| Revision as of 23:36, 28 November 2015 editS Marshall (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers32,478 edits Let it go, mate← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:27, 29 November 2015 edit undoMystery Wolff (talk | contribs)384 edits →Letting it goNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| == Letting it go == | == 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—] <small>]/]</small> 23:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | 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—] <small>]/]</small> 23:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::https://en.wikipedia.org/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. ] (]) 00:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:27, 29 November 2015
Mystery Wolff, you are invited to the Teahouse!
| [REDACTED] |
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)
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)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/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)