User talk:Sagie

Translation
Would you be willing to translate the image description page at he:תמונה:Towel day05 oren.jpg into English? We have the exact same image here at Image:Towel day05 oren.jpg but it lacks detailed source information. —Remember the dot (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (replying to message on my talk page) — Thank you very much. I was hoping the Hebrew summary said who created the image. Does the Hebrew license tag translate to "I, the creator of this work...", or is it just a generic declaration of being under the GFDL? —Remember the dot (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Regarding the Hebrew page, there are no author credits, just plain GFDL in Hebrew. --Sagie 17:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thank you again! —Remember the dot (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for going beyond what I asked and working with the Hebrew uploader to clarify the licensing information for this image. I've put the image on the Wikimedia Commons under Image:Towel Day 2005 Oren.jpeg, so the English and Hebrew Wikipedias can now share the same copy of the image. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of assistance.--Sagie 14:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Lactose Intolerance
The point "Avoiding lactose products" is nearly impossible to validate by scientific articles as it is a digestive problem that is very low on the research priorities list. Most doctors I've spoken to regarding lactose intolerance over the years have absolutely NO CLUE of the distinctions between what's ok to eat and which foods will cause problems. Even most nutritionists are clueless as their training relies in large part on materials and research provided by food producers and not from unbiased research. BECAUSE LACTOSE INTOLERANCE IS NOT A DISEASE, it will never be a priority. So it's up to scientists like myself to do our own research and make our findings known to the public, even though I have not published on this subject per se in any primary source journal. To ask that the numbers be removed due to lack of written evidence in PRIMARY SOURCES is doing a disservice to people coming to wikipedia to learn how they can better cope with this indigestion problem. Chances are that type of information will never be part of any PRIMARY SOURCE JOURNAL. This in no way means that the knowledge is not authentic. There are several areas of valid science for which PRIMARY SOURCES are not readily available.

I have read and reread the Verifiability rule for Wikipedia, and although you may think this section of the article needs stronger sources, the reality is they don't exist. Most "food digestibility" documentation on the market, is produced by the food producers themselves and therefore can not really qualify as unbiased sources.

As for margarine, I've been lactose intolerant for 20 years and for the first 2 years I had "emergencies" 3-4 times per week. These "emergencies" can be very educational. Doctors and nutritionists are mostly unable to give counsel beyond the word "dairy" and have practically no understanding of the use of lactose as a food additive which is the most insidious for lactose intolerant people. I am a physiologist and I've spent a lifetime of reading food labels. Margarines in all countries I've visited have lactose in them, with very rare exceptions. I'd love to publish a Secondary article on this topic but my work keeps me too busy elsewhere.

Finally, it is written that the purpose of the verifiability rule in Wikipedia is to prevent quacks from publishing alternate theories. This section (as is the case of many other sub-sections in Wikipedia) should not be subjected to a harsh enforcement of the rule as it is not it's purpose to present a new or alternate theory but only to be helpful to people requirement a little assistance in getting along with this annoying ailment, to benefit from people's experience. --Tallard 08:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See my reply in your talk page. --Sagie 14:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your April 15 message on my page, those words were from the bottom of Wikipedia's Verifiability article. According to that Verifiability code, references 4 and 5 in that subsection are not considered valid, just because someone provides a weblink to a piece of information doesn't make it valid any more than any someone's opinion. So I guess we should scratch the entire subsection? I don't think so. This particular subsection's scientific data is UNverifiable because there have been NO comprehensive studies done on this topic. The subsection's only purpose is to be helpful to people needing to reduce their symptoms. You seem only concerned with splitting hairs in 4 rather than accepting that the information put forth can be helpful. Do tell me what is your connection to the topic of lactose intolerance?
 * The above unsigned paragraph was written by User:Tallard, in 02:01, 22 April 2007.
 * See my reply in your talk page. --Sagie 18:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniil Morzhakov
Hi do you know who Daniil is? He's being given credit for the Z* transform without citation.144.35.114.222 (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Specific volume, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Standard units. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)