User talk:David Justin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ALERT!!! Somebody is cutting info from a lot of wine articles and you shold check it out


Contents

[edit] A welcome from Sango123

Hello, David Justin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango123 22:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] "Wayne Wheler"

I see that you just contributed an article on Wayne Wheler. Thank you. It is standard format in this encyclopedia for people's names not to have quotes around them (see Benjamin Franklin for exmaple). I can move the article for you quite easily. My other concern, however, is a legal issue. This article is quite long and is unformatted (ie it has no links). That may be because you have yet to put in links for keywords and other sylistic issues (which I would gladly help you with). However, many people submit unformatted text because they are simply copying and pasting content from another webiste. I couldn't find any website with the content you just uploaded, so I was wondering if you could tell me whether you copied that material (as copied material must be deleted for copyright reasons). Thanks! This link is Broken 01:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Hunt

Hi, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Copyrights in regards to the website information you submitted to this article. Karmafist 01:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Just so you know, a redirect should not have any title. By placing a line of text above the #REDIRECT [[link]] operation, the software does not pick it up as a redirect. You may want to preview your pages before you save them, just to make sure everything's working properly. Also, article titles are case sensitive. So, Alcoholic beverage control states and Alcoholic Beverage Control States don't link to the same place. Thanks! -Satori (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

If you indeed have copyright ownership over articles at http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/ then of course you may donate it to wikipedia. Understand that that means other people will be able to use it (read GFDL if you haven't yet). Often people who donate content to wikipedia put a page on their site saying that they have donated some/all content to wikipedia (ie. relicense content into the GFDL/PD/Creatic Commons/Another compatible license). This serves as a way for you to get good will and as proof that you, in fact, own that website (sadly we have some rude people who like to pretend they own websites they clearly don't). What article in particular are you concerned about? I can't remember what article I had discussed with you (besides Wayne Wheler which seems to have no copyright issues). It's best to format the note on the article's source the way I left it at History of alcohol. Don't sign you articles or write the notice at the top though. If you plan to move over many articles you might want to make a template similar to Template:1911. Cheers. 16:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

ah silly me. I read your message to quickly. You want to know how you can fix American Council on Alcohol Problems. I indicated you claim of copyright holding on WP:CP. Sadly that page has a constant backlog. I would remove the copyvio notice on the page and continue editing with a notice of ownership similar to what I explained above. No need for you to wait a month for this to get sorted out. Remember to go through and add a notice to all articles that you contributed. This link is Broken 16:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I could only hazard a guess. I think that some people, not knowing the rules, submits a copyrighted text. When they are told they can't use it unless they own the rights to it, instead of admitting a wrong they lie. Some also might just want to get Wikipedia into legal trouble. Sad really. 17:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jake foot redirect

Brookie here - I've corrected your attempted redirect as it wasn't correct. :) The curate's egg 18:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi David - thanks for the note - you need to put the redirected aiminto double brackets - I think that you only usedone. If you go to the original page abd press edit - it will show you the final formatting. :) The curate's egg 07:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rational Recovery

You made a new page but you spelled it Ratonal Recovery. So, I made that page a redirect to Rational Recovery for you. You might want to look at it and add any info that is not dupilcated. Qaz (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of alcohol

It seems you added links to either History of alcohol or to your own webpage to many individual articles on alcoholic beverages (I removed the one on Wheat beer). Often this does not seem particularly relevant, and could be considered spam. Please don't add links to your own website to so many articles. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

And I just reverted your de-wikification of History of alcohol. Do you have any particular reason to prefer that article without internal links? It seems counterproductive for Wikipedia. Kusma (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The article you are adding to many pages is only tangentially relevant and sometimes not relevant at all. At the Wiki, we prefer that you add information to the page rather than adding links which do not add to the page. Also, it is generally considered poor form to cite one's own research. Thank you. Wnissen 06:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not unlink valid links. If you continue to remove valid content in the form of links, you might be blocked from editing. Plus, you added a false "source" to American Whiskey Trail which redirects to your web site. Please do not do that again, it has been removed. Wnissen 06:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello again, David Justin, I see you are making many excellent contributions. Thanks for coming up to speed so quickly on the policies and customs at the Wiki. Looking forward to working with you. Wnissen 06:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
However can you please not link to your own site. You are linking there as a reference when your site then quotes primary (or less secondary) sources. Can you cite the originals instead (even if they are print references not web links). Justinc 02:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alcohol and Teenage Brains

I changed the speedy delete tag on the article to an WP:AFD, per your resolution on the copyright issue. Please feel free to participate in that debate. Jasmol 04:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You've obviously studied alcohol quite a bit, and I don't dispute your knowledge in the area. I'm just concerned that the article might fail the original research inclusion guidelines. It may also be appropriate to merge some of the content into the article on alcohol. Cheers, Jasmol 04:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prohibition

Thanks for your comments about Prohibition and info about Scandinavia - you will see I added your material to the article. Regards--A Y Arktos 06:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I did a bit of googling on the Russian dates. There seems to be quite a lot of people writing about the tsar imposing prohibition when the war broke out and it being continued til 1924 or 25. I put the results at Talk:Prohibition#Prohibition in Russia - confliciting sources for dates. Regards--A Y Arktos 19:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting vandalism

Hi David. I noticed your good edits on Repeal of Prohibition, nice work. But I'm not sure if you're doing them by hand (ie pasting back in material vandals have deleted), or automatically. Have a read of Wikipedia:Revert - doing it that way (editing out-of-date versions of the page) ensures that you don't miss any sneaky, very minor vandalism.

Also, don't you think it's about time you turned this red link blue? :P

cheers, pfctdayelise 14:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bravo!

Hello David Justin, I have watched with amazement and gratitude as you have contributed a bevy of excellent pages over the last few weeks. You are really filling in a number of holes that badly needed plugging. I've been going through and marking many of them as stubs (not a negative comment on the content, most articles are marked as stubs for a while just to help them mature more quickly) and adding some wikilinks. Thank you for your extensive research! Wnissen 15:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Deville 01:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur, you're doing a great job! When creating new articles, don't forget to categorize them as well. For example, see Category:Wine for some subcategories you might want to add to related articles you've recently created. Keep up the good work :) Mrtea (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article moved

[edit] Ottawa 1981 Tasting

Hi David, I removed the full result list of the Ottawa 1981 tasting from the Château Margaux article; it's enough to say it came second last! If people want the full list they can go to Ottawa Wine Tasting of 1981. I was only nosing around all of this after adding the results to the Paris Wine Tasting of 1976 article, which I see you also wrote. Great work on all these wine articles by the way! -- Blorg 21:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks for the message. I had a look at some of the other winery articles you have been creating and editing. I'd suggest removing the complete lists of wine tasting results from all the individual winery articles (e.g. Château Mouton Rothschild, Château_Latour, etc.) and instead having the results on the page about the tasting itself. Just linking to the article about the tasting would be enough, with a summary of how they got on; e.g. for Château Ducru-Beaucaillou you could just say "Although Château Ducru-Beaucaillou was judged the best French wine in the Ottawa Wine Tasting of 1981, five Californian wines placed ahead of it." Otherwise the information is duplicated all over the place! -- Blorg 23:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I might ask what they're doing there at all? Does the Chateau Montelena page have in depth descriptions of its failures? As I see it this is a baldfaced bias. If you want to trumpet decades old wine expos detailing who got beat and why, I think it more even-handed to do so in a dedicated article. As I browse through Bordeaux entries, all I see is what I would call overtly biased negativity. Yes, the eruption of California wines onto a scene that had long been French-dominated is remarkable and it makes a good story. But perhaps the cheerleading should be confined to California wine pages. I think the alternative is ugly. Wouldn't it be more sane to keep wine entries neutral erring on the side of positivity? After all, I can find negative critical comments about just about any wine in any given vintage, as you have proven you can do.--BridgeBurner 06:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wine tasting

Hi David, with all the great articles you have been creating about wine tastings I created a Category:Wine_tasting to keep them all together - this centralises links to them all in one place and makes it easier to keep a track/reference between them. I've made the category a sub-category of Wine, Gustation and Oenology. -- Blorg 10:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor nit

David, your contributions to Wikipedia have been significant to say the least. You've really fleshed-out the various alcohol related articles in a big way. I was wondering though, if you wouldn't mind including a brief comment in the edit summary when making a change to an article. Just a short, concise note to let the rest of the community know what you changed without reviewing your edits. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Gregmg 15:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted text

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Brief interventions, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! ×Meegs 18:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I've made a mistake. Hopefully we can clear this up at Talk:Brief interventions. ×Meegs 19:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for enduring the third degree with good humor. As a researcher, I know you know why these things can be important. Post notice of Dr. Kilmer's consent (or non-) on Talk:Brief interventions when you can. Thanks again. ×Meegs 22:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I just posted this on the Alcoholism Talk Page:

Today, and for some time now, there are highly accurate tools and other instruments which can accurately diagnose the disease of alcoholism. This is but one of many: SUDDS-IV A condition such as alcoholism and other psychoactive chemical use can, more than most other human conditions, have a devastating effect on not only the person suffering from that condition, but with everyone else in their life. Too often, the pain, frustration and feeling of betrayal can cause these other effected persons to make judgments about the person, most commonly focusing on their behavior. The attitude is, too often, ‘if they changed their behavior, if they didn’t pick up the drink, or take the drug in the first place, this wouldn’t be happening’. That is why it is critical to take the condition of chemical dependency out of the realm of public opinion and keep it where it belongs: in the hands of competent, unbiased professionals. Chemical dependency is no myth – it is very real. Michael David 01:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wine competitions

Hi David, thanks for contributing so many fantastic wine competition articles. I have noticed that you have been adding each individual wine competition article as a link in the see also section of many wine related articles. This is causing the see also sections to become "bloated" with articles that may not be directly relevant, making it hard for users to discern what they actually want to look at. May I suggest that you create a "generic" Wine competition article, that acts as an index to all of the other wine competition articles. The article could also describe how a competition is conducted, how the wines are tasted, who judges them, etc. Such an article would link many other articles together. This will mean only this article, and perhaps other highly relevant articles, will need to be included in the see also sections, keeping things more tidy and organised. Thanks. scharks 00:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amusing Chatter

David I thought you might get a kick out of this from user:Michael David's talk page:

Don't jump ship just yet, partner -- I think I'm mixing my eras there -- Mr Christopher seems to have been cowed a bit, and David Justin is trying to play nice. Whether their tactic is to listen, lay back, then strike, I don't know. But right now, I think I've got them seeing things through a different lens. Mine. And that would portend yours. --Sadhaka 11:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was amusing if not revealing. And would you please stop trying to play nice! Mr Christopher 18:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wine by country template

Hi David, just a note that the template {{Wine by country}} should generally only be used in the articles that are linked to in the template, possibly with the exception of the Wine or List of wine producing countries articles. Other region based articles should have for example, a {{Wine regions of France}} template or something like that. I would be happy to create these where required. scharks 04:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Rory096 04:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Len Evans

Why are you removing this redirect page? CJCurrie 05:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zero tolerance

It was a pragmatic solution to avoid a more major dispute. However, the fact that the page is now free-standing does not remove the need to completely rewrite it (and to remove the fake citations: some of the links do not work and some are quoted when you obviously have not actually read them). That said, I hope that you will find life here at least interesting if not enjoyable. The challenges are many, but the opportunity for satisfaction is high. Good luck. David91 04:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish Ski Team?

Do you perhaps mean the Swedish Bikini Team? I've nominated it for deletion, but let me know if I'm mistaken. Ghosts&empties 21:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Driving Under the Influence

Dr. Hanson, thanks for your comments on my user page re: posting on the MADD page. Six months late, but I finally got around to it. I hope to do more, once I get the hang of this editing business. Letaylor

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Nunquam Dormio 18:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Nine sock puppets were blocked indefinitely as a result of the complaint. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/David Justin. Nunquam Dormio 08:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Whiskey Trail

Hi, I wondered if you would like to look at this http://www.shoppersvineyard.com/americanwhiskey/american-whiskey-c89-2.html (at the end) and see if you can determine what text came from where - as I believe the original text belongs to you. Rich Farmbrough, 15:57 27 September 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Dale H. Learn

This article was a non-notable biography according to the criteria set out in WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 05:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

A plagiarism-detector bot has indicated that you copied the article on William E. Johnson. The article has been deleted. Please do not do this sort of thing again, for legal reasons; otherwise, disciplinary measures will be taken. DS 02:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nunquam Dormio (talk • contribs) 09:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC).


Three sock puppets were blocked indefinitely as a result of this complaint. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin (2nd). Nunquam Dormio 20:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Social Norms Resource Center

FYI, another user thought that National Social Norms Resource Center should be speedy-deleted, but I changed it to {{prod}}, on the chance that it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 19:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam/revert war

You and Wham Bam No Thank You Spam (talk · contribs) need to cut out your link war. Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Scientizzle 18:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page. -- Scientizzle 18:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't ignore what I told you...your recent edit to Ernest Cherrington puts you beyond WP:3RR. You two need to solve this dipute before either of you "fixes" any more articles. -- Scientizzle 18:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your question

Regarding your posting on my user talk page, I'm always happy to offer advice.

First, because this isn't a clear case of vandalism (see below), the WP:3RR limit applies. You've been warned about this; if you violate the rule again, a block for 24 hours is pretty much automatic.

Second, I don't think anyone has mentioned the Wikipedia conflict of interest rule, which pertains, for example, to people adding links to their own website. Please read and follow that.

Third, it's clear that Wham Bam No Thank You Spam is a sock puppet - he's using a user script or something similar to do mass reverts. If you know someone who you've tangled with before, possibly someone blocked or warned about his/her reverts of your edits, then there is probably a good chance that he/she is using this new account. If you have some names to suggest, I could take a further look, and give you additional advice.

Fourth, since it seems clear from postings above, and this December complaint that you are Dr. Hanson, I strongly urge you to use the many sources you're familiar with as the basis for information you add, as opposed to citing your own website. For example, on this page, the footnote for the section on Joseph H. Choate, Jr., is:

Kyvig, David E. Repealing National Prohibition. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2000; Lender, Mark E. The Historian and Repeal. In: Kyvig, David E. (Ed.) Law, Alcohol, Order: Perspectives on National Prohibition. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1985. Pp. 177-205; Root, Grace C. Women and Repeal: the Story of the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform. NY: Harper & Brothers, 1934; Vose, Clement E. Repeal as a Political Achievement. In: Kyvig, David E. (Ed.) Law, Alcohol, Order: Perspectives on National Prohibition. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1985. Pp. 97-121.

In the Wikipedia article on Joseph H. Choate, Jr., it would be tremendous if you cited these three sources directly (so to speak) rather than a web page that in turn is citing these sources. You could use Harvard referencing if that made it easier. Wikipedia has far too few experts who have access to really good source material, the type that is routinely used by Encyclopaedia Britannica. I hope you might consider Wikipedia an opportunity to flesh out articles like the one on Choate, Jr., by using the same sources of information that you used in your articles on the web, but without linking to your website. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

David - regarding your response on my user talk page, several points need a response:
  • It's apparent who has created the sock puppet, "Wham." While not all sock puppets are per se against the rules here, some are. If you think this one is, I can help if you're tell me what other username(s) have been used by that person.
  • My personal objection to at least some of the links that you're adding is that they pertain to only part of one of your webpages, and sometimes most of the text there is already in Wikipedia, which means the value of the link is only for the references provided in that section of your page. This can be a very small payoff - if any payoff at all - for a reader who follows the link, who must first find the section, then read the text and realize he/she has already seen it, then follow a link to the sources for that section, at the bottom of your webpage, then realize the sources are offline.
  • The way that you could provide the most value to Wikipedia is to actually treat the articles you're editing as if they were your own. By that, I don't mean "owning" the articles in the sense that you reject or approve edits by others (that would be a violation of policy), but rather that you use sources (books, articles, etc.) to add content directly to Wikipedia, with citations. By contrast, what you're doing now is of relatively little value; you're providing links to pages that only indirectly are relevant to article subjects. Why not write directly for Wikipedia? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Ernest Cherrington. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Wham Bam No Thank You Spam 08:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More spamming

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Daisey Douglas Barr. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. Wham Bam No Thank You Spam 09:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yet more spamming

Please stop. If you continue spamming, as you did in Marie C. Brehm, you will be blocked from editing. Wham Bam No Thank You Spam 09:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Even more spamming

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Temperance Educational Quarterly, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. Wham Bam No Thank You Spam 09:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No spamming at all

Under Wikipedia's “Links normally to be avoided” is #11, “Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.David Justin 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

You're on the Missing Wikipedians page. -Yancyfry


[edit] Your edit to Womens Organization for National Prohibition Reform

[edit] Message posted on Monday, April 23, 2007

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Womens Organization for National Prohibition Reform. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1131637220.html in this case) 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.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Womens Organization for National Prohibition Reform with a link to where we can find that note;
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Womens Organization for National Prohibition Reform with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Womens Organization for National Prohibition Reform saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your original contributions are welcome.

Butseriouslyfolks 03:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drug Abuse Resistance Education

Thanks for the complement. I never really intended spend that much time with the article. It took way more time than I would have liked. I would say that there is still more reference work to be done. I think links to the scientific data are needed. The programs of proven effectiveness could use references on which programs are actually more effective and why. The article also needs some ref data on why the program is widely used. User:Sefringle placed the ref tag there on May 21, 2007. I will leave a message on the User talk:Sefringle page asking whether or not the ref tag can go. I would say that I have no vested interest in the article otherwise. I merely landed there to document the D.A.R.E. police cars. At the time I placed the copy there, the article had serious NNN N-NPOV problems. There is also occasional vandalism, which I feel like I am the only one correcting. Group29 22:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is evidence to suggest that you are connected with Professor David Justin Hanson, PhD. The writings attributed to Dr. Hanson on the Potsdam.edu site have substantial numbers of references, which would seem to be more connected and a better representation to the position that D.A.R.E. is ineffective. The particular reference to the statement "there is no scientific evidence..." looked like it was picked from a google search on "dare+effective". I give your credit that you put more relevant text in after I made my change that the reference did not support the statement. Based on other Wikipedia contributions, the conclusions I could draw are
a.) You are not actually Dr. Hanson, but agree with his views.
b.) You are not actually Dr. Hanson, but one of his assistants
c.) You are Dr. Hanson, but possibly you have a misunderstanding of/contempt for Wikipedia and do not feed the need to put your already researched references.
d.) You are trolling on this article
No matter what position you represent, my opinion is that Dr. Hanson's work can stand on its own merits and can be referenced effectively in this article. According to his research, there is scientific evidence that D.A.R.E. is ineffective. That should be added and cited as a valuable contribution in the article. Thanks Group29 15:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Drug Abuse Resistance Education. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Drug Abuse Resistance Education. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

Dr. Hanson, I recommend you recuse yourself from adding any more of your point of view to the D.A.R.E. article. You are not helping here. Nothing personal, obviously you are POV. Thanks much, Group29 (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Verification of sources (for the D.A.R.E. article)

The following example illustrates my understanding of what constitutes verification of sources for facts presented in Wikipedia:

  • A fact: Daryl Gates testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that infrequent or casual drug users "ought to be taken out and shot" because "we're in a war" and even casual drug use is "treason."
  • A verification: Ronald J. Ostrow, Casual Drug Users Should Be Shot, Gates Says, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 6, 1990, p. A1.
  • An observation: It is not necessary to verify the validity or invalidity of Gates’ assertions by verifying any sources he may have used in coming to his beliefs. Similarly, if Gates had published an opinion piece making those same assertions, it would not be necessary to identify any sources or references upon which he may have relied. In short, we only need to verify his statements, not his basis for them

Thanks.David Justin 16:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Prof. Justin, clearly you have an understanding of how it works. In practice, I do not understand why you are acting to the contrary. please check out the Wikipedia:Verifiability section if you have not already. For example in this change you made on 22 September 2007, you mixed in a combination of assertion that can be verified and assertion that needs verification.[1]
"D.A.R.E. also attempted unsuccessfully to prevent airing of an episode of the TV series "Murphy Brown," in which she used marijuana for medical purposes on advice of her physician. It was argued that the episode “Sent the wrong message to our children.”" The episode in the final season of Murphy Brown is called "Waiting to inhale" which could be verified on an episode guide, series biography, or perhaps by looking back through old issues of TV Guide. However the assertion that D.A.R.E. unsuccessfully tried to prevent the airing of the episode is not backed by a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources as to why this is not a valid source. In fact, the text you sourced at hemotopia.org appears to originally be sourced at jackherer.com, which may or may not be appearing with Mr. Herer's permission. I noted a previous example of an argumentum ad populum statement in the talk page. Please see also Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. I already have pointed out politely places where the statements are unsupported by the references, and then went back and changed the article to fit the context of the reference. I understand your point of view on this article, which is that the D.A.R.E. program is not effective. As I stated before, the sources and statements can stand on their own merits. You have self-published essay material with this point of view on your web sites. This material is linked from the article. This material brought into the article is going against the policy Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox.
Thanks, Group29 18:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Group29- I see your point regarding the Murphy Brown material and have deleted it. Thanks.David Justin 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Century Council

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Century Council, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. --Elonka 01:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Complete Reference

Or you could have done what I did, and went to Google Scholar, typed in Joint Committee of the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence and then clicked on the first result. Don't wikilawyer me when you're too inept/lazy to use a search engine. -- Craigtalbert 01:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alcoholism Citations

Hi David. There are a lot of different opinions on alcoholism out there, so it's very important to enforce verifiability so that readers have the context necessary to evaluate claims for themselves. The issue with your revision was that it mentioned a study, but cited an article about the study from a third party. News articles tend to mangle scientific research, and some books have discussed studies that nobody could verify ever happened, so when you're referencing a scientific study, it's best to reference the author's original research paper from the peer-reviewed scientific journal it appeared in. Hope that helps. --Elplatt 20:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This was cut and pasted from your talk page. Bearian 13:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Century Council

You are welcome. -- Bearian (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prohibition Party stuff

Hi - many thanks for the kind words. Most of the stuff I have is being posted at the site www.ourcampaigns.com, which is a preferable political site. Chronicler3 (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good job on the citations

Thanks for your hard work cleaning up the "citation needed" tags I added to Robert M. Parker, Jr.. That article has high importance to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine and it needs a lot of work. -Amatulic (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jacques Hemmer for speedy deletion

A tag has been placed on Jacques Hemmer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. thegreen J Are you green? 21:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Secular Organizations for Sobriety

A tag has been placed on Secular Organizations for Sobriety requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Berlin Wine Tastings

An editor has nominated Berlin Wine Tastings, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berlin Wine Tastings and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin (3rd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Spiro Keats (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)