User talk:Vera Cruz/ban

Despite being asked not to many times, Vera Cruz persists in trying to hide his changes by marking major edits as minor edits. For the most recent examples among many, see Colin Ferguson. Tannin 13:32 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

Persists in trying to hide my changes? What are you talking about? If its so hidden, how did you find it? Vera Cruz


 * Read the history of the page I linked to above (as just one of many examples). Notice how nearly all your edits are marked "minor" and nearly all of those are in fact major. Then read Contributing FAQ. Pay particular attention when it says "show normal courtesy to other users by not marking substantive changes as minor edits". Tannin

I've decided that wikipedia has an extremely aggressive and confrontational dispute settlement process. As such I have no comment as anything said can and will be used against me. Quite simple, I plead "not guilty". Vera Cruz

142.177.6.171 is intent on turning any discussion of offensive language (usernames, language in general) into some kind of loony-right libertarian rant and wherever possible an attack on Jimbo Wales. It's small minded boring stuff and completely unhelpful. Can he please be asked to go and poo in his own bath for a change? 194.117.133.118 00:59 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

The above comment is far more annoying than 142. Vera Cruz

If it annoys you then it must be getting something right. :)

- Been out of the loop. Please fill me in. Seems that somebody was banned for advocating illegal drug use. I don't know what drugs it may have been; however, I've read the apology and wish to know more about the cicumstances. My thoughts read like this:

User:Two16 : Lockdown Sv Rule.
 * illegal in what jurisdiction?
 * even if we were to accept present day american legislative sensibilities, who is to say the legislative branches won't come to their senses and repeal vast amounts off their drug legisation? Or that their system of checks and balances might effect change? Who knows what could happen in the wink of an eye. The jurisdiction I live in presently (Ontario, Canada) has no law about the possession of less than 30 grams of marijuanna. It is not an illegal drug in that amount here. All those front page newspapers photos of people puffing cones in front of city hall are giving the lie to Reefer Madness and make it less likely that a new repressive marijuanna law will withstand a constitional challange. Canadain laws can be overturned level if it can be shown that the law is not "reasonable in a free and democratic society."
 * more (or better) reason (persuassion) needs to be used before resorting to banning in situations like this.


 * I've not even read the apology... :-/ Link? As someone who thinks the UK laws against cannabis and possibly ecstacy could do with a review, I'd be interested in the details. Martin

Nobody has been banned for advocating illegal drug use - User:Vera Cruz (who I guess this is referring to) was banned because 1) User:Vera Cruz was getting on a lot of people's nerves and was generally felt to be doing more harm than good; and 2) because there were very strong suspicions that User:Vera Cruz was the same person as User:Lir who was already banned. For the record, I doubt that anybody would be banned for advocating illegal drug use on their talk page or on article talk pages (within limits of course - I shouldn't think overt drug dealing would be tolerated), though doing so in a POV manner in articles would be a different matter, of course. --Camembert

Thanx for the info. Wasn't Lir returned to good standing about 2 weeks ago?


 * Not as far as I know. If so, it happened while I wasn't looking (which is possible, but probably unlikely). --Camembert