User talk:Ars666

Spots
First of all, you need to learn how to read between the lines. The quote from me you repeated about being a "fine upstanding citizen" and all that, well, my Wikipedia user name is also my real name so I am sort of careful about what I say, considering I have a career and all that. Read between the lines, man. (FWIW, it was called "hot knives" back when I used to do it...)

Secondly, you should be thanking me. The AfD result was "keep", and I can guarantee you from my experience with Wikipedia that if I had not gutted the article and forced everyone to rewrite it with citations and without the how-to guide, the result would have been "delete". Even though the citations have a lot of problems, the article is much better now and I no longer think it is harmful to the project (the original article made Wikipedia look poorly-written and not very credible). I am not sure how helpful it is either, what with all the questionable sources, but it definitely doesn't hurt the project any more.

Anyway, please do not make assumptions about people's knowledge or motivations. That is failure to assume good faith. In addition, saying that I have no knowledge of this topic comes across to me as a personal attack to me. So please try to be nicer in the future. And anyway, like I say, you should be thanking me for helping to save the article. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you? what a joke! Your pigheaded determination to destroy the spotting article once it was well-referenced with sources regarding its notability made it impossible for ME to assume good faith from your actions. If you were truly interested in seeing wikipedia improved you could have taken a mere 5 minutes of your time to research the topic of spotting with google instead of trashing the article - If you had done so you would have found MANY forums, websites and various videos that describe the activity. I still stand by my claims that you aren't knowledgeable enough to make decisions regarding the notability of various activities within cannabis culture, and your ignorance (and desire to stay ignorant) of the prevalence of spotting only serves to illustrate this.

It is ridiculous for you to so be so highly critical of the references in the spotting article when the references in the Cannabis smoking article that you appear to be a regular editor of are so few and far between and do not appear to be any less 'questionable' than the references on the spotting article. I think the lack of references on Cannabis smoking only further proves you (and your supporters) are under-qualified to make any more than passing comments regarding this particular segment of society. Maybe if you spent more time researching the topics you are claiming knowledge of, instead of destructively editing articles, I would be more inclined to take your actions on good faith. Ars666 (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Jaysweet (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Take it somewhere else mate, I'm not interested. Ars666 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Wakanda's Black Panther! &spades; / &diams; 00:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

oh noes - its the spurious warning patrol! smells like sour grapes to me. try practicing what you preach, Wakandas black panther. ;) Ars666 (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Spots
Why'd you change the back to a  ? The reason I changed it to a Further template was to hide the section redirection(Cannabis smoking#Adverse effects) in a regular wikilink(Adverse effects of smoking cannabis). Many new readers of Wikipedia may be confused by the former, you see.

Also, I wouldn't take warnings lightly. Wikipedia is a community with rules. After four warnings, you'll likely be blocked from editing. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! &spades; / &diams; 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

stop being so goddamn precious, your warnings are totally without merit and im sick of you trying to cause trouble. im not interested in being drawn into your pissy wiki-fights. dont expect to hear from you again. cheers. Ars666 (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. No one is trying to cause trouble; I was simply informing you of the rules. Wakanda's Black Panther! &spades; / &diams; 03:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am totally aware of the rules and you know this. FIND SOMEONE ELSE TO HARASS. Ars666 (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Very well. If you will provide no reason for changing the templates, then I will change it back. Pity you refuse to cooperate with other editors. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! &spades; / &diams; 04:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * get off it mate. i've lodged a complaint about your behaviour. i'm sick of it. Ars666 (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Crazy vendetta[sic], huh?

 * 1) Please assume good faith.
 * 2) Do not attack other editors.
 * 3) You've visited my user page months after Spots (cannabis) AND New Testament Church were up for deletion, leaving me hate comments. Somehow, though, I'm the one with a "crazy Vendetta"?

Please leave me alone, fella. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! &spades; / &diams; 01:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)