Talk:Heaven's Stairway/Archive 1

message: Merged. —Viriditas | Talk 08:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a reliable source demonstrating this dispute.  It's a simple request. —Viriditas | Talk 09:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Status

message: Anon added:
Now it appears Heaven's Stairway Seeds (hempqc.com), Cannabisworld.com, Overgrow.com, Eurohemp.com have been shut down and the owners arrested in Canada; all their web properties seized, including the physical servers that held massive databases on thousands of growers, and tens of thousands of photographs of cannabis plants. Seed companies by the dozens used both Overgrow.com and Cannabisworld.com as a main trading ground. Over 40 seed companies had customer service interactive forums on these sites. All the information held on those servers is now in the hands of police. It is not known what charges have been laid nor against whom. That police have not boasted about this seizure means the investigation is continuing, before any affected parties can react.
Unless the anon can cite sources, we can't add this.  —Viriditas | Talk 08:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, in fact the content was unsourced.  You appear, however, to be ignoring Wikipedia policies pertaining to reliable sources. —Viriditas | Talk 03:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confirm this information before merging

message: Although ~RC~ started paying for the overgrow.com domain name in 2002, using his address for billing, his ownership of the actual site contents is in dispute. The creation of the Vbulletin message board Overgrow scripting (such as the karma feature), the FAQ scripting and Strainbase scripting design, where all the creation of ~shabang~ the original Overgrow admin. ~shabang~ claims that ~RC~ ported the overgrow.com contents to his own servers in 2002 without his knowledge and took control of the forums by having them hacked to prevent ~shabang~ from having any more access to them as admin. ~RC~ then put up a copyright notice claiming ownership of the entire site contents. According to marijuana book author Jorge Cervantes, ~RC~ arranged a contract with him to write on Overgrow book using the site contents in return for money. Jorge Cervantes asked Overgrow members to contribute to an Overgrow book. Jorge Cervantes then used this contribution material not for an Overgrow book but for an update of one of his own books - Marijuana Horticulture that includes a breeding section not written by him but by a seed salesmen going by the name Chimera. Much to the amazement of the contributors the Overgrow book never appeared although Jorge Cervantes claims that he will do one. ~shabang~ says he has never given those rights to either ~RC~ or Jorge Cervantes.
:Reliable sources, please. WP:NOT. —Viriditas | Talk 12:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership of Overgrow.com web site in dispute 

message: !How dare you try to sign the contributions by others made here. You have been warned. Do not try to assign anything to them! They are not yours. They belong to other people. You have also edited headings here. You are censoring and altering the discussion page. See WP:DISRUPT
:Please review WP:SIG and please stop removing signatures. —Viriditas | Talk 22:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsigned tags

message: Viriditas has edited out large chunks of the discussion here and removed my comments. Viriditas removed sections dealing with the topic. I am no longer going to contribute to this article. I will leave this warning here and when the moderators finally come around to see what has been done they can make a judgement on this issue. The fact is that Viriditas has removed significant parts of this discussion which should be available to the general public. It is a fully blown censorship of the views of others.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simonapro (talk • contribs) .
:Please review Help:Talk page, WP:TPG, WP:REFACTOR, and WP:RPA.  As I have repeatedly informed you, "I" am not the topic of this discussion.  Also, please stop making personal attacks in the subject headers (which I removed).  Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 10:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Absolute Complete Defacement of Discussion

message: The article now contains only the bias of Viriditas alone who is controlling the article with only their own input. Viriditas also removed the warning symbol put up by Polotet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonapro (talk • contribs) 11:33, 22 April 2006
:I'm sorry you feel that way.  In regards to the "warning symbol", the dispute tag was added by me, not Polotet.  Polotet merely reverted to my version.  Since I was the one who added the tag, and since the disputed content has been removed, there is no longer any need for the tag.  If, however, you would like to add the tag based on a dispute that you perceive, then please describe the dispute in a new section.  Note, I have asked you several times to do just this, but instead you continue to focus on me, instead of the article.  Please also note that your disagreement with Wikipedia policies may not qualify as a content dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article now controlled by one editor

message: Anybody who assumes good faith would have looked into the matter of the history of overgrow by simply contacting Team Overgrow (TOG) on Icmag.com http://www.icmag.com/ic/forumdisplay.php?f=118/ and asking them about the history of Overgrow.
:A month ago you wrote, "The ownership of OG contents is in dispute. There should be full article devoted entirely to the largest cannabis cultivation web site on the net."  That seems like a reasonable proposition if it is true. If the website is notable, there should be a way to verify your claim.  As it stands this article is about the company that used to host Overgrow, is it not?  Why can't I find any evidence for an ownership dispute?  We already have a link to The Medical Garden (MedicalGarden.org, GardensCure.Com) which refers to OG in the past tense, and calls itself "The Gardens Cure", which is funded by the "Global Sativa Corporation" (marijuana.com).  So, the content is now distributed by a new host, under a new name.  At this point, the current ownership dispute claim is irrelevant.  I see nothing wrong with just describing the facts; the old content survived the shutdown and seizure of hempqc.com and has a new host.  Fill in the rest. —Viriditas | Talk 14:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. However, WP:AGF does not apply to sources, but to editors on Wikipedia.  When it comes to sources, we trust, but verify.  —Viriditas | Talk 09:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assuming Good Faith and the History of Overgrow.com 

message: The problem Here, as I see it, is that what Simonapro is saying may be completely correct, but, Viriditas needs a source to prove the statements. This in itself creates further problems, as not many "reliable sources" will document this conflict, but right now I am relying on Alias' in a Forum to get back to me. --Irishpunktom\talk 09:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing preventing you from answering Tom's points /below/ Tom's comments, like everybody else.  If you feel that you must respond to a direct statement, simply copy it into your reply.  Please respect WP:EQ. —Viriditas | Talk 11:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi.  These sources do not meet Wikipedia guidelines for WP:RS.  See also: Talk:Heaven%27s_Stairway#Explanation_of_dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 02:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one wouldn't be a source but it does clue us into what we should be looking for and is just confirming some things about the Weedbase source. The second one I think is a contender for a valid source because GN publishes icmag. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 08:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you are saying, and I think some consideration should be placed on this information, if only for the purposes of this discussion, and for helping explain your position.  However, these sources conflict with the official Wikipedia policy regarding WP:NOR. —Viriditas | Talk 09:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the owner of icmag conflict with official Wikipedia policy regarding [[WP:NOR] [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 09:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with the owner and everything to do with the source.  We've covered this several times on this page already.  You may be interested in reading WP:NOR. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." —Viriditas | Talk 09:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, because your comment interfered with comments made by Irishpunktom, and broke up his original comment. Good editing practices dictate making replies after a comment, not splitting a comment in half.  In my edit summary, I suggested that you add a footnote to Irishpunktom's text to link the footnotes section so that someone reading the text you originally replied to, would be brought to the source discussion.  If you like, I can help you do that. BTW, since I already informed you how you could fix your broken signature, is there something preventing you from going into your preferences and removing the extra bracket? —Viriditas | Talk 09:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please take the time to understand how talk pages work.  Do not break up comments made by other editors.  See: WP:EQ: "Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow."  I have ignored your comment about signatures as you seem to be misinformed about WP:SIG and the use of the unsigned template. —Viriditas | Talk 10:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:EQ applies completely, as you are interweaving your comment into the middle of Irishpunktom's comments and you are breaking up comments made by other editors.  If you have trouble understanding this, please ask the mediator for help.  Please do not make changes to Irishpunktom's comments.  I do not need permission to move your comments to the appropriate place on a talk page, which is /after/ the comments you are replying.  This is very simple to understand, so if you persist in this behavior, I will assume that you are trolling.  There is a limit to assuming good faith with someone who does not edit in good faith.  —Viriditas | Talk 10:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability, not Truth

message: Now, Which of these staements are fully under dispute, and which can be re-added?
* Overgrow.com (also known as OG) was created by the Internet persona known as "shabang" in 1998 following a dialogue on weedbase.com.
** where is this? This is from the Wayback machine for Weedbase for early 1999 (  ).  Can you find this dialogue?  Was it in the form of PMs? - If so, we need to know how you know about it. Was it written somewhere, by another?
* Some members from weedbase.com joined overgrow.com to form the initial OG community.
** Should be easy to verify, I need links though.
* Early contributions to the site involved the forums, an OG magazine cover story, search engine and a cannabis strain database, called "strainbase", owned by a third party Internet persona known as "Baudelaire".
** Needs verification via the wayback machine too.
* As membership increased, a grow FAQ was introduced in 2001 along with the karma members rating system. 
** First part needs verification.
* In 2002 the owner of Heaven's Stairway, known as the Internet persona "RC", was asked by shabang to pay for the domain name using RC's billing address. 
** Important, needs to be verified.  We needs "RC's" position on this, also "Shabangs".
* Shabang disappeared from the forums only to resurface later with the claim that RC had ported the OG contents to another server and had the site contents hacked to prevent shabang from having admin access. 
** Also important, where is the forum thread which states this?
* During this time RC put up a copyright notice claiming ownership of the entire site contents. RC sold these rights to High Times writers.  Shabang maintains that OG was stolen by RC.
** We need sources for these statements.
** Also, do these alias' have real names, and if not, is that because they fear Prosecution, etc? 
Thanks --Irishpunktom\talk 09:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing preventing you from answering Tom's points /below/ Tom's comments, like everybody else.  If you feel that you must respond to a direct statement, simply copy it into your reply.  Please respect WP:EQ. —Viriditas | Talk 11:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The disputed Text

message: * , . NL420, Foolgirl, OT1 owned Overgrow.com with ~shabang~ web designing and administrating Overgrow.com from its inception. It appears ~s~ was also the web designer for weedbase.com ... I will update more as I get the time. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 11:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  These sources do not meet Wikipedia guidelines for WP:RS.  See also: Talk:Heaven%27s_Stairway#Explanation_of_dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 02:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one wouldn't be a source but it does clue us into what we should be looking for and is just confirming some things about the Weedbase source. The second one I think is a contender for a valid source because GN publishes icmag. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 08:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you are saying, and I think some consideration should be placed on this information, if only for the purposes of this discussion, and for helping explain your position.  However, these sources conflict with the official Wikipedia policy regarding WP:NOR. —Viriditas | Talk 09:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the owner of icmag conflict with official Wikipedia policy regarding [[WP:NOR] [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 09:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with the owner and everything to do with the source.  We've covered this several times on this page already.  You may be interested in reading WP:NOR. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." —Viriditas | Talk 09:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, because your comment interfered with comments made by Irishpunktom, and broke up his original comment. Good editing practices dictate making replies after a comment, not splitting a comment in half.  In my edit summary, I suggested that you add a footnote to Irishpunktom's text to link the footnotes section so that someone reading the text you originally replied to, would be brought to the source discussion.  If you like, I can help you do that. BTW, since I already informed you how you could fix your broken signature, is there something preventing you from going into your preferences and removing the extra bracket? —Viriditas | Talk 09:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please take the time to understand how talk pages work.  Do not break up comments made by other editors.  See: WP:EQ: "Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow."  I have ignored your comment about signatures as you seem to be misinformed about WP:SIG and the use of the unsigned template. —Viriditas | Talk 10:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:EQ applies completely, as you are interweaving your comment into the middle of Irishpunktom's comments and you are breaking up comments made by other editors.  If you have trouble understanding this, please ask the mediator for help.  Please do not make changes to Irishpunktom's comments.  I do not need permission to move your comments to the appropriate place on a talk page, which is /after/ the comments you are replying.  This is very simple to understand, so if you persist in this behavior, I will assume that you are trolling.  There is a limit to assuming good faith with someone who does not edit in good faith.  —Viriditas | Talk 10:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources