User talk:QuackGuru

Welcome!

Hello, QuackGuru, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting Started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

An award for you!

The WikiProject Medicine QuackStar

Quack!

Quack!

For your useful spot here, which led to a successful SPI, I award you the WikiProject Medicine QuackStar.

Also, good hunting. Alexbrn talk

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For putting up with baseless attacks against you. Briefly looked at the "evidence" of poor editing by you and didn't find any [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

And another

		The Steady Rate Barnstar
		Tick tock, Tick Tock! All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC).

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Query

Hi there QuackGuru. I recently implemented a topic ban in order to unblock User:FergusM1970, who recognised his contributions in the area of electronic cigarettes had become unhelpful. He has asked that I look at your contributions. I see some that are perfectly appropriate, but I wondered about this. Are you entirely neutral in this topic area? --John (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What is your specific question about the edit? QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

My specific question is, on reviewing this edit, do you think you are entirely neutral in this area? --John (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I read the source again and I think the text was misplaced. Read under Prevalence: "Although dual use with cigarettes is high, some youth experimenting with e-cigarettes have never tried a tobacco cigarette, which indicates that some youth are initiating use of nicotine, an addictive drug, with e-cigarettes." Here is the full text. I think the text is currently neutrally written and the placement of the text was a mistake. If it is not neutral I would appropriate it if you could tell me how the text could be improved or reworded. QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh that is where it came from (the 1/3 figure) - Utah (this[2]) is in other words generalized to be the US, even the world? And then written as fact in the Electronic cigarette article? Don't you see a problem with that? --Kim D. Petersen 21:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that on the face of it there could be potential NPOV concerns with that sort of edit. --John (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

And I have no specific proposal with regard to a better wording of the source. I come to this entirely disinterested in the topic you are discussing (no offence) but conscious that there as been discord and that one user has been removed from the fray. I am now interested to see whether you are also making problematic edits, or what could reasonably be seen as such. I came across the edit I highlighted with you as I thought it looked questionable. I have asked you to look again and you have confirmed that you think that was a fair edit. User:KimDabelsteinPetersen has queried your edit too. I will continue to look at what's going on at that article. Please weigh your edits carefully as I won't have a lot of tolerance to even a faint hint of WP:TE there. --John (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I've written up my finding here Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Yet_more_POV_problems_.._1.2F3_of_youth_who_use_e-cigarettes_never_touched_a_cigarette... --Kim D. Petersen 22:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's great that you guys are discussing the issue there of the wording of the article, and please continue. Quackguru, I came over to ask you about your conduct. What do you think about your (apparently) magnifying 15% to one third? And extrapolating a study in one state in one country, by implication to the entire world? In Wikipedia's voice? Could you see how that might make some people think you had some sort of agenda? --John (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit you have made is not an improvement. It is still stated in Wikipedia's voice as probable fact that appears to apply generally to the entire world, yet now it simply refers to "some young people". Aside from the other issues I have just mentioned, like I have stated previously, "some young people" is so vague and inevitable, it is almost meaningless.Levelledout (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You said you were wondered about this.[3] If know there was a problem with the text you could of told me what the problem is from the beginning. I went ahead and fixed the text. It was an accidental mistake. QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I accept it was a mistake. Thank you for fixing it. Are there going to be a lot of mistakes like this, or are you going to be more careful in future? --John (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course I won't make a lot of mistakes in the future. Currently I want the lede to summarise the body but that is going to be difficult when the usage statistics section was deleted. Is it okay with you if I restore the summary. QuackGuru (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I think, having looked at some of your edits, it might be better to back off from the article for a while. Could you also please not remove sections from this conversation while we are having it? --John (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You think it might be better for me to back off from the article for a while. Can you be more specific? I started a discussion for the Talk:Electronic cigarette#Usage statistics for other editors to discuss the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)