User talk:H/Archive 7

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Well, is there? HighInBC 03:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I watch most talk pages I've edited. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 04:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for you vote for The Tulip Stair on Featured picture candidates - I've provided 2 further edits showing cropping options - perhaps you have a preference?--Mcginnly | Natter 15:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. HighInBC 16:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome :)

I am still trying to figure wiki out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nauticalsland (talk • contribs) September 25, 2006

Personal attack removed[1]

You said: "Thanks for removing this[2] persoanl attack from my user talk page."

No problem. I should probably have left a message for you about it but it really wasn't a particularly good troll. --Yamla 19:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, funny how my enjoying cannabis is morally reprehensible to him, but insulting behaviour seems ok in his books. HighInBC 19:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people.(sigh)--Gregorof 11:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi man! I´m having big trouble fighting alone against a lot of prohibitionists who want to avoid Prohibition being redirected to Prohibition (disambiguation) and also pretend to delete my nice page Pharmacological dissidence. Do you know of some editor friendly to progressive causes? Drcaldev 05:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went there and saw no prohibitionists fighting you, I saw people using the policies and guidelines of wikipedia to keep standards high. I have gone to those articles and added my opinion. HighInBC 14:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to this citation request at the Health issues... article: The reference is after the next sentence. The prestigious Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing The Science Base IOM report indicates the formation of a "temporary hippocampal lesion" which leads to the blocking of cellular processes that are associated with short-term memory formation. --Howrealisreal 13:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, my mistake. Thanks. HighInBC 15:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. BTW, I can probably help you put in that new Alzheimer's study later today. Take care! --Howrealisreal 15:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of hippocampal lesions, which couldn´t be temporary anyway (otherwise wouldn´t be lesions by definition) in the chapter on harms of marijuana use that Howrealisreal quotes! Here: http://newton.nap.edu/html/marimed/ch3.html Drcaldev 02:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Excuse me, they are in the chapter 2, but it says the effects of marijuana in the hippocampus resemble a lesion, not that they could be actually one, because of posterior restitutio ad integrum. Drcaldev 03:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm at work so I haven't the time to look things over, but I should be able to tomorrow or Tuesday. I don't reommend self-nom because self-nom's tend not to do as well. Thanks for asking me my opinion. I'll look over your contribs and talk page and get back to you by Tuesday this time. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks alot. HighInBC 23:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I placed some comments HERE. Hope they help. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it will lead to discussion. --Blue Tie 02:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ryan! Thanks for teaching me about the four-tildes, I hadn't known but it's very clear now. And thanks for the friendly welcome to the community :) -CityWanderer CityWanderer 20:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, anytime just pop by ask a question. (By the way new messages go at the bottom of the page) HighInBC 20:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning that this image was better as a png. This image was one of the first edits I ever made here.

I copied the perl script I used and changed .jpg to .png and re-ran it. Without fail it produced a lossless png version which I uploaded, Image:Cardinal Spline Example.png. I then put the obsolete tag on the jpg and changed the image on the article that used it. I had fergotten about that image, thanks for finding that. HighInBC 04:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks, happy to help. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 04:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just review what happened. I objected to the THC posting before on two grounds. First, that the length of the article means that we are selective as to what is included. Second, that only substances in late stage trials (Phase 3) or that have extensive clinical evidence (that means, experimental testing in humans) that shows a positive effect on a regulatory (FDA or EMEA) approved standard (ADAS-cog, ADCS-ADL, CDR, CBIC+, etc.) will be considered. The editors established this standard a couple of months ago in a major rewrite of this section and have been consistent with keeping these standards. Jnx disagreed with us and repeatedly reposted, then asked for an administrator. The administrator (who is also a physician) sided with the standard I just described and we removed THC. I am objecting to your posting of THC on the same grounds. One of the reasons why clinical trials are performed is that tests in cells and animals (unfortunately) are not 100% predictive of a compound's effect in the body. Head over to [www.alzforum.org] and read what the experts say about THC as it relates to Alzheimer's. They are not of one voice about its effects-perhaps it has short term positive effects, but long-term it is not neuroprotective and may be neurotoxic. I did mention that a cannabinoid is being studied by a pharmaceutical company, the compound is AVE-165, I believe. It is not at the stage of testing that warrants it appearing on the page. --Chrispounds 12:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your opinion, and I found contrary opinions too. I am not going to re-add it if it is removed. I still think it belongs there. Your reasoning sounds good, but an article is not based on one set of reason alone. It is listed as a potetntial treatment and that is what it is. If you think the case is being over stated you can qualify the statment using a citation showing it is overstated. Though I am not sure a forum is an acceptable source, unless the credentials of the members are evident. HighInBC 14:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the comments of Alzforum member's who posted under the THC article and then check their names in Google Scholar. 1410 references for the first guy, with 109 citations of his top paper. Julian Romero has 4700+ references and his comments here at Alzforum would suggest that he thinks THC and the Alzheimer's cure concept are not strongly linked. In the perfect world, all Wiki editors could be credentialed, but the chaos we have now is what we have to deal with. --Chrispounds 15:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work! HighInBC 15:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have difficulty with the notability standard...I've read through it but there doesn't seem to be very many objective criteria for artists. Epiphyte 18:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia thrives on subjectivity in it's rules. When there is ambiguity in the rules we determine what is correct through discussion and consensus. If you are in doubt about something simple ask on the talk page, your concerns should be addressed. Remember, everything here is reversible so don't worry if things go wrong, you have time to fix them later. HighInBC 18:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I DO believe that Turnov was founded in 722, and will site sources if I must. This was not an attempt at a)experimentation or b)vandalism, but neither do I wish to get into an editing battle with someone. Thanks! Zebraic 19:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I was mistaken. I will remove the notice from your page. And citing sources is always very appreciated, it is what makes our encyclopedia accurate and verifiable. Sometimes things look like vandalism when it is not, I will be more carefull. HighInBC 20:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, man. I will look up any sources to make sure I am correct before I edit it again, and if I am wrong I will be the first to admit it. Thanks again for your advice! Zebraic 22:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note, HighInBC, I have added some notes on the article talk page. Please go take a look and see what can be discussed further.OfficeGirl 01:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just shrank the things. I haven't the slightest idea how to tag them. Let me know what tag would work and I'll retag them. If you are proficient with the image deletion policy, the IfD could certainly use the hand of an expert, and this would be another asset in seeking RfA.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you were right. I confused Turnov for Teplice. The number I got, 722, was mistaken for 762, which is when the hotsprings of Teplice were discovered. I get these two towns confused due to the two-syllable, begins-with-T names and the "idyllic" locations: Spa Town, Bohemian Paradise. I apologise absolutely for screwing up that article! I thought I knew more about Czechia than that. Here are my Teplice sources: [3], [4], [5]. Oh, hell, just do a Google search for Teplice. Teplice is from the word 'teply', meaning 'warm'. Don't know if that's a czech word, though...

How do I add 'this article contains original research or unvarified claims', or similar warning boxes? Also, how do I cite sources that aren't links...ie, how do I cite books and include ISBN numbers? (What's the standard, I guess is what I'm asking. Seems to be more than one way of doing it...) Thanks! Zebraic 04:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had it on my user page because I didn't want it up until I had completed it and cited my sources. But you're right, it's better to see the editing history of it--I like seeing the history, personally, because it gives me a sense of accomplishment.... So my question NOW is, how did you move it, and am I able to do the same thing (for future articles)? (That's two questions.) Thanks! Zebraic 16:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first attempt at editing a very small page and help it get started. I wasn't sure if I was doing it right, but with the info you posted I will know what to do now. Alura 17:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, if you have any questions just ask here. HighInBC 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the comment you left on Wiki Admin Board and would like to reply it. The reason I voiced my concern was that in the original wording, "which passes out marijuana joints every Wednesday at 4:20 by the Petch Fountain". This is against the Criminal Code of Canada as Cannabis is a drug under Schedule I of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

• Section 462.2 Criminal Code of Canada

Every one who knowingly imports into Canada, exports from Canada, manufactures, promotes or sells instruments or literature for illicit drug use is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction

The removal by an administrator after I voiced my concern was not my decision and hope you understand it, thanks for your editing in removal of those quoted words.

Stating that illegal behavior takes place is allowed in wikipeida, if it is verifiable. You are allowed to talk about cannabis you know. I did not add the part about passing out joints because it is not verifiable, but they do, I have smoked them.Added post archive HighInBC 19:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.