User talk:Drcaldev

Welcome!

Hello, Drcaldev, 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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Alex ^{(talk here)} 17:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soapbox

Please stop using Wikipedia as your own personal soapbox to try and put forward your POV on topics, and adding information that is irrelevant to other articles. If you want to have a rant against US drug controls this is not the place to do it. Please read WP:NOT.Ben W Bell talk 06:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding irrelevant soapbox nonsense to articles that are irrelevant to them, such as to Prohibition, such edits are considered vandalism and will be treated as such. Ben W Bell talk 06:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to add rubbish to the Prohibition article. Adding a globalise tag is irrelevant since the article specifically deals with alcohol prohibition all over the world and not just the United States. If you persist in this editing behaviour then your account be considered for a temporary editing block. See WP:Vandalism, WP:NOT and WP:Point. Ben W Bell talk 06:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition should be called Prohibition (Alcohol). Do you understand why?

Ok, you demonstrate you don´t understand that. So stop messing with things you are not familiar with. Your behavior is vandalic, is bullying, mine is not. I´m contributing in good faith to this project. You are just being destructive and prejudicial Drcaldev 08:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read No personal attacks. Ben W Bell talk 08:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, personal attacks is exactly what you´ve been doing since the beginning. I´m putting verifiable information on the wiki and you call it soapbox rants just because you are conservative or something and it hurts your POV. You are not assuming good faith, and seem to act on bad faith when terming vandalic contributions of mine that clearly are not. Stop doing that. I call for an arbitration in this matter. Drcaldev 08:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement by Ben W Bell "Please stop using Wikipedia as your own personal soapbox to try and put forward your POV on topics" is a personal attack which I responded to. I ask for banning Bell from doing vandalism on my contributions. He is obviously bullying because of his conservative militaristic POV, reflected in his contribs. Drcaldev 05:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a personal attack, and neither are Ben's edits either conservative or militaristic (and that accusation does verge on a personal attack). Your point of view has no place on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia. It is designed to contain verifiable facts, nothing more. You are entitled to your opinion, but if you wish to post it on the web then please do it on another website, not here. If you wish to take the matter to arbitration then feel free to do so, but I think you can guess what the outcome is likely to be. -- Necrothesp 09:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the information is already recognized as verifiable. Pharamacological dissent is not a Personal Point of View but an encyclopaedic fact if you want. Anyway, if you or some fellow keep saying alcohol is not a drug, what can one do when the damage seems done?

I consider Bell and those strange popping friends that defend him repeat word by word his arguments and use personal attacks while preaching against them, the vandalizers and destroyers. A Hawkypedia would give you more constructive things to do. Drcaldev 09:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One again, since you apparently do not understand, if you continue to make personal attacks or post blatant POV you will be blocked. And incidentally, I have never said that alcohol is not a drug. This is a pure straw man on your part. -- Necrothesp 10:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I´m in good faith and not a lie has been demonstrated in my assertions, neither they are soapbox ranting because they have been recognized as not original research. Therefore, the accussations of the group for prohibition of certain drugs were personal attacks, prejudicial, since the beginning. Wikipolicemen are allowed to provoke contributing users with personal attacks, while preaching against personal attacks??

If you read the Talk:Prohibition you will see how the principal argument against merging Prohibition with Prohibition (drugs) is stated by this User "oppose alcohol is a drug is a POV theme that distorts the encyclopedia. Rjensen 06:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)". Since administrators are known to bilocate (plurilocate) I assume this is a personal ranting of some people not wanting to accept their drug of choice is a "drug". Drcaldev 15:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Drug Trade

This is your last warning.
The next time you create an inappropriate page such as Legal Drug Trade, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Again, see WP:NPOV. NawlinWiki 16:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final personal attack warning

This is your final warning on personal attacks. Comments like the one you left on the Talk:Prohibition page.

Also a lot of people attacking my criticism tend to be military oriented. Since militias and police are known to profit (indirectly and directly) from the Prohibition/Promotion of Certain Drugs (as Reinarman and Levine state in his "Secret of Worldwide Drug Prohibition", and Chomsky in the links and quotes given, etc) this is seems a conflict of interest. 
 Drug war propaganda justifies a lot of budget to repressive forces. Representatives and sympathizers with these are usually brainwashed by their superiors and their training to defend to death this current profitable Prohibition, in which the budget to pay their salaries heavily depends.
So I understand the virulent oppossition to a global point of view on the matter. Wikipedia seems to be intervened by the military. Let´s hope civil society could make a Civilipedia to compete with these Armypedia...

Any more comments like this against other users will result in you being blocked from Wikipedia. Ben W Bell talk 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV and Agenda pushing edits

I ask you to stop with your extreme POV and agenda pushing edits to topics on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NPOV. Continued agenda pushing alterations to articles, such as the changes you made to Addiction, are not helpful and against the neutral POV that Wikipedia strives for. Wikipedia is not an outlet for your views and soapboxing, it is a neutral encyclopaedia. Ben W Bell talk 16:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV and Agenda pushing reverts

I disagree with you. You should read WP:NPOV. Neutrality arises from colective edition of the wikipedia. You are preventing that with an agenda of your own, and stubborn reverting. I disregard your vandalism on my edits. And, also, I would like to hear critique from a neutral and informed editor, but not again from you or your friends who for example say in Talk:Prohibition that alcohol is not a drug, and tell me POV because stating that it is.

That´s not serious, much less neutral from your team of stubborn reverters. Drcaldev 06:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what friends would you be talking about? Just because other editors appear and support my position doesn't mean I'm soliciting them to do so. In fact with regards to your accusing me of calling up friends (something I haven't done), you in fact tried to rally round support for one of your set of changes from users in the Wikipedia community and they ended up voting against you. Calling terms that you may personally disagree with ad hoc proganda terms, is not a neutral perspective. Changing "Addiction is a chronic disorder " to "Addiction is a pejorative, historical term to refer to dependence on substances (such as analgesics) or behaviors (such as gambling)," is not neutral. You very obviously have a deep seated interest in one side of the discussions on these terms and the criminalisation of certain drugs in the United States. If you have such deep seated interests in promoting one sides POV and feelings then you can find difficulty in writing about a topic neutrally. I have no strong opinions on this matter, I simply am fixing disruptive agenda and POV pushing edits to Wikipedia which many of your edits unfortunately are. Ben W Bell talk 07:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you would care to check, this edit you made and made a personal attack against me in the comments section[This], if you check the history I didn't alter that wording except to remove a section and link to a dead article. The incorrect wording you corrected was actually inserted by yourself when you created the article, and it wasn't spotted until now. This comment "repaired distortion to nonsense (i complain of vandalism) by Ben W Bell" constitutes a personal attack for something which you didn't bother to check up on. Ben W Bell talk 10:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Belarus POV

I see that you have been notified of our neutral point of view policy before, but I would like to point you to it as well. Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you have done to History of Belarus [1]. It is not up to wikipedia or to wikipedians to refer to something as a "propaganda cliche used against left wing governments by private owned enterprises lobbying for its appropiation of public owned state controlled resources." Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. A ecis ^{No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end} 19:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return

I notice you have returned to editing Wikipedia, welcome back. I also notice though with some dismay that you are editing in the same patterns as last time. Please take the time to read the discussions and consensus on the articles and Wikipedia policies before redirecting and moving articles to further your viewpoint. I hope you can stay and be a productive member of the team. Ben W Bell talk 13:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alteration of image reference

I'm sure it was an accident but this recent edit caused an image to no longer be displayed on an article. Please be careful with your edits and use the preview function before accepting an edit to ensure that your edits look correct on the screen. Ben W Bell talk 13:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Prohibitionism. Thank you. Please visit Wikipedia:Citing sources Uncle Milty (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Name of Costa Rica

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Name of Costa Rica. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Costa Rica. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Costa Rica - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Just a note that User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me has not edited since 2008 and likely will not see the message you left; it was also out of place, being on his userpage rather than the talk page. But I suggest it would be better to find someone else to help with your request. —Soap— 11:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names

Any reason you feel the need to continuously mention my old username when making edits? Seems a bit odd and comes across slightly as an attack. Just curious as to why you are doing so. There isn't a problem per say, but seems like you're trying to make some kind of point. Canterbury Tail talk 01:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn´t know you had "decontinued" one of your usernames. I just find oddity in having multiple user names and profiles. Also, I thought your other username was as old as Ben W Bell. Nice to meet you (all of you?) again. Is that reasonable? You are the administrator, you can tell. Or was just Ben W Bell the sysop/administrator? What is the point? Drcaldev (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not multiple users, all the same user, just with a username change. Always the same account. Canterbury Tail talk 18:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks comments, or personal defenses?

You have been warned previously, years ago, about making inappropriate comments in edit summaries like you did here. If you wish to make a formal complaint about some issue, then please use the correct forum, such as the Administrators noticeboard. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 18:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And where is the personal attack? I am exerting a personal DEFENSE there, against YOUR ATTACKS, on the first place. Who warns the warner? Remember also your past abundant personal attacks and warnings against good faith editions of mine, which are above, you accusing me of having "hidden agendas", etcetera. My "agendas" are just like yours. This a POV question and I will stop now arguing your provocations, since we are ideological counterparts and will not stop complaining about each other. Thank you for pointing me to "the correct forum", I didn´t know. By the way, where should I ask permission to refund the article pharmacological dissidence, since the user that deleted it also disappeared (or changed name) some years ago... yeah making a point there. Drcaldev (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks were made, you made a comment about personal attacks in the edit summaries. I would like to also point out that many editors have changed your edits over the years, and I have never made a personal attack against yourself yet you have personally attacked myself and other editors.

And that article was deleted as a result of a formal deletion discussion by the community, a discussion you took part in and proceeded again to make attacks against other users in. The deleting admin was just doing bureaucracy in doing the deletion and the removal was not the direct result of their actions. If you want the deletion overturned you'll need to go to WP:DRV to have the deletion reviewed. Canterbury Tail talk 21:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. Thank you for your prompt answer. It´s great you remember the episode. In my opinion the formality of the discussion resulted in "speedy deletion" -before that term formally existed- of an instructive article. I thought that was kind of an attack, then, I mean: they even suggested I was vandalizing on the basis that I called alcohol a drug... well, that´s history. I will due as you instruct. Peace! Drcaldev (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]