This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Sizeofint! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at MDMA. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Snowager (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Those three edits are 1) Correcting a grammar error. 2) Marking a dead link which leads to a 404 Error. 3) Adding a when? tag to an ambiguous time reference of Later. I am sorry if this constitutes vandalism. Please let me know how I can avoid this in future.Sizeofint (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to MDMA with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you please help me understand how those edits are disruptive or vandalism? The new information is from the sources already cited. Sizeofint (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a meaningless section headline, at least until you read the section. "Researches of X and Y" would be better. "First documented therapeutic use" would be better still. But I'm not going to revert it twice. Philip Trueman (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll change that. I just thought Therapeutic use didn't accurately describe the section. Sizeofint (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that was for a different "back and forth" exchange lol.. seems like a lot of folks want to write wikipedia all by themselves. All I can do is provide solid reasons and/or references for my changes. Not really interested in arguing. People should be required to provide better reasons/references than those already given or leave things alone.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited OpenCL, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ARM. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If its (legal status at Methamphetamine) are common knowledge, why put it on the page? Christian75 (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Looking at Amphetamine, I see mentions a few legal statuses as examples. Perhaps something similar can be done for methamphetamine. It is difficult to list all of them because these articles have international scope but we don't want them to become excessively long by discussing every individual country (although this could be done in History and culture of substituted amphetamines). It would be nice if we could put citations in the infobox but this breaks the links. Sizeofint (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Scratch that, we can now put in comments for legal statuses Sizeofint (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I made ((Chembox)) use ((Drugbox)) pregnancy and legal status be 1:1. Please drop any note if you have ideas & suggestions. -DePiep (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to Python (programming language) because the syntax of Python is not at all like C, but then I noticed the link to List of C-based programming languages which does list a number of languages with non-C-like syntax. I don't think Python belongs in the list, but I understand why you made the edit and if you feel strongly enough to make it again I won't revert again.-gadfium 20:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have removed Python from the list. I think the writer was confused about the difference between C-based languages and languages implemented in C. Thanks. Sizeofint (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.-gadfium 21:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for working to help keep these articles organized and up-to-date, particularly the MDMA article; as you know, not many people work on articles involving controlled substances. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Seppi333! Much appreciated! Sizeofint (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Semen, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Hi! I noticed changes you made to the article Semen. Please refrain from making numerous changes that remove content without filling in an edit summary. Thanks! Garchy 16:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Garchy (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Garchy: the content removal was because most of the health information is not sourced from WP:MEDRS compliant sources. I think I state this in most of the edit summaries but I may have missed a few. Other edits were mostly simplifying section names. Thanks for discussing. Sizeofint (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sizeofint: Hi! On Recent Changes patrol and came across the changes, I looked closer and did notice the edit summaries that weren't filled in were just for the section names, everything else was nice and notated - thank you for your work improving the article! Cheers, Garchy (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the MDMA page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Cannabis! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 559 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in the subject of cannabis.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

If you could have a look at Talk:Cannabis (drug)#Category Discussion for Cannabis and comment, that would be great (I'm explaining the category change of mine you reversed 20min ago). Nice idea for a project, by the way!Klbrain (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

	The Rosetta Barnstar
	Thanks for this edit [1]. It is a key part of making the leads of WPs articles easier to translated :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for more of these. Sizeofint (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Club drug, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Psychedelic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi! In which way does the chemical nomenclature screw up the drugbox of vosoritide? It looked all right to me (apart from not being properly aligned, which is the case in many drugboxes). Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anypodetos: In my browser it stretches out the infobox so it takes up the majority of the screen instead of only the right side. Sizeofint (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good reason not to display the name. Thanks for the explanation, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I sent you the study of my entry earlier. Gabapentin is the only reason I was able to quit Marijuana after 15 years. All else failed, so please don't remove something that could help others. Gabapentin is used off-label and was prescribed to me. I am only trying to help people and would appreciate it if you could undo your edit. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22373942 Special:Contributions/2601:19C:8000:150C:40CB:8D3:2386:487A

Can you fix this [2]

"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States currently allows only beverages containing less than 0.02% caffeine;[161] but caffeine powder, which is sold as a dietary supplement, is unregulated.[162] " Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Wonder when that happened. Sizeofint (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you find a source, I couldn't. It's on the surface coz I have tested it on myself many times and it's obvious. Stimulants like amphetamine after prolonged use even in low doses do not let the natural stress responce to physical activity to kick in and overcharge it by vastly stimulating body mechanisms, and it's very noticeable. I could even get somewhere close to performance without a stimulant. This is true only for prolonged use. Extreemator (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any review on Google Scholar or PubMed. Sorry. Sizeofint (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

common sense escapes all quadruple blinded trials, after-all — nothing new)Extreemator (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You could try WT:PHARM or WT:MED. Some editors there are more knowledgeable on this topic than I am. Sizeofint (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, you are a recent editor of Electronic Cigarettes, I am asking for your input to an Arbitration Enforcement Request AE. Found here. If you have time I would appreciate your input. The items in question are listed out 1-8. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mystery_Wolff
Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

	You dope, I sent a POTSTICKER!
	Thank you for contributing to a better discussion. Potguru (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the infobox-attempt. I entered one to Pierre Boulez a month after he died, you can check out how welcome that was, - sorry about sarcasm ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

(0.o) Didn't think I'd ever see so much opposition to infoboxes. I think they're convenient ways to quickly obtain general information without parsing prose. The infobox is usually the first place I look. Might be an interesting discussion. Sizeofint (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. I have been meaning to change the top infobox as you did, because the following "Saint" infobox already includes the "saintly" form. I am not sure about removing the image, though -- I agree it doesn't add much, but that rather horrible yellow heading (do saints have no design sense?) looks odd with a gap where the image was meant to be. So perhaps the image was the lesser of two evils? I don't know how much you know about sainthood, but if a lot, you might be able to help with my comment on the talk page. Cheers! Imaginatorium (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Imaginatorium, I thought the image pushed down the relevant information and didn't contribute much since there is already an image of her in the other infobox. If you feel the aesthetics are a bigger factor feel free to add it back in. Another option may be to change the infobox coloring. I imagine the intent was papal yellow, but that it does look horrendous. Sizeofint (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry i just wanted to ask why in your article about mother Teresa is nowhere said that her nationality is Albanian , i mean i don't think that everyone knows what Kosovo vilayet means so i think you should add it as soon as possible , thanks ,. If you want to do something do it right or don't do it at all . Eltoniboy (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really a big contributor to the article but I'll take a look at it. You're also welcome to edit as well. Sizeofint (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The infobox has a lot of her nationality information. The problem is her nationality is complicated. With the World Wars and the fall of the Soviet Union there was a quite a bit of redrawing of the borders. Perhaps bring this up on the article talk page Sizeofint (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Substance dependence page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

A trivial note: the sentence you wrote in this edit is an example of the passive voice ("was defunded [by ...]"), not the active voice. (It is also obviously a good edit!) --JBL (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake. Sizeofint (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sizeofint, when there are requested move discussions currently underway, please do not move the page, as you did at Talk:Narco-state. Moving it without discussion results in the discussion being pointless. Also, try not to move pages or close discussions that you were a part of. It's better if an uninvolved editor completes the request. Thanks. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. This didn't seem to be a controversial move so I didn't know the RM needed to close. Sizeofint (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please take the time to read WP:TPO. It's considered very poor wikiquette to refactor other users' comments, even with the best intentions. --RexxS (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS: that was his own comment. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm! Apologies, Sizeofint. I misread the diff completely. Mea culpa. --RexxS (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Haha, it's good. Sizeofint (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding the old tlak about the 2007 Nutt data....but basically this OLD data as been redone a few times since that old study. The more modern data is not exactly the same (that we use in articles) ...even by Nutt like "Scoring drugs", The Economist, data from "Drug harms in the UK: a multi-criteria decision analysis", by David Nutt, Leslie King and Lawrence Phillips, on behalf of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs. The Lancet. 2010 Nov 6;376(9752):1558-65. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61462-6 PMID 21036393. Not sure why we would be adding back the old chart? What happened to using File:HarmCausedByDrugsTable.svg (2011) over the old one? i will keep looking for the old tlak as we have a problem now all over....that is we use the data from 2011 in the articles but are now using the data from 2007 for the graphs. -- Moxy (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Moxy, the 2011 data was used until CFCF wiped it out citing WP:MEDRS. There is currently an ongoing discussion on this matter at WT:MED#Expert perception of drug harms chart. The original Nutt study appears, by PubMed standards at least, to be a review so that data can be used (or at least nobody has protested so far). I, like you, would like to see us using one of the newer studies though. Sizeofint (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I see now there is an edit war going on...I dont want to be involved in that. This is good an ongoing tlak. I was told by Doc that a new study of this nature just came out ...I will look for it and then comment at the above linked page. -- Moxy (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

categories

Thank you quality contributions to articles about psychedelic drugs and their chemistry, beginning with 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine, for creating related navboxes and categories, for demanding quality sourcy, adding a day to Christmas and offering structured infomation, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Sizeofint (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

of this. Sorry but I respectfully disagree with your assessment of WP:BITE. Having worked around rehab for many years, this isn't legit, it's justification. John from Idegon (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't see the sandboxes until after I posted that. Still, this editor hasn't done anything damaging yet and while it is probable this editor will be an advocate we only have one chance to make a good first impression. Sizeofint (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Alcoholic drink. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.
Please use the thanks function or a user talk page to issue thanks, but more importantly don't EW — 3RR or slow-motion — if someone deletes your thanks on an article talk page. I'm issuing similar warnings to both parties. TransporterMan (TALK) 17:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC) PS: Having said that, please continue thanking people. While this isn't something to EW over, and some people are very touchy about it, in most cases this would have passed without comment from anyone (as it should have). This is a rough enough place without gratitude. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I don't think either of us have violated WP:3RR at this point. We are currently having a discussion at the Village Pump. Sizeofint (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I agree that there was no 3RR violation here, but you can can have a slow-motion EW without a 3RR violation because 3RR is simply a bright-line rule (click through to learn more), and a slow motion EW is still in violation of policy even if there's no 3RR violation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"Please use the thanks function or a user talk page to issue thanks" My impression of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Thanking_editors_in_talk_page_discussions is that most editors don't view appreciative comments on article talk pages as problematic. Sizeofint (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

And I don't either, see above in my PS ("as it should have"). I warned you for the EW, not the thanks. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 07:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EyeTripleE. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here ~~~~)) below. Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Sizeofint (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The purpose of the other account was to separate more personally identifying edits from more general edits. The accounts did not have overlapping areas of editing (barring a handful of accidental edits with one or the other accounts; two edits out of several hundred on the MDMA article in particular). I do not believe I have violated any rules here and it is quite unfortunate for me (in terms of personal privacy) that you that have explicitly and publicly linked these accounts in this manner. I am asking that you unblock the accounts and purge the block notices in the edit histories of my talk pages and user pages (and ideally the sockpuppetry investigation page linked above). In my case the stakes aren't life-and-death. However, in the future you may wish to consider the potentially security implications of these investigations for editors with valid alts under repressive regimes. Sizeofint (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocking upon independent checkuser review. See below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

At a minimum you need to reveal the private information you mentioned to me. I suggest you e-mail me. I will not respond to your e-mail, but I will read it and take it into account.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have emailed you. Sizeofint (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I received it, thanks. This may take a bit of time, though. I will probably consult with another CheckUser before making any decisions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

After reading your e-mail and consulting with another CheckUser, I am unwilling to unblock your accounts. In case you don't know, only I or another CheckUser may accept your unblock request. You can of course wait to see what happens, but if you wish to pursue this matter, at some point I suggest you e-mail the Arbitration Committee. Finally, your proposal that any public edits connecting the two accounts be "purge[d]" would be very difficult, if not impossible. Even if an OverSighter were willing to suppress every relevant edit, anyone who has already read about the connection in different forums (and many have) will still have that knowledge.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: May I ask what rule you think I have violated? The only one I can think applies is Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts. As you can see from the interaction tool [3] there have been less than ten overlapping edits (counting the cumulative number of edits for the account that had the fewer edits on each page) between these accounts out of nearly ten thousand edits. These interactions were unintentional and constitute an error rate of 0.1%. They usually arose from having multiple Wikipedia tabs open, switching accounts on one tab, then editing a page on another tab with a header still displaying the previous account. The edit of one account on the talk page was just adding a ((Talk header)) - not a contribution to any discussion. Sizeofint (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Since doxxing users is apparently irrevocable here, you may wish to amend your procedures and email users to check if they have legitimate reasons for an alternative account before publicly linking their accounts. Sizeofint (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sizeofint is a long term medical editor in good standing. Due to the controversial nature of some medical editing having a separate account for certain topic areas is a relatively common practice and from my reading of policy is allowed for specific reasons.

The issues regarding doxxing are indeed concerning. IMO one needs good evidence of harm from the account in question before this should be allowed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sizeofint. Am interested in looking into exactly the reasoning behind the your ban. Do mind if User:Bbb23 share his justification and evidence with me. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No, Doc James I don't mind if Bbb23 shares it with you. I would like to hear the justification myself. Sizeofint (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've gone through each of the pages with less than one-day separation shown at the user-interaction tool to which Sizeofint linked, and although there are edits slipping back and forth between accounts, I cannot find any instance in which the edits either agreed with or opposed each other. In other words, there is nothing in the content of the edits that would fit with using the two accounts to deceptively work together. Instead, it looks like series of edits that make sense as a series, but in which the edits by one account simply continue what the other account did, in different parts of the page. In particular, the edits at MDMA (where I feel very able to evaluate content) are not in any way continuations of an edit war. Obviously, I don't know anything other than what is onsite, but I'm really not seeing any evidence of deceptive collaboration. --Tryptofish (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I am a checkuser and am reviewing this block. @Bbb23: If there is any non-public information I should be aware of for purposes of the review, please e-mail it to me as soon as possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

After a review of all the available information (including some that was not available at the time of the block), I am unblocking. In my opinion keeping these accounts blocked is not necessary to protect the encyclopedia or community. I don't see any serious violations of the alternate-account policy, and the credible evidence suggests that any violations that did occur were indeed inadvertent. I trust that Sizeofint will be careful about keeping the accounts truly separate in the future, if he decides to continue using multiple accounts. With regard to the issue of SPI findings and checkuser actions having an effect equivalent to "outing" editors, this is of concern, but it would be best to continue that discussion outside the context of this, or any, specific case where that may have inadvertently occurred. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back, Sizeofint! And good work, Brad. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad. And thanks for your due diligence Tryptofish. Sizeofint (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

1st

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/tobacco/Documents/Media/State%20Health-e-cig%20report.pdf

I request an upload of the yellow image that states It's not just "harmless water vapor" on page 15. QuackGuru (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

2nd

https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/electronic_cigarettes.pdf

Please turn to page three where it says "Status of E-cigarette at Time of Fire" in bold. I request an upload of the image from page three. QuackGuru (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: done. Sizeofint (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll move them to my sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Table

Thanks for the safety table. QuackGuru (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Aerosol production

I came across this. QuackGuru (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru, this image is CC BY-SA-NC so I can't upload it to commons. I can upload it for use on the English Wikipedia only though. Sizeofint (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Uploading it to English Wikipedia works. Can it only be used on the English Wikipedia or other language Wikipedias can use it? QuackGuru (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I was actually mistaken about being able to use it. Per Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Noncommercial-use Wikipedia does not accept NC licensed works period. Sorry. Sizeofint (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I will try to find another image I can use. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Public domain

I came across this. QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: It looks like the text is PD but the images are not.

"Publication of EHP lies in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from EHP may be reprinted freely. Use of materials published in EHP should be acknowledged (for example, “Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives”); pertinent reference information should be provided for the article from which the material was reproduced. Articles from EHP, especially the News section, may contain photographs or illustrations copyrighted by other commercial organizations or individuals that may not be used without obtaining prior approval from the holder of the copyright."

Sizeofint (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I will search for other images. QuackGuru (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: It seems that the file is corrupt. Sizeofint (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Image

I tried to upload this image. It is listed under creative commons. QuackGuru (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That one is CC BY-NC (non-commericial) so we can't use it. Sizeofint (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I tried to upload this image, but there was an unknown error. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Since the file is corrupt is it possible to download it and then upload it to commons with a link to flickr? QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: uploaded it as a PNG file. Original JPG kept erroring out. Sizeofint (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I will move it to my sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Table 1

I think table 1 might be free to use. It is listed under attribution 4.0. QuackGuru (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: It is free to use, however it is a table conclusions from case reports so I think it is a set of primary sources rather than a secondary source. It is the reviewer's analysis of the evidence that is a secondary source I believe. Sizeofint (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hua, My; Talbot, Prue (2016). "Potential health effects of electronic cigarettes: A systematic review of case reports". Preventive Medicine Reports. 4: 169–178. doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.06.002. ISSN 2211-3355. PMC 4929082. PMID 27413679.

It is a "systematic review" of case reports and MEDRS compliant. The review is already used in the safety of e-cig article. The table will compliment the text in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, you don't need to worry about copyright when reproducing a table on WP so long as you cite the secondary source as the reference instead of the primary sources that the secondary source cited. It's essentially like citing text from the secondary source. E.g., compare ((FOSB addiction table)) to [4]. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

If it is okay to copy a table word per word even if it is copyright protected then there should be a specific Wikipedia policy covering this. I could not find any policy mentioning a table. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Reproducing a table exactly is probably not ok unless the table itself is very simplistic, in which case it wouldn't be copyright infringement to reproduce it. However, if there's complexity, such as sentences in the table, they should be paraphrased analogous to how article text is paraphrased; however, if it's basically just a table with a row label + column label + numerical/ordinal data in each table cell, then there's really no other way to faithfully reproduce the table other than by replicating it very closely or exactly. In such cases, reproducing the table on wikipedia from another source is analogous to redrawing a simple diagram from another source (e.g., compare COMMONS:File:ΔFosB accumulation.svg to Figure 1B and 1C; I'm the copyright holder of the first image because I manually recreated the diagram from the second image, while the authors of the publication in which that second image was included hold the copyright to that image). If you create a wikitable, this is your own work and therefore the copyright for the table belongs to you, not the original reference; the copyright for the content within the wikitable may not necessarily belong to you unless it's simplistic or, in the event that it's more complex, you don't plagiarize/closely paraphrase it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand a lot more now. Thanks. As long as it is simple then it is fine to copy. I always rewrite the text where possible if it is copyrighted. For complex tables the text can be tweaked and rewritten. The tables I created have been changed and sometimes shortened. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This table is more complex so copyright would apply. However, the table is licensed CC-BY so it can be reproduced as long as it is cited. Sizeofint (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Added it. Be careful using it though. Systemic analyses of case studies are not as high quality evidence as systemic analyses of randomized controlled trials. Garbage in, garbage out is applicable even to secondary sources. Sizeofint (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The topic is mostly premature research. Thanks for adding it.

Periodically I check the CDC website for a youth chart on vaping. I hope sometime next year there will be a new youth chart to upload. QuackGuru (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, I use http://www.tablesgenerator.com/mediawiki_tables to convert csv spreadsheets into wiki tables. It is a useful tool. Sizeofint (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the table generator. I manually create a new table using an existing table. The table you uploaded is easier to read than the original. QuackGuru (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Nicotine replacement products table

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5003586/table/t1-ijhs-10-3-425/

^[1]

If the table is not free to use it could be rewritten or permission can be requested to use the table. The table can be added to the nicotine replacement therapy page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It isn't under a free license and there is a substantial amount of text so copyright applies. The copyright belongs to a university; it may be possible for you to contact the author and get them to license it under a usable Creative Commons license. I think you'd have to go through WP:OTRS to document written permission. I'm not sure how much you would have to paraphrase / restructure in order to make it usable otherwise. I'm sure there is a copyright noticeboard somewhere where you can ask someone more knowledgeable. Sizeofint (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I started a discussion at WP:OTRS/N, but was told to see WP:COPYREQ. QuackGuru (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. Editors have to obtain the permission themselves. Then it is documented in OTRS. I wasn't clear on this. Sizeofint (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

A simplified version of the table would lose a lot of information. Someone with experience can submit a request to use it. I haven't requested permission to use copyrighted material before and I'm not about to try. QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

E-cig image

^[1]

I found this high-quality image of various types of e-cigs. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: uploaded it. Sizeofint (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I moved it to a draft page. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Upload images

Can you upload a copy of this diff and this diff? Similar to this upload. QuackGuru (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you need these for? Sizeofint (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I see, do you want a copy of the diffs or the revisions? Sizeofint (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I added a scroll down feature. I can adjust to any size. Can you reupload the images without your username being at the top of the images? QuackGuru (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I can blur it out fairly easily. Are you planning on using these in article space? I don't think the internal politics of the e-cig article are notable enough to merit an image of a diff in a controversy section. It is rather self-referential for Wikipedia as well. Sizeofint (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I want to use only authentic images without having to blur anything out. If there are reliable sources it might be used. If there are no sources then it will never be used in article space. It took about six months before reliable sources were available for Knowledge Engine. It was a stub when I made my first edit. There is no way to predict the future what will happen. The Signpost discusses controversy often. The Signpost might be a place to start in the future. Before I added this image to article space it was first seen in The Signpost. QuackGuru (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I can regenerate them logged out. It will probably be a few days though. If you want them faster and you're a chrome user you can install that plugin and then replace the images on commons with newer versions. Sizeofint (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru (talk · contribs), do you still want this? Sizeofint (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

CDC image

^[1]

I found this image. On page one the second image displays various types of e-cigs. I want to use this image because I want different pages to use different images. QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll see if I can extract it from the PDF. Sizeofint (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: In case you still need this. Sizeofint (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It is the second image with 7 e-cigs I want to use rather than all 4 images. QuackGuru (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: cropped it. Sizeofint (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, I think you are mistaken. I reverted the page blankings but was not otherwise engaged in the content dispute at Performance-enhancing substance. Sizeofint (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sizeofint. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone vandalised the image — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.118.118 (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

As a member of WikiProject Cannabis, you are invited to help organize the project's upcoming "420" collaboration, which is scheduled for April 2017. Yes, we're a few months away, but we're hoping to get the ball rolling by getting buy-in from experienced Wikipedia editors and seek help fleshing out some goals and ideas for a successful campaign. We also plan to conduct both on-wiki and offlline outreach so non-Wikipedias can also contribute. If you are interested in participating, please sign up and contribute to the ongoing discussions. All editors are welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Great to see you back :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :) Sizeofint (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sizeofint, sorry to miss that your sentence was already in the caffeine article and that you just flagged it. I think it was good that you brought this up. Have a nice afternoon. JenOttawa (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem, an easy mistake considering how my edits were arranged :) Sizeofint (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

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

You're putting an iQOS product at the top which looks like favoritism. If we don't have an image that won't cater to all manufacturers, we should not have a picture at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACBSA (talk • contribs) 00:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

ACBSA, I haven't really been involved in that. Doc James was the one who restored it. Sizeofint (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It shows you as the editor, there is no record of Doc James. What's Doc James' talk page? Now I have a warning about an edit war. So, if I remove the picture, are you or Doc James going to restore it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACBSA (talk • contribs) 02:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

ACBSA, what page are you looking at? In the article history until just now I only made a single grammatical edit [5]. His talk page is at User talk:Doc James. You can also ping him on the article talk page though. Sizeofint (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I see it now; I was confused. I'm new to this, thank you for understanding! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACBSA (talk • contribs) 01:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

See here and here. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I replied to your revert of my edit on Video Game Addiction. I would very much like to hear your further thoughts on the matter, before I continue editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NisJørgensen (talk • contribs) 13:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

What is MEDRS? I went to the page you linked but it just talked about good and bad resources. If you're saying that my source is not good, it's a peer-reviewed journal. Is that not a reliable source? 5thMDSS (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi 5thMDSS Basically, we try to avoid citing primary sources in favor of secondary or tertiary sources such as review articles, meta-analyses, and textbooks. This helps us ensure the medical information in Wikipedia contains WP:ACCEPTEDKNOWLEDGE rather than bleeding edge research (which can be of variable quality). The reference here Is there addiction to loud music? Findings in a group of non-professional pop/rock musicians appears to be a primary source. You might see if there are any review articles that cite this source and, if they support the finding, cite them instead. WP:WHYMEDRS and WP:BIOMED may be helpful for you. Sizeofint (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Pubmed seems to have marked that article as a review, though to me it looks like a primary source. Pubmed sometimes gets its classifications wrong. I would post on the article talk page about this source to obtain wider input. Sizeofint (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

"We need a reliable source to expand on this? Do you know of any decent ones? " - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MDMA&diff=805636910&oldid=805610573

Yes, have a look on https://scholar.google.se/scholar?hl=sv&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=mdma+flipping+pubmed&btnG= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jilja (talk • contribs)

Hi Jilja, citing one or several those for the flipping terms would be fine I think. My larger concern was the information about flipping with MAOIs. This needs a WP:MEDRS reference I think. Sizeofint (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

We have no references at all for the moment (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MDMA&diff=805694382&oldid=805636910). I'm not sure what to cite, can you do it for me? Also, you never flip with MAOIs, my intention was to warn that MAOIs is contraindicates with MDMA. --Jilja (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Candy flipping: "The experience of combining the drugs LSD and MDMA." Your edit make is sound like candy-flipping is a general term. --Jilja (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Jilja, this is true and I also disagree with the authors' definition, but in a short amount of time it was the best I found. We can replace it if we find a better source. Sizeofint (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sizeofint. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)