User talk:David Hedlund

User page

Talk

Contributions

Photo gallery

Links

User's locale time and zone

Sweden UTC +02:00 (CEST)

( to update)

If you leave me a message here, I will usually reply here.

May 2014

Hello, I'm Ahunt. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page gNewSense, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Trisquel. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to BLAG Linux and GNU. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ahunt: These are not spam links but license references. Is it Wikipedia policy to ignore a problem on the grounds that the FSF reports it? --David Hedlund (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

FSF does not set policy for Wikipedia. Your continued insertion of FSF and GNU.org links is disruptive and after many warnings not to do this, is now vandalism. See see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Spam_external_linking. - Ahunt (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ahunt:No, its hard work ruined by you. Congratulations, I hope you are satisfied. It would be so much better if you assume good faith instead of pointing out how bad my edits are. -David Hedlund (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Curious - when you say the FSF reports it, what are you referring to? Would it help to use the talk page of the articles to resolve these issues, and refrain from making mass changes until there's WP:CONSENSUS. Ahunt has a point about disruption (and edit summaries) [1], and maybe worth reading WP:BRD, hope that helps with the understandable frustration of reverted work. Widefox; talk 11:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Widefox: There is a problem with the term "source model; it's described in http://gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#SourceModel and "Market"; it's described in http://gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market. Despite name-calling like "spam" and "vandalism", the problem calls for attention. If I haven't used the right method to signal the problem, what method should I use? Is there a way to raise the issue that follows rules but isn't a hopeless dead end? --David Hedlund (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Coordinating

(The preferred method is to archive your talk page, rather than delete). I was looking for a reply to my question [2], care to? Widefox; talk 19:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Linux. Can you explain why you're adding WP:CSECTIONs (and NSA controversy generally) to articles? [3] (although reworded here [4]) Would it be possible for you to not give me the impression WP:IDHT. I ask you again to use edit summaries. This is no place for WP:ADVOCACY. These edits are fail WP:NPOV and I've reverted several of them. Stop now and engage in dialogue about this - WP policies and guidelines, or you will be blocked. Widefox; talk 20:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ahunt: pls can you double check the Linux article changes (and any others) for neutrality, as I'd rather get a second opinion than revert all myself. Thanks Widefox; talk 20:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Widefox: Because they all contain the same text so I didn't want to confuse the readers by letting them having different titles. --David Hedlund (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, read WP:COPYPASTE, then have another attempt at justifying all this disruption I've asked you above. I'm sure Ahunt is with me here, it really would be cool to have more Linux editors around here. Widefox; talk 20:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bitmessage.ch

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.

A tag has been placed on Bitmessage.ch requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here.  SAMI  ^talk 17:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Entheogen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Vaporizer

System distribution commitments (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to System distribution

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Article expansions

Hi: I appreciate your effort to expand articles, but please don't refer to copyediting when expansion is all you are doing. It's doubly misleading since at both National Security Agency and Red cabbage, your addition contained grammar/syntax errors. In addition, please cover bare URLs. There are a number of ways of formatting references, and it is best to follow the model already used in the article, but at a minimum you should be giving the title and the publication, and preferably also the publication date (or retrieval date if none) and the author's name. Note also our strong preference for reliable sources; the red cabbage addition used a nutrition article from some sort of filler service for newspapers, but admittedly the source already present in the article also turned out to be not very good. However, you should use academic books and journal articles when you can, especially for health-related material - and one of the reasons for identifying sources is so the reader can judge their merits. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I will likely

...bring RHaworth before an admin noticeboard at some point, for his shoot-before-discussion attitude, and general user incivility. However, I am not a wiki-techonocrat, and for me it would take enormous time to generate the WP:this and WP:that text needed for a successful visit to a noticeboard. Please advise if you or others you know are experienced at this, and would collaborate on making this case. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: Thanks for your support Leprof. I'll try to make something useful of our Wikipedia relationship sir. --David Hedlund (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Also

As a native English speaker with roots in the EU, I would be glad to review important edits that you make for English language. Call the important ones to my attention at User_Talk:Leprof_7272. If you wish to know who I am, go to the User page and un-gray it via the Edit tab. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: I would be very happy if you would like to help me proof read the whole entheogen article as I've dedicated a lot of energy in it. --David Hedlund (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Give me through the weekend, but it will likely be sooner. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I added Ethanol#Human metabolite, can you pls rephrase it and later add it to List of common misconceptions? Please also confirm if you do this. Regards. --David Hedlund (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.

Speedy deletion nomination of Instant Heart Rate

Hello David Hedlund,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Instant Heart Rate for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, 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. Fenix down (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ahunt (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Notification of potential conflict of interest

Hello, David Hedlund. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines, you may have a conflict of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Ahunt (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ahunt: Why don't you just edit GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines and point out what I've missing so I can learn how to avoid problems with people like you? --David Hedlund (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I tagged you here for a potential COI because you seem to be here on Wikipedia just to promote GNU and FSF and not to build a neutral encyclopedia. I did some small fixes on GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines, but the problem is that it is an article about a non-notable policy of an organization. It shouldn't be an article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines

I have nominated this article for deletion due to the reasons provided at the deletion discussion. You may wish to make a comment there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello David, I wanted to follow up with you as I really do want to see a Linux-focused editor be successful. I'm a strong proponent of Linux and free software in general as well, but as Wikipedia editors, while we all have our personal feelings on things, it's critical to leave them at the door and edit entirely from a neutral perspective. Edits should be based upon what reliable sources have to say, never upon what we as editors personally think, and not upon our personal interpretations or synthesis of the source material. Primary sources may be used with appropriate precautions, such as never being used to provide promotional or surprising information, but should not be the main source material for any article. Standalone articles must be notable; that is, their subjects must have been extensively covered by reliable sources unaffiliated with the subject. If that is not the case, we cannot sustain a full article on the subject, though it may be appropriate for brief mention in a parent or related article. A redirect to that other article can also be used if the title may be a common search term. I hope that helps to clarify things a bit, and I do know it can be a bit overwhelming at first. Please feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Notable distros with their own articles have adopted GNU FSDG, why isn't that enough? --David Hedlund (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Because Notability is not inherited. A famous person might own a can opener, that doesn't make the can opener notable. - Ahunt (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

To add to what Ahunt said, if we're going to write an article about GNU FSDG, it is not allowed to write an article based upon one's personal knowledge. To be verifiable, material must come from a reliable source. In any article, the bulk of the article's content should be referenced to published sources which meet our reliability guidelines and are unaffiliated with the subject. Sources closely affiliated with the subject or written by the subject are not likely to be a neutral analysis. It might, of course, be appropriate to note in the article about the distro that it has adapted those guidelines, and to note them as an undertaking by GNU/FSF in those articles, but for a full article with the guidelines as the subject, we must have reliable sources that discuss them in a reasonable degree of detail. If such sources do not exist, we've nothing to base such an article on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

In re

Your message to me…

RHaworth deleted Instant Heart Rate that I created without talking with me first. You told me to contact you if this problem would arise again. How can you help me? --David Hedlund (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I will look into it, and get back with you. Look to conversation here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: Thank you. Just use {{ping|<username>}} on my talk page or and yours to send me a Notification. --David Hedlund (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Entheogen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Pedro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nymphaea nouchali may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''', also called '''star lotus''', '''red and blue water lily''', '''blue star water lily''') is a [[Nymphaeaceae|water lily]] of genus ''[[Nymphaea]]''. It is the [[National emblem|national

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Doors may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• was marred by tension as a result of Morrison's increasing dependence on [[alcoholism|alcohol]]] and [[Substance abuse|drugs]], and the rejection of his new epic, "[[Celebration of the Lizard]]",
• ref=pd_sim_m_h__48?ie=UTF8&refRID=1DAN9FRGY0D45F39K9FV |title=R-Evolution - Deluxe Edition [Blu-ray&#93; [2013&#93;: Amazon.co.uk: The Doors: DVD & Blu-ray |publisher=Amazon.co.uk |date= |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 21st Arizona Territorial Legislature may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• repealed a [[poll tax]] and implemented the [[local option]] for sale of [[alcohol (drug)|alcohol]]].{{sfn|Wagoner|1970|p=365}} The session authorized organization of the [[Arizona Rangers]] with

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Drug Abuse Resistance Education may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Smoking]], [[Tobacco advertising]], [[Drug Abuse]], [[Inhalants]], [[alcohol (drug)|alcohol]]], and [[Peer Pressure]] in a [[Social Network]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of System distribution commitments

The article System distribution commitments has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:SYNTHESIS; neologism

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Fermanted beverage

Hello David Hedlund. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Fermanted beverage, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a recently created redirect - consider WP:RfD. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Is not "Fermanted" in the article name "Fermanted beverage" a typo? --David Hedlund (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It is, and there is a criterion for speedy deletion of recently created redirects from implausible typos. If you want to delete an eight-year-old redirect, you need to use WP:Redirects for discussion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: I did that, thanks. --David Hedlund (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you briefly. Today's spate of edits are little better than vandalism. Do not propose deletion of any well-established redirect. Do not move any article unless you can show a clear consensus for the move. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, most of the moves were of redirects you had created. But creation of multiple redirects is not a particularly useful activity. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ledol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caucasian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At (Windows)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At (Windows). Thanks. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

June 2014

Your recent editing history at Lucid dream shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Actually I provided a reliable source if you did read the beginning of the edit summary. Is that a violation? --David Hedlund (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

My new edit-summary explains that a non-peer reviewed work such as a book is not a reliable source for these claims. The book by LaBerge is not peer-reviewed and therefore it is not a reliable source. In any case, this discussion should take place at the article talkpage so that we can have other editors participate and comment. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: The quoted text from http://www.lucidity.com/SleepAndCognition.html referred to LaBerge, S., Greenleaf, W., & Kedzierski, B. (1983). Physiological responses to dreamed sexual activity during lucid REM sleep. Psychophysiology, 20, 454-455. that you can review. If its valid I suggest you revert the edit back and add it as a reliable source. Thanks. --David Hedlund (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I moved the discussion at the article talk and also replied there. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Lindsey Lowe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lindsey Lowe 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/Lindsey Lowe 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. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome

This page WP:MEDHOW can help with your editing. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: Thank you! How did you get the idea to inform me? --David Hedlund (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Saw your edits to methanol. The other thing that we recommend very highly is the use of secondary sources such as review articles. Often primary sources get removed on English Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Moving content around

Also when you move content around you need to say which Wikipedia page you got it from. Maybe put something on the talk page for these edits [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. I wrote about it on Talk:Alcoholic beverage a while ago but now I also added a notice about it in Talk:Alcohol (drug). --David Hedlund (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Substituted alcohols

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Substituted alcohols, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://teklasocialspider.blogspot.com/2014/05/alternative-psychoactive-alcohol-use.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Got your note about this, will look in. Don't forget the 4 ~'s. Get me here faster. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: I updated your talk page. --David Hedlund (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Alcohol (drug)

@Wahrmund: I need your help to proof-read alcohol (drug) as Swedish are my native language. Thank you for all your contributions to the alcoholic beverage article! --David Hedlund (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ethanol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Per se (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Tragedies (events)

Category:Tragedies (events), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. j⚛e decker^talk 23:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Alcohol (drug) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Date rape drug

@Sue Gardner: Date rape drug was reverted by you.[6] Why didn't you Talk first? Regards --David Hedlund (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I explained what I did here. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sue Gardner: I splitted the articles. Do you think this compromise is ok? --David Hedlund (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Looked at substituted alcohols article

David: If you do not understand this message, past it into Google translate, and see if that helps. I am writing after reading and reviewing carefully your new "Substituted alcohols" article. The pharmacologic activities of alcohols that you highlight at the new article are only a small subset of the material required for this to become a substantial, important article. Fortunately, all of that additional material—information on alcohol naming (nomenclature), history, physical and chemical properties, occurrence in nature, toxicity, other applications, their reactions and production, etc.—already exists at the Alcohol article. For this reason, I strongly advise you to merge this material into that article. You cannot keep an article on one subtype of alcohol up to date, in all these areas, without help. Other chemistry and pharmacology editors will not agree with the distinctive importance of "substitute alcohols" as needing a separate article, and they are already working to keep the "Alcohol" article up to date.

Though I was tempted, if I make any edits to your article, it will make it more complicated for you to move its material and delete the empty article (which, as an expert on this subject, I advise you to do).

Here is what I recommend you do, specifically: (1) Read this, [7]. (2) Copy and insert each bit of your short "Substituted alcohol" text into the Alcohol article. Do 3-4 sentences a day, and ping me (@User:Leprof_7272) when you do them, and I will check them for English, chemistry, and proper placement. (3) As you make the additions, delete the material from the "Substituted alcohols" article, and state in the edit summary "Text moved to related Alcohol article." (4) When you are done moving all content, then in the Edit area, delete any last remaining markup/coding, leaving the article space blank. Write in the Edit summary "As sole editor, preparing page for deletion."

When we reach this point, I will call the empty article to an Admin's attention, and ask for it to be deleted.

This is my best advice. If I edit at all, you will no longer be able to make this change yourself. And I cannot devote time to an article whose content belongs as a subset of an longer and more well-developed existing article. It is a waste of time to duplicate effort this way. This is my strong advice. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: I reply short here as I suffer from muscle wikinffection after a wikimaraton (~2000 edits this month).

Thank you for being clear how you think I best can achieve something useful with the concept of the article. Would it be even better to merge it to another article I started recently, Alcohol (drug) (think substituted amphetamines)? --David Hedlund (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Alcohol (drug)

Please stop making unexplained changes to numerous articles adding links to alcohol (drug) when such links are not appropriate for the context, as you did in wine and other articles. Some of them are OK, others are not. You've done it so many times it may be easier for me to mass-revert all your changes for today. Please use the edit summary to justify these changes. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I am torn, but I would support a mass revert and a gathering of consensus before such a massive change. In principle, I like the idea, but the article being linked is far too weak at this time.Unfriend14 (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

In fact, reviewing the talk page at I see Alcohol (drug) "will hopefully improve Wikipedia articles significantly by using a link that clearly states that alcohol is a drug". It would seem that this article and associated links are intended as wp:POINT and pushing a strong wp:POV. With that in mind, I am going to open a discussion at wp:ANI as I simply don't know how to call attention to the article, and will add a POV flag to the article as well.Unfriend14 (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I went through all the edits today. POV-pushing disruption like this consumes a lot of time from other editors. I am not the only one reverting these edits. Fortunately, most of them seemed OK, actually. Some seemed unnecessary but harmless, a couple clearly misrepresented the cited source, and I reverted probably 10%-20% of them that were clearly the wrong context or reduced precision for the sake of linking to a drug-related page. It's possible I missed some. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Editorial commentary

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see that you're continuing your edits, despite concerns being raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and that you appear to be ignoring the discussion there and not engaging with the community. If you wish to be unblocked, you will need to reassure me or any other administrator who reviews your unblock request that your first priority will be to engage with the community and come to an agreement concerning your recent alcohol related edits. Nick (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: I have done my best to add links to Alcohol (drug) after context in the articles. I think I did more good than harm. Also, I was never warned about being blocked at my page. --David Hedlund 12:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Why did you ignore the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ? Nick (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: Only because I didn't reply does not mean that I ignored it, I read the whole discussion and even quoted it in Talk:Alcohol (drug). --David Hedlund 12:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nick: So can you please unblock me so I may participate in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? --David Hedlund 12:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, on the understanding that you will be reblocked if you immediately return to making the same edits you were making before. You must ensure you gain consensus for the edits you are making before proceeding to make such wide reaching changes. Nick (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)