Talk:Poppers/Archive 1

message: This article was made by combining the old Nitrite inhalants article with this one. This was done because "Alkyl nitrites" fits the Wikipedia on Drugs requirements a heck of a lot better. Alkyl nitrites are a class of drugs, and thus deserve all the basic encyclopedic attention that the other classes require. For this reason, Alkyl nitrites suits all of this much better.
By the way, if anyone has information on other Alkyl nitrites (just a name for one will work), then create an article for it, add the name for it to this article in the "See Also" section, and add it to the Alkyl nitrites template. That way the ring can be kept complete.
--Ddhix 2002 23:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: Is this article neutral ?
I must say I do not know a lot about poppers, but this article looks really "poppers-friendly". Who said they improved orgasms so much ? The only source given for that is www.allaboutpoppers.com and it looks biased. Do we have other sources out there ?
----
I believe this article is neutral, though it may contain some very minor gaps. There really is no information showing that alkyl nitrites improve orgasms. I left that one line there only because it is possible that they do, but then again it is possible that they don't. I'm just waiting for someone with real data to say something about it.
I don't see how this article is 'poppers-friendly,' honestly. There is a health hazzards section in the article.
Don't get me wrong; I created the article (and the ring) with the best intentions. I used the information that was already on Wikipedia, and added some more. It really needs some editing, nonetheless.
--Ddhix 2002 20:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality ? 

message: I was directed to this subject in Wikipedia by someone who had noticed a number of inaccuracies in what has been posted here under "alkyl nitrites", which appears to be a re-directed from the subject of  "poppers".
With all due respect, I'd like to help correct the inaccuracies if I may be allowed to.
How do I go about it?
Kind regards,
Respectfully
Allabout2006
:You are actually welcome to make the changes yourself, as long as you stay within the style that has been used for the rest of the article.  I'll drop the official welcome message off at your user talk page: that gives lots of great links for how to get started. -- Francs2000  02:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The same Prof. Duesberg who says HIV is not the cause of AIDS? Lets stick to the scientific consensus. Ender 09:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "POPPERS", alkyl nitrites, etc 

message: ok, one last time, allaboutpoppers.com is clearly a commercial link, advertising both poppers and companies selling poppers.  this has nothing to do with me or ownership of this page- notice its been deleted numerous times.  This is an encyclopedia, and commercial links have no place here.  please stop adding it.  --Heah (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: as a matter of fact, it has been removed at least 10 times, and if you add it again, i will report you for vandalism.  --Heah (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the link "Everything you ever wanted to know about poppers, but were afraid to ask! - A fact-filled UK site, with a huge knowlegebase and links" introduced by the user Allabout(Poppers?)2006 is just a copy of the above-mentioned allaboutpoppers.com. The spamming efforts of this drug dealer are pathetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.216.17.152 (talk • contribs) .
After reading the POPPERS/NITRITES article, I am of the opinion that the articles should be merged - somewhat. I say somewhat because I don't see any linked reference, and I am not willing at the moment to check the 'references' myself. The POPPERS/NITRITES article names some good names, has a few good pieces of data (I think), and thus should be merged in with the Alkyl nitrites article. It's a bad idea to keep such things outside of the ring. I created the entire ring of Alkyl nitrites because this series of chemical deserve attention along with the rest (say phenethylamines and tryptamines.
I don't have the time right now, so could someone please merge, with an editorial eye, the two articles? The history in Allabout2006's article is worth it, I think. I could be wrong, though.
Just as long as this ring stays alive - and people quit making similar articles that fall outside the ring - everything will work out fine, I'm sure.
Allabout2006, thanks for your contribution, but next time could you just add data to the article, instead of creating a new one in vein? We want people to have all the data in front of them, instead of having to jump around and get confused. Hell, even going through this talk page - trying to figure out what happened - confused me to no end.
The problem seems minor to me, nonetheless. But I could be missing something
POPPERS/NITRITES needs to be picked for it's data, and deleted.
Comments?--Ddhix 2002 09:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: both allaboutpoppers and the mirror contain a quote purported to be from wikipedia, saying ".... 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 in this article.  which further suggests the commercial nature of the site, as well as making the credibility question fairly clear.  --Heah talk 04:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Pity really, because I'd have loved to see the advertising archive. (Never used them, never will, never would advise anyone else to, but still interested in the history.) 81.1.118.40 09:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  allaboutpoppers.com 

message: Alkyl nitrites were shown to be both mutagenic and carcinogenic in animals and humans:
* Hersh EM, Reuben JM, Bogerd H. Rosenblum M, Bielski M, Mansell PWA, Rios A, Newell GR, Sonnenfeld G (1983) Effect of the recreational agent isobutyl nitrite on human peripheral blood leukocyte and on in vitro interferon production. Cancer Res 43, 1365 
* Jorgensen KA, Lawesson SO (1982) Amyl nitrite and Kaposi's sarcoma in homosexual men. N Engl J Med 307, 893
* Mirvish SS, Ramm MD, Bobcock DM (1988) Indications from animal and chemical experiments of a carcinogenic role for isobutyl nitrite. In: Health Hazards of Nitrite Inhalants (Haverkos HW Dougherty JA, eds) NIDA Res Monogr 83, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Washington DC, P 39
* Newell GR, Mansell PW, Spitz MR, Reuben JM, Hersh EM. Volatile Nitrites Use and Adverse Effects Related to the Current Epidemic of the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Am J Med 78:811,1985.
* Harry Haverkos et al., "Disease manifestation among homosexual men with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: A possible role of nitrites in Kaposi's sarcoma, *Sexually Transmitted Diseases*, October-December 1985. Harry Haverkos and John Dougherty, editors; *Health Hazards of Nitrite Inhalants*, NIDA Research Monograph 83, 1988
* I. Quinto, "The Mutagenicity of Alkylnitrites in the Salmonella Test" (translation from the Italian), Bolletino Societa Italiana Biologia Sperimentale*, 56:816-820, 1980.
* Sidney Mirvish et al., "Mutagenicity of Iso-Butyl Nitrite Vapor in Ames Test and Some Relevant Chemical Properties, Including the Reaction of Iso-Butyl Nitrite with Phosphate", *Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 1993;21:247-252.
The sentence "and poppers have been suggested as the cofactor despite the lack of evidence" in the article thus isn't true. Kaposi's Sarcoma are a form of cancer and there is evidence for the carcinogenic nature of Nitrites.
--85.216.17.152 09:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it should be reworded, but unless it has actually been shown to be the cofactor, other than being a possibility, we shouldn't state that it "is" the cofactor.  what of this supposed research disproving the link between ks and poppers mentioned in the article?  --Heah talk 00:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This should all go in the article.  --Heah talk 10:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please cite some research if you have problems with all of this.  you can't just say "this stuff isn't true".  the research cited above sought to show the carcenogenic and mutagenic properties of poppers- ie, that they can cause cancer- and does not conclusively show that poppers cause ks, which the text should reflect.  --Heah talk 22:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Citation from the site removed: "Stock up on 'em while you can! In the US, nitrites have been banned since 1988." - Is this to be considered non-commercial, neutral information on the drug? --85.216.17.152 10:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to be neutral per se, but it can't be commercial, and I still think it is.  --Nlu (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I didn't revert those (other than the occasion when you violated 3RR, and therefore could most definitely be blocked, but I chose not to block you), why do I have to answer them?  And your comment is unacceptable.  Do it again and you'll be blocked.  --Nlu (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ask and you shall receive.  You have been blocked 24 hours for personal attacks.  Continue this behavior after the block expires, and you will be referred to the Arbitration Committee.  --Nlu (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for health hazards 

message: Hopefully things have cooled down.  Unless there are objections, I'm going to unprotect in roughly 50 minutes (if I don't fall asleep).  Please be aware that, now that everyone's been properly warned, 3RR will be in strict enforcement mode.  A violation of 3RR will yield at least a 24 hour block.  Any sock puppets will be considered the same as the "main" user and will be blocked accordingly as well -- and who/what is a sock puppet will be based on the judgment of mine or any other administrator.  In this case, I've made a judgment call about one IP being a sock puppet, and I stand by that due to the overwhelming amount of evidence.  --Nlu (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I fell asleep.  I've just unprotected the article.  Play nice, folks.  --Nlu (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: I have taken considerable time and made a serious effort to add edits to this page today, as I also did yesterday. But, in both instances, within minutes of my edits being saved, someone began maliciously removing my edits.
I was then challeged by someone who said I was close to violating a reverting rule, which appears to most likely be a harrassmetn tactic used by the very person who does not want to see my edits saved to this page; I strongly suspect this vandalism and harrasemt is the work of the person who has been removing my edits as fast as I add them.
68.251.158.126 23:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a vandal sabatoging this page! 

message: I just figured out what's going on -- what these guys are doing to those of us who want to edit the poppers page by adding more accurate and meaningful information, but which they do not agree with. If you can find the time, I urge you to go into the "history" of this section or page (click on the "history" tab at the top of the page), and then go to the bottom of that page. There you can click on the largest number, and essentially see ALL the history of this page -- from the day it was created!
I just spent time looking at it, and a clear pattern emerges. To be kind, there are some pranksters among us. More realistically, and at worse, they are vandals. Some of them appear to be working in concert with each other to make arbritary changes to the edits of people they don't agree with. They literally -- and very quickly -- 'revert' the versions back and forth among their own versions, all the while essentially vandalizing the credible information that more knowledgeable people have posted. Then, when the unsuspecting editors realize something's going on, that their edits are being deleted almost within minutes of their having posted them, and when they try to figure out how best to react and deal with the problem, as they begin the inevitable complaining and asking of questions, they are harrassed and threaten with having their accounts 'blocked'; or they're falsely accused of violating various rules of Wikipedia, upon which they are often then threatened with even more sanctions against them.
It is precisely this kind of unethical, irresponsible and despicable behavior that was exposed in the world wide media earlier this week. Had I not seen the news reports which described exactly this kind of activity being rampant on Wikipedia, I would most likely have never figured out what was going on.
209.248.254.66 05:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now it becomes clear how the vandals are keeping accurate information about Poppers/Nitrites off this section! 

message: i have filed an RfC concerning the behavior of User:Allabout2006 and his socks at this article, which can be found here.  --Heah talk 04:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I blocked you for violating 3RR -- which you had been warned about before.  --Nlu (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: It is imperitive that duesberg's theories be labled as minority views. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should they be included at all?  An encyclopedia article should not be a platform for ideas that are well out of the mainstream.  Unless there is some major controversy, minority views do not need to be represented.  Edgar181 13:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that duesberg's views should be clearly labeled as minority; i also think it should be included, as it IS a major controversy.  --Heah talk 16:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another vote for clearly labelling Duesberg as minority, even fringe opinion, if he's included at all Ender 09:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Duesberg 

message: I have made meaningful, thoughtful and supported edits to the Alkyl Nitrite page tonight. Within minutes, my edits were reversed, and I was threatened with being banned from ever editing in Wikipedia.
What is going on?
209.248.254.66 02:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have continued your sockpuppetry, and unless you disavow it, you will have no credibility.  I have no desire to play semantic games with you.  If you believe that my behavior is inappropriate, go ahead and file a RfC or RfA as you see appropriate.  If I were you, I'd try to reestablish my credibility by making contributions elsewhere before returning to an article where your past behavior had discredited yourself.  --Nlu (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is censorship occurring on the Nitrite page? 

message: It's a shame that the anti-popper persons here are now growing even more bold in their posting of false information on this page.
The continued posting of false information in the "Disclaimers of manufacturers" section is a case in point.
No where in the popper dealer's web site does he have the words "You Could Die: The abuse of these products can kill you."  Yet, no matter how  many times someone reverts this section to the actual content of the site, each time it is quickly reverted back to the false statements.
Such inappropriate behavior by posters here is more than simply a disservice to wikipedia.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.248.254.66 (talk • contribs) .
:Nice try! The disclaimer was evidently changed by the vendor. Here's the proof: . There are also other vendor sites using the same (old!) text (easily findable with common search engines) --DenisDiderot 15:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, isn't it supect that you instantly knew about the removal of the sentence "You could die" on that vendor site? Is this by accident or did you check the wording of that site day after day? I think a third possiblity is rather more likely. --DenisDiderot 07:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the distortions and falsehoods being posted by anti-popper elements on this page 

message: As of April 22, 2006, it now appears that anti-popper zealots have takent the extraordinary measure of locking the alkyl nitrites page, so that no one can post anything that is not negative about alkyl nitrites ("poppers").
Complaints should be filed with WIKIPEDIA.
209.248.254.66 20:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has hijacked this page.  The page is semi-protected, which means that users need to be logged in edit it, that's all.  Deli nk 20:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible hijacking by anti-Popper Zealots who appear to have now shut down posting on alkyl nitrites page 

message: Can the article "Alkyl Nitrite"  content include a section on the legal regulation of poppers?  And also a section on "Education Messages" about poppers? 
:The United States FDA and  Consumer Products Safety Commission all have regulations which govern the sales and distribution of poppers. In addition, poppers are regulated in a variety of ways by the U.S. states and some cities. Internationally, there is  a variety of response to sales and possession of poppers. 
There is currently widespread sales of poppers on the internet with Consumer Products Safety Commission apparently failing to enforce the federal ban on sales and distribution. The FDA also fails to enforce the ban on non prescription sales of amyl nitrite.
HIV prevention agencies have issued a variety of messages about poppers. These messages have changed overtime and continue to evolve in response to research findings. This makes a history of education about poppers which is constantly evolving. The parallel popper industries propaganda/messages also responds to the research findings and should be included in any comprehensive focus on poppers. There should be some way to include the "controversial issues" that are currently disputed. Perhaps a "Debated issues" section. These will change overtime, but will inform a history of poppers. (SmoothStone 04:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you treat the statements of producers and vendors of Heroin, Cocaine, Ecstasy, Crystal Meth and other drugs on an equal footing with scientific results about the health issues as well and consider that also necessary for a "comprehensive focus? If yes, prove it -- here on Wikipedia! --DenisDiderot 08:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regulation of popper manufacture, sales, distribution and possession 

message: What's all the fuss about over poppers on Wikipedia?
I've read through the discussion section as well as the entire article page, and it's clear that those who feel poppers can be bad for you have taken over this article and are preventing anyone else from editing the page.
I've also read almost all of the articles at http://www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org/
It really would be better for the debate if the anti-popper people would actually read the information being presented about poppers by the other side of the argument. It is not what you want to hear, but it appears to be accurate; and, it most definitely does not paint the negative picture about poppers that you are trying to paint.
For example, have you read the statement of  fact quotes   How do you come away believing poppers are so bad after you read what these experts had to say about them?
What about the man who gave AIDS its name, Dr. Bruce Voeller? He doesn't seem to feel poppers are harmful. 
Or, what about Paul Varnell, a famous Gay and AIDS activist?  He lays out a rather convincing article about poppers, too.[ http://www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org/paul_varnell/]
How about the science researcher Christine Webber, who wrote an impressive overview of the early-on poppers and AIDS and poppers and KS concerns.  and 
No less than two respected members of the United States Congress also commissioned studies about poppers, and they clearly do not paint a picture of significant harm: and http://www.virusmythpoppersmyth.org/us_senate_alkyl_nitrite_s/
Why are the anti-poppers people so fanatical about all this?
Edward Partin
:Did you know that Bruce Voeller was sponsored by Rushbrands, the leading Poppers manufacturer? His efforts to publicize poppers as a "blueprint for health" in his "Mariposa" institution were quite unscientific, to say the least. Feelings and impressions of so-called experts don't count in a scientific discussion. Take a look at the evidence against this street drug in Poppers#References and draw your conclusions rationally.
 
:Drugs like Poppers, Amphetamines, Crystal Meth destroyed the gay movement and culture and turned it into what's nowadays called the "gay scene". More than half the gays in industrialized countries take at least one of those drugs. That's the result of the efforts of street drug producers like Rushbrands, vendors, pushers and the whole street drug milieu which infiltrated the gay movement. The process is quite analogous to what happened to the Black ghettoes when Crack was introduced and to the Hippies and the civil rights movement of the 60s when Heroin was made ubiquitious. --DenisDiderot 16:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the section on "historical aspects" that seems to have been taken from this statement.  It is POV and it is not relevant to the article.  You're discussing drug use (in general) among a subset of gay men, not the history of alkyl nitrites. I don't think it belongs here. ndevries 05:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction of and the advertisements for this drug were very important in establishing the "gay scene". So it clearly belongs to the history of the use of alkyl nitrites. See Ian Young's work I cited. --DenisDiderot 06:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you mean about Dr. Bruce Voeller being 'sponsored' by Rushbrands?  What is Rushbrands?  What does 'sponsor' mean?  What is your support for such a statement?
What is a 'blueprint for health'?
I have looked at the 'evidence' you keep posting on the poppers page.  It's one sided and terribly biased.  But, it does not prove that poppers are harmful to humans. All it proves is that when you give animals huge doses you can tilt your findings to harmful.  It's a shame you do that to innocent animals, just in order to get a finding you can use to bolster your bias against poppers.
As a gay man, I can tell you that your statement that poppers 'destroyed' the gay movement makes no sense at all.  Are you gay? Do you even understand the gay community?
* I also agree that those against poppers are being all too aggressive on this article.  I am gay and I refrain from all drug use but I certainly wouldn't go so far as to agree with all the anti-poppers things being said here.  Since when is wikipedia a forum for moralizing?  People use drugs, some health effects are mentioned in the article, but enough with the heavy-handedness.. Dan Carkner 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why all the fuss over poppers? 

message: The space given to the possible connection between poppers and Kaposi's sarcoma is unduly large compared to the very real hazards of methemoglobinemia and episodes of low blood pressure. Tagged with  Dr Zak 22:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health hazards 

message: It sometimes happens with Wikipedia that opposing viewpoints on a subject develop into huge debates, with a lot of rhetoric and heated discussion (or worse) coming from both sides of an argument.  Just like arguments around a kitchen table over subjects like Palestine/Israel, AIDS and its origin/cause/treatment, the Da Vinci Code, and others can turn ugly, a review of the Discussion page on poppers confirms that poppers is an issue caught in the culture wars as well.
I landed here after a search on poppers for a paper I'm writing for school.  I've reverted this page because the version I ran across today is heavily lopsided toward one side of the debate while the Talk and History pages indicate prior versions that actually included information from an opposing viewpoint, which had been removed.
Wikipedia is about a neutral point of view (NPOV), and the ability to hear both sides of a debate. More than once people mentioned that the poppers page is Disputed. I agree. I reverted to a prior version that contained a more reasoned debate.
Sergio Sevario, Houston, Texas USA  63.172.63.153 17:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 07:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture War, NPOV 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support Dr Zak 02:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: After a few hours of Googling and other research, it was apparent that there was a serious need for fact-checking and reference-running in the Alky nitrites/poppers article. Kudos to the original contributor who established this article, and the entire ring, including its related Stubs. With the attention it has received this past weekend, it has already been improved a great deal. Lt. Dan 15:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact-checking and reference-running on poppers article 

message: Some links were removed, and some links were added in this section today (including a formerly broken link which I had repaired earlier today).
What is the support for the added links?  Why were other links removed?
Tagged with
POV-section  Lt. Dan 02:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed neutrality of "External Links" section 

message: Please discuss why you've removed some of the information in this section tonight.
Tagged with
POV-section
Lt. Dan
There having been no discussion or response, I've removed the Kaposi's sarcoma section. Fact checking shows that a there appears to be no significant dispute that nitrites and KS are not related causally.  Lt. Dan 03:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed neutrality of "Kaposi's Sarcoma controversy" section 

message: Please discuss the reason for the changes made to this section tonight.
It has been tagged
POV-section
Lt. Dan 03:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed neutrality of "Medical Uses" section 

message: The changes made to this section tonight have essentially rendered it one-sided.  Please discuss why a rv back to the earlier version is not warranted.
Tagged
POV-section
Lt. Dan 03:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed neutrality of "Health Hazards" section 

message: According to the Wikipedia page on Consensus, Wikipedia:Consensus, "Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion."  By reverting several days worth of work and edits without discussion, or without any apparent valid basis for doing so, consensus is not being achieved -- nor, it could be argued, even sought out.
Besides reinserting at least one broken link which had eariler been fixed, today's bulk reversion could also be viewed as demonstrating an apparent total disregarded for another user's discussion comment on the insertion of disputed or suspect information about the gay community, in 'Historical Aspects', which the user had pointed out  "is exactly the kind of synthesis that is banned by  WP:NOR".
Such action gives the appearance that there's an effort to stifle debate on the article's subject.  It also makes the article very one-sided, in violation of WP:NPOV.  With so much controversy on this article's subject, it's worth giving the article some sober second thought, so that a wider range of viewpoints can be discussed.
In the meantime, the article should be reverted to an earlier version from this past weekend, which presented a better balanced argument.
Please explain what the history of "user Allabout2006" has to do with consensus? Or with the discussion that's going on today to improve the quality of the article?
Lt. Dan 13:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "State of former consensus" and "See also the history of user Allabout2006" 

message: Because only one side is being pushed in this article, it suffers from a lack of significant viewpoints other than those that are constantly being presented.  Other viewpoints are needed and sought.
Therefore the article has been tagged
toofewopinions
Lt. Dan 18:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article suffers from a lack of significant other viewpoints 

message: I removed the "Manufacturers' Disclaimers" section, and incorporated it into the "Basics" section.  The link to the web site that is selling poppers to the general public was deleted. --Lt. Dan 22:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Manufacturers' Disclaimers" 

message: A new section, called "Further Reading", has been placed at the end of the article, after the" References" section. Apparently, editors are increasingly adding "further reading" sections to articles in order to provide references to books or articles that may not be available on line, along with links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. --Lt. Dan 23:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "Further Reading" section 

message: Template additions to this talk page add it to Category: POV Disputes. Since the article is disputed, I am removing these notices during NPOV cleanup. -- Irixman (t) (m) 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Templates 

message: It is alarming that poppers has become the drug of choice amongst school children in the UK.The "safe to inhale" message on popper selling sites endangers unsuspecting consumers of all ages and sexual orientations. The wide availability because of internet access makes this an international challenge. Hankwilson 01:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What utter bullshit. The site doesn’t cite references to support a single claim! It merely states that all the information ia “on file” and will be published later. All of the scariest “findings” come from the mouse studies, which, as many sources for this article note, are highly suspect.(  They injected mice with amounts of nitrites which were highly disproportionate - the equivalent of injecting an adult male human with 2 or 3 bottles of Rush. Exposure was also constant over periods of 24-72 hours. Seeing as poppers are usually sniffed, not injected, and in short bursts over a maximum period of 8 hours in a sex marathon, the relevance is difficult to establish.) -- WikidSmaht (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Hank Wilson's comments amount to utter bullshit.  If you read through these discussion pages, you'll find that he's quite the anti-poppers freak.  The ferocity of his babblings, along with those of his buddies, sound more like a child throwing a tantrum then any real concern about the issues at hand.  It looks like he and his group may have had their lunch eaten by the othe side, and he's not able to handle it.  Their website is a joke, and you're right, the information they claim to have but that they won't reveal, becuase it's "on file" is absurd. There was a dangerous zealot in the USA back in the 1950's who did the same thing. He tried to ruin careers and people's lives by using this very same tactic. His name was Joe McCarthy. He was dangeous.  Hank Wilson and his buddies are using the same tactics. It would be better for Wikipedia and the public who come here to read about these compounds if Wilson and his people would lighten up a bit, and let the real facts be presented, without the emotional baggage of personal vendettas creeping in to muddy things up. 216.54.197.236 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.iabuse.org is a new website confronting the poppers industry 

message: A review of information through fact checking shows that popper use is negligible in the teenage population, and that it's almost non-existent in childhood.  It's shown that teens and even children are indeed abusing inhalants of all types, particularly gasoline, white-out, spray glue, and other common household products.  Sometimes these are confused with poppers. Lt. Dan 22:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popper use by adults and teenagers or children 

message: Mass deletions and edits without discussion are not a good idea.  Before such massive editing, it would be appreciated if there was some discussion on this Talk page first.
I've reverted back to the consensus version prior to the mass deletions and edits that took place a few days ago.
Thanks. 216.54.197.236 21:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert recent mass deletions 

message: Hi Childzy:
Your input on the "Poppers" article is appreciated. However, I've reverted your edits back to an earlier version and would ask that you read through the discussion page for this article before making further edits -- especially such a massive edit as you made, particularly with regard to all the deletions you did.
The subject of "Poppers" can cause contentious debate among the extremes of either side, and a great deal of work and effort has gone into getting the article to the point where it has been over the past few months.
It's been moving toward NPOV, with efforts to clean up content having gone well.  There is great interest in trying to make this article as good as it can possibly be. (See discussion for background)
The links you removed were not considered to be spam.
The links to the "Popper" brand sites were to sites for brand names which have been synonymous with the word "Poppers" for over thirty years, around the world.
The insertion of an additional "External Links" was unnecessary.
And, the inclusion of the "Further Reading" had been agreed upon to be an acceptable and efficient effort to include links to sites that may not belong in "External Links" or "References" , but which link to sites that may be of interest to researchers on the subject of "Poppers".
Thanks much for your input, and consideration.
Lt. Dan 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another reversion of mass deletions and structure changes 

message: At the top of the Discussion page there is a notice that reads: "This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them."
Check the Discussion page and you'll see that this article has undergone a lot of work, the consensous of editors being that the link you deleted should be included in the article.
If you wish to delete the link, please discuss it here first.
From what I can tell, the link you deleted is an important one.  From the looks of it, there may only be one such site anywhere on the web. I've googled several terms and names but can only find one manufacturer that has the disclaimer described in the article.  Which is probably why it was included in the first place.
12.33.164.200 23:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert deletion 

message: The new section titled "Legality" has been removed because there is no need for it.  The existing article already makes it clear that these products are illegal if sold as inhalants, and goes into detail about the long history of how the industry has done the dance with various agencies around the world, to avoid being tagged as 'drugs'.  It's also made clear that there are various different formulas that are used in various jurisdictions to avoid violating specific laws in those jurisdictions.
I observed that the poster who inserted the new 'legality' section,  DejaLew, also tried a sneaky end-run by changing the link for the 'street names' section that links out from "RUSH" from the manufacturer's site, to what may be his own site for selling various brands of these products. His site appears to be located in Europe.  This poster essentially tried to spamm the page by linking to a site selling the products to the consumer/end user, something that has been frowned upon throughout this article ever since it was created.
This article hasn't been vandalized for quite some time. Let's hope we don't see a renewed effort to begin spamming or vandalizing the site. Lt. Dan 01:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The new 'Legality" section makes sense, but needed to be cleaned up. I agree we must remaiin vigilant to avoid another round of vandalism.HoneyBot29 18:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove unneeded 'legality' section 

message: Hello Lt Dan. 
Good morning to you.
Legality Section : There is a need for it - many people including the sex shop owner I quoted from the Australian press are not aware that these products are illegal. Do you not think it is a good idea to warn them before they appear before the courts? All sorts of people use the internet and I seek a balanced article & to offer factual information.
You write:
"how the industry has done the dance with various agencies around the world, to avoid being tagged as 'drugs'.  It's also made clear that there are various different formulas that are used in various jurisdictions to avoid violating specific laws in those jurisdictions"
So you claim that the industry has tried to outwit enforcement agencies? The term "dance" is an unusual one & indicates a degree of levity which is not appropriate. This is a serious accusation, is it not?  I find your view rather alarming and wonder how you could possibly know of the existence of such a "dance"? This sounds like an insider view to me - my apologies if this is not the case.
You wrongly accuse me of a "sneaky end tun" in changing the Rush link to a site that I own. This is actually an error on your part & I would appreciate an apology for this false accusation. I merely noticed that the Pac West websites which are linked to 3 times were commercial 
Thanks for visiting rush liquid incense Your interest in our company and its products is greatly appreciated. If you are a distributor or retailer and would like information on how to get our products for resale, kindly complete our brief questionnaire
This is clearly a commercial site complete with a cartoon figure called Captain Rush, free shirts, and other promotional gimmicks.
The article links to rushliquidincense.com both in the main body of the article under "manufacturer" and again under Street Names - this is just not balanced, Lt Dan. Furthermore, there is a link to lockerroomaroma.com - yet another NEW Pac West owned website just like rushliquidincense.com promoting another of their brands.
 
The website I linked to was found via a search engine whilst researching the legality section - it is fan site with a discussion board and gives some down to earth street information about the product. The section is entitled "Street Names" & was therefore appropriate in my opinion. It is only about "Rush" which is a street name for this product.
Is that OK with you, Lt Dan?
The manufacturer must be very pleased to have such earnest, impartial and unconnected online writers? Of course if they were manufacturing a product and simaltaneously promoting it's use online that would be a different matter, wouldn't it? That would make a nonsense of the legal disclaimer:
"we do not encourage the misuse of our products as poppers"
I would also like to include an article by the Bay Area Reporter that cites the activity of a vociferous online campaigner / campaign to promote the use of poppers. May I do that Lt Dan - or will you consider that "unneeded" as well?
Clearly this page is your very own fifedom and I would not want to trespass on your property. 
 
http://ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=873
I have deleted the links to commercial sites, as they provide no value whatsoever save to promote Pac West Distributing Inc. of Indiana, USA in a way which they claim they do not approve of. I will contact Pac West Distributing Inc and ask them to make a statement if you would prefer?
Thanks for your time reading my opinions - I hope that you will give them due consideration.
I would be very disappointed and a little angry if you merely delete my additions again.
I hope that more information on the subject of nitrite inhalants appears in time & we all get a better understanding of this industry & this very unusual product.
Best Wishes,
DejaLew
:This aricle is a collaboration of contributions, and as a newbie you are welcome and encouraged to make contributions, too.  Links to commercial sites are discouraged. It is suggested that you read the entire discussion section for background. Lt. Dan 15:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lt Dan