Steveceaton

Here's wishing you a welcome to Wikipedia, Steveceaton. Thank you for your contributions. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Paid editing in Wikipedia

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Steve. I work on conflict of interest issues in Wikipedia along with my regular editing. You appear to be editing here under your real name and you appear to be here doing SEO work for smokshop.com. That's based on your edit here, which you added back here - that edit note, especially in light of your edit note here, is.. difficult.

I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Steveceaton. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI are generally unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please do review the links above. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

btw please do see Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms.

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. Would you please disclose your relationship with the folks who run smokshop.com or their agents? After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through our process for managing conflicts of interest in Wikipedia and I can give you some more orientation to how this place works. Please reply here, just below. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jytdog

First of all, I'm not doing SEO for Smokshop. If I was I wouldn't be editing under my own name. I'm a writer and I write articles about vaping which I get published on the Smokshop blog along with other vaping blogs such as VapeMag. I'm new to Wikipedia and joined as an editor because I use it frequently as a research tool. I feel I'm best contributing to areas that I know a lot about and vaping is one of these areas, hence my contribution about the contents of e liquid. The source I cited is an article on Smokshop which breaks down the contents of e liquid. As the rules state, even though they are a commercial business, footnote citations are allowed. I'm in no way paid by Smokshop, and they don't know I've cited them in a contribution. (Steveceaton (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC))Reply

Thanks for replying ! {Your "if I was I wouldn't be editing under my own name." is a bit of a show stopper but I will hop over that. :)} Happy that you are interested in contributing. Thanks for that.

About the source thing -- In general we strive to raise source quality - that means using sources from the scientific literature or really high quality main stream media (think NYT or WSJ) and we do our best to avoid blogs or webpages like the one you cited, that are "informational" in the sense of wanting informed customers. This is a general principle but is especially important on controversial articles, and everything related to e-cigs is controversial in Wikipedia. We have somewhat formalized ways that we resolve disputes here and disputes that get really nasty end up at our "Supreme Court", the Arbitration Committee or Arbcom for short. This topic landed there - that's how controversial it has been. Anyway the good advice in the community specifically for controversial articles is raise source quality. So please don't cite sources like that in the e-cig topic area. Turning back to more general things...

If you do want to edit as part of your business, please do keep the stuff above in mind, and if you have questions about how to implement that, I would be happy to walk you through it.

Yet more generally, if you want a quick run down of how this place works, including the general "rules" (as you called them in your edit note) that everybody goes by, I would be happy to provide that to you. Just let me know. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, as someone who knows about the vaping industry I would argue about the quality of sources. There is a lot of controversy surrounding electronic cigarettes because there are many phony/bias 'scientific' studies that are picked up by the media and run as fact. There are lots of blogs out there that expose these inconsistencies in the media, and Smokshop is one of them. Just because they are in the industry themselves it doesn't make their sources any more unreliable, or low quality than anyone else. It is good for anyone researching these type of subjects to get information from a wide range of sources. I don't understand why these citations: http://vaperanks.com/propylene-glycol-vs-vegetable-glycerin-e-liquid-whats-the-difference/, http://www.ecigarettemag.com/e-liquid-mixing/, http://www.aemsa.org/welcome-to-the-aemsa/, http://spinfuel.com/vapers-glossary/ are any more reliable, or high quality than the one I cited? (Steveceaton (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC))Reply

As you are someone who is brand new to editing Wikipedia, I would urge you not to make arguments until you understand how this place works better. There are things about this place that are not intuitive.

As a tiny example (and something that will help you later) on Talk pages like this one, we "thread" comments by indenting - - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment which draws a little line showing your comment is a reply. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that.

Like I said above, if you want me to give you the quickish overview of how this place works I would be glad to do that. Jytdog (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

So you mean, now I'm on 5 colons? Yes a quickish overview might be handy :) Thanks. (Steveceaton (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC))Reply

you nailed it :) OK, the overview is as condensed as I can get it but is still longish. Will post it below in a moment. Jytdog (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

How this place works

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

OK, so I would like to get you oriented to how Wikipedia works, and give you some advice about creating articles, should you ever want to.

The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers with encyclopedia content that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via lots of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in "Wikipedia space" (There is a whole forest of documents in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus.)

People have tried to define Wikipedia - is it a democracy, an anarchy, controlled by a secret cabal? In fact it is a clue-ocracy (that link is to a very short and important text).

There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is a very quick rundown:

Content policies and guidelines

WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing. You will also find discussion of how WP is not a catalog, not a how-to manual, not a vehicle for promotion, etc)
WP:OR - no original research is allowed here, instead
WP:VERIFY - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!)
WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content and WP:MEDRS defines what reliable sourcing is for content about health
WP:NPOV and the content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" - it means that the language has to be neutral, and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would generally give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. Of course if that drug was important because it killed a lot of people, not having 90% of it be about the side effects would not be neutral) We determine weight by seeing what the reliable sources say - we follow them in this too. So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
WP:BLP - this is a policy specifically covering discussion about living people anywhere in WP. We are very careful about such content (which means enforcing the policies and guidelines above rigorously), since issues of legal liability can arise for WP, and people have very strong feelings about other people, and about public descriptions of themselves.
WP:NOTABILITY - this is a policy that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule - which is basically, are there enough independent sources about X, with which to build a decent article.
WP:DELETION discusses how we get rid of articles that fail notability.

In terms of behavior, the key norms are:

WP:CONSENSUS - already discussed
WP:CIVIL - basically, be nice. This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and having that get in the way of getting things done. We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes. So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction.
WP:AGF - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor. Don't personalize it when content disputes arise. (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
WP:HARASSMENT - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world. Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy.
WP:DR - if you get into an content dispute with someone, try to work it. If you cannot, then use one of the methods here to get wider input. There are many - it never has to come down to two people arguing. There are instructions here too, about what to do if someone is behaving badly, in your view. Try to keep content disputes separate from behavior disputes. Many of the big messes that happen in Wikipedia arise from these getting mixed up.
WP:COI and WP:PAID which I discussed way above already. This is about preserving the integrity of WP. A closely related issue is WP:ADVOCACY; COI is just a subset of advocacy.
WP:TPG - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like this one, or say Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid. At article talk pages, basically be concise, discuss content not contributors, and base discussion on the sources in light of policies and guidelines, not just your opinions or feelings. At user talk pages things are more open, but that is the relevant place to go if you want to discuss someone's behavior or talk about general WP stuff - like this whole post.

If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough.

If at some point you want to create an article, here is what to do.

look for independent sources that comply with WP:MEDRS for anything related to health, and WP:RS for everything else, that give serious discussion to the topic, not just passing mentions. Start with great sources.
Look at the sources you found, and see if you have enough per WP:Golden rule to even go forward. If you don't, you can stop right there.
Read the sources you found, and identify the main and minor themes to guide you with regard to WP:WEIGHT - be wary of distortions in weight due to WP:RECENTISM
Go look at manual of style guideline created by the relevant WikiProject, to guide the sectioning and other style matters (you can look at articles on similar topics but be ginger b/c WP has lots of bad content) - create an outline. (For example, for biographies, the relevant project is WP:WikiProject Biography) (For example, for companies, the relevant project is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies/Guidelines)
Create the article following the process described at articles for creation for your first few articles.
Start writing the body, based only on what is in the sources you have, and provide an inline citation for each sentence as you go.
Make sure you write in neutral language. The most rigorous way to do this is to use no adjectives at your first go-round and add them back only as needed.
When you are done, write the lead and add infobox, external links, categories, etc
Consider adding banners to the Talk page, joining the draft article to relevant Wikiprojects, which will help attract editors who are interested and knowledgeable to help work on the article. If you have a COI for the article, note it there.
The completed work should have nothing unsourced (because the sources drove everything you wrote, not prior knowledge or personal experiences or what the client wanted; there is no original research nor WP:PROMO in it.
Submit your article for review by clicking the "submit your draft" button that was set up when you created the article. You will get responses from reviewers, and you can work with them to do whatever is needed to get the article ready to be published.

There you go! Let me know if you have questions about any of that

Again that was a lot, but the goal is to get you somewhat oriented. Jytdog (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

break to save scrolling

Okay thanks, that's very helpful. So on the subject of being clueful. How can I add to any topics on the vaping industry when I'm restricted on who I can cite? If it's restricted only to scientific journals, which as I mentioned, some have been proven to be paid for by the tobacco industry, and some are wholly unreliable, then this is giving 'undue weight' to the science journals. Many big news outlets run with the science journals for sensational headlines and actually do a lot of damage to the public's opinion regarding e cigarettes. There are many blogs on the Internet that are carrying out ridiculous amounts of research and conducting their own studies, and calling out the bias and often corrupt practises that are being carried out in the name of 'science'. Smokshop run a highly respectable blog, and are one of the biggest and oldest members of the vaping industry. They have a lot of information that is both citable and beneficial to readers on Wikipedia. Not just Smokshop, but other blogs such as VapeMag and Clive Bates. But I'm disheartened now because you've cut my contribution on grounds that I don't understand. First you said it's because it was a commercial citation, which in fact I pointed out is allowed. Then you said there are special rules around e cigarettes which restrict citations only to science journals and big media outlets. So if I add any more contributions which cite anything other than science journals and big media are you going to cut them as well? (Steveceaton (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC))Reply

Right... so the only way I can read what you just wrote, is that you believe I am lying to you. I can't work with someone who approaches me that way. I've done the best I can to orient you. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Lying to me about what? If you're reading it that way then you need to read it again. I'm asking why citation of sources is restricted to science journals and big news outlets when there is a wealth of information out there from other areas. I've read everything you sent me and there is a section on giving undue weight to only one side of the story. I also asked if you're going to cut all my contributions to vaping if they don't cite scientific journals or big media sources? I don't think you're lying about anything I'm just trying to understand the position here? (Steveceaton (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC))Reply

You wrote: "First you said it's because it was a commercial citation, which in fact I pointed out is allowed. Then you said there are special rules around e cigarettes which restrict citations only to science journals and big media outlets" You are claiming there that you "defeated me" on the first thing I said and I am just shifting ground to try to exclude your sources. No, my mom doesn't know I beat my wife - I don't. Wikipedia isn't some blog where you "win" by flaming the other guy. You work from within the guideline and policies, and to do that you have to learn. Look you are clearly committed to using the sources you came here to add to Wikipedia and are not interested in learning. And I'm done here. Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well that's what happened. I'm not accusing you of lying just confused about the issue. It's not a case of flaming or defeating anyone, I just want to know why it's been decided that only certain sources are allowed for e cigarettes. There's enough bias in the media and conspiracy theories around e cigarettes, and now from what you're saying Wikipedia also wants to silence any voices in the e cigarette industry. If it's a consensus that's come to that decision then I'm interested in learning why that is. I'm not trolling and I don't understand why you're taking this personal. You cut my contribution on grounds that I'm trying to understand. I am interested in learning, and I do want to contribute on things I know about. The e cigarette industry is one thing I know about but you are going to cut any citations I make unless they come from one side of the coin. I just want some clarification and understanding on why that is.(Steveceaton (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC))Reply

No. That isn't what happened. Again my mom doesn't know I beat my wife, because I don't. Your assumptions about what Wikipedia is all about, and even what has been happening here, are incorrect. I can't help someone who is unreceptive. Please hear me, I work with new editors all the time, and it becomes clear pretty quickly if the person is carrying an axe into Wikipedia or is really here to contribute and is willing to learn. This is exactly why the e-cig suite of articles went to Arbcom. We get folks showing up like you who come with axes to grind and will not learn how Wikipedia works and what should be calm discussions based on good sources and the policies and guidelines turn into street fights. Wikipedia is not a blog; it is not yet some other website in the blogosphere. Another example - we get really passionate vegetarians who come here, who want to add content about how meat is evil and vegetarianism is awesome - they get their information from garbage sources on the internet and want to dump that garbage here. They honestly believe that their sources are Gold Standard. Likewise we have people with Morgellons who get their info from Natural News and want to cite that garbage. There is a reason that over the last fifteen years the Wikipedia community has evolved actual standards for reliable sourcing. Anyway please do have a read of our essay on WP:ADVOCACY - maybe it will help you. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm just trying to have a calm discussion on the policies surrounding e cigarettes. You're the one who is getting heated and talking about beating your wife. I mean, wtf? Now you're comparing me to a vegetarian dumping garbage. Sheesh. It's clear you might have been burned in the past but you really need to realign your judgement of people before the old red mist comes down. You say I "will not learn how Wikipedia works". I'm trying to learn how it works. I've learned a lot today and I'm trying to understand the policies on e cigarettes. You say "what should be calm discussions based on good sources and the policies and guidelines turn into street fights". I don't know about you but I'm calm, and trying to have a calm discussion. You've gone off on a tangent and started talking about defeating, flaming, beating your wife and street fights. To me that all came out of nowhere and is completely unjustified. (Steveceaton (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC))Reply

Are you unfamiliar with the "does your mom know you beat your wife?" problem? Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

No I'm not familiar with that. I'm from the UK so maybe didn't catch the colloquialism. I Googled it and found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question which quotes "Have you stopped beating your wife?". So from that I take it you think I'm asking a loaded question, which I'm not. I said I was disheartened because you cut my contribution on grounds which I don't quite understand. And after all this discussion I still don't. You said it's a commercial link. You said we can only site scientific journals and big media. My argument is there is a lot more facts to be found on certain blogs within the e cigarette industry. The source I cited for example discusses certain ingredients that can be found in some types of e liquid. It goes on to explain how those ingredients can be dangerous and how new regulations will force e liquid manufacturers to display the ingredients on the side of the bottle. It also explains how unscrupulous food flavouring companies can circumnavigate this law. I thought it was an insightful article and it would be good to expand the contents section of e liquid. You won't find sources like that in science journals or big media because they're not in the industry. (Steveceaton (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC))Reply

well whatever. Look I am trying to back out of interacting with you. This is going no where because what you are doing, is arguing that the exact thing you wanted to do when you came in here cold, is exactly the right thing to do. You are completely - utterly - uninterested in how we actually think and work in Wikipedia. That is what the examples about Morgellons and vegetarians were for. Folks like you come here committed to do X and don't care about Wikipedia, and just swat away discussions about what actually matters here. That is what you are doing. Yes, it was loaded for you to claim that I shifted my argument or that your claim about "it is in the rules" was even relevant to the discussion. It wasn't.

In any case, we have a board for the reliability of sources. I will post there and provide you the link and then i am outta here. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#E-cig_question Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic