User talk:Twoggle

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 have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Goldensun 23:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

MSG
Hi, Twoggle!

I have reverted your edits to the MSG article, not because they are bad, but because your citations are inline with the text, instead of at the bottom, and are hyperlinks to medline, instead of proper citations to the articles themselves. This makes it hard to follow the arguments without clicking on each link in turn. It also makes it almost impossible to read the "diff" output that shows exactly what changes you made. Please see this document for a good discussion of how to use footnotes, and this document for the format of the footnote at the end of the page. Also see the food coloring article for some examples of how to use this citation style.

Thanks for your input, and please don't take this suggestion and revert in bad spirit.

--Slashme 06:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the new edits! Great stuff! --Slashme 07:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Aspartame
Hi, our combined efforts have resulted in an almost none-edit on aspartame, sorry about that. But I think it is important to tell what the metabolites of aspartame are (that should be on this page), though it should, there, be in a good NPOV way (so I understood your earlier move). I think it is better to rewrite that part a bit (I already did a bit). Hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Aspartame-acash1.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Aspartame-acash1.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Iamunknown 04:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free images
Twoggle, thank you for uploading Image:Aspartame-gurney1.jpg, Image:Aspartame-koehler1.jpg and Image:MSG-science1.jpg. The images were marked as if they were in the public domain, but they are unfortunately not; they are non-free facsimiles of published academic works. I marked them as non-free. All non-free media, however, must be used in one article. You may add the images back into an appropriate article; if not they will be deleted in seven days. To read up on the Wikipedia policy regarding non-free content, see Non-free content. Cheers, Iamunknown 01:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Curiosity question
Hi. I like that aspartame controversy page that you've put some work on. What is your opinion on aspartame at this point? Also, what do you think about working on similarly controversial environmental health sort of articles, e.g. dental amalgam controversy, water fluoridation opposition, phthalates, chlorination, ect. II | (t - c) 10:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello! Thank you for your kind comment. My goal was to take what was a well-meaning, but POV piece that was written by non-scientists and add arguments on each side that is available in the scientific literature. As you can see, today I added a pro-aspartame external link to balance the number of links on each side. I choose not to say on Wikipedia what my opinion is as that could taint my edits in the mind of some Editors. The only way I found to keep the page from degenerating into arguments is to keep as unbiased as possible on Wikipedia.


 * I did think about writing on other controversial issues since I am familiar with the scientific literature in some cases, but it would spread me too thin. I think that Editors who are intimately familiar with the scientific literature and debates and who are willing to present both sides of the arguments (even if one side seems non-sensical), have the best chance of succeeding on controversial Wikipedia pages. Twoggle (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

presidiotex.com as a source
Hi Twoggle, I've asked for opinions at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Sorry for not letting you know sooner. I won't do anything until you've had a chance to give your thoughts there. Tom Harrison Talk 17:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Aspartame and Aspartame controversy
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tom Harrison Talk 12:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A block against you has been requested
You may read about it here. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

MedCab - Aspartame Controversy
Hi there. You have been named as a participant in a MedCab case regarding the article Aspartame controversy. I have opened the case here. I invite you to visit the case, read over the ground rules, and indicate whether or not you wish to proceed with informal mediation to resolve the current dispute. [ roux  ] [ x ] 07:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist has declined to participate in the MedCab. Please seek alternate forms of dispute resolution. [ roux  ] [ x ] 17:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hi Twoggle. Something struck me about this request for mediation. The Mediation Committee deals only with issues of article content, but your request included issues of user conduct. I think that if you cast a new request properly in terms of article content alone, User:ScienceApologist might agree to formal mediation. Ask ScienceApologist first, okay? You might even ask ScienceApologist to help you prepare the request. Does that appeal to you? --Una Smith (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)