User talk:Paitalona

May 2012

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Coca. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 20:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Coca tea, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 11:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Coca tea, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Please discuss your proposed changes ON THE ARTICLE'S TALK PAGE and don't add original research. That the text is difficult to read is fixable, but that it doesn't belong in the article is not. bonadea contributions talk 15:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the talk page,,and I have tried to resolve this,,only to be threatened w/being blocked,,I have saved the emails,if u wish I would gladly send them to anyone interested in resolving this,,,and then getting the proper information out to the unites states public,,Also like I said,,,it stayed on wikipedia for over 2 month before it was wronglfully taken out.It really was just the exact laws in the u.s.a... governing this product,paitaI know the law's governing the united states of america,and I do know what censoring is.I highly doubt wikiperdia is for censoring the truth?U know they use to believe the world was flat,and then knowledge and research proved ,them wrong.Same apply's here.There is new research and laws that have exact numbers to them in the united states,,,,and your censoring those laws.Your abuseing your power as a editore for your own agenda,and I will continue to report you to wikipedias.A law is a law,,it is verufieable by simple looking up the exact statue,which I provided time and time again.There has been a steady propaganda compaign against cocoa in its traditional,legal form,and this ,bondea appears to be part of that campaign.I have stated exact laws,182.20 code of federal regulation and 1304.32 office of diversion code of federal regulation and u deleted those laws,why?It is proven by any drug test they do not test for any cocaine in any liquid base ,metabolite test,they do not test for the actual drug ever.That to is a know fact,they test for benzolecgonine,,u took that out,y?U took out the truth up benzoylecgonine that can asnd has been proven by demostration of simple putting a ,dip stick,,[pun intended] in a cold cup of tea,and it will turn positive with out consuming a drop of tea for benzoylecgnine.People own eys can see this,and you delete the truth again,why?People in the united states deserve the truth,so why do u keep censorring it?paita

It would be great if you could discuss the factual changes or additions you want to make to the article at Talk:Coca tea. Not many people are going to see your comments here on your user talk page, and discussions about a specific article are always best held at that article's talk page. Please be careful to comment only on content and not on other Wikipedia contributors. Some of your edits are close to violating Wikipedia's policy concerning personal attacks, which is very important to stick to. We always have to assume good faith on the part of other contributors. I'm only interested in improving Wikipedia, and I'm sure you are, too. It would also be very useful if you'd familiarise yourself with the policy on reliable sources and verifiability -- where one of the first sentences is that "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia". --bonadea contributions talk 12:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

Please keep the discussion about article content to the article's talk page. Please do not comment on other contributors, but on contributions. And please take a moment to read the information that has been provided to you about original research, sources and verifiability. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 11:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the material you were talking about was removed as original research, which is against Wikipedia's rules. If you'd like to help improve Wikipedia articles, it would be great if you could add more references to reliable sources. Check out WP:Referencing for beginners for more information. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Not only original research, but also not adhering to the neutral point of view policy, not to mention that the text included controversial assertions without sources and that it added factual errors (coca not being the source of cocaine, which is not only nonsense but goes against the sources). The edit in question is here, and it doesn't include a single word about "exact laws", so it's not quite clear what your feedback really refers to. --bonadea contributions talk 05:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this strait,exact law numbers in the u.s.a. is not acceptable?And it is obvious from your statement about coca being the source in your opinion of cocaine,u believe coca has cocaine then?U do know cocaine has got to be made?And who makes it?Humans,so again your showing the bias in your statement.We have just finished a 2 year legal battle on this very subject,I know the laws presented to the judge in the united states,Furthermore the fact that no single so-called drug test actually test for cocaine,they test for benzoylecgonine.Furthermore there is a complete disagreement to your opinion about cocaine.There are many including the whole contry of bolivia and several in the u.s.a. that believe coca is not cocaine,its coca.I have simple given the readers the tools to prove this with laws and demostration items themselves.We have spent 2 yesars researching this topic and hired chemists to prove this fact ,that the reagant used in this test for benzolecgonine are essential the same used in illicit cocaine production.Thus making the chemical dynamics thru the reagants to cause the matrixing to make benzoylecgonine with the reagants.Furthermore are research has been well documented by the world health organization that also concluded coca IS NOT cocaine,so who is NOT respecting a well documented difference in schools of thought then yours?Furthermore you cannot show me 1 chemical formula anywhere for the coca leaf in its whole form anywhere,because there is none.People in the u.s.a. have had to defend there very lives and livelyhood,over this right to drink a simple cup of tea.Men have been put in jail/brigg over your school of thought,so any information that can be 100 p[ercent verified by the laws and demostration item I mentioned that we used in our case to prevent any man or woman from sitting a brigg/jail cell unjustly because the laws of our country define de-cocainized as solvent free,u bet I am going to get it out to the public.Your censoring the truth,why?Your labeling things w/a vandelism because you dont like the truth.Last I checked the united states is not a dictorship,,Furthermore your comment about de-caffienated coffe implies you have to take something out,again ,error,,there is nothing wrong in coca in its natural form to take out,it would defy the law of decocainized,useing solvents, would not make it decocainized.As been pointed out in several article there are sveral types of coca.Being a farmer myself,there are genetically modified seeds that are used exactly for coca teas with a lower coca content,not cocaine content,coca.It appears from your unwillingness to see the truth thru scientific means and laws you wish to display to the public that coca has cocaine in it,when scientifically proven it does not.Furthermore the laws in the united states specifically state 1304.32 and 182.20 de-cocainized is solvent free and the alkaliod content is the determinate factor.Furthermore in these regulation it states ,'to the extend needed for flavoring,thus teas,all teas,, use there leaves as the flasvoring agent,that is written in our laws for the u.s.a.,why do you keep neglecting those laws,and labeling those laws as vandelism,I did not write those laws.The united states government did.I did not design the unit of measure of a nanogram.I did not make the reagants used in liquid base ,drug testing,,,so why do u say its vandelism or personal opinion when its not.Again this demostrates a abuse of the editing tools.paita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paitalona (talk • contribs)

You finished a 2 year legal battle huh? Care to disclose it?Curb Chain (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this user's edits

You posted to WQA, a malformed post, but one which is probably best discussed here because you do not seem to have notified any party and seem to be confused about what you are doing. Is there a language you prefer? I am capable of speaking in several languages to resolve simple problems of miscommunication. Your edits do not seem to constitute vandalism, but they do seem to have some problems in relaying of the information. It doesn't seem you have tried to resolve this with the user either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to discuss edits to an article on the talk page. Make your comments about the edits, not about people as you did here: Talk:Coca_tea#coco.2Fcoffee_plant. I also see that bonadea asked for sources for the text, but you did not reply. Please read up wikipedia policies related to reliable sources, find the sources and then reply to move the discussion further. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actual who-ever wrote care to discuss it,legal battle,,,we canot reviele the company involved,becasuse of all are evidence,they signed a settlement offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paitalona (talk • contribs)

Yes I did,I gave the verification in the article several times,paita If someone could simply tell me how to send a attachment here I would send you all,,, all the verification u want,100 percent of it,,paita This is my point exactly,how is the exact law number,where to look up said law not verifiable,,it is verifiable,,,just like deeming said law vandelism,,,I do not compute on a law being vandelism,nor do I agee w/viewing putting the exact law reference number and where to look up said law is not verifiable.Its kinda like sayen the sky is not verifiably blue,,but it is,,,,,,paita

He also posted a badly mangled entry to WP:DRN [1] (bottom of page.) I repaired it.[2] Alas, I suspect that this is one of those cases discussed in Wikipedia:Competence is required. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off,I did not realize you had the authority to deem something badly mangled,,w.t.h. is that,I thought personal attacks weren't allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paitalona (talk • contribs)

Not a personal attack, but a factual description of the text on the page. Just like your post here was badly mangled; it was entered into the middle of other posts, rendering all of them unintelligible. Rather than just reverting, I took the time to fix it. You're welcome. --bonadea contributions talk 13:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a case of selective hearing. He understands what verifibility is, but ignores the policy as applies to wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit of both. S/he's definitely not listening to some of the messages s/he has been getting (WP:NPA and "comment on content and not on contributors" springs to mind) but I also think that she genuinely doesn't understand the fact that you can't put syntheses in a Wikipedia article, nor is s/he quite getting the fact that US laws concerning drug tests for cocaine are irrelevant for the Coca tea article, even if they were sourced. --bonadea contributions talk 09:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paitalona, it is not possible to attach a file to a Wikipedia message, because it's not an email so it works a bit differently. You can post links to Wikipedia pages, including older versions of Wikipedia pages if you want to show what an article used to look like. The most recent version of Coca tea that you had edited looked like this: [3]. --bonadea contributions talk 09:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really,has anyone actually taken the time to read the edits because there are many,actual verify the information,,before they start using there personal opinion?The bottum line is wikipedia editore ,bondea does not want this verifiable 100 percent information out to the public,no bondea they do not test for any cocaine ever,u know this,,telll your theory to the sailor who lmost lost everything over your type of logic,or the trucker who almost lost it all over a cup of tea,or the nurse after serving 20 years.Let the public decide if its not important that they never actually test for cocaine,,,not you,,soo you really are censoring the truth and verifiasble information out to the public,,at least you adbmit your censoring.The laws are written in the u.s.a. to be followed,,not ignored,,and for some real strong reason this ,bondea does not want these laws available to the public,,,?why indeed,,,do you work for our government,,u guys want get persinal with me,,,U think its ok then that ,they tell you,u are being tested for something and there not really testing you for that at all??Thats corrupt,lieful,,and plan outright a lie that u believe should not be told the the millions of folks who very life depends on there jobs.But again that is not the point here,the point is knowledge,and knowledge should be verifiable and truthful ,,they do not test for cocaine.Your statement that is does matter there not actually testing for cocaine doesn't matter,is actually kinda scary.The truth is they test for benzoylecgonine,not cocaine,which can and will show up if you drink or handle coca products.The proof that it is the reagants that cause these positive was also 100 percent verifiable.I am really starting to suspect this ,bondea works for some government agency or chemistry that does not want this ,lie exsposed to the public,so simply censore any proof to the contrary.,Really a case of slective hearing,,look who is censoring truthful verifiable information,,not me,certianly some of wikipedia editores are. Censorship is agaist the law,,I have sent a email to a very important person at wikipedia for the simple fact,except for 2 folks,so far no-one has even read the articler,but has already come to a conclusion on it.Thats bias and abuse of editing power,talk about not listening.....,paita. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paitalona (talk • contribs)

I guess it is also o.k. to simple ignore a law.If ,bondea does thinks it important.Let the reader determine if a law isn't important.I though wikipedia was about getting truthful verifiable information out there .Yes ,every law I stated is 100 percent verifiable,,yet u edited it out,why indeed.I do understand the laws of the united states 1000 percent,again we have jut finished a legal battle w/this.Whether or not in your opinion is important,,it still remain a law,and shoiuld be avaiulable as knowledge governing this argicultutal product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paitalona (talk • contribs)

I rest my case, and withdraw from this discussion. Like most of us I have more productive things to do than repeat information for the benefit of people who either are not interested in listening to it, or are not capable of understanding it. --bonadea contributions talk 13:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also see: Wikipedia:Help desk#Definition of censorship.

The question is, what do we do about this user? She has only made four actual edits to Wikipedia, two of which were reverts. Other than that, his entire output has been unintelligible rants and forum shopping, all while being totally unresponsive to any answers she gets. This wastes a lot of people's time, but is it a blockable offense? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt: it's called disruptive editing.Curb Chain (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken. I am going to follow the advice of Wikipedia:Ignore all dramas and not respond to the ranting, especially on her own talk page. If she starts shotgunning the rants to other areas of Wikipedia, we can ask an admin to consider a block. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More WP:FORUMSHOPPING today, plus defiance when warned about personal attacks (see section below). --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow,,,because I respond w/ phrases like, the exact laws governing this argriculutual product,,thats disruptive editing.Its obvious you have not read any of my edits,,just gone off of what certian people have put here to read.This all started because I wrote exact laws and demostration item to show why these laws are in place,,and that got censored time and time again.Laws are laws,I don't write them,,,,I dont make the demostration item,,,,How about this,,actually verify the knowledge in the article before making rude and nasty and false statement about it.I thought again wikipedia was about getting verfiable and truthful knowledge out to the public,certainly not censoring it..paita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paitalona (talk • contribs)

My point exactly,for you all,, its turned into,the user,,,,when in reality according to wikipedia and what wikipedia preaches it should be about getting the proper knowledge out to the pubic,and I we quote,,are in courage to do so not about the user.It just proves the exact point i mentioned earlier,,its not about the truthful veriafiable knowledge to obviously some editores,it wether or not the ,like the user,,not the knowledge that should be available to the public.Well at least you actually put that out for the public to know,its no longer about knowledge,,it about if certain wikipedia editors ,like you..or ,like' the knowledge you put out,,not whether its truth and verifiable,,as long as its in there relm of those editores thinking,,wow,,,welcome to wikipedia,,I am sure J.Wales would be proud.paita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paitalona (talk • contribs)

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. - Purplewowies (talk) (How's my driving?) 20:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but its ok to attack the ,users,,for putting verifiable,new ,knowledge out there,hmmm sounds a little backwarsds,,paita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paitalona (talk • contribs)

Enough. Follow the rules or be kicked off of Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked repeatly,how to I have asked repeatly for objective non-bias arbitration and have only been threaten for putting factuaL,VERIFIABLE, information in a article,,,,again and again,,,and from the looks of it,there are others who have been censored also,.I have tried to keep it about the information in the article again and again,but it is obvious, threaten a ,user for putting verifiable,factual and recently discover'd information on a argriculural product,sold in the u.s.a. is the acceptable practice with these editores.All my edits were not deemed not vandlism by a objective source,one of your editores.paita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paitalona (talk • contribs)

First of all, the above has nothing to do with the issue of you engaging in personal attacks. Stop engaging in personal attacks or you will be kicked off of Wikipedia. Someone else breaking the rules does not mean that you can break the rules. Believing that you are right does not mean you can break the rules. Follow the rules or be kicked off of Wikipedia.

Second, you are wrong. Your edits are not verifiable. Saying it over and over does not make it true. Click here: Wikipedia:Verifiability for a detailed explanation of Wikipedia's verifiability rules.

Third, the reason you did not get a "objective non-biased arbitration" is because you did not follow the rules at the the top of the page where you filed your complaint. You really need to start following the rules. You can start by following the rule that is at the top of the page every time you make a comment: "...sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the so called voilation was vandilism and it has been determined it was Not vandilism as I knew it was not.I really could not understand how factual evidence was even conscidered vandlism,,I do not know what ,rules you are talken about.It states on the coca tea and coca pages you can edit and are encourage to do so.Since this is 1000 percent verifiable new knowledge and according to you good folks you can't edit articles w/that,how do we share the verfiable laws and knowledge surrounding this product?As it was pointed out by 1 editore ,the drug test on this prodict doesn't matter as 10 people so far in the united states thru 2009 to 2011 have lost everything over old wrong information and archaic information still out there on the product,I beg to differ its ,not important.So how do i edit these 2 articles again w/the same verifiable laws and referrences and just recently learn knowledge w/out it getting destroyed again,even though its factual and verifiable?paita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paitalona (talk • contribs)

Punctuation

Please take time to review your use of punctuation. As it is, your over use of commas and not putting a space following punctuation elements such as commas, full stops (periods), question marks and so on, makes it particularly difficult to read what you have written. While I appreciate that English might not be your first language, readers of the English language Wikipedia have a reasonable expectation that articles adhere to the norms of English writing. Astronaut (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Paitalona. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Coca tea truth and lies

I have read information about how addictive coca tea is and read information to the contrary. As it appears you will get much satisfaction if you contact Mr. David Wright, the Inventor of Triple Coca Tea which I wrote an article about yesterday. I read your comments and publication and it seems that you used much factual information that is not properly referenced and that is why they accused you of vandalism. I have been investigating Wright's research and work, he is in Caracas, Venezuela and very easy to contact via Facebook http://facebook.com/problemsmith Shamansfriend (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Hi,oh David Wright knows me.I contacted him about 1 year ago w/my research also,,been there done that.I do not know if this is legal on wikipedia,but here is my personal email.I would love to share all the knowledge we have learned and done w/someone who actualy knows the truth.cmwmkw@gmail.comPaitalona (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)paita[reply]