User talk:ImperfectlyInformed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Lundberg Family Farms 2 Water fluoridation 3 ipm 4 To find old PROD's 5 Cookies for you 6 Adopt Offer 7 ED sources 8 Proposed citation style guideline 9 WP:AN 10 Metaphysical libertarianism 11 Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive 12 Note on your comment 13 Wikicookie 14 OM 15 Birkson 16 June 2008 17 quack quack! 18 Chronic Fatigue Syndrome 19 Edit warring 20 Warning on 9/11 21 Reply 22 Re: DRV

[edit] Lundberg Family Farms

A tag has been placed on Lundberg Family Farms requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Water fluoridation

I have no "vested interest" in the water fluoridation controversy. Please assume good faith. My interest is that the article comply with Wikipedia guidelines and policies regarding neutral point of view, verifiability, reliable sources, original research, and proper weight. · jersyko talk 15:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, any discussion about the article should go on its talk page. After reading your comment at my talk page, I will reply at Talk:Water fluoridation controversy. · jersyko talk 15:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ipm

i just replace it by green manure, because i thought green manure is a useful addition, ipm on the other hand does not exclude the use of synthetic pesticides and so in my opinion the mention here would be misleadingtrueblood (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Green manure is a useful addition, I agree. But without the link to IPM techniques you don't have a link to these specific alternative pest management techniques. It's fine to reference something that includes non-organic practices as long as its relevant to organic farming. OptimistBen (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

it is not, if ipm is the equivalent of integrierter anbau in german or agriculture raisonee in french it is the answer of conventional farming to organic farming. it is misleading to mention this here. ipm uses organic techniques not the other way around.

trueblood (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

you might wat to have a look at this: [1]

trueblood (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To find old PROD's

How do I find old PRODs? I want to see what that page looked like. I searched for PROD CRU; nothing. And aren't they just sneaky ways to delete articles? I doesn't seem like many people even browse through them. OptimistBen (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this isn't really about AfD's anymore, I'm replying here rather than on WT:AFD.

WP:PROD is meant for uncontroversial deletions. After PROD'ing an article, it just sits for five days. During this time any editor can object to the deletion and remove the tag. After this five day period, an admin comes along and usually deletes it, though they could decide they disagree with it and not. You could ask an admin to e-mail you the text or userfy it for you, or PROD's are automatically overturned at WP:DRV. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just wondering where these old pages are stored. I want to see what it looked like. You're saying that it's not stored anywhere? Would it be easy for an admin to dig up the deleted page? OptimistBen | contribs 19:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

They just Special:Undelete to look at it. It's still on the servers, just not anywhere that non-admins can see. Pretty much every admin will be willing to userfy or e-mail it to you, unless it's a copyright violation or has WP:BLP problems. But both of those would appear in the logs, so you oughta' be fine. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, out of curiosity, can RfA refer to both requests for admin and requests for arbitration? It seems like people throw the acronym out there indiscriminately. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 19:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA is just Requests for adminship, since WP:RFA is a shortcut there. For Requests for arbitration WP:RFAR, WP:RFARB, and WP:ArbReq are the official shortcuts. As long as you wikilink the shortcut, it shouldn't matter which one you use. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cookies for you

		Cookies!
		Here are some cookies as a way of saying "thank you" for contributing to our project. Keep up the good work! Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adopt Offer

This user has been offered adoption by Redmarkviolinist (If you wish adoption by another user click here)

ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 20:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. I'll start creating the lesson ASAP. Contact me if you have any questions. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 14:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Lesson? I actually just want someone to refer to if I run into some troubles. That's why chatting would be easiest... ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 16:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no problem then. Actually, just feel free to leave messages on my talk page, I'm on for the majority of the day. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 20:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ED sources

I've created a subpage at (User:Urban Rose/ED sources). If you can help me gather sources, I may propose a recreation of the article Encyclopedia Dramatica. It has been deleted on the grounds of not enough reliable sources, so if you can help me gather some I would appreciate it.--Urban Rose 02:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that it may be more difficult to gather sources than I thought. Anyway, if I come across any, I'll drop them there. Reading up on the site now. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 02:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think is actually going to work, at least not for a while. Unfortunately WP has degenerated to the point where I'm actually worried that I could be banned for doing something legitimate like this. Plus, there really is not that many sources, and it was discussed recently. Let's wait for the mainstream media to start digging around in it -- they'll have a field-day with it sometime. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 05:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed citation style guideline

Hi OptimistBen, I like your proposal to endorse the Chicago citation style, a hybrid system of footnotes and author-date referencing for all articles. I am considering making a formal proposal to that effect along with guideline implementation recommendations. I'm not sure where to do this, whether at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources or at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), what do suggest? Also, do you think this is the right time to proceed? Any other comments? Thanks a lot! --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to help you, but I think we should wait. I'm super-busy with school until the end of May. After that, we can make a good argument; I'll take some quotes from the Chicago Manual of Style and perhaps other style books. As for where to do it, I don't know; I'd probably do it at the Citing sources place, and you could possibly also mention it at the Policy page. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 16:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Great! Give me a shout when you're ready. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I won't be around Wikipedia any longer. Sorry about that. Good luck with the project if you decide to pursue it. :) --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hope it's just a temporary break! Impin | {talk - contribs} 14:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN

Your edit was mistakenly placed in the wrong section, causing it to overwrite another editor's comment. I've reversed the change and please feel free to re-add it to the correct section. Thanks, Nakon 01:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metaphysical libertarianism

So when do you graduate? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In a couple weeks. To be honest, I don't care for libertarianism, so I may not be able to help you even after I graduate. Plus I just wrote a thesis on this stuff, so I'm pretty burnt out on it. It looks like your stuff is ok, but given that it's a minor viewpoint, it should be summarized. Don't put huge blockquotes in the actual article. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 17:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive

Hi, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note on your comment

The lead of the OM article is carefully phrased not to state that OM is "food faddism" and "quackery", which would indeed be in breach of the NPOV policy. Instead it notes the fact that it has been described as such by some critics. This is a very important distinction - it is making a factual statement about some people's opinions, not making a factual statement about OM. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicookie

[edit] OM

Thank you for your masterful edits.--Alterrabe (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I realise that a lot of the discussion recently has dealt with the details of papers that are not always freely-accessible to the public. If you need a copy of any paper please e-mail me through my userpage and I should be able to get you a Pdf. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate that. I had access to those two articles on beta carotene, but I haven't had the chance to really read them. Plus, I don't really have the expertise to understand them. Incidentally, check out [PMID 11134976]. This may be a good article to cite on the controversy between synthetic and natural beta-carotene. As the beta-carotene was pointed out as the major "confounding" factor in vitamin E studies (at least one letter said that), I think it belongs in that section. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the article. I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's not much difference between the two, but things like that do need to be specified in the article. I don't think it should be dumbed down. ImpIn | (t - c) 23:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple tests are (re)run to include retinol or beta-carotene, and not separating out patients with oxidant & chemical stresses (e.g. smoking, alcohol, statins), previous liver disease/damage, vitamin K deficiencies and other antioxidant issues, are repeatedly used to make simplistic "vitamin E" (a-t acetate vs gamma tocopherol incl'd) and C tests look bad for known contraindications that date back to the 1940s. These distorted tests, some unmistakably designed that way, are then cherry picked, replanted in various metastudies (E, C, etc) and bullhorn amplified to drive POV in a frenzied, advertisers' media.--TheNautilus (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, reply.--TheNautilus (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birkson

If you read Birkson, he had seen patients come in and die of the same mushroom poisoning the same summer, and prescribed lipoic acid against the orders of his supervisor, and was almost fired. The only reason he wasn't was because the NIH got involved and asked him to publish on it. But the damage to his career was there.--Alterrabe (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Orthomolecular medicine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] quack quack!

I was just reading over your edits on QuackWatch, and I like what you're adding. I'm starting to get a little worried, though, that there's too much critical perspective. we don't want the article to go the other way and become quackwatch bashing. is there any way you can compress a little; maybe blend some lines together and push the removed parts into footnotes?

I thought I'd throw this on your talk page, by the way, because I didn't want to fuel any fires on the quackwatch talk. I hope that's alright.  :-) --Ludwigs2 (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I can appreciate the concern, as I'm interested in balance, but I put all of the laudatory stuff at the beginning of the section, and tried to word the critical stuff carefully. I think it's fair at the moment -- consider all the praise that it gets in the beginning. Also, I'm completely done; that's all I wanted to add. The Kauffman article can be presented in a footnote if you prefer. Also, I don't think there are BLP concerns, and the BLP/N agreed with me. I think you were wrong to take Barrett's name out of the review by the pharmacist, as that was part of the direct quote, and taking it out makes it confusing. I'd appreciate if you put it back. What do you suggest cutting? Perhaps Colgan's criticism should be cut, because it is focused on Stephen Barrett. I'm reluctant to take it out because it's such an appropriate criticism -- the problem with Quackwatch is that it broadly lumps all alternative medicine together as quackery. ImpIn | (t - c) 07:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry, I didn't recognize that the name entry was part of a quote. I'll put it back now. and if this is all you're adding, then I think we're still green. let's let it sit for a few days, see what comes to mind, and what other editors do with it... all in all, though, this is a definite improvement. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Do you think this edit would be better to be added at ME/CFS hypotheses? The main article already talks about CFS being associated viral infections but the ME/CFS hypotheses article is not very well developed on enteroviruses. P.S. I can't take it at the OM article anymore except for minor stuff. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about the disease. I think a comment about it should stay on the main page, but a section should be added to the detailed hypotheses section makes sense. I'll see about adding it. ImpIn | (t - c) 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I may have jumped the gun here, when i reverted your edit; but these findings are already included in the ME/CFS Pathophysiology Article and indeed that particular reference is not all that recent and already included in that Article. Have a read under enteroviruses there and let me know. The main CFS article is not the place for such detail anymore, given there are about 4000 papers on the condition. Thanks for your interest Jagra (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Orthomolecular medicine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning on 9/11

You have recently edited September 11, 2001 attacks in a manner that transgresses the arbitration decision reached. Please do not add disruptive information or comments related to the promotion of conspiracy theories to the September 11, 2001 attacks article or its talk page. These issues have all been raised in the past and reviewed by administrators. Continuation of this behavior will result in the imposition of discretionary sanctions that include being banned from editing this article or being blocked entirely for a short period of time. Please refrain from repeating these actions again. Thank you.

-- VegitaU (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The offending diff. I think this reflects poorly on VegitaU and RxS's reading abilities -- there were no "conspiracy theory" concerns in my edit. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Check the archives of WP:RS/N and Talk:Michael Behe. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: DRV

User:ImperfectlyInformed/List of envorinmental websites Here you go. I'll still endorse my close on the DRV, and I do have my easons why, but i'll let you file it if you wish. Wizardman 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)