User talk: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
Adding stuff like "Active editors of the Water Fluoridation page at Wikipedia, decided it was not an acceptable study to be cited " 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
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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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
Piguy101 (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

One revert.
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)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for a wide variety of behavior, as exhibited at the AN/I discussion about your editing, that could be described using a wall of Wiki alphabet-soup links (for instance WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT and WP:CIR), but which can be summed up as your not being here to improve the encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger One ping only 14:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)