Jump to content

User talk:64.120.47.10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.120.47.10 (talk) at 06:32, 29 December 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Ipsock

December 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for adding spam links. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 15:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines.

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You IP hopped. Your spam this morning was on Special:Contributions/206.225.95.140. Courcelles 15:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of conspiracy theories, you may be blocked from editing. (Hohum @) 16:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I added 2 very very very good citations to the changes I did to the water fluoridation section in the List of conspiracy theories article. The citations I cited are a National Academies Press book Fluoride in Drinking Water A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards which can be read here http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571 and the Congressional Report RL33280 CRS Report for Congress Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues which can be read here http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Mar/RL33280.pdf Both of those sources are of a very high standard and both of those indicate adverse health effects of fluoride. The changes I made are legitimate and I was given a notice that I was doing disruptive editing and wrongly warned that if I continue to do vandalize Wikipedia with the following edit to the water fluoridation section part of the List of conspiracy theories article I will be blocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=404656279 The edit I made is in no way vandalism or disruptive. The edit I made is true and has very very good sources cited.

While I would not have characterised your edits as vandalism, you did misstate the sources. The sources you provide appear to be reliable, and appear to reliably contradict the statement you made: the first report summary, for example, recommended lowering fluoride levels in water but that water fluoridation should be practised. You changed the statement to state that most studies have indicated adverse health effects; I see little no indication that water fluoridation has adverse health effects in sufficiently low concentrations in the references you provided, and two sources don't establish "most", either. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that earlier edits to this page indicate you have a clear conflict of interest with fluoride-related topics and should avoid editing in this area. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The part of the article I added sources to and edited originally read this way. Although almost all major health and dental organizations support water fluoridation, or have found no association with adverse effects, efforts to introduce water fluoridation meet considerable opposition whenever it is proposed.[52] The part of the above statement that I was changing was the have found no association with adverse effects part which is no longer true because the National Academies Press Fluoride in Drinking Water A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards and the Congressional Report Order Code RL33280 CRS Report for Congress Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues did find associations with adverse effects. The Congressional Report here http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Mar/RL33280.pdf and the 2006 NRC Report Fluoride in Drinking Water here http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571 Both of these documents can be read online for free at the cited web sites. The changes I made were valid and true. In your response to me you bring up low concentrations which was not a part of my edit. You also said two sources do not establish most either and I can respond to that. The Congressional Report that I cited has 73 references and the 2006 NRC Report has quite a few references in it as well http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=354 . The sources I cited combined with the sources cited in the works they are a lot of sources that could be considered as most on this topic as they are essentially all the known notable sources of information on this topic available in the world today. In the statement Although most all major health and dental organizations support water fluoridation and have found associations with adverse effects[52] on the following page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=404656279 Perhaps a edit to the article that reads the Congressional Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water and the 2006 NRC report did find associations with adverse effects with fluoride in drinking water. These reports are the ones that all the major dental and health organizations get their information from. Thank you for saying that you would have not characterised my edits as vandalism. I see your point about missstating of sources and will do another edit in a way that does not misstate the sources.64.120.47.10 (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC) How would you advise the edit be made in a way that does not get me blocked? I do not just want to avoid the topic because of a conflict of interest as I have very very great sources.[reply]

Note to block-evading sock of User:Freedom5000 (userpage now tagged), just because this one of your numerous roving IPs' hour block ran out doesn't mean you're allowed to resume the activities that got you blocked in the first place. Rather this IP needs a much longer block. The only reason your IP isn't getting an indefinite block like your socks is because we don't do that to IPs. Block evasion is still wrong and anything you write or post here will be deleted. Your constant attacks are wasting lots of time for yourself and many editors here. We'd rather do something constructive.
See also:
User:Gwen Gale has been following this disruption and dealing with it. Note her comment here. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

helpme If you can 64.120.47.10 (talk) 19:39, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack redacted GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Freedom5000, give it up. Your edits will not succeed. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without minimizing the importance of the allegations as I do not want to be blocked I am a new user that just joined. You have the wrong editor here.64.120.47.10 (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC) {{helpme}} I am a new user and it would appear that the topic is a touchy one that some other editor has presumably edited about in a unwelcome fashion or is it just the fluoride topic in it's own right that is met with this opposition to editing on Wikipedia? The block was on December 20th for 12 hours and that has passed. Why am I being met with such opposition? I am aware of the fluoride scandal but this is over the top. You all are doing all this because 'It's likely more or less all the same person' See the BullRangifer comment above where it says see her comment here.[reply]

User:Freedom5000, we've heard all this from you before and you're not fooling anyone. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are still blocked, please email unblock-en-l@wikimedia.org and request unblock. Please do not further involve yourself in this issue otherwise. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of conspiracy theories. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. Please put warnings like reverting the 3 revert rule on this talk page so I can see them like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:64.120.47.10&action=history which was about this edit and should have been placed here when the edit was done http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&action=history 64.120.47.10 (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I added is sourced well and is legitimate for the article it is posted on. I see your point about adding the sentence in the wrong position in the paragraph and can fix that but will have to use the edit war dispute resolution thing to resolve this as you seem to be attempting to engage me in a edit war. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&action=history You say that the subject is inappropriate here which anyone can see that logic does not hold water. The subject is about fluoride in water being associated with adverse health effects which the 2 cited sources say that fluoride in water is associated with adverse health effects. The Subject matter it right on topic. You accuse me of arguing and I am not arguing at all rather this is a debate if even that but just fact as evidenced by the sources I cited which are outstandingly good sources to have supporting my edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&action=history

It really makes do difference what you do or say. You are a block evading sock of User:Freedom5000 and are not allowed to edit in any manner at Wikipedia. Period. If editors engage you in your arguments they are not following policy. They should just delete your edits and block you. Now leave this place. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I added is sourced well and is legitimate for the article it is posted on. I see your point about adding the sentence in the wrong position in the paragraph and can fix that but will have to use the edit war dispute resolution thing to resolve this as you seem to be attempting to engage me in a edit war. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&action=history You say that the subject is inappropriate here which anyone can see that logic does not hold water. The subject is about fluoride in water being associated with adverse health effects which the 2 cited sources say that fluoride in water is associated with adverse health effects. The Subject matter it right on topic. You accuse me of arguing and I am not arguing at all rather this is a debate if even that but just fact as evidenced by the sources I cited which are outstandingly good sources to have supporting my edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&action=history The following article says Although almost all major health and dental organizations support water fluoridation, or have found no association with adverse effects, efforts to introduce water fluoridation meet considerable opposition whenever it is proposed.[52] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories The nature of my edit is to cite information that says contrary to what is currently posted on the water fluoridation section of the List of conspiracy theories article. The United States National Research Council Fluoride in Drinking Water A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards is very credible if not the most credible source for this information. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571 From the About Us section at theNational Academies Press The National Academies Press (NAP) was created by the National Academies to publish the reports issued by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council, all operating under a charter granted by the Congress of the United States. The NAP publishes more than 200 books a year on a wide range of topics in science, engineering, and health, capturing the most authoritative views on important issues in science and health policy. The institutions represented by the NAP are unique in that they attract the nation's leading experts in every field to serve on their award-winning panels and committees. This is the right place for definitive information on everything from space science to animal nutrition. My other source is a Congressional Report for Congress Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues report #RL33280 which has it's own merit for obvious reasons. http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Mar/RL33280.pdf http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571#toc Both the cited sources can be read at the web sites provided. The edit war message said to reach a consensus among editors which is what I will do now. The consensus that I am seeking is that these 2 sources indicate adverse effects from fluoridated water and if that is true to cite that information on the water fluoridation section of the List of conspiracy theories article because now the article says that they have found no adverse effects and that is just not correct. Help:HELP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) {{helpme}} Seeking page protection to keep editors from removing articles from my talk page while I seek consensus among editors about the edit I made to the water fluoridation conspiracy list article. {{helpme}}Seeking page protection to keep editors from removing articles from my talk page while I seek consensus among editors about the edit I made to the water fluoridation section of the List of conspiracy theories article.

Please disregard claims that may arise that I am blocked in this effort to seek consensus with the proposed edit as I am not blocked.

It's just this IP of yours that isn't blocked yet. Many others of your sock usernames and IPs have already been blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for for canvassing other users and edit warring, regardless of whether you are an IP being used by a blocked user. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
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).

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

Request reason:

The edit war notification said to collaborate with users to reach a consensus among editors so I was seeking editors to collaborate with to reach a consensus. Once I was notified of the edit war situation I did not revert the edit as can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&action=history The last edit was done by user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dougweller I did change the wording of the edit once before that in response to a comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BullRangifer said but once I was informed of the edit war thing I started attempts to comply with the edit war message request. The canvassing other users was a side effect from me complying with the request to collaborate with others users in order to reach a consensus among editors. I was making an attempt to find editors that were unbiased that were not already attacking my position to collaborate with. Now that I know about the canvassing other users policy I will comply with that and the edit war policy. A warning on my page would do to make me aware of the policy first without the block. All of my edits regardless of worth have been reverted and most of the requests for other editors to collaborate were followed with messages from BullRangifer in an attempt to ruin my efforts. I even added the 2 sources that I have to the water fluoridation controversy article and user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yobol reverted that saying the reason for undoing the revision was it did not support the sentence which is just poppycock see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=404737243&oldid=404735952 All be told I made 1 edit to the List of conspiracy theories article and changed it t try and comply with requests which said that it was a good sourced comment. The rest of the story is evident. I do not think a block is warranted or will solve anything.64.120.47.10 (talk) 7:54 pm, Today (UTC−6)

Decline reason:

It's clear from your subsequent unblock request that you don't get it. KrakatoaKatie 03:39, 29 December 2010 (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.

Perhaps you could explain why this comment was made? There obviously is an issue with your editing behavior, and you have been told this many times. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can not explain why that comment was made.64.120.47.10 (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC) This part of the comment in green that says "It's likely more or less all the same person indicates that they do not know who it is and implies indifference in regard for who it is.[reply]

{{unblock|Wikipedia is a profound waste of time that brings new meaning to the word insipid. Even if unblocked the masses of ignorant editors would attack so whatever. I could not help but notice the sock investigations which are LOL. And this is not a unblock request. Wikipeida is a waste of time}}

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).

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

Request reason:

This is a real unblock request. Not any new information to add to this unblock request that was not in the first unblock request but thought that I would give it a try to see if this request it granted. Please unblock

Decline reason:

That's another automatic fail, admin-shopping is generally frowned upon, and I might add that if you find Wikipedia to be an insipid waste of time there seems little benefit to anyone, including yourself, in lifting this block prematurely. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2010 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I do not know why the template is not working. The full text of this unblock request is viewable in edit mode though.64.120.47.10 (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:64.120.47.10&oldid=404776021"