User talk:Bogonvermillion

Re: Lysergic acid diethylamide
Hi, and thanks for your edits to Lysergic acid diethylamide. As a new user, you may not be familiar with how we use sources or write articles. That is ok. Please use the talk page to discuss your edits as there are issues with the material you are continually trying to add to the article. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there yourself, you troll. I am not new to wikipedia, I have edited wiki for years. I am more than familiar with the process of editing wiki, and realise, unlike you, that editing an article does not require discussion or approval from spurious self-appointed beauracrats. In fact, this type of sniping is exactly what wiki was designed to avert. Please take a flying fuckjump into space, where you can lambast the nearest sterile asteroid with your withering facile ignorance. YOU LIED ON THE HISTORY PAGE OF THE LSD ARTICLE, CLAIMING THAT MY SOURCES DO NOT REFLECT MY ADDITION, AND YOU LABELLED MY ADDITION ORIGINAL REPORTING. GO AND FUCK YOUR MOTHER, IN THE GRAVE IF THAT IS WHERE SHE IS.


 * (continued below)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Viriditas (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The connection between the CIA and the counterculture of the 1960s is interesting, but highly speculative. I have studied the topic and I'm afraid the sources you are using to support the material you are adding isn't matching up. The conspiracy theory you are promoting is popular in certain circles, but on Wikipedia we require an unambiguous relationship between a good source and good content. If such a match cannot be made, we can't include the material. Please use the talk page to discuss it. Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (continued from above) The senate report not good enough for you, hey? Here is a quote from Senator Kennedy, from the PDF of the senate report which I linked.


 * "Some 2 years ago, the Senate Health Subcommittee heard chilling testimony about the human experimentation activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Deputy Director of the CIA revealed that over 30 universities and institutions were involved in an 'extensive testing and experimentation' program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens 'at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign.' Several of these tests involved the administration of LSD to 'unwitting subjects in social situations.'


 * "At least one death, that of Dr. Olson, resulted from these activities. The Agency itself acknowledged that these tests made little scientific sense. The agents doing the monitoring were not qualified scientific observers. The tests subjects were seldom accessible beyond the first hours of the test. In a number of instances, the test subject became ill for hours or days, and effective followup was impossible."


 * If you had bothered to read the edits you censored, you would have noticed that I reduced the claim to what I could immediately support with rigorous references, and yet you continued to revert my material, subverting my attempt to locate further sources and develop rigorous citations. The connection with the CIA is not merely 'interesting', it is a key development in the LSD story, and to omit it from the intro is to skew the article unacceptably. Funny how so many of those who cry 'conspiracy' are so happy to skew and censor publicly known facts. Bogonvermillion (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And no, we do not all accept that random users who have sought or accepted the power should be able to override other users edits via bans, blocks etc, this case being a good example of why. Power corrupts, as they say. My non-cooperation with wiki beauracracy is deliberate, conscious, and a matter of conscience. The expected behaviour in wiki no matter what the worth of the material added is to incorporate what of it we can, not to wholesale revert. Your attitude is as much in question as my own, Mr V. -- Bogonvermillion (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia  as a result of your . You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.

Veriditas tried to discuss this with you, and warned you over and over. I have blocked you for 3 hours, and hope that you will discuss your edits here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Block extended
Regarding this sum of diffs:

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you are interested, I have brought this to ANI: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)