User talk:Mystery Wolff

Mystery Wolff, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mystery Wolff! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Construction of electronic cigarettes into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Doug Weller (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Letting it go

You can take it to the bank that QuackGuru will be topic banned tomorrow. I recommend letting him have his way for the moment. All the best—S Marshall T/C 23:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_.28username.29_3 It would seem so if you look at the very bottom. There is an entire host of pages QuackGuru is "doing". Saying the journal of Addiction and University of East London are not credible sources is way over the top. Mystery Wolff (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. On Wikipedia, you can always safely revert someone once. Never revert the same edit twice. Never revert the same editor twice in succession. Words to live by. Hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 00:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly endorse S Marsall's advice and just talking a break from the article and any argument others may want to engage in with you. Its really for the best. No sense arguing with QG. AlbinoFerret 03:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

These two are studies. After I tagged the OR you restored it again, among other problems.[1] QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]