User talk:Zachorious

Hello, Zachorious. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You can learn more about ways you can contribute and find articles you might like to work on by going to the Community Portal. I hope you find this useful. -- SuggestBot 13:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republics vs democracy[edit]

I have created an article to discuss this very point and you would be interested in. It is Wikinfo:Classical republics and democracy contrasted. I hope you enjoy it and please give me any feedback that you may have. Thanks. WHEELER 18:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:15centaurybastard.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:15centaurybastard.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 11:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually trying to get that pic on the Longsword page. Can anyone help me do this? I'll post the copyright info. Zachorious 16:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negroid and Caucasoid[edit]

Please do not edit the pages that are currently undergoing revision under Caucasoid and Negroid. It is considered an act of vandalism.--Gnosis 00:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with what you are saying in some respect. The terms are obsolete. I have a degree in anthropology and the terms are not widely used or accepted. When we spak about these terms we must realize they were written with a racial slant. You are taking this a bit too personal. Although I agree with you with respect to how the articles look I would suggest you give it some time and let him do what he is doing and if it is something that should change we can debate it at that time. To be honest my only suggestion was to add the line obsolete to each term and keep them seperate. I am not in total agreement with what is being done but it is interesting to see how they will be merged. Understand that what you are doing is considered vandalism because there was no discussion previously before you decided to change the article. Do not take it as a personal assault on you. Frank left numerous discussions as to what he was doing and would do and there weren't very many objections. I remain neutral at this point. But the terms are considered obsolete by my peers. --Gnosis 01:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason these terms are being used is because they were used previously by anthropologist. Forensic Anthropology is a field derived from Anthropology. Look at this link : http://medstat.med.utah.edu/kw/osteo/forensics/ . Although I'm not a fan of using links to prove points when you follow this link and click on race it clearly shows that these terms are in regards to race. The problem I have with race and these terms, is that they are using these terms to describe a person's race, which in returns refers to their skin color. The reason why these terms are not used is not only because they are considered offensive but they do not determine the color of skin of an individual. There are Africans with dark skin with European features and Europeans with African facial features and even Asian features for that matter. It has been disproven as an exact science and you can't distinguish between these groups based on being African or European or Asian. All of these groups have individuals that share similar bone and cranial structures so this doesn't prove color of skin it only proves racism which in itself refers to a meme. This is why these terms are obsolete not for the mere fact that they are offensive as Frank wishes to point out. They are also not accurate, which makes the science of Anthropology in itself somewhat false in regards to this aspect. I am interested in seeing what Frank does in regards to the merger but it is more important to state why these terms are obsolete.--Gnosis 02:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Caucasian Agenda[edit]

The anthropology textbook is a recent credible textbook whose only "agenda" is promoting objective anthropological knowledge. It is a modern (2003) textbook distributed at UCs for their classes. Just because Caucasian is used by some anthropologists, doesn't mean it's objective or true. The agenda of the Hindunet website which was listed is probably not objective in their anthropological work. Forensics has an unscientific definition of Caucasian. It is their hypothesis that Europe, North Africa, The Middle East, and South Asia share certain craniofacial measurements. This is unscientific for two reasons: they don't share the same craniofacial measurements, so the application is arbitrary and individuals or populations who fall into the "Caucasian" craniofacial indeces are not considered Caucasian. This last arbitrary clause shows the usage is not objective. The indeces themselves are arbitrarily set without an absolute standard. The Human Species textbook is right about the term not being used anymore, because it is not objective. The textbook says all racial classifications are opinions. --- Dark Tichondrias 03:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a way to resolve conflicting sources, I think it could be true that forensic anthropolgy uses the term Caucasian, but most anthropolgists do not use the term (as gathered from the quote). --- Dark Tichondrias 21:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struck by the possibilty that Tichondrias may be confusing forensics with Phrenology. I'm not in the field, but to me it seems reasonable to use the (admittedly somewhat old-fashioned) terms "negroid" and "caucasoid" to refer to statistically measurable clusters in a Hamming metric space of human DNA; contrast the terms "Afro-American" or "WASP" which are socio-political. The former is a topic in Genetic Anthropolgy more than cultural. In the Hamming space it would be reasonable to say (to give a merely plausible example) that Shaka Zulu is "more negroid" than Tiger Woods because one is closer in the hamming meetric to a cluster center, than the other; which is different from saying that one person is "more Black" than another. The difficulties with the terms "negro", "black", and so on, is the ambiguity between socio-politcal content vs scientific content. Articles where science and politics overlap can be very challenging to edit. Good luck :-) Pete St.John (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most Anthropologists would say they are Caucasoid (if they're Coonists)[edit]

It is both true that most anthropologists today do not believe the term Caucasoid has scientific objectivity and most anthropological research would say they are Caucasoid rather than Negroid or Mongoloid. Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Austrailoid, are part of Carleton S. Coon's racial classification system. These categories are adhered to by his supporters. Because these terms are all part of the same classification system, it is doubtful that an anthropologist would classify them as Negroid (a Coonist classification) rather than Caucasoid (another Coonist classification), because it is defined by his system.

Also, I do distinguish between race/cline. Clines are different than races. Everyone is genetically related so there are no distinct races. Furthermore, everyone is genetically related by degrees or clines, so racial classification along genetic clines is useless and arbitrary. --- Dark Tichondrias 17:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No E-mails[edit]

I do not feel that there is something we are unable to discuss on Wikipedia. I don't have my e-mail listed because I do not want people sending me viruses or other personal attacks. -- Dark Tichondrias 19:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act[edit]

You once asked when we were going to put up info on Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act. Well, I've completed explaining it as best I can, the article can be found here. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senate Terms[edit]

You asked on the Discussion page for the US Senate about why senators have a longer term than even the president. I wrote what I think might be the explanations. Interlingua ^{talk email} 03:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black People[edit]

The issue of whether or not he has an elfin nose seems rather peripheral to the subject of the article, doesn't it? =D -- Saaber 15:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean race[edit]

Can you please provide evidence that South Asians were ever categorised as part of the "mediterranean race". Please do not quote David Frawley, who has no standing as an anthropologist, and who can't even spell "Mongolian". Paul B 10:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard and soft drugs[edit]

"How can they qualify when they have addictive properties and health risks in that case?"

You can argue the same thing for ice cream, fried chicken, and chocolate. All are psychologically addictive and carry health risks, but obviously, we don't add those. You argument is null and void. Like I said in the talk section my rationale about it still stands "I am moving the nicotine and alcohol sentence to the "soft" section. Like the other soft drugs, it is very hard to overdose on either alcohol or nicotine. --ProdigySportsman 21:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth[edit]

Was this edit[1] sincere? I only ask because it seems to me to be a joke. If it was sincere it will need a citation. I see you are a very helpful editor, this is not meant as any sort of discouragement. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sections[edit]

I had already created a section to discuss this issue, your ignoring that and creating a new section struck me as hostile. We need to keep the discussion in one section, SqueakBox 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, SqueakBox 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking pipes rename[edit]

Before renaming or moving a Wikipedia article, as you did with Smoking pipe, please use the article's Talk page to discuss whether or not the Wikipedia community agrees with the move; otherwise this may trigger edit wars, break article links, or cause other problems. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia has guidelines to help identify how an article should be named; if you are unsure whether or not to perform a page move, please consult Wikipedia:Requested moves for further help. Thanks! Frotz661 06:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, seeking advice, second opinion etc.[edit]

Hi its me from the sex tourism laws proposal. Is there any private messaging service or chat on this system. Been having a little trouble with an editor or at least im looking for a second opinion about something... Dont really know anyone on here well (other than the one I seem to be offside with) Regards, and bye for now and I will look forward to catching up. Thanks hope you can help. Anyway some quid pro quo - help me out and I will definately get that article started besides I need a sponsor or the other party might come in and reek havock with reverts on me methinks) is there any kind of editor/admin ranking system around here too. Thanks again, guess I will wait to here from you regards again, Mattjs 20:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Least Developed Countries[edit]

You may keep the article as it is even if it is misleading, have a great day. --FateClub 00:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)--FateClub 00:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish an edit war. I not a fighting person. I moved NA to above Oceania in order to be alphabetical (E as in Eurasia before ...oh, I need to move Africa.) Why not put continents with no countries, such as SA? Proposal 1. Oceania is not a continent though I have seen references to Australia/Oceania. This is OK to you? Proposal 2. Wikipedia is not God. However, the wikipedia article for Eurasia says it's a LANDMASS and refers to it as a combination of 2 traditional continents, Europe and Asia. From a geological standpoint, I agree with you. I think it might even have to do with racism or at least diverse cultures that made Europe and Asia separate continents. How about using the term Europe/Asia instead?VK35 22:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both sound okay to me. Zachorious 15:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive libertarianism[edit]

I've left a question for you on that templates talk page. --Northmeister 03:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis[edit]

I understand that you are pro-weed and all, but I tried to keep the wording that I changed simple. No need to say "in some users" when the heading says "side effects may include" this and that. And by the way, no need to notice you before I edit an article, because it doesn't belong to you. Cheers, #29^(talk) 07:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-ups question[edit]

"Using pop-ups" is what I did. Click on the link in the edit summary and you'll see what I mean. It's just a tool that helps me revert changes faster.

I reverted it because it is highly POV-pushing. As Nummer29 said above, there is no need to re-emphasize "in some users" when it says "side effects may include." As far as lack of concentration being a rare side effect, I don't know what the heck you are talking about... that's not what happened when I went to college, hehehe....

As it is, none of the side-effects there (even the ones you didn't add) are sourced, so it's sort of a crappy article. I could revert you again, but is the article really any better the way it was? Not really. It's all a bunch of speculation and original research. We can all talk about our own experiences, but that's bullshit when it comes to an encyclopedia article. --Jaysweet 19:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Beret casualties[edit]

Hi , according to www.icasualties.org there are 44 Green Beret KIA in Afghanistan and 24 KIA in Iraq till now , this include only active duty army i.e.(1,2,5,7,10 SF Groups) excluding Army national guard i.e. (19,20 SF Groups ) . --Jonybond 15:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Zachorious 17:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perennial Philosphy[edit]

Zacorious, perhaps you'd be interested in addressing my question about ambiguity at the discussion page for Perennial Philiosophy? I'm not sure if the section after mine was intended as an answer. You just strike me as both interested, and comprehensible on my wavelength, so maybe you can help me out. The irony that my question may itself be perennial in or the other senses, or both or neither, is kinda funny but not by itself satisfying :-) Pete St.John (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Giuliani[edit]

Please do not remove Rudy Giuliani from charts, templates or galleries and/or state that he has withdrawn because that has not yet happened. Thank you for your cooperation.--S TX 04:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never removed Giuliani. Zachorious (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I made a mistake.--S TX 04:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mazatec[edit]

Your instance that the Mazatecs use peyote is very un-helpful. R. Gordon Wasson and others traveled to Huautla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huautla,_Oaxaca and studied the Mazatecs. Wasson devoted his life to this endeavor. You have never been to Oaxaca and you refuse to read anything in the huge body of scientific literature about this subject (none of which supports your claim that the Mazatecs used peyote). You won't even read the wiki articles about R. Gordon Wasson, Maria Sabina or the one about peyote that clearly states that it doesn't grow anywhere near Oaxaca. You won't be confused with the facts but you think that your complete speculation that has absolutely no basis in reality is good enough to be included in an on-line encyclopedia. I see that your main avocation is engaging in edit wars in subjects of which you are ignorant and that you are an expert in taking drugs. Getting high and engaging in wild speculations is no substitute for study and drug-induced speculations have no place in a knowlege-based endeavor like wikipedia. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]

You don't seem to realize that the burden of proof is on you ;). Find a citation....otherwise don't waste my time! Zachorious (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Gordon_Wasson

Forte, Robert. Entheogens and the Future of Religion. San Francisco: Council on Spiritual Practices, 1997.
Furst, Peter T. Flesh of the Gods: The Ritual Use of Hallucinogens. 1972.
Riedlinger, Thomas J. The Sacred Mushroom Seeker: Essays for R. Gordon Wasson. Portland: Dioscorides Press, 1990.
Wasson, R. Gordon, Stella Kramrisch, Jonathan Ott, and Carl A. P. Ruck. Persephone's Quest: Entheogens and the Origins of Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
Wasson, R. Gordon. The Last Meal of the Buddha. Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 102, No. 4. (Oct. - Dec., 1982). p 591-603.
Wasson, R. Gordon. The Wondrous Mushroom: Mycolatry in Mesoamerica. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
Wasson, R. Gordon, et al. The Road to Eleusis: Unveiling the Secret of the Mysteries. New York: Harcourt, 1978.
Wasson, R. Gordon. Maria Sabina and Her Mazatec Mushroom Velada. New York: Harcourt, 1976.
Wasson, R. Gordon. A Review of Carlos Castaneda's "Tales of Power." Economic Botany. vol. 28(3):245-246, 1974.
Wasson, R. Gordon. A Review of Carlos Castaneda's "Journey to Ixtlan: The Lessons of Don Juan." Economic Botany. vol. 27(1):151-152, 1973.
Wasson, R. Gordon. A Review of Carlos Castaneda's "A Separate Reality: Further Conversations with Don Juan." Economic Botany. vol. 26(1):98-99. 1972.
Wasson, R. Gordon. A Review of Carlos Castaneda's "The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge." Economic Botany. vol. 23(2):197. 1969.
Wasson, R. Gordon. Soma: Divine Mushroom of Immortality. 1968.
Wasson, Veronica, and R. Gordon Wasson. Mushrooms, Russia and History. 1957.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Sabina

Álvaro Estrada, María Sabina: her Life and Chants (ISBN 0-915520-33-8)
Álvaro Estrada, Vida de María Sabina: la sabia de los hongos (ISBN 968-23-0513-6)
Benjamin Feinberg, "The Devil's Book of Culture: History, Mushrooms, and Caves in Southern Mexico" (ISBN 0-292-70190-X)
Enrique Gonzáles, Conversaciones con María Sabina y Otros Curanderos (ISBN 968-20-0158-7)
Rita Guerrero, "¿Qué nombre le ponemos?", Chapter 3 of the History of Santa Sabina
Michael J. Harner, ed. "Hallucinogens and Shamanism" (ISBN 0-19-501649-1)
Jerome Rothenberg, ed. "María Sabina: Selections" (ISBN 0-520-23953-9)
Eric Zolov, Refried Elvis: The Rise of the Mexican Counterculture (ISBN 0-520-21514-1)
John W. Allen, María Sabina: Saint Mother of the Sacred Mushrooms (ISBN 0-9631518-9-4)
John W. Allen and Jochen Gartz: Teonanácatl: A Bibliography of Entheogenic Mushrooms (ISBN 1-58214-099-5)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huautla,_Oaxaca

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyote

Senor Cuete (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]

Those articles don't say peyote isn't there ;). Zachorious (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You won't read any of them so how would you know? I guess you are conceding that there is no evidence for your position except for your delusions. The burden of proof is actually on you. You have to prove that they do use peyote. One can't prove a negative. The famous example of this is the question: "When did you stop beating your wife?" How would you answer it? One must prove a fact for it to be positive. Since you can't provide any citations that the Mazatecs know anything about Peyote, This proves I am right. Therefore you could stop vandalizing the Mazatec article. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]

You are quite rude and mistaken, those books don't say it isn't used and I have read many of those sources. Mushroms are just more dominate there that's all. But books do say peyote is found down south. Zachorious (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009[edit]

Thank you for your recent contributions to the Yamcha article. While the Wikipedia community appreciates your efforts to increase the amount of information on the site, we cannot accept sources that appear to be the original work of the editor. If the material you added can be attributed to a reliable source, you may add it back if you cite it. This increases the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole and aids in the verifiability of the article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midwakh[edit]

Please do not insert statements into articles based on your interpretation of other people's blurry photographs. Thank you. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, this pic originally appeared in the cannabis smoking and the cannabis pipe article and is clearly noted that it has cannabis it. Just ask the author of the pic. Zachorious (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Space in Girl article (talkback)[edit]

Hello, Zachorious. You have new messages at Joshua Issac's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hard and soft drugs[edit]

My edits were not vandalism. Unfortunately, the page contains unsourced, apparently original research. If you read my comments on the talk page, you'll see that I've sourced references to definitions of 'hard' and 'soft' drugs in the academic literature and press, and they do not match the listings in the article. In particular, defining alcohol, nicotine and caffeine as anything other than 'soft' or even out of this dichotomy definitely needs good backing, and LSD as a soft drug contradicts usual categories. Without sources and citations, the article has little value, and I feel it risks spreading POV disinformation. Please find references generally to show that it isn't original research, and specifically to back up where I've added a fact tag; don't just revert. Fences and windows (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see WP:OWN Fences and windows (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LSD contradicts usual categories? What categories are you referring to? Government classifications that lump every psychedelic in class A or schedule 1? Sorry but that isn't good enough to use. LSD is very similar to psilocybin and carry the same risks and such. Same with DMT, which btw is produced in the body. Most psychedelics carry the same risks. So there is no need to keep such tags there. Also there is no need to remove the venn diagram as it already had a citation needed marker, so I'll restore it. I'll leave your other edits up as they are ok, but don't just make a gazillion edits without seeking a consensus first ;). Thank you. Zachorious (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The government classifications in this case is the origin of the terms, or do you have sources implying that distinguishing between hard and soft drugs is older then the dutch law? Steinberger (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your Midwakh pic[edit]

Sorry for the late reply. No, the midwakh pictures contained arabic tobacco known as 'dokha'. For purposes of cannabis smoking, I believe the filter on the pipe shown would not be ideal. Zer0fighta (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Psychonaut[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Psychonaut. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychonaut (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completion of puberty[edit]

Hello, Zachorious. I tweaked your edits regarding this topic in relation to the Puberty and Adolescence articles. This source does say that at these ages girls have usually completed puberty; since the age range includes 17, it is not off to list 15-17 for ages in which girls are usually done with puberty. This source also says that girls are usually done by age 17; it does not mean that it takes 17 years for most girls, rather that a girl simply should be done by 17. As for boys completing puberty by ages 17-18, I have found that to mostly be true in my research, and that 15-17 link does mention boys are close to completing puberty during that time frame (not that they are done). I have never come across a reliable source that says both boys and girls are usually done with puberty by age 16. Most sources always list boys having completed puberty a little after girls, which makes sense, since they usually start puberty a little after girls. That said, I did leave in "16" for the usual puberty completion age for boys, since you provided a source for that; I simply altered it to 16-18 (instead of 17-18, like it was before your edits, or 16-17, like it was after your edits). Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeine removal from Consciousness[edit]

I wasn't being biased removing the caffeine from the Consciousness article. Wikipedia requires that any material added have references and this did not. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You fool, none of that line is referenced remove the whole paragraph then if your going to talk bs like this. Caffeine requires a citation but thc doesn't? Stop playing games. Zachorious (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the NPOV guidelines. Either remove the whole paragraph or do nothing at all, because that entire paragraph is un-sourced, and to date you have not been able to find good reason why thc should be on the list while caffeine shouldn't, when the thc claim is unsourced. Zachorious

Yes you are correct that the entire paragraph could and maybe should be removed. If some editor did remove the entire paragraph, I wouldn't oppose it. However, I'm also not wrong in removing just caffeine as according to Wikipedia:Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The reason I haven't removed the entire paragraph is that I'm currently trying to find sources for the entire article and I don't wish to remove anything until I've looked for sources. The editor who originally added the paragraph, years ago, may have also had a source at the time and THC was no the list but caffeine was not.BashBrannigan (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Just for being you

Denisrodman88 (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]