User talk:MickeyDangerez

File permission problem with File:420 DDAY Jozi 2013.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:420 DDAY Jozi 2013.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Highya RHaworth, please see updated license with license notice at source.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Petrus Nienaber

Hi Mickey, I had similar encounters on af.wiki, see the page histories of af:Swart Egiptiese hipotese (particularly BernardPieters15), af:Wim de Villiers ([1]) and af:De Goede Hoop Koshuis. This abuser too. Edits from mysterious IPs and new accounts that know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia policies, formatting, lingo etc. and usually pop up to make controversial edits, talk page posts and abuse other users to push the same right-wing Afrikaner POV. I feel like they all belong to the same person. Best regards, --Nazeer (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Nazeer, for your feedback on similar suspicious behavior, I will keep watch on these strangers. Unfortunately I do not have CheckUser privileges but will look for other forms of evidence.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Highya Nazeer, I am currently investigating the sockpuppetry and may have found evidence linking multiple accounts. I will send you the information via private messaging. Thank you for your information it has helped a lot!--MickeyDangerez (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. Just go to my user page and click on "Email this user" under "Tools" on the left hand sidebar. --Nazeer (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Evidence:

62.226.230.40 - blaarkop deutch telekoms (Germany) probably VPN

196.209.234.69 - Cape Town South Africa, broadband isadsl.co.za [Use of the word Onensiklopedies]

85.212.178.131 - <Barbaar> Germany nacamar.net ecotel communications

196.210.26.177 - is broadband adsl, Cape Town South Africa

196.210.106.86 - is broadband adsl, Kraaifontein

85.212.249.196 - nacamar.net Germany ecotel communications

41.113.165.168 - MTN Mobile internet

Highya Nazeer please see some of the info I could gather in regard to the sockpuppetry.

I tried to trace the use of the word "onensiklopedies" used by BernardPieters15 but could only find that you have used it before. So that was a dead end.

Furthermore I could only suspect other editor but have NO proof. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 13:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Dagga Magazine Logo.jpeg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dagga Magazine Logo.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Highya Marchjuly, please see the updated rational. regards,MickeyDangerez (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

All you did was add a section heading. That is not a non-free use rationale. Please refer to WP:FUR for examples on how to add a non-free use rationale. The non-free use rationale needs to address how the particular use clearly satisfies all ten non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. There are a number of templates which you may use to create the rationale, but using a template is not required. If you have specific questions on how to write a rationale, you can ask them here, at WP:MCQ or at WT:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

My bad, Marchjuly, please review the update. Regards--MickeyDangerez (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Non-free content cannot be used (i.e., displayed) on your userpage or any of your user subpages per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:UP#Non-free files. You may, if you want, use the colon trick to add a link to the file's page, but please do not re-dispay the file again.

As for the non-free use rationale you added, that is much better than before. You should, however, add a link to the source where you got the image or better clarify information about the image per WP:NFCC#10a so that it's authenticity and copyright ownership can be better verified. Take a look at Template:Non-free use rationale logo and some of the other templates listed in Category:Non-free use rationale templates for some idea as to how to do this. Finally, you should not be listing you yourself as a source if you simply just downloaded the image from somewhere online and then uploaded it to Wikipedia. You are only the source/author if you were involved in creating the logo and hold the copyright on it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the image with an even smaller version. Please note that I included the source self because I am also the designer of this logo and editor at the publication. I also used this image on my user page in my contact section with authority.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are the designer of the logo, then you can release it under a free license if you want as explained in WP:CONSENT. Freely licensed or public domain content is not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and therefore can be used in more ways. You need to considered this carefully, however, before doing so because once content is released under a free license, the licensing cannot really be revoked per c:COM:LRV. So, if you have any concerns about others re-using the logo for commericial reasons, etc., you probably should keep the logo as non-free. Please understand that even as non-free content, there's no 100% to prevent anyone from downloading the logo and using it in a manner in which you or the magazine may not approve; they just won't be able to say they downloaded it with permission from Wikipedia. Finally, in the United States, simple combinations of letters are often considered to be Template:PD-logo or Template:PD-ineligible-USonly for Wikipedia's purposes. This is because the United States has a comparatively high threshold of originality when it comes to copyrighted content as explained in C:COM:TOO#United States. So, if country of origin was the US, this probably could be treated as public domain. I'm not sure, however, about South Africa's TOO rules, so you might want to invesitgiate this a bit. Once something is uploaded/added to Wikipedia, WP:OWN comes it to play and the uploader, etc. loses quite a bit of control over how the content is used/re-used. If you are concerned about this at all with respect to this logo, then you should considered WP:G7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking your valuable time to explain this topic in detail. I will reconsider and update the license as necessary. Have a great week!--MickeyDangerez (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Dagga Magazine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dagga Magazine 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/Dagga Magazine 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. Kleuske (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, MickeyDangerez. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Dagga Magazine, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Highya Kleuske, please note that this article was not created to advertise but I believe the magazine does deserve an article on Wikipedia for some of the work they have done specifically referring to Dagga_Magazine#Dagga_Ops--MickeyDangerez (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

If the magazine is notable, someone else will write about it. I hope you understand that, in order to keep Wikipedia from becoming a free PR-tool, we need to be strict when it comes to conflicts of interest and notability guidelines. You have no idea how many articles get dumped here by smart-alecs trying to improve their company's web-presence. Kleuske (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your valuable time in corresponding with me regarding this matter. It is not my intention to use Wikipedia for the purpose of advertising, promoting the publication or to boost web-presence. Please see the publication's most notable mention where the Durango Herald, an international & independent source, quotes the Dagga Magazine. The guidelines of Wikipedia do not set 'n minimum number of sources, although I have included other mentions, notability requires that others are writing about the publication and this has been proven true, even though these mention are not in depth reviews of the publication. I find it hard to accept that some of the voters, in nomination for deletion, purely rely on Google Search to disprove notability. Although Google searches do help, I do not believe it should be the only criteria votes are based upon. There are many other sources that write about the magazine that are not online searchable. This includes Twitter and Facebook. Where the magazine receives the most notice / mentions. Please do understand also that local mainstream news sources do not reference or mention the magazine because of the illegality of dagga (cannabis) in South Africa. Hence why most local sources are subject related (part of the cannabis culture) but still independent organizations. Thank you again for engaging with me directly on this matter.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If there are plenty of sources confirming the notability of the magazine, why don't you mention them? The current sources of the article (and I use the term in the widest possible sense) include Facebook, the Indigogo crowdfunding page and the magazine itself. Do I really have to explain that those are neither independent nor reliable? Facebook isn't reliable since it's user generated content w/o any editorial oversight and since it's basically your own page, it can hardly be considered independent. The same goes for the indigogo page. Your own magazine can hardly be called independent and for the sake of civility, I will not delve deeper into its reliability in this matter. Short and sweet, if you want to show notability, you have to do better and show "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources" (WP:GNG). Kleuske (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I am still confirming all possible sources, please note due to COI I can no longer updated current sources on the article so please do not limit your judgement only based on the sources referenced on the article but also include sources from the nominations page as well as the talk page. The Durango Herald reference is independent & reliable and also indicates that audience reached by the magazine is international. Your comment about the independence of the magazine is irrelevant because it is not being self referenced in the bid for notability. I will suggest more edits on the talk page to help get the article in order.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi MickeyDangerez. Having a COI does not necessarily mean you can never edit the article again, it just means you need to be very careful when you do and try to do so in accordance with WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI. If you are adding reliable sources to the article and doing so in good faith, then other editors will see what you're doing and they will understand it is an honest attempt at improvement. If the sources you add are challenged, then follow WP:BRD and discuss them on the article's talk page. COI editing is not expressly prohibited, but it is highly discouraged because it can easily lead to problems. COI editors who are able to demonstrate that can make good edits which comply with policy and guidelines are usually left alone. Why don't you ask for suggestions on how to find better sources at WT:420. The members of that WikiProject may know how to find the stuff you need to show WP:NMAG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all the help thus far. Your most valuable time is greatly appreciated.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Dagga Magazine Concept Cover.png

Thanks for uploading File:Dagga Magazine Concept Cover.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dagga Magazine

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 Dagga Magazine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://daggamagazine.com/about/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "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. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Highya S Philbrick, please note the article has been revised please remove the speedy deletion notification, I cannot because of COI.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done (but what is "tweeded"? Maybe you mean "tweeted"? --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

lol, honest mistake, funny because the article is weed related. I will fix immediately.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Indian hemp.jpeg

Thank you for uploading File:Indian hemp.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Highya Train2104, please note the image does specify the source.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Clear and verifiable source information is needed. In other words, which (Australian) newspaper, and how old? – Train2104 (t • c) 21:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not have access to full internet service and cannot get the required info from https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper at this time.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Any possible copyright issues notwithstanding, none of these clippings should really have been uploaded as image files per WP:TEXTASIMAGES and they should be deleted. If you know the source of the clipping and believe it is a reliable source you can just cite it in the article near the relevant content it is intended to support. You may even be able to quote relevant parts of a particular clipping as long as you properly attribute it. FWIW, the source only has to be reliable and WP:PUBLISHED; the latter does not mean it has to be available online. AS long as someone somewhere can access the source for verification purposes, it should be OK. Just provide as much information about the source as possible in your citation. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Please note one of the clippings are very important in image form to convey context in the article. The source is verfiable on the link included. Thanks for your inpute.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Textual content in the form of an image is not needed and can and should simply be added to the article as text supported by citations. Wikipedia is primarily a text-based encyclopedia, not an image gallery, and people read articles on all sorts of devices. These images may look fine on a big laptop screen, but not so well on a smart phone. Newspaper articles, etc. are cited all of the time. They aren't scanned, uploaded and then added to articles for verification purposes, unless there's very strong reason they need to be seen as such. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

That does make sense for well scanned clipping but because of the age these clippings aren't clear enough to be cited. Contex mau be lost in transcribing the article. These articles are meant to be seen in full and in original contex to convey the mindset of the history of cannabis. "DAGGA a queer dope" meets this criteria. The others were added also to create a physical sense of the past and all of this adds context that would otherwise be lost. I will definitely not include more clippings and use your advice for future clippings. --MickeyDangerez (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You don't and in fact shouldn't cite the clippings themselves, but rather you cite the source where the clippings are from. For example, if these appeared in the New York Times you would cite the newspaper article itself as the source, regardless of how old the particular article might be. What publication are the clippings from? If you know that information, you cite the the publication as explained in WP:CS. Moreover, you comment about "conveying the original mindset of cannabis" sounds like your own WP:OR or WP:SYN when applied to these clipping because all the reader sees is printed text, and text is best expressed as text, including the case of File:Dagga a queer dope.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I do understand what you are saying but try to read that article, it will not be possible to transcribe it to text some of the words are illegible thus the act of transcribing them may break the context. Please note I do not have the needed facilities to get the source on the newspaper archive site but I will try...--MickeyDangerez (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

As you have provided source information I will remove the no source tags, however, the discussion remains open. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Indian hemp 2 of 2.jpeg

Thank you for uploading File:Indian hemp 2 of 2.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Highya Train2104, please note the image does specify the source.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Indian hemp 1 of 2.jpeg

Thank you for uploading File:Indian hemp 1 of 2.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Highya Train2104, please note the image does specify the source.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Culture of hemp.jpeg

Thank you for uploading File:Culture of hemp.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Highya Train2104, please note the image does specify the source.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Files listed for discussion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 September 5 if you are interested in preserving their usage.

• File:Indian hemp.jpeg
• File:Indian hemp 1 of 2.jpeg
• File:Indian hemp 2 of 2.jpeg
• File:Culture of hemp.jpeg
• File:Dagga a queer dope.jpg

Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:David Carradine arrested for dagga in South Africa.jpeg

Thank you for uploading File:David Carradine arrested for dagga in South Africa.jpeg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Highya, Stefan2 I am unsure whoms copyright notice is still outstanding? The clippings are from an unknown newspaperduring apartheid and fair use can safely be assumed.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see updated source with license.

The problem with this file is not the copyright licensing of the photo, but the copyright status of the things which you photographed. You can claim copyright ownership over a photo you take, but you cannot necessarily claim copyright ownership over the things you photograph. That is why the file was tagged by Stefan2 as a derivative work (see also c:COM:DW). A derivative work, if creative enough, might result in the creation of a new copyright, but it does not void any existing copyrights. So, you need to account for the copyright of the newspaper clippings (both text and photos) as well as the "DM" logo in the background (File:Dagga Magazine Logo.jpeg). In certain cases, the principle of de minimis might apply to photos of copyrighted content, but that's not clearly the case here since the clippings are the entire focus of the photo.

As for your comment fair use can safely be assumed, please see WP:ITSFAIRUSE and WP:NFC#Background. Wikipedia's policy on using copyrighted content/non-free content is intentionally more restrictive than the concept of fair use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

When a picture is taken to a backdrop, logos in the background do not determine license of the photograph. Let say for instance a photo is taken with the McDonalds M in the background, McDonalds do not inherit Copyright over the image. Also note that this is a collage of various unknown newspaper clippings and should be considered new work and its license of release should be respected. See source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickeyDangerez (talk • contribs) 2017-09-06T08:15:01 (UTC)

That's not true. Check this. Someone created two different chair models. Someone else hosted pictures of those chairs on a web site, and that person was fined by the French Supreme Court because the photos violated the copyright to the chair models. Some countries have exceptions for stuff like furniture and buildings, but I'm not aware of any country which has an exception for newspaper clippings. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Can still be lawfully fair used. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 11:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from David Carradine into Daggafari. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa, does this apply when copying content cross wiki? Eg. en:Wikipedia to af:Wikipedia?--MickeyDangerez (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does (unless you are sole author of the content on the source wiki). This applies (for example) to content that appears at the Afrikaans wiki that you translate to English and add to the corresponding article at this wiki. For inter-wiki copying, please consider adding the {{translated}} template to the talk page of the destination article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Dagga Magazine Concept Cover.png

Thanks for uploading File:Dagga Magazine Concept Cover.png, which you've attributed to . I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Highya, Stefan2, have you checked the source/license url? I'll quote:

“ Dagga Magazine added 2 new photos.

1. DaggaMagazine concept cover art.

Hereby we give notice of release of these images under the latest Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License September 4 at 2:10pm

”

--Mickey☠Dangerez 2017-09-06T19:56:10 (UTC)

“ This page isn't available

The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed.

”

Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Then it is related to your Facebook account. The post is marked as public and this is the main source. It shows available to me and have tested with another Facebook profile and also tested incognito while signed out and it still displays without a problem. --Mickey☠Dangerez 21:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Haramein

Hi, I'm writing this to ask that you please stop creating a page at Talk:Nassim Haramein. I've again marked this for speedy deletion because talk pages should only exist for articles that actually exist. In case you're thinking of creating a new article for him, you should first see WP:Articles for deletion/Nassim Haramein (3rd nomination) for the recent, fairly lengthy discussion that took place about its deletion. Unless you can overcome the fairly serious sourcing problems that were there, it's unlikely that such an article would again survive long. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Highya Deacon Vorbis, Sorry for creating a talk page. It just felt like a natural place to discuss the subject. Please could you direct me to the appropriate place to discuss it? I will see the 3rd nomination and include it in my discussion. Thank you for taking the time to write to me. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 21:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to discuss? --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not wish to create an article. I don't have a little time for that. I just want to discuss the problems with reasons for deletion other than poor content and submit references that prove notability. Regards --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 21:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If you simply want to contest the deletion, you can do so at WP:DRV. But note the instructions there; in particular, you should first discuss the matter with the closing admin (you can find all that info by clicking on the redlink itself: Nassim Haramein. I'll also point out that the page (and its talk page) have apparently now been protected from being created by anyone but an admin (I guess because of the talk page shenanigans). --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

On a side note, I noticed that you were looking at an old, old deletion discussion, not the one I linked here. You might also want to read WP:N and WP:RS for information about what constitutes notability and reliable sources, respectively. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Please do not delete any of my edits on this talk page unless they violate any Wikipedia guidelines or policies in which case I ask you to please cite them.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez

See WP:CWW. In any case, copying the text of a deletion discussion here is inappropriate; it's already archived there. It was also the wrong deletion discussion anyway. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:CWW does not prohibit the copying of an archived conversation. This guidelines only stipulates that attribution must be given where content is copied and reused on Wikipedia. What is inappropriate is that rebuttal of arguments aren't allowed when it is the bases of Wikipedia nomination for deletion policy to allow logic based discussions. It is within my right to disseminate any archived history of an article. If not allowed on the talk page and not on my own talk page. Then it is clear you are judge and jury in this matter. I've planned on disseminating each nomination. No. 2 was unfortunately the first one I stumbled upon. There cannot be wrong deletion discussion because they are all relevant and follow on each other. Please link me up with the appropriate place to disseminate the problems with some of the logic and rationale that actually goes against the terms of Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot be a dictatorship where the guidelines only apply where it pleases the majority. This problem is also covered in the guidelines. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 22:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Addressing problems with the 2nd nomination to delete the article, Nassim Haramein.

Full Text omitted due to fear of vandalism

In-line rebuttal and commentary:

• Nomination" Subject failsnotability guidelines for academics and people in general. Since the first time this was AfDed, several editors have made efforts to find reliable, 3rd party sources, and none could be found. Basically all there is on this guy are primary sources (his organization's website, various youtube videos, some discussion forum posts). The first AfD was closed as "Needs cleanup but ... Keep for now," but unfortunately without secondary sources the article remain a mess, and will probably stay that way."

The content of an article does not have any merit on the subject's notability. There must be reliable and independent sources on- and off-line. Please see my submissions for notability in a separate section below. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez

• "Delete the claims he makes are clearly bogus but there are so few reliable unbiased sources that we are left with nothing to say."

The quest to prove notability in the new age relies heavily on the prediction of a google algorithm and it becomes easy to skip looking for evidence after page 3. I understand that a few means there is a number of sources that you have found reliable but not biased and others that are unbiased but not reliable. You did not mention the geographical extent of the subjects notice. The subject receive international notice and must also be considered. Lastly, claims made by a subject does not determine the notability of the subject. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez

• "Delete definitively non-notable. The book in footnotes 1 and 2 is held by a grand total of two libraries world-wide (per a Worldcat search); it also has no Amazon ranking, meaning no Amazon sales (not normally all that relevant, but perhaps telling in this case). Describing this guy as a "scientist" damages wikipedia's credibility; including him at all has the same result."

"A scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world." even if what the subject believes his finding are proven untrue doesn't make a him less of a scientist as he dedicates his life to his field of research. Even if it may not be accepted by mainstream science. After all many scientist's work is proven false. It is the process of science to be proven false sometimes. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez

• "Delete Does not satisfy WP:PROF. The only notability guideline he might concievably satisfy is WP:CREATIVE, per "originating a significant new concept, theory or technique". If this theory were truly significant, it would be discussed in mainstream peer-reviewed publications and not in a bare smattering of self-published and non-mainstream sources. Until it is, then it cannot confer WP:N on its originator."

The subjects notability cannot solely rely on whether it has been accepted, adopted by mainstream science, I would like to see what mainstream science has discussed about the subject's work. It cannot be assumed that mainstream science disregards his work it may be possible that they have not noticed his work or have had time to review it. If they believed he is quack there should be a peer reviewed claim to such and if such claim exists a reference would be great. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez

• "*Delete As an academic he's non-notable. As a 'guru', perhaps it could remain. But the article should be written to represent that. I would prefer that he not be able to claim that his work is being suppressed."

Labels alone do not determine notability, I do believe he deserves title of scientist for spending his working life researching his field of work. His theoretical work may someday be partially proven true or false but as explained above that is the process of science to make new discoveries and be proven true of false. Thank you for your mostly unbiased view.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez

• "*Delete Clearly fails WP:PROF. The validity or lack thereof of his ideas is not important here, but more important is that a Google search does not really come up with independent verifiable sources establishing notability. Hence also fails WP:FRINGE and WP:BIO. The main purpose of the article seems to be the promotion of his 4 DVD set, which is mentioned several times."

As a rejoinder, I think somebody should have a critical look at the related article on Elizabeth Rauscher, too.

I agree with this statement the article shouldn't be written in a promotional fashion and should only present a historical representation of the subject and neutral representation of his life and work. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez

References to consider for notability.

• Coast to Coast AM with guest Nassim Haramein
• Nassim Haramein: The Unified Field Theory - OMTimes Magazine
• The Connected Universe: Documentary
• Nassim Haramein - Guest Speaker - Quantum University
• Nassim Haramein interviewed by Dr. Paul Drouin on QuantumWorld.TV on the principles of Energy, Consciousness, and the Unified Field.
• Nassim Haramein: genius or fraud? Flaws in theory. - Psychonaut
• In depth work created about the subject, A requirement for general notability.
• An Orgonomic Critique of Nassim Haramein's "Origin of Spin - academia.edu/9561716

Papers, theoretical work

Only one paper was referenced in the nominations? Here are more

• 2004 Haramein - The Origin of Spin
• 2005 Haramein - Collective Coherent Oscillation Plasma
• 2007 Haramein - Spacetime Torus Topology
• 2008 Haramein - Scale Unification
• 2008 Haramein - Scaling Law
• 2010 Haramein - The Schwarzschild Proton (AIP Published Version)

Taking a break from the English Wiki

I am taking a break from the English wiki to focus on my Afrikaans Wikipedia Corpus of words project. I am a bit tired of having to rebut statements that do not follow the Wikipedia guidelines and find that I have to repeat myself a lot. It's tiring and demotivating when you spend a considerable time on the platform. So please go forth and delete and vandal my contributions to your hearts content and at your own peril.

cheers vir eers. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 22:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I can only assume you're talking to me, since we were discussing recently here, and I doubt anyone else is watching your talk page. But just to set the record straight, no one has vandalized your contributions, no one is forcing you to rebut anything. In fact, I did all I could to be more than helpful in telling you exactly how to proceed (even though it would very likely be a waste of time). Instead, you decided to not follow instructions, and just throw your hands up and quit. I'm afraid I'm not going to lose any sleep over this one. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No this is general notification. Please see the history of Daggafari to know why I am drained by people not following Wikipedia guidelines.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 22:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I am Leaving Wikipedia for the following reasons:

• Wikipedia is not welcoming to new users or to topics seasoned editors may disagree with.
• Wikipedia is run by dictatorship of whom can disregard sections of the guidelines to suite their agenda.
• Some aspects of Wikipedia guidelines are unclear and in terms of notability of subject there is no clear threshold of what determines notability therefor the subject relies on biased interpretations of the guidelines of Wikipedia.
• Logic based rebuttal is frowned upon while it is requested in the Wikipedia guidelines.
• Veteran editors violate the guidelines based on their personal views.
• many more reasons but not going to spend more time on a platform that actively shuns new users and violate basic Wiki guidelines.

This is a global affect. Have fun, goodbye.

--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 13:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

You should read WP:PRAM first. If you're actually WP:HERE to help, and you have concerns about policies and actions of others as they relate to the policies, the best thing to do is to talk to them about it. Most editors are pretty open to discussion (as long as discussion remains civil). The civility thing is important, because as someone who took some time to help you out explaining the deletion review procedure, I take the blanket accusations above a bit personally. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The blankets statements was not directed at your personally but if the shoe fits. :D hehehe, just saying that it shouldn't effect you if you are not guilty. Have a great day! --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 12:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Daggafari for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daggafari 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/Daggafari 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. Slashme (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Check your email

Hello, MickeyDangerez. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Nazeer (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I've lost interest in regards to finding the sockpuppet because I have no way to verify who the culprit is. Will post some findings in the appropriate section. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 12:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Dagga Couple, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Robvanvee 05:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Does that look like a test edit?--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 01:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Please claim your upload(s): File:MickeyDangerez.jpg

Hi, Thank you, for uploading this file.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm some details,

If it's your own work, please include {{own}}, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add |claimed=yes to the {{media by uploader}} or {{presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

If it's not your own work please provide as much sourcing/authorship information as you are able to.

It would also be appreciated if you could "claim" or update the source and licensing on other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Hello, I'm Deacon Vorbis. I noticed that you made a comment on the page WP:Articles for deletion/Daggafari that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm talking about this edit, which I collapsed instead of removed as the canned warning says. Don't go around accusing others of promoting racism. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Another comment - I get that the process is frustrating from your point of view, but getting angry and accusing editors of dictatorship, while they're actually taking part in a consensus-based community discussion, makes it easier for people to dismiss you as someone who can't look at the topic from a neutral point of view, and makes it harder to get your point across. --Slashme (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dagga_Magazine. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This time, it's this edit that I'm referring to. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:MickeyDangerez

User:MickeyDangerez, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MickeyDangerez and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:MickeyDangerez during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Dagga Couple motto edit

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Dagga Couple, you may be blocked from editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, ~Oshwah~, but you are mistaken. The motto of the Dagga Couple is "I am not a criminal" and "Join the Q" is a motto of Fields of Green For All and is used promotionally on the Dagga Couple article.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 22:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is wikipedia draining?

I started off with a bang almost settled before all hell broke loose. Wikipedia is tough on noobs with determination. :( I am emotionally drained by this.

--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 01:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Dagga Couple. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Robvanvee 10:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

How is it unsourced? Stop vandalizing the content because you have a personal connection to the Dagga Couple.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 10:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

: Per WP:CHALLENGE, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Robvanvee 10:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Added an additional source. Stop deleting truth. And declare you COI! --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 10:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia

About this, please read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG, which are named in the close here. Please read them. If you have some concrete change to offer, based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines, that would be fine. what you wrote here -- hehehe, I am not speaking in capacity of Wikipedia but on behalf of humanity. Also promoting the discussion of cannabis and pushing for enlightenment on the subject in the hope that someone that has some connection to future research possible read this or also comes to the same realization -- is not what article talk pages are for in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You are referring to a subsection of the conversation. A change was proposed in the discussion and by prematurely closing the discussion other potential changes that can be deduced from the original motion will now neved be added. Not sure what is the difference between a forum and talk page both support conversations about topics. Also maybe wiki ks not a forum is meant to say an article cannot represent a forum and does not cover the talk page. Because all sections on Wiki where discussions take place are forums.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 08:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Also the guidelines say the talk page is for conversation that deals with the article and proposes changes. This is the main objective of the section asking that references and content must be verified as some of the content may be outdated and scientifically incorrect according to latest scientific consensus. I do agree that there are comments that drift it should be reason to close a discussion where are constructive comments to effect changes in the article can still come to light. Please review your decision. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 08:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing preventing you from opening a new section to discuss specific content changes based on reliable source and the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, will do so.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 17:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Am I smoking the same cannabis?

I just wanted to say I am a long term cultural user of cannabis and whenever I read the "claimed" side effects I want to ask what the hell were they smoking during these studies. Seriously some of the findings seems absurd when you have been using this plant on a daily basis for years. I mean it's like how a coffee drinker can tell you that you don't experience a moment of insanity when you drink a strong cup. Although that is the findings of coffee well if my dagga brains serves me correctly.

I would like to point out a simple oversight made by most of the studies and research on the negative side-effects of cannabis and that is they are using a single strain of cannabis or do not account for strain type at all. (especially older studies)

There are probably thousands of strains of cannabis. Each one unique with it's own unique cannabinoid profile exerting different properties and physiological changes on the human body.

Cannabis is not a single strain where you can generalize short & long term effects as if it each study or finding applies to all cannabis strains.

How is the accounted for, has this been anticipated?

--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 00:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reference: The 2nd paragraph of the Effects of cannabis highlights the problem with outdated research. References must be re-verified as accurate to current scientific consensus.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 01:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The best course of action would be to find some WP:MEDRS compliant sources and WP:FIXIT. If you don't have much experience editing medical content yet, you may want to post proposed changes here first to get feedback. Sizeofint (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Don't have any experience with writing medical content yet but will propose changes here first. have a great day. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 08:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Mickey, I do not necessarily think the differences between your experience and other's experiences is down to a 'single strain'. Your experience is a 'single case' and we are all biologically different people; single case reports are one of the weakest form of evidence. All psychoactive drugs have a side effect profile and I've never seen it described where 100% of persons get the exact same side effect or withdrawal effect profile or lack thereof. There is also the issue with long-term use where side effects will diminish for some people (tolerance) or increase or appear for others (toxicity or withdrawal). I am not denying that there are some subtle or not so subtle differences between strains of cannabis. There is additionally many controversial viewpoints on cannabis reflected in the academic literature.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed! This is my problem exactly not even flowers from the same plant or strain has consistent levels of cannabinoids and terpenes and all of the chemicals that make up its composition throughout a crop, that should only show the complexity and difficulty of formulating studies where the quantity and locations of endo-cannabinoid receptors also differ from individual to individual. This is why academics and people with a formal qualification in science related to the field must review the references and information presented here and accommodate for this. I can only hope for scientific breakthroughs that would help clarify this further. What I am proposing is that the latest scientific consensus should apply where there is a contradiction to outdated information. The Afrikaans Wiki article for cannabis still contain unverified pseudo-scientific claims af:Dagga. Thank you for engaging in discussion.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 12:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Also think in terms of recreational alcohol. There are many various types of alcoholic beverages each one having it's own effects. Think beer vs hard liquor. Tequila vs Brandy. Some people get hammered by Tequila while having brandy tolerance. Altough alcohol is basic it does not differ as much as cannabis crops. Not all cannabis strains are equal. For example one would give your red dry eyes while another give cotton mouth. Logically it tells me that different cannabinoid receptors are targeted by different strains. Thus it's really not as subtle difference between crops and strains. I mean have a look at the strain chart and the effects they may have. It's bigger the the evolutionary wheel. :D --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 12:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

We just follow the most reputable mainstream sources and if they don't differentiate between types of cannabis/alcohol/tobacco (or whatever) when discussing harms, then Wikipedia won't either. Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

But they do differentiate on alcohol: beers vs alcohol. eg. 2 beers' debilitating effects is equal to 1 tot of hard liquor. (Hypothetical), just because they don't does not meen they shouldn't. Someone needs to inform researchers of this. Do they even know seeing they don't use it themselves to understand this complexity and may even be a major stumbling block that would excel cannabis research. All I am saying is question the questionable. Just for the sake of inspiring curiosity see this graph and realize even between plants, crops and strains the levels of these chemicals differ considerably. I think little research has really been done on the profiles of cannabis and it's effects. A major contradiction is the statement that cannabis causes, or may cause hallucinations. Although I am not contesting any specific point in the article from an anecdotal point of view and for someone involved in the cannabis culture. I have never heard of anyone experiencing hallucinations from cannabis. If this was a major characteristic of cannabis YouTube would filled with cannabis smokers "seeing things or hearing things". I just want people to think about some general blanket statements made about cannabis as if it's a single thing. Only the individual cannabinoids can be understood as a single thing as it is removed from the complexity.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 12:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Please see video: the Visualization of the endocannabinoid signaling system --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 12:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Someone needs to inform researchers of this. Sure, but it isn't really Wikipedia's purpose to tell scientists what they should research. The best we can do here is include a "Research directions" section that discusses some of the prominent areas of new research. If assaying the effects of different cannabis strains is one of these we can mention it there. Do they even know seeing they don't use it themselves.... Given over 50% of Americans have used Cannabis at some point, I can virtually guarantee many researchers have as well. Sizeofint (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

hehehe, I am not speaking in capacity of Wikipedia but on behalf of humanity. Also promoting the discussion of cannabis and pushing for enlightenment on the subject in the hope that someone that has some connection to future research possible read this or also comes to the same realization. Even I am guilty of not realizing the complexity of the plant and is how I have come to this POV. Thank you for providing usable input. It is greatly appreciated.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 19:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is It is easier for a noob to leave wiki than oppose an unfair delete

Referring to the close of Daggafari where historic content not part of the AfD was deleted even after merger to Cannabis in South Africa, further I am being accused of SOAPBOX, POV and deliberately trying to evade AfD, all untrue, hurtful and frustrating that it really is just easier to leave Wikipedia (because I am too angry at the allegations and frustrated to understand the process for deletion review[and don't think it matters anyway as it has already been decided]) where racist history of cannabis in South Africa is clearly not welcome and considered a POV rather than the fact it is and verified so by reliable references.

Thus I stress it's easier for a noob editor like myself to just forget it, as can seen by the bombardment of processes on my talk page was either just innocent management of wiki or a clear bombardment to frustrate. However I am to believe that the users acted in good faith every step of the way. even though it may not be the case. Regardless, a sense of dictator ship as described in my previous breakdown because of cumbersome processes incurred just to see my attempts to address it was in vain and many of my contributions have been deleted where they could have been edited or updated.

Thus I ask anyone whom can view and lodge a deletion review in favor of the correct close which would be a merger of the historic content from Daggafari to Cannabis in South Africa to do so. Because at this stage the frustration has me careless and demotivated. Maybe the intention of some participants.

The word Daggafari can almost be replaced with dagga culture (cannabis culture) and it would be correct as only the Neologism was the subject of the AfD and NOT the content but somehow this is lost in discussion.

I believe the consensus of the AfD is merge but really don't care if Daggafari is deleted as much as for the valid historical data that does deserve space on Wikipedia and should never have been deleted because doing so is POV rather than a act of enforcing Wikipedia guidelines.

This will also be my last edit unless Wikipedia guidelines are enforced properly. I will check back in the future to see if anyone realised the mistake and corrected it maybe then I will reconsider contributing again. But am doubtful that some editor who may have POV against cannabis and cannabis users.

Happy editing,

Regards Mickey ☠ Dangerez 14:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dagga Magazine Logo.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dagga Magazine Logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Mickey's creation block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing, including refusal or inability to accept consensus, editing to promote a point of view, personal attacks, and other problems which you have already been told about.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

In the hope of making the reason for the block clear to you I will summarise some of the problems which have been raised concerning your editing. I emphasise that this is merely a summary of some of the central points, with a few illustrations, and further details are available on this page and on other pages where the issues have been discussed. Above, you said that you have been "promoting the discussion of cannabis and pushing for enlightenment on the subject in the hope that someone that has some connection to future research possible read this or also comes to the same realization." Despite attempts by various editors you seem unable to grasp the point that editing for the purpose of "promoting" anything, and editing with the intention of influencing opinions by publishing the opinions you prefer in Wikipedia are contrary to Wikipedia policy. When a deletion discussion was clearly heading for deletion of an article you had created you proceeded to copy the contents into another article with the purpose of preventing its deletion. There is no doubt about that: you yourself explicitly said that your purpose was to keep the content even if the article itself was deleted. After the content was removed from the second article where you posted it, with an explanation of the reason, you restored it. You also wrote a message indicating that you did not grasp the fact that if a discussion results in consensus that an article should be deleted then it is not acceptable to try to avoid that deletion by simply posting the same content in an article with a different title. The content was removed again by a different editor than before, and a few hours ago you restored it. It has now been removed by yet another editor. You clearly do not grasp the fact that Wikipedia works by consensus, that all of us will at times find that consensus will be against our own views, and that in that situation one needs to accept consensus and move on even though one will sometimes be totally convinced that consensus is wrong. You complain that other editors edit according to "their personal views", and seem to think that what other editors believe is merely "their personal views" while what you believe is the TRUTH. Even if you are right, Wikipedia does not work by accepting certain editors as having objective knowledge of what is true while relegating others to the status of people who merely have opinions, which may be wrong. You have repeatedly accused other editors who disagree with you of editing for evil motives, such as "racism". It is clear that you do not understand how Wikipedia works, that you cannot or will not accept consensus, that you are still determined to use Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting what you personally believe is the truth, and that despite everything that has been said to you by various editors you show no sign of even considering making any changes to your approach. The fact that today you have yet again re-posted content which you have repeatedly posted, which you have already been told is unacceptable, and which is intended (by your own account) to publicise and promote a view which you believe to be true finally persuaded me that you are not likely to change. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

MickeyDangerez (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #19478 was submitted on Oct 12, 2017 16:05:29. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Highya JamesBWatson, I merged the content as advised on the talk page of Daggafari, although this was done while pending outcome of AfD after I came to realise that the neologism was not notable enough to have it's own article. Thus I no longer opposed redirection and started the merger. Rather sooner than later. From |AfD: "Redirection to Cannabis in South Africa, the suitable main article for this topic, was declined."

The consensus thus of the AfD was that the neologism did not deserve it's own article but even the nominator felt that it does have a place on Cannabis in South Africa. The historical content was never contested in the AfD and I don't see why it was also deleted by a global edit of my "unaccepted" merger. and it because of this I rolled back the global edit with clear explanation.

Thus your belief that the consensus of the AfD is a global removal of all the content from WIkipedia is incorrect. and I plead with you to remove my block as it is unsubstantiated. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 23:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Please unblock my account

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MickeyDangerez (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

All my edits have been done in good faith, I only reverted edits where I believed they were done incorrectly, I also discussed this on the relevant talk pages but my suggestion to merge certain disputed content have gone ignored. I believe that the content I restored that lead to my block should not have been deleted but should rather have been edit if there was still any reason some of the content do not comply. The original AfD contested whether Daggafari should have it's own article. The admin who nominated the AfD himself created a redirect to Cannabis in South Africa stating on the Daggafari talk page that the content should be merged to Cannabis in South Africa. The history sections of the Daggafari page was never contested only the neologism was considered an issue thus I don't see why a block is punishment for reverting edits that remove all content instead of related content to the AfD. I feel that the indefinite block is a bit extreme because the issues have not been thoroughly discussed. I have only been following the advice of the admin user who nominated the page for AfD. I tried to merge the content to the best of my ability. The POV and any other issues which could have been edited by someone who is not me should have been the appropriate resolution here. I only act in good faith. I strive to represent truth and honesty on my quest to ultimate enlightenment. Thank you for your most valuable time in reviewing my case. regards, Mickey ☠ Dangerez 23:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. (In short: "I strive to represent truth" misses the point entirely.) Rschen7754 23:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Rs, The block is unsubstantiated. I did not roll back global edits to cause damage. My edits were done in good faith and under advice of the AfD nominator. I do not wish to be disruptive or cause damage as that has never been an intention of my actions. I am not pushing a POV and I trying my best to be neutral in my adding to wikipedia and feel have been doing a good job with neutrality. I am not blocked to stop disruption etc I am blocked because someone is having a disagreement on content that was supposed to be merged. If I am to understand for what I am blocked for it would mean I agree with the reasons even if they are untrue. There is no evidence to support the block.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 12:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

thus I will not re-submit appeal in the hope that a steward see the injustice and revert this block --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 16:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I am a former steward and I can tell you that stewards never revert blocks on enwiki. --Rschen7754 17:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

In that case my account will remain blocked and would prove my point that enWiki is run by dictatorship not policies. The block doesn't contain sufficient evidence to support it. Its justified by only by personal convictions & accusations. I didn't even revert the edit more than two times. Not even close to breaking the three revert rule which I didn't know about until reviewing block policies. I know my edits weren't disruptive and the admin couldn't prove this in his rational. The disruptive edit was the global delete of the merged content. Removal evidence and content change suggestions on Dagga Couple talk page but these actions are overlooked while I am being punished for adding of value to Wikipedia--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 17:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Highya Rs you said that to approve my unblock request I would have to prove that "the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia" in that case I would like you to reconsider to change your decision because it is not my intention to disrupt or cause damage to Wikipedia. I really believed the global delete of all content was incorrect and I will not restore it outright again as I did previously which was seen by dear Watson as disruptive. I will seek resolution using the appropriate channels to restore the qualifying content. On the original matter: I believe the appropriate actions should have been a edit not a global delete and I intent to challenge this using Wikipedia policy and resolution channels but cannot do this while I have a creation block. Please reconsider. Thank you again for taking your most valuable time to attend to my problems. Have a great day. Most Highest Regards --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 11:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're basically asking to be unblocked just so you can push your personal views. I'm not inclined to unblock. --Rschen7754 18:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That is not what I said. It is clear that you are not willing to help Rs --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 21:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MickeyDangerez (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block is no longer necessary because, 1. I understand that I am blocked for reverting content twice. 2. That I won't falter by committing the same mistake again. and 3. strive to make useful edits to Wikipedia. If my block is lifted I will rather spend time discussing changes on the relevant talk page with the currnet global creation block I am unable to discuss important issues on articles. I do not care to edit articles directly. And commit to discuss changes rather than commit them. Mickey ☠ Dangerez 21:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You claim these 3 points, nevertheless below you confirm that you're here to right great wrongs. Even worse, you're attacking another editor, accusing them of vandalism. This is absolutely unacceptable, and to ensure that this won't repeat I'm revoking your talk page access. You may appeal using UTRS as you already did before, but let me warn you that this will do you no good while you're refusing to listen to others and admit the obvious. Max Semenik (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

User with COI deletes evidence on Dagga Couple, but look the other way...

evidence: Robvanvee reverted 16 edits.

James please skim over this edit. 99% legitimate page change suggestions "poof" and blatant applied POV/COI. I don't even go that far.-Mickey ☠ Dangerez 11:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Rs where can I report this?--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 21:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Deacon Vorbis, The content you deleted for being "coatrack-article" is incorrect, it aims to expand the FOGFA section, this specific policy deals with an article that is a coatrack not a sub-topic. This specific content only expands the FOGFA subsection with some of their work like the FairCop Initiative and the Weedstock event which gained major attention in South Africa media: #FairCop: http://youtube.com/watch?v=WUvbZkGx9JM

Deacon Vorbis some response on this matter would be helpful.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 21:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

How would it be helpful? You're currently blocked from editing. I was going to suggest that if you really wanted to come back, that agreeing to a topic ban on cannabis-related articles and their talk pages might be a good idea, but given that you blanked this page with a complaint about Wikipedia being a dictatorship (if you actually read the definition, you'll see how ludicrous that assertion is), I'm not very confident about that. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Deacon Vorbis I am using the word dictatorship for Polity. Why shouldn't I be able to discuss cannabis article on their talk pages. Denying me equal opportunity to contribute on Wikipedia is then the definition of dictatorship. That I am blocked for following Wikipedia guidelines that is what is ludicrous. I blanked this page because I am frustrated. and want to leave because I don't want to be part of Encyclopedia that is not in the business of being truthful or accurate just because some admins believe it is against their own beliefs. There is no proof of me pushing POV, disruption etc.... NONE, but others show blatant disregard and have free reign see this, that is a gross violation. Not rolling back an edit twice to afford the opportunity for content to be edited for neutrality. You misapplied the Coatrack-article guidelines. While misleading content is allowed on Dagga Couple. This block does not serve the purpose of stopping disruption or POV on Wikipedia. Without me nobody will make sure dagga articles are neutral. The creator and main editor of the Dagga Couple article has strong COI and is using the page promotionally. This is overlooked maybe because other editors lack the insight I am not sure. But don't mind it, I am a bigger problem to Wikipedia. LOL. -Mickey ☠ Dangerez 22:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I really don't know why I'm continuing to reply; maybe it's the (emotional) masochist in me. WP:COATRACK is an essay, not a guideline or policy. But it's sound advice, and it was appropriate to explain my rationale for undoing your addition. As for the rest, my impression is that there's no single action you took that caused the block, but that it was due to a particular history and pattern of behavior. As for coming back, did you even read through WP:NOTTHEM? If not, read it; if so, read it again. Here's my final advice (with a disclaimer that I'm not an admin, and I have no authority to block or unblock, nor do I make any guarantees about its effectiveness).

1. Step back for a while (a day? a week? a month? how long is more up to you).
2. Come back and face this all with a cooler head.
3. If you decide that you still want to be WP:HERE, then agree to a topic ban as I suggested above. Get a better feel for how Wikipedia works in areas that you're not emotionally invested in, like, I dunno, Medieval France (to pick a random example). Or maybe do gnomish work for a while too. On the other hand, if you decide that you don't really want to be here, then you've saved some people (most importantly yourself) the aggravation of arguing about it.
4. If you are still here, then once you've settled back in and know the ropes better, then maybe cautiously think about appealing the topic ban (if it's not a timed one, and that's how the chips actually fell).

That's my advice. Take it or leave it. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The Acton/Prince is incorrect Robvanvee, it's not the Dagga Couple themselves who have applied as defendants but the organization Fields of Green for All, therefore the section in its current form is misleading. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 11:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I am angry :(

I am not angry because I cannot edit article content. I am angry because I have been blocked because I rolled back an edit which I believe is incorrect. That's it. That is all I did. Meanwhile I get no response about real evidence of vandalism. Clearly the enforcement of Wikipedia policies are done by dictatorship.

If policies are not applied equally and fairly I do not want to be part of Wikipedia. Then clearly content is the POV of the dictators who would not allow their pov changed. That is why cannabis articles are so slow to change and why so much pseudo-science and stigma can be found in them especially on local langauge Wikis like af:Dagga where they don't even reference their claims and remove any content which does not line up with their own beliefs.

I am accused of pushing POV but there is no proof and I have been proving myself despite COI have remained neutral even adding verifiable content that does not serve POV or the cause for the cannabis community. When I say I strive to represent truth and accuracy. I am told that doesn't mean anything.

Yes because portraying the truth is not the policy of dictators. That is why the content I rolled back was deleted because it was not afforded an opportunity to be edited for "neutrality" even though Wiki guidelines state that content that can be correct by edit should not be deleted.

I am not disruptive. I am merely frustrated when seasoned editors themselves do not follow guidelines. Obviously they won't block themselves.

If I am edit-warring for rolling back edits then those who rolled back my edits are also warring. Yet they are not the ones blocked.

--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 22:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• "I have been blocked because I rolled back an edit which I believe is incorrect. That's it. That is all I did." Did you actually read the message I gave you stating why you were blocked? I put quite a lot of time and work into drafting and editing that message, to try to help you to understand the reasons, instead of just spending about five seconds posting a ready-mad standard block notice. Evidently I was totally wasting my time, because you chose to ignore every word of what I wrote, and invent your own explanation for the block, one which fitted in better with your preferred view of Wikipedia administrators as an evil conspiracy of monsters trying to suppress the TRUTH. Oh well, there's no helping those who don't want to be helped. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)