Talk:Dental floss/Archive 1

This article probably doesn't need all these headings Barneyboo 02:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Difference between wax and unwaxed?

Uhh... this bit..

Dental floss was used by prehistoric humans. Grooves have been found in the teeth of prehistoric humans from dental floss and toothpicks.

Two problems: How does anyone know what made the grooves, and SINCE WHEN DOES FLOSSING MAKE GROOVES IN YOUR TEETH!?!?! Seems to me if it did, people wouldn't be so fond of it. I know I'm not.

Erm, can we get some sources, and tell us how flossing is done today? Do we still get grooves or... chess.and.cookies@gmail.com 05:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are we supposed to floss after brushing?

Woodrow Wilson
I took this sentence out: "President Woodrow Wilson is credited with inventing modern dental floss." because it frankly seems pretty unbelievable. If anyone can find a reference it can go back in... I agree that the prehistoric humans bit needs references as well. Some of this text also reads like copyvio and needs cleaned up.

The reference I cited does list Parmly as the apparent inventor of modern dental floss, though. Brassratgirl 06:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting reading
This article from Salon.com in 2000 was about a conspiracy of CNN and Johnson & Johnson to force a nice dental floss invention out of business. I have used this product for years and personally think it is a great product compared to many other dental products in the market. However, recently when I tried to purchase a replacement of it, I found that the product was totally eliminated from any store shelf. I googled and found the product is still available via mail order from www.flossrings.com. Along with the google results, I found this interesting story about how the big corporations could easily snuff out a completition. Since it is a great tool to use with dental floss, I wonder if it should be mentioned in this article. Kowloonese 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you read the guy's story? He sounds like a crackpot paranoid conspiracy theorist. Can you find any independent studies on the product? -- Stereo 18:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, he is a paranoid. But that does not change the fact that I found his product well designed and superior to other flossing products in the market. Honest, I tried every flossing products I could find in store and this one works the best for me. It is a pity that his product was driven out of the market because he offended the big players.  You may also say his paranoia ruined his own life.  Just wait a few years till his patent expires then we can see what the big players would do to his invention.  Kowloonese 22:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

American Dental Association and flossing
I deleted the false assertion that ada advices to brush before flossing

in the faq of the ada web site says:

Should I brush or floss first? The sequence makes no difference as long as you do a thorough job.

--Zimbricchio 00:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam
This article has been having reoccurring problems with linkspam. Discuss here if you feel otherwise. Please see WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:SPAM concerning linkspam. --Ronz 22:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is having recurring problems with linkspam too. Dental-picture-show.com has been deleted because the copyright notice in the picture by DMHI, coupled with the anonymous website itself, appear to promote DMHI and therefore could be biased. Please see WP:SPAM concerning linkspam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.88.72.4 (talk • contribs)


 * 199.88.72.4, I don't see anything in the picture info that promotes a company. It's not the best picture but it's all we've got so I'm putting it back. The link is about flossing technique, not about some particular product, so it isn't what I would call advertisement. The advice on that page is corroborated by the ADA page which I will add a link to. Your link that you've added a few times is a long paper about your product with no clear statement of what its significance is to the world at large. Also please add your own comments as separate paragraphs and sign them with four tildes (~). I separated them from Ronz's comment. --Howdybob 04:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

WP's rules govern LINKSPAM. Nothing changes the fact that DMHI's photograph's copyright notice that indicates "DMHI" confirms that "DMHI" authored the photo which, as an external link, is linkspam. The WP rules are clear on "linkspam". WP linkspam rules cover anything authored/photographed by "DMHI" and linked which make it automatically "biased" under the WP linkspam rules. Therefore, my editorial discussion is final (like someone elses merely).

If we cannot have bilateral tolerance, linkspam will continue to govern and will continue being implemented on this matter.199.88.72.4 22:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * When I mentioned the picture, I'm talking about the one at the top of the article which you removed and I put back. It's not great but it's OK and the copyright is by a Walter Siegmund, not "DMHI". As for the external link about flossing, it has good info, supported by the ADA, but better illustrated than the ADA site. I don't see anything that says that a link cannot be to a page run by a commercial entity. The page has relevant information and is not about a product.


 * I'm not the one who first removed your link but I looked at it. It's a 19-page article that has something to do with a a new type of floss. I didn't read the whole thing because it has no clear introduction and you haven't explained its relevance in the link title or discussed it here on the talk page. Also, direct links to .pdf files are discouraged here. The two links are very different. --Howdybob 03:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This article continues to have problems with linkspam, which is not legitimized by using the links to promotional information as source material, especially when the promotional material is not considered to be reliable sources.

The inclusion of this material by 199.88.72.4 goes back to 1 November 2005.

The inclusion of this same material by LeonardLorch goes back to 14 November 2005.

The inclusion of this same material by 199.88.67.33 goes back to 17 June 2006.

The inclusion of an indirect link to this same material by Ceula goes back to 22 July 2006.

Please stop using this and other articles for promotion. Thanks. --Ronz 03:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Appropriateness of individual patent discussion
The introduction and discussion of a very specific patent seems inappropriate given no further references on the material beyond the patent itself. Further, this discussion introduces a level of detail on very specific issues that seem out of place in the article. --Ronz 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed. Also made some attempts to clarify the benefits and directions, which should probably be expanded as well. --Ronz 20:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The above first sentence "The introduction and discussion of a very specific patent seems inappropriate given no further references on the material beyond the patent itself" is FALSE! The history of nylon floss that shreds was not deemed inappropriate by user Ronz, however, Ronz is way out of line in even suggesting that the first piece of historical and verifiable evidence that ePTFE floss is shredproof floss "seems inappropriate". Further, the wiki article on floss contains numerous other references to ePTFE floss but none show who was originally responsible for ePTFE floss. Even further, virtually all PTFE/ePTFE floss patents afterwards cite the original party responsible. Hence, the item in question in Ronz' mind only is reverted to its correct historical status on the matter. -- User:Ceula
 * Sorry you're so upset. Project much? Please see Verifiability. --Ronz 23:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reverted per Verifiability. See also Burden_of_proof_%28logical_fallacy%29. --Ronz 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See also Spam, WP:OR, Deletion_policy (I'm not suggestion deletion of the article, just portions that seem out of place). --Ronz 00:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

References/Citations added. User:Ceula 14 August 2006
 * Since when are patent applications and marketing documents appropriate citations? --Ronz 01:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The references and citations given are not considered reliable sources. Patent applications only verify the date, applicant, and details of the patent, not that any other claims made about the patented item are indeed correct. Marketing documents are spam, which are inappropriate in any context. --Ronz 15:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Leonard, how about stopping your effort at self-promotion here and create pages about yourself, your patent, and your fun floss? Of course, you'll still have to find a way to make them appropriate for Wikipedia, but at least you won't be constantly disrupting this and other entries. Again, see WP:SPAM, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V --Ronz 01:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Leonard, please stop editing others' comments. Thank you. --Ronz 02:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed assertions of "shedproof" floss not backed with reliable sources.

Since a number of spammers (which may all be a single person) think that discussion of individual patents is important, should we include a paragraph on those they've introduced: U. S. Patents 5033488, 5518012, 5479952? How about U.S. Patents 3942539, 3943949, 4253477, 4265258, 4638823, 4655233, 4655234, 4796783, 4911927, 4974614, 4986288, 5063948, 5209251, 5220932, 5357990, 5423337, 5560377, 5603921, 5711935, 5718251, 5755243, 5765576, 5830495, 5845652, 5911228, 5915392, 6080481, 6251410, 6572063, and 6926010? What about the many, many others? What about patents from other countries? Please note that any contributions to this article should not be original research nor advertising. --Ronz 15:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I find the above argument convincing and will not support citing of individual patents unless a cogent and convincing counterargument is made. I haven't seen anything on this page that I would consider a violation of WP:NPA, although I would encourage everyone to read and follow that policy.Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Many Wikipedians remove PERSONAL ATTACKS on third parties on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often SEEN AS an APPROPRIATE reaction to extreme personal abuse. Users have been banned for REPEATEDLY engaging in personal attacks.


 * USER:Edytore 17:58, 17 August 2006


 * Edytore, please stop editing my comments. I'm extremely sorry I called you Leonard.  Since you appear to be new to Wikipedia, please take the time to familiarize yourself with the guidelines of Wikipedia in general, and the ongoing discussions here in specific.  Welcome and again I'm sorry.  --Ronz 14:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * EDYTORE, PLEASE STOP EDITING MY COMMENTS!!! --Ronz 00:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Patents are good sources, but they need to be combined with some other source like media coverage for something as basic as dental floss. Fagstein 07:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fourth Opinion
Yes Patents are good sources, but they need no other source data since the information is rather legitimate and important historical information. User:edytore 16 August 2006
 * Patents only document the claims by the applicant. Patents are granted solely on the patentability of the invention.  Other reliable sources are necessary to support anything beyond the details and date of the patent. --Ronz 02:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is appropriate to cite the patent numbers, but it would be good to add some high quality secondary sources per Ronz. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

 * Wikipedia's rules BELOW do not permit a personal attack, and, when found, support removal of even a first name involved in a personal attack (Please read the rule repeated below from the wikiepedia page on personal attacks).

Wikipedia:No personal attacks From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. Shortcut: WP:NPA WP:ATTACK WP:PA This policy in a nutshell: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors! Please do NOT make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. Wikipedia policies Article standards Neutral point of view Include only verifiable information No original research Citing sources What Wikipedia is not Biographies of living persons Working with others Assume good faith Civility and etiquette NO PERSONAL ATTACKS Resolving disputes Report editing abuse: Obvious, Complex, Open proxy or Long-term | Sock puppets | ISP reporting | Admin noticeboards: Incidents | 3RR | ArbCom enforcement | Personal attack

Do not make personal attacks ANYWHERE in Wikipedia. Comment on content, NOT on THE CONTRIBUTOR. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.

Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on third parties on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often SEEN AS an APPROPRIATE reaction to extreme personal abuse. Users have been banned for REPEATEDLY engaging in personal attacks.

USER:Edytore 17:51, 17 August 2006
 * Edytore, I'm sorry you feel that being mistaken for someone else is considered a "personal attack". It was not meant as such.  Since you're new here, you might want to note the article you're trying to reference is WP:NPA and also familiarize yourself with what is happening here as well.  For the record, 199.88.72.4, LeonardLorch, 199.88.67.33, and Ceula have been involved in an long effort to spam this and other articles (and appear to be the same person as well).  Some of them have edited mine and others' comments.  I made the mistake of thinking your were one of them when you edited my comments. --Ronz 15:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Edytore, refering to a Wikipedia user, such as User:LeonardLorch is not considered a personal attack. Why are you so concerned about that particular user and not Ceula, 199.88.72.4 and 199.88.67.33 as well? --Ronz 01:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that the editors review WP:TALK and WP:3RR? This discussion is unproductive and benefits no one. A wikibreak or work on other articles may be indicated. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical claim is not supported bu a verifiable reliable soource.
The claim that "grooves were left in prehistoric teeth by toothpicks and dental floss" is referenced to a website which in turn offers no reliable evidence, like from a book or science journal. It sounds like a hoax, so I have deleted it. Find a textbook of dentistry or the American Dental Association or some bettr source.Gobawoo 16:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! They would have to be very interesting grooves indeed to be evidence of dental hygiene rather than dental art. --Ronz 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Pfizer's Listerine as good as flossing?
I think this article should include information about this research, Listerine antiseptic as effective as dental floss. Personally I find flossing absolutely unbearable, so now I found myself a great, workable alternative! --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. 04:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's part of an advertising campaign that was found to be false, misleading, and a risk to public health . --Ronz 15:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bloody Pfizer #$@%! Thanks for the link ;) --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. 19:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

TYPES
01:38, 8 November 2006 SoLongBaby (Talk | contribs) (→Types -Reverted Because Image/s R An Ad/SPAM & Associated Text is SPAM 2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SoLongBaby (talk • contribs) 01:43, 8 November 2006.

DIRECTIONS
01:40, 8 November 2006 SoLongBaby (Talk | contribs) (→Directions - Reverted Because Images R SPAM Containing DMHI's 2006 Copyright Notice) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SoLongBaby (talk • contribs) 01:45, 8 November 2006.

Reg. Ad/SPAM Revert
Dear SoLongBaby and Serenedipity2006, Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Dental Floss, may be considered sock puppet snake blanking vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.Feel 02:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Feelfree (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 November 2006.


 * Please review WP:VAN and WP:AGF. This looks like an editorial dispute to me. The content removal was selective and an explanation was given. The policy is WP:SPAM, but does not appear to apply to Image:Hand-held dental floss.jpg and associated content. I'd be inclined to retain the image and content. However, others may object based on WP:N and WP:V. Please see WP:TALK for how to use talk pages and sign your comments. Best wishes, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for explanation. It is reasonable: Even if removing polices a not applicable and can mask the bad fight we must make the discount for the new users. It's OK. By the way I see that I sign the previous message. Feel 06:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please explain what are the problems with the graphic? What about the text? Seems to me that a description of holders would be valuable and appropriate to the article. --Ronz 16:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * After looking them over, I've reintroduced both. I cannot identify the brand of the items in the image, nor do I understand how they are in violation of spam or copyright policy.  The text appears informative and does not promote any specific brands or product that I can see, so I'm at a loss why it should be removed regardless of the image.  --Ronz 16:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it gives too much emphasis to a product that is uncommon, at least in my area. The FlossBrite article was speedily deleted by administrator who did not comment on its notability. Also, it is not cited in this article so it is not verifiable. That policy says that any challenged material must have a reliable source to remain in the article. On the other hand, the use of sockpuppets by the editor who removes the content appears to be intended to deceive his or her fellow editors and is not to be condoned. See,  and.


 * I've edited the section for brevity and balance. I encourage to find a published source for the disputed content and to add it to the article. I don't think it is particularly notable, but I see no reason why a line or two cannot remain, especially if it is properly sourced. I'm somewhat troubled by the illustration. I don't think it should be the largest on the page.


 * On another note, may I encourage those interested in this topic to add some reliable sources for its content? That is a more pressing need than how much space to devote to FlossBrite. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

SPAM
01:28, 18 November 2006 SoLongBaby (Talk | contribs) (→Info On Holders -Reverted Photo That Is ADVERTISING & Spam As Is associated Text!)
 * I've reverted your edit. Please explain why: 1) the photo is advertising and 2) the associated text is advertising as well. --Ronz 03:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Holder Photo & Associated Holder Text Belong In A Stub
BelongsInAstub (Talk | contribs) (→History & Photo -Reverted Because Photo & Associated May Belong In A STUB)
 * As long as you're unwilling to discuss your edits concerning the image and text, these edits will be considered blatant vandalism. --Ronz 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I may be missing something, but the edit summary of SoLongBaby, "Reverted because WELL KNOWN Holder in Photo is an Ad and therefore SPAM as is associated text!" confuses me. It seems to me that if it is "well-known", then it is notable and should be included in the article. The spam policy does not appear to apply since no external links are contained in the disputed content. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * These edits will no longer be considered vandalism, per administrator intervention, but instead considered a content dispute. However, current concensus is that neither the image nor the text is in no way spam, nor has anyone offered other reasons for their removal.  Note the text has been significantly edited and is independent of the image. --Ronz 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

STILL belongs in a STUB 19:23, 1 December 2006 SoLongBaby. Theis Spam was Reverted Because as I see it in this content dispute it is SPAM if NOT relocated to a STUB! 10:03, 2 December 2006 SoLongBaby.
 * And you're still not explaining yourself. More importantly, you're ignoring the discussion here. --Ronz 01:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And RONZ, you're ignoring stubbing it. Less critical, you're ignoring clarifying why you will not stub it. 18:08, 7 December 2006 SoLongBaby.
 * I say don't stub it. No information has been provided to do so.  No one agrees with your position.  You've been told by administrators to stop this useless edit-warring.  Why remove the text?  Why remove the image? Why? --Ronz 02:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand what a WP:stub is? I think you're confusing it with something else, but I cannot understand what that might be. Why does the image belong in a stub when it's relevant to this article? Why does the text belong in a stub when it's relevant to this article? Why does your assertion that they both belong in a stub allow you to ignore and overrule the concensus here? --Ronz 02:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So you no longer have a proble with the text? You're no longer think it needs to be in a stub? At least we're making progress. Now please explain why you think the image should be removed, given the text is no longer problematic. --Ronz 02:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So you no longer like the text? As long as you won't explain your actions, they will be removed. --Ronz 02:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Use
Reverted Text of Use that does not seem to appropriate for an article merely about dental floss. If you want to write an article about dental floss holders, do it elsewhere. However, in my opinion simplicity works. --Commander1 2:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo
Deleted photo of holder that is not purely dental floss but an adjunct that belongs elsewhere. If you want to write an illustrated article on dental floss holders, do it elsewhere. However, in my opinion purity and simplicity works. --Commander1 2:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)