User talk:65.41.53.24

Don't matter if you block this IP address, you still got 10 days to stop plagarizing on the Dalmatians page. Do you seriously think you are above reproach? Dalmatians are NOT from Croatia!!! As an online encyclopedia, the wiki is held to standards of scrutiny beyong the wiki community and is subject to penalties from outside entities to ensure that they continue to practice honesty.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15939164 government web site is a certified and trusted source. The government says that wine has GHB in it. Don't argue with me argue with Uncle Sam and check your sources before arguing, preferably. z

One must realize that both things cannot be true, that Absinthe was not hallucinogenic or that it was. One of those things is a lie. Now, are we to say that Absinthe never was hallucinogenic, or does it make more sense to say that it was but the original psychedelic recipe/ingredient is not known due to Absinthe being illegal and a rumor that thujone was the active ingredient was started? It is simple logic, that if for several years Absinthe is banned and people incorrectly assume thujone is the active ingredient, the psychedelic formula could be lost. It is less reasonable to assume that people were lying when they said Absinthe was hallucinogenic. Unfortunately, many incompetents had to drink thujone to prove its hallucinogenic activity as a myth.

April 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Absinthe. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapeur (talk • contribs)

At Gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid, please discuss the changes you would like to make on the article's talk page: Talk: Gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid. The content you are adding contains inaccuracies and other claims that require references. Thank you. ChemNerd (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15939164 Government website that says wine has GHB in it. Please read the sources before jumping to conclusions to avoid edit wars based on ignorance and assumption. Thank you

I don't dispute that some alcoholic beverages have trace amounts of GHB in them. That much is already in the article - see this section of the article where it is already described, so there is no need to repeat it. However, my bigger concern is your repeated addition of content that suggests that fermentation and reaction with alkali are the same thing. They are not. If you are having trouble understanding why this is wrong please feel free to ask, but do not add that part to the article again. ChemNerd (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

GHB is made by FERMENTING GBL. There is a difference between salt and freebase. GHB in freebase form is oil and GHB Hcl is a powder/crystalline. Please correct this part of the article, to indicate that making the salt form is different from the freebase. And YES, adding the Hcl IS fermentation. Like aged plants, for example, the fermentation acids combine with the alkaloids to make salts. For example, in aged tobacco, the nicotine combines with fermetation products to make something comparable to Nicotine HCl in that the Nicotine has a molecule stuck on the end. If it was Acetic acid, for example, it would be Nicotine acetate. On that note, one can make GHB acetate, GHB citrate, GHB folate, GHB malate, and etc. This process of making the salt is most definitely and unequivocally involves FERMENTATION. It is because the wine is fermented that the GBL in the grapes turns into GHB. In fact, you can pour GBL into a vat of wine you're making and it will come out as GHB in the wine. Distill and enjoy

Look there are two issues with the section about recreation. Firstly, telling people how to make GHB hardly belongs in the recreational section. Secondly, that formula is talking about the GHB salt, and it is actually NOT how one converts GBL into GHB. There is a difference between the salt and the freebase oil which would need pointed out in a section about making the GHB rather than the recreational section, preferably.

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Absinthe, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  —SMALLJIM  16:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, you should revert the Absinthe section even further. Because it used to say that Absinthe was made with lemon balm, rather than being an Anise flavored drink. It also used to show pictures of an old distillery and it used to say that the original recipe was Nutmeg, Angelica, Fennel, and Wormwood steeped in wine then distilled, and Lemon Balm extract was added to the distillation product. What's more, it also said that the active compounds were fractioned off using a higher boiling point and vacuum. Now as far as why the wikipedia no longer says these things, I don't know, because the SOURCES CITED on the article say that but the wiki consists of copy and paste of the source material excluding the above mentioned facts. The sources are ALREADY LISTED and if read them you would see that. Please read all the sources and check them if you are called an editor that would be one basic task. I'm not an editor and I did, and I was like, hey why is the wikipedia omitting information from this source and thereby incorrectly quoting it? Is there an agenda?

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  —SMALLJIM  20:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: Like changing my IP? That's a good reason to get unblocked anytime I want ya powertripping fool {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   —SMALLJIM  21:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Your addition to Dalmatian (dog) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please do not copy/paste from other websites as you did in this edit; the text appears to have been a copy from this website.Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Well you're the editor. YOU edit the wiki to say Dalmatians aren't from Croatia because they AREN'T. and the copyright violation is clearly that the wikipedia is copying parts of a book that says no one knows where Dalmatians are from but they only copy the parts that say Dalmatians are reported to be from Croatia. DO NOT TRY TO TELL ME THAT WIKIPEDIA HAS PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS TO SELECTIVELY QUOTE THEIR BOOK IN ORDER TO BACK UP THE FALSE CLAIM THAT DALMATIANS ARE FROM CROATIA.

Several sources quoted on the wiki entry for Dalmatians say that no one knows where Dalmatians are from but the quotes in the article use only the parts that would prove they are from Croatia. I highly doubt that the wiki has permission from the author to misconstrue their words. I will make the appropriate phone calls and send out the appropriate letters so that the copyright holders can make proper legal action against wiki.

I will give you 10 days to stop misquoting the works cited on the article about Dalmatians then I am phoning and/or writing the legal departments for the copyright holders. You do NOT have the right to quote only the parts of a literary work that back up the false claim.

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   —SMALLJIM  17:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

---