User talk:Thoric - Wikiwand

Hello, my name is Derek Snider (aka Thoric), and this is my discussion page.

Please feel free to discuss anything with me. --Thoric

Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous information in the first place.

"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -- Socrates

"If God created man in his Own image, man certainly returned the favour." -- Voltaire

Original Psychoactive drug intro

Link to original concept diagram

Psychoactive Drug Chart

Psychedelics vs. dissociatives

Commons

Edits to Psychoactive Drug

Requested Mediation

I thought that our dispute when unsettled for too long, so I decided to ask for mediation. I think it might settle it for good. Go to the page that's linked at the top of your talk page and agree to the mediation. Jolb 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

'While I agree to mediation, I thought this issue was behind us. It is not the mediation committee's job to resolve the issue, but only to help us resolve it. I fear that your efforts in this matter would be better focused on additions and refinements to articles rather than being a majordomo for the cause of your DXM community peers. The same arguments that they provide to support their views would also label amphetamines as "psychedelic". The end result would be to render the term completely meaningless... is this your intention? May I ask if Robert F. Golaszewski is one of the people behind this effort? --Thoric 19:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)'

I don't think the issue is behind us, Thoric. I was never really convinced by your citations, as I feel all but two are three don't actually support you. My sources are more numerous, more respectable, and much more clear. Plus, I have no intention of using "psychedelic" as a term to describe any specific drugs. I think that it would be better to divorce the term from classifying drugs altogether, since psychedelic experiences have less to do with neurochemistry and more to do with self-knowledge and spirituality. Also, I'm not going to pretend that I know who Golaszewski is... :-P. He has nothing to do with my argument, as far as I know. Jolb 20:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I believe my sources far more respectable. Quality is more important than quantity. I also believe that the term "psychedelic drug" has a well established meaning, which you and others are attempting to obscure. I have tried to be curtious and respectful of your contributions, and have complied with all of your requests. How do I know that you are not Golaszewski himself, or that he is this "friend" of yours supplying you with references? --Thoric 20:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Derek, I'm Cliff. This is just like the good old days back in ADP! :) In reference to the idea that "the term 'psychedelic drug' has a well-established meaning, I'd like to quote from one of the definitions you cited against Jolb: "a rather imprecise category of drugs". I cannot fathom how you thought that quoting a source that refers to psychedelics in this manner supports your case that the term "psychedelic" has a precise meaning/application as "LSD-like." BTW, we're afraid that RFG ("Golaszewski") is dead. More later, I'm tired. TardNarc

About your sources being better, we'll let the mediator decide. I'm not Golaszewski... my name is John Hakala... I'm a senior in high school in New Jersey... do you want me to do anything to prove it to you? My friend supplying me with sources apparently already knows you (over the internet)! (I assure you, it was a conincidence. I didn't search him out or anything. We talk on a message board.) His name is Cliff Anderson, and he supposedly had an argument with you about this on Usenet a few years ago. Jolb 20:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

potential webcam interview

100 hp 100 m 100 mv> at 5 look

Article on Matrixism: an Entheogenic Religion

Barnstar

Realms of Despair

Psychactive chart

Psychoactive drug diagram

The problem is that the ontology is flawed. For example, the diagram is incapable of placing a hallucinogenic antipsychotic which is neither a stimulant or a depressant. There are absolutely no references for any of the categorizations. The article for Psilocybin makes no mention of stimulant properties. The article for MDMA makes no mention of antipsychotic properties. I will insist that you add references supporting each drug's categorization. Statements without reliable sources may be removed. I understand that you have probably put hours if not days or weeks of work into the diagram, but presents an ontology which is simply incongruent with reality. BenB4 17:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should be discussing this on the article's talk page. BenB4 18:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Four out of the five commenters specifically objected to the diagram in the FAC review. I will continue to remove it. If you don't like that I suggest you ask for a WP:RFC. BenB4 00:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am here to object to the diagram as well, as it takes up too much space on the page and some of the text is overlapping. The diagram is very confusing and difficult to read, and apparently serves only the purpose of looking impressive. Considering the controversy and the way it is being resolved it appears to be original research. If you re-create it from a reliable single source I request that you do so as a single image that can be sized using the thumb attribute. Pulling together multiple sources to create a diagram constitutes research and is not permitted. Oh by the way your editing the cited wikipedia:V article to support your diagram not being removed seems inappropriate - modifying an official policy to present your side of the argument - doesn't that sound like pushing a point of view?199.125.109.133 17:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The diagram is large sized to support all of the links that it contains. If it were a thumbnail it could not contain any readable links. I modified a policy that was in error, and the result was that the policy is now being improved. I simply added a section which quoted Jimbo stating that he didn't intend for people to go around wiping out unsourced content unless it was libel. Doesn't coming along and removing a large piece of content that someone has put years (on wikipedia) of work into, and which has been in place for over two years, and citing some policy which has a quote taken out of context in it seem inappropriate to you? --Thoric 20:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As I read it your modification to wp:V was thrown out immediately. The ensuing changes made no tangible differences to existing policy. However, when you are being accused of violating a policy is no time to ask for the policy to be changed. I would suggest that you agree that the policy states that the diagram should be removed and stop trying to put it back. After you have addressed all the other issues with the diagram you can ask if anyone wants it back, but don't start an edit war by just putting it back. Get consensus on the diagram first. Wikipedia has a lot of articles and it is easy for inappropriate material to go unnoticed for years. See you are saying yourself that you have put years of work into the diagram, doesn't that sound like original research to you? The links do not need to be readable in the thumb, it is appropriate to just show the thumb of the diagram in the article and if anyone wants to see it they can click on it. Now if they also want to click on the links in the diagram you should be able to do that by using an image map. If you made it a single image it could be printed also. Right now it comes out all trash on my printer - part on one page part on another and with a lot of the text covering up other text. The bottom line though is that it is too busy a diagram to have any value. 199.125.109.34 05:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the WP:V talk page you'll see otherwise, and that this is a problem which has been going on for a long time. Also please read Removal_of_Uncited_Material, a policy in progress based on this exact sort of situation. WP:V only advises immediate removal of unsourced material which is harmful to an article. My chart isn't unsourced, it is only inadequately sourced according to some people. Some people disagree with the placement and/or inclusion of certain substances. Other people think it is great. What we have is a minority who is taking certain policy out of context and using it to remove content they disagree with. As for printing out the diagram, I can provide you with a printable version if you would care to tell me the preferred format (and what size you are going to be printing it in) and I will email it to you. Wikipedia doesn't have support for imagemaps as far as I know, so I had to do it this way. --Thoric 15:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you make a gif/png image of the diagram and on the description page give a link to a website for the actual diagram. Obviously one person wants a printed copy. I do not, I just wanted to see if it could be printed from wikipedia. It came out badly trashed and about 115 mm wide. 199.125.109.133 19:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Coffee is not a drug"

Psychedelics

Hi there... I noticed you said you specialize in psychedelics under Wikiproject Pharmacology, and was hoping to get your opinion on the definition of what constitutes a psychedelic drug. I was heavily involved with the definition used on the psychedelic drug as well as the psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants pages, but have been in discussions/arguments over the past several months with a user (Jolb) regarding use of the term "psychedelic". --Thoric 22:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a question that greatly interests me. As you know, the "psychedelics" vary massively in chemistry and pharmacology and there is no clear way to define what is a psychedelic and what isn't. Indeed, in addition to there being no clear criteria, it is hard to know what would make a substance more or less psychedelic.

In light of this, I'm currently resigned to the wishy-washy notion of defining psychedelics by their effects. Psychedelics have come to be defined socially by those who use them - psychedelic art, thought and experience is easier to define that psychedelic substances. If the (very) subjective psychopharmacological effects resemble "core" psychedelics (such as LSD, psilocybin and DMT) the substance can be said to have a psychedelic character.

So, in my opinion, ketamine, 2C-B and muscimol can be psychedelic drugs whilst cannabis and MDMA probably aren't. I appreciate this is ill-defined and very confused but I've come to the opinion that there is no clear category of psychedelic vs non-psychedelic. This is the best way I can think of to cover the variety of psychedelic experience. Please let me know if you want me to try to clarify or elaborate. Turkeyphan^t

I am curious if you have read over the dispute history between Jolb and myself. My argument is that we need a classification to distinguish between the stimulating, "mind-expanding", LSD-like drugs, and the sedating, dissociative, ketamine-like drugs. I am currently using "psychedelic" for the former, and "dissociative" for the latter. Unfortunately it seems that there is much controversy over psychedelic, and few people can agree on its meaning, which effectively leaves us without a term for the non-dissociative hallucinogens. --Thoric 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Since making this comment, I have very briefly looked over your disagreement. My position is that I agree that a distinction is required. I think many dissociatives have distinctive psychedelic characteristics and deserve to be classified as psychedelics. I cannot see a way round this as a k-hole, for example, is unmistakably psychedelic - often moreso than a mild mushroom or mescaline trip. So clearly there are subsets of psychedelics - dissociative ones such as ketamine and (perhaps) empathogenic psychedelics such as MDA. However, as you appreciate, this leaves a problem when categorising the "true" psychedelics like psilocybin, DMT, LSD and mescaline. They probably cannot really be the psychedelic psychedelics although I don't think this is as much of a problem as it first seems. Perhaps the serotonergic psychedelics? But is salvia a dissociative or "true" psychedelic?

Salvia definitely appears to be a dissociative, but not the NMDA agonist type. Serotonergic psychedelics could work, but it would be nice if we had a single term. BTW, is a k-hole any more "psychedelic" than being in a sensory deprivation tank? --Thoric 15:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'll be able to clear much of this up in my own mind without thinking about it a bit more, I'm afraid. However, for the moment, I'd be inclined to keep the distinction between ketamine/DXM/nitrous-like dissociative substances whilst acknowledging their psychedelic character.

One issue I have with your chart is the use of the word "hallucinogen". I don't really know what you mean by this - in the literature is is often used as a synonym for "psychedelic". Is there no better word that includes empathogens, deliriants and psychedelics? Turkeyphan^t 12:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We are considering the use of the term psychotomimetic to replace hallucinogen. What do you think? --Thoric 15:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be even more strongly opposed to that. There is a very good reason it was dropped a long long time ago - it's misleading and entirely inaccurate. Pretty much everyone who writes on psychedelics (whether books, scientific journals or whatever) rejects that term. Even hallucinogen is better since it's less inaccurate and is more prevalent. What exactly is wrong with psychedelic other than categorisation difficulties? Turkeyphan^t 19:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with psychedelic is that there are about four different camps: (1) people who believe it should only refer to classic serotonergic psychedelics such as mescaline, LSD and psilocybin (2) people who believe it can also include substances such as MDMA and THC, but not the dissociatives or deliriants (3) people who believe it instead includes other substances that induce visionary states (so not MDMA, but PCP, ketamine, DXM, and possibly even the deliriants) and lastly (4) people who see it as a better term for hallucinogen, as to them it includes not only visionary substances, but enactogens (and THC) as well. These camps are well distributed even among experts. --Thoric 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I don't think that's a problem with the term itself - rather, it's an issue of definition in general. I don't see how replacing it with hallucinogen or any other fuzzy synonm will help. Further, I will argue that words such as hallucinogen and psychotomimetic (probably the two most common alternatives) suffer from at least as many problems.

At the moment I'm thinking that perhaps "serotonergic psychedelic" is best for those in camp (1). Camp (2) does not make much sense to me so I don't have any suggestions. I think I fall in camp (3) and perhaps entheogen is a more suitable word for this class of substances as it clears up some confusions. As for position (4), I'm not sure how psychedelic can include THC by the same reasoning that excludes it from hallucinogen.

I apologise because what I'm saying is still quite confused, but I maintain the the letter and intent of the majority of expert writers tends toward equating psychedelic with position (3). Let me know what you think... Turkeyphan^t 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I would say that the majority of experts would take position (3), especially if you ask those who specialize in this area. We would need a survey before coming to any such conclusions. Do note that THC has been known to cause visionary states when ingesting higher doses, as well as having a strong synergy with the classic psychedelics. MDMA also holds a similar connection. As for entheogen, this term is more specific to the intended usage rather than the substance itself. --Thoric 15:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that entheogen is an imperfect solution, but it is certainly preferable to psychotomimetic or hallucinogen (though ill-suited for a medical context). I have been in touch with several people involved in psychedelic research and all have used psychedelic in their communication with me. I'm not sure that "synergy" is sufficient for belonging to the same class and my own research tends to agree with this. THC and MDMA are even further removed from hallucination-causing substances than DMT and LSD... Turkeyphan^t 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My argument isn't that THC and MDMA are particularly visionary, but that they are mind-manifesting (psychedelic means mind-manifesting, not vision-inducing). I see psychedelics as substances which reveal -- open doors so to speak (mind-expanding, making you more aware). This does not have to be visual. It can be cerebral -- make you think, realize things you didn't know you knew. MDMA can most certainly facilitate this for some people. The dissociatives on the other hand, close doors -- dull and cut off your senses such that your focus is narrowed... more deeply within your mind. I see the visionary states induced by these substances more akin to sensory deprivation. True, this state of mind can also reveal the internals of the mind, but it is here that we come back to my previous argument; we already have a term to refer to substances such as DXM, ketamine and PCP -- they are dissociatives. Do they really need claim to psychedelic as well? Encyclopedia Britannica describes psychedelic drugs as, "any of the so-called mind-expanding drugs that are able to induce states of altered perception and thought, frequently with heightened awareness of sensory input but with diminished control over what is being experienced.. This description does not appear to apply to the dissociatives. --Thoric 15:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that psychedelic should be used as intended - meaning "mind-manifesting" and not "visionary". However, I would strongly disagree that THC is particularly visionary even at igh doses. The stoning quality of THC and other synthetic analogues is vastly different to the expanded consciousness of serotonergic psychedelics. Likewise, I feel the mindset induced by MDMA, while cerebral, is not "mind-manifesting" in the same way as LSD is.

It almost seems as though you are confusing visual with visionary. While most psychedelics, often exhibit strong visual activity, there are many that are completely devoid of visual perceptual changed. Indeed, the prototypical mind-manifesting psychedelic effects are entirely mental. The mental effects of ketamine and LSD are similar - those of MDMA and THC are very different. It is upon this basis that I define my use of the word psychedelic. Although dissociatives "close doors" in a perceptual sense, in a mind-manifesting sense they often open doors more than other psychedelic substances. This is why there are also psychedelics. Sensory deprivation is commonly cited as a way to induce "psychedelic" experiences.

As for the Britannica entry (in general I don't think it's a great article, but that's irrelevant), I think that definition (regardless of its errors) backs up the classification I support. Turkeyphan^t 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Psychedelics (cont.)

Furthermore, please see my edits at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychedelics,_Dissociatives_and_Deliriants&diff=prev&oldid=147444061. Have you read this yet? Turkeyphan^t 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did, though I have to respectfully disagree with yours and Jolb's opinion that the Mescaline/LSD/Psilocybin group is equitably "psychedelic" as Ketamine/PCP/DXM. My position is more aligned with the view that the classic serotonergic psychedelics (Mescaline/LSD/Psilocybin) are consciousness expanding, overwhelm the senses with input, and that the term "psychedelic" best represents drugs that fit that profile. Dissociatives such as Ketamine/PCP/DXM work in a very different way, and rather than overwhelming the senses, they starve them, not quite unlike a sensory deprivation tank experience, and the low-dose dissociative visual effects are somewhat related to the hypnagogic pre-sleep state. Perhaps what we have here is a problem with terminology, but if we are simply looking for a word to imply that these substances induce visionary states, then there already exist plenty of words. Every single definition that you will find of the word "psychedelic" with respect to ingested substances will first focus on the classics Mescaline/LSD/Psilocybin, and only refer to the dissociatives as an afterthought, if at all. I, as well as numerous others, believe that the dissociatives should not be lumped in with this group, if for the only reason that they already have a term to describe their effects -- "dissociative". --Thoric 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the term "psychedelic" refers to serotonergic substances better. However, this does not mean that dissociatives do not have a substantial psychedelic character too. I think it's a fallacy to not consider ketamine, for example, to be a psychedelic simply because there is another term to describe it. In my opinion, much of the reason some of these chemicals are so interesting is the fact their action varies so much. Turkeyphan^t 12:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much as that I'm saying that the dissociatives do not produce what can be considered to be a psychedelic experience, as much as I'm trying to point out that we require terminology to describe drugs such as LSD which "open the reducing value" so to speak, in contrast to drugs such as Ketamine which cause dissociation. While there may be overlap in the experiences, and the places and states of mind one can attain, the pathways there are markedly different. Those who have experienced both would not confuse one for the other. Perhaps psychedelic is not the most correct term to separate the serotonergics from the dissociatives, but the terminology available is limited. --Thoric 16:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. So what, in your opinion, is wrong with "serotonergic psychedelic"? This term seems to be the best of both worlds to me - it emphasises the difference from dissociatives whilst still acknowledging the psychedelic characteristic. Turkeyphan^t 16:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week

Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week

WikiProject Pharmacology Update

Here's a brief update in some of the recent developments of WikiProject Pharmacology!

Aspirin has just completed its two week run as the first Collaboration of the Week! Many thanks to those editors that contributed; the article got a lot of good work accomplished, and in particular, much work was done in fixing up the history section. It's still not quite "done" yet (is a wikipedia article really ever done?), but after two weeks I think it's more important to push onwards with the development of the new collaboration of the week program. I will be fixing up Aspirin in the next few days and possibly nominating it for either GA or FA status.

Muscle relaxant has been selected as the new Collaboration of the week until October 2, 2007! This article is currently rated as a "stub", so it's got quite a bit of work cut out for collaborators! Admittedly, featured status could be a long way off,... but still attainable! At the least, maybe we could at least get it up to meeting the Good article criteria? Please stop by the article and help improve it.

Resveratrol, having recently achieved GA status on August 16, 2007, is now making a run for featured status. This is quite a fascinating compound. If you can, please stop by its discussion page and leave comments in support of it.

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing or dispensing medical advice amongst users. Specifically, talk pages of articles should only be used to discuss improving the actual article in question. To help alleviate this situation, the template {{talkheader}} may be added to the top of talk pages, reminding users of the purpose of such pages. Additionally, unsigned comments and comments by anonymous users that are inappropriate may be removed from talk pages without being considered vandalism.

There was an interesting article on ZDNet last week about Hewlett Packard licensing its patented microneedle technology used in common inkjet printers to be used in transdermal patches to deliver a time-controlled release of drugs to patients. This information could be added to articles such as route of administration or drug delivery.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as one of the participants of WikiProject Pharmacology.

Dr. Cash 04:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update

How did Jenkem get its name?

SMAUG port to Nintendo DS

Higher resolution image

Re: No need for insults

SMAUG Code Walkthrough

GA review of "Psychoactive drug"

WikiProject Cannabis

Realms of Despair

Copyright problems with Quebecol

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

File permission problem with File:B23.land of psychedelic illuminations.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:B23.land of psychedelic illuminations.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that the permission that was inserted at File:B23.land of psychedelic illuminations.jpg only is for Wikipedia. Could you please follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Responsible illegal drug use

ArbCom elections are now open!

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Proposed deletion of File:Drugchart300px.png

October 2020

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Managing a conflict of interest

Nomination of SMAUG for deletion

December 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (SMAUG and Realms of Despair) for conflict-of-interest edits. You've disclosured your COI on these pages, acknowledged you were notified of COI guidelines, yet continue to edit them..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Thoric (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

I thought I was following WP:COI policy regarding the section "Making uncontroversial edits: 6. add independent reliable sources when another editor has requested them". Please note that WP:INDEF states, "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy". I feel that my edits were uncontroversial, and were also in response to requests for citations as part of an WP:AfD discussion, so I do not see how they are causing significant disruption. Thoric (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I will give you the chance to abide by your pledge below. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

While the line of policy you cite also states "although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add.", (although I might have missed it) I don't see where your edits were objected to. Ferret could you clarify? 331dot (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: I view this as an ongoing promotional effort in response to the AFD. While the sources themselves don't strictly need reverted (They don't help GNG at all, but that's another topic. They MAY be unreliable, but I don't belabour that point here), the intent is clear. In particular, the user acknowledged they should not be editing the topics at VP. As for the indefinite, a timed block did not make sense as the user's COI is not timed, and COI editing on these topics stretches back over a decade. I will defer to your judgement though. -- ferret (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: Yes, I understand the "it is better to supply them on the talk page" part. I still do not think that what I did (adding citations in response to comments within the AfD) was deserving of a block. The WP policy I was directed to originally claims to allow COI edits. Any editing I've made over the past 16 years have been exceedingly minor, including removal of slander/vandalism, and adding citations. --Thoric (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between something being allowed by a policy and something being a good idea to do. Can you technically do what you did? Maybe. Is it a good idea? That's a different question. I'm no expert but it looks like the topic area you are editing in is not without controversy, meaning there are a lot of eyes on such edits. Users with a COI need to be very careful in such situations and avoid even the appearance of something improper. I'd like to see you agree to make greater use of the talk page with regards to COI editing. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: I most certainly agree to make far greater use the talk page to request edits going forward. I just feel that the block was a little heavy handed. --Thoric (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I, Wooyi^{Talk to me?}, hereby award this barnstar to you, Thoric, for your outstanding and diligent contributions to drug-related articles. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Referenced version

Accolades

Related Articles