Wikidrips

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

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))

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

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)

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))

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)

[snip]. Now I know about the sock policy and won't violate it. Nonetheless I hope that this has been a educational opportunity [snip] (Wikidrips (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC))

If you carry on soapboxing whilst blocked I will lock you out of this talk page. Please only use it to talk about the block. As an aside, I don't believe you didn't know sockpuppetry wasn't allowed here, given you were blocked endlessly for it. Hence, please don't bore us with your claims about that. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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))

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))

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)

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))

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)

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))

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)

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))

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

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:

{{unblock|this is why I should be unblocked}}

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)

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))

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))

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)

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

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)

This really belongs in the Wikidrip's investigation of the fluoride scandal while on block section but this area will suffice. Most notably the first comment the editor Smokefoot left on the top of Zoxoxm's talk page while other correspondence on the page is of significance as well. Zxoxm's talk page follows http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zxoxm The point for posting this material is the context of Smokefoot's comment where Smokefoot specifically brings up a conspiracy and a paycheck in the Crime against humanity section. Not shortly after that User Zxoxm was blocked. Now perhaps their is no conspiracy on Wikipedia to ban the pro fluoride editors in which someone is collecting a paycheck for their efforts to conspire against them. But as indicated by the chat on the Wiki Administrators board on the subject one could assume that the views are biased at best if not dauntingly in contempt of the anti fluoride group. For instance the reported false positive that rouxsd was reported to make but editor soap said was not a false positive. Here is the link to that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports#Pigbusiness (Wikidrips (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC))

At the start of this section a reference is made to PoV as I am new and learning the Wikipedia lingo what is PoV? I thought that was point of view (pov) but is it?(Wikidrips (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC))

Since the Dr. Strangelove movie quotes were brought up on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents board about this situation I would like to interject some little known facts about the Dr. Strangelove movie as related to the JFK murder in Dallas, Texas. Dr. Strangelove's release in the United States was delayed due to the assassination of President Kennedy. The Dr. Strangelove movie reflects this in an nearly undetectable dud job. After going through all the contents of the survival kits, on the B52 delivering Atomic bombs to Russia, Major Kong originally said " a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Dallas with all this stuff." Vegas was dubbed in after JFK was murdered. The movie also originally had a pie fight at the end of the movie that was removed due to the JKF murder. During the deleted pie fight scene, President Muffley was hit in the face with a pie and fell down then General Turgidson said "Gentlemen! Our gallant young president has just been struck down in his prime!" The pie fight scene was cut for from the movie in the United States due to it's eerie similarity to real events. The Dr. Strangelove movie was made before JFK was murdered and was postponed about a year after JFK was killed to play in the U.S. . (Wikidrips (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC))

The Dr. Strangelove movie is available on Youtube to watch if you search for Dr Strangelove part 1(Wikidrips (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC))

Wikidrips is not editing Wikipedia but Wikidrips is organizing a campaign to get other individuals that are not blocked to do the Wikipedia William Marcus article which is not as far as I am aware a violation of anything. Wikidrips noticed that the Notable WhistleBlowers section has been removed from the Whistleblowers article on Wikipedia by editor DKqwerty. Wikidrips will start a campaign to have that reversed. Wikidrips would like to have a equal opportunity to edit Wikipedia without undue censorship. (Wikidrips (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC))

{{Wiki Vanish= Vanish Wikidrips from existence}} {{Wiki Destroy= Please Destroy WikiDrips's account from existence}} Please note that if Wikidrips's request to be vanished is properly done then destroying Wikidrips's account may not be possible as Wikidrips would have been vanished from existence. Wikidrips's thinks that their is no point to editing Wikioedia anymore and is requesting that Wikidrips is be destroyed. Wikidrips will not be back to ever request any unblock request ever. (Wikidrips (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

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))

The Talk page on the Water Fluoridation article Section ( 4 This article should be about water fluoridation is and not cavities.)

LInk is here to the section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water_fluoridation

Undue emphasis about cavities is currently happening in the Water Fluoridation article according to editor Orange Mike and I agree.

The CDC has said in 1999 and 2001 that fluorides significant benefit is topical on the surface of the tooth and not systemic or internally ingested as happens with water fluoridation. Other studies and reports have also indicated that fluoride's benefit is topical and not systemic. (Wikidrips (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC))

In light of the above information Wikidrips thinks that the Water Fluoridation article should focus on what water fluoridation is more and not so much about cavities.(Wikidrips (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)) Wikidrips would also like to make known that the CDC has never approved fluoride for systemic use or ingestion as fluoride is currently used in water fluoridation.

Noble Prize winners who have opposed or expressed reservations about fluoridation

1) Adolf Butenandt (Chemistry, 1939) 
 2) Arvid Carlsson (Medicine, 2000) 
3) Hans von Euler-Chelpin (Chemistry, 1929).
 4) Walter Rudolf Hess (Medicine, 1949)
5) Corneille Jean-François Heymans (Medicine, 1938)
6) Sir Cyril Norman Hinshelwood (Chemistry, 1956)
7) Joshua Lederberg (Medicine, 1958) 
8) William P. Murphy (Medicine, 1934)
 9) Giulio Natta (1963 Nobel Prize in Chemistry)
 10) Sir Robert Robinson (Chemistry, 1947)
 11) Nikolai Semenov (Chemistry, 1956)
 12) James B. Sumner (Chemistry, 1946)
 13) Hugo Theorell (Medicine, 1955)
 14) Artturi Virtanen (Chemistry, 1945)

sources

(Wikidrips (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

U.S. EPA and EPA Union opposition to water fluoridation

1)William Marcus, PhD, Former chief toxicologist of the EPA Water Division, Boyds, MD 2) Dr. Robert Carton, former President of the EPA Headquarters Union in Washington D.C 3)Dr. William Hirzy, former EPA employee and former Vice President of the EPA Union Chapter 280

==Sources==

(Wikidrips (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

Lead and fluoridated drinking water

Fluoride increases the lead content of water. (Wikidrips (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC))

==Sources==

WikiLeaks Documents Release CRS-RL33280 http://fluoridealert.org/re/wikileaks.crs.2008.report.pdf

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to make constructive edits to Wikipedia now. Please Unblock

Decline reason:

No. This is an account created to evade a block on another account, and we do not permit that, ever. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:31, 19 December 2010 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

No it is not a a account to evade a block on another account. You all are just crazy if you think that.

Decline reason:

Hello, User:Freedom5000. If you want to be unblocked, you will need to make your request on your original account, not here. Unfortunately, you've said so many things that are false that it will be difficult to get any reviewing admin to believe anything you say- sockpuppeting users are inherently untrustworthy, and so are rarely unblocked. One thing I've seen work in the past is to show your good faith by respecting your block and not editing at all or creating any accounts for a significant period of time- one week for each account or ip you've used is a good rule of thumb- and then request unblocking on your original talk page, being specific about your plans for following the rules in the future. No guarantees, of course, but that's the only thing I've seen work for people in your position. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:29, 19 December 2010 (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.

Did not see the Unblock request so cleared space for the request. {{unblock}} {{Wiki Vanish}} Wikidrips (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not care what you all do really because you are not handling things right. All you do is block and accuse and block some more. Whatever. You just do not like the information topic I am posting articles to so you just block me and accuse me. So If that is how you want to handle your business.}}Wikidrips (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikidrips is requesting to be unblocked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikidrips {{unblock | Wikidrips is requesting to be unblocked. Wikidrips has been blocked for some time now and would like to edit again. Please unblock Wikidrips.}}

Freedom5000, you can only ask for an unblock through WP:BASC. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)