User talk:Jilja

Welcome!

Hello, Jilja, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Opium into Entheogen. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: I think its hard to rephrase. Can I make a list of sentences and ask someone else to rephrase them for me? --Jilja (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're copying from other Wikipedia articles, you don't have to rephrase, as long as you specify in your edit summary where you got the content. That's required under the terms of our CC-by-SA license. Content you get from other websites is copyright, and has to be re-written in your own words. There's some material on how to do it at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template2C (psychedelics)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Template2C (psychedelics) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -KAP03(^Talk • Contributions • Email) 16:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concern over your article (and renaming): Muscimol mushroom

Hello - Welcome to Wikipedia. I don't think I've ever seen a new editor so busy in such a short period of time! You certainly seem to know you're way around here. I can only assume you've worked with templates, page moves and redirects before, as you're editing a considerable number of them, and I'm finding it all quite hard to follow.

I came across your new page Muscimol mushroom at New Page Review which concerns me a little. Could you explain your rationale for this page name, please? As far as I can ascertain 'Muscimol mushroom' is a term that doesn't exist in any reliable source. You certainly don't seem to have cited any. I'd urge you to avoid introducing a title that suggests it's a recognised term without evidence that it exist (I fully accept that mushrooms do exist that contain muscimol - I just don't envisage users knowing to look for such an article. I also recognise that another article exists on Psilocybin mushroom, but that term is in use). Perhaps List of mushrooms containing muscimol or List of muscimol-containing mushrooms might have been more appropriate -and clearer - don't you think?

In the same vein, I can't see Legal status of muscimol mushrooms being the best title, unless both articles can be quickly improved with reliable sources to demonstrate that term is genuinely in use. Initially I was minded to submit the latter for deletion, and to rename the former. As not all your references to the Erowid website support the statements that those taxa contain muscimol, it might be worth considering which references are used to support the inclusion of each taxon. (The Science Direct ref could be used multiple times to achieve this).

Update: My initial concerns now seem rather moot since I started drafting this as I see you've suddenly redirected the article to Isoxazole mushroom, presumably based on this or Barceloux's 2008 source. So is it fair to conclude that 'Muscimol mushroom' was an invented term that lasted for just six hours in the articles and templates you edited, and that 'Isoxazole mushroom' might be too? The bottom line is I'd recommend another rename to '..isoxazole-containing mushroom'

I don't want to discourage great article creation, but sometimes it really is worth slowing down and considering the best way forward - or we all end up in a right mess. (I won't WP:NPR your new pages for a bit - I like to give promising articles that aren't up to standard or have referencing issues a bit of breathing space after they've first been created, so I'll pop back in a day or so and see how you've got on. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: "Amanita muscaria and Amanita pantherina are illegal to buy, sell, or possess since December 2008." - Legal status of isoxazole mushrooms. We need a page for all psychoactive isoxazole mushrooms: At least the Amanitas mentioned in the quote, and perhaps a few other species but certainly not all (many of them are deadly and not used this way), it is possible that we also should include Tricholoma muscarium. Please also read hallucinogenic mushroom. What do you think about Psychoactive Amanita mushrooms ("The most common psychoactive amanita mushrooms are the striking fly-agaric (Amanita muscaria) and the panther mushroom (A. pantherina)." - https://erowid.org/plants/amanitas/amanitas_basics.shtml)? Regards from Sweden, --Jilja (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Amanita muscaria and Amanita pantherina are illegal to buy, sell, or possess since December 2008 - you do realise you're quoting a page you created on 26th October 2017 containing a Dutch reference that doesn't work and that says it was retrieved in May 2016? I assume you copy/pasted this from another wiki article without checking it? My concern is that you may be working too fast and too furiously, and maybe aren't thinking things through enough. I hope this doesn't start to concern other editors - should that happen, do please listen and work with them - that's the essence of contrbuting to Wikipedia. My concern is to agree with you that you need to create informative content, and I think that good article naming is a part of that process. I don't need to look at hallucinogenic mushroom, other than to see its a DAB page you created to link to your new article, but I recognise it will help an uninformed user. Personally, I think the information might all be better as one list of psychoactive mushrooms, but it's been over 30 years since I studied mycology at university, and I'll leave you to work with others to get the best information out there in an accessible manner. best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: I fixed the linkrot. I'm glad to hear you telling me that you studied mycology. I just added two new tables that should be useful: Template_talk:Amanita_variety#More_forms_and_varities and Talk:Amanita_pantherina#Forms_and_varities. I'm sure I listed most of their forms and varities, we only need to adjust the tables and merge them to their respective article pages. Feel free to help. --Jilja (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a long time back (as part of a botany degree), but I did feel my old Prof. needed a page here, so I made one about him. See: John Webster (mycologist). But I'm not confident I now have any mycological skillls to be able to contribute much at all, except perhaps as a 'critical friend' to help ensure general users of this encyclopaedia can navigate to the right information. (I'm better sticking with vascular plants!) Nick Moyes (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: I understand why you start that article. Interesting that you had him as teacher. Is it ok to add Amanitaceae.org as Authority for Variety and Subspecies in Amanita muscaria as I did? --Jilja (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm sure you didn't mean 'Authority' in the literal taxonomic sense, but rather as a reliable source to evidence the use of that name. The literal 'authority' will always be one or more people's names who first validly published the name and description, as I'm confident you know. It would never be to a website). I recognise that the taxonomy of the fungi is an area that shifts far more than do vascular plants. I've looked at Amanitaceae.org and whilst it might do, my feeling is that it comes across more of a one-man website on that Family by Dr Tulloss, rather than an internationally recognised database of accepted names and synonyms, equivalent to IPNI (International Plant Names Index). It's quite possible to have more than one nomenclatural system proposed by different workers, so you always have a risk of following a minority view. So I have to ask, is there a better one that's more widely acceptable? A quick search (and again, I'm no expert) leads me towards two much more authoritative sites. Have you checked out MycoBank from the International Mycological Association? Or Index Fungorum based at RBG, Kew, which you can search here. I note that searching on A. muscaria does show vars. and ssp., and gives a link to this page on Species Fungorum. I've not tried to compare them, but I'd be much happier to see you cite those pages. Should you ever encounter a taxon where ssp. and vars. are not listed on an internationally accepted database, you have the option of ommitting them entirely, or including them. If you choose the latter, then as long as you cite and/ explain the nomenclatural system used, and hint at any uncertainty at its naming then, as long as the data does look like its from at least a semi-reliable source, that should suffice. But, as with writing anything on Wikipedia - be the best you can, and use the best sources you can! Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

psychonautwiki

Please do not copy and paste content from https://psychonautwiki.org, as you did at Addiction suppression, regardless of the CC license of the copied text. Psychonautwiki, like other Wikis and user-generated sites, are largely considered unreliable sources: see WP:USERG. Health and medical articles should have exceptionally high quality references, and primary research (e.g. single issue studies, pilot studies, and the majority of the references you listed) is strongly discouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). As a user has noted above, you are rapidly creating a lot of articles, many with problems. A more careful approach, perhaps involving collaboration with more experienced editors, can reduce the proliferation of problematic articles. For instance, since you've shown interest in psychedelic mushrooms, you might propose ideas or seek input first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi. While it may seem there are a lot of rules and guidelines, taking some time to read through the links here and in the Welcome message at the top of this page will make your contributions and interactions with other editors much more productive. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Addiction suppression

Hello Jilja,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Addiction suppression for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Addiction suppression for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Addiction suppression is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addiction suppression until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Legal status of deliriant plants

The article Legal status of deliriant plants has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced WP:OR and WP:SYNTH

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jilja. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Amanita variety

Template:Amanita variety has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "Toward a Science of Consciousness"

Hi Jilja,

I've put in a formal request to rename "Toward a Science of Consciousness" to "The Science of Consciousness". I see you have expressed an interest in making this change. If you wish to do so, you can discuss the change and 'vote' on the "Toward a Science of Consciousness" Talk page.

Regards, Peter

Peter Ells (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TripSit's Dangerous combination chart.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TripSit's Dangerous combination chart.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]