User talk:ResearchfirmUSA

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, ResearchfirmUSA! Thank you for your contributions. I am VQuakr and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! VQuakr (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to User talk:Muboshgu could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were several problems with the edit you made to Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States. Not least, you added a statement in between an existing phrase and the references that supported it, such that the older referenced appeared after a statement they did not support. Rather than attempting to "brute force" an edit in place that has been reverted, please follow the process outlined at Bold, Revert, Discuss and discuss the edits on the article talk page to develop a consensus. Thanks, and feel free to contact me if you have questions. VQuakr (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the only issue you have with my edit was the order of the citations, then that is easily fixed by placing the two previous cites in the middle of the sentence directly after the first, unedited clause. That would not be an issue for me and either one of you editors could have stated your issue from the beginning instead of deleting my edit without explaining why. However, your message seems to indicate that you have other issues with my edit and if so, it is incumbant upon those of you who deleted my edit to explain exactly why, instead of just deleting my edit. My edit was made because the original published statement is verifiably misleading and false. The publishing of the misleading and false statements in the first place is what is wrong and out of order, so when that happens, edits should be expected. I am not making "threats" of any kind. Publishing misleading and false statements as fact is misconduct and that misconduct is not my fault, nor does it have anything to do with me, I have only pointed it out to you. Anyone (not just me) is free to legitimately report what is published on Wikipedia to anyone they want, so that is no "threat" and trying to characterize it as such will not change the facts. I asked you what makes any Wikipedia editor think they can publish misleading and false statements as fact without someone editing the falsehood? If you are claiming that Wikipedia policy allows for that, I think that either you are in error, or if that were the policy, I don't think I have to go into much detail of what can happen when entities establish policies that are illegitimate. The way I read the Wikipedia policies, edits were supposedly welcomed, and since, in the History of this article, it appears that neither of the editors who deleted my edits are among the original authors of this article, I don't see why you should be supporting their deletions of my edit without explaining your actions in some detail. ResearchfirmUSA (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did I "delete"? Here you say, "If you persist in publishing misinformation and refuse to publish accurate facts, I will have to report your misconduct to authorities and media outside of this Wikipedia network." This is a clear violation of our policy on legal threats, and if you want to edit here then you should consider removing or striking it. The source you have added to the article here and in subsequent edits has other issues, as well. Again, the path forward is discussion with other editors, not edit warring - this is, after all, a collaborative effort. VQuakr (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What was deleted was the testimony of the DEA Administrator who clearly cited the source of her statements (which I directly quoted) from her article. For the record, this was my revision: "Teen use of marijuana in the Netherlands where it is sold legally and openly is lower than in the United States because '[a]fter marijuana use became legal, consumption nearly tripled among 18- to 20-year-olds.... [and then] [a]s awareness of the harm of marijuana grew, the number of cannabis coffeehouses in the Netherlands decreased 36 percent in six years.'" These are the DEA Administrator's cited sources: White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, "What Americans Need to Know about Marijuana," 10; Dutch Health, Welfare, and Sports Ministry, report, April 23, 2004; University of Tilburg (Netherlands), "Coffeeshops in the Netherlands 2003," September 2004. I do not know why those who oppose my edit want to leave out the authoritative testimony showing why the consumption is now lower in the Netherlands and the fact that the consumption nearly tripled among young people before it decreased. I object to any attempts to hide that information from the public. The current statement about the Netherlands that the reverting editors and you are pushing excludes pertinent facts, is published out of context, and is a clear misrepresentation.

You did not delete/revert my edit yourself, but you supported the editors who did the deleting. And by the way, what the editors who deleted my edit have done is called a "threat" and "edit warring" because they repeatedly restored their preferred version of article content and then the first "threat" came from editor Muboshgu as he posted this threat in my talk section, "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed....Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. 01:07, 15 January 2014" That is a threat and is contrary to Wikipedia's policy which is that "Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold." My edit was in no way unconstructive or disruptive as Muboshgu claimed. Wikipedia's policy is also that a "controversial edit is not regarded as edit warring" and "editing from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war. Editor Muboshgu stated a "point of view" objection when he deleted my edit which is not a valid basis for reverting an edit ("00:57, 15 January 2014‎ Muboshgu(talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,875 bytes) (-474)‎ . .(Undid revision 590748303 by ResearchfirmUSA (talk) POV source, that's the reason)") The record shows that my edit was reverted without good cause and then without any explanation by the editors who deleted my edit, of a good reason for deleting my edit, first Muboshgu threatened me as I stated above, and then you threatened me with blocking. You also accused me of making "legal threats" which is a patently false accusation. Take another look at my statement that you quoted and you will see that I made no "legal threats" at all. Anyone has a legal right to report public information to anyone they please, that's common knowledge, not to mention that it doesn't require my involvement for anyone to see all of this for themselves since it is all publicly posted information. You can imagine whatever you like but your misinterpretations and mischaracterizations are what is clear and evident. I would suggest that you stop making threats and discuss your issues with my edit as Wikipedia policy dictates.ResearchfirmUSA (talk) 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Wikipedia is not a battleground, but I get the distinct impression you are eager to make it one. If you change your mind and decide to pursue discussion on the talk page I can assist; since so far you have attacked literally everyone with whom you have interacted I do not think there is much I can do for you. VQuakr (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This IS the talk page, and for the 3rd, 4th, I'm losing track of how many times now, I have asked you to discuss your issues with my edit as Wikipedia policy dictates, but instead of discussing your issues with my edit, you continue to attack me and make threats against me. I can't be any clearer that this: You have only stated the one issue with my edit (i.e. the order of the citations) so, what are your substantive issues with my edit? I'm the one who is trying to "discuss"; you are the one who quite obviously has been unwilling or unable to do so.ResearchfirmUSA (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I understand part of the confusion. Discussion of changed to the article should go on the article talk page at Talk:Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States; I suggest starting a new thread there. I doubt the other interested editors are watching my personal user talk page, which is where we are now. VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem discussing anything further regarding the article content on the article talk page, and will do so if I am so inclined, but the record shows that when you contacted me, and also after you leveled your accusations against me, you also specifically invited me to respond to you, personally, on your talk page: " feel free to contact me if you have questions. VQuakr (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)" You provided the link to your talk page, so that is why I responded to those issues on your talk page. Carry on, and I will take up further issues with the article on the article talk page when and if I choose to do so. If you continue this discussion further on this page, however, I reserve the option to respond to you here.ResearchfirmUSA (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You indeed are invited to post here. Since you are relatively new, I just wanted to be certain you understood the difference in function between user talk and article talk pages. I didn't "level any accusations" at you; the warning for edit warring was clearly warranted and quite standard fare. User talk pages exist to communicate with a specific user, while article talk pages exist to discuss improvements to an article. VQuakr (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did level accusations against me and your opinion that that was warranted is precisely that, just an opinion. The evidence is clear, for anyone who cares to look at it, that your threats and accusations towards me were biased and unwarranted. Did you post any "warning for edit warring" on editor Muboshgu's talk page? How about warning him for his lack of civility towards me? No, I see that you did not, yet it was editor Muboshgu who engaged in edit warring by repeatedly reverting my edit to restore his preferred version of article content, and he did that without stating any valid cause for doing so. Then instead of civilly providing me with a valid cause for his reversions, he posted a threat and false accusation on my talk page. Anyone can go and see the evidence for themselves. Anyone can also see that you did NOT put a warning for edit warring on my talk page. What you put on my talk page was a false accusation about "legal threats." You see, you keep changing your story in an effort to justify the actions you've taken in this matter, and I am not interested in these kinds of games, so I propose that you think whatever you want to think, but the evidence is clear so the public can make up its own mind.ResearchfirmUSA (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that unless we are talking about the insertion of illegal material (and lets face it in this case the only person who added anything was yourself and it certainly was not illegal material)) that there are NO authorities outside wikipedia who have any jurisdiction over wikipedia and I for one dont believe the media would have any interest in what is going on here. Its still pretty yuck that you are threatening honest and hard working volunteers on this project, though, you should remove your legal and media threats and never make any again here♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SqueakBox, I made no legal threats, and as anyone can plainly see from the public record of this exchange, the first "threats" were made against me by an editor who stated, "could result in loss of editing privileges." False accusations were also leveled against me by that editor and another one, which is also on record. I did exactly what Wikipedia policy calls for in making my edit along with providing the summary explanation in the space provided, whereas you did not give any explanation at all when you reverted my edit. I find your belligerent attitude expressed here to be offensive, but not unexpected from those who embrace the left-leaning political biases glaringly expressed in the referenced article. According to Wiki policy, Wiki article authors and editors with special privileges (like two of the editors who have reverted my edit) are supposed to take a neutral position, especially when it comes to a political issue like this whole marijuana matter. I find it to be very interesting that you or the other editors who threatened me should be so paranoid about legal action or public exposure, but considering the blatant absence of neutrality demonstrated in the article and in this whole exchange, I am beginning to see why you folks might be concerned about public exposure. ResearchfirmUSA (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a section for arguments for and another for arguments against but you were putting anti-cannabis arguments in the pro-cannabis section and disrupting an already established ref while doing so. And dont accuse other editors of being left-leaning, its not very nice as well as being a complete fiction certainly in my case♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you take a closer look at the article, you will see that in the "Arguments in Support" section, the authors provide only arguments in support with almost no mention of alternative points of view on those precise issues, but in the "Arguments in Opposition" section, the authors follow up every single argument in opposition with a detailed argument in support of decriminalization. Funny that you would conveniently ignore that blatantly biased methodology. And by the way, my edit consisted of just the facts of the recorded history of drug use in the Netherlands which is a more neutral position than most of the rest of that political propaganda article. If you are not left-leaning, what you communicate certainly is, so I can only go by the evidence in front of me. You know that old saying, "If it looks like a duck..." it usually is. ResearchfirmUSA (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I could equally argue prohibition is a left-wing plot as it uses govt to do something entirely unnecessary for the benefit of those in charge of or working for the govt, ie drug prohibition is classic socialism. So really, labelling people who work here is silly, please dont do so. Bring your issues to the article talk page for discussion, especially any issues you feel about the neutrality of the article and we can improve the article which definitely shouldn't side either with pro or anti marijuana IMO♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Err, you could also argue that the existance of polka dot elephants is a left-wing plot, and that would be about as valid of an argument. Your opinion that pot laws are "unecessary" for the good of the people is a left-wing argument. Your characterization of "government" as the villain in this matter is silly, but not particularily partisan since everyone has different concerns about particular governmental issues. You can have whatever opinions you want about what constitutes left-wing, but people are not blind, so let's drop the silliness, shall we? I am not interested in wasting time talking about "left-wing." I have nothing against you, and I wish you all the best as you carry on in life. As to the issues with the blatant lack of neutrality in the article, you are the one who engaged me and prompted that discussion here on this talk page. At this time, I have no interest in wasting time on the article talk page because from what has transpired so far, there is no reason to believe that any of my contributions wouldn't be automatically deleted just as they were before by the people who have special editing privileges and cannot see past their own biases to take a position of neutrality. Wikipedia is not the only venue for discussion, so there are better places to discuss this issue, where there is more likely to be honest neutrality.ResearchfirmUSA (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't permit company names

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "ResearchfirmUSA", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it seems to be a company name. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--ResearchfirmUSA is not a company. It is not a business entity. Thanks.ResearchfirmUSA (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]