Talk:Heaven's Stairway/Archive 1

When did overgrow.com go down and what happened to it and the forums?

You've recently reverted my edits which I feel was in error.... You listed noted that my revisions were done without any citations.... This is incorrect and the information i had posted is verifiable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overgrow_%28website%29

You can see that here: Overgrow was launched in 1999 on Vbulletin 1.1 by a group of dedicated individuals inspired to help spread knowledge through the internet medium. Among those was ~shabang~ aka Overgrow at Vbulletin.org [1]

If you follow the link you can see that Overgrow is the creator and that system has been around since Vbulletin 1.1 (1999)

The GrowFAQ are considered an invaluable resource, offering a wealth of knowledge, as well as a place to chat and socialize. Articles have been contributed by users from around the world covering all topics from germination to harvest and beyond. GrowFAQ v1.2 includes 152 topics & 1417 questions with over 10,616,381 answers served since 11-04-2000.The Overgrow GrowFAQ is the premier source for Cannabis cultivation information today. This is the largest online marijuana FAQ and is the default document people refer to when someone asks "How do I grow marijuana?" It is a living document, entirely written by the users, staff, and owners of Overgrow.com. If you have questions about growing Cannabis, this is the place to find the answers -- hundreds of thousands of people have accessed the FAQ and learned how to grow since November, 2000.

My claims about the GrowFAQ can be verified towards the bottome of the page at: [2] My claims about the strainguide can be seen at: http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:Hu0Y6ktt3qoJ:www.overgrow.com/strainguide/+site:overgrow.com+strainguide&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 And the Pic of the Week and Gallery claims can be verified at: http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:gcJTgZGJwzEJ:www.overgrow.com/edge/gallery.php+site:overgrow.com+gallery&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 And my claims about Team Overgrow: http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:Z_cjlgigx8YJ:www.overgrow.com/edge/showgroups.php+site:overgrow.com+Forum+Leaders&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Please revert the page to include my changes, what exists now was mostly posted by one of our competitors from CannabisCulture.com and includes no sources and has no verifiable information whatsoever... You've even left the link to their false article about the status of overgrow on the page...

Status

Merged. —Viriditas | Talk 08:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with this merger. 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.

Please provide a reliable source demonstrating this dispute. It's a simple request. —Viriditas | Talk 09:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Facts

A port scan of the Overgrow.com IP address verifies that the servers are still in place... Typing a simple ping command from the command prompt 'ping 65.39.170.187' or 'ping www.overgrow.com' shows that the servers are responding...

C:\Program Files\Nmap>ping www.overgrow.com

Pinging overgrow.com [65.39.170.187] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 65.39.170.187: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=55 Reply from 65.39.170.187: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=55 Reply from 65.39.170.187: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=55 Reply from 65.39.170.187: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 65.39.170.187:

   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:

   Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 21ms

C:\Program Files\Nmap>

Being down for 2 weeks is no reason to refer to a website in the past tense and appears to be an attempt by competitors to provoke paranoia amongst users of overgrow... If wikipedia were to go down for 2 weeks due to lack of funds or other cause would Britanica jump all over it and start refering to your site as 'Was the largest most valuable resource on the net'? CannabisCulture.com and CannabisCulture the print magazine are the brainchild of Marc Emery the recently arrested and facing extradition competitor of Heaven's Stairway in the Cannabis Seed industry. http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4639.html Heck, Google hasn't even dropped us yet: [3] and these guys are ready to dance on our graves... - Anonymous member of Team Overgrow

There is no proof for any of these events other than posts on websites which are in direct competition with Overgrow and related sites. Why has this been edited as if it were fact? - Anon

Please be specific. —Viriditas | Talk 08:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but dont the administrators and staff of the website count as a source? [4] - Another Anon

Again, you'll have to be specific. We can't read minds, here. —Viriditas | Talk 03:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon, Yes they do count as a source, especially when those moderators are also the moderators of Overgrow.com!! Viriditas has used these same sources to build this article and yet disputes the same sources when anyone else quotes from them. Viriditas will not allow anyone to make any input into the article and deletes the work. I have to revert all day to keep the article real and unbiased and am currently engaged in a debate below to make sure that Viriditas is cornered on trying to create a one-man-band wiki article. His position is not wiki tenable.

To answer your question, no, they do not count as a source. If you bothered to read WP:V and WP:RS, you would know that. The "source" appears to be rumors posted on a non-notable message board. Also, your comment, I have to revert all day (I show around 10 reverts on the main article) shows that you don't understand the WP:3RR. Please take a break from Wikipedia. If you continue with your disruptive behavior, you will be blocked. —Viriditas | Talk 09:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The source was Overgrow TOG moderators. You have censored this page in attempt to remove that (See History).

That source does not meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion. —Viriditas | Talk 03:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Confirm this information before merging

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)

Actually he did cite sources above and you got this wrong. He was right. You just ignored the sources.

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)

Edits by 62.216.22.236 (talk • contribs)

After two talk page warnings, 62.216.22.236 continues to insert commercial and unrelated external links into the article. Due to this behavior I have added the noncompliant tag to the article. —Viriditas | Talk 13:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The bust is very real. http://lcn.canoe.com/lcn/infos/faitsdivers/archives/2006/02/20060228-191011.html (--previous unsigned comment by 70.82.28.235 (talk · contribs))

Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, that link doesn't appear to specify the website, "Overgrow". It merely states, "La Gendarmerie royale du Canada a procédé à l'arrestation de distributeurs de drogue qui oeuvraient sur Internet." Can you provide a more specific link? How do we know they are referring to "Overgrow"? —Viriditas | Talk 08:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the video of the news, they say its the company "Heaven's Stairway". They also say at the end of the video that the head of the network was Richard Calrisian. Here are some other links: http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=heaven%27s+Stairway&btnG=Search+News (--comment by 70.82.28.235 (talk · contribs))

So, it took a little less than a month for the mainstream media to finally report this? Incredible. This link should be added to the main article and updated. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 00:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It might also be of interest that the Overgrow 'grow FAQ' has been mostly recovered on growfaq.marijuana.com (--comment by 70.82.28.235 (talk · contribs))

At this point, it looks like the article should be moved to Heaven's Stairway, with the appropriate subsections describing the formerly hosted websites. —Viriditas | Talk 07:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this right? You only use news articles as your source even though OG moderators where telling us this for a month! Give us all a break. The source is GOOD! The 'mainstream' media article confirms this. It probably used the same source!!!! Now why are you rejecting the sources?

Exactly. Wikipedia policy is very clear on this. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. —Viriditas | Talk 09:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ownership of Overgrow.com web site in dispute

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)

The source would be ~shabang~ himself who has made this statement through the owner of www.marijuana.com on http://growfaq.marijuana.com/

"To set the record straight, one final time, regarding the GrowFAQ please let me explain what I know. Last Sunday I was contacted by a guy you all know as ~Shabang~, I prefer to call him by his first name, however this is not the time or the place and as POM has expressed, ~S has absolutely ZERO interests in returning to the scene. A few days ago ~S and I shot about 10 emails back and forth regarding the issue at hand and an offer of sale of the original code SB and GF sourcecode was discussed. ~S assured me as a potential buyer of the software that there are no copyright issues with the applications known as the GrowFAQ and the StrainBase. ~S further explained the situation of how RC had used his code without his consent and basically bastardized the code, including but not limited to removing security features which ~S had in place. The code was never RC’s. He has no claim. This is your RC hero I am speaking of." - Rick Garcia webmaster@marijuana.com, owner of www.marijuana.com

The Jorge Cervantes ~RC~ Overgrow book deal information can be found here http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=22804

It would have been nice to find the OG thread where ~shabang~ makes the claim that OG has been stolen but ~RC~ removed it. There are many people who can validate that this dispute over OG ownership exists if you ask around the popular cannabis forums. I am quite sure this ownership problem about OG is very much public knowledge, especially with members who who joined OG pre-2002 and remember who was the Admin... ~shabang~. The bottom line in all this is that name ~shabang~. ~shabang~ was the founder admin of OG along with a group of others. Google for him for further details.

Verify and rewrite

The following content needs to be verified and rewritten. —Viriditas | Talk 10:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been verified and the dispute is very real. The best reference is the one below because it is the most recent but all the major cannabis web sites have confirmed that this information is correct. Here is the new edit.

Viriditas did you verify the sources yet? They have been here for quite awhile now. I see no reason why the information needs

Please see my comments below. Can you provide at least two reliable sources for the information? —Viriditas | Talk 10:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We provided content directly from Overgrow.com moderators that you have removed from the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonapro (talk • contribs) 11:52, 22 April 2006

Who is we? In any case, your source does not meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion. Please review WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. —Viriditas | Talk 03:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ownership dispute

Overgrow.com (also known as OG) was created by the Internet persona known as ~shabang~ in 1998 following a dialogue on weedbase.com. Some members from weedbase.com joined overgrow.com to form the initial OG community. 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’. As the member numbers grew, a grow FAQ was introduced in 2001 along with the ‘karma’ members rating system. 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. ~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. During this time ~RC~ put up a copyright notice claiming ownership of the entire site contents. ~RC~ sold these rights to High Times writers. [5] Today ~shabang~ still claims that OG was stolen by ~RC~.

Please get rid of the tildes as they make the text difficult to read. Also, I have seen no evidence that this text has been verified. Please provide at least two reliable sources. —Viriditas | Talk 00:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want to keep the tildes then fine, but the accurate versions of the names have the tildes. If you want more evidence then I suggesting visiting www.cannabisculture.com, www.icmag.com and asking for yourself. Right now I have included a whole wealth of information here for any wiki visitor to go do more research on. I was an OG member since 1998 myself.

Removed varification as the information has been here long enough to have been varified by all who asked on the above mentioned web sites for themselves.

Sorry, but that's not how it works. —Viriditas | Talk 10:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well you have yet to provide anything to the contrary. If you do, then please show us a reference for it. As of now these additions with references contain information that can be varified by doing the work.

Please review WP:V and then reply. —Viriditas | Talk 23:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I know about it. That is why there are sources given. You will have to be specific about your trouble with this. So far no reason has been given by you as to why you think it is needs to be varified more than it needs to be. I am sorry but until you specify your problem and link it to a quote from WP:V we are not going to solve this are we?

You may know about it, but you haven't read it. Do not revert this page again. I have been specific. Read above: Please provide at least two reliable sources. —Viriditas | Talk 00:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC) —Viriditas | Talk 09:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Now you have a started a revert war. Your claim that I have not read WP:V is unfounded. You can not possibly know if I have read it or not. It is impossible for you to know. This is the kind of problem you have started here. I have tried to be nice and I have done mostly everything you asked to be cooperative. You are now refusing to cooperate. I am sorry but you are making false claims and not much sense. You have more than two variefied sources above. You have not used any of them. There are three in total and much more. By the way it does not say in WP:V to quote more than one source. That is something you yourself have invented. Maybe you need to read WP:V and not me.

And one more thing. You are being very selective. You have used the sources I added to this article to make your own new additions to the article and yet you don't think your own additions need to be varified do you? I gave you the sources for the FAQ database and backups. That is the work I put in. It is just silly that you are manipulating the sources that way. I actually believe the biggest problem here is your choice to merge OG and HS. You can not do that without including the ownership dispute. And by the way, if I dont want to sign here, then that is my right. It is just good pratice to do so, but absolutely not manditory.

WP:RS —Viriditas | Talk 11:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas is now saying that the above is not true without doing any research. One day old OGers like myself will come in here and correct his own personal failings with the truth. The above is absolutely correct and can be varified by looking at the links and asking questions on their forums. I have included all the names (correctly ~shabang~ not just shabang as Viriditas edited, even though Viriditas never heard the name before). (→Ownership dispute)

WP:CIV —Viriditas | Talk 12:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Note to Wiki Mods. Viriditas is now creating his own private article and removing all input from others because he wants it his way. It has now become his own private Wiki article. I will make one last revert to the facts before they are replaced again with his own personal opinions.

WP:3RR —Viriditas | Talk 12:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine. My patients to deal with this is long-term, and will be, because I support facts. I think the one person throwing the article into disrepute is yourself because you do not believe the OG dispute claims are varified. Now you would do better to come out altogether and say they are wrong! This would be a much better position for you to be in rather than putting yourself on the border just to cover your actions when the facts turn out to be true. Which they are. So your position needs to be clarified. You have the sources. You have even used the sources. I give you one week to find something wrong with it. Then I am reverting it back to a factual article (which it is right now).

There are standards for notable, self-published sources. Please review WP:V. —Viriditas | Talk 12:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't try to educate me on how to use Wiki TYVM. It is a very ignorant and a petty way to avoid the topic you have been confronted with. Now read up and do the work which you wont do now for over a month since the article and references (which you are using in parts) first appeared here. How hard can this possibly be for you?

Please review burden of evidence. —Viriditas | Talk 13:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You are too ignorant to deal with. At this stage you are blantantly rude. It is obvious you don't give a flying damn about the History of OG or HS. Leave.

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 13:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

07:58, 3 March 2006 Viriditas (+internet archive) <-- This is an example of Viriditas using and adding one the same sourse materials (from http://growfaq.marijuana.com/) that Viriditas also has some sort of a problem with.

You appear to be confused. The link in question was a backup of the website on archive.org. It has nothing to do with the claims you are attempting to include in the article. I'm not sure why you are having trouble understanding this fact. —Viriditas | Talk 03:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned tags

!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)

RfC

Have a cuppa coffee folks ;-) Woever the registered owner of the site is, that's who owns it - unless someone can produce some legal reference that states otherwise. Just someone saying 'BS, my friend Billy-bob owns it' can't cut it - theres' got to be some kind of legal document or filing which can be used as a reference that the legitimacy of the registered owner is being contested, or that the registered owner is not really the owner. Bridesmill 15:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bridesmill. You are actually not correct. The registered owner of the site is the person who owns the .com name. If I decided to own www.wikipediaforme.com and ported www.wikipedia.com contents into it that does not mean I own the contents. Anyway I did not say who was right or wrong, only that the dispute exists. That the dispute is there and how the dispute came about with historical reference to OG, HS and the dispute.

Agree with Bridesmill. Removing content until dispute can be cited with a reliable source. —Viriditas | Talk 20:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Then you are also mistaken. Owning a domain name does not mean that you automatically own the contents of the files served by that domain name's web host. I suggest you both go read up on the terms and agreement of the content you are allowed to upload on a web host.

Please review WP:RULES, and the links I've provided above. —Viriditas | Talk 21:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Your links are not in dispute. Never where. Also you are making far too many mistakes to be taken seriously at this stage. Your latest claim that owning a domain name means that you own the contents also shows that you don't know what you are talking about. You have also used the exact same sources that you claim are in dispute. 07:58, 3 March 2006 Viriditas (+internet archive) for example.

Hi, you seem to be confused about WP:V and WP:RS. If you need help, you can add the "helpme" template on your talk page. The edit you refer to (07:58, 3 March 2006 Viriditas) [6] has nothing to do with this discussion. Please do not continue to remove unsigned signatures and violate the 3RR on the main page. The article talk pages follow the guideline of WP:SIG to facillitate communication. —Viriditas | Talk 21:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I certainly am not confused. You have alread abused my talk page by editing it several times with the "helpme" alert. I have already informed several moderators of your abuse on that page and that I did not alert them. It is not your business to call help for me. The edit I refer to has everything to do with the topic. The same people who collected that database which you linked to the article are the same people who wrote http://growfaq.marijuana.com/ that you are ignoring. Besides that you have been given * History of Overgrow.com and Overgrow members on ICMAG forums and you have blantantly ignored the fact that is the home of OG members at the moment who anyone here can talk with. I do not have to sign anything if I do not want to. It is not mandatory. If I want to, I will. The point being, it is none of your business to attempt signing others work here. The reason why I can stay here debating this till the end of my time is because I know this is a factural event. Your bases for editing is founded on a personal belief that you just decided that you didn't agree with the facts. That is just a POV and not the historical record. I am in the right because I am stating the historical record and will see this through because of the facts and not personal opinions. Here is another 10 paged account of the history of OG http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=22255&page=1&pp=15&highlight=shabang I suppose you will just overlook that one too.

An external link to an archived website has nothing to do with this discussion, which is why I have suggested you are confused. This discussion is about the citation and content that you are using in the article, a source that does not appear to meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion. This has been explained to you. I am in agreement with Bridesmill. If the dispute isn't notable or reliably sourced, it doesn't belong here. See also WP:NOT. —Viriditas | Talk 22:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean an external link to an archived website has nothing to do with this discussion? You have even quoted such in your sources! You are not going to be able to avoid the facts as they are put in front of your face. Here try and ignore this next link where you actually see TOG (team Overgrow) talking about this very topic! http://icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=383&page=7&pp=15 Going to blantantly ignore that one also? This stuff has been there for over a month now but you didn't do the work. Easy to just edit a wiki page and call yourself right isn't it? Get with the facts. How can you avoid this now! Since this article is no longer controversial I am removing the tag. It is just a matter of either rejecting these facts or accepting them. it? Get with the facts. How can you avoid this now!

I'm sorry, but there appears to be a communication problem. When you are ready to discuss the reason this article is on RFC, please feel free to reply. Until then, please remain civil. —Viriditas | Talk 22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no communication problem. It is all before your eyes and you are refusing to read any of it. We have Team Overgrow talking about the ~RC~ ~shabang~ dispute now on the record. That is TOG talking about this disputed topic that you have rejected and edited and removed and censored from the wiki reading public. The only record I do not have is a copy of the actual debate between ~RC~ and ~S~ from the OG record that was edited by ~RC~ and is currently unavailable because ~RC~ claims to have had OG shutdown. In the meantime the facts are before your eyes, right in front of you, with TOG talking about this topic that you are rejecting because it shows that you are in the wrong. QED.

Clearly there is a communication problem, if one of two people can't communicate with the other. Part of the problem seems to be your refusal to follow Wikipedia policies. I'm willing to work with you within the policy framework. —Viriditas | Talk 02:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolute Complete Defacement of Discussion

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)

Article now controlled by one editor

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)

Ownership dispute

I would like to help Simonapro flesh out his argument, and for the purposes of NPOV, I will attempt to argue both sides (as we should all do), essentially writing for the enemy: On March 10, 2006, Simonapro announced that the ownership of Overgrow site content is in dispute. [7] Simonapro quoted an Overgrow.com admin with the handle of "~shabang~" as a source, as well as a published book author by the name of Jorge Cervantes. It seems that it would be reasonable to make mention of an ownership dispute in the article if Mr. Cervantes is a reliable source, and if he has published this information on a reliable site and/or in a print medium. Can Simonapro cite a source that meets the requirements of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR? If so, this information should be included in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 06:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't read. Cervantes has nothing to do with the Overgrow content ownership dispute between ~shabang~ and ~RC~. The sources I gave where from ~shabang~ AND Overgrow administration/Moderators. You deleted the referenced sources from here. Cervantes does not own Overgrow and is not a moderator or administrator there. Anyone can print anything in a print medium. Even I could that. You can not even follow your own guidelines as to what a source is. Obviously you have had no clue all along and still don't. The sources are clearly those involved with the day to day running of Overgrow since its exception. If you had bothered to do the work you would know that. You censor, you manipulate sources, you merge without any debate and you hinder the article. We are now just leaving the dispute symbol on the article. You have even been taking that down also. We have alerted mods here to this document and when they see it they will probably have lots of things to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonapro (talk • contribs) 11:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You referred to Cervantes in your original post, and I linked to it above. As it stands, he is the only credible source you have discussed so far. When you are ready to address the issues, please reply to them. In other matters, you were politely asked to sign your posts, refrain from personal attacks, use edit summaries, and only add dispute tags when you have made the case for such a dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 11:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

(1)You where told not to revert my talk page by another moderator. You have reverted it again.

(2)You have removed Polotet's article warning. 23:56, 20 April 2006 Polotet (no opinion on content dispute, but while it runs let's keep a dispute tag on)

(3)Yes Cervantes was referenced in my post but is not the subject of the overgrow content ownership. You havent read the sources.

(4)The credible source is NOT just anyone who can publish a book. Even I can do that with money. The credible source are the administrators/Owners/Moderators of Overgrow who you ignored. Cervantes joined OG in 2004. The whole OG community is on ICMAG.COM but you ignored it. The OG database you use, and link to, was ,and is still, maintained by the same source. You are completely ignoring the historical record from the horse's mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonapro (talk • contribs) 12:34 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Your page was reverted for archival purposes. Blanking of talk pages during current discussion is not appropriate behavior and is frowned upon. You were politely asked to use sigs, edit summaries, refrain from personal attacks, and to follow Wikipedia policies regarding sources. In all instances, you have refused, and an archival version of your talk page was linked to demonstrate your refusal to follow policy. For the third time, Polotet never made an article warning; he reverted to my version in which I placed the dispute tag. I suggest you learn about how Wikipedia works before you make accusations. Since I placed the original dispute tag, and since I removed the content that led to the dispute, there is no reason for the dispute tag to be placed on the article unless you give a good reason. So far, you have refused to give a reason, other than to dispute Wikipedia policy regarding sources; this is not the place for policy disputes. I suggest you take your policy dispute to the appropriate talk pages. Again, this has been explained to you. Your understanding of what a credible source is or isn't is at odds with Wikipedia policies. Please take your policy dispute to the policy talk pages. —Viriditas | Talk 12:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

(1)The work was not archived by you. There is no archive on this page. An archive is not deleting and censoring a discussion because you feel like it. You deleted and censored the discussion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page for how to make an archive. (2)23:56, 20 April 2006 Polotet (no opinion on content dispute, but while it runs let's keep a dispute tag on) DISPUTE IS STILL ON! There is a dispute so dispute tags stays. (3)Credible source of Overgrow.com information you reject are the administrators/moderators/owners of Overgrow. (4)Overgrow administrators/moderators/owners are the source. See ICMAG.com where they are right now.

Also I am very suspect of your forwarding Jorge Cervantes as "the only credible source you have discussed so far." This indicates that you are willing to accept a self-published writer who has made a deal with ~RC~ to publish Overgrow contents for mediation of the ~RC~ ~shabang~ dispute. Your bias is evident. You manipulate what a source is (a self-published writer is better than the horse's mouth according to you). You do not want any pre-~RC~/Overgrow history talked about on here. Overgrow was around before ~RC~ or Cervantes were a username on the boards. It was around long before Heaven's Stairway paid for a banner there or Cervantes asked OG members for photographs for his book. This is all very wrong historical manipulation from you. The censorship of the discussion page was the last straw. This needs to be brought to the attention of OG users immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonapro (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. You seem to be having trouble understanding basic Wikipedia policies. Please use the "helpme" tag on your talk page to receive help. Regarding Cervantes, he appears to be a paid, published writer who has worked under an editor (High Times), and this meets WP:RS in part, whereas the material you linked to does not have any verifiable attribution, and does not meet the guidelines for WP:RS. I don't know anything about any "self-published" books, nor do I have any opinion or feelings about this site, the authors, or any of the people mentioned. I am merely trying to uphold Wikipedia policies. I've repeatedly asked you to demonstrate how your link meets Wikipedia standards, but you refuse to do it, preferring to engage in personal attacks instead. —Viriditas | Talk 20:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of dispute

Simonapro, please explain your reasons in this section of the talk page, as to why you added the dispute tag. Please explain your reasons without referring to specific editors and making personal attacks. Provide only reasons for why you think the neutrality and factual accuracy of the current article are disputed. As it stands, your claim of a content dispute is based on using unreliable sources to support this content, originally added to the article on of 26 March 2006. In support of this content, you wrote: There are many people who can validate that this dispute over OG ownership exists if you ask around the popular cannabis forums. I am quite sure this ownership problem is OG public knowledge. [8] In response to a verification request posted by me on 6 April, you wrote: This has been verified and the dispute is very real. The best reference is the one below because it is the most recent but all the major cannabis web sites have confirmed that this information is correct. Here is the new edit. [9] Your "best reference" was a link to growfaq.marijuana.com, where the content in question appeared, unattributed and written anonymously on a website that does not meet the basic standards for WP:RS. To quote Wikipedia policy:

• Personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts...are not acceptable as sources. (See also: What counts as a reputable publication?)
• Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name
• Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, should not be accepted as primary or secondary sources
• A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website (so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources). But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing. For example, a Wikipedia article about an unreliable newspaper should not — on the grounds of needing to give examples of their published stories — repeat any claims the newspaper has made about third parties, unless the stories have been repeated by credible third-party sources. (See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability)

Hence, my request for two reliable sources on 17 April, which you refused to fulfill, however you have offered cannabisculture.com and icmag.com for corroboration, but again, those sites don't appear to meet the standards for WP:RS. If you can show that they do, you may be able to salvage some content, but for more than a month you have refused to demonstrate a case for inclusion. Most importantly, it is not the job of Wikipedians to do original research. We report what reliable publications publish. We do not investigate, or in any other way attempt to evaluate, whether they are right or wrong. See Wikipedia:No original research.

Since you disagree with Wikipedia policies regarding unreliable sources, and since the dispute appears to be about your repeated insertion of unreliable sources, you seem to have a policy dispute, not a content dispute. If you do not explain your reasons for adding the dispute tag, it will be removed. Please take your policy dispute to the appropriate policy talk page, such as Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, as this is not the place for it. —Viriditas | Talk 20:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

On the topic of personal attacks:

I don't personally attack people. I have never done it on wiki and I dont intend to start. There is nothing to gain from it. I do call for an immediate investigation as to why you have censored this discussion page though. Your claim that you where archiving has been debunked as it did not meet wiki criteria for archiving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page I also call for an immediate investigation as to why you called me a troll. See last statement of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heaven%27s_Stairway&oldid=49377309 I have never personally attacked you. You have said a number of times you are being attacked but you have not been. Your activity here is being questioned though as you are engaged in a full out blantant attempt at censorship. I have never censored anything here.

On the topic of the dispute tag:

I agree with Polotet who on 23:56, 20 April 2006 Polotet (no opinion on content dispute, but while it runs let's keep a dispute tag on). So the dispute is still running, hence let's keep a dispute tag on. The dispute is far from over.

On the topic of rejecting wiki policy:

I do not disagree with wiki policy and never have done. You just reject that claim that the Overgrow administration, currently self proclaimed refugees on icmag.com at http://www.icmag.com/ic/forumdisplay.php?f=118, fall under the category of a personal website source and should not be considered a primary sources. You are wrong. Since the topic is Overgrow.com then the administrators of overgrow.com do fall under the category of a personal website source and are very much a primary source. In fact, they are the source greater than all the other sources. They used to run Overgrow.com!

You also have not explained why Overgrow.com article has been merged with HS article. Just because HS foots the bill on a domain name does not mean that he owns site content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simonapro (talk • contribs) 22:04, 23 April 2006.

Please review WP:NPA, as you have made many personal attacks and continue to make them. I will provide you with a link to all the personal attacks you have made so you can understand the policy. Your statement, "I have never personally attacked you", shows that you don't understand the policy. Your talk page was archived when you blanked it, since the last edit preserved the comments in full, in the page history. To view the archive, I merely view the edit, like this. As for trolling, I think this talk page speaks for itself. Regarding the dispute tag, it has been explained to you many times now, that Polotet reverted to my version [10], the version which I added the dispute tag, the dispute tag that you removed. [11]. Since you have reverted back to my version, without describing a dispute, your edit does not make any sense. You are required to explain your reasons for the dispute. In regards to your comment about policy, the "administrators of overgrow.com" does not count as a reliable source in a controversial dispute about site ownership. You will need to cross-reference and corroborate. A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website - well that's the problem isn't it? We don't have a legitimate source that documents the ownership dispute, only an unreliable source that makes the claim of ownership. Should the mention of an ownership dispute be made, and how? For example, I actually wrote a paragraph about how the name "Overgrow" originated with Marc Emery, and I theorized that the people of Overgrow were paying deliberate homage to Emery's use and concept of the word "Overgrow". ("B.C.'s Prince of Pot fights extradition on drug charges". The Seattle Times. Oct 25, 2005: pB1.) According to The New York Times, Emery wants "to overgrow the governments" that punish cannabis users by producing cannabis plants all over the world, effectively making it impossible for governments to eradicate or control it. [12] Whether or not Emery is actually involved, I haven't a clue. The point is, I can't publish this information on Wikipedia because it is original research, and there's just no way to verify it. —Viriditas | Talk 22:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You have never substantiated any claim that I attack you. I have substantiated a claim that you attack me. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heaven%27s_Stairway&oldid=49377309 You called me a troll at the bottom of the page. This a serious violation of WP:NPA and can result in a users account being suspended or removed. You are also censoring the discussion page and not archiving which uses proper procedure as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page for how to make an archive. Thus since you are not following wiki archiving procedure you can not explain the deleting of a discussion here as archiving. Why are you deleting the discussion?

Your opinion of what trolling is remains an opinion and does not give you any right to call me a troll. That is a violation of WP:NPA . Polotet never said his dispute tag was a revert to be left to your decision to remove when you feel like it. Polotet clearly states leaving it up as long as there is a dispute. There is a dispute. It stays up. The "administrators of overgrow.com" are the primary sources when the topic is overgrow.com. I have quoted primary sources. The horses' mouth. Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonapro (talk • contribs) 23:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of your personal attacks can be found here. According to Internet troll, "a troll is someone who comes into...an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion", for example, repeatedly removing signatures from every unsigned comment for days on end. In response to your dispute claim: "Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher." WP:RS. —Viriditas | Talk 23:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith and the History of Overgrow.com

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)

By doing the article research on the history of Overgrow will require a whois history at which point the insertion of HS becomes evident as part of the historical record and the question is then asked, who was administrating Overgrow before that and what became of that administrator and did the move go well. In fact the history of Overgrow is not the best as there was lots of problems over site content ownership. My original article summed it all up in a few lines but a full article will develop into those points if the work is done. Simonapro 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)]

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)

In good faith tell us more about your research you are doing on the history of OG. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 16:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)]

Verifiability, not Truth

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)

The disputed Text

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 ( [13] ). 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. [14] 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)

Hi Tom, I would like to be able to answer your questions but I am having difficulty actually answering your points without Viritidas moving my answers into his own section. Please advise. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 10:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)]

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)

Calling each other names does not help. I've still to hear anything back from the various E-Mail address' associated with the website over the few years. The Alias' in the forum that I've PM have not replied either. I am really looking for some source in relation to the history of the site. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources

• [15], [16]. 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)]

Hi. These sources do not meet Wikipedia guidelines for WP:RS. See also: Talk:Heaven's_Stairway#Explanation_of_dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 02:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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)]

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)

Why does the owner of icmag conflict with official Wikipedia policy regarding [[WP:NOR] [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 09:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)]

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)

Before we continue this subject of wheither or not the publisher of icmag should be considered a source I want to object to your editing of this discussion page again. I don't think you should have created a new entry called Sources and moved my entry down into your new discussion. Could please put it back to the where it was. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 09:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)]

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)

Please do not remove my entry in response to IrishTom's questions. They are signed. You can keep your copy here but I am reinserting my text above. Please don't edit my work here. As for using my signature. I was always able to do that. You where informed by administrators that you are not to sign other people's work. That is why there was a problem. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 09:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)]

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)

Okay I see you have edited the work again even though I requested that you do not do this. Please assume good faith. I did not break up that subsection within the discussion. It is normal for contributors to make entries within a discussion subsection. You seem to have no problem with it in every other subsection, including this one, except the one made by Irishpunktom. Please don't edit my work or at least ask permission before you do move something. There is no record that you moved it either except for the history page. This is very difficult. Again please assume good faith. The WP:EQ: is about breaking up someone's comment, not replying within a subsection. As in cutting into the middle of your comment with my own comment. Again please assume good faith and don't edit other's work. Thank for you editing your comments about calling my comments 'absurd' as that did not assume good faith. Thank you. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 10:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)]

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)

I think it is best let Irishtom have a look at this now. I am interested in developing the History of Overgrow. This is the second time you have called me a troll. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 10:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)]