Dexedream

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Comedown (drugs), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kindling and Tapering. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cocaine dependence, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Atria and Somatic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Cocaine

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cocaine, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cocaine. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I know you did not just say “unconstructive”. Dexedream (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cocaine, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --WikiLinuz {talk} 05:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Sundowning, you may be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Give an example. Nothing I said was anymore “poorly sourced” than what was already written from sources of disputable authenticity to begin with. Dexedream (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Existing poorly sourced content is not justification to add more poorly sourced content. See other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Oooh sassy, me gusta. So then explain why the whole article still exists. Also what makes you think some of the information added wasn’t in the sources already listed Dexedream (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not being "sassy", just stating a fact. No more, no less. If you want to propose the deletion of the article, that is your option. Your edit summaries spoke to your personal experience, not to sources already present. If you were expanding on information provided by sources already present, then that's what you should say in your edit summaries. 331dot (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

That’s your own opinion. My edit summaries don’t have to state that, you’re just drawing most of your conclusions off assumptions about my reasons for such edits. Besides, I was also adding information that was literally previously present in the article, presumably sourced from the already-present citations. Dexedream (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@331dot: He's doing it again diff 1, diff 2, diff 3. I don't think this editor will ever change their behavior (and we've already warned multiple times). --WikiLinuz {talk} 03:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I was going to cite it… This seems like an undo assumption of bad faith. Especially since I was utilizing the talk page of all things until further editing. So since I was just using the talk page at that point I can’t see how any sort of “ban” makes sense. People have cited both moderate as well as the moderate to high dependence liability on the cocaine page before. Either one of us can find a source that says one thing or the other. That wasn’t the point. The point was to discuss it in the talk page in a more nuanced and dimensional fashion because obviously it’s plenty easy to find sources which say either one which is seemingly what has caused this back-and-forth within the dependence liability section on the cocaine page (even with citations) for a fair while now. And as a side note; there’s still no such thing as “psychological dependence” by the way, being that it’s a borderline self-contradicting term when going by the textbook definition of substance dependence. I’ve already read the data (for years) and understand the neurophysiology of quite a number of drugs. To oversimplify it, even if the results were all psychological, that doesn’t mean the dependence itself is not physical. There’s even wiki articles that are cited which go over the two types of physical dependencies (neurological versus somatic). But among scientific experts and researchers who more astutely understand the difference between addictions and dependency and who do know how to manage the data, it’s not a controversial notion among the well-read scholars, nor was it really even the focal point of whether or not the liability for dependence to cocaine was moderate or high or even both; “moderate to high”. I brought this topic to the talk page because it was literally just going to be a continual back-and-forth in the form of a “citation war” more or less for who knows how long. Dexedream (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

And to summarize it further; I’m just trying to understand/workout how Wikipedia in general, and its editors can reconcile having the cocaine dependence liability degree labeled simply as just being “high” when things like GABA_A receptor positive allosteric modulators, prednisone, etc. exist. Seems conspicuously misleading (almost on purpose) and I’d argue it’s basically kind of further discrediting Wikipedia as a whole; or at least that whole single page. I mean I’m no stranger to the internet or even the wiki Cocaine article/page so I know it’s not like we can’t each find a “source” on our own that can state either claim. I’ve already seen that happen. That’s the whole point of the talk discussion. To work it out, because it seems silly to just go back-and-forth back-and-forth just because “someone found the source”. And in the greater context of most all of the other drug pages it seems extra misleading and arbitrary (and arguably totally backwards/in bad faith) to have cocaine randomly labeled as having a high potential for that. Pragmatically and contrastively it just doesn’t make sense. Dexedream (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Cocaine boom link to Stephen Murphy

Hallo, you accidentally linked to this disambiguation page. There is an easy way to avoid linking to disambiguation pages: if you go to "Preferences", "Gadgets", and look under "Appearance" you'll see "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" towards the bottom of the section. Select that tickbox, and whenever you Preview a page you'll be able to see whether you've accidentally linked to a disambiguation page. Thanks, and Happy Editing. PamD 05:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Cocaine boom

added a link pointing to Freebase

Flubromazolam

added a link pointing to Subclass

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Me adding sourced/cited content is not me being engaged in an “edit war“ or simply adding in “what I think should be there” it’s me being technical because that’s what editors are supposed to do? you’re just being idealistic about this and are just as, if not more guilty than me in “warring“ since you’re just denouncing something based off how it ‘sounds’ to you and ignoring the fact that it’s ultimately credible. Dexedream (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Medellín Cartel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages German and Colombian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Medellín Cartel. – MaterialWorks 14:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Well it’s literally in progress so I am in the process of sourcing intermittently. I’ll cite things less intermittently I suppose but it’s not like I wasn’t going to. Dexedream (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Adderall, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Specifically, the content you added made the lead section far too long and in-depth - I'd recommend adding the information throughout the article instead. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 16:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Medellín Cartel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Corridor and Megalomania.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dextroamphetamine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bioactive and Efflux.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Opioid, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Unconscious, Self-limiting and Intoxication.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sinus tachycardia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rebound.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Amphetamine dependence. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --WikiLinuz {talk} 17:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Take your advice… And learn the meaning of the word “constructive”. Accurate =\\= Unconstructive Dexedream (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --WikiLinuz {talk} 06:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Lol listen dude.. Maybe I’m a bit sassy sometimes in terms of edit summaries or even talk page exchanges (although barely the former) but if anything, I’ve pretty much already virtually entirely eased up or at least prophylactically modified what seems to be unsoundly construed takes on my activity. But much of the reactive rhetoric and backlash aimed at me appear to be violating the same supposed etiquette so maybe more seasoned editors should lead by example honestly instead of autocratic knee-jerk reactions because it honestly gives off mixed messages.

By the way, like half of the “links“ listed which were alleged to be problematic activity on my part (at least that seems to be the implication) or whatever this cynical interpretation is of my contributions are still not even in violation of any genuine hardline rules as far as I understand and I just came back right now to wiki in order to literally cite multiple earlier contributions/edits anyways so I don’t see your true salient point(s) unless you’re really just that adamant about highly expedient sourcing timeline windows, which I’m not here to exploit or inappropriately extend but if it’s not that then this is starting to come off more like a personal vendetta than an authentic concern over the substantive nature of my edits and added content itself. And not to mention my proposed “battleground“ behavior that is being emphasized here (and overly inflated, just saying) ironically seemed much less persistent and unwavering when compared to the very editors who tried to poorly “moderate“ my contributions with their own disruptive editing patterns. I mean it takes two to tango does it not? Even then though, I wouldn’t insist that they should be formally reprimanded. Is there like a hierarchy or something where at a certain level disruptive editing is more tolerated by some contributors but not others? It’s just not consistent so again, mixed messages.

And just to reiterate, yeah most of those listed links to articles that I just went over to try and understand what the core issue is here and where the activity is apparently of concern, are (again, almost all) literally just out-of-context timing discrepancies between the content info itself and the citations which I have a multitude of further accumulating sources for already on hand just to finalize, so as not to sloppily implement them.

There might’ve been one or two articles which already had a preface at the top of the article about lack of citations already which I might’ve problematically accentuated but I mean, no one’s perfect, the preface is already there so at worst I guess it can be seen as a display of oversight on my part but this is hardly grounds for a near inquisition-type treatment or what appears to be an administrative response instead of, even meager attempts at diplomacy. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt in that maybe you’re just assuming the worst here, (even though I am pretty sure that’s contradictory to the wiki’s approach) and maybe you’re just condition by passed malicious or unmanageable contributors but if it’s not at least partially due to that then I can only assume based on the context, that this is largely just driven by emotion or undue lack of faith despite my progressive attempts to pee more diplomatic recently anyways. This mostly seems to me at this point to be something that can be narrowed down to simple cynicism. And maybe even trans-foreign cultural-communicative clashes which I’ve come to recently accept are more pervasive online these days than many seem to realize. Not trying to throw gas on the fire here but just as an example, I’ve come to find people online from say; certain European cultures don’t always interpret the words of North American in intended ways. Even communication patterns between different regional areas within the US can lead to major misunderstandings in the absence of tone and whatnot.

I’m here to improve articles. Simple as that. There’s a lot of articles which seem conspicuously underdeveloped (and no I don’t mean that in some conspiratorial way) or just ones that are missing imperative details and appear unable to be adequately utilized at this point by casual readers. I’m not outright refusing anything or thoroughly unwavering in my conduct so this seems like jumping the gun. Dexedream (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)