User talk:Richard27182

Welcome!
Hello, Richard27182, 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!  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Richard27182! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 05:52, Sunday, May 10, 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Our conversations at Talk:Grapevine, Texas
Hi, Richard. I will be more than happy to help you at any time. My specialties are US place articles and US high school articles, but I can help you with procedural or technical questions anywhere. Just drop a note on my talk page. A minor disclaimer tho. These days, 90% of my edits are made from my very tiny smart phone, on which I cannot for the life of me figure out how to cut and paste. So some types of help may have to be put off til I can get to a PC.

You already received a welcome template from someone, but I'm going to leave you a much mote detailed one so you can use it for a how to reference for policies and procedures. Don't even worry about reading much of it now, just use it to look up terms you encounter. In the prose part of it there are links to two different how to guides. Those may bear some closer study. I'll also leave you a link to the Teahouse, a Q&A forum especially for new editors. Edit as much or as little as you want, and remember, you cannot break Wikipedia. Happy Editing, John from Idegon (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC) This is being posted on your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four  ~  or by pressing or  in the editing interface tool box, located just above the editing window (when editing). Do not sign edits that you make in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted, but only when using the article talkpage, yours or another editor's talkpage. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance.

Again, welcome! John from Idegon (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC) John from Idegon (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
John from Idegon (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing
Inviting multiple editors, with identical messages on their separate talk pages, to take part in a discussion, and doing so by describing your side of the dispute but not including even a summary of the reasons given by the other party is rather closer to improper canvassing then it really should be. Please read the linked page. If you have occasion to invite others to join a discussion in future, it would be a good idea to at least briefly recount the arguments of the other party or parties to the dispute in the invite. It would also be a good idea to let all invitees know that you are asking multiple editors to look. I don't think any harm was done in this instance, but people can get very touch about canvassing, and given how easy it is to use the net to get a bunch of people to join and overwhelm a discussion, there is reason for people to be wary about this. Please be careful about such situations in future. DES (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
DES (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Continued DR discussion
A further response from you at WP:DRN would be a good idea. As you started the referral to the DRN, you should keep an eyue on it and respnd as appropriate, please. Also, I have posted a response to you on Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film). DES (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Combativeness
I didn't want to get into this further at the article talk page, where the focus should be on the article, not the editors. To me the whole tone of several of your posts in the article talk page thread seemed combative or at least argumentitive. I see this a lot on Wkipedia, and perhaps i am hypersensative to it, but phrases such as definately add up to an impression of someone who is arguing the behavior of other editors as much as the facts of the matter or what would be best for the article and its readers. Now it may well be that you had no such thought or intention. I will assume good faith and accept that. But giving such an impression to other editors hinders the collaberative work needed for articles to develop and the project to progress well. And I must say that your apparent tone changed a bit later, while all too many "happy warriors" here never drop such a tone, and get far more scarcastic and arumentative than you did. It's not a huge thing, but it is something to watch for when editing and particularly when discussing here. It seems all to easy for people to fall into an argumentative mode, even an argument for argument's sake mode. I have done it in the past. But it usually hinders the work, and taken too far it can poisen relationships. Please bear this in mind in the future. DES (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "I don't know why you thought it was over."
 * "you have admitted it's a misnomer"
 * "If you're not going to address the specific issues I raise (like how the term "two-color Technicolor" could be invalid even when "scholarly websites" such as that of UCLA film archives freely use it), then I guess there is no point in your writing back. I guess it's time to move on to the next step. See you there!

Jeane Dixon
You should take your question and concern to the talk page of the article, so others can chime in. I have, to be honest, gotten tired of debate over how to word articles about pseudoscience - I'm involved in one over numerology right now, and have no particular opinion about her. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi .     Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your taking the time to write back.      (In my earlier message I probably should have mentioned that I did post something on the article's talk page on June 5th, 2015, and not one other person has posted anything in response.)      But the important thing is I understand and respect your preference not to get involved in the discussion about changing the Jeane Dixon article, and I will honor your wishes.  Good luck with your debate concerning numerology.  And thank you again for writing. Richard27182 (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC
You asked whether another editor who is dissatisfied with the result of an RFC can try to get it reversed. The answer is "Yes, but it isn't easy and isn't often done." Another editor can challenge the closure at WP:AN, but that has to be on the grounds that the closure was out of process or inconsistent with the comments by the community. The editor can file another RFC, but filing another RFC quickly after one is closed would be tendentious editing. Other than that, editing contrary to the result of the RFC would be editing against consensus and could be taken to WP:ANI. So, basically, it is over unless another editor decides to be tendentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi  Thank you for your reply.  And thank you for a very clear and complete explanation of the situation.  I'm relieved to know that, in all probability, the ordeal (at least that's what it felt like) is over.  Knowing how stressful moderated Dispute Resolutions and RFC's can be, I don't plan to get involved in any more unless I feel it's really necessary.  But if and when the occasion arises, at least I have the experience of having gone through it and I'll understand it better and have a better idea of what to expect.  Thank you again for your assistance in moderating the Dispute Resolution, and setting up the RFC. Richard27182 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Expression of concern
Richard, I note that you have (as I came to notice at the Miss Cleo article) since about June 5, 2015, been systematically going to psychic-related articles and inserting qualifiers such as "self-designated" or "claimed" or similar before the word psychic.


 * diff John Holland
 * diff Peter James
 * diff Miss Cleo
 * diff Tracy Higgs
 * diff Dionne Warwick
 * diff Maria Papapetros
 * diff Gordon Smith
 * diff Kenny Kingston
 * diff Psychic Friends Network (scare quotes)
 * diff Jeane Dixon

And it's possible I missed a couple.

Let me begin by saying that, philosophically (see the skeptic userbox on my user page), I understand where you're coming from and have a substantial amount of sympathy with your position. But in light of the ArbCom and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard material I've posted on the Miss Cleo talk page, it would seem to me that your position is not currently supported by Wikipedia consensus. To your credit, I note that in most of those cases that you've been inviting comment or discussion on the talk page and only acting when that discussion did not materialize and have scrupulously avoiding edit warring. Kudos, most sincerely, for both of those, and indeed some of those changes appear to have at least so far "stuck" without being reverted.

But Wikipedia generally does not like people going from article to article making essentially the same change again and again unless it's pretty darn clear that they're indisputably right (and even then it's sometimes seen as being disruptive) because it's easily seen as being POV-pushing — especially in a contentious area such as this — rather than acting for the general benefit of the encyclopedia. For that reason I'm concerned that your systematic actions are looking a lot like POV-pushing even with your use of the proper formalities. Though ArbCom findings are not, as I've noted at Miss Cleo, binding as a content matter they're pretty influential and if someone wants to file a disciplinary case against you there's a pretty good chance that they're going to be taken as gospel in that conduct context.

If I were you, I'd drop the stick and, if you want to continue, do something to get the community's blessing for what you're doing, perhaps first filing an inquiry at Fringe theories/Noticeboard and following up with an RFC at Village pump if that inquiry is inconclusive or summarily written off. Whichever you do, I'd acknowledge what ArbCom has said and what's been previously said at FT/N and frame the proposal in terms of determining the current consensus of the community and determining whether, if there was a prior consensus, whether consensus may have changed. I would also strongly suggest that you admit pretty clearly what you've done so far, so as to not look like you're hiding the ball. (As an alternative, you might also self-report yourself at ANI, but there might well be more risk there than you want to chance, though the inquiry and RFC might cause such a report to be filed in any event unless you clearly — and truthfully — say that you do not intend to continue unless you can get the community's blessing to do so.)

To be absolutely frank, I think that you're going to lose this one however you go, but if it's important enough to you then it might be worth your time and effort to get a clarification of the community's position. Oh, and BTW, the use of scare quotes is strongly discouraged. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello .     Thank you for writing.  And thank you for your compliments at the end of the first paragraph.  Thank you also for the ArbCom and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard material you posted; I had not been aware of that before.  Although it's difficult for me to understand why I would be expected to obey findings that are not considered binding concerning content matter in the current issue being dealt with.  It's also difficult for me to understand why I would be considered as pushing a POV when, in the cases you referred to, I've if anything been eliminating a biased POV.      I think I at least partially understand what you said about filing an inquiry at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard; I think you're saying that that, if successful, could have the effect of "settling" the issue globally rather than for just one article; and that that could make it easier for me to make such changes in individual articles.  Is that more or less what you're saying?  If so then I understand that part, but the only problem with that is the fact that I am rather new to Wikipedia and at this point I have barely enough knowledge and experience to file at DRN.  Perhaps eventually I will feel I have enough experience to actually go through with the other.      Given all that, I think my best course of action for the present would be to continue with the DRN since that is already in progress; but I think I'll just ignore any reverts on other articles about "psychics."  (But please don't take that as an invitation to revert me.)      Once again I thank you for writing and I do appreciate your suggestions. Richard27182 (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Remember that a POV can still be a POV even if it is correct and true. It's the pushing of that POV which is a concern, because it's seen to be the pursuit of an agenda rather than the strict desire to improve the encyclopedia. Here, the POV would be some form of the idea that pseudoscience or supernaturalism is wrong or fraudulent or some such and must be combated. Pursuing DRN is a good thing, but it only really concerns the one article brought before DRN and my concern for you involves what you're doing across a range of articles, not at any one article. That's what you ought to consider stopping until you have some clarification on it. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello .     I'm sorry but I'm still a bit confused about this "pushing a POV" thing.  Is it frowned upon only when it involves at least some degree of opinion (such as the proper way to define a word)?  Would it be considered POV pushing (and discouraged) to edit a series of related articles in pursuit of a personal agenda if the edits involve correcting a specific factual error?  For example, suppose I had a pet peeve about people who think that New York City is the capital of New York State.  And suppose I spent an evening searching specifically for articles making that incorrect claim and changed "New York City" to "Albany."  Would that be considered POV pushing even though it clearly improves the encyclopedia by correcting a factual error?  Please clarify this for me; I really do want to have a good understanding of it.      I don't have any plans on making any more changes to articles about "psychics," or to challange any reverts to any "psychic" articles I've already changed.  (With the exception of the one already submitted for DRN.)      I appreciate your taking the time to help me get a better understanding of this issue. Richard27182 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is always more of a subjective evaluation than a purely objective one. No one would object, I think, to your NYC/Albany example because that's a fact that is uncontestible and has no room — so far as I know — for opinion. Even then it could be seen as POV-pushing, but would be highly unlikely to be because the identity of the capital of NY is entirely uncontroversial. The problem with articles dealing with ESP, paranormal, UFO's, and the like is that there are zealots on both sides of the issue, unlike the issue of the identity of the capital of NY, some of whom want for WP to "just be open to the possibility" that some of those things might be valid and some who want to eliminate even the slightest ambiguity that might be read to admit of any possible validity. If those zealots come here to pursue that agenda, rather than the general view of improving the encyclopedia, that's POV-pushing. We judge that motive from their editing history, especially the edits in question. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello . I think I may be starting to catch on. Please tell me if the following are true:
 * It could be seen as "POV pushing" and might result in unpleasant consequences if I were to make the same edit or similar edits to a series of related articles, indicating something I believe to be true, but that is an opinion (or likely to be seen as opinion) and/or is likely to be challanged. An example would be whether or not the definition of a "psychic" includes someone who simply claims to have magical mystical powers.  Another example would be if I were to edit a series of articles about travel to indicate that Such-and-such was the most beautiful city in the world.
 * It would very likely not cause any problem if I were to make the same edit or similar edits to a series of related articles, indicating something I believe to be true, and which is 100% verifiably true, and is unlikely to be seen as opinion or challanged. An example would be whether a particular former president is still living or dead.  Another example would be whether Budd Dwyer's shooting himself was broadcast live or only broadcast on tape.  (That's an edit I actually did perform on a few articles some time ago.)
 * If the above two bulleted statements are basically correct, then I understand. So tell me; do I finally get it? Richard27182 (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That's basically correct, though much is always in the eye of the beholder and this is often more an art than a science. In your second point, above, my only hesitation might be that even indisputable facts can be seen as controversial if the overall subject or aspect of the subject is controversial enough, but you've mostly covered that possibility by saying that it's unlikely to be challenged. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi .     It took me a while (a few message exchanges, I mean) but I believe I've got a good understanding of it now.  The safe stuff to edit is stuff that's factual and unlikely to be seen as other than factual by other editors.      On another matter, JAaron95 (the potential new moderator for the Miss Cleo DRN case) has indicated that if Nyttend does not make his opening statement within 48 hours, then he (JAaron95) will close the case.  Can he close the case without ever having officially opened it?  And if he does so, can I list the case for RFC myself, or would that need to be done by a different editor?      Also please see my other message to you on the Miss Cleo talk page.  As always, thank you for your help. Richard27182 (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. Participation in moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia is always voluntary. If someone chooses to not participate (whether by saying so or by simply not responding), then there's not much that can be done to try to work out a consensus and the case will ordinarily be closed. And working out a consensus is the purpose of dispute resolution. If an editor will not participate, though they've discussed the matter at the article talk page (if they won't even do that, then you can use the recommendations made here), then about the only possibilities are to try to continue the discussion at the article talk page or, if that's stuck, filing a request for comments to attract in additional editors to the discussion. If other editors do participate, then the editor who has chosen not to participate at the moderated DR forum will be put to the choice of either participating in the RFC or having his or her opinion mostly ignored. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving our discussion from the Miss Cleo talk page
Hi. Assuming I go ahead with the Miss Cleo RFC, I will include the "Society, sports, and culture" category as you suggest. You make a good point about the possibility of going for something that would be considered more precedent-setting than something that would only apply to one article. The main reason I hesitate to do that is my lack of experience. I've been through an RFC before, but I've never tried to change the consensus based on ARBCOM findings. I'm not even sure I'd be able to figure out how to go about doing that. I'm thinking of going ahead with the Miss Cleo RFC (realizing it's not precedent-setting for any other article(s)), and maybe after that (taking the result into consideration), think about doing something more far-reaching (like the thing you suggest). The result of the Miss Cleo RFC might even be somewhat indicative of whether or not the Wikipedia community as a whole is ready to change the consensus based on that ARBCOM finding. Anyway that's what I'm leaning toward doing; unless you strongly recommend against it for some reason. Please let me know what you think. Richard27182 (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I only recommend against it because I think that at the end of the day it doesn't have much chance of succeeding and I fear that it will be a waste of your time and disheartening to you, who I see to be a good and thoughtful editor who is trying to do things right. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi .     Thank you for the compliment.  I appreciate it very much, along with all your help and advice.      I actually agree with you when you say that at the end of the day the RFC will probably not give me the result I'm hoping for.  And in addition to wasting time and being disheartening, don't forget the stress!  I've been through a dispute before (it went through both DRN and RFC), and I found the process very stressful.  But I feel I just have to give it a try.  I would rather try, even if I lose, than always wonder what might have happened.      So I've gone ahead and filed the RFC, and I've already added my comment.  We'll see what happens.  (I hope we're both wrong about what the result will be.) Richard27182 (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Cascade.
The grisliness isn't even as bad as how that overstates the grisliness. Waterfalls "cascade", and as bloody as that looked on TV, it sure wasn't thousands of gallons. "Flowed" is a happy medium, and works better with "through", too. Well done! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thank you.  Richard27182 (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64
Central discussion has started; I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi . I very much appreciate your inviting me to participate in the "Non-free content#Images of victims and/or perps on crime pages" RfC.  I've looked it over carefully, and to be honest with you I really don't feel qualified to offer a meaningful opinion because I'm not familiar with most of the terms and concepts being discussed.  (I've only been editing for less than six months.)  I still have a lot to learn; but I am learning little by little, and eventually I do hope to be able to participate in discussions concerning complex matters such as this one.  Again, I'm sorry I can't participate; but I do appreciate the invitation. Richard27182 (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

New DOB RfC
If you wish, please join in. —Tenebrae (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

narcotic article
hi. I hope you don't mind me adding this to your talk page. But I'm more comfortable posting stuff like "you" and "I think that" here than on the actual article talk space.

First of all, I totally understand what you mean about the medical definition of narcotic (basically opioid).

I added a lot of the stuff in the narcotic article. I guess it was in 2011? Same IP as the "pharm companies dubiously marketing" comment. I tend to edit "by IP" but I've since taken to using a different throwaway account every time (which isn't often). I liked your pleas against edit warring and whatnot suggesting a familiarity with the unfortunate reality of Wikipedia. So I think you can understand why, despite the resultant state of the article, I didn't want to remove anything. Even if it was unsourced. Even if the source didn't match the article. And why I only added direct quotes from the sources I added.

In cases like, "I realize that these statements are sourced; but I have at least a dozen reliable sources which contradict the existing one or two references," I prefer to add the contradictory sources and let additions from them stand in juxtaposition to the information they contradict. If a statement does indeed match a source, I prefer it moved if necessary rather than deleted. Even though the deleted will still be in the history.

Again, I understand what you mean. The term has a precise medical definition. But I would like to point out: while you have some good sources (like medline or nih.gov), none of them seem to match what you added to the article. They offer definitions of "narcotic" and support the statement, (wp:synth? sorry) but do not specifically address the precision (or lack of precision) of the definition in the medical community, especially with regard to that legally. I do not agree with: " Legally speaking the term "Narcotic" is, today, imprecisely defined" ... In fact, much of the article shows the opposite. I think a lawyer would agree with me, although legal stuff seems complex and often silly to us laymen (lawyers seem to have their own definitions for words such that reading a law tells you nothing...). Did you actually check the offline sources (Julien and Mangione; perhaps the latter can be found online if you have medline/pubmed access)? You added "legally" to the sentence that those sources were supposedly supporting (I did not add it nor them), so they now are supporting a different sentence?....

I think "Wikipedia is best when it merely collates what others have said," to quote a more experienced editor who talked me through my first edits.

Anyway I'm not going to change the article. I felt more like having a chat here than working on the article I guess. Thanks for listening.

One more thing. Looking back at my edits from March 2011, I think I added the quote from 1830 as a bit of historical perspective because it was the earliest source I could find on the topic. Somebody else added the "as evinced" bit... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abababe (talk • contribs) 05:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * &emsp;Thanks for writing.  And thank you for not just reverting me.  I'll be most happy to discuss the article with you and work together on whatever changes are to be made.
 * &emsp;First I'd like to explain that the main reason I changed the article is that I strongly disagree with two statements in the previous version of the article:
 * ""  (without clarifying that that may apply to law enforcement but not to medicine)   and
 * In fact if it were not for those two statements, I probably would not have edited the article at all.
 * &emsp;I know that the word "narcotic" is indeed used in the practice of medicine today, and not automatically in a pejorative sense.  Just one example: my mother was recently in the hospital for knee surgery, and the word "narcotics" was used on her chart.  Of course personal experiences are not useable as Wikipedia references; but I believe that I do provide some good references in my changes to the article, as well as in my comments on the article's talk page.
 * &emsp;I'm not sure how to interpret your statement ". If you're objecting to my having added "legally speaking" then I would have to disagree with you, because the whole purpose of my adding that term was to differentiate the legal and medical interpretations of the word.  On the other hand if you're suggesting that, in the legal community, the word does have a precise definition (albeit not exactly the same as in the medical community), I would have no problem at all accepting that.  I would have no problem with the article simply saying something like ""  So please clarify which way you meant it; it makes a big difference.
 * &emsp;When there are contradictory sources, I'll agree that when possible it's good to add the contradictory sources and let additions from them stand in juxtaposition to the information they contradict.  I don't think we can have the article say that the word "narcotics" both is and is not pejorative.  Although I guess we could say something like "" The original references (Julien, Robert M. A Primer of Drug Action, and Mangione MP, Matoka M: Improving Pain Management Communication. How Patients Understand the terms "Opioid" and "Narcotic" could be used as sources for the first part of that sentence.)
 * &emsp;I believe my sources (including those I used on the article's talk page but not in the article itself) make a very strong case that, in the medical and pharmacological communities, the word "narcotics" is not seen as a negative term and is routinely used in a non-negative way; and that, taken together, those sources make a (perhaps weak or underdeveloped) case that the medical community precisely defines "narcotics" (as opioid medications).  If you feel that this latter aspect of it (medical definition) is sourced too weakly, I'm sure I could include some appropriate references in the article to rectify that.  Let me know how you feel about that.
 * &emsp;I removed the Hitchcock 1830 quotation simply because its only purpose appeared to be to support the claim that " [narcotics] ", which I disagree with.  However if you feel the quotation adds something to the article as a bit of historical perspective, I'm sure we could find a way to work it back in.
 * &emsp;The main point I'm trying to make is this: I'll be happy to work with you to change the article in those areas where you feel the article is incorrect, incomplete, or insufficiently sourced.  Just as long as the article doesn't go back to implying that, even in the medical community, the word "narcotics" is negative, imprecise, and pharmacologically useless.  I look forward to hearing back from you, and look forward to working with you to make this article even better than it is currently.  I think you'll find me very flexible and easy to work with.  I just ask one indulgence: I do sometimes go more than 24 hours without logging on, so I may take a day or so to reply to a new message.  But I definitely will reply.  (Answering a message within a few hours like this is atypical; I usually take 24 hours or a bit more).
 * Richard27182 (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Richard27182 (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

hey. Sorry if I was a bit wordy before.

I don't want to seem confrontational and argumentative. I find the topic interesting. But as far as the wikipedia article goes, I think at this point I want to stay away from discussing the facts and stick to getting the references right. So instead of discussing whether it's a useful term, precisely defined, in medicine vs law vs general usage...


 * Did you actually check the offline sources (Julien and Mangione; perhaps the latter can be found online if you have medline/pubmed access)?

I did not. I did not add those references to the article and I don't know what they actually say. Do you?

Let's forget about whether I agree with 'narcotic' being precisely defined in law. Yes, I meant that I think it is. But let's forget about that, and whether we disagree with 'narcotic' being a useful pharmacological term (which I could certainly see due to its various meanings in general usage, but it doesn't matter what I think, right? I'm not a published source). What do the sources say?

Basically I would prefer to only use direct quotes from the references/sources/citations, or at least start from direct quotes.

If you find something in the article that doesn't match the citation given, I'd rather you just go ahead and delete it rather than change it to something you think is correct (unless of course what you change it to does match that citation).

So I'm going to assume that neither of us know what those sources say, the ones that supported the parts of the article you didn't like. Because you disagreed or didn't think what the article said was true. So if we could find those sources, I bet they don't say what the article did anyway. Then we could go ahead and delete that stuff. But since we don't have those sources, we want to add something that says the opposite, but I don't think the sources you have found so far are good enough honestly. Like I said before, they don't match what you added. They are medical sources (well, sources with medical information for laypeople) that use or even define the term 'narcotic' but they are not directly addressing the issues of the different meanings of 'narcotic' and whether it is a useful term and the differences with legal meanings etc. Again, I don't want to argue whether or not those things are true. I just want the article to match the sources.

So looking at your reply again, yes I believe it is sourced too weakly. And honestly... didn't the article already say what you want it to? In that it contradicted the parts you didn't like in the way that you want? Isn't the stuff in the sources you have found in the article already? In the sources that article already had (ok maybe the sourcing is weak)? Like the first couple sentences... "In the United States it has since become associated with opiates and opioids"

I guess the question is, how did narcotic come to mean "opioid"? I said I didn't want to argue the facts, but let's both read:

http://updates.pain-topics.org/2012/06/narcotics-vs-opioids-language-matters.html

(I haven't read it yet but plan on it so thanks for helping me research the topic, that as I said, I am interested in)

and maybe research this further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abababe (talk • contribs) 02:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

update: so we see that [Mangione and Crowley-Matoka, 2008], or the abstract at least, says "Pain specialists often advocate discontinuing use of the term “narcotic,” with the negative connotations it bears for many patients, in favor of the term “opioid.”" And [Wallace et al. 2012] (again, I do not currently have access beyond the abstracts) says "The terms “opioid” and “narcotic” are often used interchangeably by healthcare providers. ... While more women were more familiar with narcotic, many identified negative connotations with this term."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11606-008-0658-1

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1533-2500.2012.00568.x/abstract

One thing to note is the difference between what was actually studied there and what I copied from the "introduction" section. Also in the original link: "At one time, “narcotic” pertained only to opium or its derivatives, but the term was usurped by government agencies dating back more than a century ago to include cocaine, as well as illicit forms of drugs in the sedative, stimulant, and hallucinogen classes (interestingly, although cannabis, or marijuana, was traditionally demonized it was never included in the narcotic category)." I would like to find more references for this, but since this is history over 100 years old, it might be difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abababe (talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi .  First please don't worry about being "wordy"; I'm afraid if either one of us is wordy it's me.  Anyway you've given me a lot of material to consider.  Please give me a couple days or so to get my thoughts together and I promise I'll get back to you. Richard27182 (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * &emsp;I think it would be a good idea if we dealt with these issues one at a time.  May I suggest we start with the issue of whether or not the medical community considers the word "narcotics" to be a word with negative connotations.  (How the term is viewed/applied in law enforcement is another matter and we can always deal with it separately.)  Would you be agreeable to that approach?
 * &emsp;Assuming you are, I'd like to start by pointing out that the main reason I felt the article needed editing was the claim (and implication for the reader to draw the conclusion) that the word "narcotics" necessarily carries a negative connotation, even in the medical community.  I believe this is just not so.  Concerning sourcing (which I know is very important to you, as it should be to all of us)  I think it would be rather difficult to find references that specifically, explicitly state something like ""  But I think that showing reliable sources actually using the word in a non-negative way in-and-of-itself demonstrates the point.  Especially when those reliable sources include the National Institutes of Health,  a major U.S. teaching hospital, the second largest pharmacy chain in the United States, one of the nation's most respected newspapers, and four renowned dictionaries.  If you feel this form of referencing is a little too indirect, we could always include a sentence in the article something along the lines of ""; and then cite the appropriate references.  That way the references would be directly supporting a statement in the article rather than supporting something in the article by example.  Also we could replace and/or suppliment the three references I chose to use in the article with some of those I listed on the talk page but did not include in the article.
 * &emsp;I realize there is also the issue of definition.  And I will admit that my references are geared mainly toward demonstrating that the medical community does not see the word "narcotics" negatively, and only secondarily toward actually defining the term.  But I'm sure that that could easily be rectified.  How do you feel about all this?
 * &emsp;I did read some of the citations in the previous version of the article,  as well as the links you provide in your previous message.  And yes, I'll agree that they do suggest that the word "narcotics" is sometimes seen by some (including some patients) as negative; and that some people discourage the use of the word for that reason.  But that is not the same thing as saying that the medical community itself actually considers the word to be negative, or uses it in a negative sense, or avoids using it altogether.
 * &emsp;I see this message is getting quite long, so I think I'll stop now and give you the opportunity to reply.  If we can reach agreement on the medical community does / does not  consider the word "narcotics" to be negative thing (including appropriate referencing), I think that would take care of a majority of the issues.  Again, the law enforcement angle is not all that important to me, and I'd probably be willing to go along with almost any way you would want to deal with that.  But let's work out the other first.  I look forward to your next reply.
 * Richard27182 (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Files for discussion/2015 November 26
The image of the perpetrator is nominated as FFD. I invite you for commentary. --George Ho (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

White Privilege
Hi, I really appreciate the input you've been offering in the White Privilege RFC. But I'd also appreciate you offering an opinion on what I mentioned here. I trust you more than most of the other people commenting on that page to be able to judge whether the issue I raised there is original synthesis or not. 103.47.145.132 (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I will be going to bed soon. But I will look over the material as soon as I can and offer my comments. Richard27182 (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Socialism
I wonder if you could clarify your comments at Talk:Socialism. The question was not about the wording in the article, but about the topic of the article, whether it should be the socioeconomic system or the movement and ideology. TFD (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . I took a good look at the RfC, and I see your point: the RfC is asking what the topic of the article should be, not which statement should be used in the article.  (I should have taken a closer look at it before I answered it.)  My answer would still be option One, but with somewhat different reasons than those I originally stated.  I have modified my response accordingly.  Thank you for helping me to realize my initial misinterpretation. Richard27182 (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I could use a hand
I think I might need a character witness. RGloucester started a thread complaining about Dicklyon and myself over at AE. It was promptly hijacked by SMcCandlish with a long screed of accusations, half-truths and non-truths. I could use someone to put in a word for me. None of the admins will answer any of my questions or requests for specifics. If you're not comfortable with this, I get it. If you go over there and say you agree with what SmC has to say, I get it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . I would like to be of some help in this situation, but I'm reluctant to get involved for two reasons.  First I'm still an inexperienced editor (editing less than a year, with a grand total of less than 1000 edits), and I don't feel quite ready to participate in a dispute going to AE.  (I actually had to look up what "AE" means.)  And secondly, I don't consider myself sufficiently informed on the matter under dispute.  So I would prefer to leave the discussion and resolution of this issue to those more experienced and more knowledgeable than me.  I sincerely wish you a favorable outcome. Richard27182 (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Completely reasonable. Thanks for the good wishes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

←== A Thousand Edits ==

Ping:                          This is my 1000th edit, and I wanted to share it with the editors with whom I've had the most (positive) contact and from whom I've received the most help and guidance. (And if I've forgotten anyone, I hope they will forgive me and know that this is for them too.) I never would have made it this far without you. I realize that by normal standards, 1000 edits is not all that many, and a majority of editors eventually accumulate edit counts in the tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands; but to me this means a lot. To all of you, a thousand thanks! Richard27182 (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Congrats, Richard. Good luck with further editing! Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Huzzah, Novato! I walked about a mile yesterday, and it felt like an eternity, yet to a hiker or runner, that's just loosening up.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Congrats Man. High Five :D FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you have truly succumbed to the addiction that is Wikipedia editing... Here's to the next thousand! Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Most editors never make it to a thousand. You are just more likely to encounter and remember those who do. Congrats on joining that group. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Richard. Keep up the good work. The next few thousand edits will be easy compared to the first. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Been a pleasure editing with you! DonIago (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Retired?
Guess I might be speaking to a brick wall here, but was surprised to see that you've retired so soon after reaching 1,000 edits. Hope nothing bad happened! Best wishes, DonIago (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me add my voice to those who are encouraging you to hang on. It can get very frustrating sometimes, but it's worth it. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * One more word: Posting a retirement template (of any kind) is not a suicide pact and has no binding effect whatsoever. If and when you get ready to come back, just take down the template and get back to it. And I hope that after you've had a break that you will. One strange thing that I've always found comforting here is the combination of two principles (though some might find them more depressing than comforting): First, is the principle that in editing Wikipedia that it's not about you (or me); Wikipedia editors are fungible and it's the encyclopedia that counts and it will prosper or fall without me. I'm proud of what I've done to improve it and to contribute to it, but that pride is tempered by the realization that if I hadn't done done those things that someone else would almost certainly have eventually done them. And there is no hurry. Second, the principle that we're all volunteers here and that none of us must do anything more than we care to do. Best regards and I hope we see you around again soon. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutral notice
You may or may not wish to join a discussion at Talk:Lyndsy Fonseca about a topic on which you have contributed on an identical RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comments regarding faith healing and pseudoscience
Hello, you previously participated in a request for comments regarding whether faith healing and whether it is a pseudoscience. I would like to inform you that there is currently an open request for comments that is revisiting this question that you might be interested in participating in. I am notifying everybody who participated in the previous request for comments.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  09:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)