User talk:Mariociccolini

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Electronic cigarette, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:39, 5 Feb 2010 (UTC) 23:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Electronic cigarette. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:07, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC) 00:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette

I provided explanations the first few times I reverted you, and have also just made a note at the discussion page: Talk:Electronic cigarette#Dash in e-cigarette. When you kept making the same edit with no explanation, that's when I started calling it vandalism, as is in line with Wikipedia policy.

We need to follow the article sources, rather than thinking up whichever name we think is best. The sources generally use a dash (e-cigarette). Equazcion ^(talk) 15:23, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to wait 24 hours for you to engage me in some discussion about this, but if you don't, I'll revert the article again. You can respond right here by editing this page. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:33, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, please read here. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=125586

Or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet-related_prefixes

I invite you to post document, like the one from Cambidge, to sustain your thesis for e"hyphen"cigarette.

The Cambridge Dictionary uses both: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=25267&dict=CALD&topic=internet-terminology-and-abbreviations

Or you can read the Oxford Dictionary to discover that even e-mail is not appropriate. Here: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/email?view=uk

If it barely stands for virtual, how do you think it can be good for not virtual things?

Thank you

Mario

The point is that it doesn't matter what I think, or what the dictionary says about the "e-" prefix. On Wikipedia we go by what the sources, in this case sources that talk about this particular product, say about it. Look at the links in the article, in the "references" section.

E-cigarette has simply become an accepted name for the product, whether it's technically correct according to a dictionary or not. It's not up to us to question the name and correct it if we feel everyone else is getting it "wrong". I hope you can understand that. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:30, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The language have basis and rules (even english is not my language). Who says that's an accepted name for this product? You can find many sellers and articles where they call it ecigarette.

If people disagree in something, we're gonna stick to the rules. If you beat a man in the center of a way, you can't say "he's bad", you must abide to the lawi If at Cambridge, Oxford, Toronto University (here: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6362-McFarlaneBrandon.htm),they say that hyphen is incorrect, who are you to say that e-cigarette is correct?

Please bring me documentation, your personal explanations for me, with all due respect, are useless. Until them, you can't modify the article if you are intellectually honest and write here in Bona Fide.

P.S. Second Wikipedia Rule: Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources.

I'm not saying it's linguistically correct, only that that's what the product is called. See any link in the article's references section, such as this: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf. That's from the FDA.

If the word "car" weren't linguistically correct, it still wouldn't matter, because that's simply the accepted name for the product. How about "netbook"? How about "Sport Utility Vehicle"? We could sit and debate how accurate such names are, but it doesn't matter what conclusions we come to. These are the accepted names that the media and other secondary sources use to describe these products. We can't change them just because we disagree -- even if we have proof that everyone is "wrong" in using those words. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:54, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I invite you to realize that if i bring something to FDA for their approval, and i call my product "We Praise Gad", you can't say that GAD is correct, just because FDA says so. You must abide to encyclopedic rules here in Wikipedia. If we talk in a forum, that's ok, you can say everything you want. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and stands at encyclopedic rules. No matter what people from street and FDA says.

AGAIN: I'm not saying it's CORRECT. I'm saying it's the name of the product. It doesn't need to be "correct". Companies can choose any name they want for their products. They don't need to be "correct", in terms of grammar or anything else. I can name my product "goobleedoo", which isn't even a word, and the encyclopedia article on it would still be called "goobleedoo". It's a product name. We don't have any say in how "correct" it is. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:11, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

It's the product name for who?

http://www.ecigarettesusa.com/ http://www.njoyecigarette.com/ http://www.ecigarette.com/ http://electroniccigarettesusa.info/ http://www.ecigarettejunction.com/e-cigarette-starter-kits/ http://ecigarettesnationwide.info/ http://www.ecigarettes4u.com/

All these merchants and sites (and i can go on forever with sites names and vendors) call it ecigarette, so, if it's called with two different names, i stand with Oxford, Cambridge and other dictionary about the use of the hyphen. I stay with encyclopedic informations, and you?

I'd say those possibly couldn't get domain names with the dash included :) Still though, maybe vendors disagree on the name, but in that case we can go by what the FDA and the other media sources call them, rather than thinking up whichever name makes the most sense to us. Also, playing devil's advocate for a moment, just because "e-" with the dash might not technically apply here according to "e-"'s dictionary definition, what makes you think "e" without the dash is therefore correct? Just because the other one is incorrect, this one must then be correct? Why? Equazcion ^(talk) 00:25, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Ok, talking about domain names, only a fool can pick a domain with an hyphen. For google the hyphen is a "word separator" and they are tough against these names. See for example the e-cigarette-forum.com, it has a pagerank of 4! I would give it 6 or 7 for its contents and its traffic, but google cut it up due to the hyphen.

You can see one thing, if i sell Mercedes Benz, and you sell Mercedez Bens, nobody will buy from you. That's because this is the real name of the product. But regarding the ecigarette/e-cigarette/e cigarette doesn't count how FDA call them. It's important what most PHDs and professors says about the hyphen, and their publications and lectures, in internet or books. You picked the netbook example, but when acer/texas instrument launched his little notebook, they called the device Sub-Notebook. Then, notebooks were called laptops. You can't say e-cigarette is the name product, unless some vendors and buyers call it ecigarette or e cigarette. So, in this confusion, the better choice is always the Academic one. Above all, because Wiki wants Academic informations and Encyclopedic sources. FDA is not Oxford or Cambridge, and we are lucky that is this way :)

Academic information and encyclopedic sources, on Wikipedia, include news articles and such. Using the dictionary to figure out what a product name should be is WP:Synthesis. We use names found in media, not names we formulate based on the dictionary. That's simply the policy here. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:44, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

The link you posted says "In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers".

1) UNIVERSITY PRESSES 2) UNIVERSITY LEVEL TEXTBOOKS (sorry for caps, i use it for the importance of these first two sources) 3) Magazines 4) Journals 5) Books published by respected publishing houses 6) Mainstream newspapers

The most important are the first two, i invite you to read the link you posted. You say that the sources INCLUDE that media, but you can't EXCLUDE what for Wikipedia are the most important ones.

Those sources don't say what the name of the product is, though. You're just using information from those sources to formulate what you think the name should be, which is synthesis, and isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Again I'll ask what makes you think using the "e" without the dash is correct, just because your dictionary says that "e-" means something different. What makes "ecigarette" correct? Do you have a dictionary that says that adding an "e" to a word is a valid way of saying it's a physical device that's electronic? Despite the fact that researching our own names for products isn't valid for Wikipedia, it seems to me that you're drawing an unfounded conclusion here. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:01, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Your question will find answers in links i posted here. This one can be useful. http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6362-McFarlaneBrandon.htm I've read your links, please read mine before answer ;)

With respect, I'm not reading all of that :) Please summarize the logic here. For the record, I understand that you think the dictionary is saying the "e-" is incorrect here. The question though, is whether adding an "e" without a dash is correct, and why. And, again, this debate is purely academic, since it doesn't matter what we think the product should be called, only what the media does call it. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:44, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I don't blame a discussion if it is purely academic, but if the academic meets the market and the media, i can tell you there are two Registered Trademarks for ecigarette and two for e-cigarette.

ecigarette: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4006%3Aspoo90.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=ecigarette&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query

e-cigarette: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4006%3Aspoo90.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=e-cigarette&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query

So, if the "ecigarette" trademark owner will go to FDA and will do human trials and everything the product need to be on the market, FDA will speak about this product called ecigarette.

My point of view is, with no offense, that you are chasing the hype more than actual facts.

If the "hype" is what the media is calling the product, then yeah, I'm deferring to their decision, as we generally do on Wikipedia. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:02, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so we follow the mass media instead the Academic Linguistic (or whatever) and Wikipedia should change its guidelines (where University Presses are at first place). In these terms, i think you can't talk plural, because "we generally do" is absolutely wrong. Maybe should be correct to say, "as i do" or "as i prefer". But this is no wikipedia, this is you.

No, that's what Wikipedia does. If I were speaking for myself I would've said so. Wikipedia does indeed go along with the mass media. They go with academic sources as well, if those sources explicitly state a fact, but that's not the case here. They're stating rules for linguistics, from which you're drawing your own conclusion. That's not how it works here. The sources we use need to state the facts we use directly, not provide rules or hints that we can use to formulate conclusions. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:48, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Re your Third Opinion Request: Please see Talk:Electronic cigarette#Dash in e-cigarette. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)