User talk:Shulae

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --*Kat* 04:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Benjamin Feingold
I see you're making progress on the project page. I haven't got much time to check it out at the moment, but when you think you have got something that's ready for prime-time, please nudge me! You can also ask me about formatting etc. if it's not looking the way you want or expect.

Thanks for the effort, and keep up the good work! --Slashme 11:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It will be a while I think.  I'm having some trouble with external links or footnotes.  I've been just using the external links for now, but I suppose they should become footnotes eventually. --Shulae 13:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Was I supposed to answer you on HERE or somewhere else? -Shulae 13:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, missed that comment. It's reasonable to answer here, but then I don't get a flag telling me that I got a message, so it's best to make a note on my talk page as well.

As for the external links and footnotes: It's best to make footnotes with the complete citation of the article, so that the user is not dependent on another site being up to be able to get the reference. When I put this material up for the first time, I was still pretty green, and I screwed up a bit. What you have to do is, for each reference, decide on a name or number, for example, you could call your first reference "Rimland83". If you want to refer to that article, type. This will give a footnote, like this.. Then at the end of the article, under the ==References== section, type # followed by the actual reference, in the Journal reference style if it's a journal ref., or another appropriate style.

Important: You have to keep the references in the text in the same sequence as at the bottom of the article, otherwise the numbering is out. This is something that I, as a LaTeX user, didn't anticipate, so the numbering in my version is way out.

You can find templates for these at Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations

I have also included the reference for that particular article here in a mock reference section.

Notes: If you link any outside articles, you have to give them text, like you have been doing so far. If you don't (like for example, ), you can foul up your numbering. Also, if you have to refer to an article twice, you need to jump through a hoop or two. The details are at Footnotes. It's not so hard once you get the hang of it, but the task was a bit big for me on this article by the time that I had figured out how it worked.

Hope this helps --Slashme 18:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Food dye
Hi Shula!

I've been a bit busy lately, and have decided to put my Wikipedia activity on the back burner for a while, :-( but I will definitely make time to do some proofreading etc. when you get around to editing the Feingold Diet page. I only saw your comment today, because we had a conference at work last week.

As for the food dye article, I would suggest that you change the wording to say that those studies are quoted by manufacturers of food dyes, and note your criticism of their methodology. If you can cite a review article that addresses these issues, it would be excellent. In summary: I wouldn't suggest removing the references themselves, but just adding context so that readers can see both sides of the argument.

Hope that helps!

David --Slashme 07:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Schoenthal-headbig.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Schoenthal-headbig.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 08:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Feingold diet/Objections
Hi Shula!

I see you've started hacking away at the Feingold diet page again. Good for you! This should spur me into action in a week or so (when I take a break from "advancing the frontiers of science" ;] ). I see you put in a query: "Jane's book - 46 pgs to read online - permissible? .... please advise".

That's a bit cryptic. Do you want to link to the book, or include text? Also, what is the copyright status of the book? If it's public domain, you might transfer it to wikisource and link to there. Otherwise, you could link to the site where it is currently hosted. (remember to leave a note on my talk page to attract my attention if you want to know more)

Well, I wanted to do both, if permissible. On our website, we provide almost 50 pages of text to read (the book is 400 pgs long), as well as the index. See at http://www.feingold.org/why1.html .... since there is also a link to  buy the book, here, it could be called advertising, which would not belong here, I guess. Or perhaps I should just list the book in the references, with the link to information about it? That is at http://www.feingold.org/book.html and the "read it here" link is on that page anyhow. Shulae 17:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the book is available to read online, and gives important information, it might be a good idea to say something like 'The Feingold Program is set out very clearly in the book "Why can't my child behave?" '. This should

Best regards

David --Slashme 10:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem with linking to books on other websites - then the copyright isn't our problem. As for how and where to link, I would advise against putting in an image which links to the book, as that isn't consistent with the Wikipedia style: Users here don't expect external links from images. I would say the best would be to make a footnote to the complete reference to the book (ISBN, date etc.), with a link to the URL where you can read it online. I can help you with formatting issues here. You can use the following template for the citation (note, the title will be linked to the URL you specify):
 * A preserved specimen (which will be easier to read if you click on "edit"):

Is the "nowiki" on/off part of the code, or is it here in order to   show me how the code looks? Yes, it looks MUCH more clear in the edit. Thanks Shulae 17:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the "nowiki" is just to show the code --Slashme 07:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And a live example (once again, click on "edit" to see how it works.):

Hope that helps. --Slashme 07:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

recent articles: pdfs wanted
Hi Shula,

Our local university library has only general topics, and all the medical journals are over at the med school campus. I could go over there, but it's a mission. Do you by any chance have pdfs of the recent articles about the Feingold program? If so, could you mail them to me? I want to do a bit of a literature study this weekend, so that I can make a serious contribution to the article, and get it ready for "publication". If you don't have, I'll just order the articles next week, and get onto it in a weekend or two.

David --Slashme 14:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

ADHD page
Hi Shula,

I'd say the right way to do it would be to correct the wording on the ADHD page, and explain on the discussion page.

You might like to make the first edit as simple as possible, while removing the inaccuracies, maybe by changing

despite the diet eliminating a wide variety of foods, including most processed foods[23]. For example, adherance to the diet would drastically reduce intake of refined sugar

to

despite the diet eliminating a wide variety of foods[23].

Then you buy time to work out a more complete discussion.

PS, any comment on my previous question about the articles? --Slashme 10:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

pdfs etc
Hi Shula,

Sorry, I clicked on "last change" and didn't realize that you'd left me more than one note.

You're right: You can't put an article's full text up on any website without violating copyright.

Please do mail me pdfs, as many as possible - they can sit in my gmail; I still have about 2 GB free!

I appreciate your efforts. I know it's a bit of a schlep to scan articles and transform them to pdfs, but it would make it a lot easier for me. I tried clicking on http://www.diet-studies.com/PDFDstudies/goyette.pdf, but drew a blank. Is this due to copyright issues? --Slashme 13:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

References: up-arrows and external links

 * I am confused about what I see in the references. There are up-arrows, but they don't go anywhere.  --User:Shulae

Those up-arrows are backlinks: You can click on the reference number in the text, and it will go down to the appropriate article in the reference list. Then when you click on the arrow, you should be taken back to your place in the text.

As for linking to the articles, yes, you can do that, and ideally you should. I've done it in my more recent work, just not yet in that list. I'll go edit some of them, then you can see how it's done. --Slashme 14:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The pdfs
Thanks, I will look out for the threatened flood of articles. I have now given the article a thorough going-over, without doing a proper literature study, of course.

Unfortunately, I used an editor that reformatted the line length. This is a good thing to a certain extent, but it does make it really hard to tell exactly what I changed! I promise this wasn't a scaly attempt to insert evil food-industry propoganda. The main upshot is that I've just given you even more work. You'll now have to re-read the whole darn thing. This could be good, in a sense, as you'll be forced to approach it from a fresh perspective.

I don't think I made a massive difference to the position (i.e. pro or con) of the article as you left it, but I have moved the tone quite a bit away from sounding like an activist website to sounding somewhat more like an encyclopedia. You might take issue with some of the re-wordings I did in the criticisms vs rebuttals section, but we can work on those.

You'll also notice that I changed the three-circles diagram to an svg. This is much smaller, and scales much better than a jpg for line drawings. My text placement wasn't perfect, but I'll take another look at the diagram sometime.

Anyway, have fun editing, and let me know when you are done, and maybe we'll have a "final" draft ready before next month is out &mdash; then we can see what the rest of Wikipedia does to the article. I'm not a parent, but I guess Wikipedia articles are like kids &mdash; you do what you can to guide them on a good path, but they're bound to change in ways you never expected ;-)

--Slashme 18:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again!

I sorted out the problem with the refs: You had a | before the {{, which wasn't necessary. I'll check out the references to the NIH '82 report and the AAP guidelines - maybe I can figure out what to do.

I must admit I haven't read any of the articles you sent me yet, but I'll get onto them this weekend, and if all's OK we can release the article into the wild. --Slashme 08:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

pdfs, mail, US English
Hi Shula,

Thanks for alerting me to the older comments on my talk page.

As for the ADHD page, I completely get what you're saying about picking battles. Once we've done this and I've got some more free time, I'd be happy to help out there, though.

Thanks also for the pdfs. At the moment, I'll just download them. Next weekend, I'll probably get around to reading them all, making notes, and forming a so-called "informed opinion" ;-) Maybe it'll lead to some more editing.  I'd like it if you can email me the rest.  I'll send you another mail then, to remind you of my address.

As for British spelling, sorry, my bad. We South Africans are conditioned to consider US english as an inferior dialect ;-] The Wikipedia policy is to remain consistent within each page, as we know it's an impossible struggle to have the whole wikipedia consistent, and it would be ridiculous to have en-us.wikipedia.org and en-gb.wikipedia.org. This page can be American. I'll fix the diagram that I edited, as I see that's also now "wrong".

Regards

David

--Slashme 06:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

ADHD
Hi Shulae, I have spent the last two nights re-writing and re-structuring the ADHD article. Please take a minute (or three) and read over it and tell me what you think. Please, post your response on the ADHD talk page. *Kat* 06:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Red dates in refs
Hi Shula,

Don't worry about the red date-links. I don't really see why the authors of the citation templates put in date-links, but we should leave them like that for consistency.

I didn't get around to the articles this weekend, as everything was a bit rushed, but I'll get onto it "Real Soon Now" &trade;

--Slashme 08:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Category: Articles needing sources
Hi Shula,

The Category: Articles needing sources listing is simply due to the "citation needed" tag on the research about how much colouring it takes to make ketchup green. Nothing to worry about. --Slashme 07:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: What happened to the Feingold Diet page
Hi Shula,

The page looks fine to me. I guess your browser didn't completely load the page. You might try going to the page again and clicking the "reload" button while holding down the shift key to force your browser to reload it without using cache. Let me know if it doesn't come right. --Slashme 05:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Recruiting doctors, tone
Hi Shula,

I saw the recent discussion on the Feingold diet page, and after reading the article again, I can't help but agree with the points made. In places, it really doesn't read like an encyclopedia article to me. I have invited a few wikipedian doctors to take a look at the article, and I have tagged it as requiring attention from a medical expert (not to say the article is sick, though ;-). This will probably generate a good number of edits, not all of them minor, and not all of them necessarily in line with your point of view so keep an eye out, and maintain a cool head! --Slashme 08:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (Science, medicine and opinions)
 * BTW was I supposed to reply to the note ON my talk page, or did I do this right to reply on your talk page?

Hi Shula,

I much prefer it when you post on my talk page, as you did, because then I get a message telling me to check it out.

So far there hasn't been much response, but we'll see whether User:Tmassey comes up with anything worthwhile. --Slashme 17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:BenFeingold.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BenFeingold.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 13:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Dr feingold82.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dr feingold82.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 12:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Clarification requested
Can you help explain this | comment that you made on the talk page of Benjamin Feingold? Specifically the part where you said "...Wikipedia on how to resolve this sort of thing without a lawsuit" Regards, -- VViking Talk Edits 13:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure. In reading the various Wikipedia tutorials, it was suggested that there are many ways to resolve problems without resorting to lawsuits; there is a serious problem updating both the page for Dr. Benjamin Feingold and the Feingold Diet. I wanted to update the doctor's page first since it only involved one sentence.  On both pages it is asserted that the diet is not effective according to a review dated 1983.  Alexbrn (an editor?) says that any review more than 5 years old is "outdated" or "fringe" etc., but he maintains the 1983 review "marked the end of the debate" and should therefore be the only one allowed. The connection of behavior to diet has been an ongoing debate for 40 years, with hundreds of studies and reviews on the subject since 1983, so that old review cannot possibly be considered the "end" of anything.  One problem has been that (like the tobacco-cancer issue) the food additive people got involved in the research.  But Alexbrn considers the matter closed.  I have tried to explain and all I did was create an increasingly unpleasant situation.  Alexbrn has deleted everything I entered, including even the correction to the broken external link to the doctor's published scientific papers.  The only external link on that page now is one to a general and carelessly-done article about diet and behavior far broader than the Feingold diet ... not only is it an inappropriate external link, but its errors include referring to the FDA as the FSA ... ah, well, such things can be corrected, too... if I will be allowed to make corrections.


 * I am new at this, but my reading of Wikipedia etiquette explanations indicates even a minority view should be included and NPOV maintained, but Alexbrn apparently disagrees with that. He even called the Wikipedia tutorial I quoted an "obscure essay" (??) I asked advice of Shlashme  (with whom I worked on these pages back in 2006) and he suggests that a first step now could be to post two of my best reviews on the Feingold Diet talk page with a concise explanation of why they should replace the old 1983 review.


 * I hope this makes the problem clear, and I will be happy for your advice. I am not answering Alexbrn's newest comment at this time since I actually can't think of anything printable to say.Shulae (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
Slashme (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

"Likely illegal" ? / COI

 * Could you explain just what you mean by saying that mentioning "versions" of the Feingold diet is "likely illegal"?


 * As I explained on the TALK page, I am not making any sort of threat ...... rather, I am describing what would happen in the real world if there were actually other diets claiming to be the Feingold diet. That is the part that is illegal. The name "Feingold" is registered specifically so nobody can do that.  This is why Kanarek is off the wall when he says anything about "modern versions" of the diet.  There is only ONE version and it is very much the same as it always was.  It is not true that there is some "version" that has done away with the salicylate elimination part (Stage One) of the diet.


 * There seem to be lots of versions of the diet. We are even citing a source referring to "the Australian version", PMID 364258. The reality is that the Feingold diet appears to be described in a variety of ways by different groups. That the association is (unsucessfully it seems) trying to control that (in the US?) doesn't affect Wikipedia's obligation to be reality-based. Alexbrn (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The "Australian version" today is the Failsafe diet. They have their own organization and would probably be quite offended to be called a "version" of the Feingold diet. The Dumbrell study you refer to was published in 1978; the Feingold Association was not incorporated until 1976, so there is undoubted overlap and you cannot judge 2016 by what was going on in 1978 anyhow.  Meanwhile, you have improved the section - not as much as I would like of course, but it is acceptable for the most part.Shulae (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * right, so it is different for different countries then? Wikipedia does not take an exclusive US-centric stance. Alexbrn (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Since it seems apparent you have a (financial?) connection with the Feingold Association please be aware of WP:COI and WP:PAID, and make any necessary disclosure. Conflicted editors should not be editing affected articles directly, but seeking consensus on those articles' Talk pages. Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I never had any connection whatsoever with the Feingold Foundation (as you first mentioned) which is the organization that marketed Dr. Feingold's books and cookbooks and which is not connected in any way to the Feingold Association which is the support group that teaches the diet itself.


 * I have a son diagnosed at age 6 with ADHD, TS, mood swings and asthma. He was a medication failure by 8, and I tried the diet as a last resort. It was hugely successful; all symptoms quickly resolved, and he is now in his early 40s, still using the diet. I became a volunteer for the Feingold Association (FAUS) in which capacity I created a website and studied the research on all sides of the issue.  To improve my ability to do this work, I went back to school at my own expense and have only the thesis to complete for a Masters in Health Psychology.  Over the years I have been periodically asked to speak about the science related to the diet at meetings of nurses, educators, parents, and doctors in three countries (US, Canada & Israel) but have not been paid for this, except for travel expenses.  My work on collecting, organizing, and studying the research for FAUS was always as an unpaid volunteer.  In recent years, however, I received a small monthly stipend for handling new members.  Over the years I have spoken to thousands of old and new members, and given advice to those who asked for it.  If the diet didn't work for the majority of these people, I would not have been willing to continue to do this; I certainly could have gotten a "real job" as my mother would say.


 * I am now retired and receive no incentives whatsoever from the Feingold Association, although of course I am very aware of what they are doing and have access to membership materials as I am a member. I also retain all the studies I have collected over the years.  I believe I should be considered an expert resource in this field although you clearly wish I would just go away. Shulae (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I just wish we could have an article that properly reflects what the good sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. Unfortunately, not all the sources you have hung your hat on are very good, but I will do my best to work with them. Shulae (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources are judged by our WP:PAGs. Any points about sources rooted in those PAGs are always welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * How is a source "rooted" in the PAGs? Say I want to use a resource such as this one - Weiss 2012. Shulae (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * PMID 21926033. It's a piece of commentary so would be no good for biomedical assertions (not WP:MEDRS) but may be useful for background info. on the Feingold diet since it seems to be secondary, independent, and published in a respectable journal. Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hello, Shulae. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);


 * I have no financial ties to the Feingold organization; I did some volunteer work for them over the past 30 years, but received no significant financial benefit for it - all it gave me was the opportunity to increase my knowledge of the field. In that time, I also worked for several months for an attorney in a medical board case against a doctor (we won) - and I got no financial benefit from that, either, although I raised about $450,000 for the costs during that same time.  Does this mean I have a conflict of interest if I want to edit some page about medical boards or lawyers?  And I went back to school to further increase my knowledge of bio-psychology which is the connection of the environment and biology to psychology.  So that means I have a conflict of interest there, as well?  Am I to understand that only people NOT interested or NOT knowledgeable about a subject have the right to edit it? Shulae (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);


 * The Feingold Association is not "my" organization. If I linked to a review or book uploaded on their website it is simply because that is where the document happens to be. If I linked to some service they provide that is mentioned in the text, it is because that is who is doing the service or where the information is.  It is neither spam nor advertising. How can I avoid this? Shulae (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.


 * I may be wrong, but in studying the policies previously, I thought it was Wikipedia's ambition to provide accurate information. If I cannot correct errors of fact (not talking about opinions here) then maybe my understanding is incorrect? Shulae (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).


 * I am retired. I receive no income and no retirement money from the Feingold Association (or anybody else unless you include my father who left me an inheritance). I have no employer, and no clients. Shulae (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I will spend some time studying the pages you have specified. I may not bother to edit this page any more, however; my opinion of the value of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is very low at this moment.  I am more than a little curious, moreover, about the consistent hostility I have experienced from the beginning by the two editors for this page.  What happened to the balanced presentation of minority opinions? What happened to NPOV?  Is that something only I am required to maintain, but they are not? They insist that the meta analysis dated 1983 closed all discussion on the subject of usefulness of the diet, and anybody reviewing more recent research that doesn't agree with that of 1983 is not acceptable. That the Feingold organization should be "shunned" and not allowed even an external link for further reading.  Where is the vaunted Wikipedia NPOV? Shulae (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi JamesWatson. When I made a change in my own comment on my talk page a while back, I was told that I am not allowed to do that.  I am doing my best to learn the ropes and do things properly according to the rules, but how is it that you have totally removed my recent question without answering it?  I had asked why the Weiss 2012 article (a published review of studies on environmental toxins) is considered only a marginally acceptable resource, but nobody seems to have a problem using the self-published highly opinionated Barrett of Quackwatch as an acceptable resource?Shulae (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I will add to that another question: Why is it that I have a conflict of interest, just because I know something about the subject, but RS Kanarek, whose provably error-filled article published by the journal of the food industry organization ILSI (which benefits financially by suppression of the diet-adhd idea) - is just fine as a resource? Shulae (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * And one more question, since apparently you are an experienced Wikipedia person: I did read somewhere in the guidelines that hostile quotes are not allowed.  Hostile quotes appear around the word "treated" in the last sentence under Technique on the Feingold Diet page. Such quotes were not in the Kanarek resource cited.  They were added by one of your previous editors and are a clear indication of bias and POV.  I have asked to have them removed or to be given permission to remove them.  They are still there.  Shulae (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Schoenthalerbig.gif


The file File:Schoenthalerbig.gif has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused, unclear use/purpose"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zinclithium (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Graphcomparison.gif


The file File:Graphcomparison.gif has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "orphaned image, no encyclopedic use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)