WikiShares
I've reverted your changes to Lipton and Lipton Institute of Tea. Apart from the fact that Wikipedia isn't a noticeboard for controversial issues, you added all of that information with only PETA as a reference. You can't use straight-from-the-horse's-mouth sources as references for this sort of thing, you need independent coverage from a trusted source. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Warning edit
Adding stuff like "Active editors of the Water Fluoridation page at Wikipedia, decided it was not an acceptable study to be cited[1]" is not appropriate as it is WP:OR. Next time you do it you may lose your ability to edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
March 2014 edit
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Talkback edit
Message added 03:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Piguy101 (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
One revert. edit
Not the case friend, not the case. No such three reversions. I only "undid" once as it stated I could! I was careful to re ad content that was not discussed. Further the content that was removed most notably, the recent Harvard Study was wrongly blocked. It was a credible source, and passed the Verifiability Test. It wasn't up to you or other editors to analyze or find if favor of it .. any more than any editors have analyzed the old studies. If credible and verifiable its admissible. Plus it's most recent by a decade.
We simply have to cite sources that are credible and verifiable. Not hold court on them and decide which studies we believe in.
WikiShares (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger One ping only 14:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
WikiShares (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have stated specifically on an Admin page that I would not be doing further edits of the article before this block was instituted and have not https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=601652880 - I found the page /topic hostile and had only done one undo, and was stated as doing more NOT THE CASE. After each contribution was clearly being changed by a group mostly Dr Jim, I realized it was best to bring this to the talk pages on the topic, and to the ADMIN notice board when I thought I saw the ignoring of the Wiki Verifiability Policy.. The wholesale revisions of my contributions undid all including simple changes that did not only include the study Dr Jim stated was not ok'd by consensus (a recent noted Harvard study. I felt the process of complete revisions was destructive to being open to all editors, and discouraged people off this topic. I ceased all contributions on this as of YESTERDAY and ONLY sought feedback and consensus on the talk page though I found it frustrating. At no point did any editor assist when I was followed for making my case, to a simple article on the Zoli Agency where I stated a simple fact known about the agency giving its shares to its employees etc That was reverted by an admin where I opened the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water_fluoridation This is the talk page I have worked on to discuss and have not made edits because the group did not want the changes. Quite acceptable and reasonable. Further I stated that I would not do further edits, because in the Admin notice board, I was called names, fringe antivaccine etc.. and followed to have my model agency comment undone.. I felt it extremely likely that something like this would occur if any opinions were not agreed on so stated as such I would not be editing the page! lol Nice try.. but I knew better and did not continue to edit this highly protected page So please revert. If for any reason I am not unblocked and the editors on this page stay silent, I merely ask all to read to watch this page carefully and read the talk pages and see the dated material in there and new credible studies TRULY censored. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute thus far. WikiShares (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your editing history shows a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
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.