User talk:MightyLebowski

Welcome!

Hi MightyLebowski! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

TB

Hello, MightyLebowski. You have new messages at Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#FBI_officially_confirmed_Trump_was_shot.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trump International Hotel Las Vegas Tesla Cybertruck explosion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

A belated welcome

Hi MightyLebowski. A belated welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

Your recent editing history at Water fluoridation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You seem to think that imposing your version by edit warring will work. This is a mistake. Next revert on your part before a consensus is reached on the talk page will get you a report to the admin board. McSly (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Water fluoridation

Hi MightyLebowski. I'm trying to understand all the issues and concerns around the dispute at Water fluoridation. I've made a number of suggestions on the talk page on how to move forward. Minimally, it would be of great help if you could follow WP:TALK far more closely, especially WP:TPYES points such as conciseness, repetition, and focus. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hipal, I appreciate your feedback and efforts to understand the issues. I’ve been following WP:TALK and WP:TPYES, and I believe my contributions have been concise and policy-compliant. If there are specific concerns, feel free to point them out so I can address them directly. Thank you for your engagement. MightyLebowski (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Water fluoridation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Demineralization.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

May 2025

Hello, MightyLebowski, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree, your accusation that I’ve been coordinating with another account is unfounded and disruptive:

1. No recent edits: I haven’t touched the Water fluoridation article (or done much other editing) in months, and there are no overlapping edit timestamps or evidence of sockpuppetry on my contributions.

2. Burden of proof (WP:ONUS): Per WP:SOCKPUPPET, anyone alleging multiple accounts must provide clear, verifiable proof (IP overlaps, timing patterns, confirmed account links). You’ve provided none.

3. Talk-page engagement pattern: The account @P. M., Cat Appreciator, which you claim is my sockpuppet, has never (as far as I can tell) participated on the Water fluoridation Talk page, yet I always engaged there when editing. That stark divergence in behavior utterly contradicts your conspiracy theory.

4. Assume good faith (WP:GOODFAITH): Editors are expected to presume good faith and address disputes based on content. However, your actions suggest a fixed point of view in the Water fluoridation debate, siding with one editor, then blocking only one party in an edit war while allowing the removal of stable content by the other. Then, upon noticing my last edits were months ago, you leapt to a baseless coordination theory.

5. Disruption by false accusation: Suggesting sockpuppetry without evidence, particularly in the context of an active content dispute, risks discouraging legitimate participation. Per WP:ASPERSIONS, unfounded accusations are disruptive and should not be used to chill discussion or prevent editors from contributing.

It seems possible that the timing of your accusation may have discouraged further engagement from me, especially given that my edits on the Water fluoridation article had remained stable and were not disputed for months, even by those who previously disagreed (by finding common ground and compromise in the Talk page) after input from @Johnuniq.

There is no policy-compliant evidence to support your claim, because none exists. As it stands, the allegation reads more like a personal attack than a contribution to constructive editing. I respectfully ask you to retract this unsubstantiated claim so we can stick to a policy-based discussion of the content. MightyLebowski (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Lots of dancing around the main point there, so perhaps answer the question directly: Have you used the "P. M., Cat Appreciator" account, or have you any connection with the person who did? Also, bear in mind WP:QUACKing is a thing. Bon courage (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

That is not my account. I have no affiliation with @P. M., Cat Appreciator. I have never engaged in sockpuppetry. Any time there is an edit dispute, I always engage in the Talk page, which P. M., Cat Appreciator never did. Your accusations were purely designed to get me out of the discussion on the Water fluoridation article, which you are on the losing end of scientifically, as you've basically admitted. MightyLebowski (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

In any event, well met ! P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Likewise! I appreciate you stepping in to defend the scientific reality. I’ve been away due to work, but it’s good to see others standing up for the integrity of scientific articles on Wikipedia, especially when it concerns harm to children. MightyLebowski (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello MightyLebowski, the similarity of Special:Diff/1271658187 and Special:Diff/1290741203 as well as the edit warring with which the content has been added to the article, leading to full page protection and a block, combined with the low number of contributions both accounts have made (30 and 248), made it seem relatively likely that some kind of sock- or meatpuppetry was involved. Thank you for the clarification. Regarding the content, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, independently of whether the material was "stable" or not. As soon as a consensus for inclusion is found, the material can be included. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

are you serious ???

the edits are similar because User:MightyLebowski was restoring the same block of referenced material as i was, which was removed without justification or consensus

from WP:CONSENSUS: "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries (as I did), or by discussion on the associated talk page."

what are in view are cases of unexplained WP:Content removal, which require actually consensus to remove, not to add- with attribution of statements and contrast with conflicting sources, if extant - reputable, etc., relevant information

i looked at the article, and i found it strange that there was no mention at all of recent findings (and really decades of controversy) concerning the neurotoxicity of flouride - so i viewed the edit history, and i saw that whole sections of the article had been removed with the non-explanation "nothing here is accepted knowledge"

of course inclusion of conflicting viewpoints is necessary, but the existence of criticism of the relevant studies which the user User:Bon courage mentions (https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/01/controversial-fluoride-analysis-published-after-years-of-failed-reviews, https://osf.io/preprints/osf/zhm54_v3, in the context of a long-running debate) is not grounds for the wholesale exclusion of any mention of this issue from the article

P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@P. M., Cat Appreciator,

Yes, I pretty much agree with you.

@Bon courage not only gave no justification for their edit, once I called them out on it, they shifted the goal post here by now claiming "the evidence isn't strong enough" (even though, as you said, they posted non-MEDRS compliant content):

I posted the diff for the admin to see the plethora of content that was unjustifiably removed from the consensus version to the content nuke:

Bon courage seems shocked that other people on Wikipedia agree we should inform reads about key scientific findings from the government and a reputable journal.

However, you should’ve used the Talk:Water fluoridation page to discuss their vandalism. Even though you were right and addressed others in your edits, they exploited that, using false claims to nuke the content and get you edit blocked instead (and file a false sockpuppetry report against me). MightyLebowski (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree,

Thank you for the clarification. After reviewing the full context, it’s now clear that I’m being targeted amid an ongoing effort to remove high-quality, policy-compliant content from the Water fluoridation article.

Key points:

1. False WP:FRINGE claim: The original justification for removing the NTP systematic review and JAMA Pediatrics meta-analysis was that they were “fringe” (see their Water fluoridation Talk page claim). No MEDRS-compliant evidence was provided. These are gold-standard sources, not fringe by any policy definition.
2. Shifting rationale: Once the FRINGE argument collapsed, Bon courage changed the reasoning to “too early” or “needs stronger research.” This goalpost-shifting violates the spirit of WP:ONUS and undermines consensus building.
3. Consensus already achieved: The content in this diff was the result of careful Talk-page negotiation. Even those initially skeptical agreed to a neutral phrasing in the lead and body. That consensus stood unchallenged for months.
4. No consensus for removal: Bon courage and Julius Senegal removed longstanding consensus content without obtaining new consensus. I did not participate in the edit war. Yet somehow I was accused, while the disruptive editors remained unchallenged.
5. False sockpuppetry claim: I have zero affiliation with @P. M., Cat Appreciator. The accusation was baseless and distracting. It appears designed to exclude a dissenting view from the content discussion, contrary to WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:DISRUPT. I always engage with the Talk page when there is an editing dispute, yet the user in question never did.

I respectfully ask that the stable, consensus version be restored pending further discussion, and that future content disputes follow proper process rather than being resolved through edit warring or false accusations.

The public have a right to know the keys findings from a major government organization (the NTP) and a highly regarded scientific journal (JAMA) regarding the clear dose-response associations between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children.

See here and here for the relevant factual content that was unjustifiably removed (now effectively admitted by Bon courage that JAMA is not fringe, even though that was their removal justification).

Lastly, I wonder if Bon courage and Julius Senegal are connected. Despite a prior warning from @Johnuniq, they faced no consequences for their collaborative edit warring. It now seems I was accused to deflect from their own actions. MightyLebowski (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

... a prior warning from @Johnuniq, they faced no consequences ... ← sounds false; when was this "prior warning"? diff please! Bon courage (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It's right on the Talk page. MightyLebowski (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Naughty misrepresentation that: a message from January can hardly be a warning to me and Julius when I didn't edit the article at all until April (unless you go back to 2023!). Please don't make things up. Bon courage (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not making anything up, and it's not my problem if you didn't read through the history of the article you edited. I never said the warning was directed only at you.

Can we work together here instead of against each other? The end goal is to inform readers about key topics in science (and childhood neurodevelopment risks in this context). If you read through the Talk page, there are plenty of robust discussions that went on over the last 6 months, and the stuff you removed was part of the consensus.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just made an incorrect assumption regarding me and P. M., Cat Appreciator, but the original content should be restored, since a lot of time and collaborative effort was spent distilling the research, ensuring its accuracy, with adherence to WP:NPOV. MightyLebowski (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Errm, "Despite a prior warning from @Johnuniq, they faced no consequences for their collaborative edit warring" sound very much like an accusation and description of a warning.

At this point I am inclined to disengage as you do not respond to points on the article Talk page, but seem more concerned with rhetorical tactics and "winning". The situation here is that some papers have proposed surprising effects from fluoridation, and those papers have been credibly accused of being bogus/questionable science. Meanwhile, the area at large has a load of loony anti-fluoridation activists keen to indulge anything that helps them "win" their arguments, like these sources. Wikipedia needs to take a cautious approach in such an environment and ensure it presents solid accepted knowledge. In a world where fraudulent meta-analyses and systematic reviews are on the rise it behooves us to take care. Bon courage (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Criticism does not amount to research being WP:FRINGE. The NTP and JAMA Pediatrics are high-tier, peer-reviewed sources. Calling them "bogus" or "fringe" without policy-compliant justification misleads readers and violates WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. Disagreement isn’t a license to suppress consensus-backed content.

the area at large has a load of loony anti-fluoridation activists

Well, now you've revealed your true position. Is your behavior not indicative of a pro-fluoridation activist, i.e. discounting real science, and never specifically backing up your wild claims about how the Journal of the American Medical Association published "fringe theories" in their research? You still refuse to provide any proof of this claim.

Wikipedia needs to take a cautious approach in such an environment

That's why the policy exists. We follow the policy, not your opinion.

fraudulent meta-analyses and systematic reviews are on the rise

This reasoning for excluding the research in question is a violation of WP:OR, since personal skepticism is not valid grounds for excluding peer-reviewed, policy-compliant evidence. To be clear, are you now saying the HHS, NTP, and JAMA are all publishing fraudulent research? Hmm, it sounds like you may be making an actual fringe claim!

At this point, you're just pushing your POV and making non-policy-based excuses to exclude real scientific research on fluoride exposure and childhood neurodevelopment. MightyLebowski (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

personal skepticism is not valid grounds for excluding peer-reviewed, policy-compliant evidence ← true; but there are well-sourced grounds for thinking this research at least suspicious, as have already been linked. You keep blowing past that. To quote from the Jané et al abstract on the JAMA Pediatric paper:

We find that the authors employed unjustified methodological and statistical errors which invalidate their conclusion, and demonstrate that the data cannot be analysed as the authors assert. We further find major problems with the sources employed, including reliance on studies from non-MEDLINE indexed publications with an anti-fluoridation editorial stance, and major underlying issues with the data reported in several instances, indicative of impossible or unreliable data. Taylor et al is not reliable nor are its errors remediable. It should be retracted to avoid harms to public health and scientific discourse.

Bon courage (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

And that's the reason why this part of the lead existed. But not even acknowledging the major findings of the NTP and JAMA is comically anti-science and goes against WP:DUE.

It's basically gaslighting the public to not include any mention of fluoride's negative effects on childhood neurodevelopment as determined by government/authoritative scientific sources. MightyLebowski (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 07:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)