User talk:QuackGuru

Check sources

www.scoop.it/t/the-future-of-e-cigarette

http://www.economist.com/topics/electronic-cigarettes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/electronic-cigarettes/

Curious question

I've notice that the fringe noticeboard is heavily involved in eCigs, why is this? Were there many false claims of healthy benefits? I am not too involved to know the history, but eCigs doesn't seem fringe at all. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

There are claims e-cigarettes are about 95% safer than smoking. But recent reviews contradict this position. I can't go into the details until this matter is resolved. QuackGuru (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Quackery

I thought I would explain why I declined to pursue the discussion at Talk:Quackery#Cyclical_ailments_and_confirmation_bias. Your talk page is probably appropriate because I don't see the point in posting the following too publicly.
Very similarly to what occurred at User_talk:ONUnicorn/archived_talk_9#Your_change_is_still_OR, I was not the editor who added the information. Being part of Citation Cleanup WikiProject, I noticed the broken citation syntax and reformatted it. I unfortunately don't have the necessary time right now to properly verify the accuracy of the citations used at the Quackery article, and had not planned to do this at current time.
On the other hand, I agree with you that accuracy is important. Moreover, if the claims were original research or unproperly sourced, they did not contradict common sense and as such had not raised particular alert flags for me. Also being part of the Skepticism WikiProject, I added Quackery to its To-Do list in case other editors (or myself) can eventually look again at it.
If your concern is that undo is easier when there is only one change to undo (sorry if I'm stating the obvious) it is easy to go back to any previous revision of the article (as explained here: Help:Reverting#Manual_reverting). I appreciate your interest in accurate sourcing, and apologise if my edit caused confusion. Thank you, — PaleoNeonate — 22:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No page number was given. Any editor can add a citation. All the paragraph is unsourced. It is better to start over. I can expand it if more sources are found. QuackGuru (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Heat Not Burn

You keep reverting the page. Thank you for your edits and cleaning up grammer, etc. but the page looks like it's showing favoritism. Why does iQOS have more than one picture? It's also the first picture at the top which shows favoritism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACBSA (talk • contribs) 23:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Another editor reverted your last edit. It is the only image available containing the charger, holder and tobacco stick for a heat-not-burn tobacco product. The infobox at the top illustrates what the product is. QuackGuru (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Shadow missing

File:IQOS 01 A.png

Shadows added.

Regards PawełMM (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Done as requested. PawełMM (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the image was centered during edition, the shadow for the handheld stick is like in the original file, so I won't do anything else. PawełMM (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Re citation underkill

Quack... Just wanted to say that, while I still disagree with some of what you are saying at WP:Citation underkill... It is turning into an excellent essay. There are a few points where the essay has convinced me to re-think. Well done. (I am actually thinking of working on a third essay, to bridge the gap between overkill and underkill... but it will take more thinking). Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I recommend you don't call it Wikipedia:Citation overkill (contrary opinions). I don't see any gap between overkill and underkill. Underkill discourages too many citations. See "Controversial claims usually require only single citations,..." If there is anything missing from underkill it can be included. Or if Citation overkill goes too far then it can be corrected. If overkill continues to harm article content it can be redirected to a better essay. QuackGuru (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)