User talk:Guttlekraw: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:09, 24 May 2005

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, Guttlekraw! I hope you like the place and decide to keep contributing. Since I see you've already been active here, let me just give you a few links that are always useful as a handy reference guide:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question at the village pump or feel free to ask me on my Talk page.
Oh, and just in case you don't already know: to sign your name on a Talk page like I did below, the easiest way is just to type four tildes (~~~~). To customize your signature, look here.
And remember:Be Bold!

Your edits

You seem to be intentionally changing drug abuse to recreational drug use, and this is not helping the original intent of the content you have changed, nor is such a change accurate in the contexts you have altered. I have reverted all of your changes. --Viriditas | Talk 23:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See comment above. Also, you deleted a perfectly valid link. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Try again without deleting the link. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good guess; the programs did not suggest abstention from all drugs (e.g. alcohol), but responsible use. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guttlekraw, your edits have not been reverted without "explaining". Your claim that Use is a statment of fact..Abuse is a point of view, in the context of the articles in question is false and misleading. In fact, you have been adding the term, "recreational drug use" to contexts involving stated drug abuse, and that's why you have been reverted. You have also failed to provide sources for your POV, probably because you can't find any. --Viriditas | Talk 00:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:A Scanner Darkly. Any reputable sources substantiating your opinion in direct relation to the topic may be accepted. --Viriditas | Talk 00:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have notified you when you have been reverted, included edit summaries, and I have replied to all of your questions either on your talk page or on the article talk page. --Viriditas | Talk 00:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding sex education, you cannot prove a negative, so don't waste your time. --Viriditas | Talk 00:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please take all of your issues to the appropriate talk pages and we will discuss them there. You don't need to use my talk page for this, but I appreciate you taking the time to contact me. I'm going offline for about an hour, but will return to reply. --Viriditas | Talk 00:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peer review requests

The peer review requests you submitted for A Scanner Darkly, Francis Ford Coppola, and Sex education have been archived as per the Peer review Request removal policy. As your requests deal primarily with an editing dispute, please look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for better ways to address your needs. --Allen3 ^talk 13:57, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Viriditas | Talk 19:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After you were warned about the 3RR, you violated it on Francis Ford Coppola:

You also violated the 3RR on A Scanner Darkly:

And, you came close to violating the 3RR on Drug abuse:

--Viriditas | Talk 21:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're misinformed, as complex reverts are classified as reverts. You have violated the revert rule twice. --Viriditas | Talk 21:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please be very careful not to violate the Wikipedia:Three revert rule in the future, it would be most unfortunate if you did so and were blocked as a result. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Drug abuse

Let's reference this 'medical definition' that is 'accepted'. We can all agree that a certain medical textbook or eminent doctor or medical society or something uses this definition - can you tell us who? I am not wanting to 'redefine' the term, simply state that not everyone agrees with this. I can reference, if you like, various advocacy groups who are of the opinion that not all use of illicit drugs is 'abuse'. Guttlekraw 03:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have asked you to take this discussion to the talk page of drug abuse. Whether you agree with it or not, the reference is Medine Plus Medical Encyclopedia, run by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Regarding your comments, you again seem to have not understood what you have read. I have now explained this to you twice. The defintion does not say that the use of illicit drugs is "abuse". Read it again until you understand it. Advocacy groups are relevant to political topics, but they have no bearing on scientific or medical definitions. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I'm sure certain statements by some advocacy groups might be relevant, but not if your intent is to redefine things outside their expertise, as you are trying to do, and have been doing on various articles. Please respond on the Talk:Drug abuse page. --Viriditas | Talk 04:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The definition that is currently on the substance abuse page seems acceptable to me. A redirection from the drug abuse page to the substance abuse page would clear up this argument a great deal. A subsection or paragraph can exist on the substance abuse page to outline the legal distinction between substance and drug abuse, but there is no scientific/medical distinction between the legal (alcohol, nicotine, caffeine) and illegal (thc, opioids, stimulants) groupings of substances. Alcohol and nicotine are drugs, and should not be scientifically segregated due to their legal status. Hence it would be in the best interest of everyone to get rid of the drug abuse page as soon as possible. --Thoric 17:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW - thanks for adding a notice asking noone but Viriditas to edit it - could you check that though? It's not my understanding that V wants to merge those two pages. For how long do you want people not to edit it? What happens if he does not, in fact, intend to merge these pages? Drug abuse right now is a POV rant about how drugs are bad. I think that's a problem.

Well, according to his comments earlier, he agreed with the merger. It makes sense to me to merge the two, because it's all the same stuff. Of note, a page titled, "Drug Abuse", does give one the idea that the article would primarily document the negative consequences of drug use. The intention is to separate the advocacy and adversity pages from the primary subject pages. So, for example, the Drug page should point to the Substance abuse page, rather than contain any information specific to drug abuse. It can also point to the Recreational drug use and Responsible drug use pages. Just as we don't want the responsible drug use page to contain much in the way of anti-drug POV, we have to allow the same consideration for "drugs are bad" pages. If we allow POV to clutter the primary articles, it makes them difficult to read and hard to find the factual information without getting lost in the argument. --Thoric 20:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As User:Viriditas points out, you need to cite your sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A number of your edits have made unsourced claims. As well, they seem to all revolve around replaing the phrase "drug abuse" with "drug use" in various articles, implying that drugs can only be used, but never abused. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the context is important, and also that the term "drug abuse" is overused, and should be corrected to read "drug use" when it makes sense to do so. It is to be expected that this will raise firey debate... just look at Talk:Opioid and you'll see the big debate I had on the issue, which finally compromised at the current state of the page. So while I (and many others) agree with what you are trying to accomplish (correction of the over-use of the term "drug abuse" where it should be "drug use"), you need to be careful how you go about it, and try not to fight too much with the people who are on your side ;) As for when you get asked to cite references for things like Harm reduction, I agree that all you should have to say is, "References available under Harm reduction", but unfortunately that isn't good enough for some, so when a dispute arises, you can first point them at websites like www.harmreduction.org, but may also have to make specific reference to harm reduction studies done by various governments and organizations. It's sometimes difficult, but you have to try not to take it as though people are saying, "we don't believe you -- prove it to me", but instead that they are saying, "that sounds great -- please provide some references so that we can support that position if it is contested". It's easier for you to provide a reference for information you have come across in your own research that to expect someone else to hunt it down for you. A perfect article devoid of references to support it is in danger of being slashed and picked apart by someone with an opposing view (especially if they have references to prove otherwise). Most of the people you have been fighting with are on the same side :) --Thoric 22:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A revert is a revert; it returns the page to the previous version. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your dispute with Veriditas

Guttlekraw, I notice that your revert war with this user spans several articles. I'd like to ask you not to revert each other without discussion on the talk page. It's anti-social, and not conducive to collaborative editing. Intrigue 15:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 A revert is a revert; it returns the page to the previous version. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 19:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
+== Your dispute with Veriditas ==
+Guttlekraw, I notice that your revert war with this user spans several articles. I'd like to ask you not to revert each other without discussion on the talk page. It's anti-social, and not conducive to collaborative editing. [[User:Intrigue|Intrigue]] 15:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)