Bit of false equivalency, there, I haven't said anything not civil, so please direct nothing my way.
1) as atara has already pointed out, nicotine is not metabolized by MAO, it's metabolism is hepatic.
2) you said you didn't say anything about schizophrenia. True, technically, however, the first link you cite is a study about nicotine and schizophrenia. What is the relevance? It seems to contradict your thesis.
if you had not edited the Wikipedia entry for nicotine, then I'm entirely confused about the point of this thread, because if you didn't, then Wikipedia already contained erroneous information that said nicotine itself isn't significantly addictive. Forgive me for assuming that you hadn't started a thread asking for comment on a proposed change to an entry when the article already said what you wanted it to say, and instead making the assumption that the information that said exactly what you wanted it to say was added by you and not there before this thread. I'm not sure why we're having this conversation or why this thread was needed when the article evidently said what you wanted it to all along.
I didn't realize this was a discussion about whether or not nicotine was equally addictive compared to nicotine plus maoi. I didn't make that claim, however, the title of this thread says it isn't very addictive. That's simply false, as that first study you cited shows (not that it would be a useful study either way, studying how addictive something is in a damaged brain shouldn't be extended to normal brains ordinarily). Nicotine is habit forming, simply put. Adding an maoi may make it more so, but even singly it is verifiably false to claim that it isn't very addictive.
I doubt that there are hundreds of studies showing that nicotine singly verse nicotine plus maoi is greatly more reinforcing, but I have no doubt that it is. It is still habit forming, and if you're saying there are hundreds of studies that say nicotine isn't reinforcing, full stop, without an maoi, I would love to see that list of citations.
I have no problem with claims maoi makes nicotine or morphine or any number of drugs more addictive. I do dispute the veracity of the current Wikipedia entry which states that nicotine isn't significantly addictive on it's own because with no doubt there is a clear statistical correlation between nicotine itself and addiction in animal studies.
I'm not sure what your problem with me is. This was a thread, apparently, about making a change to an article that already said what you wanted it to say, but which at a minimum says it in a way that is technically inaccurate. It could read that nicotine itself is less addictive than tobacco products due to MAO inhibition. I was responding, perfectly civilly, with an assumption that anyone would make. Would you prefer me to erroneously assume that you added that section or to accurately assume that you made a redundant thread asking about a proposed 'change' to an entry that already says exactly what you wanted it to?
(Lol, I just discovered that my kindle's spell check has the word inhibition as inhi-g-ion - without the hyphens of course, but I don't want it to go back to thinking that spelling is a word.)
