| Revision as of 04:26, 25 November 2015 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:50, 27 November 2015 edit undoMystery Wolff (talk | contribs)384 edits →Sourced text replaced with original research?: Responding to QuackGuru, concerning lack of knowledge on topic of Page, and edits without explanation.Next edit → | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
| appear to be original research. ] (]) 04:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | appear to be original research. ] (]) 04:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::QuackGuru the value of Misplaced Pages is sourced and curated information. The source of citations by academics who are paid to conduct research on items is often biased to their financial funders objectives. While this is not reason to discount all of them, there should be recognition that PubMed is trailing information and not current or leading information. For example a quick check done by the FDA in 2009, falls short of what has transpired in 6 years, and the lack of replication of the same results is an indicator that should not be discounted. e.g. When you are editing and changing the ratios of what is Typical PG/VG ratios it reflects an unfamiliarity with the subject matter. Please keep these things in mind prior to reverting discounting the contributions of other editors. If you believe a citation is needed. Then mark it as such. Reverting commonly understood information becomes tedious. I will note: That you believed this page should not exist, please don't push for that via minimizing through editing. LASTLY. Most of your edits, are given scant explanation of. When you revert and remove content there should be some explanation. The best place is the edit Summary line, and doing it with each edit. Thank you. ] (]) 10:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:50, 27 November 2015
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Construction of electronic cigarettes was copied or moved into E-liquid with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the E-liquid redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
E-Liquid
E-Liquid is its own entry and definition. It is a common term. It is an element of an Electronic Cigarette. E-Liquid should not redirect to Electronic Cigarettes Mystery Wolff (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Redundant page
I think this page is a cut and paste of a section in another article. See Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes#E-liquid. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
If the page is not expanded soon I think it would be best to redirect. I think after it is expanded then there can be a separate page. QuackGuru (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- You are welcome to contribute content to improve the page. Your concerns have been addressed including the addition of the top banner. Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Purpose of this Page, and address SEED material from "Construction of Electronic Cigarettes"
1. The intent of this page is to be the larger more expansive Misplaced Pages entry for all things E-Liquid.
2. Before this page pointed just to Electronic Cigarettes
3. E-Liquid is a multi-billion dollar industry and deserves its own entry. It is sold by itself without any hardware. It is its own thing.
4. The content here was seeded by copying the content by the Wiki Editors of https://en.wikipedia.org/Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes#E-liquid Those editors contributions to the source I recognized here.
5. The intent is to build out this page, to become the main E-Liquid page.
6. I received feedback from Doug Weller on attribution, and everything should be good to go. Mystery Wolff (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please read this: It appears that this page was copied or moved text from Construction of electronic cigarettes into this page. Misplaced Pages's content, here or elsewhere, Misplaced Pages's licensing does require that we 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 at the top of the talk page of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation for duplication. We can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Quack. Now that you know maybe it's time you give proper attribution at List of vaping bans in the United States?--TMCk (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Text is sourced
"A user will usually obtain 300 to 500 puffs per mL of liquid."
- Hildick-Smith, Gordon J.; Pesko, Michael F.; Shearer, Lee; Hughes, Jenna M.; Chang, Jane; Loughlin, Gerald M.; Ipp, Lisa S. (2015). "A Practitioner's Guide to Electronic Cigarettes in the Adolescent Population". Journal of Adolescent Health. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.07.020. ISSN 1054-139X. PMID 26422289.
See "A typical user will get 300-500 puffs per mL of fluid." QuackGuru (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Sourced text replaced with original research?
These changes appear to be original research. QuackGuru (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- QuackGuru the value of Misplaced Pages is sourced and curated information. The source of citations by academics who are paid to conduct research on items is often biased to their financial funders objectives. While this is not reason to discount all of them, there should be recognition that PubMed is trailing information and not current or leading information. For example a quick check done by the FDA in 2009, falls short of what has transpired in 6 years, and the lack of replication of the same results is an indicator that should not be discounted. e.g. When you are editing and changing the ratios of what is Typical PG/VG ratios it reflects an unfamiliarity with the subject matter. Please keep these things in mind prior to reverting discounting the contributions of other editors. If you believe a citation is needed. Then mark it as such. Reverting commonly understood information becomes tedious. I will note: That you believed this page should not exist, please don't push for that via minimizing through editing. LASTLY. Most of your edits, are given scant explanation of. When you revert and remove content there should be some explanation. The best place is the edit Summary line, and doing it with each edit. Thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)