User talk:Oscarsussa218

Please be aware of the sanctions

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to electronic cigarettes.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Construction of electronic cigarettes

Your recent editing history at Construction of electronic cigarettes‎ 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 get 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. QuackGuru (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Oscarsussa218 (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)my apologies, didn't mean to offend anyone or start an "edit war'. the picture of ejuice is not an accurate portrayal of what ejuice looks like, considering the current disinformation campaign against e-cigarettes i felt it would be fair to present an image of what premium ejuice/e-liquid looks like. The current image of 'american eliquid' looks more like bile, sewage or napalm...adn honestly i have never seen eliquid that looks like that. I chose a standard image of a standard premium brand. Again didn't mean to offend anyone or start an "edit war"Oscarsussa218 (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The image looks like an advertisement with the company name. You can replace the current image if you can take a picture without the company name in front. Two images of the e-liquid is too much. You added "Bottled "Premium e-Liquid". The word "Premium" is promotional. I recommend you redo the picture. For now I deleted the current image so that you can upload a new image. QuackGuru (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Oscarsussa218 (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Ok I can understand that, I mean I literally took the picture at a shop, i will try to take another picture. In the eliquid world there is a huge difference between premium and the kind of substandard liquid shown in the original post. the reason I put "premium" is to contrast with the other picture which btw also has a brand name on it.in fact is has the name of the company and its website?? anyway the pic i used I felt was nuetral and is fairly representative of what normal ejuice looks like now. i am going to take another picture with various top ejuices so as not to look like promoting one over the other. i do think it will be better for this article as it will reflect reality, this american eliquid does not. i asked so many people that vape over the past few days if they have seen that brand or even seen e juice that looks like that. not a one. So i must say I think it is not an appropriate pic. thank youOscarsussa218 (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Oscarsussa218 (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)I took a picture of a few various eliquid bottles, i will upload it for your approval. thank you Oscarsussa218 (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I can see pillows in the background. I think it would be better to have a white background. I hope you can take a better picture with the bottles all in a straight line. There's no rush. Please take your time. I think 3 bottles would be better. I would leave out the black short bottle. For now I removed both images. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Oscarsussa218 (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC) thanks for the excellent feedback, i will grab some bottles and take a pic against a white wall shortly, is there a way to send it to you first? if not i will just upload it and post again so you know. Oscarsussa218 (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Just add a new image. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Oscarsussa218 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC) posted it, let me know your thoughtsOscarsussa218 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The image works for me. I still prefer an image without the company names. QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)