e-cigarette Wikipedia article needs help

[Wallace_Frampton]

Don't leave out the rba's that include rebuildable clearomizers. They dominate the upscale market.

Don't leave out the rba's that include rebuildable clearomizers. They dominate the upscale market.

Well, the way it sounds, it seems to me that the article should differentiate between "e-cigarettes" and 3rd generation vaping Devices, as it sound to me like you folks think they are completely different.

How would you recommend structuring an article on "e-cigarettes". Would you let the "base name" of the article stand, or do a redirect to the more general category of "Personal Vaporizers" or "Vaping Devices" (or whatever the best "umbrella" term is) and then from there differentiate between the various types of vaping devices? Or what?

 

[KentA]

I think

Well, the way it sounds, it seems to me that the article should differentiate between "e-cigarettes" and 3rd generation Vaping Devices, as it sound to me like you folks think they are completely different.

How would you recommend structuring an article on "e-cigarettes". Would you let the "base name" of the article stand, or do a redirect to the more general category of "Personal Vaporizers" or "Vaping Devices" (or whatever the best "umbrella" term is) and then from there differentiate between the various types of vaping devices? Or what?

I think you're on the right track.
E-cigs seemed to the dominion of Big Tobacco. Give the devil his due & good riddance.
A divorce between cig-a-likes & "Personal Vaporizers" or "Vaping Devices" is long overdue.

 

[skoony]

Right. I define "moving forward" as fixing the problem before they "fix" the problem for you. They are going to use the presence of heavy metals in the vaping device's vapor to regulate and restrict access to those vaping devices, unless you get ahead of things, and solve the problem first. My inclination, if I were "King of the Vaping Community", is to issue an immediate ban on all vaping devices that did not have the metals in the heating element coated/encased in ceramic, and require all new vaping devices to come from the factory with these improved heating elements as a minimum quality standard. Anything less than that is considered unacceptable and should be shunned. Meaning, not sold, not promoted, not discussed in a positive light, always mentioning not only the real health risk this substandard method of manufacture will represent to the individual Vaper, but what economic risk this substandard manufacturing method represents to the entire industry. Self-regulate, or die.

any reputable study on whats in e-cigarette vapor show any toxins or metals found
have always been considerably lower than occupational exposure levels from factors
of 10 x to 100's of times. the metal scare first started in the 2009? study of cigalikes
and prefilled cartridges all manufactured in China i believe.
in one cartridge they found metal shavings(OMG).
all though this is obviously from improper cleaning of machined
parts it was portrayed as being in the juice.
they did find trace amounts of heavy metals in the vapor but,then again
they were below accepted exposure levels.it was never determined where
the trace amounts originated from as these trace metals can be found in virtually
everything if you look for them.
all in all the issue of the coils is another problem totally lacking
merit the same as the cotton wicks were going to mess up your
lungs the same as cotton workers in the fields and factory's
of yesteryear.
this is what i call not having any perspective. the closer you get
to the Canadian border the chances are you have a portable electric
heater to warm the cool spots in your home.in comparison to the coils
found in an e-cig these are gargantuan. the materials may not be
exactly as found in Kanthal but they may be iron chrome aluminum,
nickel chrome and ceramic. if there were any issues concerning your
lungs the use of these type heating coils would have exposed any
health hazards about 40 years ago.

The contemporary 'electronic cigarette' uses the same technology as conventional fog machines by boiling a liquid.

fog machines do not boil anything. they vaporize the water in the fog
juice long before anything boils.
regards
mike

 

[Susan~S]

Tagging @rolygate ECF's Forum Manager.

Would love to see if he can help out here. He's very educated on all things e-cigarette/vaping (US/EU/Worldwide) and can add additional insight and links to referenced materials. Have not seen him posting in the forum in the past few weeks.

Thanks @Wallace_Frampton for trying to bring some order to the Wiki article.

 

[Alien Traveler]

I'm not arguing about anyone else's personal preference. And a determined consumer can always pull the mandated ceramic-coated heating element out and replace it with whatever they want and if they get cancer or kidney disease due to heavy metal poison, well long live personal choice and individual freedom.

But the vaping devices should come "stock" from the factory with safe, toxin-free heating elements. You are not a representative sample of the entire vaping community, in fact you are way out their on the cutting edge of vaping technology. Not even a "beta tester", more like an "alpha tester". It's important to fail to appreciate how different you are from "most people", and most people aren't going to be pulling their vaping devices apart in order to Mod them, in fact most people want the specs they want already premanufactured so that they put some money down and get exactly what they want. And most people want a vaping experience that doesn't include the ingestion of heavy metals and toxins.

And, on the more "global" level, failing to restrict the manufacture of vaping devices so that they do not have heavy metals and toxins being inhaled (no matter how low the levels) will eventually invite government to force the change and during that interim, Big Pharma-influenced research will continue to warn people about the dangers and toxic nature of (unregulated, unrestricted) vaping and vaping devices, thereby putting downward pressure on the number of people taking up the activity as a healthier alternative to tobacco products (less money for the industry overall) until eventually it IS regulated, resulting in even less or even NO money to the open market, non-regulated industry. Again, Self-regulate, or die.

O, my...
Please, remember - Ni, Cr, Ti, Al are not heavy metals.
Coils are of the least concern in e-cig health issues. Do not try to bring another hurdle to vaping. Stop it!

P.S. Show me any reliable research which determine that Ni (or Cr) consumption from e-cig is higher that one of foods cooked in SS cookware.

 

[Alien Traveler]

Well, the way it sounds, it seems to me that the article should differentiate between "e-cigarettes" and 3rd generation Vaping Devices, as it sound to me like you folks think they are completely different.

How would you recommend structuring an article on "e-cigarettes". Would you let the "base name" of the article stand, or do a redirect to the more general category of "Personal Vaporizers" or "Vaping Devices" (or whatever the best "umbrella" term is) and then from there differentiate between the various types of vaping devices? Or what?

Are you sure you'll be allowed to substantially change Wiki article? I believe not. Wikipedia is an excellent source in established fields, it is a miserable source in "hot" topics. You need to start small, prepare a lot of publications for credible citations, earn a credibility and only then you (may be) will be allowed to make big changes.

 

[Susan~S]

Are you sure you'll be allowed to substantially change Wiki article?

He's an editor, he can make changes. From his introductory post (see below)

I am an editor working on the wikipedia article

 

[Alien Traveler]

He's an editor, he can make changes. From his introductory post (see below)

I checked Wiki. The dominating editor is QuackGuru (whoever he is).
To be an editor means nothing, really:
An editor is anyone who edits a page or pages of Wikipedia as opposed to being a reader
Wikipedia:Editor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nyiddle]

I checked Wiki. The dominating editor is QuackGuru (whoever he is).
To be an editor means nothing, really:
An editor is anyone who edits a page or pages of Wikipedia as opposed to being a reader
Wikipedia:Editor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I made this point several pages ago. The most prolific editor on the e-cig page seems to be thoroughly against anyone adding information without substantial amounts of source material -- which is good. It means people aren't willy-nilly posting whatever they want.

You're right, anyone can be an editor. Literally anyone. If you look at the e-cig page specifically, you'll see that it's a highly contested one, and that it's "semi-protected" meaning that, in order to successfully edit the page, you need to be a reputable editor.

ie: If this is the first article you're trying to edit, you'll have no luck, and all your changes will likely be reverted without any sort of chance for you to explain. To put it simply, the only people who can successfully edit this page are the people who have proven themselves as being reliable, unbiased editors. It's not a personal thing or whatever, and it has virtually no bearing on whatever you're trying to add to the article (however reasonable or unreasonable it is). That's just how the page is.

If you look at other pages, particularly the one for Adolf Hitler, you'll see it's completely protected, meaning even if you are a reputable editor you still can't edit the page without some form of approval because people are constantly changing the page to say inaccurate things (either for hilarity or for creepier "erase the past" reasons).

But yeah, in essence, I don't think OP has proven that he is anything more than a regular "editor" -- that is, I imagine this is the first page he's trying to edit. Those edits won't go through for this reason.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

Are you sure you'll be allowed to substantially change Wiki article? I believe not. Wikipedia is an excellent source in established fields, it is a miserable source in "hot" topics. You need to start small, prepare a lot of publications for credible citations, earn a credibility and only then you (may be) will be allowed to make big changes.

Well it sounds like you know something about Wikipedia's internal rules and policies, etc... and so you will also know that disputes on article editing are handled via democratic process.

Would you like to join a project that has the goal of improving the Lede of the e-cigarette article as an introductory small step towards improving all of the articles related to vaping, such as "harm reduction"?

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

You're right, anyone can be an editor. Literally anyone. If you look at the e-cig page specifically, you'll see that it's a highly contested one, and that it's "semi-protected" meaning that, in order to successfully edit the page, you need to be a reputable editor.

I do not believe the term "reputable editor" is a term of art on Wikipedia, however the intent of your message is correct, in that disputes in editing Wikipedia is not simply a democratic process. They are highly tuned to preventing "vote stacking" by puppetry and single-purpose accounts, and some editors are better at influencing others. They also understand the "gamesmanship" of using Wikipedia policies regarding dispute resolution and they are not above provoking a less-experienced editor into "crossing the line" in some way and then using that violation of some policy on personal conduct to get the editor banned from editing the article, or from Wikipedia completely. And finally, these editors have the strategic advantage of time. A determined group might "win" a battle, but a year later come back to the article and discover that all their revisions have been slowly chipped away until it no longer looks like what it used to.

What I Never Accept:

The Message "It's Too Difficult" from people that have never tried.
The Message "It's Too Difficult" from people that do not even share the goal.
etc...

I'm just not real big on messages predicting failure. No successful project ever starts out "We're wasting our time, and this is never going to succeed." Most people pretend to believe in the inevitability of failure do so in order to have a ready-made excuse for why they choose to not involve themselves, as an alternative to simply being honest and saying they don't want to be involved.

Or even saying nothing at all. There's no rule against that. No one is required to volunteer to become part of a volunteer effort, with the self-appointed role of helping to ensure that the effort fails.

They want the "social status" of being someone that really does care about something enough to be willing to do something constructive, but without the obligation to prove that's who they really are when the opportunity to actually do something presents itself. And, in order to maintain this false illusion that they "really are someone who cares enough to do something", not only do they make a well-reasoned case for why anyone else's efforts are doomed, they are from that point forward invested in trying to cause the effort to fail. "See? SEE? I TOLD you it was a waste of time. Stupid people..."

I never listen to the nay sayers or the doom sayers. Their online pathology of doom and gloom is an indicator of who they are and what they do in real life, and once their toxic presence is accepted into what would otherwise be a functional team, all they do is undermine the motivation and the determination of those around them who. The Message "You are doomed to failure." from people that have no intention of trying and instead choose to be "involved" by trying to condemn any effort to failure before it even starts. That's their "special little place in life", and they find a persistent and ready-made excuse for why they never actually try, and therefore accomplish, anything, ever.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

Coils are of the least concern in e-cig health issues. Do not try to bring another hurdle to vaping. Stop it!

The fact that coils release toxic metals into the vapor are a primary concern, and it could be the thing they use to shoehorn government regulation over the entire industry.

 

[nyiddle]

And I will pick and choose what I believe to be correct and in what priority of importance in whatever manner my intelligence and conscience determine, and not based on the the superficial statement by any one particular person that presumes to know better than I do and expects me to do as they demand.

Yeah that sounds like a great way to learn new things and accept new viewpoints..

I see you stealth-edited that out of your post.

My main point here is that banding together when we're so clearly biased for e-cigs, in an attempt to edit something that should be unbiased and strictly based in fact, is no better than the ANTZ banding together to do the same thing. IF change is going to happen to the Wikipedia article, it will need to be gradual and very thoroughly thought-out.

Additionally, I was mostly commenting on the fact that (earlier) you stated you were an editor, and you implied you had involvement in the e-cig page. You have yet to prove any evidence on either of those bases.

 

[Alien Traveler]

Well it sounds like you know something about Wikipedia's internal rules and policies, etc... and so you will also know that disputes on article editing are handled via democratic process.

Would you like to join a project that has the goal of improving the Lede of the e-cigarette article as an introductory small step towards improving all of the articles related to vaping, such as "harm reduction"?

I am sorry, but as I see it it will take a lot of effort: to read a lot of papers, to edit, to appeal, etc. It can be done, relatively easy by a professional in e-cig research (such as Dr. Farsalinos) or by a devoted hobbist in Wiki editing. I am neither. While I edited a lot of Wiki articles, it is a field I do not want to touch for now. Be aware, the e-cig page have a semi-protected status (icon of lock in upper right corner). It means:

Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is notautoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed.
Wikipediarotection policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

I checked Wiki. The dominating editor is QuackGuru (whoever he is).

QC is only currently active and if you look through the archived threads you will find that there are about 20 different editors that have been involved in the article on e-cigarettes over the last year. The "Sanction Page" lists all Editors that have been involved on the page during 2015, I believe. Not certain on the time frame.

One tactic I though of, once a friendly core of Wiki Editors was established, was to solicit certain (maybe all) of these editors to work on improving the article off-site (off Wikipedia), taking advantage of their technical understanding of Wikipedia policies, and combining them with the superior technical understanding of vaping in general from the members of this forum.

 

[Alien Traveler]

The fact that coils release toxic metals into the vapor are a primary concern, and it could be the thing they use to shoehorn government regulation over the entire industry.

Really?

 

[edyle]

The fact that coils release toxic metals into the vapor are a primary concern, and it could be the thing they use to shoehorn government regulation over the entire industry.

I do believe it would be factually correct to state that coils release ... metals into vapour.
However, I do believe the fact is overblown.

(even so, I suppose I should mention that I do happen to prefer using kanthal [iron/chromium/aluminium] over nichrome [nickel/chromium], because I am comfortable vaping iron or aluminium, but not chromium.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

Yeah that sounds like a great way to learn new things and accept new viewpoints..

I see you stealth-edited that out of your post.

My main point here is that banding together when we're so clearly biased for e-cigs, in an attempt to edit something that should be unbiased and strictly based in fact, is no better than the ANTZ banding together to do the same thing. IF change is going to happen to the Wikipedia article, it will need to be gradual and very thoroughly thought-out.

Additionally, I was mostly commenting on the fact that (earlier) you stated you were an editor, and you implied you had involvement in the e-cig page. You have yet to prove any evidence on either of those bases.

My but you have a lot of opinions about who I am and what I'm about, for someone that hasn't bothered to read the entire thread. The "good news" is that the thread has been running for a while, I've already made all the declarations I think that are necessary for an interested (and motivated) person to learn, simply by reading the entirety of the thread. The reason why it's "good news" is that there are already established members here that will correct you on all the various ways in which you are wrong, and in fact it is your chronic and profound level of "wrongness", and my ability to withstand it's influence, that makes me a positive potential contributor to vaping community overall, not just as an "editor" on the Wikipedia article, but also as an activist, an organizer and a "catalyst" to provoke the community into action. One way to do this is to simply expose and explain the most destructive elements within the community and illustrate how their toxic presence can immobilize a community into inaction by preaching a rather meaningless and fabricated message of failure, based not from a perspective of a person that has actually TRIED to do something (with a nod towards Rush Limbaugh's quote "Never take career advice from someone that has failed in that career.", i.e. failure can only beget failure), but worse has never even TRIED. I've illustrated this toxic dynamic common to any group, and while there isn't much that can be done about their presence (they may have positive and off-setting value in other ways), it's important to recognize that success is never going to come from following their leadership, as leadership is only by example. and those that attempt to "lead" from an example of failure can only lead those that follow TO failure.

And no one ever joins and invests of themselves in an effort led by someone that promises them failure.

As I have stated in previous posts, my "method" for this threads (and other threads I have done) is to read the thread first from newest to oldest, in order to respond to the most topical posts first, and then to read the thread from beginning to end, in order address more substantive issues and catch anything I might have missed. However today it seems I have made a mistake and have responded to posts made by people that have not read the entire thread and things have gone a bit south, so I intend to take a break for a day or two, give the community the opportunity to let things settle before coming back and trying again.

 

[nyiddle]

A lot of words, not a lot said. A majority of your posts have a lot of spelling errors and simple technical mistakes that make them dense and hard to read. Even once decoded, they're simply biased and provide no actual "plan" towards getting the Wikipedia article edited.

This thread should be locked until someone is willing to approach the e-cigarette Wikipedia article from a mature standpoint.

Being brazenly passionate isn't going to help anything, and from how you're throwing your hands up and "giving this thread a day or 2" you might want to reconsider just how passionate you really are.

Additionally, and @Alien Traveler has brought this up a few times now (as have I, and a few other members who have commented in this thread): You've already sort of spoiled your credibility. You keep talking like you know the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia, but you haven't proven this in any way.

Saying, "We need a solution," isn't the same as actually providing the solution, and to get mad at me for not reading through writing that you haven't bothered to proof-read is sort of back-asswards, don't you think?

Edit:

I don't want to re-reply (because it'll bump this thread, and I think this thread should die), but I want to mention this. OP has ignored every question of his credentials in this thread. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that OP is trolling (or simply delusional) and, until evidence is put forth, everything OP says should be taken with a large grain of salt.

 

[Alien Traveler]

My but you have a lot of opinions about who I am and what I'm about, for someone that hasn't bothered to read the entire thread. The "good news" is that the thread has been running for a while, I've already made all the declarations I think that are necessary for an interested (and motivated) person to learn, simply by reading the entirety of the thread. The reason why it's "good news" is that there are already established members here that will correct you on all the various ways in which you are wrong, and in fact it is your chronic and profound level of "wrongness", and my ability to withstand it's influence, that makes me a positive potential contributor to vaping community overall, not just as an "editor" on the Wikipedia article, but also as an activist, an organizer and a "catalyst" to provoke the community into action. One way to do this is to simply expose and explain the most destructive elements within the community and illustrate how their toxic presence can immobilize a community into inaction by preaching a rather meaningless and fabricated message of failure, based not from a perspective of a person that has actually TRIED to do something (with a nod towards Rush Limbaugh's quote "Never take career advice from someone that has failed in that career.", i.e. failure can only beget failure), but worse has never even TRIED. I've illustrated this toxic dynamic common to any group, and while there isn't much that can be done about their presence (they may have positive and off-setting value in other ways), it's important to recognize that success is never going to come from following their leadership, as leadership is only by example. and those that attempt to "lead" from an example of failure can only lead those that follow TO failure.

And no one ever joins and invests of themselves in an effort led by someone that promises them failure.

As I have stated in previous posts, my "method" for this threads (and other threads I have done) is to read the thread first from newest to oldest, in order to respond to the most topical posts first, and then to read the thread from beginning to end, in order address more substantive issues and catch anything I might have missed. However today it seems I have made a mistake and have responded to posts made by people that have not read the entire thread and things have gone a bit south, so I intend to take a break for a day or two, give the community the opportunity to let things settle before coming back and trying again.

Does anybody promised you to read through the whole thread (12 pages)?
Have you actually edited e-cig page in Wiki (you are avoiding to answer this question)?