User talk:Dala11a

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Stop vandalizing Wikipedia

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry, I have added an reference, the same source as a picture on the same page--Dala11a (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) ?[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

Editing other's comments

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

On my alleged unspecified claims

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

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)[reply]

Do you have a ref for the CN tag you removed? [4] NJGW (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a source to Canabis(drug) section New...Dala11a (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Sorry, once more. Dala11a (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 user is a member of WikiProject Drug Policy.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Racism

I assume that what you previously wrote [8] ("Drug prohibitions is a part of the laws in /.../ many countries with very little racism.") somewhat involves Sweden. I suggest you read this: Apropå: Fördomar finns även i rättssalarna (Prejudice also exists in court), for example criminologist Tove Pettersson have shown that immigrants are more likly to be suspected and arrested for drug use then natives. The reason is not stated as rasism, but as prejudism - but its viewed that way by some immigrants, and its not made better by the very few policemen who in fact are racists. There are groups raping about innocent young immigrants being harassed by the cops. [9] A third of the suspicions when it comes to young people tends to come out negative. I would not be surprised if these rappers notion is true and a disproportionate number of those who were falsely arrested were first or second generation immigrants. Steinberger (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current Swedish drugs penal code was created in 1968 at a time when Sweden had very few immigrants from non-Nordic countries. In addition, it was a time of labour shortages, the immigrants who came had, in general, a job very quickly.Dala11a (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The racist argument against prohibition is about present day reality and it does not have anything to do with history - at least not the argument present in the article in question - so I don't know what your answer is about. In fact I don't know what's wrong with you really, I bet you didn't even read the argument you wrote counterarguments for as you "knew" what they were about. Steinberger (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On copying text from websites...

Under the "Save page" button there is a line for you to notice:

Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted.

Steinberger (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EU does not publish its material as GFDL nor do they put it in the public domain. This is a final warning and the next time you copy something from a non GFDL-website, I will notice a sysop (and you would probably get banned). Steinberger (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to quote this webb page- [10] "Important legal notice The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer, a copyright notice and rules related to personal data protection." ...

"Copyright notice

© European Communities, 1995-2008 Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or use of textual and multimedia information (sound, images, software, etc.), such permission shall cancel the above-mentioned general permission and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use."

So "reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated." and I have not find any notice about that reproduction is prohibited for the copied text lines. Conclusion I have followed the law.

I think this question need to be discussed on a higher level in Wikipedia.Dala11a (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, Jeepday (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another response at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, Jeepday (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE USE THE PREVIEW BUTTON

please use the preview button when making your edits so that you do not have several edits in a row in the article history. this makes it very cumbersome when reviewing the article history, and also makes it hard on editors who need to undo your biased edits. Badmachine (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The turn...

"The turn to stricter drug politics came in the late 70s. The official politics had been critized and debated by many people and organizations during the later half of the decade. RNS and Nils Bejerot played important parts in this. The turning point came 1980 when the Prosecuting General sent out new directions to the local prosecutors stating that every possession of illegal drugs should be taken to court and not written off as had been the practice for many years." - from About RNS Steinberger (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Reinforcement of the control elements of drug policy has been evident since the late 1960s. In table 1 shows important changes in legislation since the new drug law came into force in 1968. Criminal law is expanding throughout the period. Also the application of the law tightened gradually. The number of narcotics police is increasing ( Figure 1), the number sentenced to prison for drug offences is increasing (Figure 2) and the proportion of drug users among inmates in prison increases (Figure 3)" (Henrik Tham, 2003)page, 5 Dala11a (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Please do not remove templates that have not been addressed. NJGW (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ärligt talat...

Vad tror du att du håller på med? EMCDDA var oklart i copyright hänseende, det kan jag hålla med om. Men Globe and Mail och Drug Free America reserverar sig alla rättigheter. Lägg ner att klippa och klistra. Det är explicit förbjudet och det har jag och andra påpekat förut. Steinberger (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really should do something about your grammar... However on this diff: [11] Knutsson does infact himself avow that there is not evidence for further conclusions, eg a positive effect on problem drug use. Steinberger (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

En sak om ECNN-rapporter: De är alla i viss mån unika och diskuterar sinsemellan olika saker; man bör inte förvänta sig att slutsatser skall repeteras, åtminstone inte förrän samma ämnen diskuteras på nytt. Steinberger (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Var hittar du kritiken mot Insite i denna pdf som du använt som källa för kritik mot Insite? Klipp gärna in ett stycke här under och sätt fet stil på det relevanta stycket så en fåkunnig förstår... MVH Steinberger (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insite is not mentioned by name but the description in the text match the Insite project to 100%. That is no coincidence. The news site Drugnews run by some of the organization behind World Forum against drugs published in August 2008 a critical article about Insite. [12]. The Canadian health minister Tony Clement was also one of the 450 participants on the conference.

Han var inte alls där enligt denna pressrelease. Steinberger (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but the press release about the last minute changes in the program also show that the organizations behind the conference have sympathy for Clements criticism of Insite, he was an invited as a speaker. You have delivered another argument for that a quote from the Declaration of World Forum ... is relevant in the article Insite. Dala11a (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Din förmåga att läsa mellan raderna blir bara än mer förbluffande... när kom jag med ett argument för att ha med deklarationsklippet i Insite-artikeln? Steinberger (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good source

Good job on finding the source for Not Even Once being used at demand reduction [13]. True, it could have been formatted a little better, but that's the sort of straight forward reporting using good sources Wikipedia needs more of. NJGW (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Drug policy of Sweden. 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. You can not copy/paste. You have been warned about this before. NJGW (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Påföljder

Angående detta vill jag bara säga att maxstraffen visst är 10 år (inte 9 som jag skrev från början) men att flera olika, men eventuellt relaterade, brott kan bakas samman i en längre påföljd. I exemplet som beskrivs i tidningsartikeln kan man tänka sig att de gjort sig skyldiga till både smuggling (från Holland till Norge) och narkotikabrott (innehav och eventuellt försäljning i Sverige) eller helt enkelt att de lyckats påvisa att smugglingen genomförts flera gånger, eller vad vet jag - jag är ju ingen jurist. Hur som helst är det två saker. Jag har försökt att ändra i artikeln till allas belåtenhet. Steinberger (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ur brottsbalken

”26 kap. Om fängelse. "2 § Fängelse får användas såsom gemensamt straff för flera brott, om fängelse kan följa på något av brotten. Fängelse på viss tid får sättas över det svåraste av de högsta straff som kan följa på brotten men får inte överstiga de högsta straffen sammanlagda med varandra. Det får inte heller överskrida det svårastestraffet med mer än” … ”3. fyra år, om det svåraste straffet är fängelse i åtta år eller längre. Vid tillämpningen av andra stycket skall bötesstraff anses motsvara fängelse fjorton dagar.”

Din kommentar är således både rätt och fel. För att staffet skall bli längre än 10 år måste personen dömas för mer än ett brott, men om huvudbrottet ger 10 år så räcker det med att var och en av övriga brott var för sig ger böter så riskerar personen ett längre straff. I praktiken har personer som döms för så omfattande smuggling eller liknande normalt även begått en eller flera andra brott, till ex. narkotikabrott vid flera olika tillfällen. Detta gör det möjligt för åklagaren att yrka mer än 10 år. I extrema fall kan personer som är dömda till 14 års fängelse och som sedan begår nya brott få påbackning med 4 år extra så det maximala staffet är 18 år men det är ett specialfall som jag inte tycker är relevant. +"14 års fängelse" +"grovt narkotikabrott" ger 1340 träff i Google så 14 år verkar var något som tillämpas i praktiken. Dala11a (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be on the same page on this issue. I have also noticed that chapter and those paragraphs in the criminal code. For anyone else interested in whats written above; it's about the difference between the maximum penalty for drug offenses and the maximum penalty a court can issue. It is not unusual that heavily criminal elements dealing with drugs are guilty of many cases of drug offenses or other crimes then just the drug offense leading to longer sentences then the maximum for that crime. As dalla11a writes, ten years plus and up to fourteen years are not uncommon and eighteen years is the absolute maximum, but the latter is only available if a crime is committed, giving more then six years, while waiting to serve the sentence or while serving it (very rare but also occurring). Steinberger (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English

Please see my comment at Stienberger's talk page. You guys need to communicate in English when editing on en.wikipedia. NJGW (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drug policy

You are misreading the text. Do not revert to the poor English version again as it is a misrepresentation of the sources and poor grammar. We've been through this and if you continue it will be considered disruptive. NJGW (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insite

[14] I have read the source given for that statement and "Out of all the reports on Insite, it was Mangham's review that Health Minister Tony Clement waved triumphantly when he argued the evidence on Insite's benefits was still inconclusive." [15] It was not one among a couple, the article truly suggest that the magnham-report is "the" report Clement uses to criticize insite. So where is the source to substantiate "among others" or "inter alia"? Steinberger (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read the source above again and try to find a quote from Tony Clement like "this is my only source". You can not find that. Ministers normally have several close advisers and receive reports from many persons. Information from many sources is the normal situation for a minster if it is not a complete new situation and that is not the case here. And don´t you think Tony Clement talk to his friends about Insite, read the local newspapers or read texts on the Internet etc. about Insite. Dala11a (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion project

Your request for a third opinion has been edited to comply with Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute. If your entry as originally worded contained information vital to an understanding of the dispute, please add those details to the article talk page where the dispute exists. Thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 16:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK.Dala11a (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To comment my revision to your change of Athaenaras rewording of your request of third opinion. In principle I believe that if the source is reliable, its findings could be summarized. You have tried to have this report and its findings summarized before but I deleted it on the grounds of reliability with support from SilberoS. This is the obvious question for me, is it not? You don't only want it to be mentioned, but also give a summary of it. I can agree to mention it, but not to give a in-depth summary of its findings. Steinberger (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Thanks for experimenting with the page Cannabis (drug) on Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. 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. Thank you. You used a source which did not support the statement from which you removed the fact tag. Please read the sources more carefully from now on. NJGW (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Drug policy of the United States. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. The statement clearly agreed with the source. Please stop changing correct articles with incorrect statements. NJGW (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NJGW, please read the source before you use the big words, compare "When asked to choose from among five policy options, only 16% of economists favored complete legalization." [16]

I did read it... including the conclusion. Don't cherry pick details and present them as conclusive evidence. NJGW (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[17] Could you please tell me why a general statement made by WFAD on SIS et al, should be referd to in the Insite article? I would say that it is a coincidence that WFAD made that statement, that you are speculating or making things up in your own mind to get it in. I have read drugnews article from the other time we discussed this, where Tony Clement is said to attend the forum. But in that article his presumed attended was told as one in a series of unrelated notices from Canada. That is nothing to build upon. I want a better source where there is direct reference to Insite or for you to write about the conference findings in the proper article on SIS and not insite in specific. Steinberger (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article state "Insite is the first legal supervised injection site in North America," The first and only. Dala11a (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I doubt that Insite is the only site in North America, what does that have to do with anything? Personally I think it is more plausible that the SIS programs in Norway and Denmark were more important to WDAF then Canada's Insite - however, that is purely a speculation from my part. Steinberger (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

I think you should reevaluate your perceptions about popular psychology. As I have learned to know you, I don't feel you are the one to have elitist ideas denouncing public notions as bogus just because they rather have there origins outside the academia then inside. However, I have a hard time interpreting your actions regarding Codependency in any other way. Because, really, that academic authors have tried to define this pop psychology concept does not make the concepts origins less popular. Steinberger (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Please take a note on what types of external links Wikipedia should have. Links to a dictionary entry with a slightly different wording is not what should be included. Steinberger (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to consider your clear violations of policy to be vandalism. This edit crossed the line. Either follow the clear and very reasonable conventions that have been well established at this project or move to a different project. NJGW (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

???? What was the problem with "this edit"? It do not link to any dictionary. Dala11a (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you have been warned about your OR and COI edits so many times that there is obviously no point in doing so any further. You don't seem to care about wikipedia's policies. That's a shame. Please edit within policy or do not edit. NJGW (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reply to my question, what was the problem with my edit "but it is clear that there are such." User:Dala11a|Dala11a]] (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a major problem, if you don't know the answer yourself. The edit reflects an opinion you have tried very hard to have inserted into the article in the past, but it has no basis in the scientific literature. Do you really not see a problem with such edits?

You've been warned about such edits (and about other edits which completely mischaracterize sources) many times. You have even admitted to having these opinions based on personal and emotional experiences, not based on any sort of expertise in the field. It is sad but I am afraid that maybe there is no point in warning you anymore. Learn the policies so that you do not have to be reminded all the time, because otherwise your edits will continue to be highly disruptive to the WP project. NJGW (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do not you just admit that your complain about "this edit" was falseDala11a (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had a source to back up your claim, you would have used it long ago, after the first 20 times you were asked for one. NJGW (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the dutch study you referred to in effects of cannabis, from the article: "Psychosis-free adolescents who begin to use cannabis seem to constitute a vulnerable group. Our findings suggest that cannabis use should be discouraged by parents, teachers, and health workers. Prevention of cannabis use might lower the risk for future psychotic symptoms. However, it may be the case that cannabis use and psychotic symptoms share a common underlying vulnerability." So what did they conclude? Still nothing. Steinberger (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask me, there is a conclusion in the source, and it is not nothing Dala11a (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Effects of cannabis, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. NJGW (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not say what you wrote. You willfully omitted the "a common vulnerability with varying order of onset"-part. Steinberger (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I had included the full text of the short conclusion had you or NJWG claimed that I broke the copyright rules. The only logic in your comlain is, do not write in this articleDala11a (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the alternatives are 1) misrepresenting the findings of a research report 2) copy and pasting the abstract conclusion or 3) not writing. Then you are right, do not write. Steinberger (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Your latest edits in Zero Tolerance shows that you have no scruples when it comes to violating the rules of Wikipedia. How many times have people told you about rules against original research and original synthesis? The more people inform you, the more you seem to be a bad-faith vandal rather then a good-faith contributor as you keep ignoring the rules, pushing your point of view. Steinberger (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your last attempt to stop any text about zero tollerance except our own is clearly against a lot of principles for Wikipedia.Dala11a (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to that principle? I really did not know Wikipedia had a principle for including nonsense not directly attributable to the sources given. Steinberger (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This] is the verdicts forming part of the praxis in Sweden. The attorney general would like the court to rise the penalty for amphetamine use and, in another case heroin use in a effort to differentiate between the use of different types of narcotic drugs. However, the majority of the court did not concur. The praxis as uphold in the verdicts is a 30 day-fine, regardless of what drug is involved. Steinberger (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana

Thank you for your contributions to Cannabis (drug). Unfortunately, you seem to have confused it for a page on public policy. Please keep your POV pushing out of this article. Thanks. 69.127.18.249 (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The text you have suggested gives the impression that there is consensus on the issue, that is POV. I added a few words with a source who revealed that views on this issue is very fragmented and I mean not only not among politicians but also among researchersDala11a (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of World Federation Against Drugs

A tag has been placed on World Federation Against Drugs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of World Fedration Against Drugs

A tag has been placed on World Fedration Against Drugs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deleting of this article, started by me, was correct. It included a spelling error in the name of the articel and I just did not know how to delete it completely.Dala11a (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop editing Wikipedia

Your edits are not sourced, don't make sense, are bias and are not helpful to anyone reading the article. If you want to advertise unsubstantiated claims, make your own website.

ANI

Please see this ANI discussion, where your recent edits to War on Drugs are being discussed. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can not find the discussion you refer to. And I have asked for a help by a third party that look on your claims. Dala11a (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Not hearing that" about WP:SYNTH at War on Drugs

Dala11a, it really does seem that this may be a WP:IDHT issue with you and your edits at the War on Drugs article (just [18][19] since I've been watching the article after responding to your request for a third opinion, but I understand you to have a more extensive history with this issue...).
With regard to only those two edits, and further to my 3O: I have to agree that I do not see support for your edit given by the source you cite for it, and I do not think it would improve the article to add that information in the way you have been trying to. It really does seem to be a WP:SYNTH violation to me. I would be willing to discuss with you further why I think so if you want to talk more about that with me.
Regards, WikiDao ☯ 21:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a book that state that DuPont focused on competing with silk, not on hemp, from summer 1936. The Nylon Drama," by David A. Hounshell and John Kenly Smith Jr., Invention and Technology (Fall, 1988), Cambridge University Press : 40-t55. DuPonts Ryon department reported in summer 1936 "about a "high quality yarn superior to natural silk" that would have a large market at two dollars a pound that could be produced for 80 cents a pound. [20]. Is this book also WP:IDHT or WP:SYNTH or original research???Dala11a (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That book states that DuPont wanted to compete with silk, NOT that DuPont DID NOT also want to compete with hemp, there is a difference.Yonskii (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book also show that DuPont very easy could sell all nylon DuPont could produce. Nylon was the new outstanding product, a once in a life time dream for a sales department. What producers of hemp had invented was irrelevant for them since the demand for nylon was so much bigger than what DuPont could produce. Dala11a (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Medical cannabis, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Misspellings and format errors, you have been advised in the past many times to be more careful. Mjpresson (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example: you changed "refers to" to "my refere". That's how you spelled it. Please don't make disruptive edits in this matter. Mjpresson (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Request Lodged

Dalla11a, I believe that a dispute over the use of various articles from the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice(JGDPP), which started back in 2008 with Steinberger's removal of your text about Colin Mangham's critique on Insite, and which has escalated onto three separate Wikipedia pages, needs to be resolved externally because all parties to this dispute have not been able to resolve it amicably, nor does it seem likely it will ever be resolved between us. I have named you as a party to the arbitration because of your involvement in describing the Mangham article, which I have later tried to revive once much of it was removed by Steinberger or other parties. The other parties I have named in this dispute requiring arbitration are Jmh649 and OhioStandard, who both have continued to remove text about JGDPP articles from the three pages Needle-exchange programme, Insite and Supervised injection site, even after it was definitively demonstrated that the JGDPP is peer-reviewed, and one of whom also edited out your comments on Real Women of Canada very recently on the Insite page. Minphie (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Illicit Drug Interventions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Can you be involved with complaint on Steinberger's conduct - 'disruptive editing'?

Dala11a

I am following through on suggestions from a request for arbitration lodged 27 July 2011 here – see yellow section where further dispute resolution was encouraged around the issue of contributors blocking text describing Colin Mangham's Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice (JGDPP) critique of research pertaining to Vancouver's Insite supervised injecting facility.

I am in the process of tracking through on a number of suggestions by arbitrators, starting first with a Request for Comment/User Conduct on Steinberger's Wikipedia conduct.

I have reviewed his/her reversions of your contributions since 2008, and believe that there are an extensive number of examples where s/he clearly contravenes Wikipedia policy with disruptive editing in various different ways. One of these issues was confirmed back in 2008 when third-party User:Jclemens intervened in Steinberger’s constant and intractable reversions of your text re Colin Mangham and his criticism – criticism cited by the Canadian government as part of its reason for closing down Insite, and therefore of crucial importance to the Insite page. I have since confirmed with the Journal’s editor that JGDPP was always peer-reviewed and that any claims to the contrary came either from those researchers who were directly criticized by Mangham (Wood and Kerr) or otherwise by someone who simply gave an unedified guess, therefore not worthy of Wikipedia.

The disruptive editing issues (some of which were aimed at you) are consistent with what I believe to be a possible motive of Wikipedia censorship. I have recorded the issues and diffs demonstrating each, all of which you no doubt will not have time to review, however you might want to look at the ones referring to Steinberger’s conduct with your edits. The issues I have recorded are:

A. Constant deletion of reliable sources

[21] – observation from an uninvolved third party

[22] – observation from an uninvolved third party

[23] – observation from another uninvolved third party

[24] – ridiculous claim JGDPP article, referenced by you, is a ‘prank’!!

[25] – wipes your valid text

[26] – wipes your valid text

[27] – entirely removes your JGDPP text by stealth via two serial reverts of your text

[28] – this is just old-fashioned bullying re your edits

[29] – any nonsense excuse to keep my text off the page

B. Long history of deletion of large slabs of undisputed text not amenable to his/her view

[30] – deletes 13 paragraphs of new text with the nuisance rationale of NPOV – note that this text has remained on the Safe Injection Site since it was demonstrated that Steinberger’s rationale had no basis

[31] – deletes paragraphs of correct, cited, notable and undisputed text on Canadian Government’s Expert Advisory Committee

[32] – deletes 3 paragraphs of correct, notable and undisputed text on Canadian Government’s Expert Advisory Committee while claiming to delete JGDPP content only

[33] – deletes paragraph on Real Women of Canada with no explanation

[34] deletes 3 paragraphs of correct, notable and undisputed text on Canadian Government’s Expert Advisory Committee while claiming to delete JGDPP content only

C. Contesting reliability of source once its reliability has been established

On 1 March 2011 I posted an e-mail from the JGDPP editor unequivocally demonstrating that the JGDPP was peer-reviewed. Steinberger totally ignores this definitive clarification:

D. Ignoring third-party input

a. Third party declares DFA a reliable source (with attribution) - [40] Steinberger discards advice deleting text again - [41]

b. Third party input in favour of JGDPP as reliable source - [42] (where OhioStandard was a previous disputant and not neutral third party [43], [44]) Steinberger deletes regardless – [45]

E. Disruptive cite-tagging

Steinberger sought third opinion on RS/N - [46] a year later discards third party advice [47], [48] and persists with nonsense objections when challenged - [49], also [50]

F. Edit-warring

Steinberger has also been blocked for edit-warring [51]

Another user called DocJames or Jmh649 has been involved supporting Steinberger on some of these tendentious edits by reverting back to his edits when I have corrected them, but I will take this up later ie whether this was collaboration or just lack of due diligence on his part.

Appreciate if you could let me know whether you wish to be involved for the sake of more accurate reporting on Wikipedia. Minphie (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to say that I do not really understand the question, "to be involved" (how?, in what?). Sometimes user Steinberger come with completely accurate observations about shortcomings in what I wrote, but other times, his edits and erasure was completely unwarranted. On occasion I have asked for an opinion from a third party to put an end to his editing or deleting of some text that I wrote. I have the impression that user Steinberger sometimes is more than one person. Dala11a (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that there are times when Steinberger has had accurate observations which have improved the text I myself have contributed, however I have found that for every positive contribution Steinberger has made there has been five attempts to obstruct valid content with nonsense rationales or what we in English call 'red herrings'. This seems designed to waste other editors' time, perhaps with the hope that they will give up contributing content that offends his/her view of drug policy. So what I am asking is whether you and I can lodge a Request for Comment on Steinberger's conduct where it is a Wikipedia requirement that this Requests for Comment must be lodged by two editors who have the similar concerns about another user's conduct. As I explained, perhaps not well enough above, I am trying to follow through the dispute resolution process as outlined by Wikipedia here where it suggests a Request for Comment on user conduct as a light-weight dispute resolution tool before going for mediation. Again, it does stipulate that Requests for Comment must be brought by two contributors who have tried to resolve conduct issues with that person before. As far as I understand, we would both need to have our names appear on the Request for Comment and also demonstrate with diffs that we had both attempted resolution previously on certian issues without success at one time or another. The Request for Comment process is explained here. My observation from reading diffs of Steinberger's reversions of your past contributions is that many of Steiberger's objections had no validity, and that there were times when you moved on, allowing very valid text to lapse simply because the battle was too heated. I believe no one on Wikipedia should have to put up with this kind of conduct.

Please ask any other questions of me, or otherwise let me know if you are willing to join me in lodging a Request for Comment on Steinberger's conduct. Appreciated. Minphie (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dala11a: I am only one person, but the tone I use in our correspondence and my willingness cooperate is dependent on my mood. Steinberger (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dala11a: Jag tar detta på svenska för att hålla ovidkommande läsare utanför. För egen del är jag inte speciellt bekymrad över att Minphie håller på att inleda en kampanj mot mig, även om jag är medveten om att vissa saker i min historik inte ser så bra ut. Men vid närmare gransking så visar samma historik att jag lär mig av mina misstag, vilket enligt min föreståelse för hur det brukar fungera här betyder att jag inte kommer att bli avstängd eller ens tillsagd att hålla mig undan ämnet. Det finns å andra sidan tecken på att wikipediagemenskapen håller på att tröttna på Minphie. Hans begäran om medling, som han har länkat till här, slutade utan åtgärd och i diskussionerna som ledde dit lyfte seniora skribenter frågan om man inte borde avstänga honom från möjligheten att bidra, då han vägrar inse att andras avoga inställning till hans bidrag faktiskt har reell grund. Sedan dess har han hållit sig undan, men börjar han igen så är risken stor att just det kommer hända. Hur du ställer dig, och om du vill stödja honom är givetvis upp till dig. Steinberger (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it might be best if Steinberger is encouraged to draw up just such a list of Minphie's alleged breaches of Wikipedia policy. This may add some clarity to this situation. Minphie (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minphie: If you want the community to scrutinize and comment and maybe even sanction my edits you are welcome to begin the relevant process. If you decide so, I will gladly defend my edits. But until then, I will not take the time to scrutinize your edits more then I have already done on the talk pages of the relevant articles. If you decide no and starts to "contribute" in the way you have done until now, then I am sure that someone else will beat me in reporting you. Steinberger (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dalla11a, could you please confirm one way or another as to whether you wish to join me or not in seeking action on Steinberger's conduct. Much appreciated. Minphie (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You never stop to amaze!

Chapter 8 in EMCDDA´s report say "Under current criminal cannabis control policies in many European and other developed countries, cannabis users can nominally be sentenced to prison if caught in possession of cannabis. Even if prison sentences are rarely imposed, the acquisition of a criminal conviction or record for the personal use of cannabis can adversely affect the lives of otherwise lawabiding users (Lenton, 2000) in ways that some have argued are more serious than any harms that result from using cannabis (Wodak et al., 2002), for example, by impeding professional or travel opportunities and adversely affecting personal relationships (Room et al., 2008)." (page 242) That means that "The fact that cannabis possession carries prison sentences in most developed countries - although rarely imposed - is also pointed out as a problem by EMCDDA, as the consequences of a conviction for otherwise law abiding users arguably is more harmful than any harm from the drug itself. For example by adversely affecting professional or travel opportunities and straining personal relationships." in the Harm reduction article have explicit support in the relevant source.

The EMCDDA report also say "The enforcement of cannabis control laws is also often applied in a highly selective, if not discriminatory, way. In Australia in the early 1990s cannabis offenders appearing before the criminal courts were more likely to be unemployed and socially disadvantaged males than were cannabis users in community surveys (Advisory Committee on Illicit Drugs, 1993). Recent US studies show higher rates of arrests for cannabis offences among Hispanic and Black minorities (Gettman, 2000; Human Rights Watch, 2000). It is uncertain to what extent the same is true in European countries with substantial ethnic minorities or immigrant populations." (also page 242) That means that "The way the laws concerning cannabis are enforced is also very selective - even discriminatory." is supported.

EMCDDA continues "The non-enforcement or removal of criminal penalties for personal use is one way of reducing the adverse effects of the law on users. The Netherlands was one of the first European countries to do so in 1976 [...] and Portugal has more recently done so among other European countries [...] In several Australian states, personal cannabis use is subject to a non-criminal ‘infringement’ or ‘expiation’ notice, an offence similar to a speeding ticket and punished by a limited fine (Room et al. 2008). Studies of the impact of these changes have typically found that reductions in the severity of penalties for cannabis use have little, if any, impact on rates of population cannabis use in Australia (e.g. Donnelly et al., 1999), the United States (Pacula et al., 2004) and Europe (Greenwald, 2009; Room et al., 2008). The lack of any evidence of a large impact on rates of use also suggests that this policy may have little or no effect on cannabis-related harms, while at the same time reducing enforcement costs and effects on users (Room et al., 2008)." That means that "Where decriminalization has been implemented, such as in several states in Australia and United States, as well as in Portugal and the Netherlands no adverse effects have been shown on population cannabis usage rate. The lack of evidence of increased use indicates that such a policy shift does not have adverse effects on cannabis-related harm while, at the same time, decreasing enforcement costs." are supported by the relevant source.

So what do you mean by Deleted text not clearly linked to relevant sources? Steinberger (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, in the last there is a slight error. It should be "no, or only very small adverse effects" not "no adverse effects" to conform exactly to the source. Steinberger (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For eg.: Possession of cannabis is illegal by federal law in the U.S. No change of that law. In Portugal is possession of cannabis an administrative offense linked to a number of different possible actions from a local authority, see Drug policy of Portugal, cannabis is not legal. Local authorities in Netherlands has closed many so called "coffe shops", not allowed more. So what decriminalization?.Dala11a (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dreciminalization and legalization is not the same thing. They can't make cannabis legal, as that would contravene UN treates. But they can stop treating use, possession and similar offences as "crimes" and handle them in another way. Such as in Portugal where someones criminal record don't notes the administrative sanctions that might have come from possession of a classified substance. As an example, a decriminalization of simple possession and use in Sweden could mean that the police reports the user to "Socialnämnden" in a municipality - or similar. They may then, with or without the cooperation of the addict, examine the persons problems to find a real "solution"; instead of having the prosecutors and courts deciding on a criminal "punishment". In theory this means that a social, otherwise law-abiding and self-sustained citizen, that don't have a drivings-license and that insists that they don't have a problem, might walk away with "no solution"; and no other consequences then those that are otherwise inherent with holding and taking drugs. Steinberger (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. As decriminalization is a established concept it doesn't matter if you think the term for it is misleading. A tip is to search for it in academic sources, and see how they use the term. Read for example the very chapter in the EMCDDA report here, and see how they use the word in describing the policies of the Netherlands and Portugal. For them, officially rethinking drug users from being criminals with drug problems to become persons with drug problems, seem to be more important then how it is actually is implemented in a legal-technical way. Steinberger (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To consciously choose a language that for readers raise misunderstandings or requiring them to be very familiar with terminology among a certain circle of specialists is not consistent with the purpose of Wikipedia. Dala11a (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC) 20:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't concur with your views that the term is either misleading or consciously picked to obsure what is meant. To say (as many seem to do) that the Netherlands have legalised cannabis is misleading. To say that they have decriminalised cannabis is not, as it implies that they have made it less of a crime - not legal. When it comes to Wikipedia and its purpose, well you are right that we should avoid jargon. But I think the term decriminalisation/decriminalization have passed well into mainstream. For example the Guardian, the Telegraph and the New York Times use the term without qulifiers, implying that they think their readers know what it means. Steinberger (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please confirm

Dalla11a, could you please confirm one way or another as to whether you wish to join me or not in seeking action on Steinberger's conduct. Much appreciated. Minphie (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Hemp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dung (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of World Federation Against Drugs for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article World Federation Against Drugs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Federation Against Drugs until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more text and one new source to the article (George W Bush)Dala11a (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited War on Drugs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prescription (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited War on Drugs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prescription (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited War on Drugs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prescription (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WFAD page

I have just done some grammatical edits to create a better read in English. Hope you don't mind extra attention to the page. Minphie (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-Dala11a (talk)

Nixon's msg

Hi. I think that Nixon's message is both valuable information and a reliable source, however; I am not sure the conclusion you have drawn from it is connected to this section of this article. What does the increased rate of deaths in New York due to drug abuse have to do with the report from these 2 congressmen, let alone drug abuse in the military in the Vietnam War? Nixon does discuss veterans and their drug issues - I'm just not sure what point to make out of his comments that would apply here without further reading, so I'll leave it to you, but the point you made seems like something that should at least go in its own sentence, if not its own paragraph and possibly its own section?. Mcourneyea (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I'm still not sure about the connection of the deaths in New York to the rest of this sentence, but if you feel strongly about keeping it, you might want to improve it's readability by changing it to something like:

 "and the number of drug-related deaths in New York was increasing at the alarming rate of 200 every 2 years, since 1960"

- and then of course add the reference to Nixon's speech, as this is basically the rate he's describing. Mcourneyea (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think your latest change is definitely much better - well supported by your documentation - but I think the whole paragraph is patchwork and needs a re-write. The heroin usage is referred to by percentage in one spot and then again by actual number in another, and yet at the beginning it is referred to only with vague language "Some servicemen also used heroin". I think your statistics and the other stats should come much closer to the beginning and probably even replace the bit with the vague quantity "some" Mcourneyea (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor suggestions for War On Drugs edit

Hi. I noticed some issues with your expression/grammar in latest edit to this page. Here are some suggestions for improvement of readability:

 "The media popularized the term shortly after a press conference on June 18 1971 by United States president Richard Nixon - the day 
 after publication of a special message from him to Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control, in which he declared drug abuse "public 
 enemy number one". The message included comments about more federal resources for "prevention of new addicts, and the rehabilitation of those 
 who are addicted" that did not receive the same public attention as the term "war on drugs""

Mcourneyea (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medical cannabis

Please don't edit-war. As an experienced editor, a single revert should be sufficient for you to discuss your edit on the talk page. A biomedical claim should really be supported by a source that meets the guidance given in WP:MEDRS, and a 1988 primary study is unlikely to meet that. I'd encourage you to have a look at:

Mehra R, Moore BA, Crothers K, Tetrault J, Fiellin DA (2006). "The association between marijuana smoking and lung cancer: a systematic review". Archives of Internal Medicine. 166 (13): 1359–67. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.13.1359. PMID 16832000. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

as it is probably the most recent systematic review that covers the issue you are raising. --RexxS (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In practice is very difficult to do studies of cannabis on lung cancer because persons that smoke cannabis often also smoke tobacco. The text I enter did not talk about lung cancer, it only talked about many of the substances that gives adverse effects from smoking of tobacco also can is found in smoke from cannabis. That is no high tech, it you burn plant parts, you produce tar if you don t have high temperature (more than 800 celcius) plus enough oxygen. At this temperature usually flames become blue the hottest part. This is well known by all those concerned with sweeping pans. It you have a lower temperature you get tar. 12:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that's all true, but have you read WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH? If you have MEDRS-compliant sources, then there's no problem, otherwise you're edit-warring to insert your own analysis. We don't write articles by adding what we think we know and then scratch around for sources to support it; we find what the best quality sources tell us and summarise that. --RexxS (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Are needed. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added text again with ref.Dala11a (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High quality secondary sources

Are needed for medical content per WP:MEDRS. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added 2 High quality secondary sources.Dala11a (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are popular press pieces. Please use review articles. And you are at three reverts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did not ask for review articles. Dala11a (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit war. When you attempt to impose your version of an article against multiple other editors, you are engaging in an edit-war. There is no entitlement to three reverts and you may find yourself blocked for your efforts.

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) is the guideline for sources used to support biomedical claims on Wikipedia. If you choose not to read it, then please don't waste other editors' time by adding medical claims to articles.

Here are a few pertinent items of guidance from the opening sections of MEDRS:

"it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."
"Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content."
"A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations."

He did ask for review articles, it's just that you didn't read the guidance. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Medical cannabis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NIDA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cannabis coffee shop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ecstasy

Drug policy of the Netherlands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ecstasy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDHOW

Helps with ref formatting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hemp. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. DMacks (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a new section in Talk for 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.Dala11a (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dala11a. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]