User talk:MoogleONE

Hi

...and welcome to Wikipedia. Regarding your statement "I AM a constructive, reliable source" at User talk:69.143.187.109. You (and all editors here) are not what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Please read WP:RS to see what qualifies as a reliable source. It's important that you understand this as it will help you avoid coming into conflict with other editors and you will see why your personal experience has no bearing on the article and therefore should not be included in any discussions on the article's talk page. Please also read WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am a primary source giving a testimonial, how dare you call me not reliable??! My experience should at least point to SOME RELIABLE SOURCE SOMEWHERE, please help me find positive reliable sources for the miracle mineral. This miracle discovery cures ALMOST ANY DISEASE!!!! It is imperative that the article give the facts, rather than this biased trash. The miracle mineral is not psuedoscience, it is very sound science. MoogleONE (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. It is mandatory policy. You have no choice but to comply with it. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So the talk page cannot include testimonials from people, trying to fix a completely biased article? Help me find reliable sources that are pro MMS in the miracle mineral supplement page. MoogleONE (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That's correct, the talk page can't include testimonials from people unless those testimonials have been published by sources that qualify as RS. You can discuss what you see as bias in the article but you need to provide actual evidence based on reliable sources and Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV to make your case. Sorry, I don't have time to help you look for sources but you should try to collaborate with other editors at the article's talk page. Everyone is supposed to have the same objective, building an informative and balanced article. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

But my testimonial helps to prove that MMS is not actually quack science. I had tooth root infection that traveled to my brain, that was cured in under 4 hours with orally ingesting the miracle mineral, and swishing the solution around the affected tooth. The goal here is to try to fix the article, because the miracle mineral is definitely NOT psuedoscience. MoogleONE (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I still do not understand how to do edit summaries. I am severely brain-damaged and a bit thick, so please don't mind me too much :) MoogleONE (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:EDITSUMMARY. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

/* Thank you for teaching me */ MoogleONE (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing it wrong? MoogleONE (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

When you click the edit tab you can see a box just below where it says "that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license" with the label Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made). That is where you put your edit summary. I added 'test 123' as the edit summary for this edit. If you click the View history tab you will see that the line for my comment includes that edit summary 'test 123'. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope I'm doing it right. I still think I'm screwing it up. MoogleONE (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks for teaching me! MoogleONE (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Miracle Mineral Supplement, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Prioryman (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't ban me. If you look carefully, you will see that Andythegrump started the defamation, by calling Jim Humble a "noted snake-oil salesman". I am trying to bring attention to an incredibly biased article, by helping Andythegrump out, and making the article even more biased. For now I will correct the bad english, and correct the indirect statement, by replacing it with a direct statement, with a known subject.

You added this blatant attack on the individual concerned, which suggests very strongly to me that you are simply trolling. If you persist you will end up being blocked, no doubt about that. Prioryman (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No no, I am using Judo on Andythegrump, attempting to grab his attack and add momentum to his throw. He is the real vandal. Please don't ban me my intentions are honorable. MoogleONE (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Andythegrump is a very skilled wikipedia user, using a bunch of dirty tricks against Jim Humble and his miracle mineral. However good always prevails over evil; light always dispels the dark. It doesn't matter that Andythegrump works for the NSA, and that the miracle mineral has been classified by the U.S. Government. This miracle cure will be distributed to all of humanity. MoogleONE (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Miracle Mineral Supplement shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. I strongly suggest you go find something else to edit. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know that I could not make any type of edit to a wikipedia article more than 3 times. The original editors are incorrect in their man-handling of the miracle mineral, and I am in good faith trying to correct the mistake. The editors are extremely abusive in the talk page and I'm kind of new here so I'm learning the ropes. I'll try to wait 24 hours before making another edit to the article. MoogleONE (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Miracle Mineral Supplement shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Additionally, removing claims that there is a recommended dosage for a phony drug which is nothing but an overpriced indusrial bleach is not vandalism.Novangelis (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a recommended dosage for the miracle mineral, and it is not even a drug. Get your facts straight. You ARE vandalizing the article. I'm going to go ahead and keep making constructive edits, because I'm in the right here, and if I'm blocked I'll seek dispute resolution. MoogleONE (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Fuck off. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a personal attack, and is highly unconstructive AndyTheGrump. The miracle mineral is GOOD MEDICINE, I want this reflected somehow in the article. Also stop vandalizing my webpage with your slurs. MoogleONE (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

So in one post you say that "it is not even a drug", and in the next you say that "The miracle mineral is GOOD MEDICINE". Please take your gibberish elsewhere, fuckwit... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not all medicines are drugs. Can you follow simple logic?

Also, stop vandalizing my talk page with your personal attacks and slurs. Thank you. They are highly unconstructive in reaching a necessary conclusion for the problems with the miracle mineral article. Look at how low those ratings are, don't you think that this justifies an immediate change? MoogleONE (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me about your medical license since you just recommended that I consume a quantity of a toxic bleach that you are calling a "GOOD MEDICINE" on my talk page.Novangelis (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not a doctor, for me to impersonate one might be construed as mala praxis! However based on my personal observations as a physics and math major, this is good medicine, if taken appropriately (not in lethal doses). MoogleONE (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MoogleONE (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Why Am I the one being blocked for edit warring? Aren't andythegrump and novangelis edit warring as well? I'm new to wikipedia so forgive me if I've made a mistake here, but I am in the right here concerning my edits to the miracle mineral supplement article? They have a completely biased article, it has poor ratings, and they use personal attacks and slurs when trying to constructively reason with them. Why do they have control over this article? ~~~~

Decline reason:

You've got your explanation below. Since you don't understand what's wrong with your edits and intend to continue, your unblock is denied. And seriously, in the blocking admin's place I would have blocked you for a much longer time. Max Semenik (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've fixed your unblock request, it isn't s very user-friendly template. Being in the right or wrong is irrelevant to an edit-warring block. Read WP:3RR and you will see that they didn't break it. And when you have several editors reverting you, and no one supporting you, that's also edit warring. You need to read WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR carefully before you start editing again, use your block time for that. Try and convince others on the talk page that you are right, but the problem there is that I don't think you are as I don't think you will find reliable sources by our criteria that support you, and your edits are in violation of policies and guidelines here. Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my block request. I'm going to use Jim Humble's book as a published, reliable source from now on. The miracle mineral is good medicine, it works, it cured my brain infection, and I'm going to do my best to see that the article shows something more positive about the miracle mineral. Look at how low the ratings are for the article, it NEEDS to be changed. MoogleONE (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Jim Humble's book is not a reliable source for medicinal information. Since you obviously have a conflict of interest it would be best if you would stop editing about this form of quackery. Von Restorff (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Jim Humble's book isn't a reliable source, even remotely. See WP:MEDRS for the sort of source we'd need to back up Humble's claims. They don't exist... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like I actually have to go through the outrageous step of CREATING a "reliable" source for this sham of a wikipedia. Who's with me? Who wants to create reliable sources pro-miracle mineral? :) I highly recommend you all try the miracle mineral yourself, it's very cheap, and if you do it correctly it won't kill you, and you'll love it. MoogleONE (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You cannot create a reliable source, and no one is with you. I am sorry to hear about your brain infection, please visit a doctor. Focus your attention elsewhere. Von Restorff (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Where there's a will, there's a way. So you are all deluded into thinking the miracle mineral is quackery? No matter what any doctor says, science is science, and the miracle mineral works.

I had a tooth root infection, that travelled across the nerve into my brain, and I quickly took 8 drops of the miracle mineral, and the infection was cured in under 4 hours. Sure saves me a lot of medical bills. I will not focus my attention elsewhere, I have made it one of my goals to make sure that the miracle mineral supplement article reflects the CURATIVE NATURE of the miracle mineral. I will not allow you bastards to do this to me. MoogleONE (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to be able to grow wings and fly like a bird, but there is no way. Sorry I am not interested in your tooth root infection because I am not a dentist, you should probably talk to your dentist about that. I am unable to give you medical advice. What I can do is tell you to visit a doctor and a dentist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Gimme a shout when you have a nobel prize in medicine. Von Restorff (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Read Jim Humble's new book at http://miraclemineral.org , the first half is free for download, if you want to research the subject that is. I just saw your addition on the talk page, and I'll leave it to you I guess for now, unless you turn out to be one of these bastards trashing the miracle mineral undeservedly left and right. Good luck to you sir! By the way, with Jim Humble's miracle mineral, you will be growing wings and flying like a cockatrice! MoogleONE (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not going to read that because I am not interested in Jim Humble's opinion and I do not want to research the subject. I am, as far as I know, not a bastard; my parents married way before I was born. I will not drink poison, I prefer Coca Cola. Have a nice day, Von Restorff (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bastard bas·tard [bas-terd] Show IPA noun 2. Slang . a. a vicious, despicable, or thoroughly disliked person: Some bastard slashed the tires on my car. b. a person, especially a man: The poor bastard broke his leg. This stuff isn't poison. I've consumed it about 30 times, and I am in very good health. I think it's unfortunate that you don't want to read his book. It would be a very good use of your time. And, how will you be 'cleaning out the trash' from the miracle mineral page, if you do not become well researched in the subject? MoogleONE (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am rather special, I have lots of special abilities. Unfortunately flying like a bird isn't one of them. Please go visit a doctor and a dentist, they may be able to help you, but I am not. Von Restorff (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've already visited a dentist, and had the offending tooth extracted. I don't need to see a doctor for the infection; the magical medical miraculously miracular minerals cures me of all my ails MoogleONE (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

So that miraculous stuff did not heal your tooth? Von Restorff (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The miracle mineral is great for curing infections in abscessed teeth, but does not reverse immediately the process of tooth decay, repairing the tooth. My tooth had already partially broken off, food was getting caught in it, and it was time for it to go. MoogleONE (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, it is not very miraculous stuff? Von Restorff (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not THAT miraculous. But it is still pretty miraculous, in that it cures aids and cancers. MoogleONE (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Von Restorff (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MoogleONE (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I will stop violating the three edit rule, and try to slowly become more oriented towards wikipedia policy, on correct sources for argument on the encyclopedia. I am very new here, so this is a learning experience for me. MoogleONE (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, we have obviously tried the "slowly" - but it was unsuccessful. One of the key aspects of the guide to appealing blocks is that you must understand why you were blocked, and we must ensure that it does not recur. You don't even seem to understand the 3 revert rule, edit-warring (which are two different things), and your unblock even suggests you're willing to go back to the article that has led to this block. Understand this: personal experience with something is NOT PERMITTED on an encyclopedia; ever. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just one simple question regarding your unblock request: are you going to continue editing the article about that Miracle Mineral Supplement? Von Restorff (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not more than three times a day, or whatever the rule is. I'm trying very hard to make constructive edits, and I think I'm in the right here. MoogleONE (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to inform you that we have lost all faith that you have the ability to make constructive edits to that article. I notice that you did not read the pages people linked to. Von Restorff (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you think that I can make constructive edits to the miracle mineral? I did read the pages, but it is a lot of information to digest, and I am slowly learning. Also, it is not nonsense. Although I have not seen anyone cured of aids and cancer, I veritably believe that it can and does cure these ailments. All I have personal experience with is the miracle mineral curing tooth infections, that travel to the brain! And some dormant flus and diseases in the body. Pretty scary, you wouldn't think that a tooth infection could be so dangerous. MoogleONE (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It is nonsense, even though you may believe otherwise. You have personal experience with your dentist extracting a tooth. You have a conflict of interest, and in your case the best solution is to simply not allow you to edit this article. I know, that must be disappointing, but if you ever find a reliable source that confirms your theories you can send me an email and I will edit the article for you. Von Restorff (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have personal experience with an oral surgeon extracting a tooth. I also have experience with the miracle mineral curing a tooth root infection that travelled across the nerve to my brain, something very dangerous. If I didn't use the miracle mineral to cure the infection immediately, who knows what would've happened? And what's a conflict of interest? I don't think so, because I'm not associated with Jim Humble. I also don't sell or market the miracle mineral to anyone, though I'm thinking about going to the local hospital, and telling them I have the cure for aids and cancer in my hands. Probably a bit more useful, than arguing with a bunch of whackjobs on wikipedia.

I'm done arguing about this, so don't expect a timely response Von Restorff. MoogleONE (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am glad to hear you are done arguing about this. Please do visit your doctor for your own problems but don't waste their time with quackery. Read WP:COI for info about conflicts of interest. Have a nice day, Von Restorff (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

How not to handle COI -- Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight. Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, refer to policy and sources, and be fair.

As long as you guys can be fair, I have no problem now with the wikipedia article. I am going to try to get a hold of, or even create if I have to, some primary sources that are reliable, and can be used in the wikipedia article Miracle Mineral Supplement, which is right now hopelessly biased against the miracle mineral, due to a lack of "reliable" sources, but TONS of primary sources that are pro-miracle mineral. The miracle mineral is NOT quackery, please stop defiling my webpage by calling it quackery. Science is science, physics is physics, and the miracle mineral wins 100% of the time. MoogleONE (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:MEDRS. You cannot 'create' reliable sources, unless you are prepared to devote many years of your life studying medicine/pharmacology to earn the appropriate qualifications (assuming you have the necessary skills and intelligence to do this - I'll not comment on whether this seems plausible), them more on research into the supposed benefits of MMS (using the appropriate methodology, and with due regard to medical ethics etc), and then finally submitting your research to an appropriate recognised peer-reviewed journal. Even then, this would be primary research, and as such would be of questionable merit for citation in our article, as we prefer secondary sources (again, read WP:MEDRS to see why). Of course, given that you've already made your mind up about the results of your research before embarking on it, I suspect you'd find it difficult to convince anyone that it had any validity. Science is science, quackery is quackery, and drinking bleach is dangerous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

@MoogleONE: This is not your webpage. Von Restorff (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR

I think you need to read this. You aren't entitled to 3 reverts a day, and I wouldn't want you to think that was the case. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

@MoogleONE: Just to be clear: you are not even entitled to the ability to edit this article. Doing so is strongly discouraged because of your conflict of interest. You may have freedom of speech in real life, but not on Wikipedia. And last but certainly not least: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. If you are not here to build an encyclopedia you should probably start your own website. Von Restorff (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I have a conflict of interest with the miracle mineral supplement article. The article proceeds to unjustly bash the miracle mineral, unreasonably say it is dangerous, then goes on to derail the mineral miracle as quackery, when I know from personal experience that it is not quackery. Someone needs to do something, to ensure the miracle mineral gets a fair chance in the article. I'm just going to talk on the talk page for the miracle mineral for now. MoogleONE (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Unjustly? Unreasonably? Nonsense! Your personal experience is irrelevant. Did you read WP:OR? Von Restorff (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

My personal experience is not irrelevant, when we are looking for the truth of the matter. It should point to some reliable sources somewhere that would demonstrate the curative effects of the master mineral solution, chlorine dioxide. MoogleONE (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It is totally irrelevant. I do not care about it and you cannot write it down on Wikipedia. We have plenty reliable sources in the article, but they all agree drinking this poison is bad for your health. You are a great defender of the truth. Von Restorff (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your "reliable sources" are incorrect. Drinking this "poison" can easily save your life. I recommend you go get some right away, and try it out at a 3 drops dosage. If you are really sick, the 3 drops dosage may kill too many pathogens immediately, and overload your body, making you nauseous, so then you slowly lower the dosage until you no longer become nauseous. Then increase it slowly to maybe 8 drops, at which point you're probably fine/cured. There is a lot of information about the miracle mineral out there to read, start at http://miraclemineral.org . This stuff can easily save your life, I highly encourage you to grab some. I got 4 bottles for $35. It's probably very inexpensive to make. MoogleONE (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion. I am not interested in your opinion. I am not going to read that website because it contains dangerous nonsense. Maybe your doctor can help you; I cannot. Von Restorff (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the chlorine dioxide article you linked to, you will see this warning symbol:

What part of 'very toxic' don't you understand? If you wish to poison yourself, there is very little we can do about it, but we as sure as hell aren't going to allow you to encourage others to do the same thing. In your own interests, seek help from a doctor. Or a psychiatrist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Or both. Von Restorff (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This Breakthrough can save your life, or the life of a loved one. The answer to AIDS, hepatitis A,B and C, malaria, herpes, TB, most cancer and many more of mankind's worse diseases has been found. Many diseases are now easily controlled. More than 75,000 disease victims have been included in the field tests in Africa. Scientific clinical trials have been conducted in a prison in the country of Malawi, East Africa. http://miraclemineral.org

It is very dangerous in high doses. In low doses, it is nearly a cure-all, and can easily save your life. I am going to see my psychiatrist and talk to him and other doctors about the curative properties of the miracle mineral. MoogleONE (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I think you understand by now that Wikipedia is not the right place for your quackery, so go talk to a psychiatrist and a doctor, maybe they will be able to help you. Have a nice day, Von Restorff (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC) p.s. Sorry, but the idea's behind homoeopathy are nonsense too.

The miracle mineral is not quackery, and with the miracle mineral I very likely will not have to see a doctor, unless I break a bone or something. Why are you so negative regarding the miracle mineral? What is wrong with you???? This is a cure-all that can save humanity. I don't use homeopathy but I will go and see your link. MoogleONE (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It is quackery. Mass-poisoning gullible prison inmates in under-developed parts of the world who do not have access to real doctors is not something to be proud of by the way. Von Restorff (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not quackery. They weren't poisoned, and Jim Humble should be VERY proud! I'm beginning to wonder about you Von Restorff. What's your angle here? Why do you keep bashing the miracle mineral. MoogleONE (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The FBI and CIA and KGB pay me a huge salary to hide the truth about your miracle mineral quackery and cover up the alien landings in area 51. Isn't that obvious? Von Restorff (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Aha, you double-spy; now we have gotten into the heart of the matter. This is about to get very funny, because I'm actually married to an alien! MoogleONE (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure she feels the same way about you. See your psychiatrist... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I once ate an alien. Excuse me, I forgot to mention that I am part of the illuminati and the templar knights. Von Restorff (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy, the military is interdicting me from psychically communing with my wife Lucifer, so I don't know what she thinks about the miracle mineral or seeing a psychiatrist.

What kind of alien did you eat Von Restorff? They eat us, so I really hope you are being truthful in your gigantic win for humanity. How did you become part of the illuminati and the templar by the way? I'd be really interested in joining. MoogleONE (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I know. That is why I contacted you. If you stop using Wikipedia right now you will soon be contacted by a man wearing a green hat. He will explain you everything you need to know. If you continue to try to spread your nonsensical quackery-stuff here you will be eaten by velociraptors. This message will auto-destruct in 75 seconds. 74. 73. 72... Von Restorff (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Lucifer likes you. MoogleONE (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Do yourself a favor and read every page of this site http://sites.google.com/site/mmsdebunked/ Vespine (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I just glanced at it, and I couldn't believe what I was reading. The miracle mineral works. I have it and it cured me. MoogleONE (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And that's why we don't let people like you edit wiki articles. You can't even consider the possibility that you might be mistaken.. Read the pages about anecdotal evidence and critical thinking. The fact is no matter how convinced YOU are that it works, you can not possibly know it works for a fact, you COULD be mistaken. The fact you completely fail to even recognize this is clear evidence that you do not have an objective view of the subject. How do you know someone didn't pray for you to get better just before or after you took mms and it was really their god who healed you? How do you know aliens didn't freeze time and abduct you and cure your brain infection? These are ridiculous examples but that's my point, as a sample size of one, you CAN NOT possibly know that it was MMS that cured you. Every quack medicine in history, and there have been thousands has had supporters who were absolutely convinced that it cured them of something. Do you somehow think you are special? You can't be mistaken? Well you are wrong, everyone can be mistaken no matter how convinced you are that you are right. Vespine (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I edit wiki article and I am not mistaken! Miracle mineral is miracle mineral. It cure all disease! MoogleONE (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)