Talk:Vape shop/Archive 1

Archive 1

Arbitration committee discussion

(Notice cross posted to: Electronic cigarette, Safety of electronic cigarettes, Legal status of electronic cigarettes, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes, Electronic cigarette aerosol, Cloud-chasing & vape shop. Please focus any discussion on the main page

There is an ArbCom case pending related to this family of topics. SPACKlick (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits about e-cig availability

Should the article be moved to e-cigs availability to match the content or...?--TMCk (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The title "Vape shop" matches the content. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"A vape shop is a store that sells merchandise also available at other stores like A, B and C?"--TMCk (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

As for the title please see WP:COMMONNAME. QuackGuru (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your response makes no sense.--TMCk (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with moving it to e-cigs availability[1] per WP:COMMONNAME.[2] QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Let's go with the "or..." --TMCk (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is a nonsense. There's nothing encyclopedic about a vape shop other than it's a shop for selling things related to vaping, you can read what those things are at our articles on vaping. This article is not about vape shops because it couldn't be that limited and still be an article. SPACKlick (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Bingo. Exactly my point.--TMCk (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I am wondering why there is an insistent need to include that "cig-alikes are mostly available at convenience stores" when this is an article about vape shops. If this article is supposed to be about vape shops as it is so titled, why is QuackGuru not allowing removal of this and other irrelevant information and then reinserting it? JoLincoln (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"While vape shops offer mostly reusable e-cigarettes and they do not usually carry cig-alikes, cig-alikes are mostly available at convenience stores.[5]"

This is background information that is germane to the topic.

"They are also available at conventional retailers and tobacco retailers."

I think our readers would like to know where e-cigarettes are also available. This is also relevant to the topic. QuackGuru (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It would make more sense to include a reference about cig-a-likes in pages for tobacco and conventional retailers. Vape shops DO carry cig-a-likes, to say they don't usually carry them, is incorrect. Have you ever stepped foot into more than one vape shop? Also tobacco retailers and conventional retailers carry 2nd generation ecigs and not just cig-a-likes. This entire article is in reality, pointless. JoLincoln (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed the unnecessary part. QuackGuru (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Is Quitsmokingwith.MyFreshVape.com a reliable source for the online presences of vape shops?

I think the source is unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Quack, make titles useful, make posts useful. But no, it's clearly advertising and the site doesn't even exist anymore, that said, the claim that many vape shops have online business is wp:skyisblue. Most businesses have an online component nowadays. SPACKlick (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Over-Archiving

Archiving should be used where a talk thread is unweildy and hard to sift through, not every 14 days on a barely active page where keeping the history is useful to editors. SPACKlick (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced addition

This change added unsourced content. QuackGuru (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable source

An entire section was added using an unreliable source. QuackGuru (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Which of the two sources are you calling unreliable? Which part of the content? Would it not have been easier to put that in the fucking comment to begin with. SPACKlick (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Both sources are unreliable and all the content was sourced to unreliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Is Heavengifts.com needed as an external source or is it advertising?

This appears to be spam. QuackGuru (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it's advertising and should be removed. SPACKlick (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It was removed. It should not be restored. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Use of the word "Some" in summarising sources

There are a few weasel words that are not verified by the source(s) presented. If an editors thinks they are verifiable please provide verification such as the exact quote from the source. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This talk page section links to no specific part of the article, no specific source and gives no quotes. We don't live in your head Quack, try giving people details of what you're talking about so that OTHER editors can COLLABORATE with you to IMPROVE the article for its READERS!SPACKlick (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"Some look like bars. Some have lounges where people can drink a beverage as they vape. Some vape shops have a vape bar where patrons can test out different e-liquids and socialize." I checked the sources and none verify the weasel word "some". QuackGuru (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The quote is There are chic ones, which look a bit like bars. There are loungey ones where there are sofas for customers to sip a coffee as they vape. And there are arty ones with rap music, grey concrete floors and pictures for sale on exposed brick walls. This indicates a multiplicity of bar like ones, lounge like ones and arty ones with no significant majority specified. The adequate word to summarise that is "Some". Basic reading comprehension of English makes this clear. I'll say this again because you seem to have missed it the last dozen or so times over the last couple of years WHEN SUMMARISING A SOURCE NOT EVERY WORD NEEDS TO APPEAR IN THE SOURCE. The word some can be implied by context as it is here. SPACKlick (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The part "ones" does not verify the weasel word "some". They have different meanings. The parts "ones" means more than one. It does not mean "some" or many" or "most" or "few". QuackGuru (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What do you think Some means exactly Quack? What do you think is suggested by "Some look a bit like bars" that is not stated in "There are ones that look a bit like bars"? There is no difference to a reader of English between the two phrases. SPACKlick (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Are they synonyms? See http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/ones?s=t Is there a better way to write it? QuackGuru (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason to change it? Without such a reason the stable version should remain. You have resolutely refused to present a reason to change it so I'm disinclined to think any further. SPACKlick (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I asked if they are they synonyms.[3] If they are not synonyms then the unsupported claim can be rewritten. QuackGuru (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Quack, your process is at odds with the way wikipedia works. You have found a word not in a source, refused to understand the source, and claimed it needs to be changed. Elaborate on the need for a change. What do you think is suggested by "Some look a bit like bars" that is not stated in "There are ones that look a bit like bars"? Or vice versa. What difference in meaning do you think has crept into wikipedia? If you can't identify a provlem then there's nothing to fix. And if you cant tell that the two phrases are synonymous then you are not competent to edit EN.Wikipedia and should stick to your native language wiki. SPACKlick (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I checked here and other sources. The sources I checked did not show there are synonyms. Can you present us a source that shows they are synonymous. QuackGuru (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You won't find it in a thesaurus because it's not two synonymous words but two synonymous phrases. You have still not identified any difference in meaning so at this point it's hard not to think you're being deliberately disruptive. I will take some time away now but I am considering seeking arbitration enforcement because you have previously been officially warned about this style of disruptive editing. SPACKlick (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Failed verification

The article states, ""Cloud-chasing", the activity of blowing the largest clouds of vapor, is becoming a routine event at some vape shops.[22]

See "The contests, in which adult vapers, as they call themsleves, compete to perform the best tricks and create the biggest and densest vapor clouds, are becoming a regular feature at local vape shops. Some regional competitions offer thousands of dollars in prize money."[4] The word some failed verification." The word "some" later in the paragraph is referring to some regional competitions offer the prize money. QuackGuru (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you believe the source is saying that these events are common to local vape shops in all conditions and locations? The scope of the source is clearly limited and that limitation must be transferred to the article as the context is different. SPACKlick (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)