User talk:Ksteveh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Ksteveh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Craigtalbert 01:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Narcotics Anonymous, 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 original reference to the article. Thank you. -- Craigtalbert 05:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Questions

There's really no "best way" to respond to talk-page comments. Some users will put a note at the beginning of their user page or user talk page letting people communicate with them know what their preference is. If they don't mention one, in my opinion it's usually best to leave the comments on their talk page because they may not have yours on their watch list, and will get the "new message" box when they log in.

As far as the NA literature issue, wikipedia requires reliable sources for information put in articles. Information that isn't backed up by one is usually what's called original research. This is the term used for what you're describing. Though it may be true enough that there is pervasive anti-AA sentiment in NA, if you're only speaking from your own experience than it's original research. So, if there is no published reliable sources documenting what you're saying, then that information shouldn't be included.

What article are you trying to add the addiction category too? It should look like this [[Category:Addiction]]. -- Craigtalbert 19:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Problems adding categories

Your edit to my talk page, where you added the pianists category worked. The categories may not show up in the preview, but should show after you've saved the edit. -- Craigtalbert 05:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mind-alterting substances

The problem I have with the language "mind-altering substance" is that it is not defined on the CA website, even on the page dedicated to clarifying it [1]. While people in the fellowship may have a clear understanding of what this means, or develop one, a casual reader of the encyclopedia may ask themselves "what do they mean by mind-altering substances?" The language there gets the point across, and unless you can provide a reliable source from CA describing exactly what is meant by "mind-altering substance" it is a lot clearer. -- Craigtalbert 13:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to send me a link to this page: http://www.ca.org/literature/allothermas.htm (it's the same one I linked above). Other than giving some examples of what mind altering substances are (e.g. alcohol, marijuana, cough syrup, etc) it doesn't really give a definition. Like I said before I didn't see a definition on the page. Did I miss it? -- Craigtalbert 17:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If CA is so comparable to NA why would you remove the reference? At any rate, even if there is an "implicit definition" of what CA means by "mind-altering" that does not make the meaning any clearer for a general audience. I reworded the article to try and make your point more specific. -- Craigtalbert 21:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)