Fugg

Hi Fugg: recreational use of opioids is abuse. Period. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've answered this here. Fugg 03:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Abuse" is not necessary POV. Opioid medication has been developed and is being produced for analgesia. To use it for fun is inappropriate and qualifies as abuse. On the other side, "recreational use" lends legitimacy to the use of opioids. This is the reason for my revert. Your views are welcome, but I object to "recreational use" in this context - it's actually more POV than "abuse". JFW | T@lk 11:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have reworded the article slightly for neutral point of view, not all addicts are 'recreational users' and not all recreational users are 'addicts', changed to user in one case rather than either recreational user or addict /changed another instance to chronic user as, addiction is not required for "ramp effect" and "ramp effect is not typically noted in the mere 'recreational user' , furthermore, the term "recreational" is misleading , see Recreation would prefer either simply user, when appropriate, or chronic user, or even non-medical user, but I think this version should feel good for all of us.Pedant 22:44, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with Pedant's rewording. Much better than my crude substitutions.

JFW: Calling certain uses of a drug "inappropriate" seems to me to be blatant POV. Wikipedia does not exist to encourage or discourage certain behaviours. I also think that "recreational use" is a perfectly neutral term for that particular use of a drug. I don't feel it encourages or "legitimises" recreational use, and your objection seems to be that it doesn't discourage recreational use. Fugg 05:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is inappropriate from every POV apart from that of the person that finds this appropriate - doctors, governments, social scientists etc. Sometimes a very fringe POV is not enough to suppress use of a particular term. Use of guns to shoot neighbours is entirely inappropriate, unless you happen to be the killer and have fought with that neighbour for 30 years.

I also agree with Pedant's rewrite. Bye. JFW | T@lk 22:48, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abuse is a POV, just as much as recreational use is a POV. To promote that one point of view is correct, and invalidates the other is against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The recreational drug use POV is shared by millions of people worldwide, and includes doctors, lawyers, scientists, artists and politicians among both the drug users and non-drug users. NewScientist magazine put out a huge feature article on drug use on November 13th. I've transcribed a copy of it onto this website: The intoxication instinct --Thoric 22:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

XEvil

XEvil is currently up for deletion, as the articles creator you may be interested in participating in its AfD Kc4 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello :)

I would like to ask you if you would like to look and give your opinion on the new Articles for deletion proposal for FreeOrion. I wrote a new version article and I would like to ask you if you could vote on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeOrion and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FreeOrion_(3rd_nomination) . Thank you! Peer-LAN (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of XEvil for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article XEvil 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/XEvil (2nd nomination) 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. czar 03:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)