User talk:Heah/archive4

THE POPE WAS A FULHAM FAN!

http://football.guardian.co.uk/theknowledge/story/0,13854,1447574,00.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Radcliffe

3R on Texas redistrict

Hi Heah. I went back and labeled the reversions on 2003_Texas_redistricting. I can't quite figure out how to make that template work. In the subject article, the individual is simply reverting back to his old copy. They're not edits. He complicated (or obfuscated) the process by doing some of his reversions in two or three steps, e.g. taking out one sentence, saving, then taking out the second, etc. There are four clear reversions where he returned copy to exactly what he had before. Here's the direct link for you. Thanks. BehroozZ 16:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA

thanks for the sprotect on GNAA. It was definately tying some of the RC patrol editors up. Once again, thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one page I'd almost consider worthy of permanent protection. After more than a month of this I'm getting burnt out of doing reversions on it, and it may end up being taken off my watchlist. --Kickstart70-T-C 04:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

67.172.194.15

Hi Heah, Thanks for your intervention with 67.172.194.15. This user has acted in fairly bad faith in the past and I doubt they will ever do more then lie and insult on the talk page. If they do settle down, great. If not, what can I do next? What this user was doing was subtle vandalism. Adding there own name to the admin list, removing other names... removing large chunks of sourced info. What can I do? Advice would be appreciated. ---J.Smith 15:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the situation. ---J.Smith 20:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's back at it again. I've reported on WP:PAIN for his most recent personal attack. Now he/she is simply making things up in the edit summary and trying to impersonate me on the talk page. (to what end I have no idea... the comments are not clear) ---J.Smith 07:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

71.48.105.212

Thank you for blocking this user. He was bad.

talk pages

Are blocked users supposed to be using talk pages? [1] — goethean ॐ 17:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR and NPOV tag

Heah, I've posted a follow-up about 3RR and NPOV on my talk page. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks. 71.212.31.95 01:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I've posted a brief reply and I may add some further comments, but you don't need to look at them or respond to them unless you want to. Sorry to have bothered you. 71.212.31.95 02:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pls. del this talk page

There is a talk page with POV info only. Can you pls delete it? It's here. --Bruin rrss23 (talk)11:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal you just blocked

I don't know if you saw the vandal's block log, but it has been repeatedly blocked and vandalism is the only thing coming from that IP. Its block log follows:

18:50, 21 April 2006 Heah blocked "206.235.249.52 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism)

18:50, 21 April 2006 No Guru blocked "206.235.249.52 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (repeated vandalism) 15:44, 20 April 2006 Can't sleep, clown will eat me blocked "206.235.249.52 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (repeated vandalism to 44 BC) 15:43, 20 April 2006 RobertG blocked "206.235.249.52 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Continued vandalism after requests to stop) 20:23, 3 March 2006 BorgQueen blocked "206.235.249.52 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism) 14:33, 2 February 2006 Pathoschild blocked "206.235.249.52 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 hours (vandalism) 15:20, 12 January 2006 Egil blocked "206.235.249.52 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Repeated vandalism, has been warned)

Given that, I think a slightly longer block might be in order. Thanks. JoshuaZ 18:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pericles

Thank you for reverting this nonsense in the Pericles article. I worked to hard rewriting this the arivle to tolerate this stupid vandalisms--Yannismarou 20:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

heah

I appreciate the message, but I think you edited an old version of my talk page: You accidentally removed a comment from Stele, and added two vandalisms that I removed earlier. In the interest of saving time, I'm just going to revert your edit, and let you know here that I did see your message, and I was unaware there already is a process. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belay that. I just fixed it myself. Your message is back on there. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking 199.79.168.160

No qualms at all. That is really unfortunate you are sharing address space with a pathological vandal. Have you tried contacting someone at your school about this? If you provide them with the dates and times the vandalism occurs, they should be able to match this up with their proxy logs. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cannabis strains linkspammer

No prob! I don't have many of those pages on my list anymore - I thought (hoped) he'd given up. I'll keep an eye on him though and let you know if I see him misbehaving --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the so called linksspammer. I do not understand why other sites can have their links on cannabis related pages and my site cannot. My site is NONPROFIT, has no ads, and contains content that was added to wikipedia's pages (many different cannabis strains). I don't understand why other sites with message boards and similar content to mine can have their links up but i cannot. If i put up too many links just let me know, but i have to be allowed to have a few links up, as i see many similar sites to mine with their links up with no problems. 209.51.82.222 16:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heah - I talked with 209.51.82.222 a bit on this (here). He has taken my suggestion and constructively posted a comment on the talk pages of Cannabis (Talk) and List of cannabis strains (Talk) (under the username of Chq. What do you think? Is the site he's pushing for informative enough to be on at least one of those pages - like List of cannabis strains? Or are there too many "list sites" there already? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate Username and Flashmorbid

Just FYI if you don't happen to check back at the AN: I deleted that subpage. If there's personal information, delete the page instead of just editing it out. Otherwise it's accessible through the history. Also, the links there were a good example of WP:BEANS. ~MDD 46 96 01:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

209.248.254.66/sock puppets back

More of the same linkspam. Amcfreely 04:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lou franklin

Lou franklin's RfAR is near closing, and a remedy of banning him from Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and its talk page has been passed. Since that's where he committed all his 3RR violations, would you object to me lifting the one-month block you imposed when the RFAR is officially closed? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfa

Thanks for the support on my RFA. Unfortunately, it did not achieve consensus. I look forward to your support in a couple months when I apply again. Holler at me if you need anything. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable blocking

Hi, I am sorry for bothering you, but can you please look here and comment on the matter? Thanks. FunkyFly 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Heah. About a month ago you blocked Ceraurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Mark Bourrie and Isotelus) for using sock puppets for the second time to circumvent the 3RR rule at Rachel Marsden. One of the IPs that he used to do that was 70.25.91.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as shown by checkuser: see here. Today this IP joined several others in multiple blankings of that same Rachel Marsden page. I've asked for semi-protection of the page, and reported this incident to the admin board, but as blocking admin, I thought you should know too. Cheers, Bucketsofg✐ 21:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 70.25.91.205 IP is the National Library of Canada! Bucketsofg has a hate-on for both Marsden and Bourrie and has sucked you into his content fight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.26.170.216 (talk • contribs) .

Obligatory notification

[2]--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardamom

Hi,

Thanks for the info, the phrase is gone, Im not sure where it went.

Fred Starwindsurfer 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Not sure who to take this to, but the Cardamom has some strange vandalisim that I cant seem to remove, its in the taxo card, and it dosent show up in the edit box. The grafiiti text reads "== ME AND BRITTANY ARE TIGHT LIKE A FAT KiD IN SPANDEX! ==" and apears nowhere in the text body of the edit window, I did search for it. I saw your name in the edit history and that you seem to have some history in helping protect the wiki. It would be nice to know how to fix this if it happenes in the future.

Fred

Jewsdidwtc, redux

It appears another administrator ignored your request on the page and undid the deletion you did on Jewsdidwtc, and whaddyaknow...the same day someone again spams the link onto the Gay Nigger Association of America page. Here's the diff: [3]. Again, since the page is spam, and the issue itself non-notable, the redirect really needs to not exist, IMO. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So? It's just vandalism. It makes no difference if the link they spam onto a page leads to a big grey box or a redirect back to the article—In fact I'd say that a redirect is more useful because the vandalism may have been reverted by the time you get back there, especially considering it's a fairly highly watched page. Also, you'll note that I already informed Heah of this at #Obligatory_notification, above. If you don't think it should exist, nominate it for deletion (and yes, I would argue in favour of keeping it).--Sean Black ^(talk) 03:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any protected redirect is better than a {{deletedpage}}. If someone sees someone spamming "JEWSDIDWTC" into their IRC channel and looks to Wikipedia to figure out why, do you think "this page has been deleted and should not be created without a good reason" is going to help them? It's relevant and is a perfectly valid redirect. --Rory096 07:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

169.204.191.197 blatant vandal

Can you please block this IP for possibly one week? I don't know if this IP is blatantly vandalizing WP... --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles too short that may be Speedily Deleted...

Heah, you might want to try out your deletion powers here. Follow some links on the template and you'll find articles too short and can be speedily deleted. Badly, Kuala Lumpur is in Malaysia and you're an American, so I doubt what you're going to do e.g. delete it or stub it as I don't know if you've been to Malaysia yet. I might decide to improve and stub some articles but if they're just too short and the hopes of improving it is very low... well, it's up to you. --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entheogens

Keep an eye on the Entheogens article. Its been hit by the anonymous "bible verse" vandal who periodically hits the psychedelic pages. I've reverted it, but unfortunately, a certain User:Meco with an overly-literal interpretation of "assume good faith" is reverting my reverts. I've re-reverted, but that may not stay in effect, and I'm trying to stay on the right side of the "three revert rule". Peter G Werner 13:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi Heah, and I'd like to "gladly" thank you for your supportive comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again, and I will do everything I can to justify the trust you've placed in me! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

Strauss

I'm curious: what do you not like about Strauss? I've only read some the lectures notes on the Symposium, so if you are willing and able, will you enlighten me? EmileNoldeSinclair 05:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, as I understand it Strauss was a rather cagey writer so it's a bit difficult to really interpret his stance...the article on Paul Wolfowitz states that he only took three classes with Strauss and that he claims to be more a student of Albert Wohlstetter. Prof. Rosen, a former student and friend of Strauss, claims that the neo-cons have misinterpreted Strauss completely. (There are several interviews floating around on the internet in which he makes this claim). So, I think that it is at least possible that Strauss need not be blamed for neo-conservatism. EmileNoldeSinclair 21:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol omg

Heya, how good is your spanish? On the hyperreality article on the Spanish wikipedia they inserted MMOPRGS as an example but we have already been through this on the english language and it doesn't belong as an example. Anyway I took it out on the spanish wikipedia and they reverted my edit because I think they thought i was vandalising. Is it possible I could get you to apologise on my belhaf and explain the justification from teh talk page as to why it does not beling.... thx. - Abscissa 20:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gracias, senior... yo quiro taco bell!! :-) - Abscissa 08:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion during AfD

Hi, you recently removed a speedy deletion tag from Big Hairy Monster, because it was currently on AfD. You are aware that articles get speedily deleted on AfD all the time, right? If the article clearly meets the speedy deletion criteria, why should it not be speedily deleted? (Considering that the entire point of adding A7 to the speedy deletion criteria was to speed up the deletion process in certain obvious cases in the first place, is that not a little counter-productive?) As far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong (or against policy) with tagging articles for speedy deletion during the AfD process. Happens on a regular basis. -- Captain Disdain 21:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know that it is perfectly okay for articles to be speedily deleted while they are on AFD, if they qualify. In that case the AFD should be closed with the result speedy delete. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. first time in months i've done anything with speedies, and two of the six i deal with get this response. i do understand that articles at afd get speedied all the time; i figured if the quick consensus on afd was to speedy that should go ahead and be done, but when it's at afd, the decision to delete or not (speedy or otherwise) might as well be made there . . . but hey, no problem, if people want the tags to stay up and the article to be speedied i'll do that in the future. thanks for the feedback. ;) --he ah 22:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Psychedelic drug

Hiya :) In case you didn't get my email, please join the discussion :) --Thoric 23:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trunk Space, Modified Arts, and Paper Heart Gallery

Hello. I was hoping for your opinion on the articles I created for these venues, seeing as I used Che Cafe, The Smell, 924 Gilman Street, and The Casbah as models for them. Please respond on my talk page, or, any corresponding AfDs. Thanks! PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Yanksox!

Hey, Heah, thanks for supporting my RfA, which registered a tally of 104/4/7. Which means...

I am now an admin!!!

I was and still am very flattered by all the kind comments that I recieved, I will also take into account the comments about how I could improve. I guarantee I will try my best to further assist Wikipedia with the mop. Feel free to drop in and say hi or if you need anything. Again, thank you so much! Yank sox 04:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help me fight a Bambu employee Lost Society / 24.215.229.224

He keeps reverting your and my changes to the Roling papers articles to try and put his brand up top and hide the newspaper articles about them being convicted. He reverts both Bambu and Rolling Papers constantly. He deletes the A brands so that Bambu (B) will show up first alphabetically and lots of other cheesy scams.

Please block him somehow :( --Mrtobacco 14:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bambu & Mrtobacco's false claims against my former employee

The acusations made my mr.tobacco in reference to the 20menutos article completely do not pertain to Bambu's rolling papers, rather they have to do with Miguel y Costas's brand Smoking. I think that Wikipedia staff should be obligated to do further research before any of these bogus claims tarnish a name brand which has existed for over 200 years. It is quite obvious that Mr Tobacco works for a bambu competitor brand such as HBI. I seeing past post, his focus lys on tarnishing Bambu while praising brands such as Raw, Juicy Jay, Abadie etc. What is his problem against Bambu mind you? Please rectify this for the sanctity of the Wikipedia community.

(sorry to interject but if you check my posts you would think I promote Abadie, Gizeh, Rizla, JOB, Zig Zag, Laramie and lots of other brands too. I don't work for a competitor of yours - well in a way I guess I do because I work for the consumer. I'm your worst enemy - a smoker & collector who feels violated by the way you do business and used toxic cancer causing carcinogens in your papers, while the whole time lying to me saying the papers were "all natural". Then you further violated me and the other smokers by advertising your flavored papers as "all natural". Later, after running dozens of nationwide ads saying they were all natural, and inserts in my box of papers saying they were all natural, you send a letter saying 'whoops, they contain saccharin, a known cancer causing agent'. So you really seem like a bad bunch of guys and the world should know about these terrible moves. With some luck the FTC will proscute you for such terrible actions. It's really a blow to the entire tobacco smoking community to have a company such as yours do such actions. Consumers have a right to know about what they are smoking and what the truth is. THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE ....--Mrtobacco 16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (sidebar; I realize now that the accusation of saying I work for HIB is just to try and discount my posts exposing you)[reply]

He's still modifying the page to make himself #1 :(

The user Lost Society used just another IP address to go in and modify it back to the way he wanted it :( As you can see from his posts and the notes he put in his explanation, it's the same guy. This time he used a different IP because you blocked his other IP. The info is all right there in the article, complete with references etc...

This time he used the name 207.237.30.253

Please fully protect it from him :( Put the article the way we had it and then protect it please. He also went in and modified the Rolling Papers article to make Bambu pull up as #1 again :(

Heah could you please Sprotect the page Rolling papers? The Bambu guy gets off suspension today and he's certainly going to go in there to make his brand #1 on the list again :(--Mrtobacco 14:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bambu guy is back and using AOL to hide his IP :(

I know you blocked his IP that he uses from his cable connection, but now he's using his dial up AOL account to get around that and modify the Rolling papers and Bambu pages yet again :(

Could you please SProtect those pages to stop his antics :(

--Mrtobacco 14:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MrTobacco is abusing Wikipedia via using insubordinate claims

(maybe this should just be deleted, it's just Lost Society again...)

Having just checked out the rolling papers section on Wikipedia, I was upset to see such unprofessional ways of reporting and refferencing. This is my first time exploring wikipedia, and I find it a bit obsurd that individuals can just reference websites and articles and state them as fact. It seems to me that certain pages need to be overviewed by wikipedia staff and then locked. Referencing vauge and "brief" articles, especially from publications in other countries where much of the journalism is not up to par takes away from Wikipedia's claim of being a legit encyclopedia. MrTobacco's claims against Bambu are unwarranted. There haven't been any studies or lawsuits whatsoever which claim Bambu rolling papers to contain cancerous materials. If so, the FDA would have unquestionably taken action. Seeing that you Heah seem to be the main admin involved in this, I am leaving this message on your talk page. If you need to speak to me, I can be reached on my talk page. Thank you very much.

Hawaii Jim

- FYI: this user above didn't really sign his name because it's just Lost Society again using a new AKA - just check his contribution history and his IP, this is really sad that the Bambu guy won't give up. Every fact is cited and quoted in the articles. Now if you read his posts he claims Bambu "istn't even sold in Spain". That's silly, just take a look at http://www.papeldefumar.com (this translates to "rollingpapers.com") Not only do they sell it in Spain & Europe but they go so far as to make special bigger packs of the paper there! -- Mrtobacco 12:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Osli73 breaking the 3 revert rule

Heah, in regards to your entry: hi osli, you've broken the wikipedia 3 revert rule on Srebrenica massacre. As you haven't yet been warned and apparently have no prior record with 3RRs, you'll get another chance. so consider this your warning. cheers --heah 03:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note this June 7 entry in Osli talk page:

User:Live Forever has reported you for a violation of wikipedias Three revert rule on the above-mentioned page. Please familiarise yourself with that rule and ensure you comply with it at all times. This is just a polite reminder of the rule, but further transgressions may result in your account being blocked. Please discuss disagreements on the talk page rather than edit-warring over them. Kcordina Talk 08:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Heah, thank you for the explanation of the 3R rule and how it applies to Osli's conduct. I have a question which is not time sensitive but it would help me better understand the 3R rule. There might not be a clear answer.

Earlier today, while editing the Srebrenica Massacre article, another editor who I basically agree with and with whom I work with constructively did what I called a wholesale edit at 15:50, 15 August 2006. Immediately after, at 15:53, 15 August 2006, only changing his one time large edit, I used the revert function to undo his edit. We then worked together with him doing his edits one at a time. Given that this was not a "revert war", that we were working together constructively, that I only changed one edit not a slew of them, and I could have done the same thing manually, does my using the revert function as a matter of efficiency count towards the 3R rule? OR, am I revealing how IT challenged I am and, if it changes only one edit, the revert function does not show up as such and therefore there is nothing to worry about? Ignore these questions if they seem needlessly hairsplitting or for some reason not worth the time to respond. Just wondering. I do not want to break rules this early in my wikipedia stint. Thank you for your consideration. Fairview360 20:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Heah

Hi Heah,

I read your comment at Fairview360's Talk page.

Osli73 is constantly getting into revert/edit wars @ Srebrenica Massacre.

Would you please be so kind to take a look into this and let me know what can be done to stop these edit wars? Thank you. Bosniak 05:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello / thanks for the h/u re: Plato

Thanks for lighting the way on Style: I'll be completely honest & say the MOS is quite an intense document in terms of information-overload, which is my excuse for ignorance of it's "deeper" terms...

Best of luck for completion of the psychodelics project: persoanlly I'd be very intrigued to know how the things work! Out of interest, what is the difference between a psychadelic and a psychotropic? Monsta Pro 19:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

galatasaray

i've blocked our burak friend again, this time for 48 hours. Please be aware, in the future, that 3rr applies to everyone, and you too have reverted more than 3 times today. as burak's edits are border-line vandalism--at the very least they show a complete disregard for wikipedia policy and the manual of style--you won't be blocked. But just please keep that in mind when dealing with people, as you, too, are edit warring . . . cheers, and happy editing. --he ah 19:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heah you are right, i realized my 3rd revert after i did it and started thinking will i be blocked for this:) but i won't make a foolish mistake in future like this. Next time after my 1st (or 2nd revert) i will let others or admins to deal reverting etc. But i'm not sure what can be done with Burak18, he seems to not mind warnings etc. Btw as you can see in history part he understands English and he made an interesting edit summary:) I've one more question, adding continously inappropriate content like "rumoured transfers" etc. count as vandalism or not? Do you've any advice for dealing this kind of users? Cheers --Ugur Basak 19:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

I request that you reconsider your six-hour block on this editor, and impose a more significant block. There is no possisble justification for using the BLP tag for the "holocaust denial" category that he reverted with zero support on the talk page. The BLP tag should not be a shield for violating 3RR in a content dispute.--Mantanmoreland 20:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Evv

I kindly request that you block user Evv for breaking the 3RR. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Evv —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dardanv (talk • contribs) .

User RyanG's abuse of admin tools

Since you seemed to have been convinced by RyanG's claim of 'I am not interested in this article as an author in any way.', I thought you might be interested in knowing that as of Sept 3 the mask has come off, and he now openly declares 'I am no longer a disinterested editor, nor will I claim to be in the future.' [4]. Quite a turnaround in just 2 days. Keep this in mind the next time you see an abusive admin feigning disinterest. Isarig 03:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I request action regarding User:Zero0000

User:Zero0000 is consistenly using blanking and also personal attacks. He has been doing so for a long time. He's actually an adminstrator and I think he shouldn't be.

Blankings - notice how is using bad faith in reasons given then deleting huge sourced material that has nothing to do with his reason stated but only his WP:POV and sometimes adding insults such "you don't have a clue" , "nobody gives a damn" etc. Should an adminstrator act this way ?

partial list of past blanking (issues here were resolved in the end but it shows his attitude and personal vendetta against edits of mine btw...) "

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

thank you. Amoruso 06:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this really is a content dispute that i am not qualified to become involved in. While zero's edit summaries aren't always overly friendly, to put it mildly, none of them seem over the line. If he isn't using his admin tools here--ie protecting a page on his version, etc--his actions really don't have much to do with his status as an admin. His actions aren't vandalism, ie not really page blankings. zero has a problem with the sources you are using to back up your claims, and like i said, i'm really not knowledgable on the subject to weigh in. and other than pick a side in this content dispute, which most likely wouldn't help anything anyways, there isn't much i could do here. sorry. --he ah 08:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you very much for the reply. I will remain seized about his edits and uses. He did seem to abuse his admin on my talk page : [18] in here he was referring to edits where he was involved and his accusation of me performing bad faith edits, which I didn't, is also wrong. Amoruso 08:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Chidester vandalism

Hi. Thanks for your comments about my Salvia divinorum edits. I’ve been putting quite a lot of work into the Brett Chidester article too. It’s a tricky and controversial subject I’ll admit, but I’ve been trying to ensure that all the major points are supported. It’s liable to suffer the odd POV comment from both sides. These are mostly quickly fixable without subsequent re-offending. However, one contributor in particular Britbarb, who has identified herself as being Brett Chidester’s aunt, just doesn’t seem to get it. I’ve been trying to cut her some slack, considering the circumstances, but she keeps deleting well supported information that she doesn’t like to replace it with her own unsupported points of view. I don’t think she’s included a single referenced point in any of her edits yet. She also completely trashed an earlier version making it look nonsensical then complained about it and succeeded in getting the whole article deleted (it's since been reinstated - see article’s discussion pages). Maybe a word from a third party such as yourself would soon be in order.

--SallyScot 19:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Society is back at it again on Bambu & Rolling papers

He is back and again reverting your changes back to his change where he hides the info he doesn't want on there.

He's already admitted he works for Bambu & you've already warned him and even tried Sprotecting the page.

Please get him blocked and Sprotect the pages again :(

--Mrtobacco 18:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOOD CATCH on blocking him when he just uses his IP! However now he's going to dial in via AOL like he did last time and vandalise pages that way :( Would you consider Sprotecting the pages he likes to vandalize for another couple weeks?

--Mrtobacco 15:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. Consensus to promote was reached, and I am now an administrator. I'll be using the tools cautiously at first, and everyone should feel welcome to peer over my shoulder and make sure I'm not doing anything foolish. --Robth^Talk 04:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Halo's RfA

Heah...
Thank you very much for the constructive criticism in your oppose comment in my request for adminship. Ultimately, no consensus was reached, and I failed to be promoted, but I am very grateful for your coments. I will strive to better myself in all areas, especially Mainspace.
Th ε Halo ^Θ

Salvia divinorum spamming

Hi. With regard to repeated spamming of Salvia divinorum article, could you arrange for 12.175.32.34 (Talk | contribs) and 65.34.151.81 (Talk | contribs) both to be blocked (both the same person I think). Thanks, --SallyScot 11:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi. Thanks for blocking 65.34.151.81 (Talk | contribs). Now 12.175.32.34 (Talk | contribs) has indeed re-offended. - If you can block that I.P. too then hopefully that's the job done for a while. Thanks, --SallyScot 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello -- request for admin advice/action

Hi. We've been having a problem with an IP editor of the article, Bong, who keeps replacing "cannabis" with "tobacco". Via edit summaries across multiple reversions, they explained that this is how shops are required to sell bongs, as if they are for tobacco use, and I explained to them that that's all good and well, except that it's WP:NOR, and that we already have verifiable sources that do indicate that bongs are used for cannabis. I requested that this user cite a source, but at that point they stopped leaving edit summaries but continued to revert "cannabis" to "tobacco". I left a warning on the user's talk page, but I'm not familiar with the procedure that should be carried out if they continue, or if it might even be necessary to semi-protect the page, or something, as that article has a significant amount of vandalism, nearly all from IP users. (P.S. I found you by going to the Psychedelics Wikiproject and then clicking names until I found an admin.) Thanks. --Anaraug 05:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, someone else banned him while I was typing that... Lol. --Anaraug 05:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Society is back at it again on Bambu & Rolling papers..

I know you don't want to Sprotect the pages, but this time Lost Society is using 172.132.12.239 to go in and make the same exact changes he always makes :( Just an FYI

--Mrtobacco 23:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drugs of abuse

I moved the discussion to the talk page --Urod 08:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Heah. Rbraunwa 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mplane.jpg

An image is redundant only if it has exactly the same name on Commons. Your deletion caused a redlink! If you delete again, please avoid this pitfall by checking and changing all file links. Thanks -- --Janke | Talk 21:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"entactogens and empathogens" question.

I know 2C-I and 2C-B can be Empathogen-entactogen. But I am not sure about 2C-T-9 and 3C-E at Category:entactogen/empathogens, neither of these two articles say anything about such qualities. Do you feel 2C-I and 2C-B deserve to be added to Template:Entactogens, and what about 2C-T-9 and 3C-E? Are they simply mis-categorized? You re-categorized 2C-T-9 and 3C-E to Entactogen/Empathogens from Entheogens. I believe it's possible for them to be concidered entheogens but find it hard to call them entacogen/empathogen. --x1987x^(talk) 23:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]