User talk:Hereherer

March 2010
This is the final warning that you are receiving regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Opposition to water fluoridation, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been warned repeatedly about such behaviour; resuming it immediately upon return from your block is not conducive to collaborative editing practices. Ckatz chat spy  22:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing you are accusing me of is true. 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Chatz you are threatening me with being blocked from editing Wikipedia. You posted on my discussion page that I violated Wikipedia's neutral point of view by inserting personal analysis or commentary in to the Opposition to Water fluoridation article.

In the Statements against section. I corrected the EPA Union link in the article so that it directed to the EPA Union site and not the EPA site.

You undid that correction I made.

In the See Also section I added a link to Sodium monofluorophosphate

In the Further reading section I added some links to Pub Med articles about fluoride and some books

None of the edits I made included any personal analysis or commentary.Hereherer (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

{{uninvolved|type|details}Hereherer (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

{{uninvolved|I made edits to the opposition to water fluoridation article and am being accused of making disruptive edits by inserting commentary or personal analysis. I am being threatened by user Chatz with a final warning to stop making disruptive edits or face being banned from editing. In the Statements against section. I corrected the EPA Union link in the article so that it directed to the EPA Union site and not the EPA site. Chatz undid that correction I made.

In the See Also section I added a link to Sodium monofluorophosphate Chatz undid that contribution that I made In the Further reading section I added some links to Pub Med articles about fluoride and some books. Chatz undid the contributions to the further reading section that I made. None of the edits I made included any personal analysis or commentary. Please advise. Thank you}Hereherer (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The same issue
You were blocked, in part, for repetitively inserting a series of links at opposition to water fluoridation which other editors felt were inappropriate. (Your block was extended for sockpuppetry pursuant to the same agenda). You seem to have picked up the same behavior again, inserting the links without attempting to discuss or convince other editors of their value, and accusing people of "vandalism" for removing them. I don't know how to make this sink in, but you can't "force" those links into the article. You have to somehow convince at least one or two other editors that they add encyclopedic value to the article, and so far you haven't been able to (nor have you tried, really, since accusing and attacking other editors isn't a particularly good method of convincing them of your correctness). There has to be some limit to how long this sort of cycle can go on. Please read our policy on dispute resolution and follow the steps listed there. If you persist in re-adding this material over the objections of other editors, rather than trying to actually resolve the dispute and achieve some sort of consensus, then your account will be blocked from editing. MastCell Talk 05:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)