User talk:Wk472

Welcome!

Hi Wk472! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User:Carlstak. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Donald Albury 19:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Albury Excuse me? he reversed an important Ergine edit and I was trying to communicate to him that the edit was correct. Wk472 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proper way to respond was to ask User:Carlstak about his edits on his talk page, or, better, on the article talk page (with a note on his talk page), which is where discussions about article content should take place, unless it becomes apparent that a wide venue is appropriate. With very limited exceptions, you should not be editng a user's user page. You placed a second copy of all of Carlstak's userboxes under the existing userboxes, and then dumped a lot of text without context below many blank lines. I saw it as vandanalism, and I still see it as vandalism. Donald Albury 20:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All that text was unnecessary anyway to get your point across, Wk472. I've changed Ipomoea violacea back to the proper Ipomoea tricolor. The change was inadvertent, as I was referring to the outdated nomenclature used in the 1961 paper by R. Gordon Wasson. Carlstak (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bigger issue with that article and I was hoping you would help me address it. The only comment about the psychoactive effects quotes and references a low quality reference (see third paragraph under History). The reference butchers two reports of the effects of ergine and doesn't even cite them (I know what they are because of my education on the topic). So, it's time for a proper representation of the psychoactive effects, so I've taken the liberty of gathering the only comments about this that have ever been published and I'm providing them here. I'd like someone with experience paraphrasing to parapharse them. ➜

(Redacted)

Wk472 (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Wk472. I do appreciate your efforts to improve the article. You put a lot effort into your work, and I respect that. To maintain the integrity of the article and your work, all editors need to respect WP policy. I think you may be quoting the source excessively here on your talk page. This would constitute violation of copyright, which WP respects and enforces vigorously when violations are detected, even on talk pages. I've asked Diannaa of the WP copyvio task force to take a look, as explicit sizable copyvio must be reverted and deleted (revdeled), which only an admin can do. I noticed also that you added a good bit of quotation to the article, but that seems to be okay, at least to me. Because I'm not an expert on copyvio, I've asked Diannaa to take a look at that too. Please don't freak out if she posts an alarming template here, it's just procedure.;-) 16:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“I do appreciate your efforts to improve the article. You put a lot effort into your work, and I respect that.”

Thank you. I just put a lot of work into the most neglected section of the article. The section consists primarily of quotes, but please, everyone keep these things in mind:

- Due to the nature of subjective experience, the words that describe such experiences tend to be unique

- There are only a few publications that describe the effects of pure ergine, and none of them are that detailed.

- All of these publications are rare. Most people wouldn't even know where to look to find commets about ergine.

- I made an effort to trim away any non-essential text. Wk472 (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wk472. I have removed the quotations from the above post. It's a lot of non-free content, which we are not supposed to host unless absolutely necessary. Sorry, but it's not realistic for you to expect someone to look over this material and make it suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. That's a task each of us has to do ourselves. I see you are a new user, so a good place to begin learning how to effectively edit Wikipedia is to visit Help:Introduction. Diannaa (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edit of Ergonovine (09:12, 18 December 2024), this is what ChatGPT says:

The Botanical Museum Leaflets, published by the Harvard University Herbaria during the 1950s and 1960s, are generally considered to be in the public domain. The Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) indicates that volumes from this period are no longer under copyright protection. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/7542?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Additionally, the Online Books Page, which tracks copyright renewals, does not list any renewals for this publication.

https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

However, it's important to note that while the publications themselves may be in the public domain, the Harvard University Herbaria retains copyright over images of herbarium-owned material. These images can be reproduced without modification for scholarly and general publications, provided that the source is properly acknowledged.

https://huh.harvard.edu/pages/images-digital-collections?utm_source=chatgpt.com

For non-scholarly publications, permission is required, and publication fees may apply.

https://huh.harvard.edu/pages/permission-publish-images?utm_source=chatgpt.com

In summary, while the textual content of the Botanical Museum Leaflets from the 1950s and 1960s is likely in the public domain, any associated images may still be subject to copyright restrictions. It's advisable to consult the Harvard University Herbaria's guidelines or contact them directly for specific usage permissions.

Also, you didn't just erase the Harvard quote, you also erased the note hinting to the reader that Ipomoea violacea is no longer considered to be a synonym for I. tricolor.^[1] The link for this reference will take you to the relevant paragraph in Google Books. You also removed my encouraging comment for people to see my Psychedelic Effects section of Ergine, a debut of previously obscure comments about the effects of isolated ergine (for perspective, compare the current ergine Wikipedia article to Psychonaut Wiki's article, which was made by drug enthusiasts: junk. The second paragraph of that article is the equivalent of my Psychedelic Effects section. I tried to improve that article as well, but they're stricter about edits there and they ignore peoples' attempts to contact them. That comment was the equivalent of Wikipedia's feature of frequently link relaying readers to other Wikip articles, and it was my use of a link in the postscript (against protocol) that caused Donald Albury to freak out (“There is no logical reason to put a reference inside a reference.”), leading to your edit. Wk472 (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Eich E (January 12, 2008). "4.2.3 Occurrence in the Convolvulaceae (p. 224)". Solanaceae and convolvulaceae - secondary metabolites: biosynthesis, chemotaxonomy, biological and economic significance: a handbook. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74541-9. ISBN 978-3-540-74540-2. OCLC 195613136.

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

You suggested that the copyright holders of the text you used might be "cool" with you using it. I have no insight into their views about use of copyrighted material, but I do know something about the views of Wikipedia. If the copyright holders I willing to provide written permission it can be used otherwise not. I am aware that you use the material as part of a quote. I trust you are familiar with the fact that material otherwise subject to copyright can be used if properly quoted and attributed end of the quote is sufficiently short. While there is no simple number of words that constitutes acceptability, it is my opinion that this quote is far too long to be considered a reasonable use. (The passage includes about 250 words). If you disagree it might be appropriate to poll other editors with experience in this area.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 02:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ergonovine

Hi there! In your recent edit to the Ergonovine, you introduced some errors in reference #25. Could you please fix this to remove the red errors? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather consult w/ the administration about this. The error is that I'm includinga linked reference within a reference: that's against protocol. But that doesn't necessarily mean the admin is against such, just that they didn't think of such a feature when designing the site. Wikip has a frequently-used feature that hyperlinks text in articles to point to other wikip articles, so they obviously like to promote further reading of Wikip, which is in accord with what my note at the bottom of the reference is doing. So, maybe they'll see this incident and allow for "refs-within-refs". Wk472 (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what administration would that be? The Foundation runs the servers and pays the developers, while the Wikipedia community is responsible for the policies and guidelines that govern the content of Wikipedia and the behavior of its editors. Frankly, I cannot make sense of what you are saying. There is no logical reason to put a reference inside a reference. It is possible to include references within extended footnotes, but you have to use Template:Efn to do so, and extended footnotes should not be used as references. If you have a proposal for changing the way references are handled in Wikipedia, you need to bring up it at Village pump (technical). In the meantime, follow the guidance on citing sources, lest you be accused of violating the guideline at Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Donald Albury 03:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, now the reference is spic-and-span. I even improved the formatting in the source code, giving each attribute its own line (that was the cause of the "line feed" error, by the way: you can't use keyboard line breaks in postscripts, only <br>s), and adding a publisher (I happened upon JSTOR's web page for this essay and it included a publisher in its citation, which I had never seen before). I also added the page range: JSTOR includes the page count in parentheses after the page range, and that delighted me, so I copied that here (gives the reader a sense of how much substance there is to a reference). Now the only potential issue is that it's a rather wordy reference, but as you might have seen from my work, I'm a fan of wordy references. I don't like the idea of engraving a statement and providing a reference with no indication of what particular section of the reference is relevant: when people do that, it's like saying "trust me, bro". Some publications even leave out the title of the article, only typing the journal and volume, and in butchered abbreviations, at that.

“It is possible to include references within extended footnotes, but you have to use Template:Efn to do so,”

Elaborate on that. Currently, the last line of text in the reference in question is “See the Psychedelic Effects section of Ergine for more comments.” If that sentence was anywhere else on Wikipedia, it would look like this: “See the Psychedelic Effects section of Ergine for more comments.”

You're telling me that I can use Efn to get something similar to that within a footnote?

Wk472 (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can use Template:Efn to create an explanatory footnote. You have to place Template:Notelist at the end of the article, generally just before Template:Reflist, to have the explanatory footnotes show in the article. You can then place citations, using either <ref> ... </ref> or Template:Sfn, as appropriate, within the explanatory footnote. See Florida scrub for an example of how I have used Efn. Donald Albury 22:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you were suggesting that I "mirror" the citation with a footnote (Efn). And I'm also dismayed to see that Diannaa butchered all my "elaborate" citations, under the pretext of copyright violation, even though none of them were actually in violation of copyright. I have a little exercise for you if you're interested: Go to the Psychedelic Effects section of the previous version of the article and read it and hover your mouse cursor over all of the citations. And then do the same thing with the current version and tell me which one was a more enjoyable, educating experience. Wk472 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Eich E (January 12, 2008). "4.2.3 Occurrence in the Convolvulaceae (p. 224)". Solanaceae and convolvulaceae - secondary metabolites: biosynthesis, chemotaxonomy, biological and economic significance: a handbook. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74541-9. ISBN 978-3-540-74540-2. OCLC 195613136.

[1]