User talk:ThorPorre

This is my Talk Page :)

Let us keep things civil.

Please sign at the end with: ~~~~ !!!

Hello

This guy thinks hes some sort of wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia policy and rules. ThorPorre (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

""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. [edit]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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 17:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem here is misrepresenting Kratom in a way that reflects the media's portrait of it and not the reality. I have researched Kratom for several years and my main goal here is to make the article reflect the reality. There is a lot of bias in the area and so it is important to counter this. I'm going to go through each of the edits and sources and respond on the talk page.ThorPorre (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the source again. The source criticizes the reporting of "psychosis" (where the confusion, hallucinations and convulsions are claimed to be) Quote:

Kratom psychosis (or overdose) has been reported haphazardly and remains a rare occurrence in the medical literature. Where such events take place, the symptoms can include convulsions, confusion, hallucinations, dizziness and headaches.

Citing this as evidence that Kratom causes these things is a misrepresentation of the source because the source clearly states that the haphazard reporting is the culprit and that these are rare. The source also does not mention Bowel obstruction at all. That entire claim is inaccurate. ThorPorre (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same source? It reads, in part:

Some anecdotal reports indicate that potential intestinal blockages can occur from repeated daily chewing of kratom. The veins of the kratom leaf are reportedly high in one type of alkaloid that reduces intestinal motility to a point where a kratom paste can accumulate in the intestinal tract. ([1])

So yes, the source states that kratom has (rarely) been associated with bowel obstruction. Next, the source clearly identifies psychosis as a reported side effect of kratom, albeit a rare and "hapazardly reported" one. MastCell ^Talk 23:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ThorPorre (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)== Edit-warring ==[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mitragyna speciosa 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.

The edit-warring is aggravated by the fact that you're repeatedly removing sourced medical information and misrepresenting sources. MastCell ^Talk 00:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This warning is a violation of WP:AGF. You are not supposed to issue warnings when nothing was done wrong. Please refrain from such actions or else an further action. I'm removing bias content not represented in the source. This is not edit warring. Also Note, I did not break the three-revert rule. I never even reverted the content today, in the past 24 hours all I did was remove a paragraph (in the intro none the less) which did not reflect the source properly and yesterday I reverted it. So I did 1 revert and 1 removal in 24 hours. Please see the following post in the Kratom talk section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mitragyna_speciosa#Staying_consistent_with_Sources_.28Intro.29 ThorPorre (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the M. speciosa article

As of June 29, the kratom article is a mess, just read the lead.. It stinks of anti-kratom bias, bringing up the questionable psychosis and hallucinations claim, and warning of dangers when mixing with other substances, in a vague and debatable way. I was wondering if maybe you could help straighten it up? Thanks in advance.--Metalhead94 ^T ^C 00:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the talk section. If I change it I will get warned for edit warring, so please join the discussion on the talk page. There needs to be a consensus that the article just isn't written well and also look at my posts in the talk section. The sources are inconsistently used where pro Kratom studies get deleted for being unreliable case studies or anecdotal reports but anti Kratom studies get over emphasized in the lead when they are case studies and anecdotes. It is very slanted unfortunately. ThorPorre (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and I did notice the warning on your page. Hopefully we can resolve this through dialogue. I appreciate your timely response.--Metalhead94 ^T ^C 00:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mitragyna speciosa

Template:Mitragyna speciosa has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Plantdrew (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]