think twice about whether it was a MEDRS-compliant source of sufficient quality to support GA content... honestly if it's not, I need to learn how to figure that out so I don't make that mistake again. Zad6803:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, guys, I've been extremely busy with that other stuff, and didn't want to remove something added by Doc without checking in. SO, are we agreed just to remove the 50%, and leave the rest? That would satisfy me, although we might also use the review I listed above to satisfy the earlier editor who wanted some mention of nicotine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Doc! Zad, I just realized that in my haste this morning, I did not address your question. That is a good source, I would generally not be uncomfortable using it for anything except that particular example, and there are cultural differences wrt neuropsychiatric diagnoses that it is helpful to be aware of. I wouldn't oppose that source for most information, but I am cautious when there are differences in US v European/UK prevalence or comorbidity estimates because of different ascertainment methods. If I were to try to write ADHD to the FA level, I'd probably include info from both sides of the pond, but I wouldn't take a European source at face value on the "up to 50%" (by instinct, I would balance that info with what US sources say). Sorry, but the Europeans just have more comorbidity because of diagnostic and ascertainment issues, I don't think even that source really supports such a broad statement, and there are more recent secondary reviews that cover that particular issue more carefully. Hope this helps! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
While I'm here, Doc, one UCSF editor is planning to add a literature section to Major depressive disorder? That article is already huge (way too big at almost 10,000 words prose, and that was an issue at its FAC). Has that editor got plans to work with User:Casliber? And I hope they understand the sourcing issues involved with writing that kind of content-- it can be tricky. At TS, I had to split that kind of info off to Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome. How does s/he plan to fit more content of that nature into an already huge MDD? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes am going to try to address that tonight. Am going to try to convince the students to try articles that are not already at GA/FA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Re:Page view data
I'm looking into this. Based on my initial testing, I don't think HTTPS is the problem. If you're interested, you can see my notes here. Mr.Z-man03:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Traffic accident
Ok Thanks for that, if I had the time, I would have looked more closely at the article. In my opinion the road trauma issue is actually a separate article, as the overall long term affect on communities at a social level, as well as the individual trauma (and its potential to be almost generational and epidemiological phenomenon) (1) the 18-25 year range morbidity rates as higher than any other cause of death in some communities around the world (2) the lifelong trauma for a significant numbers of accident victims, and community cost..
to me are separate from the actual traffic accident issues... traffic accident as the event, road truama as being the de facto logical extention. Hope I make sense. Just dont have the time to create the article at this stage. cheers. satusuro13:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Whilst I appreciate your long back history on medical articles, your current stance on abortion is dreadful editing, and very poor wikiquette. This has been an active dicussion at talk, and we have a proposed wording which fices major problems in the current lede. Your sudden 'swoop' appearance after discussion, because you don't like one of the sentences smacks of article 'ownership', and you haven't even had the decency to make good input on talk - just RfC it. I think you should consider your actions, and reflect if you could be more constructive to this debate. OwainDavies(talk) edited at 14:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree with an RfC per se, although in my experience they are more apt to bring stalemate than BRD, which is unhelpful on a topic like this, nor that the wording can be improved (almost always the case), but I do object to this being a discussion to fix the more major problems, which resulted in an improved version (appreciating that it might not be perfect), which you then revert without ever taking part in the discussion. The new version should stand, and the RfC and talk improvements should be on that version, not the old one. OwainDavies(talk) edited at 14:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I think that the current page on sodium nitroprusside is insufficient to fully elaborate on the medical uses of SNP and hence I propose that we make a new page entitled, say: Sodium nitroprusside (medication) much like the Lithium (medication) page as the Lithium page is more focused on the element and its physical and chemical properties where the medication page is more concerned about its medical uses. I know I can do this myself but I felt like asking an administrator like yourself for your opinions before doing something that could end up a big waste of time for myself (e.g. due to the page being deleted due to admins like yourself disagreeing with my point of view). Fuse809 (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Have change the heading to medical use. I would improve that section first and than if it becomes to big create a subpage as you mention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I have expanded the section in my sandbox and basically made it all read for me to create a new page like I proposed. Do you think it is a page I should create? Fuse809 (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
This one . X-rays are anonymous generally once the name / numbers have been removed. They are deemed at that point to be ethically okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Another move request
Can you please move along with the page history the article Stomach rumble to any of Abdominal sound, Abdominal sounds, Bowel sound or Bowel sounds, all of which are redirected to the former. Please change the redirects accordingly. Reason: Bowel sounds is a commoner and more scientific term accepted both in the medical as well as lay community. A still more scientific term is Abdominal sound but Bowel sounds is more widely and casually used while Stomach rumble is simply a lay man's term. I leave the judgement of selection of the preferable term to you. I do not think that there would be any issue with this move too. Diptanshu15:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Let me know after you move the article and I would make appropriate changes to the article to suit the name. I have suggested a move as I do not think that there is any justification for two different articles to exist amongst the mentioned terms. One amongst the latter ones really needs an article and has a wider scope. Diptanshu15:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I have modified the lead to suit the new title. I will modify the rest of contents later. You are welcome to participate too. Diptanshu08:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Listen you are the admin, I am not. So you need to step in and get this character to backtrack. He sees you and some sort of authority figure that authorized this nonsense. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
What I said was "I would improve that section first and than if it becomes to big create a subpage as you mention" Will look at it further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
You also said, "Great and than add a main tag from the other article" in response to me saying, "I have expanded the section in my sandbox and basically made it all read for me to create a new page like I proposed. Do you think it is a page I should create?" which I took to mean that you had read the article in my sandbox and it was adequate for me to create the proposed article. Fuse809 (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I do not really see either as an issue. Let me look at it. On second though might be best to add the two together. Fuse809 are you okay with combining the two? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Eh, I suppose, anyway it's already been done see Sodium nitroprusside, another admin beat ya to the punch. The main thing I disagree with is that drugboxes display drug information better and the article only has a chembox which, while it can display some drug information it doesn't display all that drugboxes are capable of. Fuse809 (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The images have again been deleted by another admin with identical rationale about no "ORTS ticket"
The original uploader might still be around, last edit was on 16/11/2013. Please advise when you have a moment free, Lesion (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Jump on in. This is a significant attack on Misplaced Pages's medical content. There are people attempting to build an encyclopedia and there are people attempting to destroy one. More seem to be interested in building per here but some blocks may be needed to be handed out to protect this place from those who appear to have no intension of abiding by consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
A comment.
Three things here after reading the 3rr report you made on fergus:
WP:MEDRS is not a policy - it perhaps should be, but it isn't.
Your usage of the mantra "WHO, CDC, FDA" is basic strawmanning, since the NPOV problem discussed wasn't with their views.
Yes, I did review the previous discussion, I also checked the existing OTRS ticket and quite a lot of searches of OTRS to see if tickets in respect of these images had been submitted - to which the answer was no. The uploader of the deleted images did not state they were the uploader of the ticketed images, as they used only their on-wiki name on these files. NtheP (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
So you are saying that their is no OTRS permission for this image It is marked as such. It was uploaded by the user in question. Authorship is now listed as Anders Hedin now that it has been restored. The other 4 images are also authored by Anders Hedin. Common sense would indicate that they are same. And that one could maybe give the person a couple of days per the tag. Maybe someone at ORTS could even email the user in question regarding permission for the other images? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
No, the melanocyte image is correctly licenced and confirmed via an OTRS ticket, but that is the only ticket currently existing for any of these five images. The other four did not have anything identifying them as being authored by Hedin, just the up loaders on-wiki name with no indication that they are Hedin. F11 deletons get 7 days grace, these have had 13 now and still no tickets filed by the uploader whose responsibility it is to provide the necessary evidence, not for me or anybody else to go on speculative inquiries.
I see you have restored two of the images, I suggest you redate the F11 tag to expire in another week or so or else the same scenario might arise again as they still say they an be deleted after 14 November, Dianna and I aren't the only admins to patrol the file CSD categories. NtheP (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
They are listed as authored by Hedin. Take a look at this one Notice this bit of text "Previously published: Swed Dent J 1994 18:117-124" Take a look at the author list on pubmed . Notice that first author is Hedin. Anyway will update. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Anders emailed through permission for the other four images to OTRS this morning. All restored and marked with the permission. NtheP (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
You just removed information from the Electronic cigarette article on the grounds that it is "not what the source said". In fact it was exactly what the source said - that e-cigs are about as effective a smoking cessation aid as patches. Your edit comment is at best misleading and definitely wrong. Unless you have a better reason for removing the information it would probably benefit the article if you restored it.--FergusM197000:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is. The information you deleted accurately represented the source. Your edit summary claimed it didn't, and was therefore misleading. This has been raised by myself and another editor on the talk page and you are not engaging.--FergusM197000:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Others already have weighed in. There is an increasing level of concern at the repeated removal of any information that doesn't support a certain narrative. For example any study about efficacy as a smoking cessation aid is immediately deleted, while the WHO's increasingly outdated statement about there being no studies apparently must remain. POV, much?--FergusM197011:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
You have just deleted one of my edits AGAIN, claiming "did not show a benefit compared to placebo e-cigs." Well SO WHAT? Did I claim it did? No, I did not. I was citing a study to show that e-cigs - nicotine or otherwise; it doesn't matter - are effective for smoking cessation and THAT'S WHAT THE STUDY SHOWS. As far as I'm concerned WP:AGF is right out the window with you. You have repeatedly deleted properly sourced information while leaving misleading edit summaries. Stop pushing your POV.--FergusM197013:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
