Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:58, 26 June 2013

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Hello

This guy thinks hes some sort of[REDACTED] big shot

Your recent edits to M. speciosa

This shouldn't end in an edit war. The wording was blatantly partisan and doesn't belong in the article lead. It could be broken down, organized, and placed in individual sections such as medicinal uses, regulation, etc. but it shouldn't be crammed right into the article head with no inline citations. Also, the 'kratom association' section is a blatant violation of Misplaced Pages policy. We do not outright promote third parties by giving them their own sections in articles. Using them as a reference, however, is fine. Feel free to issue a request for comment.--76.177.89.200 (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop reverting or you may get blocked. You have reverted the page multiple times in the past 3 days without explaining why, only using the same reasoning which has been shown to be unjustified. Inline citations do not belong in the Intro. Please read my responses to you. If you continue reverting cited sourced material then you may be blocked. Please update yourself on Misplaced Pages policy and rules. ThorPorre (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with Misplaced Pages policy regarding the matter. That's why I said "this shouldn't end in an edit war". Also, where do you get your reasoning that inline citations don't belong in the intro? Also, judging from your edit history and how recently this account was opened, you may want to read WP:SOAP.--76.177.89.200 (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Read wp:leadcite https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Introductory_text. ThorPorre (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

""The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement. Introductory text"", because the kratom articles lead section is cited elsewhere in the article, it is redundant to provide the same citations in the lead. It doesn't help the article. Also, deleting information from the lead that you KNOW is cited elsewhere in the article and claiming it is uncited is borderline vandalism. Please refrain. You know because I've told you multiple times and I have shown you the citations in the main body. ThorPorre (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

wp:soap has 5 criteria. 1. Advocacy of a religious, sports or national agenda. 2. Opinion pieces. 3. Scandal mongering. 4. Self promotion. 5. Advertising. Clearly im not advocating some religious or national agenda. Im not writing "opinion" pieces as each statement is sourced and cited. It's not scandal mongering obviously b It's certainly not self promotion and it isn't advertising. The kratom association meets the criteria for relevancy in the articles context. The kratom association isn't a business and mentioning it in a neutral manner ( explaining what it is and what it does) is necessary. Citing the benefits of kratom and providing sources for the medicinal benefits definitely doesn't fit into any category other than the category offline good edits and improving an article.ThorPorre (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As I've said, I have no problem with kratom or it's uses. The article as of now just seems to have a bit too much of a promotional slant. So far, little research has been done on the plant, thus, I think it may be a little too early to claim that it treats major depression, etc. Also, citing sources that are obviously pro-kratom, such as Kratom Association, creates POV issues. However, I cannot stress enough that I am not anti-kratom. I believe the article should have a neutral tone, not preferring one side over the other. What I was getting at with WP:SOAP, was that your account currently appears to be a single purpose account. Blocks are possible for this as well.--76.177.89.200 (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Most accounts are single purpose accounts and most editors only edit specific articles. This is common. If you have an issue with a specific source then please open a discussion for that specific source. The kratom association can be cited just like any other organization can. ThorPorre (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Pub med article, from the kratom article showing kratom successfully treats depression:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20869223/ ThorPorre (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mitragyna speciosa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thai (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) 09:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mitragyna speciosa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Remedy (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) 12:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Mitragyna speciosa, again

I notice that I'm not the first person to raise concerns with your editing at Mitragyna speciosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This edit is a pretty egregious misrepresentation of the cited source. The source makes clear that kratom does have side effects (most of which are mild), and that it is addictive. You've cited the source to claim that there are no side effects. That's a problem. Please don't continue to use sources in this fashion. MastCell  17:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)