User talk:Heah/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

archive number 1

Socrates / Socratic method[edit]

Hi, thanks for your message, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a proper welcome above.

You will see that I added {{merge}} and {{mergefrom}} tags to Socratic method and Socrates in October 2004 and did the merge some days later. If I remember correctly, I thought that Socratic method largely duplicated the "Socratic method" section of Socrates, and there was not enough at Socratic method to deserve a whole separate article (if you look at the historic versions, accessible in the page history, you will see what I mean) whereas the merged whole made a nice section in Socrates. I thought it was nicer to have one substantial article, rather than two half-articles. I suppose I should have added something to Talk:Socrates. My bad.

However, I see what you mean about Descartes / cartesian coordinates and Plato / Platonic love, where a similar analysis could apply. By way of justification, I think Descartes / cartesian coordinates are a bit more developed than Socrates and Socratic method were, and Platonic love is not quite to as central to Plato (it is only one Platonic ideal, and -philia and Greek words for love cover it anyway) as the Socratic method is to Socrates (and vice versa) (and I'm not sure I agree with your recent comment in Talk:Socrates that the Socratic menthod is only a "teaching style we have named after" Socrates - pardon my deficient classical education, but surely the Socratic method is the very method that Socrates used, or at least Plato describes him using in his Socratic Dialogues?).

However, I could have been wrong (and that approach certainly could be wrong now, after Socrates has expanded a fair bit - see the changes since October last - and I see that much of the change is thanks to you, for which many thanks). If you are so inclined, please feel free to demerge that section from Socrates into Socratic method again and write something in summary style to replace that section. Or perhaps we need a separate section on Socratic philosophy, since that section dominates the Socrates article?

Happy editing! -- ALoan (Talk) 21:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yerba Mate categorization[edit]

Either it was as you intended or carried over some wacky remark such as:

There are extremely unreliable anecdotal reports that maté may induce very light hallucinogenic effects (on the order of nutmeg) in some especially sensitive individuals. [1]

Now that it is explained in the Talk Page, I won't object.

OTOH, don't say maté! (You didn't kill somebody, did you?)

Regards, Ejrrjs | What? 18:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

telepathine and harmine[edit]

Heah, thank you for your suggestion to merge the telepathine and harmala entries. I agree that this is a good move to make. Please make sure that the attitude towards (and mythology of) telepathine is given its due. I have a feeling that there could be more information and material to justify its own entry at some point but I could be wrong on that.

Regards, forteanajones | (Talk) 9:19 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Heah, I am wondering why you took the article for dextromethorphan out of the hallucinogens category. It was my understanding the DXM is in fact a hallucinogen. The hallucinogens entry actually has multiple references to dissociatives and DXM.

Goldbot 03:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, redundancy, I see your point, good work. And yes you're right, these most of these pages do need lots of work.

Goldbot 12:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hawaiian baby woodrose[edit]

(in response to User talk:Aramgutang#Hawaiian baby woodrose)
Heah, I don't have any complaints about your recategorisation. I just removed [[Category:Lysergamides]], because there were 2 instances/copies of it in the article. Check the history carefully and you'll see. Oh and make sure you consider questions such as "are all lysergamides necessarily hallucinogens?" in you categorisation efforts, just so that something isn't categorised as a hallucinogen when it isn't. Right now all articles in the lysergamides category are hallucinogens, however other lysergamides that may soon have articles, (e.g. Pergolide, Bromocriptine, Methysergide, etc.) may not be (I'm not saying if they are or if they're not, I have no idea, but the point is, they may not be). --Aramգուտանգ 05:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


OK, thats fine then, as long as its stressed that its in really high doses that is has that effect. --Benna 02:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject: drugs[edit]

Hi Heah, I like your idea for the hallucinogens descendant project. I agree that hallucinogens and entheogens have a much broader scope than most other drugs. I also like your ideas for classifying them, and hope others do as well. If this becomes a descendant project, I will certainly help where I can.

--Goldbot 03:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

agonists and antagonists[edit]

hi chinasaur, this is from the Category_talk:Anticholinergics page:

I got rid of the nicotinic agonists category as both categories had the same content. In retrospect, after doing a lot more reading here, i shouldn't have done that, as there is a difference between agonists and antagonists. i don't know what that difference is, and seeing that both categories had all the same entries, i mistakenly thought that it was a mistake. Apologies. how can we get this straightened out? --Heah 20:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I figured i'd let you know that i messed this up. i'd be more than willing to go back and revert those changes, but i am unsure how to differentiate between the two, and what goes where. sorry again. --Heah 20:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm kind of glad you brought this up since the whole "neurotoxins/neuromodulators" category hierarchy could stand to be fixed up. I'm pretty busy until the end of May though, so maybe remind me again in a month. To answer your question, the difference between agonist and antagonist is pretty simple: a drug that blocks the function of, for example, dopamine would be a dopamine antagonist. A drug that mimics the function of dopamine would be a dopamine agonist. Either is probably bad for you... --Chinasaur 03:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I posted the following on the THC Talk Page:

Thank you, Heah, for correcting my mistake. Scientific American, lol. Did a Google search, and turned up the full article; The Brain's Own Marijuana. --Ddhix 2002 04:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to mention. In the original article (that is in the magazine), they had chemical structures of these occouring cannabinoids. This would probably be very helpful to the expansion of data for cannabinoids on Wikipedia. --Ddhix 2002 04:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I went to the Wikiproject: Drugs talk page, read what you had to say, and I agree fully with your conception. It is a spectacular idea, and I've been hoping something like this would come up (only a matter of time huh?). Left a message there in support.

Keep up the good work!

--Ddhix 2002 04:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


That's what I get for editing when I should be sleeping. Thanks for the polite notice. I have sorted everything out now. Cheers. --Sn0wflake 23:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Hallucinogen researchers, users, and proponents and Category:Organizations associated with hallucinogens[edit]

Aloha. I think we definitely need cats like this, but the current titles may have some problems: 1) Is the term "Hallucinogen" appropriate in this context? 2) Lumping research with users and proponents doesn't seem accurate. 3) It looks like this category is actually three separate categories, with users and proponents being slightly POV and controversial (who is an official user and/or proponent). Would it be possible to hold off on using this cat (or adding it to any more pages) until we work this out? --Viriditas | Talk 08:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The hallucinogen label is an ongoing problem that has not yet been resolved. Psychedelic is better, but typically does not include dissociatives and deliriants. Entheogen is broader in some sense, but according to some excludes LSD, MDMA and other (semi-)synthetics. The hallucinogenic drug page organizes these all under the hallucinogen umbrella, and until a better term comes along, we're sort of stuck with it. Based on the people currently in the category, their work is primarily with what would be termed psychedelics, but most of them have had some experience with dissociatives (and deliriants) as well.
I'm supposing that the difference between a user and a proponent would be that the user would just be a renowned person who's used a hallucinogen and a proponent would be some who particularly advocated hallucinogen use. Why not just make the category "Hallucinogen proponents", and make sure that everyone included in there is an advocate of their use (regardless of purpose), and also create individual categories (or should they be lists?) of researchers, and users. --Thoric 15:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

veriditas and thoric, i agree a better name and system is needed. after putting a few articles in each of them i stopped; the name is awkward, and doesn't really distinguish in the way it should- for instance, it isn't a category john lennon should be in, despite his use of hallucinogens; the Harvard Psilocybin Project" is not actually an organization- but some sort of categorization of these things is certainly needed. i'd like to set up a hallucinogens project for all of this to be discussed- i've briefly outlined it on the drugs project talk page as i wanted input from the people working on that. unfortunately i've been unable to out up a project page with a more detailed outline and whatnot as it has suddenly become finals week and i have a bunch of papers to write and a lot of german to study. hopefully i'll be able to find time soon; in the meantime, i'll hold off on putting anyone else/any orgs in the categories and would love to start discussing this on user pages or something . . . (cross posted to my talk page, thoric's talk page, and veriditas' talk page.) thanks --Heah 18:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Morning glory page moves[edit]

I disagree with you moving the movie and plant articles around without discussion first. I believe that the morning glory plant is a primary usage of the phrase, and should be at Morning glory, while keeping the disambig. article at Morning glory (disambiguation), and the movie's title has a capital 'G', and doesn't need '(film)' after it to disambiguate it, so it should be at Morning Glory, There has been a move request made regarding (part of) this issue. If you have no objections, I will move everything back to the way it should be. Lachatdelarue (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


I see that you have done a far amount of work on the hallucinogen-related articles, so I'll ask you this, rather than asking on a article talk page: is 'LSA' lyserigic acid, or lycergic acid amide, or what? the ergine article lists LSA as an AKA (along with lysergic acid amide), but the 'Hallucinogenic lysergamides' box at the bottom of the same article has a link to 'LSA' that points to Lysergic acid. is there an error somewhere, or is it some chemistry jargon that i just don't understand? Lachatdelarue (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

--LSA stands for Lysergic Acid Amides (plural). Extracts from morning glories (or whatever else you extract from) contain a variety of alkaloids, and is thus a mixture; not just one chemical. The most proper terminology in abbreviation would be LSAs. Ergine (LA-111) is the Lysergic Acid Amide that is most desirable, however.--Ddhix 2002 11:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

So, ergine is a type of Lysergic acid amide? And while we're on the topic, what's with the 'd-' at the beginning (as seen in the box on Lysergic acid)? Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The "d" signifies the isomer, different configurations of the same molecule, the same atoms and types of bonds but connecting differently. often they are mirror images or something like that. like Pseudoephedrine, for instance, is an isomer of ephedrine- a slightly different configuration of the same molecule, with drastically different effects. In particular, i beleive the "D" signifies an Enantiomer, with the other isomer marked with "L". --Heah 07:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


Please refresh the knowledge of the disambiguation policy. Also please read carefully what the disambig note says:

This is a disambiguation page — a navigational aid which lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

If you disagree with the policy, you are welcome to modify it.

While I am leaving the name of the song for its potenially encyclopedic entry, erection is gone, because wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mikkalai 23:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I may probably guess what was your confusion about my intent, from yor LSD example. While the titles are different, LSD may be called "acid", and that makes it a valid entry in the dab page: "lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title". On the other hand, (What's the Story) Morning Glory? is not called "Morning Glory" (at least the artile does not say this). Mikkalai 00:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


Hello Heah,

There are many reasons why one would be irresponsibly misrepresenting the facts by advising salvia users that combining the drug with others is safe, and even decreases its effects.

First, the use of salvia in the doses and manner of administration commonly seen in recreational use today is relatively new, so not much is know about its effects (especially long term effects) except through anecdotal evidence. People are already gambling with their health by administering it by itself in that way (as opposed to the traditional, low dose, ingestion method). We know even less about its use at these high dosage levels when it is combined with other drugs.

When used in combination, drugs often exhibit what is known as a synergistic effect, where the effect of the simultaneous use of two drugs is greater than that of the sum of their individual effects. Often the effects are not addative but multiplicative. This effect is most often seen with alcohol when combined with other sedatives or stimulants. However, with psychedelics such as salvia, the more common synergistic effects come when they are combined with other psychedelics. Such synergy is rarely physically dangerous, as with alcohol synergy, but it does frequently lead to bad trips, as the effects of both drugs is often much stronger than an inexperienced user would expect.

The Lycaeum and Erowid trip report archives are filled with such anecdotal accounts where salvia in combination with other drugs made the experience much stronger. I'm sorry, but I just don't have time to dig through them again and find specific examples, but they're there (as I did once go through every salvia report in both archives and did note what casued the bad trips).

Now, I don't know about using tobacco in particular with salvia. I'm not a tobacco smoker myself, and try to avoid it, so if I'd run accross any reports of its use I probably just skipped them... (and tobacco is not a potent psychedelic anyway, so I wouldn't expect there to be much of a synergistic effect, if any)... so my comment re: the dangerous misinformation wasn't about it in particular but about combining drugs in general, and especially about combining a drug as "new" as salvia in its present form with other drugs, without a hell of a lot more evidence for doing so than just some guy's anecdotal experience (and especially when many of these experience have been negative according to the Lycaeum and Erowid reports).

Now, saying that your particular experience with salvia and tobacco (or whatever drug combination you tried) worked for you or your friends, and you/they were happy with the experience is something quite different, and I would not oppose that. However, making a blanket generalization that salvia combined with any drug a potential user might dream up trying it with is either safe, or reduces its effects, without reference to the specific combination, the specific dose/method of administration, and the specific source you heard that from is very irresponsible and is at odds with everything I have ever read on salvia. noosphere 22:50, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Create account[edit]

Ah, thank you for the tildes tip, I was wondering about that. Maybe I'll create an account next time I write an article... 15:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

syrian rue[edit]

Partly because Harmal is the vernacular name given for it in the reference books I checked ("Syrian rue" isn't even mentioned!), partly because listing it as a rue when it isn't even related to rue invites confusion, which I don't think is a good idea. Also having it at at Harmal ties in better with the Harmala page about derivatives from it. Equally, your idea of moving it to the scientific name is a good one, go ahead if you want, I wouldn't object to that - MPF 18:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


Hi Heah - Stub policy is going through a major rewrite at the moment, but the current draft's wording says If an article overlaps two potential categories, two different stub templates may be used, but using more than two is strongly discouraged. The main point with the templates is to make the articles easier for editors to find, and if an article is on a field which overlaps two areas of expertise it makes more sense to put it in both categories. There are a few rare occasions when three stubs are useed (for example, a mountain at the point where the borders of three countries meets might get the geo stubs for all three countries), but it's more a case of the other stub sorters "looking the other way" than actually being condoned. (The full current policy draft is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting, BTW) Grutness...wha? 05:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for marking the Blower Door article as a stub. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, I have replaced the generalized {{stub}} tag with {{Arch-stub}}. When you create new articles, it would be great if you could use these more specific tags whenever possible. Thanks, and continue contributing to Wikipedia! Russ Blau (talk) 09:31, May 24, 2005 (UTC)


Hi -

I think your Wikipedia hallucinogens project is a good idea and I'd like to contribute to it. The article on psilocybin is pretty good, but the articles on Psilocybe and Psilocybe species leave something to be desired - basically they're just stubs and what little information they do contain is often inaccurate.

I would like to substantially rewrite most of these articles. What are my qualifications for doing this? Well, at present, I'm working on a Masters thesis at San Francisco State University on "Psilocybe and Allies of California", which probably makes me one of fewer than 20 professional mycologists in the world actively conducting research on this topic.

I hope to tackle a rewrite of the main Psilocybe article in the next month, then other topics as my time allows. pgwerner May 24, 2005