User talk:Dr CareBear

Welcome!

Hello, Dr CareBear, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! David Ruben ^Talk 10:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given your username and initial contributions, you may like to join editors interested in medical topics at: WP:CLINMED and its talk page, our Doctor's Mess, of WT:CLINMED

Also the pharmacology project is at WP:PHARM.

I would point out that this is an encylopaedia with a knowledgebase across the articles, so each drug need not duplicate information summarised and discussed else where. Hence each tetracycline antibiotic need not set out in full the indications and side-effects unless notably different from tetracycline antibiotics as a whole. Likewise each neuroleptic article need not repeat the list of side effects, if it is already noted shares those of the group :-) David Ruben ^Talk 10:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome. I expect Wikipedia to be a great asset to researchers on the Internet. Hopefully a lot of professionals as well as students will get involved in this immense undertaking of Wikipedia.

There is a lot of room for new articles to be added to the encyclopedia as well as more details to be added to the articles. I would like to see more articles on biochemistry. Many biological substances synthesized in the body have no articles for them in Wikipedia. Someone needs to recruit biochemists to produce articles. As and example there is no article on the biochemical substance of Putrecine.

Perhaps someone should make an article on the subject of side effects for Phenothiazines for instance so the side effects can be removed from the articles entirely and placed on a separate page so that the reader who wants to know the side effects can quickly jump to a special article entitled: “Side Effects of Phenothiazines”. But I have not yet learned to create a new article yet. I am just getting started. I am a busy man but I did enjoy my Wikipedia experince. I would like to do this more when I have more time. Dr CareBear 11:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Having looked at some of the edits you've made to phenothiazine articles, might I suggest the following: verifiability and sourcing are vital on Wikipedia. Akathisia is a very real side effect which undoubtedly leads some people to stop the drug. What is needed is a source detailing, say, the incidence of akathisia, its impact on quality of life, the number of people who discontinue neuroleptics because of it, etc. Just writing that a phenothiazine is a "highly toxic drug" or that a side effect is "agonizing", without a source, may be true (or at least a valid opinion), but on Wikipedia these things need to be sourced. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. MastCell ^Talk 02:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have suggestions for such a source but are not sure how to cite it, let me know - I can help. MastCell ^Talk 02:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia and I do not know how to use certain features of Wikipedia. I do not know how to add a reverence yet. Can you explain?

Dr CareBear 02:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reference may easily be added in footnote format by placing it between a <ref> tag and a </ref> tag, and adding the following section near the bottom of the article, before categories and stub templates:

==References==
<references/>

Many articles already have such sections, which may also be called "Notes" or "Footnotes".

In order to cite MEDLINE-indexed periodicals, you may use this tool. Simply input the article's PMID and it will output a complete reference which may be pasted into the article. You may find out more about referencing in Wikipedia by following these links. Also, please always bear in mind that sources must be reliable in order to be accepted in Wikipedia. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haloperidol - Adverse Effects

Hi there. Wouldn't you rather create this article in your userspace? This would give you the chance to expand it and add references before making it available in the encyclopedia itself. Also, please stop prefixing akathisia with "agonizing"—as I explained [1], anyone who clicks on the akathisia link will find out, in that article, how incredibly unpleasant it is. Have a look at the pimozide article—it explains clearly and impartially about akathisia and other side effects. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the akathisia editing on pimozide.

Dr CareBear 12:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism accusations

redacted. Was a new user then. Still am. See history if anyone is interested.

Sockpuppetry case

lenghthy material on Sockpuppetry redacted. If anyone is interested see the History because it is still there.

Sources

User:Dr CareBear, please provide verifiable sources for your edits, as some are factually utterly incorrect. Here you insert a paragraph about the side-effects of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. However, phenothiazines not only are not acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, but have anticholinergic properties rather than pro-cholinergic properties. It would be easier to keep utterly incorrect information out of the article if you could properly source your edits. This is not a new problem and you're skirting an indefinite block for disruption at the moment. MastCell ^Talk 03:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For my reply see your talk page. For anyone who is scrutinizing what I have added and wants to agree with MastCell you should see his Talk page for how I provided proof that MastCell is the one that is mistaken not I and how he is being disruptive and hostile to new Wikipedia contributers. I am not "POV-pushing" which means adding my own personal views. I am providing factual information to the article of phenothiazine to increase its informative value and extend the knowledge base of Wikipedia. MastCell is the one that is in error not I. MastCell does not know the difference between anticholonerigic blocking and anticholonergic which is typical of mental health professionals with little biochemistry training. See MastCell's Talk page for an abstract from PubMed that Phenothiazine Insecticides do inhibit acetylcholinesterase. That is what anticholonergic blocking is. This is not the same as blocking acetylcholine receptors which is anticholoneric. MastCell is confused and I have provided proof on his talk page that Phenothiazine Insecticides do inhibit acetylcholinesterase and that MastCell's statements are incorrect. He is confused.

Dr CareBear 05:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Structures of drugs

Hi there. I'm certainly not that educated in the chemistry of drugs, but I'll try to help you. Let's take these one at a time:

The main functional group in risperidone is the simple aromatic ring benzisoxazole. In the structure of risperidone, benzisoxazole is the group with the fluorine attached to it. As far as I know, risperidone was developed with the structures of lenperone and benperidol, two butyrophenones ("typical" antipsychotics), as a basis.[2]
Clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine and zotepine have similar structures, based on a seven-membered heterocycle with two other rings bound to it:
- Clozapine is a dibenzodiazepine: a diazepine ring (follow the link for more) with two benzene rings fused to it. One of the benzene rings also has a chlorine atom bound.
- In olanzapine, the ring is a thienobenzodiazepine: diazepine with a benzene fused to one side and a thiophene bound to the other. You can find out more on the structure of olanzapine, and how it is important to olanzapine's actions, here.
- Quetiapine is a dibenzothiazepine. The ring is similar to the one in clozapine, but one of the nitrogens is replaced with a sulfur atom.
- Zotepine is a dibenzothiepin. The ring is also similar to that of clozapine, including the presence of chlorine, but instead of two nitrogen atoms in the center ring, there is one sulfur atom.

I hope that was helpful. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information and taking the time to reply. Dr CareBear 11:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opiates and akasthisia

Thanks for the info. Of course! I should have realsied the neurological link but brains were never my speciality (I'm an RGN). I'm looking further into this and if anything interesting comes along I'll let you know. Plutonium27 14:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you found the info helful. If you also find anything new please let me know. Dr CareBear 11:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber Talk

Can you look at the language I have used with some of the sentences i've left - this is what I mean about encyclopedic tone. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are an expert at writing in "encyclopedic tone" then by all means rephrase rather then simply removing. Dr CareBear 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re suicide attempts - this is why I left the phrase in. In general we like to have cites for controversial facts, saying anything can make someone suicidal is controversial. Yes, antidepressants may make people agitated but a helluva lot of people find them very helpful or even life-saving. Yes it is important to mention but to mention poeple leaping out of cars is unnecessary.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding akithisia - it is much more common that agitation that makes people run away from the ER is a result of psychosis rather than side effects in those who are psychotic - it is mostly seen in people who aren't acutely psychotic or who have no history of psychosis.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have very strong and emotional feelings about psychatric medications and are trying to contribute and that's great (and you're certainly communicating alot more than when you first started), just need to be a bit more measured in opinions. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship of akathisia with suicidality and depersonalization among patients with schizophrenia.

Cem Atbasoglu E, Schultz SK, Andreasen NC.

Department of Psychiatry, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey. atbasoglu@superonline.com

An association of suicidality and depersonalization with akathisia has been reported, but it is not clear whether these phenomena are specific to akathisia or are nonspecific manifestations of distress. The authors used the Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (Ham-D) to examine the relationships between suicidality, depersonalization, dysphoria, and akathisia in 68 patients with schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder. Akathisia was associated with higher scores on the Ham-D ratings of suicidality, depersonalization, and agitation. In a logistic regression model, depressive mood and subjective awareness of akathisia appeared to be the only predictors of suicidality and depersonalization, respectively. These findings support the association between akathisia and both suicidality and depersonalization. However, these symptoms appear to be nonspecific responses to accompanying depressive mood and the subjective awareness of the akathisia syndrome, respectively.

PMID: 11514639 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Dr CareBear 11:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding akathisia and suicidality, please take a look at the list of references that I left on the akathisia talk page. A careful reading of the above abstract, which you cited, suggests that depressive mood, not akathisia, is associated with suicidality ("Depressive mood and subjective awareness of akathisia appeared to be the only predictors of suicidality and depersonalization, respectively.") The akathisia association is with depersonalization, not suicidality.

In general, there are a number of case reports and case series of suicide associated with akathisia (see the list on the akathisia talk page above), but the largest review I could find (PMID 15358982) did not find an association between akathisia and suicide. Admittedly, this question has still not been comprehensively studied. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what needs to be done is determining how many people these drugs make suicidal not how many actually attempt suicide. I am quite certain that all people taking these drugs feel worse then they did previously to taking them which is why so many patients refuse to take them. Also I am quite certain that many patients pretend to take them and put the drugs in the toilet just so they can avoid the ramifications of admitting they are not taking them. If it can be said that dopamine agonists which are street drugs make you "high" (euphoric) then it can equily be said that dopamine antagonists (antipsychotic drugs) will make you feel "low" (dysphoric). If it can be said that street drugs of abuse make a person "feel good" then it can equilly be said that antipsychotic make a person feel very bad like life is not worth living. Please read this article if you want to understand why dopamine antagonists which are antipsychotic drugs make people feel like "sh*t" and that life is not worth living when on them. Reward Deficiency Syndrom Dr CareBear 02:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr Carebear - finding references is good but the next issue is what assumptions to make of them. Rating scales are not a terribly good substitute for a clinical history taken by a clinician. What a patient may call 'akathisia' may be a range of things from agitation from undermedicated psychosis or post-psychotic depression as well as a true akathisia from medication. Thus the link between side effects and suicidality is unclear. furthermore the paper you cite states exactly this in the fist sentence above - so to quote a link from this paper is incorrect.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that exposure to insecticides like Organophosphates and Carbomates and Phenothiazine will cause a person to be "agitated". I am quite certain that people who have acute insecticide exposure are treated with antipsychotics and I know that people are not tested for insecticide exposure.

Richard M. Restak MD described the symptoms of exposure to insecticides such as these as follows:

In the section on neurotransmitters we mentioned another class of neurotoxins, inhibitors of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, which breaks down the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Many pesticides are designed to attack the nervous system of insects by altering the breakdown of acetylcholine. Not surprisingly, these agents also act on our brains and nervous systems to produce symptoms like weakness, difficulty in breathing, visual disturbances, and in some cases explosive violence. With low rates of exposure the problems are more subtle, a prevailing sense of tension, disturbed sleep, restlessness, chronic anxiety, and nervousness when standing in lines. On page 121 of "Brainscapes" by Richard M. Restak, MD published by NY Herperion (c) 1995.

How many people are there who have been exposed to insecticides who have been pushed into the psychiatric system I wonder? Dr CareBear 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very big jump of logic (and incorrect) to call these medications insecticides. Of course they have side effects but can be life saving as well.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to the Phenothiazines and it is a fact that Phenothiazine is an insecticide. DuPont introduced it as an insecticide in 1935. Dr CareBear 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting the group phenothiazines confused with the compound of the same name. Chlorpromazine is a phenothiazine but not the phenothiazine. Many many more people have been helped by these drugs than made worse and there is plenty of scientific evidence for that. Again, I repeat that they are not without side effects and your contributions, with editing, are helpfulcheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phenothiazine dirivative drugs are manufactured from the compound phenothiazine. The only difference is that some have an aliphatic compound attached to them and others have a piperidine or piperizine attached to the phenothiazine compound. Phenothiazine compound kills insects by disabling the acetylcholinesterase enzyme. Phenothiazine dirivative drugs also do the same thing which is why it is standard procedure to administer the anticholonergic drug Cogentin with these drugs because of there being two much acetylcholine in the nervous system because of the phenothiazine drugs so the Cogentine blocks acetylcholine receptors. Piperidine is the same substance that causes the burning inflamation from fire ant venum and piperizine is a dirivative of piperidine. That is why these drugs "set your nerves on fire". They do not call them neuroleptics for nothing. neuroleptic meaning to seize your nerves. These drugs do attack your nerves and not calm them. These drugs cause great suffering. The administerization of the drugs is medical torture and I have much experience with psychiatric patients. These drugs are not saving anybodies lives but rather causing great suffering in those who recieve them. Newer atypical antipsychotics are also including the nerve inflaming piperazine and piperidine functional groups as part of their molecular structure. Dr CareBear 02:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case against antipsychotic drugs: a 50-year record of doing more harm than good.

Whitaker R.

robert.b.whitaker@verizon.net

Although the standard of care in developed countries is to maintain schizophrenia patients on neuroleptics, this practice is not supported by the 50-year research record for the drugs. A critical review reveals that this paradigm of care worsens long-term outcomes, at least in the aggregate, and that 40% or more of all schizophrenia patients would fare better if they were not so medicated. Evidence-based care would require the selective use of antipsychotics, based on two principles: (a). no immediate neuroleptisation of first-episode patients; (b). every patient stabilized on neuroleptics should be given an opportunity to gradually withdraw from them. This model would dramatically increase recovery rates and decrease the percentage of patients who become chronically ill.

Publication Types: Review

PMID: 14728997 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Dr CareBear 02:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem - everyone does get a chance to come off after one episode - that is standard practice. I can see this discussion is going nowhere as we both have our fixed world views. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That abstract called for no immediate drugging of first episode patients and the chance to go off these drugs for even multiple episodes after being "stabilized". Dr CareBear 04:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of tags

Hi - regarding your mass removal of tags from ECA stack, please don't remove tags without addressing the reason they were placed. The article requires much better sourcing. If you can provide sources, that would be great (I've been meaning to work on it but have been busy elsewhere). Just removing all the tags, without addressing the fact that much of the information in the article is unsourced, isn't helpful and under some circumstances could even be considered vandalism. As you know, verifiability is key, and most of these articles need more reliable sources and less unsourced assertion. MastCell ^Talk 16:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wandered into the article from thermogenics. I did not know it was you who put those massive amounts of citation needed tags into the article and the messages at the top that the article is in dispute. My removing of these tags was not a personal attack on you because I did not know it was you who added the tags because I did not look into the history of who did what. I just saw that an effort was underway to dismantle an article that I was interested in and I wanted to defend the article to prevent it from being dismantled peice by peice. Like I said I did not know that it was you who put the tags into this article and me removing them was not a personal attack on you. I was once skeptical like you concerning the ECA stack and I researched this subject and discovered much more on thermogenics then just the ECA stack. I educated myself on the biochemical processes that underlie thermogenesis. I tried the ECA Stack and I can tesify that it does work. It does artificially boost your metabolism and raise body tempurature. Much of the information in all the articles are the result of people adding their own knowledge on a subject from material that they have read long ago and no longer remember from which sources they gained this knowledge. If every article was dismantled for lack of references Wikipedia would be a very shallow place to get educated on any subject. Like I said I was not making a personal attack on you just defending the article from what appeared to be an effort to dismantle it and reduce it to nothingness. See my recent addition to the thermogenics article. Under the circumstances that I removed the tags it is not vandalism because you seem to be the only one who is contesting the contents of the article. Dr CareBear 03:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schizophrenia

Your addition of the references on akathisia on schizophrenia does not have the support of other editors. Please do not keep on reinserting the same content against consensus. I'd also be careful about the three-revert rule, which may lead to blocking for fixed periods of time. JFW | T@lk 03:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phenothiazine

CareBear I explain that to you. The confusion is between Phenothiazine (itself) and derivatives of Phenothiazine. Phenothiazine derivatives used as antipsychotics etc. have a side chain dangling from the N atom, like N-CH2-CH2-CH2-NHCH3, (the left N belongs to the Phenothiazine) and maybe a chlorine atom hanging on one of the benzene rings. There are many variants of that, examples Phenergan or Chlorpromazine. Look at these and theyr structure formula, then you see the side chain dangling from the N atom, compare that to Phenothiazine itself, then you see what I say. They have anticholinergic, antiadrenergic, antidopaminergic and antihistaminic effects. The parent compound Phenothiazine does not have that. This is also what your ref says if they talk about phenothiazine structure compounds and antiadrenergic. Read exactly. Exactly, this are compounds which incorporate or include as a structure element the Phenothiazine structure, but they also include other parts in their structure, like the side chain or the chlorine atom. Normally, when talking about PhenothiazineS doctors mean Phenothiazine structure compounds and are not talking about Phenothiazine itself, which is a different animal, and used if animals have worms. Hope this helps. The insecticides are also different compounds, which have nothing to do with the antipsychotic or the Phenothiazine itself. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piperidine

Please don't revert edits once more without discussion or explanation. I have now added to the piperidine article. The piperidine structure is not only found in neuroleptics and the alkaloid of fireants, but also in the deadly Coniine, which causes paralysis and was used to put Socrates to death. Also in several psychochemical nerve gases, which cause schizophrenia like symptoms. Do you still think the chemical compound is a simple mixture? Then look at the piperidine article and follow the links. The point is: The mother compounds properties do not carry over to the derivatives. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, your contributions are in, but correctly phrased for chemists. Don't edit again without having checked. I help to correctly phrase or correct misconceptions. Hands off, is not for fingerpoken and middlegrabben. Is easy snappenspringen and poppencorken. Leave to rubbernecken. 70.137.149.127 (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:FILAM.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:FILAM.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Multiracial. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:FILAM.jpg

This is a beautiful child, but do we need to have large copies of it in six different articles? Would it be possible to either reshoot it or crop it to minimize the background and the distracting snake? I'm sure a better photo could be taken of the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Altering the size of the uploaded photo is not part of the release agreement. Thumbnails in articles are reducible by editors however. Thank you Will Beback for your kind words (blessings) for my son. Also that is the best picture of my child at that age and he is very happy in the picture because he gets to hold the snake. Dr CareBear (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Melting pot

There are many race supremacists in the world especially white supremacists. On the melting pot article the picture of the half filipino half white American was in an appropriate location within the text right next to the section discussing the past prohibition of whites mixing with filipinos. And placed there at a size that would not shock people with peculiar sensitivities. Dr CareBear (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate you implying that my comment was somehow racially based; I have absolutely no opinion on race mixing or anything of that nature. My concern is merely for the articles that you continue to insist placing your picture in. As noted above by Will Beback, you continue to place your image in unnecessary articles at an exceedingly large size. The image, along with the text you usually place into articles, is against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, especially noting that WP:MOSIMAGES states that images should not have specified image sizes at all. GlassCobra 03:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture in no way shape or form violated Nuetral Point of View standards. The caption under the picture made no promotion for or against admixture but only displayed a child of mix race for the edification of people's enlightenment. Dr CareBear (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Please stop adding inappropriate images to Wikipedia, as you did to Melting pot. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. Why lie when anyone can visit my talk page? Uncle Milty (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to look at the message I left on your talk page. Lie about what? I do not know what you are talking about. Why are you accusing me of lying? Lying about what? The picture I added to the melting pot article was appropriate so you are the one who is lying about something. Dr CareBear (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you are done vandalizing my talk page, I'll reply. --Uncle Milty (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not vandalize your talk page I am waiting for your reply to a serious inquiry. Dr CareBear (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Uncle Milty (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Uncle Milty, you will be blocked for vandalism. Uncle Milty (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

others please refer to Uncle Milty (talk) page here to see what the fuss is about. And it was my own comments I edited to correct typos etc. Dr CareBear (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fuss is about Melting pot and your repeated vandalization of that page with a photograph not related to the article itself. --Uncle Milty (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over your (talk) page Uncle Milty I understand you now. You defended poorly sourced material making claims about racism toward whites perpetrated by non-white races in the article called Racism in the United States. It would appear that your motivation to remove the picture from the melting pot article is hatred of other races other then white and that the picture simply offends you because it is a picture of a multiracial child. Dr CareBear (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved contents of Uncle Milty's talk page here.

On the contary the picture supports the text in everyway. The whole article of melting pot is about blending of white races and the prohibition of asians and white people mixing as well as others. The picture provides and example for people to see what the fuss was all about. Using unsupported bellowing like that you could claim any picture was unencyclopedic. Dr CareBear (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STOP adding that picture and quote from the article to my talk page. --Uncle Milty (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Article "Melting Pot" you removed a picture that fit nicely with the body of text it was next to. What are your objections to it being there? Below is the picture along with text.

File:FILAM.jpg

Bisaya Filipino American Mixed Boy. Dad white American Mother Filipino
See: Amerasians.

- - Only those emigrants from outside of Europe who were deemed as white (such as Armenians, Syrians, Lebanese and others from the Middle East) were fully accepted as citizens. Asian immigrants of various other ethnic groups such as Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and Filipinos were ruled to be non-white and banned from marrying whites in several states where existing anti-miscegenation laws were expanded to include them. After a number of conflicting rulings in American courts, Punjabi people and others from British India were also judged to be non-whites (see Racial classification of Indian Americans). In the late 19th and early 20th century, the immigration of Asians was banned or severely restricted, through laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act.

What is the reason you do not want this picture beside this text in the melting pot article that you removed? Dr CareBear (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move your threat of blocking that you placed on my talk page here. I have been a editor of Wikipedia for over a year.

January 2009 Please stop adding inappropriate images to Wikipedia, as you did to Melting pot. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. Why lie when anyone can visit my talk page? Uncle Milty (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to look at the message I left on your talk page which is above. Lie about what? I do not know what you are talking about. Why are you accusing me of lying? Lying about what? The picture I added to the melting pot article was appropriate so you are the one who is lying about something. Dr CareBear (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have falsely accused me of vandalizing an article in the history of melting pot. Dr CareBear (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image adds nothing encyclopedic to the article. --Uncle Milty (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contary the picture supports the text in everyway. The whole article of melting pot is about blending of white races and the prohibition of asians and white people mixing as well as others. The picture provides and example for people to see what the fuss was all about. Using unsupported bellowing like that you could claim any picture was unencyclopedic. Dr CareBear (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STOP adding that picture and quote from the article to my talk page. --Uncle Milty (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I want others who view your talk page to see that the picture does fit and support the text and adds to the article. Dr CareBear (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dr CareBear (2nd nomination) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Uncle Milty (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. My wife shares this same computer and created her own account called FILJOY which she used only once. She spends most of her time on www.youtube.com viewing videos from the Philippines as she is a Filipina and posting comments there. Uncle Milty seems to be racially motivated in his false charges of vandalism he has made against me. Because I forgot to log on he found my wife's account she created. I have been editing Wikipedia for over a year and I know Sockpuppetry is a violation and I reframe from it. The account in question called FILJOY was my wife. P.S. You can call me and my wife at <redacted> USA where we are currently. Dr CareBear (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Please see my reply to Uncle Milty (talk).[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Abuse of multiple accounts. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dr CareBear (2nd nomination). EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agta

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agta (mythical creature). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

test

Ungo

January 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Ungo. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ungo

The article Ungo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eeekster (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. By all means write a proper article about tye ungo. But do not clutter the article with irrelevant dictionary definitions which are probably copyright violations. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 04:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, Anyway Ungo was pronounced Ung-o. Dr CareBear (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Thank you for your willingness to contribute to Wikipedia, but unfortunately it does not appear that many of your contributions are very constructive. As far as I can tell, most of your edits have been quickly undone by other editors. When this happens, please do not just add them back in. If you do not understand why your edits are being removed, please discuss them with the editors. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Hemp, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Fresheye

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Fresheye requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback re: User making personal attacks

Hello, Dr CareBear. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 21:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

April 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempting to harass other users. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dr CareBear (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It seems IAN THOMSON can make personal attacks on me and post external links for doing so as he did on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Samuel but if I say something equivilent to what he did then I get heat. IAN THOMSON'S statement was removed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah but it was not removed form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Samuel Please look into this because IAN THOMSON is just as guilty of making personal ataachs. In fact he encouraged the personal attach on himself by making a personal attack himself. Please remove this block because I have been a Wikieditor for years. I promise I will ignore IAN THOMSON and seek help from others should he make another personal attack on me. Dr CareBear (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 18:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Banned

With this edit, in enacting a consensus of the community reached at the Administrator's Noticeboard, which may be viewed at [3], I hereby inform you that you are banned from editing the English Wikipedia with any account or IP address. Appeals may be made to the community, or to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please use e-mail if you wish to pursue an appeal, as per standard practice, your access to this talk page has been revoked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]