This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pharmacology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/pihkal.shtml. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2006040910001231. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

Part 2 of PiHKAL may be distributed for non-commerical reproduction provided that the introductory information, copyright notice, cautionary notice and ordering information remain attached.

Miserlou 03:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like just copying a chunk out of the book, but the copyright does let us do that, I think.

The article does still need a rewrite and wikification, but there's no need for the copyright notice anymore. Miserlou 03:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Distributed for non-commerical reproduction" is not GFDL compliant. It is a copyright violation. Feel free to start writing a new article, but we can't use any of this text. —Keenan Pepper 03:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you're a real douche. Miserlou 04:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the line between a copyvio / license vio, and a reference to information in a book? How about email Shulgin and ask permission to use it? --Thoric 04:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna try and get in touch with him . . . ask shulgin is down, apparently he's on sabbatical and writing a book. so i'm trying to obtain his email address at the moment. (If any one sees this and knows it, feel free to email it to me!) --He:ah? 22:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i've emailed cognitive liberties (who host ask shulgin) a run-down of the situation and a request that they forward my email to Shulgin or send me his email address, so hopefully that'll pan out. --He:ah? 22:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can the Shulgin Rating Scale itself be included in this article? It can be found in the history[1], with original copyright notice attached, and the text was found here. Reprinting it seems like it may be permissable under fair use, as it is scientific, encyclopedic information, consisting solely of the rating scale itself. --He:ah? 02:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think we should give it a little while, Keenan. I don't see the problem with it remaining a stub until the copyright issue is sorted out, at the very least. --He:ah? 02:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten kind permission from Dr. Shulgin to reprint the scale, so I am going to reinsert the text; I will remove the merger tags in a few days pending any discussion . . . --He:ah? 03:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you already removed it. I still think it should be merged. What's the point of having a separate article about this? How could this ever become a featured article? —Keenan Pepper 05:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove it, i was going to wait. The point of having a seperate article is that this is a research method used by a notable scientist, throught several books as well as consulting work for the DEA and so on; It is the rating system generally used by people describing their experiences. With that said, I don't think it's absolutely imperative or obvious that this should be here. But i'm not sure where it says that articles have to be feature worthy in order to exist- Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Importance make no such claims. Where do you find this? --He:ah? 06:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Miserlou 04:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]