User talk:OrangeLisa

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

fluoridealert.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

If you're interested in contributing to articles related to fluoride and water purification, let me warn you that you'll be involving yourself in long-running disputes where knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is almost essential. To get started, you should at least skim WP:NPOVFAQ, WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. This essay is also very helpful for new editors. And, in case it might apply, look over WP:COI.

I strongly encourage new editors to start with topics that interest them that are not contentious. That way you'll have little or no pressure to learn Wikipedia policies and guidelines. No matter what you choose to do, welcome! Please don't hesitate to ask others for help as you learn your way around. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citations I just added to the Water Purification article that it was requesting with a citations needed indicator. What did you do to them. Did you move them to the Water Fluoridation article? You mentioned in the water purification article that you moved them to the water fluoridation article but I did not see them. You removed the entire sentence and the citations that I added- The Water Purification article had a citations request on the fluoride causing cancer statement and I added the citations. I was just double checking the list I made and it's gone now. Please let me know on my talk page before you do that and discuss it first. OrangeLisa (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move them to Talk:Water fluoridation --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving the citations that I made to the citation request in the Water Purification article. Let me know when you do that please. ON the Revision history of the Water Purification article that I originally did the citations for this time when you undid my citations you mention MERDS, POV, COATRACK violations -editor already notified. What is the purpose of you doing that? Are you accusing me of being in violation of something by saying that on the Revision history of hte water purification article? OrangeLisa (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)

Thanks for following up. I hope you'll take a look at the policies and guidelines I listed for you.

I've moved the sources and context to Talk:Water_fluoridation#Moved_from_Water_purification_for_discussion --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I identified some of the policies and guidelines that I feel are justification for removal of the material. As I already mentioned to you, this is part of a long-running dispute. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that "Fluoride is also a known carcinogen" doesn't belong in the Water purification article at all. I'm not sure where or if it belongs anywhere. I'm hoping that editors at Water fluoridation will be more familiar with the issues and respond quickly. --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fluoride cancer citations that I made are about fluoride causing cancer and that was the citation request that I was working on and why I compiled that list of citations for the water purification article. Water Fluoridation is the act of adding fluoride to the water producing fluoridated water and does not have anything to do with the cancer causing aspects of fluoride so perhaps fluoride is a better place for the article as the context of the cited studies are about the fluoride being distributed using the water supply. I was just responding to a citation request for information about fluoride causing cancer and have more media and studies that need to be added to the cited list as it is quite long. I can add them to the Water Fluoridation Talk page when that is moved. OrangeLisa (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for moving the list I made to the water fluoridation talk page. I will now do the double check of the citations I made and add the sources that I have not added to the list yet.OrangeLisa (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that we're moving forward. Yes, we're thinking alike. Fluoride poisoning is the best fit I've found so far. I don't have time to look further at the moment.

Another step in the process of adding the material will be finding sources that meet WP:MEDRS. In the best case, that means recent systematic reviews. --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at my channel and the comments on the talk page under the information you moved to it would seem that I am being set up to be silenced which is the normal thing to expect on this topic. I did not expect such a thing to happen on Wikipedia but evidently this is the case sadly. Censorship of this topic is paramount to certain groups and they seem to be running the show here. OrangeLisa (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC) So I am going to start adding more citations to the citation list that I made in response to a citation needed request on a fluoride statement on the Water Purification article. Seeing as I am walking on broken glass doing this I will be careful to follow all the Wikipedia community rules so I do not fall through the broken glass floor I'm walking on now. Please let me know if I can improve my editing of Wikipedia here on my talk page. OrangeLisa (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:SECONDARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

Pub Med Fluoride Publications

New Giemsa method for the differential staining of sister chromatids.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4138930 Fluoride Levels of Human Plasma and Breast Milk http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2612944/ Evaluation of a possible role for antimutagens, antiteratogens, and anticarcinogens in reducing environmental health hazards.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1475095/ Suppressive activity by fluoride on the induction of chromosome aberrations in human cells with alkylating agents in vitro.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4755532 Strong antimutagenic effects of fluoride on mutation induction by trenimon and I-phenyl-3,3-dimethyltriazene in Drosophila melanogaster.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4205056 Chloramphenicol, protein synthesis, and the metabolism of the carcinogen N-2-fluorenyldiacetamide in rats. Inhibition by chloramphenicol of carcinogen binding.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6022834 The effects of sodium fluoride and iodoacetamide on mutation induction by x-irradiation in mature spermatozoa of Drosophila.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5714160 Fluoride-induced thyroid dysfunction in rats: roles of dietary protein and calcium levelhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19318504Is fluoride-induced hyperthyroidism a cause of psychosis among East African immigrants to Scandinavia? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19201548 Synthesis and biological evaluation of [(18)F]tetrafluoroborate: a PET imaging agent for thyroid disease and reporter gene imaging of the sodium/iodide symporter.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20577737 [Osteofluorosis caused by excess use of toothpaste].http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16301964 Exposure to perfluorooctane sulfonate during pregnancy in rat and mouse. I: maternal and prenatal evaluations.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12773773 Epidemiologic assessment of worker serum perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) concentrations and medical surveillance examinations.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12661183 -- Regression analysis of cancer incidence rates and water fluoride in the U.S.A. based on IACR/IARC (WHO) data (1978-1992). International Agency for Research on Cancer.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11512573 Anatomical distribution and sclerotic activity of bone metastases from thyroid cancer assessed with F-18 sodium fluoride positron emission tomography.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11484897 Long-term Effects of Various Iodine and Fluorine Doses on the Thyroid and Fluorosis in Mice. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10330519 [Chronic effects of fluorides on the pituitary-thyroid system in industrial workers]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2612943 Synergistic action of iodine-deficiency and fluorine-intoxication on rat thyroid. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3148411 Skeletal fluorosis in humans: a review of recent progress in the understanding of the diseasehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3295994. [Effects of chronic fluorosis on the thyroid gland]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3938960 [Action of the body fluorine of healthy persons and thyroidopathy patients on the function of hypophyseal-thyroid the system].http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4088985 Fluoride reduces the expression of enamel proteins and cytokines in an ameloblast-derived cell line. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21167474 Influence of selenium and fluoride on blood antioxidant capacity of rats.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21146966 Chronic Fluoride Exposure Has a Role in Etiology of Coronary Artery Ectasia: Sialic Acid/Glycosaminoglycan Ratio.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21136197 Cities without Cavities: Democracy, Risk, and Public Health.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21132935 Fluoride content.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21109786 [Interactions between fluoride and milk?].http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21072913

MSG Pub Med Publications

Brain lesions, obesity, and other disturbances in mice treated with monosodium glutamate.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5778021

Citations

In general, more success with citations is to be had by relying textbooks and reviews in good journals. See WP:SECONDARY. A good start would be the main textbooks used by top dental schools. Usually a search of the curricula will reveal lists of recommended texts for courses. With these titles, one might be able to search content for relevant material.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The use of primary citations can be part of original researcch, which is fine if you're writing an article in a newspaper or on a website, but it's not allowed here. OTOH, if you find secondary and tertiary sources that draw conclusions from multiple primary sources, then you'll have something that might be usable. Otherwise collecting primary references is likely wasted effort because we probably can't use them, so I'd advise against wasting your time with them. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block Dispute

Freedom5000, the only way you'll be allowed back is to try and get your main account unblocked. Given all your sockpuppetry and the trust you've lost here owing to that, the only way open to you would be through the WP:Standard offer. Each time you open a new sock account, the longer the waiting time for that will be. Lastly, your behaviour has been so over the top, harmful and disruptive, one wonders if you even believe in the outlook you've been flogging here. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of Freedom5000 but it not true. I have been harassed and hounded boarder line stalked by editors from the start of my editing Wikipedia. Read the dialogue on my User Page and the comments the editors have made as well as the sock image on the front User Page.

Decline reason:

You are an obvious sockpuppet of that person I have previously encountered who is obsessed with water fluoridation. Sandstein 12:22, 21 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.

I am assuming you are talking about the outlook of editing the fluoride topic on Wikipedia. The outlook does not look good but that is most likely to ADA and CDC Oral Health people doing all these disruptive edits.OrangeLisa (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been told about the article which deals with this, Water fluoridation controversy. Had you followed this website's policies, though it would have been a slog to overcome the systemic bias, you could very likely have gotten at least a sentence or two more of sourced criticism into the root articles, too. However, instead of building an encyclopedia, you seem much more keen on soapboxing things your way, endlessly opening new accounts each time you get blocked, doing the same, hopeless thing over and over again. There is zero trust for you here, even in the very notion you truly carry a belief that there are worries about fluoride. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be sure that you know who I am?OrangeLisa (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC) It sounds like you have had some kind of problem with another editor and you think that is me. Of the three hundred million people in the U.S.A. and some odd six billion in the world do you suppose that you have the wrong person here? OrangeLisa (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC) What kind of technology infrastructure do you have available to identify users? Your fishing but I'm not your catch. OrangeLisa (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you've been logging out to make vandalistic edits spamming links to some fluoridation site or other. Secondly, you've been creating sock accounts, like this one and furthermore, you've been using proxies exclusively, largely to avoid detection. Ultimately, what's going to happen is that fluoridealert.org is going to wind up in the global spam blacklist and I don't think you want that ... :/ - Alison ^❤ 12:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There are both technical and behavioural ways of linking accounts together. In this case, the behavioural ones are the easiest to pick out. I'm new to this situation, but I can assure you (but will not advise as to how) that based on behavioural analysis alone, this is cut and dry. I'm certain that you're not looking for a WP:BAN, but one can be provided if you wish ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Gwen Gale put it: ":Freedom5000, we're not going to help you learn how sockpuppets are found out here."[1] -- Brangifer (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]