User talk:QuackGuru/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi QuackGuru, I noticed that you made the link to this page in your signature the exact same color as the uncreated page links. Could you change that? It's a bit confusing. Thanks, Iwilsonp (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have requested ArbCom resolution of the issues you are involved in on electronic cigarette articles.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

And we've agreed that a sock can't bring a case, so it's been removed. Any editor in good standing can file a new case.

talk

) 19:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You are an involved party (!!) and should not have closed that thread. I have re-opened it. Please don't close it again. BMK (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I left a note that it can be reopened. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It was a bad move to close it, from many perspectives. BMK (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi QuackGuru, I appreciate your

talk

) 05:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Now that the thread is closed at ANI editors can move on from the previous disputes and get back to improving the pages. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That is my hope. ~

talk

) 06:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The thread at Arbcom will probably be closed now since you closed the thread at AN/I. The good news is that I found several new sources for the main page for discussion.

I'm surprised that AlbinoFerret wants to continue discussing previous disputes. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_User:AlbinoFerret. QuackGuru (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. He had permission to do exactly that. [1] I think the case request at Arbcom will be closed for other reasons not related to my close. Most likely they will want to first give the community a chance to solve the problem with discretionary sanctions, as proposed on the AN/I thread. ~

talk

) 06:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That's good they will give the community a chance to resolve the disputes as long as things gets resolved. I need a break from editing because of all the sources I read. QuackGuru (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Quack, do you get what I am saying in this post? It's not that I am trying to be rude just that there must be some sort of misinterpretation going on somewhere. I would be quite happy to elaborate if you need further clarification. Also what I was trying to say was that making claims about individual words being original research that are in fact simply paraphrases is probably not all that productive and that we could be working on more important things.Levelledout (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Your Request for Arbitration was declined by the Arbitration Committee. For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC) See Arbitration request. It was the opinion of some of the arbitrators that the issue may still be resolved by the community. For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello QuackGuru. This is just a note that I'm going to be extra strict about edit warring at the Electronic cigarette article. To be clear, I don't think that this revert by itself constitutes edit warring. However, I have already warned the other editor involved about this, and further reverts could easily be construed as edit warring, so please be careful when editing the article. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I was looking at your user page while creating a redirect and I got the two mixed up. Won't happen again, really sorry. Trying to juggle stuff right now. Probably time for a break. Soldier of the Empire (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries. QuackGuru (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

If you're going to revert [2], 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: [3]. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI

) 05:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And again.[4] --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of

electronic cigarettes.
The details of these sanctions are described here

.

uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, 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).

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 [28] (Table 1)."[5] QuackGuru (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, but I wonder whether you're aware of

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)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at

Thanks, Levelledout (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears you have plagiarized the work of user @Atsme: by creating the essay Advocacy Quacks and creating it as if you had written it. This does not follow good Wikipedia principles. Please give proper credit where credit is due, including for your fellow editors. David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

QG, I have deleted the essay

Come on Zad, this was harmless, and far far more accurate than the other one, and also didn't advocate against PAG. You could have left the decision for the community in this case, as you must have done for the other one, as Admins didn't appear to have the balls to do what you just did. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 12:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Post a note at

WP:AN asking other admins to review my action, so they can review the original essay deleted via MFD and this one, happy to have that discussion and will abide by the result. Zad68

12:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Harmless according to whom? My work was plagiarized, and that is not harmless. Your defense of it is as deplorable as the action itself. Atsme☯^Consult 13:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

As deplorable as your defense of Quackery? Hah. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 18:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You might want to read the definition of "quackery" - it's just before the definition of "witch hunt". Atsme☯^Consult 19:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

All Wikipedia content − articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages − is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular page. "quote" -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 20:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Quackery - witch-hunt -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 20:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't revert so much all together at Electronic cigarette. Take one thing at a time. Join the specific discussion of details that SPACKlick has started on talk and wait for more people to join in — don't just revert to your preferred version with a bare statement like for instance "I think it is about usage not motivation or cessation" on the talkpage. These are mostly copyedits, for instance the one where the sentence "Electronic cigarettes were not regularly associated with trying to quit tobacco among young people" was moved to another section. Being so quick to revert them does look like ownership. Slow down. Bishonen | talk 19:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC).

The article and text is about prevalence IMO. I am discussing it on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The take away message from Bish here, is slow down. Really. It seems to be a perception that your editing is so fast, that it cannot be accurate. Do yourself a favour. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 20:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&curid=11996885&diff=656362456&oldid=656362329 Most websites make these claims. This is

fact. No attempt was made to change the wording. You just deleted it because you did not like one word? You could of rewrote it or placed it where you thought it should go. QuackGuru (talk

) 01:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You were aware the topic was controversial, as you had been part of the discussion and you have been warned before about undiscussed edits to controversial topics. I deleted per WP:BRD. Ownership at E-cigarette articles will not be tolerated, fair warning. SPACKlick (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yo deleted it without trying to improve the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the claim should be there. You did not seek consensus for the claim to be there. Reverting was the PAG appropriate action. If the inclusion is justified please justify the inclusion on the talk page. SPACKlick (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the main conclusions from the source.

""Smoking revolution": a content analysis of electronic cigarette retail websites". Am J Prev Med. 46 (4): 395–403. 2014.

PMID 24650842. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help

)

QuackGuru (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have at no point disputed that. You seem to be failing to understand

Look at this comment. SPACKlick thinks the sources are making a negative claims? Lol. This is a claim the almost all websites make according to the source. QuackGuru (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You are conflating two discussions, one attributing circumvention as a motivation of users and one claiming that advertisers use the term. The first is being discussed for wording where it is appropriate to discuss the appropriate way to word it in WP's voice, the other is being discussed for inclusion after you added it without consensus, in an inappropriate location and then failed to offer any justification for including it in the article. Please don't poke fun when really you just don't understand. It's not a failure to admit you're not understanding, plenty of us will offer to help. SPACKlick (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I see what happened now. You thought the wording was not NPOV and then you went ahead and deleted another source. QuackGuru (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not what happened, which you'd understand if you read anything I'd written about THIS content rather than the content I changed the wording on. They're two separate discussions that you are conflating. And yes, the cleanup of e-cig articles will involve the removal of sources as we have lots of claims, multiply sourced and repeated. SPACKlick (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You deleted "circumvent".[6]

You deleted "circumvention".[7]

Most retail e-cigarettes websites made claims that the products could be used anyplace and can circumvent smoke-free laws. And you deleted "circumvent" again. QuackGuru (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I paraphrased the two claims of circumvention as motivation due to NPOV concerns and there is ongoing discussion on the talk page. I reverted your bold insertion of material into the article as it seemed inappropriate and you have finally started discussing that on the talk page. This discussion belongs on that talk page. SPACKlick (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of editors disagreed with you last time we has this discussion and now you tried to forced changed in long after the discussion? See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_49#Electronic_Cigarette_-_.22circumvent_smoke-free_laws.22. Now you mentioned you missed those discussions? QuackGuru (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Genuinely didn't remember those discussions and don't remember taking part in them although I see now I made one comment. I am trying to discuss the changes on the

WP:AGF

and continuing this here rather than at the appropriate venue.

As for lots of editors disagreeing, NPOV page had 6 for changing and 2 against (one of whom said the use of the word gives a shading of meaning that isn't carried over into other sources. I'd be OK with wording that doesn't use either "comply" or "circumvent", like some of the proposals here and the other was you). On the original discussion 3 editors disagreed with changing and 5 for changing. The discussions petered out as people lost the will to spend time on the articles. There was no consensus. Had there been and I'd missed it I'd have self rev'd instantly although I'd still likely have opened a talk page discussion in the relevant venue (not: not here). SPACKlick (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus then and I don't see consensus now for the changes. Did another editor tell you to restore the consensus wording? QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes Quack, it's all a big conspiracy, I'm not just trying to fix the article that over a dozen editors have lost the will to look after with your additions. For the last time, take this to the talk page. Discuss it sensibly and within policy and we'll see if something productive can be reached. Like how wikipedia is supposed to work. SPACKlick (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You were asked by another editor to restore it. I put it in my edit summary so you can't miss it. QuackGuru (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I will continue to AGF. Not sure what this is about. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion you were having about the 3RR violation at e-cig from here to here at

I've moved from AN to 3RRNB as the appropriate venue per comments at AN and policy Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SPACKlick reported by User:QuackGuru at Electronic Cigarette (copied here by SPACKlick SPACKlick (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The article is under sanctions. I will move it to AN/I. QuackGuru (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Article shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -A1candidate 19:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The review verifies the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

So? There was an ongoing discussion at the talk page, but you decided to revert without discussion. -A1candidate 19:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The argument was that is was unsourced but I did provide verification on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That does not mean you can revert without consensus. -A1candidate 19:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The wording was in the article for a very long time but where is your rationale argument for deleting it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because something can be verified doesn't mean it should be included. -A1candidate 19:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The only concern on the talk page was that it was unsourced. Editors were pointing to

WP:OBVIOUS but it was clearly sourced. QuackGuru (talk

) 19:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying we should state the

WP:OBVIOUS in the lede? -A1candidate

19:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

We already are stating what is sourced not WP:OBVIOUS for the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears you are edit warring on another article against consensus and without an explanation. Nows you added a blog to a BLP. QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The lede should not contain unnecessary details. This may be suitable for the body, but not the lede. -A1candidate 14:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not even sure what to put as a block message here. QG is disruptive across many different pages, and has violated a ton of policies. QG has also requested that he be blocked for 24 hours. I can't imagine anyone unblocking QG regardless before the 24 hours is up based on his behavior, but I would explicitly ask no other admin to overrule the 24 hour block that I find reasonable (if not more) that QG has asked for himself. For the duration of the block is his tpa is gone. If there is any taunting about the subject, I will shut down the whole talk page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This is confusing Kevin given your comment above about accidentally blocking and unblocking QG's account. Can you provide a diff of where he asks to be blocked? I seem to have missed this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Kevin Gorman: Where did QG request to be blocked? Particularly given the section immediately above where you indicate a "bad reason", I think something clearer than an assertion that a ton of policies have been violated is needed. QG's most recent edit was at 23:21, 15 April 2015, nearly 24 hours before your block, and before your 15:53, 16 April 2015 and 20:01, 16 April 2015 warning at Talk:Electronic cigarette#Sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Wow, that block log makes me look a little incompetent. The initial 3rr block was a misclick; I apparently failed while trying to undo it, so he was blocked anyway. QG has been in email communication with me for some time, and requested a block. I'm normally hesitant to place requested blocks, but since I could've reasonably blocked him anyway I went ahead and did it. If I was blocking him over the policy vios, I would have enumerated them, but it was a self-requested block and he appears to have a good grasp of the problems with his behavior. Sorry for the confusion caused by my (two) earlier screwups. FWIW: although I should have made it more obvious, I would've been fine with a block extension - just not a block removal. I don't feel it's fair play to taunt a blocked user who doesn't have TPA, since the talk page comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi QuackGuru, we've interacted a few times before, and I've been watching some of the articles where you frequently edit. I just came here from reading the Arbcom request on you and the sections at AN/I where you and User:SPACKlink were arguing. I think it is clear that while a lot of people agree with many of your positions, a majority of people have concerns about your behavior. I personally am concerned with what seems to be a lack of collaboration with other editors, aggressive editing, abrasive interactions with others, and generally what one might call

Kevin Gorman thought it was necessary for some administrative intervention. Kevin Gorman thinks given the historic state of this page he may have to take more serious action if this continues with me (or any editor). I have agreed with Kevin Gorman that it would be a good idea to

WP:FOC otherwise he or you will impose some type of administrative restriction. QuackGuru (talk

) 00:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'm not sure I fully understand what happened with Kevin Gorman below, but that's not what I'm interested in. I'd like to have a conversation with you about your behavior and interactions, and see some sort of real commitment to modify that. I hope you will take a moment to reread my initial post and respond to my questions. ~

talk

) 05:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've yet to see, after a few years of active wikipedia involvement, any editor who wants QG to be sanctioned actually define what is wrong with his editing in terms of PAG. He edits from a mainstream POV, and is dedicated to improving the project. He is also very capable and wonderfully fast. His edits appear like a series of shots from a gun, normally well sourced. What in PAG advises against being a pretty dammed accomplished editor, who upholds the aims of the project in the face of attacks from fringe supporting contributors? I would estimate that looking at the list of his accusers over the years, more than half represent this group. Do not try to change QG's behaviour to suit those who oppose what he stands for. Thank you. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 14:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I take it that you have reviewed the ArbCom case request which does in fact set things out clearly in terms of PAG? Regardless of whether you accept it I would agree with Adjwilley that most editors do accept that there is a problem. Certainly a number of arbitrators also seem to accept it and the majority of declines are based on needing to give sanctions more time to work as opposed to a belief that there isn't a problem. I don't want to go into to much detail and inflame the situation because I think it has been clearly demonstrated elsewhere that what you claim QG does is not actually what happens. But suffice to say whilst I'm not overly optimistic given the history, I do hope that a clearly needed solution can be found that is acceptable to all parties including QG.Levelledout (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the sections at AN/I, I know where things took a turn for the worse. It was before it was moved to AN/I. After I told him to reconsider making personal comments directed at me he stated he will continue to state his opinion. My mistake was I should of walked away from the situation. Rather than make comments on the behaviour of others I will collaborate with other editors better by using the talk page to resolve disputes. I agree to focus on content and not comment on the motives of others at the talk page. I understand that if an editor accused me of something it is best not to response or that will get me into trouble. It was also a mistake for me to comment on editors at the talk page rather than solely on content. To help resolve this situation I am committed to stop accusing editors of doing things and will interact with others civilly, calmly, and in the spirit of cooperation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

(

Adjwilley. I'm glad that you've taken the time to look for ways in which you can help QG steer clear of trouble. I've watched him over a considerable period of time and I can attest to his sincerity in wanting what's best for the encyclopedia. What is clear is that he edits in areas where considerable controversy exists - fringe and pseudo-science - because he is passionate about keeping Wikipedia articles from being turned into adverts for quack scientific claims by SPAs whose sole purpose is to push their fringe POV. Unfortunately, QG has been guilty in the past of making wide-scale changes to articles in an attempt to restore what he feels is scientific neutrality. I've cautioned him to slow down and only make incremental changes, so that he takes other, reasonable editors along with him, rather than alienating them. Give QG his due, he has tried hard to accommodate my advice, but I fear that he has made too many enemies in the past. When someone like Guy - who is no friend of the fringe POV-pushers - loses patience with QG, it is clearly time for QG to step away from the "cause" for a while. Adjwilley, why not take a considered look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 and see whether some of the contributors there who make constructive criticisms could be persuaded to help you? I have seen QG worry that everyone who comments on him is seeking to have him sanctioned; perhaps you can go some way to dissuading him from that view and help him to find ways in which he can contribute more effectively to the encyclopedia? --RexxS (talk

) 19:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Adj, thanks for stepping in here, and please don't worry about stepping on my toes - you won't :)) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru, thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your commitment to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in the spirit of cooperation. I think that alone (especially the spirit of cooperation part) will go a long way toward resolving some of the problems. (Obviously I don't expect the content dispute to go away, but it should be less likely to wind up at AN/I.) On the other hand, that alone doesn't fully address the issues of aggressive editing and ownership that are frequently mentioned. Might I suggest that you also make a commitment to try and follow

talk

) 04:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I support mentoring for QG. As noted above, there are not many admins on Wikipedia who are less patient with the

disruptive editing. I understand his anger at the POV-pushing of quacks and his thoroughness in digging up sources is appreciated but by FSM he is maddening to work with. Guy (Help!

) 09:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:1RR might work in practice because I want to avoid inflaming others. QuackGuru (talk

) 02:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying not get too involved here but when QG is name-checking me, making remarks about my conduct and using others to back up his opinions in a less than accurate way I think it's only fair and somewhat necessary to comment.

• QG says he has not made any more substantial changes since March but has made about 165 edits to the main e-cig since April the 1st.
• QG relies on a comment by Adjwilley that he linked to his Sanbox yet ignores my subsequent reply clarifying and reaffirming that he didn't. I suspect that QG's knows full well that he didn't and would provide the relevant diff of him doing so if he did.
• QG claims that "There are editors that did support the WP:MEDRS and WP:SECONDARY sources I added to the page. However, Levelledout thought at the time that "Sourcing is irrelevant." - i.e. implying that I think that sourcing is irrelevant to Wikipedia which is not what I said or meant. Rather I meant that when an editor dumps 17k of error-ridden information into the article with no prior discussion, in direct violation of
  WP:CAUTIOUS
  and instructions given to them by an admin, then the fact that the information was sourced neither guarantees inclusion nor trumps consensus nor validates the error-ridden edit.

QG cherry-picks one arbitrator's remark. Lets see what some of the other less flattening ones have to say:

• "I would strongly advise him to take on board the opinions expressed here and moderate his behaviour." User:Thryduulf
• "We can have further disruption and then step in, or we can step in now and do what can be done to short-circuit the further disruption." User:DGG
• "In my judgment we need to examine this editor's conduct."
  User:AGK

Providing a reasonable edit-history is not a "token of good faith", it is something every editor should be doing. QG if you are serious about changing battleground conduct then please think before dragging another editor's conduct into conversations for no reason and consider how you represent other's opinions.Levelledout (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm striking this because it's a distraction and I shouldn't be commenting like this. But the bottom line is, QG, please lets have some honesty because that last post was less than honest. I'm not trying to be impolite about it, just that I say things as they are and that is how they are. Please lets also make some genuine effort to overcome the

WP:BATTLEGROUND by not bringing up the conduct of other editors needlessly where it isn't relevant. Note that the sole issue being discussed here is ways to improve your own conduct, not what has happened in the past with myself or other editors.Levelledout (talk

) 12:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a very difficult area to edit in. QG uses very high quality sources and makes sure the article reflects the best available literature. QG continued presence is thus useful at the article in question. It is those who wish to remove high quality source or to de emphasize them that I have concerns with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of who Doc James is referring to here, which is not clear, I think that there is an important point that needs to be made. There is a great deal of difference between removing sources which conflict which an editor's POV and reverting sourced edits for genuine

WP:CAUTIOUS is part of a concrete policy and cannot be disregarded simply because an edit is sourced. Finally I would add that whilst we have some high quality sources at the e-cig article, the article is in a very poor state in terms of readability. Once again, sourcing is not the be-all-and-end-all, it's no good having good sources if most potential readers are going to be put off actually reading it.Levelledout (talk

) 13:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A couple comments to the commentators:

@Doc James: I know QG uses good sources. That's why I want them to be able to continue to contribute. It would be very easy to topic ban them, but I'm looking for ways to minimize disruption while still allowing them to contribute.

@Levelledout: Thanks for striking your comment above. I am aware that WP:RS isn't the only criteria for inclusion, though you are the only person I've heard advocating so hard for WP:CAUTIOUS. Really though, I'd prefer to just have a discussion with QG without the extra commentary. ~

talk

) 16:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, wot everybody can edit, including talk pages where a good ed is under extreme pressure. What did you expect would happen? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• @
  talk
  ) 18:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@QG, Sorry for the long pause. I've reread what you said above, and I'll satisfy myself with the commitments you made. Please do think about the 1RR as well. Thanks, and good luck. ~

talk

) 04:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I just blocked (and instantly unblocked you) over a bad reason. My brain apparently spasmed or thing, sorry about that, and good luck~ Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2015‎ (UTC)

I'm really wondering what happened in my brain for me to type a comment this cryptic, haha. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has declined the

I think that if you check the sources you claim I added you'll find that the PDF from the UK source was already in use in the article, I just chose to reference a section that wasn't pushing your agenda Quack... Lancer2K (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Both sources you added are MEDRS violations. I explained this to you on your talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Rather than having a fight about it. @Lancer2K: can you point to where the sources are already used on the page? Bear in mind that a source suitable for a medical claim will need to be higher quality that for other more mundane claims. SPACKlick (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Also bear in mind

WP:DONTBITE. Lancer2K is a newcomer and according to behavioural guidelines should be treated with kindness and patience and without hostility. Also the discussion that was started at Lancer2K's talk page should really have been started on the article talk page. Content discussions are best had on article talk pages so that all interested editors can contribute.Levelledout (talk

) 13:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The misplaced new sentence was largely duplication of an existing sentence in another section. The similar claim currently in the article is sourced using a recent systematic review. See

Safety of electronic cigarettes#Health benefits and concerns. I did explain this briefly. QuackGuru (talk

) 17:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi QuackGuru! I appreciate your help on Chiropractic, but thought you should know about a couple Wikipedia style guidelines:

• "...citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods and commas."
• "...it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph..."

Both of these are defined in the

"The citation should be added close to the material it supports,..." See

WP:CITEFOOT. QuackGuru (talk

) 06:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest comparing the way citation placement is done on Chiropractic to other random Wikipedia articles. Chiropractic had a lot more mid-clause refs than is typical. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 06:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This is controversial text likely to be challenged. QuackGuru (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

What's controversial? The text of WP:CITEFOOT? – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 06:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I already explained it is the text. QuackGuru (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

If the text has a history of being contentious, we'll leave the ref on the controversial word. Sorry for assuming it wasn't contentious.

Changing the subject, I saw you reverted my attempt to make the ref syntax more readable to new editors. Your edit summary was simply "cleanup". Understand that this is patronizing, and not

assuming good faith. Basically, you assumed that my edits weren't helpful (the opposite of cleanup) because you didn't understand them. Instead of discussing it or explaining why you believe your way is better, you asserted that my edits needed to be "fixed" or "cleaned up". Please try to be more collaborative in the future. Thanks! – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib}

) 18:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It is Innate Intelligence not Innate intelligence IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Since it's not a proper noun, I dropped the capitalization. See

MOS:CAP. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib}

) 06:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It is known as Innate Intelligence. QuackGuru (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a grammatical issue, and Wikipedia's guideline is at

MOS:CAP. How it is capitalized off of Wikipedia is really of no consequence. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib}

) 06:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

How it is used by straight chiropractors (the only ones who use it) is very significant. It's a proper name and a parallel construction to Universal Intelligence (a pantheistic "god"), Innate Intelligence ("god" in you), and Educated Intelligence ("god" functioning better in you because of your education/indoctrination by chiropractors). Once indoctrinated, the patient is essentially part of the chiropractic religion.

The words are always capitalized in their literature and books, and we are supposed to reflect how those RS do it. It is thus not a matter covered by MOS:CAP. This is a notable exception. The fact that article titles only allow the first word to be capitalized (at least when the article was created) is something we've just had to accept in this case. In text, we can still capitalize it properly. --

talk

) 05:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, check your facts

BullRangifer

. You keep trying to pass things off as policy that aren't:

• Any letter in a page name can be uppercase. The first letter of the first word just can't be lowercase. This has always been the case. However, around 2007 the {{Lowercase title}} template came about to give the appearance of a lowercase initial letter for articles like iPod and eBay.
• While we should indeed capitalize it if it's a proper noun (per
  WP:LOWERCASE
  all explicitly say not to do that.

I'll let you and QuackGuru debate if it's a proper noun as you guys have more experience with the topic. Ideally, you should bring it up on the article's talk page so that other interested editors can get their say. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 03:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

See "In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[1] See God. QuackGuru (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop trying to convince me. I said I don't care and will let you and

BullRangifer hash it out. User-talk pages aren't a very appropriate place to discuss the course of an article; the appropriate place to do that is the article's talk page. That way, you open the discussion up to other interested editors. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib}

) 03:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The essay has little focus. I think the real question is what is an advocacy duck? The original essay was accusing others who closely follow WP policy of having a COI. I noticed the new essay has been improved recently but I don't see how it can help anyone. The new essay says "COI ducks are ducks of a different color." That does not make sense. The essay seems to claim that a duck is an editor who has a COI. QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Ca2james after reading this comment I think the confusing essay should be deleted. The essay is being (mis)used to make accusations against others. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The essay is being described as "the Quackers essay"[14] after I deleted the text from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Ca2james, what happened? It is back where it was before. See Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Complementary and Alternative Medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• A1candidate described his edit as "format" but he removed text sourced to a 2011 review, this NIH position statement, and this 2012 review. The edit had nothing to do with a format.
• A1candidate wrote "@DrChrissy - I've restored it back to where it belongs. Hopefully, the disruption will stop."[15] A1candidate added an entire section about veterinary acupuncture. However, there is a specific section for related practices. See Acupuncture#Related practices.
• A1candidate deleted the QuackWatch text against a long established consensus.
• A1candidate added this to lede. The edit failed to gain consensus. A1candidate added this to lede again but it is not a summary and it is poor evidence. More concise information in the lede is "It is rarely used alone but rather as an adjunct to other forms of treatment.[10]" There is a discussion about the sources. See Talk:Acupuncture#Cancer-related pain and see Talk:Acupuncture#Expansion of lead.
• A1candidate added this to the ethics section again but it is not about ethics and the same source is summarised in the effectiveness section. It is better to use the existing source in the section for context.
• A1candidate deleted this from the body again but it not speculation. See Talk:Acupuncture#Iceman tattoo.
• A1candidate added information about electroacupuncture again but the article is about acupuncture not a related practice. The latest edits by A1candidate did not improve the page according to the comments above.
• User:Adjwilley, A1candidate continued to edit war even after being warned by you
  .

Since nothing is being done at ArbCom I think something has to change. A1candidate was notified of the sanctions on 26 June 2014. A1candidate was also notified of the sanctions for acupuncture on 12 January 2015. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; I have been following the dispute, though I have not had the time to do anything other than watch. (I've spent the last two days packing for a move across town tomorrow.) In any case, I probably won't be doing anything until the arbcom case is rejected and the COI noticeboard thread closes. The discussion seems to have had the positive effect of bringing a new editor to the article to finally trim down the Lead section. ~

talk

) 05:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Adjwilley, things are getting very interesting. QuackGuru (talk

) 05:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was talking about...the trimming of the Lead section. ~

talk

) 05:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The lede should be four paragraphs, especially for a complex topic. I am working on shortening it. QuackGuru (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually 4 is the maximum. (The guideline says 3-4.) I am actually more concerned about this post of yours, which seems to be in part copied from above. In the post you refer to User:A1Candidate 11 times complaining about several things they did. Yet here you said,

"Rather than make comments on the behaviour of others I will collaborate with other editors better by using the talk page to resolve disputes. I agree to focus on content and not comment on the motives of others at the talk page...It was also a mistake for me to comment on editors at the talk page rather than solely on content. To help resolve this situation I am committed to stop accusing editors of doing things and will interact with others civilly, calmly, and in the spirit of cooperation."

In my experience posts like that, ratting on other editors, don't encourage collaboration. ~

talk

) 06:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I changed the wording to "This edit" and made the text more focused. QuackGuru (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC_on_COI_for_alt-med_practitioners. QuackGuru (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I seem to have inadvertently removed your comment onAN/I. So sorry. Never had that happen before. Ack (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC))

A tag has been placed on Template:Copyright violation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting

I mentioned you on it.—S Marshall T/C 20:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This sentence was removed by User:S Marshall. "As the e-cigarette industry is growing, new products are quickly developed and brought to market."

There was a previous discussion to include the sentence. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive 24#Construction. You deleted text from the Construction section after there was consensuses to include the sentence in the section. For now I improved the wording for text in the history section and replaced it with sourced text among other things. Please see Talk:Electronic cigarette#Sourced text deleted after discussion and agreement for the current discussion. Thank you for your collaboration. QuackGuru (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You are restricted to

• You can demonstrate that you are editing collaboratively, building and respecting
  Gaming
  the system.
• You have not violated any of the sanctions for a reasonable amount of time before the appeal.
• You can demonstrate, through your actions, that you see Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than a platform for exposing quackery.

On a more personal note, the primary reason this is an edit restriction instead of a topic ban is because despite the long history of

QG, I think this is probably for the best. Hopefully, with A1candidate similarly restricted, we can make a bit more progress on getting the article into shape without either side reflexively reverting. The community was coming very close to reinstating a topic ban on both of you. Hopefully, Adjwilley's approach will prevent that from becoming necessary.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you leave that area alone. Admins approaching a fight are apt not to care too much who are the good guys, who are the bad guys, who started what, or what Billy said about Tommy's mother. The banhammer will be wielded equally on all. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Funny things are happening. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive 24#Construction for the consensus for this text.[16][17] Now see this edit. I would like to understand a bit more why was the sentence deleted after the discussion. I explaining on the talk page I accidentally deleted the sentence. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Sourced_text_deleted_after_discussion_and_agreement. It is puzzling why the sentence was deleted. What is this really about? Do they want to get rid of me and then make sweeping changes? Of course, stranger things are happening to others articles. Right now there is original research in the acupuncture page. Other editors at the acupuncture page are not trying to help remove the OR? They are restoring the OR instead. See Talk:Acupuncture#Recent changes. If you do not support me at the e-cigs pages then I could assume you probably do not support me for other pages. I am not editing different pages in different ways. QuackGuru (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not one of those situations where you are "either for me or agin' me". Your approach is too aggressive, even by my own pretty blunt standards, and that is a big problem with contentious articles. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Articles on my watchlist are mature articles now. I made this change to the acupuncture page. There was original research in the article. I discussed some of the issues at Talk:Acupuncture#Recent changes without any specific feedback. The edit organised the text and created new subsections for the intro to the effectiveness section, among other improvements. Perhaps I was a little too aggressive in removing the OR. I usually don't wait too long when I spot OR in an article. I have seen others make wild changes to the page in the past but those issues have been resolved. I hope you stick around at the acupuncture page and have fun editing the page. QuackGuru (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

It is here. I don't have access to the full text, though, but if you do feel free to add it to the article about e-cigs.

Done. QuackGuru (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You may have forgotten to add a formal

Yesterday I said on the talk page "We don't need to waste more time with another RfC." Thank you for starting the RfC. I now realise that is the best approach. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This [18][19] is a good example why you should slow down with your edits. You have a original thought, look for a source and read it the way that fits with paying little to no attention to what it actually says.

I added another source to verify a claim. I forgot to fmt the ref. No worries. QuackGuru (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. LA (Los Angeles) source was just for fun. Hey, you screw up, fine; you make excuses like this, embarrassing.

talk

) 01:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Current wording: "A Louisiana bill intends to ban the sales of electronic cigarettes to people under 18 years old."[20] I'm fine if you want to rewrite the text. QuackGuru (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Add after ec: And one Senator's bill that hasn't passed is ridiculous to add (for your excuse).

talk

) 01:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The bill passed.[21] QuackGuru (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, now you find out. How lucky for you but you still didn't know this when you started editing! Anyways, in case you intend to add this, make sure you stick to the source.

talk

) 02:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually it didn't pass yet, only passed the Senate judiciary committee.

talk

) 02:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/05/e-cigarettes_minors_sale_louis.html It was banned over a year ago. QuackGuru (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Keep on changing sources and ignore your initial and ongoing mistake(s). I responded at the appropriate talk page.

talk

) 01:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding again at the talk page. I found a better ref to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I moved your request from the illustration workshop to the photography workshop as it is a more appropriate venue. Just letting you know here in case you think it's been deleted! NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 17:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi dont you think this is a Pseudoscience ? yoga Shrikanthv (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. I added some information about the effectiveness. QuackGuru (talk) 05:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! but found this one too Buddhist meditation, also claiming to develop some super human powers! Shrikanthv (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I could not find good reviews on the subject. QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

The reference there (it appears as 38, not 28, when accessed via DOI or PubMed) is Cheng (2014), "Chemical evaluation of electronic cigarettes". I can only see one mention of arsenic there, in table 4, "Metals reported in aerosols and cartridges of e-cigarettes", where it was "not tested" by two of the studies and "not detected" by the third. Peter James (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears the 2015 review made a mistake. QuackGuru (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The terms of your edit restrictions at Acupuncture were meant to allow you to do uncontroversial reference maintenance, not make bold edits. I suggest you be careful, since that kind of editing is partially what earned A1Candidate their topic ban. ~

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at

Thanks,—S Marshall T/C 17:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

...how about asking me before copy-pasting what I made clear was a personal opinion into other pages? If I had wanted to add it to the Ducks essay, I would have done so myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I added the link instead. The current page can be rewritten too. QuackGuru (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [22] Atsme^📞📧 04:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I have proposed a site ban against you there.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 18, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It sure looks funny to me but do you really wanna go as Julius Caesar to the party?--TMCk (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you think this message is funny? QuackGuru (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

TMCk thinks QuackGuru now switched to Brutus.--TMCk (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you think this is funny too? QuackGuru (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)