User talk:Bk0

VERY IMPORTANT NOTICE: This user is opposed to ads on Wikipedia.

Hi Bk0, do you have any special information (personal or published) why Salvinorin A should be different from kappa opioid agonists. Thanks, Cacycle 21:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is an esthetic or style issue, but in case it never occured to you, several of your changes to BSE turn active language to passive, concrete to abstract, narrative and chronological to atemporal and thematic. Such changes make the sentences look more like scientific literature but they don't actually increase the authoritativeness and I believe you end up communicating less to your reader. 68.221.1.97

Thanks for your input, I'd appreciate it if you could give concrete examples of what you're referring to. From memory, the BSE article was disjointed and didn't flow very well. I tried to preserve the information as provided while giving the piece a more encyclopedic style. Improvements and constructive criticism of my edits are always welcome and appreciated. --Bk0 15:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right about Modafinil been widely different from cocaine, but as someone who used it in the past I assert that the fact still is that it produces some stimulative side effects. --68.39.79.43, Aug. 22 2005.

1. There was no claim that gay men are more promiscious.
2. Heterosexuals do not experience the sexual compulsion that gay men do on methamphetamine. This is due to the method of introduction of crystal meth into our subculture is tied in with sex. I am gay and I doubt that you are. This is not a bigoted remark.
3. Gay men are experience a rapid rise of HIV and syphalis (which cannot be transmitted introvenously) becuase of methamphetamine use. ℬastique▼^talk

I have re-edited the section. The problem with sexual compulsion, which is not the same thing as promiscuity, has been amended to refer to gay and bisexual methamphetamine users. I have removed dirty needles once again because it's not pertinent to this paragraph. You can write a paragraph on HIV and Hepatitis C transmission if you like in which you discuss dirty needles. The simple facts are:

• An inordinate amount of gay and bisexual men are using crystal meth.
• They are experiencing a rise in HIV and STD transmission because of the "pig-sex" in which they participate while on it, and rarely from exchanging needles. Most gay men who use crystal these days are smoking it.
• I can cite many articles if you would like, as well as the rise in outreach programs toward gay men about methamphetamine and sex.
• No amount of sugar coating and pretending the problem doesn't exist will make it go away.
• Getting honest about it and telling the truth about it will make it go away. This is an article on methamphetamine. Leaving this information out is a disservice to the article, as well as to problem. I would like to see the problem go away, because I care about my community. Maybe one day I can modify it to say, "during early part of the first decade of the 20th Century, meth was a particular problem among gay and bisexual men; but now... I certainly hope so! ℬastique▼^talk 01:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you call me bigoted. ℬastique▼^talk 01:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you raised a flag on some questionable edits to the Dead Sea article in November of 2004. I agree, the claims do seem like bunk, especially as they are unsourced and from an anonymous editor. As you brought this up initially, I wanted to alert you that I intend to remove those passages, and wondered if you had any comment. --Dcfleck 15:50, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have no problems with that. I would've done it myself but never got around to it. --Bk0 20:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove them. They appear a ridiculous blemish on an otherwise useful page.

Oops. I guess I never hit save over at the Talk:Methamphetamine page. Bummer. I've added something to the talk page now, but it's, like, not as good. Biggest problem was use of the term "deviated septum" which is something completely different. Osmodiar 14:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother. I saw your comments regarding the Venona Project and the the need to be skeptical about government intelligence files and claims. I have posted a Request for Comment for the pages Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage and Talk:Harry Magdoff. Endless revert wars and edit conflicts. Input welcome.--Cberlet 09:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the FIP page. It was the first wikipedia page I created, and I knew it wasn't as good as other pages I've seen. Your edits have gone a long way to improve its quality. People like you help make Wikipedia what it is.

Regards --Puskarm 14:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you need as justification in order to meet your stringent criteria? Am I putting too little text, or you had it enough of me and just prefer to do the revert? It's easy, isn't it - just two clicks away.

Which case would be worse, to have a neutral article tagged as disputed and reader in doubt where is the problem, or to have a totally biased article without a tag so that only knowledgeable person can detect it.

I do not think at its current state it is worth to be nominated as a featured article. -- Goldie (tell me) 03:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

10x. finally got what are you asking for and got through my concerns. For me it is so obvious that thought mentioning the facts will be enough. BTW: could you use same symbols in indentation sequences to preserve the numbering (example "#:", "#::", "#:" preserves while "#:", ":::", "#:" breaks it), I've fixed it for now. -- Goldie (tell me) 04:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the poll in question?[1] Which version does this support? This edit war is confusing, and I am not involved in this dispute.Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 20:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the intro of this the anarchism article to point to anarcho-capitalism and removed the section on anarcho-capitalism. This is an attempt to mirror the status of the libertarianism article in regards to the lesser known libertarian socialism, please take a moment to look at each article and compare. It is my belief that given the featured status of the libertarianism article, its relative stability compared to this article, and the clear similarity of the subject matter, this is a road toward a legitimate compromise. I would ask that the two major catalysts of the ongiong edit war of this article (RJ and Hogeye), both of whom have also edited the libertarianism article, please ensure that you are consistent in any standard you apply to this article. Hopefully this will help us reach the point of stability that the civil editors of libertarianism have been able to do in the relative absence of constant antagonism.

This message has been posted to the user pages of all the current major contributors I could find, if you know of someone I have left out please feel free to forward it. Revkat 16:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Im just posting this because I wish to avoid any sort of edit war. Is it possible for you to cite a notable source defining a major record label the way you are asserting? It's a new one by me. AKMask 16:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allrighty, thanks for those. I'm now happy about some sort of reference to them having been accused of losing their indie-ness, should you desire to add it once again. One of those links you gaveme should also be placed in the article. -AKMask 21:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bk0, to answer your question I live in Iowa and saw it used once.

As a phlebotamist I visit many patient rooms, at one room, a physician was performing some sort of procedure with cocaine as the topical anesthetic. I know this because the bottle sitting on the table was labeled cocaine sulfate (some %, don't remember). It was sort of remarkable, as I had never seen that before. That's about all I know on the subject. I am not familiar with specific procedures that call for cocaine, but I guess that usage is rather isolated and dependent on physician preference. You might want to do some investigative work and ask an in-hospital outpatient pharmacy, they'd know a lot better... but they might give you a doubletake. :-)

Done! thanks Martin 23:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bko, regarding your revert of my contribution with the note "untrue; physicians can prescribe any approved drug for off-label purposes)", I wish this were true, but it isn't. At least not in the 'Land of the free'. Any doctor overtly prescribing opioid medication to clinically depressed patients for the explicit purpose of relieving their depression, risks [b]medical license revocation, asset seizure, and even prison time.[/b]

Please read these articles, and let me know your reaction: http://www.aapsonline.org/press/hurwitz1002.htm

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst051704.htm

Rearden Metal 04:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC) ____[reply]

Thank you!

BkO, it takes alot of inner confidence & strength to keep one's self open to new and different ideas, and then allow the newly presented facts to change your mind. Keep up your good work here... Rearden Metal 06:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I'll do that now, I get annoyed at people just adding cleanup tags willy-nilly too, so I guess I should be more careful myself! I think it is a good candidate for a cleanup though. I initially thought you'd just removed it because i was using cleanup instead of cleanup-date :) - FrancisTyers 00:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bk0 - I've added a taxobox for this, and also copied across the journal reference. Only problem is, the journal reference refers to S. laniceps, not Saussurea involucrata (the two are closely related, but not the same, both being accepted by the Flora of China checklist). Do you think the details should be moved across to a S. laniceps page? I also took out the 'above the snow line' reference as that's manifestly untrue (!), no plant can grow where there it permanent snow cover, it must be an error in the source literature. - MPF 18:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll move it across, and put Saussurea involucrata back as a redirect to the genus until such time as someone gets round to doing a page for it - MPF 19:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

were you responsible for the inclusion of the thompson reference:

"In an interview Thompson is quoted as saying Acosta was stabbed and thrown overboard somewhere off the coast of Mexico. There are rumours in reference to what precipitated the murder." ?

If so, please find a citation for it or remove the reference as it slightly contradicts another users moderately more reputable contribution:

"What Thompson really said about Oscar: "...and someone onboard shot him two or three times in the stomach, with a .45. Then threw him over the side." "

It may be uncited, but at least it claims to present thompson's words.Shaggorama 20:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dangit. Allright, well thanks for the quick response.Shaggorama 00:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 23:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the the phrase "people of color" in the crack section to "black people". It has since been reverted. "People of color" is nothing more than a conjugate of "colored people" or simply "colored", which I think most people agree is antiquated at the least and at worst offensive. I was under the impression that it had gone the way of "coloreds only" drinking fountains, and so I was surprised to see it on Wikipedia. In this particular instance, it seems it is a vague, diluted euphemism whose overwrought purpose is to not step on any toes (I feel the same way about "African-American" as well). Further, it is such a broad description that it could include Arabs, Latins, Pakistanis, Samoans, etc. What's wrong with simply "black"? It's part of the real living language, unlike "people of color", and it has been in the popular lexicon for hundreds of years, not as a derogation but a descriptor. Thoughts? Feline Nursery 16:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bk0. I may be the only one, but I find the bold on the cleanup templates, like Template:Cleanup, to be somewhat jarring. Multiple tags are often added to articles, which enhances the effect. I checked some edit summaries and it looks like you added the bold text to all of them. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. I say go for it. :-) However, I think the problem with cleanup templates is that people intentionally ignore or don't understand them, not that they don't see them. Some templates can be on an article for quite some time, so making the article look pleasing in the meantime should be a consideration. On most templates, only the links and some key words used to be bold. If they are changed, I suggest changing them back to that. What do you think? -- Kjkolb 14:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did an awesome job in your contributions to the Vorbis article. Thanks! Samuella 04:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Bk0 (Talk) 10:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the anon was wrong about all opiates becoming morphine in the body, but was he right about heroin becoming morphine and this being an embarassment to Bayer? --maru (talk) contribs 20:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note your rejection of my modifications of the Vincent Motorcycle page. Not being here as long as yourself, I respect your views. I have rewritten a piece, and would be pleased if you could review. I have not posted this as yet, and would appreciate if you could advise wher you would want this posted to you - Thank You! --Trident13 20:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still have not heard from you re my revision page - so have now posted it to a personal stub page at User:Trident13/Vincent Motorcyles. I would appreciate if you could review - Thank You! --Trident13 20:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice re writing the article - I will let you know when I need another review! Best Regards, - Trident13 11:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You added your vandalism warning to User:Chickendijon's user page. If you add it to the user's talk page instead, they'll see a message waiting for them when they go to their next Wikipedia page while logged in. Thank you,

~Kylu (u|t) 04:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it was you who added 6-OXO to the Bodybuilding Supplements article: "A relatively new drug/supplement marketed as 6-OXO is gaining popularity as a testosterone booster." Where did you get the information that it is "gaining popularity"? Is it something you have noted from your own experience or something you read? Jack Daw 01:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well it looks a bit out of context so I think I'll remove it. I've asked in forums about it and so but often I've never got any answers at all, and if so they insensible. Do you know if it actually works? Jack Daw 02:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I expected you would have read the ref [1] that's near the statement. That ref is titled: Deprenyl (selegiline), a selective MAO-B inhibitor with active metabolites; effects on locomotor activity, dopaminergic neurotransmission and firing rate of nigral dopamine neurons. Its abstract contains 7 or 8 times the term locomotor. I didn't explain the rv because it appeared to me that the deletion was an accident of your edit, since the ref pointed to that statement.
• Also, when I rv-ed the isomer term it was w/o explaining because it seemed obvious to me that it was an edito since one should either write isomer or l-substance, not both, IMHO.

Jclerman 01:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check [2] for discussion regarding 3gpp source code --Gabriel Bouvigne 08:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I offered to help edit Trident13's Vincent article, and have done a comprehensive rewrite. I note that you were asked to check it over before regarding copyvio. Trident13 got me to work on an own copy at User:Seasalt/Vincent I was wondering if you could have another look, and offer advice on the next steps?Seasalt 14:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason that you removed ADX from the list of rockbox supported codecs? If you look at http://www.rockbox.org/since25.html on September 25, you'll see that an ADX codec was committed. Midgey34 03:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we're trying to get Vorbis as a featured article. If you'd like to help out, it would be much appreciated. Please, also vote for it here. Thanks for your attention.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves/Saoshyant ^{talk / contribs} 14:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thought you might want to participate in a discussion at Talk:Ephedra regarding whether the genus article or medicine article should be at Ephedra, and what to call the medicine article if there is a switch.--Eloil 04:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Lophophora_williamsii_bwdrawing.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 18:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Porthole-screenshot.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Mission of Burma-Vs-cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Vincent bs ad 1945.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} 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 on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 17:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gentoolkit has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NSOFT or WP:NPRODUCT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SITH (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]