User talk:Zvi Zig

Welcome
Good job on Health effects of tobacco, we need more editors like you. Just a note, here's a tip for speeding up citing scientific journals. Rather than typing the whole thing, just add

.

A bit will automatically fill out the reference for you. For example in this edit, you could replace the reference such that, which will produce:

If you want to learn more, see Template:Cite doi. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Electronic cigarette page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=705508572 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F705508572%7CElectronic cigarette%5D%5D Ask for help])

Edit conflict?
Hello Zvi Zig,

I noticed that you reverted this edit when you made this edit. Did you mean to do this, or was it an edit conflict? If it was only an edit conflict, I can fix it. P Walford (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, P Walford. It was an edit conflict. You can fix it, or I will have a chance to do so within the next few hours.GreyZig 17:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. I fixed it. P Walford (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest in Wikipedia
Hi Zvi Zig. Please pardon me, but I work on conflicts of interest issues in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing about health. I don't see that anyone has raised this with you, so I wanted to ask.

Do you have any relationships with companies or organizations outside of Wikipedia, in the field of electronic cigarettes? Thanks, and sorry to intrude, but managing conflicts of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia. Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. I have no financial conflicts of interests. I am a volunteer anti-smoking advocate. I've written letters to journals in relation to the e-cigarette controversy. My editing history should demonstrate that I was interested in smoking years before e-cigs became a hot topic. I do think that the way Wikipidia presents e-cigs, many will smokers will be put off from switching and some will return to smoking. Zvi Zig 15:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hm. Thanks for being so forthright in disclosing that.  So you have a stance that you advocate in public, and in the scientific literature, on e-cigs.  It is great to have experts involved in our articles.  Really great.  On the other hand things get very messy here in Wikipedia, with regard to the unreferreed nature of this place.  In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and viola there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done.  No intermediary - no publisher, no editors (in the RW sense of that word, not the WP sense).  And anonymously too....


 * Before I continue.... would you please take a moment and look at our article on Misophonia, as well as the long list of "conflicted" editors who have worked on that article, listed on its talk page? Nearly every expert who has studied that emerging disorder, has come to Wikipedia and edited the article to cite their own work and skew it to reflect their point of view, most of them without disclosing that. This is the kind of thing that can happen here.


 * What I generally ask folks to do who have a COI in Wikipedia (which in my view, includes experts who participate in the scientific and policy debates on contested issues), is to declare their COI, and instead of editing directly, work with a kind of "Peer review" here in Wikipedia. What that means concretely, is a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft, disclose your COI on the Talk page using the appropriate template, and then submit the draft article through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and  b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself.  That way, edits/articles can be reviewed for neutrality...


 * I don't know what you think about all this. I would be very interested in your thoughts.  Before you answer, please do consider what it would be like if say Richard Grana was editing these articles too, under some anonymous ID.....


 * Thanks! I look forward to hearing from you, and thanks again for the gracious discussion. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . Sorry for my delayed response. I had limited access yesterday while reflecting on this issue. I would be interested in learning more about Wikipedia policy on this issue, if it exists.


 * You've asked about my personal views... Being 'biased by the evidence' is a difficult issue: There's no such thing as a view from nowhere. I have no solid conclusions. It is crucial to have a level playing field and many contributors to Wikipedia's e-cig page clearly have personal views. Some have even expressed scientific judgments which are more than mere blind reflections of secondary sources -- should that disqualify them?


 * So, I would differentiate between 1) narrower academic topics where ideas are personally related to their proponents and WP editors likely are dispassionate observers, and 2) topics of wider interest where WP editors, as members of the general public, likely have some opinion. After all, it's unlikely to identify Platonic editors without (evidence-based) feelings on controversies relating to public welfare.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 10:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful answer. Policy-wise, here is the story. The governing policies here are WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV.  The governing guideline is WP:COI.  The essays that are most on point are Conflicts of interest (medicine), WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:EXPERT.   (In case you are not familiar with the hierarchy of that stuff - policies have broad consensus; guidelines either a) were created just to flesh out some aspect of a policy or b) could be policy, but do not have strong enough consensus to become policy, and essays range everywhere from just some person's thoughts, to near-policy level in terms of how widely they are cited and used.  (Wikipedia is a "clue-ocracy - editors who are the most widely respected, are the ones who understand the heart of the policies and guidelines, as well as their letter, and apply them wisely)   The three essays I have cited are all pretty close to guidelines with regard to their acceptance.   The interpretation of COI is highly contested.   And when it comes to experts with strong RW views coming to work in WP, things are extra unclear.   I generally approach COI matters as a discussion instead of dropping a hammer, but when I am certain there is an a financial COI (like a paid editor, or a company employee writing about the company) the dialogue is more socratic on my part.  In cases like yours, it is much more open on my part.  In my view you come with advocacy (instead of checking your own views at the login page) and due to your stake in the RW controversies, you have somewhat of a COI.  I would say the same to Grana if he came to edit here.
 * I do want to say that I am troubled by your statement about "being 'biased by the evidence'.  If the evidence were blindingly clear on this, there would be no controversies.  But the evidence is not all in, since e-cigs are still pretty new, and as you know there are many unanswered questions and there are even questions about what we are talking about, since "e-cigs" and "e-liquid" are unregulated, so when someone does a study of their effects, it is not as generalizable as say a clinical trial of "drug x", where "drug x" is very well defined per regulation and law.   And on top of that, as you know, there are competing "priorities" - some look at the well-known dangers of smoking and the obviously much-less toxic nature of e-cigs and say "holy cow why the heck would anyone get in the way of people switching to e-cigs if they help people quit smoking!?", while others look at the unknown aspects of e-cigs and their burgeoning use, and say "holy cow how can we be allowing so many people to  be exposed to the as-yet-unknown risks of these unregulated things that also get them (or keep them) addicted to something?!"   There is "rightness" on both sides of that, but neither is ultimately about "evidence" alone - sorting out competing priorities is neither a scientific matter nor a purely evidence-based process.
 * Anyway, please do have a look at the policies/guidelines/essays I have provided you.  We can also open this up for wider discussion at the COI noticeboard.  Folks there can give thoughtful and respectful input.  Thanks again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, for this. I think that I relate to what the WP:ADVOCACY page says, "Editors are not expected to have no opinions about a subject. The Community encourages editors with experience or expertise in particular topics to edit the relevant articles. Expertise alone is not advocacy, but if an expert consistently gives undue weight to a particular point of view, that can be a problem." While my position on this subject is certainly a mainstream position, let me make it clear that I do not want Wikipedia reflect my own viewpoint. I am bothered that Wikipedia is unduly reflecting certain viewpoints in a way that prevents people from making informed decisions. Look at how the Cochrane Review summarizes the evidence on e-cig toxicology, or Grana for that matter, Wikipedia gives you an entirely different picture.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 20:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair warning
this edit was really flawed. Please see the article talk page. I am writing here to tell you that several of your edits have been dramatically - dramatically - skewed. If you keep doing this I am going to have to ask for discretionary sanctions to be used to restrict your editing. You have to stop pushing your POV here. Please be more careful to select good sources and to use them carefully. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , the definition of skewed is not something that doesn't fit your POV.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 01:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually don't have a POV. I see the two main sides here and don't know which is best.  But it is very transparent when folks are trying to push the article one way or another, and your edits are pushing very, very hard on the "e-cigs are good b/c they are way better than cigarettes" side.  I meant what I said -- you are aware of the discretionary sanctions, right?  (that is a real question, not rhetorical.  if you don't know please tell me so i can explain) Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * btw, crying "censor" like you did here, is the same thing that the "magnetic bracelets that cure cancer" people say when we turn away their garbage sources. Be careful of your rhetoric, and please remember that we need to apply the same sourcing standards to all articles about health. Jytdog (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

DS alert
QuackGuru ( talk ) 15:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do mind the notice above. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Nicotine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note I reverted mostly recent additions from Quack. Jytdog, you have responded to my edits using innuendo and red-herring. Please look at the compelling grounds presented for each edit.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 08:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you stand by your edit and edit summary? The part "represents little if any hazard to the user" does not refer to the long-term effect of nicotine. The part "robust evidence on the safety of long-term nicotine use in humans" refers to the long-term safety of nicotine regarding the cancer risk. The Royal College of Physicians stated the "Evidence about long-term nicotine or NRT use is relatively scarce, and concerns have been raised that long-term NRT use may increase cancer risk, in part owing to endogenous formation of carcinogens such as N′-nitrosonornicotine (NNN).52" which shows the long-term health effects is still limited not well known. Please re-read this comment. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If the context is long-term substitution, there's no way you can limit assertions about safety to the short-term!
 * The part "robust evidence on the safety of long-term nicotine use in humans", clearly is relates not just top cancer.
 * The statement, "Concerns have been raised that long-term NRT use may increase cancer risk, in part owing to endogenous formation of carcinogens such as N′-nitrosonornicotine (NNN)." is followed by "However... " with a series of counterpoints.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 21:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You claimed "Royal College of Physicians concludes long-term nicotine use to "represents little if any hazard to the user..."" but the source did not conclude the long-term nicotine use represents little if any hazard to the user. Your edit summary is not supported by the source according to WP:SYN. Little if any hazard to the user does not mean the long-term risks are well known.
 * You also claimed "refers to "robust evidence on the safety of long-term nicotine use in humans" but the source does not state it was the long-term effect of nicotine in general. Coming to your own conclusion not found in the source is a WP:SYN violation. The part "robust evidence on the safety of long-term nicotine use in humans", refers to the "5-year Lung Health Study" which is specifically about "cancer (lung, gastrointestinal or any cancer) or cardiovascular disease.57,58" References 57 and 58 confirms it is not about the long-term use of nicotine in general.
 * The statement, "Concerns have been raised that long-term NRT use may increase cancer risk, in part owing to endogenous formation of carcinogens such as N′-nitrosonornicotine (NNN)." refers to cancer risk not about nicotine health effects in general. Saying the "Evidence about long-term nicotine or NRT use is relatively scarce," means the evidence is relatively limited. When the evidence is only limited it is impossible to absolutely know the long-term health effects of nicotine. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Reading a something in context is not WP:SYNTH. The publication, the chapter, the section and the sentence all imply long-term substitution to nicotine. Even assuming this isn't the case, what is your justification to limit a general statement on safety to the short-term alone? It's quite obvious that a statement asserting little if any hazard is incompatible with blanket declaration that health effects are unknown!
 * It's not up to you (or me) to decide that a statement by the RCP report is incompatible with its reference. Nevertheless, it references a source explicitly concluding that that the nicotine product tested long-term "appears to be safe and unrelated to any cardiovascular illnesses or other serous side effects".
 * It's irrelevant if Wikipedians decide RCP has no basis to infer the long-term effects of nicotine. However, RCP notes that evidence on long-term nicotine use is "relatively scarce" but also "robust", while bolstering with other lines of evidence, such as animal studies, as well.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 21:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are not reading "a something" in context. Assuming they are implying the long-term health effects of nicotine in general is a SYN violation and is your personal opinion which you are entitled to. The statement on its safety did not explicitly state it was also about the long-term effects of nicotine in general. You are unable to find any source to contradict the statement that the long-term effects are unknown. Even if you found a source that contradicts the statement editors don't decide which statement to keep or delete. A 2016 review found "It is difficult to affirm the safety of long term nicotine use." QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Copying text
Please be more careful when copying from other sources on the talk page. A link to the source is required.. See WP:COPYVIO. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

You copied text again without providing links to the sources. I fixed it twice before. I think you can fix the copyvio yourself this time. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, User:QuackGuru. Short quotations need not be linked where the source has been made known. This is my understanding of WP:FAIRUSE. You can show me otherwise if I'm wrong.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 19:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The full statement from RCP was italicized but was not in quotation marks. I added the links. It is better to be safe than sorry. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. FYI, WP:NFCCP: "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, blockquote, or a similar method".
 * Now you are copying text from the AHA and adding it to the article. This is not the first time you added a copyvio to mainspace, right? This is also a copyvio. Correct me if I am mistaken. It is compared specifically to tobacco not smoking in general. The text is unnecessary context and is too close to the source. There is context in the section. See "The long-term effects of nicotine in the form of snus were reported in studies to incur a slight risk of cardiovascular disease compared to tobacco.[45]" The word snus is already linked in the body earlier. See Nicotine. See WP:OVERLINK. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * See WP:PARAPHRASE "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text".
 * The AHA (1)contrasts "pure nicotine" research to tobacco and (2)contrasts snus toxicity to smoking.
 * You have a point - it can be shortened, but AHA's affirmation that snus is relevant is important in contrast to the first statement. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 20:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Explaining that there is research on smokeless tobacco tells the reader nothing. The specific research on smokeless tobacco is "The long-term effects of nicotine in the form of snus were reported in studies to incur a slight risk of cardiovascular disease compared to tobacco".  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is only in the same sense as saying that "Limited data exists" on "pure nicotine" is nothing!

The AHA source says that relatively few data exists in relation to "pure nicotine", immediately contrasting this with the assertion that nicotine's effects can be inferred via snus. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 20:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Limited data exists" tell the readers a lot because there is very limited research on nicotine. It shows that the long-term effects are still unknown. With what limited data is available on the long-term effects of snus was included. Saying that the long-term effects of smokeless tobacco (snus) can be examined is vague content since the article includes the very specific contrast by explicitly including long-term effects of snus. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Saying that "relatively limited data" exists on "pure nicotine" is only half the story AHA tells. It subsequently immediately notes that the safety of nicotine can also be inferred from snus. WP doesn't otherwise tell us that snus can be used to infer nicotine safety in general.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 21:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather than add vague content we are subsequently including detailed content. See again: "The long-term effects of nicotine in the form of snus..." This is the other half of the story which WP is using to show the safety of nicotine specifically. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say we can infer to nicoitne use in general. It also only refers to CVD, not safety as a whole. It's not vague.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 10:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It refers to CVD and the part about CVD is included in the article. The statement that the long-term effects of smokelss tobacco in the form of snus was examined is unnecessary context. I would be similar to saying that the safety of nicotine could be examined. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring again?
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Previous notice. See here and here. Take it easy. Thank you for your editing. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright
Your additions to Electronic cigarette‎ have been removed twice, as they added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Message about lede edit on Talk:Nicotine
Hi, Zvi Zig. I'm guessing you might not have seen my reply to you on Talk:Nicotine, so dropping you a note. Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, HLHJZvi Zig (talk • contribs 01:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that should have been Talk:Nicotine, QuackGuru's edits are QuackGuru's and quite separate from yours, no association intended. HLHJ (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've finally replied, my apologies for the delay. HLHJ (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

September 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Nicotine; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - DVdm (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Why is contributions an edit war? I made a few evidence-backed changes to the nicotine page.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 01:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You made wp:NPOV violating changes, again, along the line of your previous changes, for which you were warned here before, and more than once. That is slow wp:edit warring. - DVdm (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing about my edits are even remotely edit-warring. This is weird. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 03:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: this is wp:tenditious editing. I have added another source for the fact that nicotine is a poison, and not only "pure nicotine". Now please stop downplaying this fact. This was the 3rd time you that you tried to do this: see this and this. That is slow wp:edit warring. - DVdm (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring revisited
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Nicotine; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - DVdm (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nicotine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nicotine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IARC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Electronic cigarette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atomizer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)