Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Levelledout (talk | contribs) at 12:34, 12 April 2015 (→Arbcom Case Request Notification: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Potential new e-cig source

• Nicotine and the Developing Human: A Neglected Element in the Electronic Cigarette Debate Everymorning talk 19:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The source was added to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary

If you're going to revert , please say so in the ES; "c/e" isn't a fair summary. thanks. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 03:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The wording questioned was original research. QuackGuru (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Whatever your objection, please follow WP:ES and don't bury major changes under minor-sounding ES's. And you did it again: . --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And again. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see this diff. QuackGuru (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please explain your accusation

Of the WHO quote being OR... LesVegas (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please don't use a poor source to argue against a review. QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The WHO statement was a review itself, but another review did criticize it. It's not, however, OR. In the future, please discuss things like this on the talk page instead of automatically reverting them. LesVegas (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The WHO statement was sourced to an editorial that is a poor source. However, a high-quality review found "Perhaps the most obviously over-optimistic overview is the document recently published by the WHO (Table 1)." QuackGuru (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 22:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC).

WP:NOTBROKEN

It's not a big deal, but I wonder whether you're aware of WP:NOTBROKEN, regarding linking to redirects versus exact article titles. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The wording in the body also begins with US rather the US in the wikilink. I was keeping the wikilink consistent with the way it was on that page and other pages for the topic. QuackGuru (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom Case Request Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#CASENAME and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,