Talk:Dental floss/Archive 1

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Woodrow Wilson

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Interesting reading

message: 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)
thread_title: American Dental Association and flossing

message: 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)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fourth Opinion

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Personal attack

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Historical claim is not supported bu a verifiable reliable soource.

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Bloody Pfizer #$@%! Thanks for the link ;) --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. 19:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pfizer's Listerine as good as flossing? 

message: 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)
thread_title: SPAM

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: And you're still not explaining yourself.  More importantly, you're ignoring the discussion here. --Ronz 01:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Holder Photo & Associated Holder Text Belong In A Stub

message: 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)
thread_title: Use

message: 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)
thread_title: Photo