User talk:AndrewCeditor

Speedy deletion nomination of Table Tennis Queensland


A tag has been placed on Table Tennis Queensland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Daiyusha (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Whoever decided that the listing of Table Tennis Queensland needed "speedy deletion" is just ignorant. Table Tennis Queensland is the only governing organization for table tennis in Queensland, is entirely not for profit, is affiliated and governed by Table Tennis Australia which in turn is affiliated and governed by the International Table Tennis Federation (the world's only governing body for table tennis.)

Whoever thought it should be deleted has no idea at all. A simple Google search would have established its validity. This is just amateurish nonsense.

Joel Fuhrman
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Joel Fuhrman; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Conflict of interest?
Hi there! Do you have any kind of WP:COI in relation to Joel Fuhrman? Alexbrn (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

None whatsoever. I am an independent writer including being a health writer and a member of the Australaisan Medical Writers Association. None of my current income comes from any form of health writing (I came out of retirement as a health writer when covid-19 became a pandemic at the request of radio stations I used to appear on regularly).

My main income currently comes from being a trainer and editor for a writing team of 40+ writers for a PR company based out of Gibraltar, from my songwriting and from a business that teaches internet marketing consultants how to sell their services to brick and mortar businesses.

I'm familiar with most diets because as a regular guest on a show that fed to over 40 commercial radio stations across Australia with call in questions from listeners I was asked about many.

My observation of the Joel Furhman page is the editing was biased and inaccurate with: cherry-picking negative statements out of a mainly positive article, using a misleading quote which calls the diet similar to fruitarianism...when it is nothing like fruitarianism, quoting a source that was obviously based on false information and quoting a dietician who in the sourced article talks about using the diet as a detox in exactly the same section where detoxification is identified as pseudoscientific.

I was an internationally syndicated health writer and this is and extremely amateur approach.

More important the editors have missed doing their research and omitted some very important information.

The concerning things about Furhman are not his diet which is just an extreme version of what any good nutritionist would recommend. The concerns are his anti vaccination statements, promoting building a strong immune system as defense against Covid-19 instead of social distancing, his occasional claims and tendency to recommend avoiding doctors and just do his plan which in extreme cases could have serious consequences, his demonization of animal protein (although he does say fish might be okay in limited quantities if it's not contminated) and long term compliance to his diet plan being extremely difficult.

I am looking to share an accurate picture of the man and his recommendations. Inaccurate, misleading information is not helpful to anyone and is the reason Wikipedia is often seen as an unreliable source of information.
 * Thanks for the reply and clarity! - I merely ask because there has been a procession of COI editors at the article ... please carry on. Alexbrn (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you asking. Some of the editors choices have been so biased I'm wondering if they have a conflict of interest. From what you're telling me here I guess it's more likely they've been bombarded with editors who are biased towards Fuhrman in an evangelistic way. I'll try to tread more lightly.
 * I think so, and that might have caused over-compensatory "push back" the other way - which is one of the reasons why COI-tainted editing is so disruptive. If the article can be improved that would be good as (to my memory) it's always been a bit thin. Alexbrn (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is thin. It could use a lot of work. That said, I'm extremely concerned that personal opinion is driving the changes, and the repeated attempts to dismiss references look bad. Please be aware that working on biographies of living persons requires a great deal of expertise with Wikipedia policy, and this is especially so with an article like Joel Fuhrman's where there are are also WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS issues. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that personal opinion is behind a couple of the clearly inaccurate or misleading pieces in the article. I have a reputation for being unbiased and highly accurate in the health field and I'm finding there is definite bias here from the editors. I established that a cited reference was incorrect yet the source is still there. If we don't have a commitment to accuracy then Wikipedia just becomes another unreliable blog site online.
 * If you are going to make this about your professional reputation, then I think it best you worked from edit requests. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

lol I'm not concerned about my reputation. The article is not about me and I don't know or have any ties to Joel Fuhrman. I just want the article to be accurate which it is not.
 * WP:NOTTRUTH. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Jhstarr (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC) AndrewCEditor, do you sell high fat diet books online? The website still seems active. My research suggests you do, but I cannot cite as I would reveal your identity. 

This is actually quite insulting and seems to be an obvious attempt to discredit me. I've never sold high fat diet books...never ever. As a health writer writing based on well established science, including nutritional science, I recommended people limit or avoid saturated fat. Also I have not sold a health publication online since around 2008 so if you're finding something that's being sold online it has absolutely nothing to do with me. Important to note also that my main activities were appearing as a guest on radio and writing as a syndicated columnist.

It's quite simple to find good health information online. You can look at the health recommendations of the World Health Organization or you could go to any large national group of accredited nutritionists and dieticians like nutrition Australia for more in depth nutritional guidlines

Most of the nonsense editing that happens here on Wikipedia is because the editors are totally biased and have no grounding in how to find current health and nutritional information to determine if what they're editing is on target or just bunk that bears no relation to good current science and recommendations.