User talk:Listenforgood

Welcome!
Hello, Listenforgood, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation page style
Hi,

Thank you for your changes to Progressive. However, disambiguation pages are not articles, and don't follow the same style- they're navigation aids whose purpose is to make clear the different uses of a particular title. Each entry should only be as long as it needs to be to achieve this; for more details, please see the manual of style on the subject, or take a look at the notice which appears every time you edit a disambiguation page.

This is why I've reverted your changes, which included content that belongs in articles, not disambiguation pages.

I also don't understand why you changed the entry for ""Progressive" (song)", since the link is clearly for the specific song of that name, and not a general article describing "a single composition between two-to-sixteen minutes with chord structures, time signatures, modulations and intricate movement".

For these reasons, unfortunately I've decided to revert your changes. Hope this isn't too much of a disappointment, and we look forward to your further contributions to Wikipedia in future!

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit war warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Charlotte's web (cannabis). 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: 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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Please do see the note above, about sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

How this place works
Please let me explain how Wikipedia works... There are some non-intuitive things about editing here, that I can zip through ~pretty~ quickly....

The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers encyclopedia articles that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via loads of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". (There is a whole forest of things, in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with " Wikipedia: AAAA" or for short, " WP: AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus. )   And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. Those are the norms. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in Wikipedia space. There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is very quick rundown:


 * Content policies and guidelines:
 * WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing)
 * WP:OR - no original research is allowed here, instead
 * WP:VERIFY - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!)
 * WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content and WP:MEDRS defines what reliable sourcing is for content about health (this is really important for you to read and understand)
 * WP:NPOV and the content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" - it means that the language has to be neutral, and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects.  We determine weight by seeing what the reliable sources say - we follow them in this too.  So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
 * WP:BLP - this is a policy specifically about articles about living people. We are very careful about these articles (which means enforcing the policies and guidelines above rigorously), since issues of legal liability can arise for WP, and people have very strong feelings about other people, and about public descriptions of themselves.
 * WP:NOTABILITY - this is a policy that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule - which is basically, are there enough independent sources about X, with which to build a decent article.

In terms of behavior, the key norms are: If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS - already discussed
 * WP:CIVIL - basically, be nice.  This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and having that get in the way of getting things done.  We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes.  So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction.
 * WP:AGF - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor.  Don't personalize it when content disputes arise.  (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
 * WP:HARASSMENT - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world.  Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy.
 * WP:DR - if you get into an content dispute with someone, try to work it. If you cannot, then use one of the methods here to get wider input.  There are many - it never has to come down to two people arguing. There are instructions here too, about what to do if someone is behaving badly, in your view.  Try to keep content disputes separate from behavior disputes.   Many of the big messes that happen in Wikipedia arise from these getting mixed up.
 * WP:TPG - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like this one, or the one at Talk:Charlotte's web (cannabis). Please do read that.   leaving long comments is a waste of your time and everybody else's.  (I know that is ironic in light of how long this is, but I am trying to get you oriented to this complicated and strange place)

I have some homework to do
Hello Jytdog, that's a lot to read up on, and I really appreciate you taking the time to lay it all out point by point. I apologize for my long winded "talk." I have a lot of passion about this topic but I'm a patient learner. If I can tune-up my references to the WP standard, I'll be a better contributor. Thanks again. Listenforgood (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * :) Passion brings people here; patience keeps them. :) Jytdog (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok! (I just figured out how to indent these threads! Would you coach me about "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed." -- I added material (slightly shortened for clarity) about the definition of "hemp." I think readers could be concerned about whether CW is legal since it's made from a marijuana plant. But CW is in the category of hemp. I cited links to the US government and Cornell University. Not reliable, or another issue? Thanks! Listenforgood (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So you kind of built a chain there. You said: 1) CW is hemp:  2) Hemp is legal;  3) so CW is legal.   Building that chain is what we call synthesis in Wikipedia, a form of OR.   In Wikipedia, we as editors summarize accepted knowledge.  (see WP:NOT).   So if you want to make claims about the legality of CW under federal law, you need to first find reliable sources that describe that (and you or I can really trust are providing accepted knoweldge and not just some person's opinion) and summarize that source.    Please note that sometimes there is "accepted knowledge" about something but there are competing ... opinions.  In that case, what we generally do is  - again rely on sourcing - identify describe the range of opinion, making clear what is mainstream and what is "out there", and we describe that.  Again that needs to be based on reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog (talk) can I just ask if this passes muster
Hello Jtydog, rather than post an edit, let me know if this complies with WP decorum!

Cannabis contains many cannabinoids with weak or no psychoactivity that, therapeutically, might be more promising than ∆9-THC. (PubMed summary) The primary cannabinoid in Charlotte's Web Hemp Oil, cannabidiol (CBD), exerts several positive pharmacological effects that make it a highly attractive therapeutic entity in inflammation, diabetes, cancer and affective or neurodegenerative diseases. ∆9-THCV has been shown to express the pharmacological profile of a CB1 antagonist, with potential use in obesity treatment. Reports have demonstrated the antipsychotic action of CBD in human models of psychotic symptoms induced in volunteers and in psychotic patients, with fewer unwanted side effects such as catalepsy. ∆9-THC, CBD, CBG, CBC, D9-THCA and CBDA have been shown to exert anti-proliferative/pro-apoptotic effects in a panel of tumor cell lines: human breast carcinoma, human prostate carcinoma, human colorectal carcinoma and human gastric adenocarcinoma. (Full review from 2009)

Listenforgood (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll look at this in a bit! Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you!!! You must be glued to your computer! :) Maybe I should leave out the "Charlotte's Web Hemp Oil" and just focus on Evidence about cannabinoid(s) in this section? The WP guidelines are fascinating and good for me to work on.


 * Here's another more current review.


 * A review of additional studies (Accepted 21 January 2015) investigated the antipsychotic properties of CBD in human subjects. CBD counteracts psychotic symptoms and cognitive impairment associated with THC-dominant cannabis, showing that CBD may lower the risk for developing psychosis related to (THC-dominant) cannabis use. This is possibly due to the opposite effects of CBD and THC on brain activity patterns in key regions which are involved in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia (such as the striatum, hippocampus and prefrontal cortex). Clinical studies with CBD treatment of patients with psychotic symptoms further confirm the potential of CBD as an effective, safe and well-tolerated antipsychotic compound, although large randomised clinical trials will be needed before this novel therapy can be introduced into clinical practice.


 * Note to Jytdog the antipsychotic effects of CBD is the exact reason I give CW to my son. It has a 30:1 ratio of CBD-to-THC. He also benefits from smokable strain, ACDC, that has a 20:1 ratio.


 * - Listenforgood (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Bare URLs
Please take the time to format your citations. It is bad for several reasons, and it is not reasonable to make other people dp that. See WP:Bare URL.

Adding references is easy with this tool (which is explained in detail here and also see step 5b of WP:MEDHOW for an alternate method). Just submit the PubMed ID, ISBN, or other identifier, and copy and paste the resulting output (xxxx) into the page between Alternatively, if you use Internet Explorer or Firefox (2.0+), then Wouterstomp's bookmarklet can automate this step from the PubMed abstract page. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll definitely check that out. I tried but couldn't figure out how-to. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction! I appreciate it - tool works great! I'll try to fix the other soon. Listenforgood (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cannabidiol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Psychomotor. 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) 09:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 May
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Cannabis (drug) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=722147080 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F722147080%7CCannabis (drug)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Copy and pasting
We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Donating copyrighted materials to grant license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Note on linking articles
Hi! Long time. I hope you have been well. Hey, in this dif you linked to a NEJM paper that was on the internet at squarespace. That's a copyright violation. Please don't do that, per WP:ELNEVER. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Jytdog! Long time, glad to know you're still here, and I hope you're doing well!!  I've been busy with family, as we are taking a deep dive into anosognosia. I'm unsure about squarespace (my bad)... Should I look elsewhere to properly use/link that paper for a reference? Thank you and have pleasant holidays! User:Listenforgood

July 2017
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Cannabidiol‎, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)