User talk:Simonapro/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE 2 Copyright 3 Signature 4 your offer to mediate 5 Amherst5282 6 Number of the Beast 7 WP:CITE 8 Thank you 9 Reply 10 I'm going to rv your edit to Freemasonry 11 RE: You are in violation of WP:NOR on Freemasonry 12 Freemasonry Page 13 Cannabis Reverts 14 Policies, guidelines, and article improvement 15 Removal of dispute tags from Cannabis 16 A couple of points 17 Please stop reverting constructive edits at Cannabis 18 Removal of POV dispute tag from Cannabis 19 Cannabis taxobox 20 sola scriptura 21 3RR at Cannabis 22 User notice: temporary 3RR block 23 Regarding reversions[3] made on November 6, 2006 to Cannabis 24 Civility - accusing other editors in a content dispute of being vandals... 25 Resolving the content dispute at Cannabis 26 Dicussion header

[edit] WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE

All previous discussions should be continued in the appropriate archive sections.

• /Archive1
• /Archive2

[edit] Copyright

I've replied to your question on Talk:Quaesitum est. JASpencer 20:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 21:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)]

[edit] Signature

Your signature seems broken. There is an extra open bracket ([) showing. Perhaps you could try going to Special:Preferences and see if there is an extra bracket in the "Nickname" section.--Andrew c 21:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your offer to mediate

On my talk page you said "Can you link me up with the article and tell me more about what is needed". I am sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I was real enthusiastic about Wikipedia back in January and February - doing a lot of edits, buying many books to use as sources and references, etc. But since then I've had to cut my Wikipedia time way down. The problem was between me and two POV pushers (66.117.135.19 and "Dr Fil" on several UFO articles - Philip Klass, Green Fireballs, Roswell UFO Incident, Majestic 12, and Unidentified Flying Object, and maybe a few other small ones. But I have decided to not pursue mediation with the POV pushers because I think it is hopeless in trying to deal with them. I even took those pages off my watch list a few months ago. When I last looked at the Unidentified Flying Object article a few months ago, there were some editors trying to improve the article. But I have given up on these articles. Again, I am sorry that it took me so long to respond, but I have lost interest in trying to improve those articles. I appreciate your offer to help, but I don't know what to do. Bubba73 (talk), 01:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You said: Bubba with regards to Philip Klass, Green Fireballs, Roswell UFO Incident, Majestic 12, and Unidentified Flying Object, if you could take the time out to come up with a list of stuff I can go through each one, point and point and see if it violates wiki policy or if anything else can be done to improve the article. I have already visited some of the articles and ask for a proper referencing to take place. I have set up the standard for them to use. (Simonapro 07:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

I'll give a brief answer. I haven't watched these articles for about four months, so you need to see the article talk pages and edit history for part of what I'm talking about.

• In Green Fireballs, x.x.x.19 would not accept anything that disagreed with his point of view. I have a reference from Curtis Peebles, an aerospace historian for the Smithsonian, with a book published by the Smithsonian. This reference and material from it was repeatedly removed because it conflicted with .19s POV, who wants to use the opinion of a very small number of scientists (form a non-reliable source) against the opinion of the vast majority of scientists, and a reliable source.

• Philip Klass is (or at least was) extremely heavy on criticism of him by people who's POV is opposite.

• In Roswell UFO Incident I listed about 12 significant POV problems in one section. c went ballistic. This was about five months ago.

• In Majestic 12, I tried to give a detailed account of the bona fide analysis that has been done, and x.19 and/or "Dr Fil" hated it. They accused me of getting it straight from the articles by Klass. Well, for one thing I actually followed the book by Peebles, because it was all together, not spread over several articles (Klass). Secondly, the analysis by Klass is the definitive published analysis on the papers, so I think they should be in the article.

• I had only a little to do with Unidentified Flying Object, but several months ago Unidentified Flying Object were pushing their POV this article. In this case, however, there were editors working in good faith on this article, but I don't know how it has been going. In the other articles, I was pretty much alone when I was working on them about five months ago.

In the meantime, I've had to cut my wikipedia hours way down. I've gave up on the UFO articles and have been editing other articles, mostly on chess. Thank you for your help. Bubba73 (talk), 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amherst5282

You need not worry...we have communicated with this user and told him to cancel his account, and that if he ever attempts to make any contribution to any Wiki article or entry ever again, we will find it and delete it. His ability to contribute is destroyed.SebastianFlyte 06:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of the Beast

Hi, I’ve changed your cite a bit to use a template and so that it links closer to the stuff about Nero:

Just, Felix (2002-02-02). 666: The Number of the Beast. Retrieved on 2006-06-06.

I hope I interpreted correctly what you intended to cite. —xyzzy_n 14:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CITE

FYI: WP:CITE is not a policy. WP:CITE is a style guide. Ttfn, ---J.S (t|c) 20:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. (Simonapro 21:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

Then WP:NOR and WP:V are the policies your looking for (and should be referring to). I didn't want to correct you on the article page, since it is irrelevant to that conversation. ---J.S (t|c) 21:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok you can split hairs on that one. WP:CITE isn't policy but WP:NOR is and the only to prevent WP:NOR is by WP:CITE. Don't worry, I will include it in the discussion. (Simonapro 21:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for the heads up about vandalism in the Predestination (Calvinism) article. The last sentence "today the Church holds that all people will be saved and go to heaven" is particularly offensive. It is a familiar Calvinist burlesque of the idea that Christ died for all men rather than an elect (and that one freely accepts or rejects the universal salvation) to say that Catholics believe "everyone" will be saved. It is hard to sift through all the theology on Wikipedia, but good job! Amicuspublilius 23:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

You wrote "As a result of you asking for mediation on the article Unidentified flying object I helped the community to push more heavily for WP:CITE and WP:NOR. The article has increased its use of wikipolicy and this should help things more. " Thank you. I appreciate that. But the main problems are with UFO articles other than that one itself - Green Fireballs, Roswell UFO Incident, Majestic Twelve, and maybe one or two more. A couple of weeks someone finally agreed with me that there was too much criticism of Philip J. Klass, though. Thanks. Bubba73 (talk), 00:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm going to rv your edit to Freemasonry

Simon, I'm not convinced that your edit here is a good one. I think you are skewing things a bit, because you are now classifying the standard position of Freemasonry as "reactions to criticism", when there is really no justification to do so. There is no proof showing that these positions were reactions to criticism; it could rather be said that the criticisms were made despite the position. Additionally, anything you feel violates NOR should be discussed on the talk page first. MSJapan 20:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It was discussed on the talk page. (Simonapro 20:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

A concensus was not reached, and IMO, the discussion was incomplete. No one replied to your last statement. I suggest you ask for opinions first, and then act based upon the outcome. There was no real outcome here. MSJapan 20:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes there was a real outcome in Blueboars suggestions. Just because no one replied does not mean that there is no cause for the revert. Cause was given. You must also cite sources anyway. See WP:NOR (Simonapro 21:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

Just for the record... my "consensus" was that the entire section needed re-working. I certainly did not approve of the changes you made. Blueboar 00:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well as you noted by your use of "", I never said there was a consensus. There was no reply to the last statement I made a week ago, so I went ahead and did it. The outcome was a need for change anyway by your suggestion. However to suggest that you need to approve of changes before someone makes them does not seem like wikipolicy to me. Anyway you did not demonstrate why the section needed a rewrite. I demonstrated (as per my edit) that simply creating the sections for the arguments and counterarguments solved the problem of off-topic content. I also deleted the content that failed to WP:CITE. (Simonapro 07:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

I never said you needed my approval to make a change. I was just making it clear that I did not approve of it. While the section does need a LOT of work, the edits you made seem borderline on NPOV. I know that you are trying to fix what you see as a POV problem... and to some extent I agree with you... but in my opinion, your edits skewed the section the other way, making it POV towards the anti-masonic viewpoint. I am sure we can find a middle ground. Blueboar 12:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: You are in violation of WP:NOR on Freemasonry

Those quotes weren't originally my addition. Therefore, you can't accuse me of violating NOR (it's not my research). The other thing is, you were just told in the discussion that the quote sources exist, and what the sources are. So where's the NOR violation you're accusing everybody of doing? MSJapan 13:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if you didn't originally make them. They where removed because of WP:NOR violations. You where told that. You put them back in without using the WP:CITE style. That violates WP:NOR.
• Being told that the source quotes potentially exist and actually citing using the WP:CITE style are two different things. WP:CITE does not include support for quotes that potentially exist. Sorry it still remains in violation of WP:NOR until the WP:CITE style is used. (Simonapro 14:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Freemasonry Page

Simon,

Would you be able to let me know your concerns on the Freemasonry page, so that we can come up with some proposals on this. Hopefully it will not need to go to an RFC, but we should at least be able to hammer this out. Although the Masonic editors will not see me as a neutral party (nor should they to be honest) I think we should be able to calm things down. Although it may seem slow, patience does pay dividends.

JASpencer 20:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My proposal is here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freemasonry&diff=72462795&oldid=72375994 The general problem is explaining the need to WP:CITE to avoid WP:NOR. This is not the first time I have had to deal with WP:NOR issues on that page, with the exact same people. Apart from the new section I proposed, they just seem to have trouble with the WP:CITE style to avoid WP:NOR. Granted the topic is controversial but it is not as if the proposal does anything less that create a whole new section for certain Masonic objections to non-Masonic arguements and ask for cites. (Simonapro 22:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

OK. Firstly you seem to have made more than one change in a single edit. I've tended to be far more likely to revert entries where a large number of changes have been made in one edit. I apologise if you have done this before but try to make changes one by one - doing the less controversial ones first.

I see you've been putting in citation requests - which is good.

If you think there are any other NOR issues then please alert me and I'll advise.

(By the way I tend to hold up my "own side" to higher standards than I do other people - so apologies in advance).

JASpencer 22:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis Reverts

Please do not revert Cannabis again today or you will be in violation of WP:3RR.

I am attempting to verify that the sources cited in the article are accurately represented, in accordance with WP:Verifiability. If the article does accurately represent the disputed sources then the verify source tags will be removed. Chondrite 08:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If WP:CITE has been given there is no need for tags. (Simonapro 09:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Policies, guidelines, and article improvement

There seems to be some confusion about several Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

• WP:CITE is a style guide. Actual policy is WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability. That is, claims made in articles must be attributable to credible sources and, and sources cited must actually support claims made in articles. Simply adding a reference to a claim does not fulfill these requirements. For instance: "The moon is made of Green Cheese ^[1]" may conform to WP:CITE, but the source does not actually support the statement. Even if a source could be found and properly cited, that does make the assertion that the moon is made of green cheese, that view is clearly fringe and according to WP:NPOV#Undue weight does not need to be included in the article at all. If some evidence can be provided that the view is accepted among a significant minority of experts in the field, then it can be included in the article but should be clearly identified as a minority view, and representation in the article must be nuetral. So the statement "The moon is made of green cheese," does not conform to policy, but "According to Stephen Hawking, the moon is made of green cheese, although this view is not widely accepted." does so.

• Editing articles is not incivil. See WP:BOLD. Repeated baseless accusations or insinuations of incivility might however be construed as personal attacks, as might numerous other talk page and edit summary comments. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I invite a review of both of our recent contributions by an imipartial thrid party to determine who, if anyone, has been incivil; who, if anyone, has engaged in personal attacks; and who, if anyone, is advocating non-nuetral POV.

• Removing dispute tags when the dispute has not been resolved is considered WP:Vandalism.

• Please carefully review WP:Verifiability#Burden of Evidence
  • The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain
  • Any edit lacking a source may be removed
  • Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting other editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long

I have discussed all major and minor edit proposals for Cannabis in the talk page, requested sources, requested verifiable sources for dubious information, and if anything have been far too deferential. Clear cases of incorrect/non-standard usage have been allowed to remain in the article for months since they were first pointed out, to provide an opportunity to find any sources who actually use the terms as represented in the article. I have also attempted to discuss the much more complicated issue of accurately representing scientific consensus regarding classification, and have clearly the evidence needed to end the current dispute on that subject. This has been entirely disregarded, in favor of constructing and tearing down a straw man.

I assure you that I am editing Cannabis and related articles in good faith. My goal is to collaborate in improving the Cannabis article to featured article status, to provide an authoritative, factually accurate, verifiable, and neutral source of information on this subject. Working systematically to prevent edits to the article, effectively freezing it at the current non-consensus revision, does nothing to improve the article. Instead of being obstructive, why not work to build consensus? Chondrite 18:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yours Errors:

• If you read the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis#Taxonomy (Perform word search for style) you will see that I have explicity stated that WP:CITE is a style and not a policy. You are in error suggesting I do not know this.
• You are in error when you proposed Google search engines hits to constitute a scientific majority the article can cite in the same discussion section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis#Taxonomy (Perform word search for Google). You must cite sources not search engine hits. See WP:CITE.
• Being uncivil means not deleting and changing the whole article that hundreds of people have worked on before you edited it. It also means not deleting citations. It also means not abusing wikipedia in general.
• It is your POV that the citations are a straw man. There are countless citations refuting your POV in the article. In order to refute a WP:CITE you must use the same style in the discussion by supplying a WP:CITE to refute the cite. Your POV about what is a verifiable cite or not is just a POV until you use the same style. Which is why your POV edits will be reverted back to the original. (Simonapro 08:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

Could I clarify that "Being uncivil means not deleting and changing the whole article that hundreds of people have worked on before you edited it" is utter nonsense. Being bold is perfectly acceptable. Also "In order to refute a WP:CITE you must use the same style in the discussion by supplying a WP:CITE to refute the cite" is complete and utter nonsense. Addhoc 22:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of dispute tags from Cannabis

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

Chondrite 07:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CIV. The discussion board is for your use and to answer questions put to you about your changes. If you don't answer them or use cite style to argue your point then your changes will be removed because they violate WP:NOR. Also you are using dispute tags in violation of WP:V. See WP:CON. (Simonapro 10:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

What does "cite style to argue your point" actually mean? Are you aware that WP:CITE is only a manual of style guideline? Do you understand that it only applies to articles, not talk pages? Do you seriously believe you can remove other users talk page comments? In your opinion, does WP:V really apply to dispute tags? If so could you explain where in WP:V it says this? Addhoc 22:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it means that counterarguments should use cite style. It occurs on the talk page but if the cite is good then there may be a mandate to include it. I don't believer removing talk page comments or images such as the stop hand are civil but they should not be there is the first place. Note the article in question has dispute tags. I believe the tags should be removed as per your suggestion on the other users page. As for the WP:V quote, it is on [1] above. I am all for new input.(Simonapro 12:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] A couple of points

A couple of points:

• To be consistent with WP:NPOV and avoid creation of a POV fork, it is necessary to provide a NPOV summary of the spinout article in the main article, as described at Wikipedia: Summary style and Wikipedia: Content forking. Forking content without prior placement of a split tag or discussion, justifying the fork on basis of WP:CIV, failure to include the article names in square brackets in the edit summaries, immediately tagging the fork as disputed, and failing to include a NPOV summary in the main article cannot be viewed as anything but a POV fork. As you have taken it upon yourself to perform the fork, you should be the one to propose the NPOV summary for the main article.
• I am fully in favor of close scrutiny of sources cited for controversial subjects. This helps to ensure factual accuracy and NPOV and makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. However it does seem disingenuous to insist upon close reading of sources that do not support your personal POV (and nitpicking indefinite quantifiers, e.g., "some"), while simultaneously insisting upon the broadest possible lattitude in misrepresenting sources to support statements that do fit your personal POV.

-- Chondrite 20:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop reverting constructive edits at Cannabis

Please stop reverting constructive edits to remove information that does not fit your personal POV. Your recent edit[2] at Cannabis violates WP:NPOV and is WP:Vandalism. Chondrite 21:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for characterizing this edit as vandalism. WP:Vandalism does make an exception for NPOV violations. Chondrite 06:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I accept your apology. The edited section in question was represented in the talk page of the article. Since there are two important citations regarding speciation, especially the Hillig genotype research and Clarke's important book which is given a modern overhaul by the likes of Green, I would dispute attempts to create a single species orientation because there is a body of evidence to contradict the model. Like I said, I don't have a problem with the dispute tags, but excessive edits to present a single species article is not relative to the modern debates that are about genotypes and pure wild population history. Your inclusion of a whole reproduction section was disputed by me because I felt it would always be questionable to present half work that is very large on the main article. I moved it because I wanted it to have an article of its own, a specialized one, for development. I feel that your merger back to the main article only serves to create a problem with respect to developing a proper specialized article. For that reason I would like you to remove the merger and allow a cannabis reproduction article to exist outside of whatever edits you are going to make to this new section you created in the main article. I also suggest as per the advice of your advocate [user:addhoc] that you try to get votes on the disucssion page as requested and remove the dispute tags which would also be a good idea. (Simonapro 09:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Removal of POV dispute tag from Cannabis

As a reminder,

• From WP:NPOVD

"Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."

• From WP:VAND

"Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period."

Chondrite 07:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis taxobox

I noticed you have some concerns about the consensus to recent changes to the Cannabis article. After looking through the talk page it seems these changes do have consensus. This may be due to are different perspectives, so please let me know why you beleive these changes go against consensus. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sola scriptura

Simonapro, please focus on your objections to individual issues, and make the edits there that you are contending for. Please do not rollback multiple edits because of your objections to some part of them. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR at Cannabis

Please be advised that if you revert the article at Cannabis again before 08:47, 8 November 2006, that you will be in violation of WP:3RR.

Can I also suggest that it will be more productive to provide the requested verifiable information regarding Green's scientific credentials than to edit war.

-- Chondrite 09:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you act according to WP:CIV and stop your vadalism of the removal of sources. (Simonapro 09:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

I have notice you have made several references to Chondrite being in violation of WP:CIV. In the future, please provide diffs as evidence of such an infraction. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I am simply going to ignore you for future reference. You have added nothing to the article but criticism of the contributors. Please refrain from suggesting anything to me again and have a nice day. (Simonapro 21:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

Could I point out that "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another" are themselves regarded as incivility? Chondrite 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No not really. You basically deleted the same citation, more than several times, in the past few months, and each time you refused to say why. Now you wanted to change it to Small but unfortunately Green was in there with it before you even signed on to become a member. Then you asked for me to be banned for 24 hours. Whatever. I am just smiling with a grin from ear to ear. All I can think of is how you are trying to convince people that C. sativa L. subsp sativa x C. sativa L. subsp sativa = C. sativa L. subsp Indica. without speciation. All the breeding in the world isn't going to produce Indica from a Sativa population. It is irrational and illogical. (Simonapro 06:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC))

Well then please be advised that baseless accusations of impropriety are violations of WP:CIV. Please do not insinuate or imply that I or any other editor has violated any Wikipedia policy without good evidence. Over the past couple of months you have established a track record of incivility, but this will no longer be tolerated. In particular your description of my recent edits as incivility and vandalism is not accurate, and I request that you withdraw those accusations.

I further suggest that, rather than focusing on some colossal straw man, that Wikipedia would benefit if you focused on factual accuracy.

-- Chondrite 16:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I will front the accusation again because it is accurate and the previous statement about C. sativa L. subsp sativa x C. sativa L. subsp sativa = C. sativa L. subsp indica. being irrational is an absolutely certainty given that genes specific to indica are not even in the x.subsp sativa gene pool. When you delete citations, over the period of a couple months, without providing reasons, as you did several times, you then removed the said citation again, attributed another source incorrectly, and knowingly to the article statement, and pretended like it never happened. Of course passing off a reference from one source as another source is not only a fabrication but just straight-forward dishonesty and you knew exactly what you where doing given the fact that you requested for me to be banned for 24 hours for correcting your vadalism. Like I said, I am cracking a smile from ear to ear. Hell I don't even put up dispute tags just to have something my way. I just debate and edit with consensus. That is just me. As for my trackrecord here. It is absolutely none of your business. As for factual accuracy, I have been using cite style accordingly, always, and even participate in discussions. That is hardly incivil but then again I guess you will be one explaining how to extrapolate indica genes from thin air. (Simonapro 16:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Civility - accusing other editors in a content dispute of being vandals...

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Addhoc 19:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resolving the content dispute at Cannabis

Hi Simonapro

I am hoping to resolve the ongoing content dispute regarding the article at Cannabis. First let me say that, although we have disagreed on several aspects of the topic, your participation has definitely resulted in a better article. I admire your persistence, and thank you for your contributions.

I would like to clarify that I personally have no opinion regarding whether Cannabis is one species or many. I am not a taxonomist and am not qualified to make that determination. Frankly I don't think that whether the taxa are regarded as species or subspecies has much practical application, especially if the only way to tell the difference for sure is by genetic fingerprinting. But, as with so many of the aspects of the plant, classification of Cannabis has been controversial within the plant science community, and certainly that controversy merits discussion in the article. So I come to this discussion having no personal POV regarding the subject of the debate, and my only interest is in making sure that Wikipedia accurately represents the current scientific consensus. I have researched this topic to the best of my ability (as I am sure have you) and the best information that I can find is that most scientists who work with Cannabis regard it as a single species. Even though I have been looking hard for some time now, I have not been able to find any reliable secondary source that accepts that Cannabis is a polytypic genus. If we can identify one or more scientifically reliable secondary sources that accept Cannabis as polytypic, then I fully support updating the article to reflect this.

The scientific debate has historically involved some of the most highly respected experts in the field: Linneaus and Lamarck, Vavilov, Schultes, Small, Cronquist, and most recently Mahlberg. Mandolino, de Miejer (and others) have solid track records of scientific publications related to Cannabis, and Hillig seems to be off to a good start. This is where the use of Greg Green's books as references for taxonomy enters the discussion. Although his books may be well-researched, factually accurate, and well-regarded by the general public, unless we can establish that he has credibility as a scientist, then his works are very out of place as references for taxonomy, and in fact the reliable sources guideline says that we can't use them. I have tried to be diligent in researching Green and his books and have not been able to find much. Independent review of Green's work is especially important, because the Green Candy Press says "fringe." Any Wikipedia user or editor following up on references to Green will quickly find this out and may reasonably conclude that encyclopedia content based on those references is also "fringe."

Once concern that I have is that your talk page comments sometimes do not address what I actually did say, but rather seem to address something that you think I said, or address something that you think might be a logical consequence of what you think I said. I have pointed this out several times as a "straw man". An example is your statement here on this talk page "All I can think of is how you are trying to convince people that C. sativa L. subsp sativa x C. sativa L. subsp sativa = C. sativa L. subsp Indica. without speciation." I never said anything remotely like that, nor does it appear to be a logical consequence of anything I did actually say. This is a problem in debate because it (a) does not address the point of debate, and (b) misrepresents the position of the person you are debating, and (c) can lead to tangential discussions that do not contribute to resolving the issues that are actually disputed. I encourage you to avoid such straw man arguments in the future; and if any point of debate is not clear, please ask for clarification.

Another concern that I have is that in some cases you seem to have misunderstood what a reference says. A current example is GRIN. The genus page does not say that GRIN supports two species in the genus. It says that Hillig and Mahlberg support two species in the genus. The species page does say that GRIN accepts a single species, and that GRIN regards C. indica Lam. as a Synonym (botany) for the correct name "C. sativa L subsp. indica (Lam) E. Small & Cronquist". In order to understand this, it is important to realize that, in Taxonomy, the word "synonym" has a different meaning than in general usage; botanical synonyms are not equally valid and interchangeable with the accepted correct name for the taxon. Realizing that this may be a point of confusion for readers who are unfamiliar with the terminology, we may need to rethink how the source is used by the article. The main point here is that verification that cited sources are accurately represented in the article is a very important part of article development, and when we add a citation to an article we really need to make every effot to ensure that we are accurately representing it.

I apologize for sometimes getting frustrated with certain aspects of the debate we have been having. I have tried to respond to the best of my ability to the questions and concerns that you have raised, even when it seems to me that I have already done so. I have always tried to be polite and to respect your opinions. One thing that does concern me is that your talk page comments are often phrased using the second person, e.g., "You have been refuted." Certainly comments like "You need glasses" and "Can't you read?" are not helpful. It seems to me that we are discussing article content and that it would be better to avoid personal pronouns altogether, whenever possible, in order to focus exclusively on article content. I do not view this as "you versus me," I view it as "us working together" to develop the article. I firmly believe that the collaborative editing process produces superior articles, and that scrutiny is a very essential part of that process. Please don't take it personally. Content disputes that are resolved with consensus can actually be very beneficial to articles, and there are well-established processes for dispute resolution. Edit wars, on the other hand, do not resolve content disputes.

I know that much of this has already been discussed in various talk pages and I apologize for restating it here. I don't intend to pursue a point-by-point debate regarding article content on your talk page, I just wanted to make it clear where I stand and to emphasize that I don't have any personal problem with you, or with Greg Green. I am sure that, as reasonable Wikipedians who share a common interest, we can get past the current difficulties. What do you think?

Chondrite 22:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dicussion header

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! Addhoc 15:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Cannabis on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. amitch 11:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)