Hello, Richard27182, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
-- 05:52, Sunday, May 10, 2015 ( UTC)
Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 10:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Richard. I will be more than happy to help you at any time. My specialties are US place articles and US high school articles, but I can help you with procedural or technical questions anywhere. Just drop a note on my talk page. A minor disclaimer tho. These days, 90% of my edits are made from my very tiny smart phone, on which I cannot for the life of me figure out how to cut and paste. So some types of help may have to be put off til I can get to a PC.
You already received a welcome template from someone, but I'm going to leave you a much mote detailed one so you can use it for a how to reference for policies and procedures. Don't even worry about reading much of it now, just use it to look up terms you encounter. In the prose part of it there are links to two different how to guides. Those may bear some closer study. I'll also leave you a link to the Teahouse, a Q&A forum especially for new editors. Edit as much or as little as you want, and remember, you cannot break Wikipedia. Happy Editing, John from Idegon ( talk) 03:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
elcome to Wikipedia Richard27182, from WikiProject Editor Retention | |||
Thank you for registering! We hope that you find collaborative editing enjoyable. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that started in 2001, is free for all to use and edit within the guidelines and principles users have established and adhere to. Many of these principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information. REMEMBER - each policy and/or guideline page has a discussion you can join to ask questions, add input and contribute your voice towards any current policy or guideline change underway! Join the discussion by going to the talkpage of the article. Please take a minute to view a number of quick start pages for an overview of how to work within these guidelines and more information to help you better understand the practices and procedures editors are using. These include:
The Newcomers Manual and
User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia.
Sometimes new editors become frustrated quickly and find their experience on Wikipedia less than enjoyable. This need not be. If you are having a difficult time for any reason, please feel free to ask me for assistance! Or, better yet, visit The Teahouse where veteran editors are waiting to assist you. | |||
Policies, guidelines and peer assistance | Help and Tutorials | ||
The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project. |
Tutorial. Step-by-step guide on how to edit. | ||
Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines. |
How to start a page. If you want to create a new article | ||
Style Guide. The complete guide to how articles should look. |
Help. The complete help guide | ||
Copyright. Addressing copyright concerns. |
Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki. | ||
Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance |
Your user pages and your sandbox. Editing in your own "personal" space | ||
Adoption program. Request an experienced guide for your first steps of editing. |
Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers. | ||
This is being posted on your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four ~~~~ or by pressing or in the editing interface tool box, located just above the editing window (when editing). Do not sign edits that you make in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted, but only when using the article talkpage, yours or another editor's talkpage. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance.
Again, welcome! John from Idegon ( talk) 03:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC) John from Idegon ( talk) 03:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Richard27182,
you are invited to the
Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!
John from Idegon (
talk) 03:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
|
John from Idegon ( talk) 16:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Inviting multiple editors, with identical messages on their separate talk pages, to take part in a discussion, and doing so by describing your side of the dispute but not including even a summary of the reasons given by the other party is rather closer to improper canvassing then it really should be. Please read the linked page. If you have occasion to invite others to join a discussion in future, it would be a good idea to at least briefly recount the arguments of the other party or parties to the dispute in the invite. It would also be a good idea to let all invitees know that you are asking multiple editors to look. I don't think any harm was done in this instance, but people can get very touch about canvassing, and given how easy it is to use the net to get a bunch of people to join and overwhelm a discussion, there is reason for people to be wary about this. Please be careful about such situations in future. DES (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
DES (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
A further response from you at WP:DRN#Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film)#Incorrect terminology needs correction. would be a good idea. As you started the referral to the DRN, you should keep an eyue on it and respnd as appropriate, please. Also, I have posted a response to you on Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film)#Continued discussion of terminology. DES (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't want to get into this further at the article talk page, where the focus should be on the article, not the editors. To me the whole tone of several of your posts in the article talk page thread seemed combative or at least argumentitive. I see this a lot on Wkipedia, and perhaps i am hypersensative to it, but phrases such as
definately add up to an impression of someone who is arguing the behavior of other editors as much as the facts of the matter or what would be best for the article and its readers. Now it may well be that you had no such thought or intention. I will assume good faith and accept that. But giving such an impression to other editors hinders the collaberative work needed for articles to develop and the project to progress well. And I must say that your apparent tone changed a bit later, while all too many "happy warriors" here never drop such a tone, and get far more scarcastic and arumentative than you did. It's not a huge thing, but it is something to watch for when editing and particularly when discussing here. It seems all to easy for people to fall into an argumentative mode, even an argument for argument's sake mode. I have done it in the past. But it usually hinders the work, and taken too far it can poisen relationships. Please bear this in mind in the future. DES (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
You should take your question and concern to the talk page of the article, so others can chime in. I have, to be honest, gotten tired of debate over how to word articles about pseudoscience - I'm involved in one over numerology right now, and have no particular opinion about her. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 14:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You asked whether another editor who is dissatisfied with the result of an RFC can try to get it reversed. The answer is "Yes, but it isn't easy and isn't often done." Another editor can challenge the closure at WP:AN, but that has to be on the grounds that the closure was out of process or inconsistent with the comments by the community. The editor can file another RFC, but filing another RFC quickly after one is closed would be tendentious editing. Other than that, editing contrary to the result of the RFC would be editing against consensus and could be taken to WP:ANI. So, basically, it is over unless another editor decides to be tendentious. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Richard, I note that you have (as I came to notice at the Miss Cleo article) since about June 5, 2015, been systematically going to psychic-related articles and inserting qualifiers such as "self-designated" or "claimed" or similar before the word psychic.
List of edits
|
---|
And it's possible I missed a couple. |
Let me begin by saying that, philosophically (see the skeptic userbox on my user page), I understand where you're coming from and have a substantial amount of sympathy with your position. But in light of the ArbCom and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard material I've posted on the Miss Cleo talk page, it would seem to me that your position is not currently supported by Wikipedia consensus. To your credit, I note that in most of those cases that you've been inviting comment or discussion on the talk page and only acting when that discussion did not materialize and have scrupulously avoiding edit warring. Kudos, most sincerely, for both of those, and indeed some of those changes appear to have at least so far "stuck" without being reverted.
But Wikipedia generally does not like people going from article to article making essentially the same change again and again unless it's pretty darn clear that they're indisputably right (and even then it's sometimes seen as being disruptive) because it's easily seen as being POV-pushing — especially in a contentious area such as this — rather than acting for the general benefit of the encyclopedia. For that reason I'm concerned that your systematic actions are looking a lot like POV-pushing even with your use of the proper formalities. Though ArbCom findings are not, as I've noted at Miss Cleo, binding as a content matter they're pretty influential and if someone wants to file a disciplinary case against you there's a pretty good chance that they're going to be taken as gospel in that conduct context.
If I were you, I'd drop the stick and, if you want to continue, do something to get the community's blessing for what you're doing, perhaps first filing an inquiry at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and following up with an RFC at Village pump if that inquiry is inconclusive or summarily written off. Whichever you do, I'd acknowledge what ArbCom has said and what's been previously said at FT/N and frame the proposal in terms of determining the current consensus of the community and determining whether, if there was a prior consensus, whether consensus may have changed. I would also strongly suggest that you admit pretty clearly what you've done so far, so as to not look like you're hiding the ball. (As an alternative, you might also self-report yourself at ANI, but there might well be more risk there than you want to chance, though the inquiry and RFC might cause such a report to be filed in any event unless you clearly — and truthfully — say that you do not intend to continue unless you can get the community's blessing to do so.)
To be absolutely frank, I think that you're going to lose this one however you go, but if it's important enough to you then it might be worth your time and effort to get a clarification of the community's position. Oh, and BTW, the use of scare quotes is strongly discouraged. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
That's basically correct, though much is always in the eye of the beholder and this is often more an art than a science. In your second point, above, my only hesitation might be that even indisputable facts can be seen as controversial if the overall subject or aspect of the subject is controversial enough, but you've mostly covered that possibility by saying that it's unlikely to be challenged. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 13:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi
TransporterMan.
Assuming I go ahead with the Miss Cleo RFC, I will include the "Society, sports, and culture" category as you suggest.
You make a good point about the possibility of going for something that would be considered more precedent-setting than something that would only apply to one article. The main reason I hesitate to do that is my lack of experience. I've been through an RFC before, but I've never tried to change the consensus based on ARBCOM findings. I'm not even sure I'd be able to figure out how to go about doing that. I'm thinking of going ahead with the Miss Cleo RFC (realizing it's not precedent-setting for any other article(s)), and maybe after that (taking the result into consideration), think about doing something more far-reaching (like the thing you suggest). The result of the Miss Cleo RFC might even be somewhat indicative of whether or not the Wikipedia community as a whole is ready to change the consensus based on that ARBCOM finding. Anyway that's what I'm leaning toward doing; unless you strongly recommend against it for some reason. Please let me know what you think.
Richard27182 (
talk) 07:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path | ||
For contribution of meaningful and insightful comments in RfC discussions. LavaBaron ( talk) 16:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC) |
The grisliness isn't even as bad as how that overstates the grisliness. Waterfalls "cascade", and as bloody as that looked on TV, it sure wasn't thousands of gallons. "Flowed" is a happy medium, and works better with "through", too. Well done! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Central discussion has started; I invite you to improve consensus. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
If you wish, please join in. — Tenebrae ( talk) 23:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
hi. I hope you don't mind me adding this to your talk page. But I'm more comfortable posting stuff like "you" and "I think that" here than on the actual article talk space.
First of all, I totally understand what you mean about the medical definition of narcotic (basically opioid).
I added a lot of the stuff in the narcotic article. I guess it was in 2011? Same IP as the "pharm companies dubiously marketing" comment. I tend to edit "by IP" but I've since taken to using a different throwaway account every time (which isn't often). I liked your pleas against edit warring and whatnot suggesting a familiarity with the unfortunate reality of Wikipedia. So I think you can understand why, despite the resultant state of the article, I didn't want to remove anything. Even if it was unsourced. Even if the source didn't match the article. And why I only added direct quotes from the sources I added.
In cases like, "I realize that these statements are sourced; but I have at least a dozen reliable sources which contradict the existing one or two references," I prefer to add the contradictory sources and let additions from them stand in juxtaposition to the information they contradict. If a statement does indeed match a source, I prefer it moved if necessary rather than deleted. Even though the deleted will still be in the history.
Again, I understand what you mean. The term has a precise medical definition. But I would like to point out: while you have some good sources (like medline or nih.gov), none of them seem to match what you added to the article. They offer definitions of "narcotic" and support the statement, (wp:synth? sorry) but do not specifically address the precision (or lack of precision) of the definition in the medical community, especially with regard to that legally. I do not agree with: " Legally speaking the term "Narcotic" is, today, imprecisely defined" ... In fact, much of the article shows the opposite. I think a lawyer would agree with me, although legal stuff seems complex and often silly to us laymen (lawyers seem to have their own definitions for words such that reading a law tells you nothing...). Did you actually check the offline sources (Julien and Mangione; perhaps the latter can be found online if you have medline/pubmed access)? You added "legally" to the sentence that those sources were supposedly supporting (I did not add it nor them), so they now are supporting a different sentence?....
I think "Wikipedia is best when it merely collates what others have said," to quote a more experienced editor who talked me through my first edits.
Anyway I'm not going to change the article. I felt more like having a chat here than working on the article I guess. Thanks for listening.
One more thing. Looking back at my edits from March 2011, I think I added the quote from 1830 as a bit of historical perspective because it was the earliest source I could find on the topic. Somebody else added the "as evinced" bit... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abababe ( talk • contribs) 05:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
hey. Sorry if I was a bit wordy before.
I don't want to seem confrontational and argumentative. I find the topic interesting. But as far as the wikipedia article goes, I think at this point I want to stay away from discussing the facts and stick to getting the references right. So instead of discussing whether it's a useful term, precisely defined, in medicine vs law vs general usage...
I did not. I did not add those references to the article and I don't know what they actually say. Do you?
Let's forget about whether I agree with 'narcotic' being precisely defined in law. Yes, I meant that I think it is. But let's forget about that, and whether we disagree with 'narcotic' being a useful pharmacological term (which I could certainly see due to its various meanings in general usage, but it doesn't matter what I think, right? I'm not a published source). What do the sources say?
Basically I would prefer to only use direct quotes from the references/sources/citations, or at least start from direct quotes.
If you find something in the article that doesn't match the citation given, I'd rather you just go ahead and delete it rather than change it to something you think is correct (unless of course what you change it to does match that citation).
So I'm going to assume that neither of us know what those sources say, the ones that supported the parts of the article you didn't like. Because you disagreed or didn't think what the article said was true. So if we could find those sources, I bet they don't say what the article did anyway. Then we could go ahead and delete that stuff. But since we don't have those sources, we want to add something that says the opposite, but I don't think the sources you have found so far are good enough honestly. Like I said before, they don't match what you added. They are medical sources (well, sources with medical information for laypeople) that use or even define the term 'narcotic' but they are not directly addressing the issues of the different meanings of 'narcotic' and whether it is a useful term and the differences with legal meanings etc. Again, I don't want to argue whether or not those things are true. I just want the article to match the sources.
So looking at your reply again, yes I believe it is sourced too weakly. And honestly... didn't the article already say what you want it to? In that it contradicted the parts you didn't like in the way that you want? Isn't the stuff in the sources you have found in the article already? In the sources that article already had (ok maybe the sourcing is weak)? Like the first couple sentences... "In the United States it has since become associated with opiates and opioids"
I guess the question is, how did narcotic come to mean "opioid"? I said I didn't want to argue the facts, but let's both read:
http://updates.pain-topics.org/2012/06/narcotics-vs-opioids-language-matters.html
(I haven't read it yet but plan on it so thanks for helping me research the topic, that as I said, I am interested in)
and maybe research this further . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abababe ( talk • contribs) 02:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
update: so we see that [Mangione and Crowley-Matoka, 2008] , or the abstract at least, says "Pain specialists often advocate discontinuing use of the term “narcotic,” with the negative connotations it bears for many patients, in favor of the term “opioid.”" And [Wallace et al. 2012] (again, I do not currently have access beyond the abstracts) says "The terms “opioid” and “narcotic” are often used interchangeably by healthcare providers. ... While more women were more familiar with narcotic, many identified negative connotations with this term."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11606-008-0658-1
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1533-2500.2012.00568.x/abstract
One thing to note is the difference between what was actually studied there and what I copied from the "introduction" section. Also in the original link: "At one time, “narcotic” pertained only to opium or its derivatives, but the term was usurped by government agencies dating back more than a century ago to include cocaine, as well as illicit forms of drugs in the sedative, stimulant, and hallucinogen classes (interestingly, although cannabis, or marijuana, was traditionally demonized it was never included in the narcotic category)." I would like to find more references for this, but since this is history over 100 years old, it might be difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abababe ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The image of the perpetrator is nominated as FFD. I invite you for commentary. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I really appreciate the input you've been offering in the White Privilege RFC. But I'd also appreciate you offering an opinion on what I mentioned here. I trust you more than most of the other people commenting on that page to be able to judge whether the issue I raised there is original synthesis or not. 103.47.145.132 ( talk) 10:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if you could clarify your comments at Talk:Socialism. The question was not about the wording in the article, but about the topic of the article, whether it should be the socioeconomic system or the movement and ideology. TFD ( talk) 11:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I think I might need a character witness. RGloucester started a thread complaining about Dicklyon and myself over at AE. It was promptly hijacked by SMcCandlish with a long screed of accusations, half-truths and non-truths. I could use someone to put in a word for me. None of the admins will answer any of my questions or requests for specifics. If you're not comfortable with this, I get it. If you go over there and say you agree with what SmC has to say, I get it. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
←== A Thousand Edits ==
Ping: @
DESiegel: @
TransporterMan: @
PrimeHunter: @
Doniago: @
Darkfrog24: @
John from Idegon: @
Robert McClenon: @
Midnightblueowl: @
Location: @
Tiptoethrutheminefield: @
FreeatlastChitchat: @
SMcCandlish: @
92slim:
This is my 1000th edit, and I wanted to share it with the editors with whom I've had the most (positive) contact and from whom I've received the most help and guidance. (And if I've forgotten anyone, I hope they will forgive me and know that this is for them too.) I never would have made it this far without you. I realize that by normal standards, 1000 edits is not all that many, and a majority of editors eventually accumulate edit counts in the tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands; but to me this means a lot. To all of you, a thousand thanks!
Richard27182 (
talk) 12:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Guess I might be speaking to a brick wall here, but was surprised to see that you've retired so soon after reaching 1,000 edits. Hope nothing bad happened! Best wishes, DonIago ( talk) 02:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Richard27182. 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)
Hello, Richard27182. 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)
You may or may not wish to join a discussion at Talk:Lyndsy Fonseca#Request for comment about a topic on which you have contributed on an identical RfC. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, you previously participated in a request for comments regarding whether faith healing and whether it is a pseudoscience. I would like to inform you that there is currently an open request for comments that is revisiting this question that you might be interested in participating in. I am notifying everybody who participated in the previous request for comments.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)