This my Talk Page. Leave a message and I will get back to you. If I left a message on your talk page , please respond to me there as I will be looking there for the answer. AlbinoFerret 13:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of sourced claim

Hi there. You reverted the edit I did about second gen ecigs being used by "advanced user". While I totally agree that your source is RS. It is nonetheless nonsense. I mean ,come on; eGo's are advanced devices? You don't even believe that. The common progression of a vaper is:

• 1- Discovering vaping through cig a likes
• 2- Move on to eGo starter kits.
• 3- Buying a advanced mod
• 4- Edit the ecig article on wikipedia.

A lot of vapers skip step 1 and buy an ego kit directly. I'm saying that just because it is in the source doesn't mean that we have to say it. Especially when we all know that it is not true. TheNorlo (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNorlo: At one time the advanced claim was on the 3rd generation and more experienced users was on the 2nd generation. But Zad removed them because it didnt have a source. I was only able to find one source for the second generation. I am finding sources limit reality in some cases, but we as WP editors are stuck with what they say. Otherwise its based on personal knowledge and that is Original Research. Thats why I now use sources, policy, and guidelines in all by posts on a given subject. I would suggest every editor on the page do that. AlbinoFerret 19:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that but again, not mentioning something as trivial (and inaccurate) as this is not violating any policy, it is not lying by omission. For example, nowhere in the article are we saying that ecigs can look like USB memory sticks even though we have RS that claims this. The smallest of all ecigs that is not a cigalike, the iStick does not look like a memory stick, it is RS but it is not true. On a side note, I think that classifying some ecigs as "advanced" is ridiculous anyways, we are talking about elementary electrical principals and simple cryptic menuing systems, cell phones from the 90's are way more advanced than the prettiest DNA40 mod out there (but that is just my opinion). TheNorlo (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with TheNorlo, there is too much information that doesn't fit reality, which gets put in because someone finds an RS making an erroneous claim.... lets not go down that road, we've seen where that leads the med-people.. --Kim D. Petersen 00:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd drop this topic on AN/I. If he's not disclosed paid editing then that's his cross to bear. Don't get caught in the crossfire because you know some editors will spin that as "advocacy against the best interests of the collective" and if they TopicBan you then it'll be a lot harder to get decent sourcing for a balanced article SPACKlick (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPACKlick I cant help speaking up when I see someone accused of things, and for the wrong reasons. I have not tried to defend the paid editing. But a WP ban is extreme. I wont defend paid editing without disclosure. I think WP is better off as a volunteer project. AlbinoFerret 17:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He just supported his own ban, I'm out. AlbinoFerret 18:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... That was stupid on his part to not fully disclose his activities, he makes every vape friendly editor look bad and suspicious. You can bet your ass that every single editor that doesn't sing the "Fuck Vaping Anthem" will be scrutinized that much more. What a great victory for the editors that fights hard to paint vaping in the worst possible way. Don't get me wrong, he was imo very constructive and loosing him will not help in making this article any better. TheNorlo (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, AlbinoFerret! As a Christmas present to you, I just wanted to let you know that I've been looking at your edits at various articles (such as Electronic cigarette) and certain ANI -cases. Please, do not get mad, I say this for your own good: Have you ever thought how your excessive posting and overly long entries drive away all the other editors? Seriously, I believe you mean good but when looking at your most recent ANI -case for example, you type so much that nobody has the time nor interest to look at it. Can't you just clearly and precisely define the problem and then leave it there? Really, the more you leave posts - even you think your argumentation is reasonable - the less people will even look at it. IMHO, you'd do yourself a service and attract more editors that share your viewpoints by just simply making edits fewer (and more informative). What do you think? Anyway, cheers and a Happy Christmas! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayaguru-Shishya I can tell you mean well. It may not be an excuse, but its how I write. I am not a natural writer. I have more of a mechanical knowledge, and what I put down in text is how I think. I can try to make shorter posts, but there will probably be more of them as a result defeating the purpose. As for the number of postings, I am trapped in a few rooms of my house because I am disabled. I have more time on my hands than I know what to do with and get easily bored. I tend to look into things I find interesting. I am sorry some may feel that the ability to post a lot is a disadvantage to them, but I doubt any of them would trade places with me to be able to post more. AlbinoFerret 20:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ulises Heureaux. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are on a witch hunt. I'm probably going to get banned for the next six month. Apparently I am making biased editing (?) Whatever. I'm am clearly an asshole. You'd better watch out, you are probably next. I cant wait to see what the article will be like in six month if they get rid of all of us. Lets see whos doing the biased editing. Joyeux Noel! :) TheNorlo (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]