User talk:Ju66l3r/Archive 5

&#32;Archive 5&#32; &#124;&#32; Archive &rarr;

Bundle for deletion - Category:Law firms in Israel
I am planning to nominate all law firms of Category:Law firms in Israel for deletion, as a bundle. They are all failing WP:CORP, in the same way. Since you have been involved in similar cases, would you see this as a good idea? Thanks. --Edcolins 23:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do. I only nominated the firms that were given in the initial AfD that I noticed for Z&Z (forget the name now).  I have read all of the other stubs and it appears they were all boilerplate additions by  as inappropriate stub creations.  I would support a deletion of the entire category as the articles now stand.  ju66l3r 00:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I have changed my mind. One of the law firms, Herzog, Fox & Neeman may be considered notable (not sure... about this one): it was found by Chaim Herzog, the sixth president of Israel (another one of the three founders, Yaakov Neeman, is a former Israeli Minister of Finance). So the bundle nomination may fail. For now, I have requested speedy deletion of 10 of the 32 articles: Orna Lin & Co. Lipa Meir & Co. Berkman Wechsler Bloom Gazit & Co. Baratz, Horn & Co. Haim Zadok & Co. Gilat, Knoller, Graus & Co. Yaacov Salomon, Lipschutz & Co. Weksler, Bregman & Co. Shenhav, Elrom, Konforti & Shavit Ron Gazit, Rotenberg & Co. and tagged the rest for notability check. --Edcolins 15:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also requested speedy for Tulchinsky-Stern & Co. Kantor, Elhanani, Tal & Co.. --Edcolins 16:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * These articles definitely needed to go per WP:BIO. Some of the ones that you left are based solely on WP:WEASEL and if you removed the "...one of the largest..." phrase per the weasel word policy then you're really left with the same stub.  But it's good to err on the side of caution for those, I guess.  It seems that the creator of all of these articles is just a bit overanxious and didn't familiarize themselves with the WP:N guideline at all.  ju66l3r 18:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

New Articles
Reply. --Doug talk 20:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks & request
Thank you for reverting the vandalism of my user page on January 11th. The same thing has happened again so I woulld be most grateful if you would again do a revert.Geoffrey Wickham 20:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Remember that if you see vandalism on your user page, you can revert those changes by clicking the time stamp of the last good version in the page's history and then clicking the Edit tab to edit that version (prior to the changes).  Without changing the page, tell it to save the changes and it will remove the vandalism.  ju66l3r 21:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks a lot for your support on my talk page. Exactly what I wrote here. --Edcolins 21:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again
... for informing about that this discussion on the Admin's noticeboard! --Edcolins 20:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/LauncherX
I changed your link to WP:SOFT into WP:SOFTWARE: WP:SOFT is about mediawiki, and I think that it wasn't what you meant. Anyway consider that WP:SOFTWARE is only a proposed guideline, so I think that you should provide another argument by Snowolf (talk) on  21:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help...I sometimes goof those two shortcuts. I have added WP:BIO to the AfD because there is no assertion of notability.  ju66l3r 22:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

On your editor review
I thank you for responding, and after looking through your contributions more I am certain of your character. I'm sorry I had to waste your time reading that, but its just a response to what I've seen recently on RfAs. If you were to stand for one, I'd be glad to give my support. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk &bull; contribs) 16:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Brown people
Dont you dare assume anything about what other editors think let alone claim to speak for them. That is the worst kind of trolling. Please desist, SqueakBox 21:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read my response on the AfD page. There is no assumption, only fact.  The fact is that the comments timestamped prior to the revisions made to the article that basically replaced the entire article with new content are not applicable to discussion of the current article's merit and that needs pointing out to any reviewing administrator for accurate evaluation of the AfD.  It was not trolling and I'll remind you to assume good faith about my edits.  Thanks.  ju66l3r 00:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate a third opinion at Talk:Brown people. Uncle G 19:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can provide. ju66l3r 20:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

To claim others cant criticise Brown people without criticising you is absurd rubbish, the misapplying WP:AGF is worse. Please stop being so aggressive and stick to the arguments, which other users absolutely have the right to elucidate in a way that is critical of the article, SqueakBox 19:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your going behind my back at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is a clear indication thaty you are the one assuming bad faith. If you cant handle the frustrations of editing I suggest you take a break from the article in question. Your slur that I edited white people and your other rule violatuions may nmean I decide to take further action if you refuse to calm down and discuss reasonsably and rationallt, SqueakBox 19:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You have demonstrated that you are not willing to read or discuss my contributions to the talk page regarding the content of the article. You have a serious case of WP:KETTLE and I invite you to take whatever extra measure you feel is necessary.  Part of the reason I went to AN/I was to get some extra editorial attention to the abuse from you and another editor.  I will continue to contribute where I choose and in a manner of civility.  The fact that you characterize yourself as a "frustration of editing" (because you and one other editor are the only things I can no longer handle) suggests that you are out to make a WP:POINT by ignoring any arguments put forward by anyone in favor of improving the Brown people article.  I have remained calm but refuse to continually have my and other editors' efforts labeled as racist or ignorant or any one of the other choice adjectives you've provided on the article talk page and edit summaries.  You need to remember your ArbCom parole and act accordingly.  ju66l3r 20:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

yes well the rascist who got me in fron of the arbcom is now permanently banned. See User:BlackApe. My arbcom case concerns Zapatero, it doesnt stop me pointing out OR, rascism or anything else, SqueakBox 21:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your ArbCom case resulted in a personal attack parole of one year. That is not limited in scope and was even extended to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith.  Your continual mischaracterization of my and other edtiors' work falls under unwarranted assumptions of bad faith.  I have so far not felt it necessary to ask for arbitration enforcement, but you refuse to answer simple and reasonable questions that set out to determine your intent about the content of the article.  You are leaving little choice in the matter and so I hoped to have extra attention brought to the matter to hopefully give you some good advice rather than ask for a ban.  I can see by your talk page that some administrators have recently attempted to get through to you on this as well.  There's little else I can do for you.  You can't just cry "OR" or "racist" or "PoV" without pointing to the actual text and how it does not fit the guideline.  Instead, you apply your labels and then argue past others' attempts to show you how you are wrong in regards to the policy or the text.  Please don't continue this same pattern on my talk page.  Thanks.  ju66l3r 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made no bad faith assumptions against you, why are you harrassing me? Brown people is a rascist concept and then Uncle G turned it into an OR piece and you told admins that this means when people write delete thay mean keep, and since then you havent stopped attacking me, SqueakBox 22:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you desist from writing me messages on my user page (I watch arb en in any case) and I will stop writing to you, SqueakBox 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: IPhony
An editor has nominated the article IPhony for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Articles for deletion/IPhony. Add four tildes like this &tilde;&tilde;&tilde;&tilde; to sign your comments. You can also edit the article IPhony during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 13:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR on White people
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Technically, you violated the rule already; however, I will let you off the hook this time, only giving you a stern warning. However, the next 3RR violation will surely result in a block. Also, I have protected the article. Please discuss changes on the talkpage first before adding changes. --210 physicq  ( c ) 22:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As I am the only person working for compromise (and have introduced compromise text into the article), the reversions were not back to identical text. If I revert B->A, B->A, C, B->C, B->C, that is 3RR?  ju66l3r 23:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. Yes, it would not be a 3RR violation, technically, but just discuss first before adding. Edit-warring, compromise text or not, is still disruptive to the article. --210 physicq  ( c ) 00:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please also see the article talk page in the section discussion that says something like "WP:LEAD sentence" where I tried to compromise and was ignored and reverted. Since my changes were to multiple places in the article, I thought it best for them to see it in context.  ju66l3r 00:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Request re vandalizing of a user page
Hi. I understand that you are concerned with vandalizing. My user page has been 3 times edited with silly comments by 203.158.49.47. Are you able to block that Ip address? I know the person from about 29 years ago, he is mid 50's, an alcoholic with an obsession about a 'conspiracy' in the mid 1960's. If you can help it would be greatly appreciated.Geoffrey Wickham 09:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the personal information. Unfortunately, IP edits are difficult to verify for Wikipedia that they come from a specific person.  It is possible that his service provider could assign him a different IP tomorrow and so it is very difficult to permanently block an IP (for fear that someone else will become blocked at a later time unnecessarily).  The best thing to do is watch for vandalism and use the history tab at the top of the page to revert to a previous version and undo the vandalism.  I will keep an eye on your user page for a while to make sure he does not return and I have also put a warning on the IP's talk page for them to be aware that someone else is keeping an eye out for them because they are repeatedly vandalizing your page.  That is the best we can do for now.  If it does continue, then we can look into short-term blocks, but I doubt they will have much affect since he is doing this over such long periods of time between edits.  Vandalism on wikipedia is something we all need to watch for and simply revert back to a previous version in the history as necessary when we see it.  Sorry I can't do more.  ju66l3r 10:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All understood and appreciated. Geoffrey Wickham 23:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
I just wanted to say thanks for dealing with and reporting the group of vandals at my school today. I really appreciate it. :) &mdash;Mr. Strong Bad/ talk 22:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for re-working / listening to the concerning the Charlotte Catholic High School page Hunter 22:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. The article seems to bounce between an advertisement with no neutrality and a stub with only 3 lines about the school...and the whole time there seems to be some persistent vandalism.  I hope that we can take the good points of the school but make sure that it constantly fits the guidelines of the website.  ju66l3r 23:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use this template any more. This is a non-sense template. Regards, Shyam  ( T / C ) 23:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)
There has been a renewed discussion about removing the several stock market indicies critera from the notability guidelines for organizations and companies (merged organizations with companies & corporations). I interpret your prior comments as being in support of removing these confusing criteria, but would like to clarify before evaluating our consensus. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 04:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I feel that these extra criteria are loopholes for the inclusion of articles that would not otherwise meet the primary criteria of WP:N and do not mind if they disappear, particularly the "it's a company on a list" one specifically.  ju66l3r 05:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mindwipe
Okay, but why are you telling me?? I didn't nominate it. Noclevername 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am telling you, because you created the article and are therefore more than likely to be interested that I have proposed that it be deleted. If you disagree with my assessment of the article for deletion, you should remove the prod deletion template on the article.  It's a matter of cordiality to someone who felt an article needed to be created to let them know when you are suggesting that it should be deleted.  That's why I placed that informational template on your talk page.  Hope that helps.  ju66l3r 23:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting CampusJ
There's nothing immediately apparent that makes this article more advertising-like than that about, for example, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. If CampusJ had been the subject of controversies or somesuch, those would certainly be noted, but it hasn't. The only reason I'm the one who made this page is because someone else who'd tried to make one about CampusJ previously hadn't produced one that met the notability standard of several independent articles on the topic, because he didn't know where to find that coverage. That person contacted me, so I put one up myself that was largely similar to his original (but obviously I couldn't make it identical), except that it included several such articles, in order to fulfill the notability standard. I put no personal or qualitative assessments into it; it's strictly a few facts that are indisputable, and some links to stories about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steveniweiss (talk • contribs) 17:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Responded on your talk page. ju66l3r 23:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Paul Horner accounts
Sure, I would really appreciate your help. I'm new to Wikipedia politics and rules, but I'm really loving it so far. I like this discussion page we're having on the Bridge film. It's like friendly debating for a good cause (You're really good at it by the way). Pretty fun :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulhorner (talk • contribs) 05:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Done. ju66l3r 06:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

×××HOLiC / XXXholic
Hi, sorry to bother you with this, but would you mind to formally repeat your endorsement of "XXXholic" in the move discussion at Talk:×××HOLiC? With all the recent fuss around WP:MOS-TM, I'm sure we'd all hate to have another precedent in favor of stylized typography go down, because enough fans of the manga happened to show up. Regards - Cyrus XIII 12:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I can take a look into it. ju66l3r 17:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject updates

 * I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status.  You could give input on the project's talk page...  Smee 21:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Also, a Userbox for project members, User Scientology project   Smee 21:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks for this information, but I am not overly concerned with Scientology-related articles. ju66l3r 21:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources
The Daily Express is a national British newspaper and is undeniably a reliable source.--20.138.246.89 11:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that I over-excised the previous reference due to its lack of ref tags, compared to the reference you are refering to which was to the right of my intended cut. You, as well, suffered from the same problem in replacing the Daily Express reference reincluded a reference that was not reliable.  I have since fixed this.  But in reviewing the Daily Express for reliability, it is a tabloid.  It is unlikely to be a valid reliable source for most of its information and Wikipedia should strive to meet a higher burden of fact-checking than what is printed in the tabloids.  I will leave it for now, as it is the only reference on the page claiming Joan Collins' appropriateness for inclusion on the list.  If a better, more reliable, source comes along I will not hesitate to remove it.  ju66l3r 12:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Bridge (film)
Hi. Sorry to bother you but since you have expressed interest in that article would you please be kind enough to weigh in on the undue weight issue I raise on the talk page? Thanks. --Justanother 05:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will take a look. ju66l3r 05:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Justanother 05:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers!
Thanks! I was doing some follow-up work on AIV and the vandal's contributions led me to your talk page. Snip-snap, good as new. Anytime! ju66l3r 13:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Lock Bumping and Lock picking addition
Recently you removed a link to my website that sold bump keys. I reposed this link, but could not figure out why it was taken down. I just figured out that I can look at the history and see a note to me as to why you removed it.

I apologize for posting a spam link, and would like to link to my documentation and instructions page, that includes a demonstration video, instructions and templates for making bump keys, and instructions on their use.

I am writting, so you do not think that I am trying to spam again. I use Wiki often, and feel that my contributions will be worth while.

Thank you,

Jeremy www.bump-j.com support@bump-j.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.238.67.253 (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks for your note. I will have to take a look at the link when you post it.  There are already videos for making/using bump keys listed at the article and so it may feel unnecessary to have more of the same.  It will also depend on where these videos are hosted and whether the links you provide include "how to buy what you just saw", etc.  You are writing from an IP address, so you may not be getting the same IP address every time you use the internet.  Normally, when I remove a link I find to be spam, I will include a note on the IP user talk page indicating as such.  If you create an account, then you would get these notes on your user talk page (just as you left me this message) to facilitate any future discussion.  ju66l3r 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have created an account, to better add my contributions. I know others have added videos and instructions for using bump keys, but I believe that my Adobe document is one of a kind right now. I put this together from research on the internet, and personal experience. Please let me know what you think, as I am sure you will find it interesting.


 * The video is hosted on YouTube, but can be easily moved to my web server if this causes a conflict. I do not have any links to Youtube, the video is embedded.


 * As far as "how to buy what you just saw". I do have my site menu at the top of the window just below my banner, as I do on every page of my site, and my bottom banner. But this is a documentation page, so it is not seeded with purchase links.


 * Thank you,
 * Jeremy
 * support@bump-j.com
 * Time: 6:34 AM EST
 * Date: 3-19-07

BE
Just added 3 mainstream newspaper articles. Thought you'd like to know. I think we may have to be proactive about this, because it might be easier searching the same sources for these in general, and adding them as appropriate. Not this week. You might want to see my talk p. for some comments. If you didnt see, Jimbo just put ATT back to square zero. DGG 18:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update, I was just looking at your additions. They look really on point and good.  Unfortunately, I do not have proquest access to read the actual articles.  I did see the recent dust-up at WP:ATT.  I haven't thrown in my two cents yet, preferring to read more about the early differing opinions.  I can see both sides being important (lack of duplicity in policy and yet not clumping seemingly-related items together under one uber-policy).  I'll check out your talk page.  Thank again.  ju66l3r 18:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete my quoting a book who identifies aloe vera as a glyconutrient therapy?
I can't understand why quoting a book that identifies aloe vera as a glyconutrient therapy is not germane to the discussion of glyconutrients? If there are multiple definitions of what glyconutrients are, i.e. if they are not only products sold by mannatech, it would seem to me to be POV suppression to remove any legitimate definition.

Did you even read the source from which I was quoting. One title is: "Aloe vera, a glyconutrient"

I may be a little dense, but what am I missing here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alterrabe (talk • contribs)


 * Your |"source" is written by someone who is financially benefited by the "curative" properties of glyconutrients sold by Mannatech. It is not reliable.  It's like asking McDonalds if their food is healthy for you.  Furthermore, the title may be "aloe vera, a glyconutrient" but the text itself actually says "The active ingredients in aloe are eight chains of mannose sugars...".  Is is the sugars or the aloe vera as a whole?  Why are they marketing just the sugars as the supplement if the whole thing is a glyconutrient (which doesn't make sense, since glyconutrient was chosen as a similar-sounding word to glycoprotein or glycobiology which both deal with sugars...not whole plants.  Even still, the studies quoted by you and within this text, written by a Mannatech researcher, talk about "aloe vera" and not the sugar extracts within glyconutrient nutritional supplements that are the subject of the article here.  It's dishonest to claim all the benefits of "aloe vera" when you're only discussing a specific subset of the plant that is not proven to be the relevant subset to the properties observed (in mice, once, and within a journal with little peer review...).  In all ways, if you want to talk about aloe vera, you're better off doing it over on that plant's page and not at glyconutrients where there is no evidence of such a link between the studies quoted and the effects being claimed specifically for glyconutrients.  ju66l3r 19:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) LEF and Mannatech are two entirely different outfits. LEF was founded by, and is run by, scientists.   Of course if the scientist with Mannatech really knows his stuff, then it would be sensible for them to approach him for his input; even the NIH and the FDA tolerate overlapping interests in such cases.  By your editing standards, we would have to exclude many if not almost all academic physicians from contributions to wikipedia.  Surely you think this would be absurd.


 * LEF is founded by Saul Kent and is just as much a supplement vendor as Mannatech. Furthermore, I don't care who LEF is.  The person who wrote the item you quoted may not even be more than an associate of LEF, but is definitely an employee of Mannatech.  His testimony is not reliable sourcing.


 * 1) I want to dispassionately discuss the facts of the matter. I don't claim to be infallible, by no means, but I expect my contributions to be taken seriously.  For the record, my only assocation with LEF, if it even is one, is that I own a copy of their "Disease Prevention" book.  I am no BOT.


 * The LEF is a highly respected source; to equate them with McDonald's is utter balderdash. As to the reliability of LEF; their book is *extremely* well sourced.  I would urge you to seriously reconsider your comment about LEF's credibility; it is clearly inaccurate, and damaging to their reputation.  Please look into them before voicing such erroneous suppositions.  Surely you aren't implying that the Royal Society of Medicine is chopped liver?


 * LEF is not a respectable scientific organization. I did not equate them with McDonalds, I said you can't go to the salesman to ask if his product is safe or useful...he's not going to say "no" if it isn't.  Besides the point, my opinion on LEF doesn't damage squat except your pride in the LEF.  Just because the Royal Society of Medicine hears from the LEF (who knows, it might even be mandatory that they do...even if they don't want to) doesn't make them any more reliable when it comes to their opinions on the very substances they market.


 * 1b) I agree that LEF is a "supplement vendor." But it's more than that.  It also publishes review on the literature of non-mainstream treatments, and even funds scientific research at American universities.  This does give it a certain standing in the scientific community.  I hope you'll agree with me that this puts it in a entirely different league than your garden variety "supplement vendor."  It was selling supplements long before supplements became as common as they are now.  For you to simply claim that it is not a "respectable scientific organization" is POV, and nothing else.


 * 1c) If you are alleging that LEF peddles glyconutrients as glyconutrients, and the allegation is implicit "I said you can't go to the salesman to ask if his product is safe or useful...he's not going to say "no" if it isn't.", it's demonstrably false. Your notion that the RSM may have been obliged to invite Dr. McDaniel (an American MD) is extremely unlikely.


 * 2) Do you know for a fact that *all* of the authors I cited are associated with Mannatech? My point was that glyconutrients do appear to be more than a Mannatech fad.  If not, I'll ask you to reconsider your edit.


 * All of what authors? Name them and I'll tell you if they are associated with Mannatech, LEF, or any other organization that would benefit from rallying around glyconutrients in the manner that your edits suggested.


 * 2) I had named the authors, and even linked to them, before you deleted the link. It's incumbent on you to follow for you to follow and read the link.  I read contributions before I delete them.


 * 3) It's not at all dishonest to mention the therapeutic benefits of aloe vera; (rememeber WP:AGF). It would be dishonest to claim that we know for sure that aloe vera's therapeutic benefits are due to glyconutrients.  Please note that I DID NO SUCH THING.  (I hope this was not an insinuation of impropriety.)  To report that a plant that contains these glyconutrients has long been known for its healing properties is topical, in that it addresses the plausibility of claims advanced by proponents of glyconutrients.  As you may know, aspirin is derived from the bark of the willow tree; before aspirin was isolated, people would chew willow tree bark.  To mention that willow tree bark and aspirin both exert the same beneficial effects in an article on aspirin would be highly topical.  I cannot overemphasize the relevancy of aloe vera's benefits to glyonutrients if glyconutrients are indeed contained in aloe vera.  Is there a way that we can put this into the article in such a way as to address your concerns?


 * Topical to an article about the plant, not glyconutrients. I will think about what way to include what you're suggesting, but it will need to be more relevantly stated.  Throwing in "cures cancer" and "known benefits since Hippocrates" (paraphrasing) suggests that glyconutrients may also do such things and that's simply not true (since we already have "glyconutrients" coursing through our systems and still get cancer, etc).


 * 3a) Your points here blatantly misrepresent what I had posted, and also imply some logical fallacies. To wit:  the study I had quoted mentioned a possible tumor preventive effect and here you are writing of my throwing in that it "cures cancer."  This is not what I wrote, but rather an outright misrepresentation.  There is a general consensus that not living under a high-voltage power line decreases your likelihood of getting cancer.  But nobody seriously claims that once you have cancer, moving away from a high voltage powerline will cure your cancer.  Yet here you take the idea that aloe vera may prevent cancer, and claim that the idea is that it can cure cancer?  Why do you make such misrepresentations?


 * 3b) You write: "and that's simply not true (since we already have "glyconutrients" coursing through our systems and still get cancer, etc)." Surely you understand that the dosage effect.  We all have cyanide, lead, and nicotine in our body in trace amounts, but nobody claims that these are safe at any dosage.  It is similarly far-fetched to extrapolate from one dosage of anything to another; why do you do this?  (It may also be, as is the case with fats in your body, that it's not only the dosage, but the relationships between the various fats that affect one's health.)


 * 3c) You write that it is "simply not true" that glyonutrients can cure cancer. While I doubt that this is true, and certainly make no such claims, how can you claim to know this is so without there having been clinical trials?  An encyclopedia is here to report on what we know, and on what we don't know, and not on what we think is true.  I'm sure you'll agree with me, that it is "simply not proven" that glyconutrients can cure cancer.  This is a huge difference.


 * 4) As you must know, for obvious reasons, it would be unethical to conduct research on humans before ample animal data is in. Bearing these ethical constrains in mind, it seems close to disingenuous to then disqualify data in animals because it hasn't been conducted in humans.  The FDA, after all, insists on animal studies before it lets trials with humans begin.  How can we overcome this impasse?--Alterrabe 21:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The quoted study was not performed rigorously, has not been duplicated by anyone since it was announced, and shows no direct correlation between aloe vera and cancer curative properties. ju66l3r 04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 4) The study I quoted is not more than 3 months old, in fact dated April 2007, and here you are condemning it for not yet having been duplicated! How can you do this in good faith?  What are your concerns about its rigor?  And why do you raise this red herring of "cancer curative properties," which none of my contributions ever mentioned?--Alterrabe 11:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that we're going to be going in circles here. You have put a certain level of faith in the nonsense that Mannatech and LEF and other companies like this publish. They introduce a minor level of science and then extrapolate the results well beyond reasonability. It's a serious abuse of the scientific process and they only do so in order to make money. I have not put that faith in their works. I require rigorous scientific evidence for the claims that they make. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. These groups provide little if any proof. The LEF takes exceptional liberties with the data and then builds conclusion upon conclusion on top of each other and you are doing the same thing here. When I called you on it above, you feign ignorance and treat me as if I'm stupid for following you out so far on the flagpole. You quote a study where mice with tumors have aloe vera applied and the tumor supposedly shrinks...and claim you were discussing preventative because it's safer than saying what the data would lead to assume (that it's curative). You want to argue over inaccurate and leading statements about the utility of these proposed treatments/preventions/cures and then hide behind a disclaimer in the same manner as the companies. You act as if I don't know how the shell game is played and want to argue by attrition rather than attribution. Well, in that regard, you win. I'm done going back and forth with you on my talk page about this. You have not presented any reliable sourcing for your additions. Don't like my decision on the matter? There are dispute resolution options at your disposal. I will not allow the LEF to be quoted as if it is a reliable source. ju66l3r 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

re: replacing red links
Thanks for taking the time to write. Let me address your points, and then share my own rationale (if I don;t do both simultaneously):

Is every red link people come across notable? Ok, thats unfair. But take a look at my recent edits to the US Supreme Court. They provide the reader immediate access to a credible third party where they can quickly reference the material. Are they here to create pages or find information?

How long will we wait to fill in many of the red links? Again, I'm making a judgment call on notability in some respects. Still, what's the intent of wikipedia? Providing knowledge or making things either for editors? I don;tthink it has to be one or the other, hence my middle ground approach. I'm not deleting the information while still providing content. Individuals can still create pages, and people can later link it to them.

Will it take longer for an article to be created? I'm not sure there's an unbiased way to assess that. Does the causal reader know a red link means the page does not exist? For me the absence of a link is just as telling (if not more so) as the presence of a red link. To the average reader, the red link symbolizes broken, meaning the page DOES exist. (A counter argument is that people who click on red links will find the truth, but again, do we know how often that click does or does not occur?)

Consider this: how many doctoral students writing their thesis, or other researchers, would love to have the ability to give the reader a chance to instantly pull up what is being referenced, rather than flipping to the end notes section, then pouring through the library to find the original source? I don't mind leaving a list of references at the end of articles, as sometimes people need that more than the information itself in context.

My own thoughts: I'm a high school teacher. My students constantly use Wikipedia for researching a host of things. Lots of them are under the impression that is not valid, or plagued by inaccuracies. What I saw with them is that many studies, internal and independent, have proven otherwise. However, most contend that red or broken links have no place in an encyclopedia. Regardless of the ongoing nature of the project, they feel the existence is in bad taste, and lends a lack of credibility of expertise to the dictionary. I, by and large, agree with them. I think the average use (and perhaps I am wrong) looks to Wikipedia is a well-spring of knowledge. While coming across broken links may not convey "a lack of credible knowledge," it most certainly jumps out as an effort in futility. Why come to Wikipedia if they simply can look elsewhere?

I'll be interested to hear your response. SkipperClipper 01:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

TeRock's changes to the geocaching page
Looks like an attempt at a puzzle cache.. GC11Y0N. Pfalstad 04:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)