User talk:Great floors: Difference between revisions
Extended confirmed users 872 edits m →Unarchiving: missing words |
80,624 edits →Unarchiving: I see that your recent edit at Talk:German orthography reform of 1996 is not the first time you've run into problems unarchiving old talk threads. Please stop. |
||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
:::::Your advice is a good faith mistake. Those bots archive lots of discussions which, while inactive, are in no way "stale" - they contain a wealth of information which has been gathered and discussed by Wikipedians about why the article is how it is. Archiving these discussions shows contempt and disrespect for the editing community. The bots also archive unresolved questions. Some of the best questions take years to be seen by the right person with that specific knowledge. Archiving them simply because they're 2, 3, or 4 years old, or whatever, defeats the whole purpose of asking such questions on Talk pages. Such questions must be unarchived for them to serve their purpose. |
:::::Your advice is a good faith mistake. Those bots archive lots of discussions which, while inactive, are in no way "stale" - they contain a wealth of information which has been gathered and discussed by Wikipedians about why the article is how it is. Archiving these discussions shows contempt and disrespect for the editing community. The bots also archive unresolved questions. Some of the best questions take years to be seen by the right person with that specific knowledge. Archiving them simply because they're 2, 3, or 4 years old, or whatever, defeats the whole purpose of asking such questions on Talk pages. Such questions must be unarchived for them to serve their purpose. |
||
:::::(And if a bot blindly archives 30 threads and some of these are wrongly archived, as described above, there is no obligation on the editor who is undoing this mistake to do additional work of sorting through all 30.) [[User:Great floors|Great floors]] ([[User talk:Great floors#top|talk]]) 18:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC) |
:::::(And if a bot blindly archives 30 threads and some of these are wrongly archived, as described above, there is no obligation on the editor who is undoing this mistake to do additional work of sorting through all 30.) [[User:Great floors|Great floors]] ([[User talk:Great floors#top|talk]]) 18:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
{{od}} |
|||
:{{Re|Great floors}}: Regarding your [[Special:diff/854945821|your large-scale unarchiving]] today of old talk threads at [[Talk:German orthography reform of 1996]], I see from the discussion above that this is not the first time you've done this. For the lateset incident, please see the discussion at [[User talk:Mathglot#Archiving important documentation]]. I note that despite the fact that you saw fit to unarchive 38,000 bytes of ten-year old discussions, you have <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Great+floors&page=German_orthography_reform_of_1996&server=enwiki&max= no edits]</span> at all on the article page, and none on the Talk page prior to your edits today. Please heed the earlier comments by [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] and [[User:Sam Sailor|Sam Sailor]] requesting you not to manually de-archive again, or seek [[WP:CONS|consensus]] on the article talk page before doing so. This is starting to look like [[WP:DISRUPT|disruptive editing]]; please stop. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 09:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Adding unsourced content to Wikipedia; sources for content about health == |
== Adding unsourced content to Wikipedia; sources for content about health == |
Revision as of 09:32, 15 August 2018
Welcome!
|
October 2016
- Note by page owner: Admin has been informed of his error
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose
- Hi Alexbrn. This is a lie. You accuse me of "repeatedly reverting or undoing"". I've only made 12 edits, and one was a revert. Please try to improve Wikipedia instead instantly reverting when you see a new editor and then making false accusations. Thanks for the "welcome". Great floors (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Choline discussion and MEDRS
Moving discussion from the Zefr talk page.
Hi, I'm a bit confused by your criteria for deleting stuff. Summaries like "Per WP:[insert policy here]" are better than nothing, but if there's a sentence about a study on how different doses affected some bodily function, how can someone know if you're going to delete it?
I'm very glad to see someone else is willing to put work into the article, so this isn't a criticism but I've got stuff to add to the article and I'll only put in the effort if I can know the criteria for whether my effort will be deleted. Can you let me know? Thanks. Great floors (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- WP:SYNTH. Feel free to ask further questions or try out drafts on me first. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)]
- Ok, so I've read some of the policy now. So, the ideal reference is a paper that's published in a respected journal, where said paper reviews the existing papers, (without reporting on any new research) and is written by people who are not connected to those who wrote the existing papers.
- For choline, from my brief searches, there aren't many such papers. Especially not for the number of topics that can be discussed in relation to choline (dose for normal liver function, relation to TMAO, relation to cancer, effect on cardio vascular risk, pregnancy...).
- And indeed, now that you've deleted the paragraphs that used primary sources, there's almost no information about health (except for the two big, verbose sections, "Pregnancy and brain development" and "Choline and lactation", which I don't feel like wading into). And the few sentences that are left are almost all backed up by writings involving one person, Steven H. Zeisel. (Even the Linus Pauling webpage has him as an author.) This can't be the goal.
- So for such situations where peer-reviewed second sources are rare, how can we still get info (and diversity of sources) into the article?
- Self-published information by a Doctor that reviewed the primary research. Like this: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/carnitine-choline-cancer-and-cholesterol-the-tmao-connection/
- Self-published information by a Registered Dietitian that reviewed the primary research. Like this: http://veganhealth.org/articles/choline
- Parts of papers where the authors discuss the existing literature. For example, this paper's findings would be a primary source, but the first paragraph of the section titled "Identification of dietary phosphatidylcholine metabolites as markers for increased CVD risk" just discusses the findings of existing papers.
- Include primary research (like the study on 60 Mexican Americans) and note that it's unreviewed research, or put it in a section for recent-and-still-to-be-reviewed research?
- I'm going to take some time off editing, so an urgent reply isn't needed, but my goal for this article will be to make it more informative, so advice on the right ways to do this would be appreciated. Great floors (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Tertiary sources such as well-respected textbooks can also be used if you have access. We do sometimes to have to wait for new secondary sources to emerge to give us a high-quality source to reference when adding certain types of information so the waiting game may be pertinent in this case (though I haven't done a search myself to see how many review articles are out there on the topic). What information do you need a secondary source for that you're unable to find? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks to both for replies. I'll separate them to reply to TylerDurden8823's question first. What I'd like to add (if initial research confirms that sufficient scientific/expert authorities support it), but don't have secondary sources for, is that many experts think 550mg/day is not necessary (not needed to be "adequate"), that such high levels seem harmful, and that this 550 figure has very little (and flawed) research behind it. That's what I'd like to try to draft a text about but I haven't given it a try yet because when I came to this article I found a lot of mistakes in the other direction with 550mg/day being labelled as "necessary" (which no government actually claims), and further that 550 may be "less than the optimal intake", and even a few claims of choline benefits that simply weren't at all in the referenced papers. So my edits so far were just to get the article to reflect the studies and government policies it already linked to.
- One usable source that supports the idea that 550 might not at all be necessary is that the US DRI (the official US document where the 550 figure is published) says "it may be that the choline requirement can be met by endogenous synthesis at some of these stages", so a dietary intake of zero may also be fine. But my goal today isn't to defend a proposal for the article to say the 550 figure doesn't convince many/certain experts. I have to research this first.
- Another thing I'll look into is how an authority can say 550 is needed to be "adequate", and also say that only 2 or 10% get this amount, and then also say that there are zero reported cases of deficiency. These three things are all in the article and each is backed up by good sources. Logically, at least one of these affirmations has to be erroneous, but mentioning this in the article would have to be done carefully to avoid making any implications (which might be "original synthesis").
- So if either of you know of usable references that don't follow the 550 recommendation, or that discuss the cancer and cardiovascular impact of choline, I'd be interested to read them. Great floors (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Tertiary sources such as well-respected textbooks can also be used if you have access. We do sometimes to have to wait for new secondary sources to emerge to give us a high-quality source to reference when adding certain types of information so the waiting game may be pertinent in this case (though I haven't done a search myself to see how many review articles are out there on the topic). What information do you need a secondary source for that you're unable to find? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- WP:PRIMARY. There's a difference between being informative (which could include some limited preliminary research which some WP nutrition/health/disease articles contain) and being encyclopedic, i.e., factual as best as possible, which enables Wikipedia to present conclusive information based on the highest-quality evidence. The Choline article still contains significant preliminary, non-factual content which I will address. I'm going to move this Talk discussion to your page for your own use and will monitor from there. Thanks to you and TylerDurden8823 for discussion. --Zefr (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)]
Fyi, EFSA reference values for choline are here. --Zefr (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I missed that when I checked their site. And their definition of "adequate intake". I find the definitions of "adequate intake" to be kinda awkward, it's like they're having a hard time avoiding the words "recommended", "suggested" etc. but maybe the way to understand it is that it's descriptive rather than prescriptive. Great floors (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- And here's the full EFSA paper which established the adequate intake level. At a glance, it's one of the most complete (and recent) usable sources. Great floors (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Unarchiving
Hi, Great floors. Regarding actions like this and this, you should to stop doing that. We archive for valid reasons. There is no need to have a talk page with discussions from the early to mid 2000s, or similarly old discussions, on the talk page...unless the talk page is not really big and not very active. In most cases, readers don't read the talk page. And if an editor replies in an old section, that reply will likely be overlooked; see
- Hi Flyer,
- I'm aware there can be valid reasons for archiving a page, but in my opinion the above examples are accidents and should never have been archived. I wish someone would fix the archive bots (either their code or by imposing policy) to prevent this. Wikipedians put serious time into discussing topics on Talk pages so this work should not be hidden away in archives (yes, of course, they're technically as accessible as any other page but we all know they get looked at a lot less often). I hope others will also fix incidents of discussions being wrongly archived. Great floors (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is not a matter of your opinion, read ping on reply)]
- @Sam Sailor: I will continue to unarchive discussions and entire talk pages that have been unjustifiably stuffed into an archive. Us human contributors put our time into discussing topics and bots are our servants, not our masters. Thanks for the link to the howto. I presume you noticed that it says at the top that it's neither policy nor a even a guideline. Great floors (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- You did not fix any errors, you made good faith mistakes. When both ]
- Your advice is a good faith mistake. Those bots archive lots of discussions which, while inactive, are in no way "stale" - they contain a wealth of information which has been gathered and discussed by Wikipedians about why the article is how it is. Archiving these discussions shows contempt and disrespect for the editing community. The bots also archive unresolved questions. Some of the best questions take years to be seen by the right person with that specific knowledge. Archiving them simply because they're 2, 3, or 4 years old, or whatever, defeats the whole purpose of asking such questions on Talk pages. Such questions must be unarchived for them to serve their purpose.
- (And if a bot blindly archives 30 threads and some of these are wrongly archived, as described above, there is no obligation on the editor who is undoing this mistake to do additional work of sorting through all 30.) Great floors (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- You did not fix any errors, you made good faith mistakes. When both ]
- @Sam Sailor: I will continue to unarchive discussions and entire talk pages that have been unjustifiably stuffed into an archive. Us human contributors put our time into discussing topics and bots are our servants, not our masters. Thanks for the link to the howto. I presume you noticed that it says at the top that it's neither policy nor a even a guideline. Great floors (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- It is not a matter of your opinion, read
- @]
Adding unsourced content to Wikipedia; sources for content about health
- reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sourcesand take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
- WIth regard to content about health, this needs to be sourced per WP:MEDRS
- welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)]
- I'm aware of these two policies. I think everyone is. Thanks for the templates although I'm a bit puzzled. If you have anything specific to say, I'm all ears. Great floors (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Edit at Walnut
Great floors: thanks for the feedback and thoughtful edit. My reasoning to include the 2004 FDA warning letter to Diamond Foods was partly to address what became a media firestorm due mainly to the FDA's conventional language for refuting a health claim on an unproven product, in this case walnuts. Google "fda warning walnuts drug", and you'll see the numerous reports (few of them from reliable secondary sources) disputing the FDA referring to walnuts as "drugs" (original letter here). This was not so much the FDA's declaration as it was their conventional language to refute the California Walnut Commission's wish to make a health claim. In the FDA's view, if a producer says its product produces an effect like a drug does, then that means there must be evidence for the drug effect, even if it's from walnuts.
I feel this might have value in the discussion on health claims because 1) it has historical significance about walnuts and presumed health, and 2) it is an example of how walnuts are regulated in the USA for labeling language that promotes a walnut-containing product and influences consumer decisions. Following you here. --Zefr (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm, I think the relevance is borderline, but I re-added a condensed version that might cover what you want included. Good/bad?
- (It sounds like more detailed coverage of this case might be interesting in an article about the FDA or about food labelling.) Great floors (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Article edit looks fine. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Great :-) Great floors (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Article edit looks fine. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
May 2017
- Note by page owner: Admin has been informed of his error
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be
- This is not true. I reverted once because someone reverted my edit without giving any reason in the edit summary (and without commenting on the explanation I gave on the Talk page before my edit). This is a completely valid reason for reverting - an unexplained revert is surely an error. Please be more careful, and more civil in future. Great floors (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- Do not repeatedly try to force your bad edit. You have been warned. talk) 14:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)]
- Do not repeatedly try to force your bad edit. You have been warned.
Notice
Please carefully read this information:
The
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Great floors. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Limitations and exceptions to copyright
I was looking at older work of mine on Wikipedia and came across this comment of my which you replied on. I've made the table of copyrightexceptions.eu as a wikitable on a subpage of my user page: User:Martsniez/limitations. You might be interested in further tweaking the table. I have to admit that I'm not that familiar with table styles. --Martsniez (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)