User talk:Wikidrips

You won't get you want by badgering and socking, F5000. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whistleblower

I noticed in the whistleblower article that William Marcus had been deleted so I decided to investigate. Upon learning of the true notability that William Marcus has as a whistleblower I restored the information.

William Marcus http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=860&Itemid=108

The article William Marcus was restored as well but seems to have been removed again by Sandstein.

Why are these valid contributions being deleted by vandals is a concern that should be investigated. Will you restore them please.

Thank You Wikidrips(Wikidrips (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

What is the indefinite block for block evasion for by the way? (Wikidrips (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

They're being deleted mostly because, as you know, you're evading a slew of blocks. Truth is, you're only doing harm to the outlook and sourcing you'd like to see. Begone. See also WP:Standard offer. If a few months go by with zero socking and you can then show you're willing to follow the WP:5 pillars of this website, you'll be allowed back one way or another, but not now. Please go away. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect I did not start the problems that you are accusing me of an frankly I do not give a damn. If you all want to disgrace Wikipedia and the availability of educational information that I am providing by using your editing powers to delete information about William Marcus then you ought to seriously consider ending your Wikipedia editing because your not improving the site withholding information. Censorship right out of 1984. What is up with that? (Wikidrips (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

WP:Systemic bias and flawed WP:Sources, mostly. We do what we can. You can't handle it this way. You've mucked up the pitch for yourself so thoroughly, there is no way you'll be allowed back by any admin, myself among them, for some time. If you sock, you'll be blocked. If you create articles, they'll be deleted. Leave it to others who know how the site works, who are here to build encyclopedia articles and don't mind following the policies. Some core articles here grow as to neutrality and weight like the Pitch drop experiment. You're not helping yourself or anyone else by doing this. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is William Marcu's page at the National Whistleblowers Center. http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=860&Itemid=108 I did not know what socking was until you pointed that out the Wikipedia sock page today. Now I know about the sock policy and won't violate it. Nonetheless I hope that this has been a educational opportunity that all whom read this learn from and inform others about because we are talking about the United States Drinking water here and that is important.(Wikidrips (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Orwellian Censorship

Why the Big Brother style censorship?

I don't think Eric Blair would have gotten himself blocked for socking here. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to talk to you a bit more about this, but edits like these will cut this chat very short. Moreover, I'm beginning to think maybe you're here to thwart the PoVs you claim as your own. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will behave if you drop the charges for block evasion and restore my account as I do like the name Wikidrips. I will follow all the rules I promise.(Wikidrips (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

They aren't charges, this is only a website. We know you've been socking so I can't say you haven't. By the way, have you even read WP:5 pillars? Given the background of all your accounts and the edits you've made, how do we know you're here for anything other than to stir things up in unhelpful ways? These aren't leading questions (yes, I also like the name Wikidrips, but it does hint at a PoV, so anyone editing under that name would need to be even more careful as to the neutrality policies here). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the WP:5 pillars now that you brought that to my attention and I'll follow them. The nature of the topic, fluoride, I entertain on Wikipedia is one of the most controversial and is met with the most intense resistance by both brainwashed people who think they are correct and intentional deceit. Pro fluoridation people promote fluoride with a zeal that is unimaginable to the ordinary person and that makes it difficult to do the edits even when good sources are used even ones from the CDC itself. To avoid this could you upgrade my account so it is one with your stature so I can edit more freely? (Wikidrips (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The Wikidrips is from the Wikileaks but I do not know if that was what you meant by the POV or not. Of course if you do decide to upgrade my account to a account like yours I will the most respectful editor. (Wikidrips (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Water fluoridation controversy already covers that and it's often edited (which you already know, since you've socked there, too). Truth be told, your behaviour on this website is more or less spot on what a way over-zealous fluoride advocate (or worse) might do to try making any editor with critical outlooks on fluoride additives look like a kook. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is good that you as well as some other editors at Wikipedia now know about fluoride as a result of this situation. Get a fluoride free toothpaste because the enamel on your teeth is supposed to be flexible like bone and not brittle which is what fluoride does. Brittle teeth is why people chip teeth. Fluoride is also bad for the gums. You can find lots of fluoride free toothpastes online and even baking soda or homemade toothpaste videos are on Youtube. Everything that I have done is to raise awareness about fluoride and if you were doing that you too might find yourself in the same position but having your special editing powers would be helpful to the cause. If you don't mind bestowing me with some of those editing perks if not full administrative editing power or executive administrating editing powers. Perhaps you could help to build a coalition of Wikipedia editors to join in the anti fluoridation group. (Wikidrips (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, there are meaningful worries about fluoride. However, there's a big lag time as to published sources and when they show up in an encyclopedia and meantime, Wikipedia is not an "awareness raising" website. Building "coalitions" of PoV editors isn't allowed, although they're all over the website, it's how folks tend to behave, whatever outlook they're flogging. As for adminship, that's only granted by the community through something called WP:RFA.

For now, all I can tell you is, stay away for awhile, don't sock (if you do, you won't get what you want and might even be community banned). If you want to help build an encyclopedia here, learn about the policies then quietly come back in 3-6 months and edit within the policies. Folks who like article-writing for its own sake often learn how to get along and edit neutrally within the policies, even when they have PoVs on topics (most do). Folks who are only keen on flogging their own outlook no matter what... mostly don't last here (as I hope you're learning).

By the way, if you keep socking, along with a likely community ban, which would be very hard to overcome later, your whole IP range could be blocked. You can't sock or talk your way through this. Please save yourself and everyone else some time and heed what I've been telling you. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not expecting to talk my way through this if your insinuating removing the block right now this very instant by saying talk your way through this.(Wikidrips (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

No worries, that's not what I was saying. I was only trying to let you know, straightforwardly, you must wait now, you've stirred up too much fuss and fussle and there's no getting by that. Socking is deeply frowned upon here. It's about trust. It'll settle down though, if you show you have enough of a grip (and heed) to stay away for awhile and maybe your outlook on editing here will shift in the meantime. You know what I mean. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the Socking page and read part of it. That is what the socking activity is like a puppet. Interesting. In light of this new information is it possible to restore the account now because you know if I miss behave you can block me then?(Wikidrips (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Wait a week, don't sock and ask me again, I'll see it here. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you start copy pasting stuff like this onto this talk page, I'll lock it. You can make an ublock request by posting this:

I'll post links to your sockpuppetry and an admin will most likely decline to unblock you. You were not blocked for your PoV, you were blocked for block evasion. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not copy paste anything here and the following was all typed in letter by letter. I wanted you to see this comment on this site and this is typed in not a copy paste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jpgordon It is a comment at the bottom of the talk page about the deletion of the William Marcus article and they refer to you by saying I also left this note for another editor Glen something. If you think it is time to do a unblock request I will but I'm sure they want me to be banned for a little longer. I think the block still says indefinite which is forever.(Wikidrips (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I do not know how to get rid of the box thing that is around the text here.(Wikidrips (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Don't indent when you type and there'll be no box (I fixed it for you). As for the copy pasting, I'd seen it all already. No need to put it here. Show you know how to not sock for a week and then we'll talk (though you can ask questions here in the meantime). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 2-7-1996 Judment ruling in favor of William Marcus in which he won his job back at EPA from which he was fired for informing the EPA about the cancer causing findings of a fluoride cancer bioassay that EPA tried to lie and cover up. William just got back pay and no other monetary compensation. http://www.kkc.com/files/92tsc05c.htm This is the second one 12-15-1998 where William Marcus sued EPA again after he went back to work and they did not treat him right and he was awarded $100,000.00 in compensatory damages for them not treating him right.http://www.kkc.com/files/96caa03a.htm (Wikidrips (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)) This is the internal memo that William Marcus sent out in the U.S. EPA Office of Water about the findings of the fluoride cancer bioassay that caused all the stir. http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/ntp/marcus-memo.html[reply]

If you hadn't been socking the article wouldn't have been deleted, that's the beginning and the end of the tale. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the William Marcus article

Please restore the William Marcus article while I am blocked as it is a good article and it is doubtful that anyone will do that article. Perhaps someone will have the chance to learn about him. Thank you (Wikidrips (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]