User:Dwindrim~enwiki/2004 February Archive

MY PERSONAL SANDBOX

Invited Guests Only
Please do not poop in the sand.

HELLO, VISITOR

Please click here to post a new message.

I added you to the list of Advocates at Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. --Michael Snow 01:06, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In case your interested (you seem to be) I am deeply in favour of animal rights, am a believer in the souls of animals (and reincarnation, for that matter). I simply oppose the intellectual dishonesty/doublespeak of political correctness. I do find political correctness a laughing matter, in any and everyplace it rears its facist head. Such anti-intellectualism certainly has no place here. Sam Spade 23:58, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The ink isn't even dry on Celtiberians! I've been sweating it out for the past hour. Thanks! Wetman 05:01, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed you added drug addiction to VfD. You may want to reconsider this listing as I have now redirected the article to addiction. Angela . 02:20, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

FROM OTHER TALK PAGES

..from Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion

I believe you have identified the crux of the issue, Angela, when you say that this is a discussion about pages to be discussed pending possible deletion. A quick acronymity brings us to P2BDPPD, which is not only short 'n' snappy, but trendy too, and even if it does bear some resemblance to a Bronx cheer, that may remind us all not to take this too seriously.

Okay, I'll be good now. I see a couple of ways of dealing with this. One is to recognise that what Wiki is really doing here is putting an article on trial, with sysops acting as jury. The rest of us know we will be allowed our two cents worth, euro or othewise, for either the prosecution or the defense, but we also know we know we have no vote. And while people might not be willing to get up from in front of their computers to visit "Proposed Suggestions for Possible Deletion, Maybe," they'd be in like a dirty shirt for "Pages on Trial." (And PoT might be a secret draw for some...)

Alternatively, Wiki already has a polling mechanism in place, and no one seriously expects their input to be anything more than, well, input. As the page header says, "Polls are not the same as voting, so the results are not necessarily binding (this is especially true when the result is not a supermajority - at least 75%). However polls are often useful in the process of consensus finding when regular discussion is no longer able to make clear what the opinions of users are." Therefore, the sysops may still conduct their business without feeling "voting pressure."

Hope this helps. Denni 04:44, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)

THE DARK SIDE OF WIKI

..from Talk:Drug addiction

from vfd

Drug addiction - content manually merged with Addiction Denni 23:36, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
- Redirected. Angela . 02:20, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as separate article. Anthony DiPierro 02:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Preferably separate article, if not then redirect. Saul Taylor 03:53, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I'm retracting the request for VfD. Thanks for the redirect, Angela. Denni 06:02, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)

end of VfD discussion --- continuing discussion here, (redirect or not)

- Redirect, should be sufficiently covered in Addiction --Dittaeva 10:45, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anthony wrote in his edit comment:

This is a large page on a separate topic: much more than just a redirect

How is drug addiction separate from addiction? It appears to me that it is a subset thereof and that it would therefore be entirely appropriate to redirect to the addiction article, where the material in this one is already covered. In any case, for a multitude of reasons, massive redundancy like in the current arrangement is unacceptable.—Eloquence 06:15, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Not all the material from this page is contained in the current addiction page. Anthony DiPierro

Then why don't you move over the material which you think is missing?—Eloquence

Because there's enough here for a separate article. Why don't you delete the material you feel is redundant? Anthony DiPierro 00:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you could help me understand why this is an issue for you, Anthony, I might have some ideas and suggestions as to where to take this from here. As I look at drug addiction right now, it seems to me to be dead in the water under that title. I also see that there are already lengthy articles on prohibition and the War on drugs. In all seriousness, what is there left that would constitute more than a stub? Denni 17:47, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)

Are you saying it is only a stub now? What are the parts you want to remove? Anthony DiPierro 17:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you reread what I've said, you'll note that I did not say it was currently a stub. I said it would be a stub if the content already addressed in addiction were removed. I'm not suggesting anything be removed. I believe that drug addiction is properly a subset of a discussion of addiction in general, and hence a page related to drug addiction ought to be directed to addiction unless there is good reason not to. From my perspective, the only thing currently in the drug addiction article that is not in the addiction article is a discussion of the neurochemical processes involved in addiction. If you wish to tackle that, feel free. If not, I have information relating to how different classes of addictive substances affect brain chemistry. In either case, I would far rather be working on that than spending my time barking up a tree here. Denni 20:01, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)

I took the duplicate content out of addiction. Problem solved. Anthony DiPierro 20:18, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Anthony - problem =not= solved. First, you did more than remove duplicate content. You also removed content unique to the article on addiction. Second, despite my rather lengthy response to your concerns as stated above, you have refused to engage in anything remotely resembling debate. Third, while the list of contributors to this discussion is admittedly limited, you remain the only party who insists that drug addiction needs to be treated as an article separate from addiction. Fourth, there has been altogether too much bad behavior here as far as revert wars goes, and I will not be a party to it. I had hoped that this could have been discussed over a cup of eCoffee, but that appears to be not the case, so I will take my case elsewhere. Denni 21:59, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)

When I merged the two, I attempted to carry over as much of value as possible. I did not include the section on the War on Drugs because it seems to be a peculiarly American obsession, and the Classes of Drugs is maintained both with a link to the DEA site and with a regularly updated (and searchable) list at www.streetdrugs.com. I also have difficulty with both the tentative tone ("appears to", "perceived") of the first two paragraphs, and the characterization of addiction as a 'habit,' which it most emphatically is not. In all, it was simply easier to merge the two articles than to correct drug addiction (and be left with two articles which essentially covered the same ground). Denni 06:41, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)

--Drug addiction should be kept as a page separate from addiction--

Drug addiction is a huge topic worthy of its own article.
- There are 945,000 google hits for the term "drug addiction."
- There are 35 articles which link directly to drug addiction, and 3 redirects, with 38 additional pages linking through those redirects.
- The article is several screens long and is much more than just a stub.
- There is a lot of room for improvement and additions to this article, which is far from dead in the water.
- The rule of thumb for combining pages is for pages which have remained less than 1K for several months (see Wikipedia:Page size). This page is currently 2.5K.
Any issues of redundancy with addiction can be resolved by removing that redudancy from addiction.
The article does not substantially duplicate material in prohibition.
The war on drugs section has been reduced to a single sentence.

Please add any counterpoints to a separate section. This list is subject to modification.

--Drug addiction is addiction--

There are five million Google hits for "addiction"
A redirect page never stopped anyone from getting where they wanted to go
The article would be much shorter if it didn't have over fourty drugs listed, each on its own line, essentially duplicating what is on the both external links. Most of the 35 links to this article are from those pages.
Of course there is room for improvement in this article. There is room in any article.
If the rule of thumb is that small pages be combined, then logic dictates that specific pages be grouped into more general ones. One does not place an article on dogs into a page on Dalmations in order to promote efficient use of space.
Same - any issue of redundency in articles on 'dogs' and 'Dalmations' can be resolved by removing the redundency from 'dogs'? You think?
"The article does not substantially duplicate material in prohibition." This is a good thing, considering that drug addiction and prohibition have a whole lot of not much in common.
"The war on drugs section has been reduced to a single sentence." Acceptable. Given that this is an article on addiction, not on regulation or treatment or any other issue not directly related to use, this ought to be added as a "see also," but I can live with it.

..submitted to Angela..

Want to avoid revert war

Hi Angela -

I'd appreciate it if you could stop by Talk:Drug addiction and do a quick read of the conversation (if that description applies) between Anthony DiPierro and myself. The addiction page contains no reference to drug addictions at all now except for a link to drug addiction, and a valuable external link is gone. I hope you can appreciate my dismay. I'd like your perspective as a neutral party - if I'm out of line, I certainly want to know.

I have no wish to take on a revert war. It is not good for the blood pressure, it is not fair to other sysops, and it is a thorough waste of time when I could be working on other articles. I'm here to learn, to teach, to have fun - not to play childish games.

Thanks for letting me vent.

Denni 22:10, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring the above request. I'm just not online for very long today. I will have a look when I'm back tomorrow if it is still unresolved by then. Angela . 23:44, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

--(in the meantime...)--

--Drug Addiction--

Let me know when you're done your major edits to drug addiction. I thought you were done but apparently you weren't. Also, your merge was quite inadequate, I assume you're addressing that. Anthony DiPierro 21:40, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

..My response..

--Drug addiction--

I'd like to say I'm finished revising, but as we both know, an editor's work is never done.

"Also, your merge was quite inadequate," Thanks, Anthony - that's very helpful criticism. My merging skills will improve with time. I hope your social skills do too. Denni

--drug abuse--

What's "depite" mean? Why did you revert all my edits? Anthony DiPierro 22:09, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

..My response..

--Depite--

Shorthand for 'despite.' Used when one is trying to get something done hastily, feeling that someone else is working to undercut them.

I didn't revert anything. All changes were typed in by hand with no reference to previous contents.

Denni

--drug addiction--

I'll ask again, then. Let me know when you're done so I can fix your spelling and grammar without being reverted. Anthony DiPierro 22:31, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

..My response..

--Drug addiction--

I'm finished for now. If you can find grammatical errors, more power to you. I removed the sentence on the war on drugs in haste; please see my comments on the talk page.

I feel quite silly that we have to squabble about a worthwhile article. Whether it is a stand-alone or part of a broader article on addiction is secondary to whether it is informative, well-written, and capable of assisting someone who is looking for timely, accurate information. I'm prepared to leave this issue alone for a while if you are.

Denni 22:55, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)

--Angela's response--

Am I right to assume that your last comment "Agreed. I'm happy with the article as it stands now, and have no problem with removing the request to redirect." means the dispute is over? If not, let me know if you still need me to help with anything. Angela . 07:00, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

---

Am I right to assume that your last comment "Agreed. I'm happy with the article as it stands now, and have no problem with removing the request to redirect." means the dispute is over? If not, let me know if you still need me to help with anything. Angela. 07:00, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back, Angela. I can only speak from my perspective. If M. DiPierro insists that there be a separate article on drug addiction, and it is well-written and comprehensive, then let's make sure it is. I therefore took the time to add some value to the article, in such a way that including it as a section in addiction would have unbalanced that article and required it to be rewritten. I am satisfied that the drug addiction article now has some value beyond repeating what was on the addiction page. Not having heard from AP, I cannnot say if he wishes to continue the dispute or not. If he does, he will have to find a mirror to do so.

Thanks also for your offer of help - you just did. I've been wondering how to create archive pages, and wanting to set up a clipping section. I went to your useful stuff section - question answered.

Just one question: in reading through one of the special pages, I noted a user who had found himself in trouble for, it appeared, changing/deleting information on his own userpage. Did I misinterpret, or are there really guidlines (beyond the obvious) for userpages?

Angela is a 26 year old sysop from England who avoids Wikistress by doing Wikipedia maintenance tasks. She has been accused of being a wikipediholic, a deletionist, a vandal, a problem user and a Perl script!

I just looked at 10000. You ARE the Queen of Rock 'n' Roll! I therefore accuse you of being a Hun and a Visigoth, so now you can call your set complete :)

--- Just one question: in reading through one of the special pages, I noted a user who had found himself in trouble for, it appeared, changing/deleting information on his own userpage. Did I misinterpret, or are there really guidlines (beyond the obvious) for userpages?

That is always a really hard question. There are no agreed guidelines really, apart from the one that says Wikipedia is not a personal homepage. As long as you aren't using your user page, or subpages of it, for things that really ought to be on a separate website, you should be ok. As an example User:Sterlingda/Free Energy is not acceptable, and pages like this will be deleted eventually. I'm guessing the case you read about was User:BuddhaInside. The issue there was that he refused to listen to complaints about the way he kept blanking his pages. It was like he was doing it to prove some point and continued to do it relentlessly. More recently, there was the case of User:Mr Natural Health, who raised concerns about editing his own user pages when people were posting complaints there and they felt others should be able to see those. For user who generally behave well though, people don't mind too much what they do with their user and talk page. Wikipedia:user page, and its talk page, might give you some more information, but the page isn't very well developed yet as there is no policy as such. Angela . 01:33, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Per your request, I've made some edits at Totalitarian democracy, hope you'll accept them a friendly, if not, get hold of me. I'm not familiar with the book that you say first put forward the term, so I might go astray. I'm coming into the article as a pretty pure "editor", not an originator of factual research. I do think the article as it stands is (very) POV. I've put a detailed critique in the talk page. Hope you'll find it useful. No need for you to answer me point by point, unless you disagree. If you agree, just get in there and edit the article! -- Jmabel 06:43, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hi, I'm not completely sure what you are referring to, but there has always been a policy, or guideline at least, that comments on Cleanup should be very short. Generally they are not signed either, and they are never meant to include timestamps, so if someone is editing those out, then that is probably explained at Wikipedia:Cleanup process. If that's not what you meant, let me know. Angela . 08:12, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Concerning your images

This is incompatible with the GNUFL, and as such the images can't be used by Wikipedia. Could you please replace it with something like: "©2004 DWindrim licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more info.

I would consider it a great loss if you choose not to license them under GNUFDL as I find some of them quite useful to the articles.

Also the new Atmospheric circulation (and the old one too) image is black on my screen, the NO TEXT version is not. --Dittaeva 13:15, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for following my advice about GFDL despite your concerns.--Dittaeva 11:59, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Very good comment

I just wanted to say that I read your comment on the AMA membership list and your frank statement really does make me feel that starting the Association was a good thing. The expression of your spirit of cooperation that is needed here and underscoring the need to try and prevent people from running away from this project (as I almost did recently) is admirable. As everything here is structured it is hard to make a voluntary association work that isn't tied into editing pages, but I think there is a real need for conciliation and communication between editors who have differing points of view about content or about how Wikipedia should operate. Hopefully the AMA can assist that process of growth and help prevent Wikipedia from getting to bogged down in bureaucratic structure and rule based entitlements. If you ever need any help as an advocate, don't hesitate to contact me. Yours, — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk]

I think you might have left a message on my talk page that was meant to go elsewhere?? Angela . 21:53, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)