User talk:Potguru

Before making changes or adding content pls read the laws your referring to Full Text of the Marihuana Tax Act as passed in 1937--Moxy (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy: The document refers to cannabis only two times and in both passages (below) it is clear that marihuana is only a portion of the plant... not the entire plant. I do not understand why you believe marijuana to be = to cannabis. What about the hemp portion of the cannabis plant, what is it?

• (b) The term "marihuana" means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds, or resins; but shall not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination. (this passage is found twice on the page).

• (S) To a transfer of any seeds of the plant Cannabis sativa L. to any person registered under section 2. (this passage is found once on the page).

--Potguru (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• The Medical Geography of Cannabinoid Botanicals in Washington State: Access, Delivery, and Distress. University of Washington. 2008. p. 16. ISBN 978-1-109-00223-2.
• Rawson, Jean M. (April 2011). Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity. DIANE Publishing. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-1-4379-3839-5.

reading first one now. The author makes a distinction between drug-producing cannabis and non-drug-producing cannabis... which is what I am doing. Appreciate your help. (a few minutes later) In the second the source states as recently as 2005 (former) Senator Ron Paul introduced a bill that would modify the Controlled Substances Act to include language that explicitly states marijuana: is not equal to hemp. I recognize in the first that the particular author believes marijuana is a pejorative term... but nevertheless it IS the term used in modern language to describe the "drug containing portion" of cannabis. Your sources conclude the same thing. Do they not? --Potguru (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC) (the following is an unsigned contribution by Moxy)

both are implying the term marijuana is not sufficient ..one source determine cannabis is best to use... because the ACT contradicts itself... the other wants to introduce a new term Hemp... again because marijuana isn't defined properly. (Moxy forgot to sign, he meant to though).

>both are implying the term marijuana is not sufficient

that is not fair, we cannot presume to know what an author is implying

>one source determine cannabis is best to use

Please cut and paste the text you are referring to

>because the ACT contradicts itself

Please show me where the ACT contradicts itself, I do not see that

>the other wants to introduce a new term Hemp

Hemp is a term that is well defined. It is defined in the US and most of the world as the portion of the cannabis plant which includes less than 0.03% THC. It is one of mans oldest cultivated plants with some reports suggesting it was farmed more than 12,000 years ago. I don't think either of these papers define hemp, but I may be mistaken so please show me. --Potguru (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do a Google search for the word hemp.... note most definitions consider it to be a type of plant.... not just a portion. This is how the majority of the world sees it as well. --Moxy (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

If what you say is true then there should be no article on hemp because it should simply redirect to cannabis (drug). Why is it that it does not? --Potguru (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hemp is often used to refer only to Cannabis strains cultivated for industrial (non-drug) use in the English world....not so much so in non English Europe because of the term "Indian Hemp" - a drug reference. In the English world marijuana/pot/gunga/weed/grass plants contain high levels of THC, hemp plants contains very little of the psychoactive chemical having more cannabinoids. This single difference is what most rely on to distinguish hemp from the drug form. Here in Canada the maximum THC content of hemp is set at 0.3%..... higher THC levels is considered a drug. But this changes from country to country. This is why we use the term Cannabis as the parent term here....the term all can agree on is the same thing....as in covers all the variations.^[1] To quote The Hash Marihuana & Hemp Museum "From huge fibre-producing industrial hemp plants to the most potent of medicinal strains, the entire spectrum may be accurately referred to as cannabis, or even hemp (though this is a more archaic usage), as all types are of the same species (just as Great Danes and Chihuahuas may both be called dogs). Cannabis Sativa L. is the binomial name or the species name for the cannabis" --Moxy (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You are making my point exactly. You state clearly that "This single difference is what most rely on to distinguish hemp from the drug form." So you recognize that hemp plus "the drug form" = cannabis. And, of course, "the drug form" = marijuana. So I will continue to use the correct term "marijuana" to describe marijuana and I will continue to use the term "hemp" to describe non-marijuana cannabis. And when I am talking about the plant, instead of the parts of the plant, I will call it cannabis. Not sure where we disagree, now that we both agree that marijuana+hemp=cannabis and even your prime minister used the term marijuana over cannabis.^[2] Thanks for stopping by! --Potguru (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok so you understand hemp is not a part of the plant and marijuana has many different definitions depending on context. Perhaps best you bring up any term changes in articles on there talk pages first just to make sure.-- Moxy (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

No I do not accept your belief that hemp is not a part of the plant, that is a strange statement. I've made it abundantly clear that my position (based on cited references) is that marijuana + hemp = cannabis. Unless someone presents actual evidence to the contrary I will continue to share references and as I read through articles I am compelled to correct them, and so I shall continue to do so. Thanks for stopping by! --Potguru (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• hemp definition--Moxy (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this edit ..if true would be very odd but interesting to see them not use the international term. Are you assuming the term will change because of press releases like this where they use marijuana? We cant do this as no source I can find says the legal term will change. -- Moxy (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

My bad I see what your saying. re-adding edit -- Moxy (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool, I'm excited we are seeing eye to eye.

Check this one out... https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=marijuana%2C+hemp%2C+cannabis&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2008 --Potguru (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cannabis#Draft:Marijuana (cannabis) --Moxy (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, could you as an administrator please have a look here and help out, thanks. HempFan (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I wish I were an administrator.... I have no more power than you. But as I said on your talk page, I support you and please do not give up or get yourself banned. --22:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If you don't rollback your moving of Cannabis articles to Marijuana articles, which you have done without consensus and while ongoing discussions about the appropriateness are ongoing, then I will be forced to go ask the board to sanction you on cannabis related articles. This is the only time I will ask. Please rollback your page moves and seek consensus. Lipsquid (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand you are bothered that I moved the cannabis in Kansas article to marijuana in Kansas and you can't seem to move it back. The problem you are having is that the sources in the articles just do not match with the article titles. Given the scope of each of these articles is the state the author wrote about and there is no evidence to support any claim that the state legislators are attempting to regulate cannabis, I think you will have a difficult time making your case. --Potguru (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice taunt, worked well. I could have moved the article back at any time, but then I would be as guilty as you are of being disruptive. Adios, see you when you get back... Lipsquid (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moving the articles back has not been and is not the issue; the issue is your moving them in the first place without consensus. And then adding the same POV to artcles themselves. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 03:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moving them to the incorrect namespace, as you [| just did], and then editing the content to fit is a far bigger problem. You didn't even address the current issues on the talk pages! --Potguru (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by incorrect namespace? Can you show me where you have consensus to make the moves you did? The consensus seems to be against you here and you cannot just ignore that, as you are trying to. You should instead focus on what people are saying on the ANI and change your edit patterns before you get topic banned or blocked, as you are acting as if you want to be topic banned. So you arent the only one baffled. The other thing is tot ry to focus on improvng the articles, none of whch were linked properly n the opening or even informed our readers of whch country we are talking about. To my the current titles are fine and accurate. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Where do you want to have this discussion? Here on my page? Or on the ban potguru page? Or on your talk page? Let's be consitent, yea? --05:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to have and RfC about out naming criteria for these articles. This is a very large change you're proposing. It might be beneficial to slow down and deliberate a bit. Sizeofint (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree there is a huge problem with inconsistency and so I am attempting to clean up text based on actual source material. Much of the problem is that articles incorrectly use the terminology because people are afraid of a word. To be consitent if the source says cannabis, then the text should say cannabis but if the source says marijuana then the text should reflect that as well. As long as we are consistent and follow the same rules, you'll get my vote. At the moment there are a ton of edits needed to make the content reflect the actual cited articles. --Potguru (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Potguru, please quote the guidelines or polices you are basing your assertions on. I have never heard this before and am concerned you are just inventing. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 02:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

As I have said most of my edits are based on Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the source says marijuana then the article text must say marijuana as well, otherwise the article is not verifiable. --Potguru (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you reading up on the topics before you make your edits or moves? e.g Colorado define all three term Cannabis, MJ and Hemp as seen here and in the ACT. I think you think your doing the right thing....but as you can see many have raised concerns. --Moxy (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

That is not a definition of cannabis, it is a definition of industrial hemp which illustrates the point that hemp is a portion of the cannabis plant and the other portion is marijuana; unfortunately it is a primary source. --Potguru (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

In your merge proposal you failt o explain why you want to merge the two articles. please explain asap, as I am on the pont of shutting the debate down as both snowball and inappropriate. You havent given an appropriate reason why the emrge should take place, it looks like a silly suggestion and could be evidence of bad faith on your part. please reconsider, and explain your reasons for wanting to merge two enormous articles, preferably quoting some policies or guidelines pertanng to wikipedia. that this appears to be one more piece of problematc behaviour doesnt bode well, lets try and avoid it all ending in tears. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 02:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to determine concensus. There are several related articles that should probably be merged together, such as Cannabis smoking Cannabis consumption etc. --Potguru (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Why would you want to merge cannabis consu,pton with cannabis smoking? Why not with cannabis edibles. And determinng consensus is not an answer, you need to state reasons based on wikiepdia polcies or guidelines, or if you cant manage that, just a reason. But you still ahvent given one. As an editor of biology articles I consder it absolutely essental that we do not destroy the article integrity by trying to merge it with the huge and highly important cannabis as a drug article. You need to give a reason and not just state you are trying to determine consensus. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 03:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I think cannabis consumption, cannabis edibles and cannabis smoking along with cannabis vaping should all be merged. They are all the same thing... cannabis consumption, no? The reason I gave for the proposed merger between cannabis (drug) and cannabis is written in the discuss paragraph... "I think that the content in the Cannabis_(drug) article can easily be explained in the context of Cannabis" and I wanted to see what concensus was before making such a drastic move on such a highly watched article. --Potguru (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

What a terrible idea, it really is disruptive coming in and trying to merge totally inappropriate articles. You might as well try to merge George W. Bush and Barak Obama. You have no support for your merge proposals, your initial attempt to merge cannabis and cannabis (drug) was disruptive and if you continue on you wil likely be topic banned. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Moxy (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

After another editor on AN/I suggested User:HempFan may be your sockpuppet I have filed a request for checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Potguru. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

As stated here, you are hereby topic banned from doing anything about the wording or titles that invoke the usage of marijuana versus cannabis for the next six months. If you should violate said topic ban, you could be subject to blocks or further bans. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect BirdieSanders. Since you had some involvement with the BirdieSanders redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Gorthian (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Potguru. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "List of medical marijuana centers in Colorado".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Potguru. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Marijuana dispensaries in Colorado".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Potguru. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Marijuana".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)