User talk:Dala11a

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia from SqueakBox! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome, SqueakBox 19:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi dala11a. Thanks for your help on the polska article. I added some comments to the discussion page related to your work. I'll probably work on this intermittantly over the next few months. Please add it to your watchlist if you have not already done so. I appreciate the help.Cpgruber 18:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop vandalizing Wikipedia

Stop vandalizing Wikipedia. --Daniel11 23:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cite your sources

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Poly drug use, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Thank you. Pairadox (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to War on Drugs appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. You have added an exclamation mark to a statement. This kind of emotive language is not suitable for an encylopedia and violates WP:MOS. Let the facts speak for themselves. Cambrasa (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the section you've added in War on drugs appears to be original research. It is true that you've cited the sources of your statements, but the statements alone are not a criticism. You've failed to mention who has used the example of Sweden to criticise the US "war on drugs". Cambrasa (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, remove the exclamation mark.
  • You can find criticism of the large number of people imprisoned in US for drug offenses on many US. Internet pages so I added no specific source.
  • Exactly what part of the text POV or original research? Have you studied the UN-report? I can add more references if that what you want.
  • The facts are easy to trace from public sources. Both US and Sweden have restrictive laws on illegal drugs, US have 1 of 100 in prison, Sweden have 1 of 1400 and fewer user of drugs. The Swedish view is not to legalize cannabis or other drugs, the official goal i Zero tolerance for illegal drug as before. This is no original research by me, compare with the public statement by the Swedish Minister of Health in the reference list. I have only included a reference one of the Swedish laws about treatment of people suspected for use of illegal drugs. There are more laws but I have not find any professional translation to English.
So I do not agree that it is POV or original research.
Sorry, this is original research as far as I can tell because all the sources you cite talk about Swedish drug policy and don't mention a word about the US war on drugs. None of the sources explicitly criticise the US war on drugs by comparing it to Sweden. All the sources say is that Sweden has a successful drug policy. That is hardly a criticism of US drug policy. You seem to be the one making that comparison and that's why it is original research. To qualify for a "Criticism" section the criticism must come from an external source and not a wikipedia user. All this information may be true and well-researched, but it does not belong in this article. If you can't show me at least one source that explicitly compares Sweden and the US, then I will move i to an article called Drug policy of Sweden. Cambrasa (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry ,sometimes I am a slow writer but the link to War on Drugs and more sources will come in the next 10-15 lines. This article is not easy to write. --Dala11a (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to drug addiction. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. 199.125.109.103 (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have added an reference, the same source as a picture on the same page--Dala11a (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Wrong - if you read the reference you would find that it says that dependence is a combination of pleasure, psychological addiction and physical addiction and about the only reason for cannabis having the dependence it has is that it is pleasurable, which is not a reason to cite it as addictive. 199.125.109.103 (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That section in drug addiction don't say anything about the reasons for the addiction, that belongs to another section. So, your claim is irrelevant here. --Dala11a (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to drug addiction. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You can not use a reference that states the opposite of your POV and call it a reference. Please refrain from adding your personal POV to articles. 199.125.109.103 (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to cannabis (drug). For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. 199.125.109.103 (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding "Another example:" in front of your cut and paste of the abstract does not cut it. The abstract doesn't even support your point of view that marijuana is a gateway drug. It says that it can't prove or disprove the gateway model, and that it doesn't have a clue what the causes are of it being a gateway even if it is a gateway. The entire edit should be removed. 199.125.109.103 (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In general abstracts like that do not make good references, because there is no way to read the actual article unless you have a subscription: "You can purchase immediate access to this article for 30 days through our secure web site for USD$ 39.00". 199.125.109.103 (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The example shows that that a gateway theory that includes indirect connection between cannabis and use of other drugs exist in the scientific community. Somebody claimed that this was "private research". A result that without doubt don't contradicts the gateway hypothesis is also a result. It makes the theory more trustworthy. I do not share your view on copy right. Scientific results have no copy right and the texts are not identical. It is difficult to write an understandable and shorter summary of the summary on the web page --Dala11a (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you can see from the red highlighted comparison just how much is copied. If you look at the source it has a copyright notice:

Copyright

Blackwell Publishing and its licensors hold the copyright in all material held in Blackwell Synergy. No material may be resold or published elsewhere without Blackwell Publishing's written consent, save as authorised by a licence with Blackwell Publishing or to the extent required by the applicable law.

What they have shown is simply two things, one, more kids use drugs than adults, and two, there is a correlation between use of cannabis and other drugs, but not that one leads to the other. 199.125.109.103 (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this page is the appropriate page for a general discussion about copy right law or your last complain.--Dala11a (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fact Templates on War on drugs

Please do not use {{fact}} inappropriately, as you did on War on drugs. {{fact}} should only be used if a statement lacks verifiability, not for tagging arguments that you see as weak or questionable, but that are otherwise verifiable. Wikipedia is not a publisher of your personal opinions. Thanks, Cambrasa 14:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Conclusion About Hemp's Value Is Bull

Do more research, because it is not a myth that hemp was valuable in the 1930's, and that it was a threat to Hearst's paper empire. Like Cambrasa told you, Wikipedia is not a publisher of your personal opinions. If you don't keep your opinions to yourself, you will be blocked. Kevin j (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC) ?

I you have no better argument than call it Bull, who is doing original research?--Dala11a (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summeries

Please use edit summeries. This is especially important when making large numbers of changes to an article so that other editors can follow what exactly is going on. Also, if you are going to make many many small changes at a time to one paragraph, consider using the preview button or the sandbox, so that they can be combined and not clutter the edit history. Thanks, NJGW (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What does this sentence mean?

"When the person has become an addict will the development of this artificial implemented drive not be affected by removal of the initiating factors."

This sentence you have added to War on Drugs, makes no sense whatsoever. Please explain what it is supposed to mean or otherwise I will remove it.

Thanks, Cambrasa confab 23:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

In this edit[1] you are still copying from the abstract. "A 25-year longitudinal study on New Zealand showed similar results". No it doesn't, and no one can access the paper to find out what it says. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you, who do you work for, anyway? Are you employed by a government organization? Are your biased edits under the direction of your employer or a result of your sense of duty? You have a yardarm of complaints above. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

1)The words similar, showed or results in the sentence in Wikipedia don't exits in the summary of the study. And don't believe it is possible to have copy right on words like New Zealand. 2)I have an employment in a private owned company but that has nothing to do with my writing in Wikipedia, I am not hired by the government or any organization for that purpose, I have just seen to much of alcohol and drug addiction in my close neighborhood Dala11a (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

As somebody else already pointed out, it is important that you use edit summaries, especially for controversial changes and unexplained deletions as you have done on War on Drugs. Otherwise people may revert your edits. Please use them. --Cambrasa confab 15:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Drug policy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Drug policy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drug policy. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

[edit] Editing other's comments

DO NOT edit other editors comments on talk pages [2]. NJGW (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On my alleged unspecified claims

[3] What do you want me to explain? Ssteinberger (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Legal history of marijuana in the United States, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please help wikipedia articles adhere to the proper conventions. The vast majority of articles use phrases such as "by state" or "by country". NJGW (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a ref for the CN tag you removed? [4] NJGW (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added a source to Canabis(drug) section New...Dala11a (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you do not want to edit through consensus, Wikipedia may not be the place for you. In this edit you are asking for sources, and then proclaiming "conclusion: delete." You should know by now that this is not how things work. You can discuss, add sourced information, request sources using {{fact}}, and remove information which is clearly incorrect (though given some of your history, you should be very careful with this last option). Be sure you are not edit warring. You cannot assume that you have the final word on any part of an article. NJGW (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My pseudonym

I call myself Steinberger and not just Steinberg. I see this as impoliteness and I do not intend to answer on any accusations, questions or whatever until you use my proper pseudonym. I have ignored it for to long already and I know at least one other person who have told you to stop. [5] Steinberger (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I apologize. Dala11a (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Accepted. In fact, what annoyed me most was my knowing of your last name, in conjunction with your misspelling of my nickname. By the way, I thought on your previous edits on Legality of cannabis and read this: "On the other hand, if you give credence to the stories sometimes told by anti-prohibitionists, cannabis smokers in Sweden are arrested by the police and put into compulsory treatment." [[6]] Steinberger (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Removed tag from by user Steinberg." I thought you said you were sorry and apologized for calling me things that I feel uncomfortable with? So why have you done it again? Steinberger (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, once more. Dala11a (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia

Please. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for your personal views. If you could please refrain from inserting your personal viewpoints, i.e. that all drugs are bad. Well that policy was hypocritical and didn't work. The war on drugs has failed. What does work is to provide heroin addicts with free heroin in a clinical setting on a regular basis. What does work is to provide accurate information on the consequences of using drugs. Making marijuana users attend rehab so that they get a lighter sentence is ludicrous, they are not addicted to anything. I can appreciate your concern about the problem of drug abuse, but spreading misinformation is not going to help, it only makes the problem worse. Drug prohibition is a failed policy and the sooner it is ended the better. However that is an opinion, and opinions have no purpose in an encyclopedia unless they are supported by a reliable source. What I see you doing is blindly pursuing a particular point of view, oblivious to any other points of view and oblivious to reliable sources. It's just not helpful. 199.125.109.26 (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I constantly try to add relevant references to the text that I write. There are very large differences between countries in terms of drug use, people in prison and the general views on drugs. There are several countries with a general drug prohibition/restrective policy for listed drugs that compared to the U.S. manage better to have a higher acceptance of the country's drug policy, have a much lower proportion of people in prison and a significantly lower percentage of drug users and substance abusers. In addition, they have managed to do with these four things at once. I have tried to describe this with text and sources. If we are talking about things that happen before 1980 and in non-English speaking countries, however, it may sometimes be difficult to find good references in English. In addition, it is a problem that there are users who invents nonsense reasons to erase some interesting and good sources. A recent example is a comparison of different countries concerning the number of prisoners per 100000 inhabitants. [7]. Dala11a (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Join a Project!

Hey Dala, I noticed you've been making a lot of edits on drug policy pages, would you care to join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Drug Policy? Stick this on your user page if you'd like to.

This content has an uncertain copyright status and is pending deletion. You can comment on its removal. This user is a member of WikiProject Drug Policy.


--rakkar (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drug Policy Foundation

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Drug Policy Foundation, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.nationalfamilies.org/legalization/dpf.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prohibition works?

The argument that prohibition "works well" (in Sweden) is not used by UNODC, but maybe by some of Swedens anti-EU left-nationalistic parties. ("Den ”restriktiva” narkotikapolitiken blir ett medel för att förstärka en hotad nationell identitet (Tham, 1995b). Detta kan tänkas gälla särskilt för socialdemokraterna och andra partier på vänstersidan vars väljarkår motsatte sig medlemskapet i EU.") Thats maybe, because it really would surprise me if someone sane come to the conclusion that "the prohibition works" and that Sweden is a proof of that. Steinberger (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)