User talk:Guttlekraw

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, Guttlekraw! I hope you like the place and decide to keep contributing. Since I see you've already been active here, let me just give you a few links that are always useful as a handy reference guide:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question at the village pump or feel free to ask me on my Talk page.
Oh, and just in case you don't already know: to sign your name on a Talk page like I did below, the easiest way is just to type four tildes (~~~~). To customize your signature, look here.
And remember:Be Bold!

Your edits[edit]

You seem to be intentionally changing drug abuse to recreational drug use, and this is not helping the original intent of the content you have changed, nor is such a change accurate in the contexts you have altered. I have reverted all of your changes. --Viriditas | Talk 23:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See comment above. Also, you deleted a perfectly valid link. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Try again without deleting the link. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good guess; the programs did not suggest abstention from all drugs (e.g. alcohol), but responsible use. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guttlekraw, your edits have not been reverted without "explaining". Your claim that Use is a statment of fact..Abuse is a point of view, in the context of the articles in question is false and misleading. In fact, you have been adding the term, "recreational drug use" to contexts involving stated drug abuse, and that's why you have been reverted. You have also failed to provide sources for your POV, probably because you can't find any. --Viriditas | Talk 00:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:A Scanner Darkly. Any reputable sources substantiating your opinion in direct relation to the topic may be accepted. --Viriditas | Talk 00:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have notified you when you have been reverted, included edit summaries, and I have replied to all of your questions either on your talk page or on the article talk page. --Viriditas | Talk 00:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding sex education, you cannot prove a negative, so don't waste your time. --Viriditas | Talk 00:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please take all of your issues to the appropriate talk pages and we will discuss them there. You don't need to use my talk page for this, but I appreciate you taking the time to contact me. I'm going offline for about an hour, but will return to reply. --Viriditas | Talk 00:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peer review requests[edit]

The peer review requests you submitted for A Scanner Darkly, Francis Ford Coppola, and Sex education have been archived as per the Peer review Request removal policy. As your requests deal primarily with an editing dispute, please look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for better ways to address your needs. --Allen3 ^talk 13:57, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on an article. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Viriditas | Talk 19:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After you were warned about the 3RR, you violated it on Francis Ford Coppola:

You also violated the 3RR on A Scanner Darkly:

And, you came close to violating the 3RR on Drug abuse:

--Viriditas | Talk 21:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're misinformed, as complex reverts are classified as reverts. You have violated the revert rule twice. --Viriditas | Talk 21:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please be very careful not to violate the Wikipedia:Three revert rule in the future, it would be most unfortunate if you did so and were blocked as a result. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Drug abuse[edit]

Let's reference this 'medical definition' that is 'accepted'. We can all agree that a certain medical textbook or eminent doctor or medical society or something uses this definition - can you tell us who? I am not wanting to 'redefine' the term, simply state that not everyone agrees with this. I can reference, if you like, various advocacy groups who are of the opinion that not all use of illicit drugs is 'abuse'. Guttlekraw 03:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have asked you to take this discussion to the talk page of drug abuse. Whether you agree with it or not, the reference is Medine Plus Medical Encyclopedia, run by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Regarding your comments, you again seem to have not understood what you have read. I have now explained this to you twice. The defintion does not say that the use of illicit drugs is "abuse". Read it again until you understand it. Advocacy groups are relevant to political topics, but they have no bearing on scientific or medical definitions. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I'm sure certain statements by some advocacy groups might be relevant, but not if your intent is to redefine things outside their expertise, as you are trying to do, and have been doing on various articles. Please respond on the Talk:Drug abuse page. --Viriditas | Talk 04:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The definition that is currently on the substance abuse page seems acceptable to me. A redirection from the drug abuse page to the substance abuse page would clear up this argument a great deal. A subsection or paragraph can exist on the substance abuse page to outline the legal distinction between substance and drug abuse, but there is no scientific/medical distinction between the legal (alcohol, nicotine, caffeine) and illegal (thc, opioids, stimulants) groupings of substances. Alcohol and nicotine are drugs, and should not be scientifically segregated due to their legal status. Hence it would be in the best interest of everyone to get rid of the drug abuse page as soon as possible. --Thoric 17:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW - thanks for adding a notice asking noone but Viriditas to edit it - could you check that though? It's not my understanding that V wants to merge those two pages. For how long do you want people not to edit it? What happens if he does not, in fact, intend to merge these pages? Drug abuse right now is a POV rant about how drugs are bad. I think that's a problem.

Well, according to his comments earlier, he agreed with the merger. It makes sense to me to merge the two, because it's all the same stuff. Of note, a page titled, "Drug Abuse", does give one the idea that the article would primarily document the negative consequences of drug use. The intention is to separate the advocacy and adversity pages from the primary subject pages. So, for example, the Drug page should point to the Substance abuse page, rather than contain any information specific to drug abuse. It can also point to the Recreational drug use and Responsible drug use pages. Just as we don't want the responsible drug use page to contain much in the way of anti-drug POV, we have to allow the same consideration for "drugs are bad" pages. If we allow POV to clutter the primary articles, it makes them difficult to read and hard to find the factual information without getting lost in the argument. --Thoric 20:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As User:Viriditas points out, you need to cite your sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A number of your edits have made unsourced claims. As well, they seem to all revolve around replaing the phrase "drug abuse" with "drug use" in various articles, implying that drugs can only be used, but never abused. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the context is important, and also that the term "drug abuse" is overused, and should be corrected to read "drug use" when it makes sense to do so. It is to be expected that this will raise firey debate... just look at Talk:Opioid and you'll see the big debate I had on the issue, which finally compromised at the current state of the page. So while I (and many others) agree with what you are trying to accomplish (correction of the over-use of the term "drug abuse" where it should be "drug use"), you need to be careful how you go about it, and try not to fight too much with the people who are on your side ;) As for when you get asked to cite references for things like Harm reduction, I agree that all you should have to say is, "References available under Harm reduction", but unfortunately that isn't good enough for some, so when a dispute arises, you can first point them at websites like www.harmreduction.org, but may also have to make specific reference to harm reduction studies done by various governments and organizations. It's sometimes difficult, but you have to try not to take it as though people are saying, "we don't believe you -- prove it to me", but instead that they are saying, "that sounds great -- please provide some references so that we can support that position if it is contested". It's easier for you to provide a reference for information you have come across in your own research that to expect someone else to hunt it down for you. A perfect article devoid of references to support it is in danger of being slashed and picked apart by someone with an opposing view (especially if they have references to prove otherwise). Most of the people you have been fighting with are on the same side :) --Thoric 22:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A revert is a revert; it returns the page to the previous version. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your dispute with Veriditas[edit]

Guttlekraw, I notice that your revert war with this user spans several articles. I'd like to ask you not to revert each other without discussion on the talk page. It's anti-social, and not conducive to collaborative editing. Intrigue 15:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

Hi Guttlekraw, you have been temporarily blocked from editing for a 3RR violation at R2-D2. If you feel this block is unfair, please feel free to e-mail me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:33, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Your block is over now, so you should be able to edit again. I just checked the log and it seems to have finished: sometimes there's an autoblock that also has to be removed, but I didn't see one. Are you still having problems editing with this account? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:34, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

edit summaries[edit]

I notice some of your edit summaries have bordered on personal attacks, if they have in fact not crossed over that line. This is not productive behavior, please try to avoid it. I have made the same suggestion on V's talk page. Osmodiar 10:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User accounts[edit]

Hi Guttlekraw, I have a query about the number of accounts and IP addresses you seem to be editing under. Are you also using User:All your base are belong to us? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Guttlekraw. You currently use User:Guttlekraw, User:Guttlekraw2, User:Guttlekraw3; you ask your friend User:All your base are belong to us to make edits for you; and User:Intrigue makes similar edits to you on the same pages, with a tendency to back you up. There is no policy against having multiple accounts, though it's discouraged, but you're not allowed to use them to circumvent policy, or to make it appear that a position has more support than it does. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet. If your friend User:All your base are belong to us makes one more edit on the same page as you, I'll block the account indefinitely; if User:Intrigue backs you up in a way that suggests you're the same user, or in a way that circumvents policy, I'm going to block whichever account was created second, Guttlekraw or Intrigue, again indefinitely. Also, in case you didn't notice, you may have violated 3RR again at Drug abuse yesterday. If you did, or if you violate 3RR anywhere again, you'll be blocked without warning. Please try to start editing within our policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:53, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

There's no policy on friends editing the same pages, but when you ask a friend to make edits for you, that friend is regarded as your sockpuppet in relation to those edits. Perhaps you could advise your friend that s/he is now under suspicion of being your sockpuppet, and that the best way to squash those suspicions is for you both not to edit the same pages for awhile. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'll take a look — we are allowed to look without becoming sockpuppets ;-) — but I can't get involved in editing the page in case I have to take admin action in relation to it. If you want to consider mediation, formal or informal, let me know, and say which page you're most concerned about. The way to sort out most disputes is to edit strictly within our policies, the most important of which are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; you might also want to look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Cite sources. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:24, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 04:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Cleavage.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Cleavage.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Cleavage.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Cleavage.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]