Content deleted Content added
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes/Archive 3) (bot |
|||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age=14 |units=days }} |
{{Archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age=14 |units=days }} |
||
== Archiving == |
|||
The archiving of all talk pages on this subject has been has been far too sudden, and naturally looks suspicious in the middle of an Arbcom case. One of the pages had fewer than 2,000 bytes turned into an archive! Blanking the page is not normal on WP. '''Please ask on the talk page before archiving again''', QG, since you behaviour has been far from the WP norm. Clearing out the page just encourages people to raise the same issues again and again. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 03:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Duplication using a non-MEDRS source == |
== Duplication using a non-MEDRS source == |
Revision as of 04:23, 22 November 2015
![]() | Medicine Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
|
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Duplication using a non-MEDRS source
This change uses a source that is not a review. The text is also very similar to other information. QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, the header you gave this section is correct, its not just similar, its a duplication. Removal was correct QG. AlbinoFerret 18:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Although it is very similar, the specific wording is not identical to other information. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Have you even read the source that was given? You'd be surprised what not to find.--TMCk (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Although it is very similar, the specific wording is not identical to other information. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Duplication
Most of the text is duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- I do not understand what you are suggesting be done. Are you suggesting something? Mystery Wolff (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- It does not appear to be duplication, please point out what it duplicates that is already in the article. AlbinoFerret 19:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- I removed the other text that was duplication. See my edit. Now it is no longer duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Unless you point out what the duplication is it will be replaced. You cant just remove cited claims. AlbinoFerret 19:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- I did not delete the text you added that was not duplication. I moved it to where there was information about the same subject. The same text that was duplication was removed. It is still in the article the text that is not duplication. See this section.
- You added this text. "While e-cigarettes with higher voltage batteries can produce carcinogens including formaldehyde at levels found in cigarette smoke,[87] reduced voltage e-cigarettes produce vapor with levels of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde roughly 13 and 807-fold less than indicated in cigarette smoke.[15] A 2015 review found vaping e-cigarettes at a high voltage (5.0V) may generate formaldehyde-forming chemicals at a greater level than smoking, which has been determined to be a lifetime cancer risk of about 5 to 15 times greater than smoking;[84] the underlying research had used a "puffing machine".[88] Another small study with people using similar devices and settings found that the users could not use the devices because of "dry-puffs" at the high settings, which according to the 2015 Public Health England report "poses no danger to either experienced or novice vapers, because dry puffs are aversive and are avoided rather than inhaled" and "At normal settings, there was no or negligible formaldehyde release."[88] They concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes."[88]"[1]
- This is the current text. "While e-cigarettes with higher voltages can produce carcinogens including formaldehyde at levels found in cigarette smoke,[88] reduced voltages (e.g. 3.0 volts[10]) produce vapor with levels of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde roughly 13 and 807-fold less than indicated in cigarette smoke.[12] A 2015 review found vaping e-cigarettes at a high voltage (5.0V) may generate formaldehyde-forming chemicals at a greater level than smoking, which has been determined to be a lifetime cancer risk of about 5 to 15 times greater than smoking;[10] the underlying research had used a "puffing machine".[13] Another small study with people using similar devices and settings found that the users could not use the devices because of "dry-puffs" at the high settings, which according to the 2015 Public Health England report "poses no danger to either experienced or novice vapers, because dry puffs are aversive and are avoided rather than inhaled" and "At normal settings, there was no or negligible formaldehyde release."[13] They concluded that "There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes."[13]"
- Only the duplication was removed. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Unless you point out what the duplication is it will be replaced. You cant just remove cited claims. AlbinoFerret 19:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- I removed the other text that was duplication. See my edit. Now it is no longer duplication. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Citing Absence of Data, as evidence
Material in this page is using the absence of data, as evidence of conclusions written by editors and not supported by the citations given. This simple should not be done. A lot of entries need to be updated. Anyone have thoughts on this? Mystery Wolff (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- You'll have to be (much) more specific. The absence of data is always mentioned by all sources, whatever view they take, and is at least evidence of uncertainty, which is the predominant element in scientific views on this topic. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)