User talk:67.170.97.60

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Rory096(block) 00:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 03:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Breastfeeding, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 03:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am totally confused

I am totally confused

I don't understand why I am considered a vandal for updating incorrect information on the Wikipedia. There is no such thing as a "detached frenulum." A normal frenulum (under the baby's tongue) is ATTACHED to the floor of the mouth and the underside of the tongue. A problem comes when a tight frenulum prevents the tongue from coming forward enough to nurse properly. A normal frenulum is long enough for the tongue to stretch forward. 2nd: An HIV infection in the Mom can infect a baby through breastfeeding when the mother is in the beginning stages of the infection, or the ending stages of the infection. Breastmilk kills HIV in a petrie dish. Many mothers who have had HIV for a while, and are otherwise healthy nurse their babies without transmitting the virus to them. Especially in countries where mixing formula with unsafe water kills infants, it is considered safer to nurse! And the general recommendation on the duration of nursing a child (from the AAP) is for at least a year or for as long as is mutually desired. And WHO recommends 2 years or longer. So I am trying to make the Wikpedia more accurate, not "mess with it." I am a registered lactation consultant, and I've been working in the field of breastfeeding for more than 10 years. At the very least, please do some research and educate yourselves, so that you can recognize a helpful edit from vandalism! Mary

[edit] Inadvertent blanking?

Hi Mary,

I saw your note to Lbmixpro on Special:Recentchanges. Is it possible that this edit [1] was accidental? You blanked a large portion of the article. Did you copy and paste an edited version back into the edit window, but leave most of it out? Normally we consider such things vandalism--maybe you didn't intend it? It's obvious from your other edits (e.g. childbirth) that you're not a vandal. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping Antandrus. I agree. I was wondering how come most of the article was being blanked, when the parts of the article which looked edited looked fine. Things like that happen sometimes, and I'm not going to blame you. You can go back and correct the errors, but make sure you leave an edit summary so people know what you're doing. Without it, it's easy to think it's vandalism.

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

--LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 04:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)