User talk:Allabout2006

Could you please not include attempts to contact other users within the articles themselves? That's what talk pages are for. In future, please post your messages to Talk:Alkyl nitrites instead of to the Alkyl nitrites article itself. -- Francs 2000 01:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The official welcome

Welcome!

Hello Allabout2006, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs 2000 02:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit a page

Please follow some of the links above and try out the sandbox for test edits: if after that you have any further questions contact me on my talk page. Please do not try to contact other users in the articles themselves. -- Francs 2000 02:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should log in when making discussion comments, and not post as an anonymous user. xaosflux ^T/_C 02:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips. I hope to learn quick.

Kind regards, AllAbout2006 Allabout2006 06:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

commercial links

hi. commercial links/spam is considered vandalism. the allaboutpoppers link has been removed 10 times (count 'em) and if it happens again i will report you for vandalism. eventually you will get blocked from editing wikipedia, so please stop. --Heah (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heah --

I suggest you actually spend some time in the site http://www.allaboutpoppers.com/. If you did, as I have, you would see that there is no basis in fact for your statement that the site is a commercial link, or that it advertises "both poppers and companies selling poppers". I have found no links anywhere on the http://www.allaboutpoppers.com/ site, to any sites which sell poppers from their sites. I have found only links to examples of sites that are *about* poppers, and which describe them.

This is indeed an encyclopedia, and I would agree commercial links have no place here. However, none of the sites I am linking to this alkyl nitrite page sell poppers. Any/all sites I will be linking are informational only.

If you actually read the site that you seem so adamant about linking to ("the history of poppers,from the duesberg site), and have any knowledge about the history of these products and this industry, it becomes clear that it is a site full of misinformation and falsehoods. You can be assurred that any sites to which I may provide links, will contain information which is supported by accurate data and facts.

With respect to your demand that I "..please stop adding it.", the more appropriate question would be why are you linking out to a site that is full of misinformation? Perhaps, to be fair and neutral, you might want to consider putting a warning or disclaimer in the description of that site, that informs people that it is considered to be highly controversial, and is listed for the purpose of demonstrating, from an historical perspective, the scope of the extremes on this issue.

Your threats to "report me for vandalism" are exactly what I was talking about last night. You are rather clearly demonstrating a significant personal bias against the dissemination of accurate and timely informaton about Poppers/alkyl nitrites. If you persist in your efforts to sabatoge the inclusion of important and valuable information on this subject, and/or continue to threaten to inhibit my right to post or create links, especially by falsely claiming that I am posting inappropriate links which are in fact links that contain accurate, timely, and important information about the subject, and which do not contain any commercial aspects, you will be making a mistake.

It's up to you.

Allabout2006 06:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. --Heah ^talk 04:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

each time you add another commercial link to the alkyl nitrites article, i am going to put another one of these templates on your page. when it gets up to five, you get blocked. the page you've added and the mirror of that that you've added are commercial sites as well as your own personal sites, which is also disallowed. in addition, your pages quote the alky nitrites article as stating that ".... despite their wide use, serious complications from inhalation of nitrites remain extremely rare. Accordingly ... it would appear that only the most reckless disregard of available information could lead to any serious harm." this is not anywhere in the alkyl nitrites article, and it never will be. please remove it. --Heah ^talk 04:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. you've done it already! that was quick. --Heah ^talk 04:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt to sabotage me by alleging I'm a "sock puppet".

Heah,

Rather than engage in civil disussions, you have chosen to attempt to again sabotage my efforts to add to the body of knowlege on the subject of Poppers/alky nitrites. This time you have alleged that I am a "sock puppet", when you know it is not true.

Please read the following portion of the Wikipedia explanation about what a "sock puppet" is:

"If it appears that sock puppets are being used as part of an edit war or to distort the outcome of a vote or survey, one possible rule of thumb is the 100-edit guideline. This suggests that any account with more than 100 edits is presumed not to be a sock puppet. If there are unusually many accounts with few edits participating, you may want to check if they are sockpuppets, by looking at IP addresses or times that edits were made. However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sockpuppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sockpuppet without justification, they will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia."

You are egaging in inapproapriate behavior. I would urge you to, instead, learn more about the subject you are posting about, so that you are better able to discuss the subject matter, rather than having to resort to attempts to censurre, discourage, or otherwise prevent others who may be more knowledgable about the subject than you are, to post their own meaningful content.

I'm not sure why you are engaing in this campaign against my efforts to contribute to the body of knowlege, but I wish you would stop.

Thank you. Allabout2006 06:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Xaosflux

"Counter Vandalism Unit"

I am learning quickly, Mr Heah.

After you attempted to lable me as a "sock puppet" earlier tonight, you have now somehow reported me as a "vandal", and my pages are apparently being monitored by the "Counter Vandalism Unit".

You play dirty -- especially considering that I am a total newbie.

Once again, heah, you have attempted to sabatoge my efforts to add to the body of knowledge on the subject of Poppers/alkyl nitrites, as you have been doing from my very first contribution two nights ago.

Anyone who reads my contributions to the subject, can readily dessearn that I am not a "sock puppet", that I am not a "vandal", and that the information I am adding is credible. I can fully support anything I add.

I ask that you halt your attacks on me personally, and instead, read what I am adding to the subject, and become more knowledgeable about it yourself. I thought that's what Wikipedia is all about. I'm certain the Internet community at large believes that's what Wikipedia is all about. It will be disturbing if it turns out Wikipedia is controlled by people such as "heah", who attacks those with whom he does not agree. If this turns out to be the case, and as the larger community learns about it, Wikipedia's image will be sullied, and it's perceived integrity diminished.

Allabout2006 07:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not know who Mr Heah. is. I DID list your account Allabout2006 as a possible sock puppet of an IP you appeared to contribute under (209.248.254.66) in that it appears that you contributed in discussions regarding edits by your username, under that anon IP. Being listed as a sock puppet is not nesicarily a bad thing, and if it is correct makes your edits less confusing to other editors and readers. As listed on the sockpuppet info for your tag,"This may be more cluelessness then sockpupetry, but this user is using anon ips to discuss articles they started. xaosflux T/C 02:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)" all constructive edits are welcome by anyone at anytime!

I do do work on the C.V.U. project, but there is NOT a consortium of people out to monitor or attack you personally as an editor.

xaosflux ^T/_C 12:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. This is all new to me.

Kind regards, Allabout2006 14:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and while im' not sure why this message never got to me, i reported you for vandalism just as i said would as you refuse to stop putting a commercial link on the article, one that has been removed almost a dozen times. you were told not to do that by various people and you still did it another half dozen times. --Heah (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you have a personal agenda on this subject, and you remove a link, it does not make it so that the link is inappropriate. You can say a link is commercial, but that does not make it commercial. Again, the link I'd placed, and which you are complaining about, is not commercial.

Moreover, why do you continue to delete all the information I'm posting? What's wrong with it?

What is your agenda? What is your reason for posting the false and misleading information contained in the one link you continue to post? Allabout2006 05:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

three revert rule

you are in danger of violating the three-revert rule, meaning you've effectively reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours, and may be blocked. --Heah ^talk 05:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are also in danger of violating your three-revert rule, meaning that everytime you delete the info I've posted and replaced it with your text, you've reverted as well. 3 tiimes in 24 hours, and you may be blocked as well. Allabout2006 05:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heah -- please read the official Wikipedia explanation of three-revert rule, as shown below. Please note that your ongoing and relentless actions whereby you continue to delete whatever information I've contributed to the body of data on the Poppers/alkyl nitrite subject pages, would appear to be clear evidence of vandalism on your part.

- - - The Three-revert rule (or 3RR) is an official policy which applies to all Wikipedians. The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first reversion. (This does not apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism). This does not imply that reverting three times or less is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.***

You risk being blocked by your excessive efforts to disrupt what has been a genuine effort on my part to add to the body of knowledge about this subject with substantiated, fact-based information.

Please grow up and stop your childish behaviour. Allabout2006 05:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heah --

I wonder if you'd be interested in trying to come to some conclusion as to what it is that might satisfy you. I'd like to negotiate a resolution with you, if possible, so that we can get on with the business of creating a Wikipedia page on Poppers/nitrites that contains accurate and timely information.

You are more knowledabel about how to use the various Wikipedia tools. How do we negotiate?

Respectfully -- Allabout2006

We don't negotiate. Please read up on the Wikipedia regulations before you proceed further. Start with Wikipedia:Five pillars. If you continue on the course of conduct you were carrying out, you will be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your suggestion I read up on Wikipedia regulations. However, your comment that "we don't negotiate" appears to contradict what I've read in the Wikipedia regulations. Why would you block a newbie who has demonstrated that he's able to contribute vaulable data to a subject, and who is not engaged in vandalism, is not a sock puppet, and has not posted commercial links? Allabout2006 06:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you posted is commercial content -- I've looked at the sites that you linked to, and they're basically advertising. If you don't agree, please explain why they are not commercial sites. I would not be blocking a "newbie who has demonstrated that he's able to contribute valuable data" because it's not valuable data. --Nlu (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu,

In the interest of moving forward, I have removed the link that you claim is commercial. Does that solve your problem? Allabout2006 06:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That only begins to address the problem. The section that you added on "young homosexuals" is also not compliant with the NPOV policy. Further, don't remove the established content until there is a consensus on why they should be removed. --Nlu (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps against my better judgment, I am not blocking you. However, I have reverted to the version prior to your latest edits and protected the page. Please talk about your proposed changes on Talk:Alkyl nitrites (as Francs2000 suggested to you two days ago) and try to gain a consensus. I will unprotect the article when things have calmed down a little. Meanwhile, please read up on 3RR as well as to why your behavior was unacceptable. --Nlu (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about relative to a section I added on "young homosexuals". You'll need to take that up with whomever posted it.

I'd like to point out that I have not reported Heah's use of a photographic which he obviously took from another site, posted on the nirites page, and then claimed it was a photo that he took.

Let's play fair gentlemen.

Allabout2006 06:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did misattribute that section, and I apologize for doing that.

As to your allegation that the graphic is a copyright violation; "The other guy's doing something wrong too!" is not a defense to what you were doing. If Heah violated copyright, there's a way to deal with that: report it as a copyright violation.

Please continue content-related discussions on Talk:Alkyl nitrites. --Nlu (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's fruitless to discuss issues with the person, heah, who has waged a personal war against me. What is it you need to hear? 06:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.248.254.66 (talk • contribs)

Well, it looks like you've proven his sock puppetry allegation for him. While sock puppetry isn't per se a violation of Wikipedia rules, it is frowned up on, but I won't block you for it because it's not a per se violation. However, it does put your good faith in a more questionable light, and in light of that Heah's actions suddenly look a lot less questionable. In any case, though, discuss your proposed edits on their merits. That's the only way that you can show that your proposed edits are proper. And talk over at Talk:Alkyl nitrites. --Nlu (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I am not a sock puppet I am who I am. I don't hide behind any IP addresses.

Here's what I just tried to post in the talk section like you requested. I'm not sure it even got recorded:

I have no objections to any actions you take, as long as they are fair. If you are going to remove the external site links, I assume you'll remove all of them, not just the ones I'd posted.

I am not a computer expert, or software writer. However, I think I understand your analogy to code modification, and it may be a good one. Why do I want to modify the poppers/nitrite page? Because when I first came across it a few nights ago, I realized that it was full of misinformation -- even falsehoods. I recognized that I have access to substantial information which is accurate, timely and significant, and which would make an important contribution to the body of knowledge already posted on the page. To that end, I began to edit the page. However, almost immediately, I noticed what I had been adding was being deleted, almost as fast as I could add it. I was stunned. This was my 'trial by fire'; someone began waging a relentless edit war against me.

I wonder, in Wikipedia, do you automatically assume that whatever the person who sets up a page initially posts is accurate? You have told me that I am obligated to rationalize why any information I might post on this page should be allowed. What about the person who set up the page, and included inaccurate information and/or falsehoods?

Allabout2006 06:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

examples.

this is how you do it, this is what people are looking for from you, this is how you write an encyclopedia article. this is how you provide and verify information. its quite simple. --Heah ^talk 09:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heah. This is helpful.

Something to consider, is that the references you pointed to – which are part of a larger list -- are very old and are based on work done in the early years of AIDS; also, that subsequent research has not supported the same results.

The primary issue when reviewing the studies most often referenced by someone trying to link nitrites to AIDS, or more specifically to Kaposi’s sarcaoma, is that they are very weak in terms of data presented. The results have not been repeated by other scientists. In fact, within the list of referenced studies, there are contradictory results both by the same researcher and between different researchers.

The general consensus in the research community, and in the HIV/AIDS community, is that although the much vaunted list of references claiming to link nitrites to HIV/AIDS may look impressive to the untrained eye, they do not support a case for a claim that nitrite use causes HIV infection or Kaposi’s sarcaoma (KS).

Allabout2006 22:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that the various links have been removed now. I would agree that if a balance cannot be established, there should be no links to any external sites. That is, there are folks on both sides of the debate, and everyone has their websites. The anti-popper folks have theirs -- which are alarmest, much like the "Reefer Madness" efforts, of which you posted one or two ealier this week, and the other side has their's, of which I posted a couple this past week. I wish I could find better sites to post, but those two are the only ones I've been able to locate. I did not mean to post a commercial site, and did not think I was posting a commercial site, since none of the sites I posted actually sold any poppers. In rereading your posts, heah, I noted that you thought the sites were commercials for poppers. I would agree that some might consider the second one as such, but the allaboutpoppers.com site is not. If you actually read it, which takes a while due to the huge amount of content, you'll find it's not commercial. It's a research-based site, which gives us lots of valuable information about the history, sociology, and other aspects of the nitrite issue.

I'm glad things have cooled down.

Allabout2006 22:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have not added a single link to Alkyl nitrites. check the history. i may have reverted the deletion of links, and i know i changed the wording of the links in an effort to find some common ground in this matter. but added a link? nope.
I have not added a single picture to alkyl nitrites- please check the history- and have certainly not added a copyrighted pic and claimed i took it myself. please see this, my image upload history.
allaboutpoppers.com is almost certainly not just a site that you located, given your edit history and user name. It is also not research based and is commercial.
I am not "anti poppers"; i do not try to claim any "ownership" over the article. I think i have edited the article a grand total of once before you showed up. (again, check the history. I haven't checked it, but i really have no special interest in the page and haven't done any work on it.) I simply refuse to let you turn this article into a commercial advertisement.
Please do not continue to slander me.

thank you. --Heah ^talk 22:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree to disagree on your past behavior.

Glad to learn you claim no 'ownership' over the article. I, too, claim no 'ownership' over the article. Contributions to the subject should be made by those most qualified to do so.

Let's drop the personal attacks and move on to discussions relative to the merits of the information contained in the article. How about it? Those turning to Wikipedia for information deserve nothing less.

Allabout2006 23:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Let's agree to disagree on your past behavior"- no. i clearly laid out my actions with links so you and anyone else can clearly and easily see what my actions have been. No edit on wikipedia is lost, they are all stored. i have not done any of the things you have claimed. I am not attacking you but responding to attacks on me by denying them and providing evidence. this is not a question of opinion, i simply have not uploaded this non-existant pic with false copyright info, i am not a sockpuppet of myself as you oddly claimed here and have been in constant dialogue with you, contrary to another claim made at admin intervention against vandalism, and so on. please stop slandering me. --Heah ^talk 23:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, this is absolutely a question of opinion; namely, yours and mine. It's interesting that, as a highly experienced Wikipedia user, who seems to relish his ability to quickly attack a newbie whose edites he does not agree with, through the use of the various nuances in Wikipedia (including your accusing me of 'vandalizing', being a 'sock puppet', and whatever ever else you could use to demean and harm my editing efforts from the very first edits I tried to make -- including continuously deleting my edits, and then when I innocently put them back in each time you deleted them, labeling me as violating some rule about not replenishing a page more than 3 times in 24 hours, or something like that.) -- that after all this, you still aren't satisfied. You falsely accuse me of some nevarious connection to a website I linked out to, which is clearly not a commercial site. Just because you tell a big lie, even over and over, does not make it true. (That trick only works for Republicans :=) ) As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree, and let others come to their own conclusions. I don't want to argue with you about your behavior anymore. It's not what Wikipedia is for.

Let's discuss the merits of the information contained on the page we're here to talk about. Or, if you aren't an expert on this subject, and cannot make a meaningful contribution in that regard, then maybe you can move on to another subject, where you have some expertise, and let those of us who are more familiar with the subject, discuss it unhindered with your technical maneuverings.

What say you? Can we lay down the hatchet and move past this?

Allabout2006 00:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You've been blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks. If you are willing to comply with WP:NPA and make productive edits, you are free to return after the block expires. --Nlu (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I've posted an Associated Press article that appeared on the news wires today, on the discussion page for nitrites.

The article validates my concerns about Wikipedia. I imagine you'll edit it out, or delete it.

I suspect that the general public 'gets it' about Wikipedia, too.

It's regrettable that the folks who are the most knowledgeable about, and best able to use, the intracacies of Wikipedia's rules and regulations are also the people best equipted to use that knowlege to stifle newbies, and/or those who are less computer-savvy, who may make mistakes, or who haven't even yet heard about what a 'sock puppet' is, or RR32 rule, or whatever rules you and heah used to stifle my contributons.

I doubt you'll 'get it', nor do I care. But, at the end of the day, just maybe -- there's a chance that you'll actually understand the damage you do by your holier-than-thou attitudes, and arrogant computer-geek power-plays.

This is in no way meant to be a personal attack" on you or heah, or anyone else who edits in Wikipedia. It's simply the reaction of an ordinary guy, based on his observations and experiences after being stifled by those who dissagreed with his edits. You and heah, in addition to not agreeing with my edits, clearly have the superiour knowledge of how Wikipedia works, which made it easy for you to throw down obstables to my postings, make false allegations of wrong doing, and activate Wikipedia's rules to either threaten to ban me or block me, or -- as you did, to actually ban or block me.

But the more important issue -- and problem -- is for Wikipedia itself; namely, that this kind of censorship is akin to the autoritarion rulers whose people are only allowed to see or read whatever the rulers deem suitable -- which will, as I've said before, only serve to further diminish the already tarnished reputaton of Wikipedia.

Allabout2006 19:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I just saw tonight's news article on Wikipedia that played on FOX News. (Earlier, I'd posted here the AP article on Wikipedia from Dec 12, 2005.)

In what has become a huge coincidence, the very day the media begins reporting on the dangers of Wikipedia, happens to be the day immediately after the very week I discovered misinformation and falsehoods being posted on this page about nitrites, and then tried to edit them by attempting to add more accurate information, but then was attacked and harassed by another person who disagrees with my edits -- and was ultimately blocked and threatened by a purported Wikipedia administrator.

As was reported in the news today, people can go to http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ to learn more about how Wikipedia functions, and where the dangers exist.

The folks at wikipediawatch report that, what's happening in Wikipedia, is that any collection of citations that may APPEAR balanced is all that anybody expects. If the title or snippet in a link itself contributes to this impression, then the full text is not researched by anyone.

This is exactly what has been going on in this nitrite page. As a result, it truly is, as wikipediawatch reminds us, "garbage in, garbage out, garbage back in..." -- and after a few cycles of this, it all turns into " a big, stinking heap".

Truly, as the news media warned today: "Don't believe eveyrthing you read on the Web, especially on Wikipedia!"

The following two posts, found in a wikipediareview blog, sum up my experiences this past week, after having been harassed, threatened and finally blocked, after I attempted to add to the body of knowledge about nitrites/poppers. They demonstrate how dangerous Wikipedia -- based on its current model -- really is:

"Wikipedia's procedural faults, complete anarchy as regards contributions, and sometimes-bizzare social rules do not teach people to become good researchers or writers... it teaches them how to be good Wikipedians, or to get the hell out." - Jason Scott ". . . when it comes to history and politics, Wikipedia can claim whatever it wants by shutting out those who actually know something about a certain topic. In that way, Wikipedia can rewrite history as it sees fit - which may have nothing to do with reality or the actual facts." - SummerFR

Finally, this post on a board, discussing wikipedia, really sets it out well:

"Any moron can pretty well say anything they want on any topic, which is fine for a News Group or a Forum but not an Encyclopedia.

In my opinion a reference source should be authoritative enough to end arguments not start them.

I believe that Wikipedia could better serve the internet community if they checked their facts first before publishing the article.

Instead, we have a situation where the cart is placed before the horse and we end up with what is left by the horse."

Nuf said. Allabout2006 01:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

i have filed an RfC concerning your behavior which can be found here. comments would be appreciated. thanks. --Heah ^talk 04:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]