Jump to content

User talk:Ak543210

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia!

[edit]

Hello, Ak543210, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to Talk:Clobenzorex seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Clobenzorex, you may be blocked from editing. Stop. If you want to be heard, you'll have to drop the personal insults, stop the yelling, and instead of tiny URLs or whatever, make reference to reliable secondary sources. If you don't stop this behavior I will block you. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i am trying to add facts to the clobenzorex page, as per official DEA ruling. user Gettinglit has been personally insulting me and claiming that i am some kind of vendor, he is constantly changing the article and spreading some pretty wild stuff (ie. its ok to possess schedule 2 narcotics as long as the bag says "not for human consumption"). i have an official letter from the DEA that says clobenzorex is not a controlled substance, as well as their definition of what a controlled substance analog is straight from their webpage. how do i add this without violating anything? Ak543210 (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't. Article content is based on secondary sources, and that's really all there is to it. I am not interested in the little cat fight the two of you started; I removed both of y'all's talk page comments, and reverted to before you two started edit warring. Nothing will happen, and I protected the article, until you two start arguing with secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
right now at its current state, the article is factual. so i will not edit it. please let the other user know as well. thanks. Ak543210 (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Clobenzorex) for a period of 1 week for as a precaution. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
mod, user "Gettinglit" is once again resorting to personal attacks and accusations. please see his latest response. thank you. Ak543210 (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "mod" is, but you could try talking to the editor on their talk page? Drmies (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"mod" as in moderator.
i will remain civil. apologies for last time. Ak543210 (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
honestly, please do not allow us both to ever be able to edit this article, since as soon as the ban is lifted on both of us, user Gettinglit will possibly just edit it with his view once again and i may just follow suit. or vice versa. instead just allow us to post our defense in the Talk section and let the other readers decide which one of us is making the most sense. Ak543210 (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. Y'all can talk to each other anywhere you like, including on each other's talk pages, and on the article talk page--you're not blocked from doing that. The only thing I suggest is that you keep it brief and civil, and that you keep in mind (from your last half-sentence I think you know this) that you aren't just talking to each other, but also to other editors. Oh, there's no "ban". Both of you are only prevented from editing the article. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i am trying to keep it as civil as possible but he is once again resorting to personal attacks and false accusations. please read the Talk subsection and you'll see what he has been saying. Ak543210 (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brief, civil, and not too many posts, please. This isn't Twitter; you don't have to keep arguing, and if you don't reply, then the other editor won't answer back.
I dropped by to ask you a question, to which I would like a simple, direct answer, probably either "yes" or "no":
Do you personally believe that it is possible for any chemical to simultaneously have all of the following characteristics:
  1. to not be a controlled substance under the US Controlled Substances Act (e.g., like amphetamine, which is Schedule II)
  2. to not be a listed chemical under the US Controlled Substances Act (e.g., norpseudoephedrine), and
  3. to be a non-listed-chemical, non-controlled-substance analogue of a controlled substance, within the meaning of the Federal Analogue Act?
I'm trying to understand whether you believe this is even theoretically possible for any chemical, not whether you believe this particular one has these characteristics. Logical answers include "Yes, that's possible" and "No, if it's an analogue under the FAA then it's automatically a controlled substances under the broader CSA". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it is considered an analog of a Schedule I or II substance, then it would fall under the FAA, which in turn would make it fall under the CSA.
Analogs of Schedule III, IV, and V are not covered under the FAA. Though Schedule III, IV, and V non-analog substances that have met DEA scheduling criteria do fall under CSA. Ak543210 (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All analogs ("A") are also controlled substances ("B"); it's a true subset.
So wrt to a substance that is an analog of a Schedule II drug, that's a "no"?
That is, you believe that some chemicals are Schedule II controlled substances, and other chemicals are analogs of Schedule II controlled substances, and that all such analogs of Schedule II controlled substances are also controlled substances?
Does this diagram represent your understanding? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
diagram is correct, but not "all" analogs are controlled substances; only Schedule I and II analogs. Ak543210 (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Analogs of Schedule II controlled substances ("A") are never Schedule I or II controlled substances ("B").
Okay. Here's another diagram. I believe (though I haven't asked) that it represents the other editor's beliefs.
I'm going to ask you to do a potentially difficult thing: Don't worry right now about whether the other editor is correct about this. Just set that aside, and consider this: If a person were under this belief (which, of course, you disagree with, but that's not the point), can you imagine why such a person would not be convinced by the letter you posted? Can you understand why a letter that says "Clobenzorex is not B" would not convince such a person that you have produced a source that says "Clobenzorex is not A"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the other user has acknowledged that the letter is real, so i doubt its about authenticity. the other user's argument, summed up, seems to be "well it looks like it, so it should be". but then he goes on to say something really really peculiar and strange, like how analogs of Schedule I and II are legal to possess and carry no penalties as long as its labeled "not for human consumption". which totally untrue and disregards the crime of possession. my personal opinion: the only reason i can see someone saying the things that he says, after ive provided all that info, is either he is extremely misinformed, or he is trolling, or he has a possible self serving motive. i have a feeling he is actually blaming me for the things he accuses me of. in short: willful ignorance. Ak543210 (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"well it looks like this, so it should be this. the lawmakers dont know what they are talking about. they are wrong. i am right." Ak543210 (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you answered my question. In your understanding, if clobenzorex is not "B" (=what that letter says), then clobenzorex automatically cannot be "A".
In the other editor's comments, it appears that they're saying that if clobenzorex is not "B", it could still be "A" (=the letter proves nothing about "A", only about "B", and you're trying to use that letter to prove that clobenzorex is not "A"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for late response, had work.
analogs of schedule 2 automatically become schedule 2. because of the FAA. the FAA is part of the CSA. how can it fall under the FAA and not fall under the CSA, that makes no sense Ak543210 (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to make sense to you. It doesn't have to be correct. The point is, if the other person believes that the statement "It's not a controlled substance" does not automatically include "or an analog of a controlled substance", then merely providing evidence that it's not a controlled substance will not be convincing to that person.
One way you could address this would be to write back to the agency and ask them to send you a letter specifically saying whether the substance is an analog of amphetamine.
Another way you could address this would be to find a reliable source that says "we know that the law literally contains words saying that analogs aren't controlled substances, but all analogs of controlled substances actually are 'controlled substances', and they aren't just non-controlled substances that get regulated as if they were and happen to fall under a non-CS category of the CSA, like iodine and other 'listed chemicals' that are not CS despite being regulated under the CSA. (See also 'Congress shall make no laws' and other statements that can be misunderstood if you don't have the whole context.)" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the thing is this: if it were considered an analog of amphetamine, it would fall under Schedule 2, since Amphetamine is schedule 2. instead it is considered uncontrolled. because it is not an analog of amphetamine. Ak543210 (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
law only states analogs of schedule 1 and 2 are considered controlled.
there is also schedule 3,4 and 5. but no law about their analogs falling under controlled; that is what i am saying.
the other user is stating "it SHOULD be this, it SHOULD be that". but that is not the law. Ak543210 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reason to believe that you're not entirely correct. I'm just telling you that because the other user believes that no analog of a Schedule 2 controlled substance is ever, itself, a Schedule 2 controlled substance, that there is no amount of evidence saying "It's not a controlled substance" that will convince him that it's not an analog of a Schedule 2 controlled substance. If you want to convince him, you need to produce a source that says "it's not an analog of amphetamine as far as US law is concerned" WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
he isnt stupid. but he has his own agenda. Ak543210 (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even smart people unintentionally misunderstand things sometimes. (For all I know, you could be the person who has misunderstood this.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
have you tried emailing the DEA, by the way? Ak543210 (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I have no interest in doing so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
personally, i think that makes no sense. i provided a letter, then you claim its possibly a fake. then you can ask me and the user all these logic based questions, that wether right or wrong, have no bearing on what the law believes. i thought the goal of wikipedia was supposed to be accuracy and facts, not some facebook group masquerading as academia. i then quote the damn law itself, then ask others to confirm it with the DEA themselves, and im brushed off: im pretty much being told "i want to know the truth about this law, so instead of asking them and contributing to this article as accurately as possible, im going to ask logic-based questions and some rhetoric". really makes no sense.
as soon as that ban is lifted, that idiot will change it again to his own beliefs and not to what the federal agency actually believes.
and then what? in gonna have to change it again? and then we'll both be treated as bad and be banned? when the whole time ive been telling the truth that can be confirmed with the DEA themselves.
thats very backwards reasoning. considering this is a GRAY AREA TOPIC we are discussing. Ak543210 (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You provided a letter that says "This is not A or B".
  • You stated your personal belief that "All C are also A".
  • Then you claimed that the letter means "This is not C" even though it doesn't say that.
  • And you seem hesitant to ask the DEA to confirm that the letter they sent actually means what it doesn't say.
Also, if it is, in your words, "a GRAY AREA TOPIC", then why are you declaring so forcefully that your beliefs are right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ak543210&oldid=1157484743"