Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:46, 7 November 2006

CLICK HERE to leave me a new message.

Please also sign your comments using four tildes like this: ~~~~

I will respond to you on the page where the conversation started, whether that is your talk page or mine. That way the conversation is easier to follow. If you leave me a message here, you might want to watchlist this page until you get my response.

• /Archive01 February 2006 - June 2006
• /Archive02 July 2006 - September 2006
• /Archive03 October 2006

Checking in

Hi Ginkgo,

I figured I'd just drop you a note and see how things were going. Have you had any problems? Is there anything that you're having difficulties with? Probably not, but I figured I would ask. Doesn't hurt, right? :) Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 18:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm getting over the initial shock (I thought my talk page was busy before!) and am settling in. There are a lot of tasks and backlogs to look at and keep me interested. I'll let you know if I have any more questions. Cheers! --Ginkgo100 22:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC - Keltik31

I have started the RfC process for Keltik31; and I would appreciate your comment on my request here, so that my request can meet the two-person threshold. Thank you! -- Weirdoactor 00:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he had already been blocked by the time I saw this comment. --Ginkgo100 21:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA. I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it. Again, thanks; └  / talk  13:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility

When someone has passed the line into blatant vandalism, after repeated warnings, sometimes civility goes by the wayside. Sorry if that seems harsh, but this has been going on for days. Fan-1967 21:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I would note that WP:CIVIL does not contain an exception for vandalism; also that it is not entirely clear that this is a case of actual vandalism. At any rate, I have found not feeding trolls to be an effective policy; incivility often inflames and encourages them. --Ginkgo100 21:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding User talk:Naradasupreme

I am wondering if this archive is the reason why he is blanking that page. Wouldn't have a move been more acceptable? In this case, it was an oversight by me, but he should have explained things better IMO. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hooray. Looks like he has a few accounts! Oldschoolfreak's user page was blanked by User:24.148.67.72 back in July. Appears that Naradasupreme is the exact same person just by my own personal guess. Oldschoolfreak had reverted the edit to the IP address talk page with the comment, "rv - all of this bickering is childish and needs to end. there are much more pressing matters on Misplaced Pages than some anon's talk page." Too bad WP policy is a pressing issue. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm also pretty sure User:24.148.67.72 and Naradasupreme are the same; it's less clear whether Oldschoolfreak is another account of this user. However, I have not seen any behavior that violates WP:SOCK. If you see any or you think I'm missing something, you can report it at WP:SSP. Cheers! --Ginkgo100 03:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Deon555's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully yesterday with a result of (18/16/8). I'd like to let you know that I won't be running for adminship again, until I am nominated, rather than nominating myself again. Thanks for your support, Deon. — Deon555Review 22:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Adidas

I'm sorry. However, I must say that on the User Templates list, there is a section for removing warnings on the user page (I did not know that no consensus had been reached). And yes, I did misread the history. Diez2 05:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe those warnings were created in anticipation of the consensus on removing warnings. --Ginkgo100 05:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Xinirene

Please block this user, as he or she as violated a last warning on the Orbit Download Manager. Thanks! Diez2 05:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I was just leaving the "you-are-blocked" notice when you wrote this. --Ginkgo100 05:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ravenverse

Thanks for the pointer! FreplySpang 06:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

An unusual barnstar

A bit of an unusual barnstar, but you helped me with a question on the HD four days before my subspecialty exams in gastroenterology (which I've passed, woohoo!). I did get a question on calculating caloric requirements, and your reinforcement of my distant biochemical memory was appreciated. Wanted to say thanks so much! -- Samir धर्म 06:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

November Esperanza Newsletter

"Accidental vandal"

I would not call accidental, adding something like "edward battye rules!!!!!!!!!!!!", I reckon. In any case, we should assume good faith. Asterion 21:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

From the diffs and comments, it looked like this person simply botched the reversions (and, ironically, yelled at others for supposedly botching reversions). You're right, WP:AGF definitely applies here. However, if you see evidence that this user is not acting in good faith, feel free to add them back to WP:AIV. --Ginkgo100 21:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fanstasy information in soy protein article!

Hello Ginkgo100,

Some additional studies since then have indicated that the digestibility and biological value of soy protein for humans is comparable in nutritional value and quality to animal proteins.

This sentence above is false.

First of all, what are the additional studies. The reference is not a study. It is a book. The book explains about digestibility not Biologicla Value.

Second, the biological value of soy is lower at 74 than the other animal protein in the table. According to BV it is not comparible. Please remove this entire weasel sentence per Misplaced Pages guidlines. I undertand you were trying to help.

Now that I explains, I want to to mediate and remove this info that the anon IP put it. Thanks. AndyCanada 22:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, my point is that a content dispute is not equivalent to vandalism. This has become a pet peeve because I see this accusation thrown about very, very often (with many editors all across Misplaced Pages) with content disputes.

Second, although I have not read the book referenced, I have no reason to believe it states anything other than what the editor says it states. Of course a book can cite studies; in fact, as a secondary source, a book summarizing studies is often a preferable source to the primary research, at least for Misplaced Pages. --Ginkgo100 22:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the BV soy is 74 which is lower on the table in the soy protein article. So how is it comparible? The sentence states biological value which the book does not state. The book focused on nutrition and digestibility.

Some additional studies have indicated that digestibility of soy protein for humans is comparable in nutritional value to animal protein. If the sentence was cleaned up it would read like this which does not add much to the protein section.

The anon IP is trying to confuse "biological value" with digestibility to obscure the facts. The phrase biologicial value does not belong in that sentence that is actully contradicting the facts about BV in many studies. Please overview. Thanks, AndyCanada 22:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Without seeing the reference itself, I can't comment on whether it's correct or not. In general I assume good faith that when an editor cites a reference, they faithfully represent what the reference says. It often happens in science that studies contradict each other. It usually just means that further, better designed studies are needed. I recommend leaving the sentence. --Ginkgo100 22:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's why I've left it as well. I removed it a number of times, and asked the user on their talk page to post a reference. The reference was given after the request. I also assumed good faith since it's obvious that the anon IP is at least attempting to cite their claims. Also, since it's well known that soy protein fortified with the sulfur containing amino acid methionine greatly increases it's biological value (Nutri. Biochem. 7:481-487, 1996), I felt that that the sentence which says - or at least said before AndyCanada edited a few minutes ago (and I suspect that he has not read the reference in question to make these allegations, but that's another issue) - that the BV was comparable to animal sources could be verified. Just adding my 2 cents. Yankees76 23:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

The book referenced is about nutritional value not BV. >>> Nutritional Value of Food Protein Products", I.E. Liener; Table 7.7 page 219. In Smith and Circle, editors; "Soybeans: Chemistry and Technology." Published by The AVI Publishing Co. 1972. Westport,Connecticut. <<< Your reference cannot back up your sentence. Please double check or remove. I have already rewritten the sentence.

Please remove your fantansy information. There is no debate to what the BV of soy is. The anon IP has alleged the BV of soy is 96 which is a LIE. Should I add that info back into the article too? Original infromation is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. I will not let you and Yankees76 gang up on me. I would like to seek abritration on the fantasy information. Please direct me to where I can go for abritration. Thanks. AndyCanada 23:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The policy:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Please comply with Misplaced Pages's policy. Do not attempt to add sentences that violate this policy. Your recent edit on soy protein violates this policy.

Next time you can use the sand box if you wish. Double check your references in order to ensure they validate your contributions. AndyCanada 23:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting my user page

Thank you for notifying about the reference to User:Shardsofmetal/BoxHeader on User:Shardsofmetal/Sandbox/Accessable Userpage. It turns out that I didn't need that page either, and I have tagged it for deletion. In addition, I also found that I didn't need User:Shardsofmetal/Userboxes/Narrow. Thanks again for the note,  Shardsofmetal   T   C  22:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)