From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, MoBeBa!
Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for
your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out
Getting Help below, ask me on [[User talk:
SandyGeorgia (
Talk ) 03:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)|my talk page]], or place
{{ helpme }} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to
sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking
if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the
edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!
SandyGeorgia (
Talk )
03:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous
Please review WP:MEDRS for the kinds of sourcing required in a medical article, and WP:OWN#Featured articles for advice about discussing your edits on the article's talk page . Also, you might want to review WP:3RR to make sure you don't continue to add content without discussing on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk ) 03:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]
Please take a look at the edits I made on the LIst of Conspiracy Theories article to see if you agree with the edit or do not agree with the edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dougweller has removed the edit saying (please stop - you've added it right after "and include the following:" which makes no sense, but the main thing is that you are arguing about the subject and that's inappropriate here, this is just a list of conspiracy theories, not a place to argue) and (who says they add support? this is not good content and probably block evasion) User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BullRangifer undid the edit saying Block evading socks aren't allowed to edit in any manner. This isn't good content.) and Block evading socks aren't allowed to edit in any manner, even if it's good content. The comments are here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&action=history More info on the subject is on my channel here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.120.47.10 The start of all this was to correct a untruth here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Water_fluoridation Where the article says have found no association with adverse effects. The 2 sources I cited that challenge that are http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571#toc and http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Mar/RL33280.pdf Please post on my channel if you agree and are in consensus with the proposed edit or not in consensus. The proposed edit is this. The 2006 National Research Council's report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards and the 2008 CRS Report for Congress Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues did find associations to adverse health effects with fluoride in drinking water.[54] [55] This can be seen here in the water fluoridation section.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=404710257 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.120.47.10 (talk ) 23:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]
User:Freedom5000 , you're not allowed to edit here at all. This current IP needs to be blocked for a long time as the previous block didn't help. -- Brangifer (talk ) 23:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC) [ reply ]