Talk:E-liquid

Purpose of this Page, and address SEED material from "Construction of Electronic Cigarettes"
1. The intent of this page is to be the larger more expansive Wikipedia entry for all things E-Liquid.

2. Before this page pointed just to Electronic Cigarettes

3. E-Liquid is a multi-billion dollar industry and deserves its own entry. It is sold by itself without any hardware. It is its own thing.

4. The content here was seeded by copying the content by the Wiki Editors of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes#E-liquid  Those editors contributions to the source I recognized here.

5. The intent is to build out this page, to become the main E-Liquid page.

6. I received feedback from Doug Weller on attribution, and everything should be good to go. Mystery Wolff (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read this: It appears that this page was copied or moved text from Construction of electronic cigarettes into this page. Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that we provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template at the top of the talk page of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation for duplication. We can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, Quack. Now that you know maybe it's time you give proper attribution at List of vaping bans in the United States?--TMCk (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Doug Weller, I added the attribution. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sourced text replaced with original research?
These changes appear to be original research. QuackGuru ( talk ) 04:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru the value of Wikipedia is sourced and curated information. The source of citations by academics who are paid to conduct research on items is often biased to their financial funders objectives.   While this is not reason to discount all of them, there should be recognition that PubMed is trailing information and not current or leading information.  For example a quick check done by the FDA in 2009, falls short of what has transpired in 6 years, and the lack of replication of the same results is an indicator that should not be discounted.  e.g. When you are editing and changing the ratios of what is Typical PG/VG ratios it reflects an unfamiliarity with the subject matter.   Please keep these things in mind prior to reverting discounting the contributions of other editors.   If you believe a citation is needed.  Then mark it as such.   Reverting commonly understood information becomes tedious.   I will note: That you believed this page should not exist, please don't push for that via minimizing through editing.  LASTLY.  Most of your edits, are given scant explanation of.  When you revert and remove content there should be some explanation.  The best place is the edit Summary line, and doing it with each edit. Thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ♦QuackGuru I suggest to you the University of East London published works are indeed credible.  I have been forced to revert what I consider vandalism.
 * ♦QuackGuru, you have first sought to remove this page, you are now blocking editors from improving the page.  Please stop.
 * ♦Some information is widely known, and citations can be harder to find. There is a set of citations from a large 10,000+ survey that are currently not available because of site maintenance.
 * ♦QuackGuru you edits are very problematic, as you have been made aware of, by others. If you think a sentence needs a citation, as you explained in your change summary, then put in a CITATION NEEDED.  Do not just simple remove content.  Mystery Wolff (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable source restored against consensus

 * This source is spam and unreliable. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)