User talk:Unomi/Archive/2009Mar

Bad faith
This complaint is inappropriate. First, you are assuming bad faith and making false accusations about two good faith editors. Second, there is no 3RR on the part of Keepcalm. Finally, the noticeboard is not even close to the place to resolving your issues. You need to step back, review Wikipedia policy, starting with WP:NPOV, before you embarrass yourself any further. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 23:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you have this the wrong way around, bad faith was assumed on his part when he started deleting my edits without explaining his reasoning. I clearly explained why I thought the edits were appropriate and he never responded, merely kept deleting and eventually seemed to enlist the help of Tom Harrison who also made unjustified deletions. Unomi (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, do not repeat yourself on my talk page. I watch your page, and I'll answer here, as it clearly states at the top of my user talk--don't waste my time.  And you are bordering on a personal attacks if you continue to accuse two editors of colluding.  You have no proof of that, none whatsoever.  Keepcalm has not even gotten close to 3RR.  You are new around here, but you are getting really close to becoming problematic.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Cute. Unomi (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC) If you want to assist in resolving this issue you should direct your efforts at spelling out clearly and precisely what it is you take issue with. Baiting will not help you. Unomi (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 08:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Aspartame_controversy
Welcome to Wikipedia! I wouldn't recommend Aspartame_controversy as a good place to get your feet wet on Wikipedia. It's a toughie. The article isn't about aspartame -- it's about a controversy about aspartame. But don't let it scare you away from Wikipedia altogether. It would be easier to gain Wikipedia experience on easier articles.

There is quite a lot of controversy over Aspartame_controversy, and I don't know of any way to calm things down over there. I don't think there is a consensus there on what the article should be about, or even how an encyclopedia article should be structured. I stumbled into that hornet's nest with the vague notion that I could learn a bit about the controversy and make the article more NPOV. I soon stumbled back out again, convinced that I could not, at this time, reach my goal of improving that article by working to improve that article.

It seems to me that OrangeMarlin and KeepCalmAndCarryOn have become frustrated by their interaction with other editors of Aspartame_controversy. Both of these editors have a lot of experience editing contentious articles. You can find their signed comments on pages where discussion precedes administrative action. I have seen them make good points about biased and intransigent single-issue editors. Since you are a new editor who has only posted on a single topic, they may see you that way.

I hope your interaction with OrangeMarlin and KeepCalmAndCarryOn over at Talk:Aspartame_controversy won't make you feel less interested in working on Wikipedia. Certainly, they were not particularly gentle in their responses to your newbie transgressions. I do disagree with OrangeMarlin's assertion that "There is absolutely no reason to be civil or nice to you any further". I would choose to assume good faith. No doubt, they are interested only in improving the article.

You seem genuinely interested in improving the article. I am a newbie here myself. For what it's worth, here are my opinions.
 * There is a dispute resolution process, but don't think you'll get the results you want by starting a formal process.
 * Stick to the letter and the spirit of WP:EQ, WP:COOL, and WP:TALK. No matter what you may think of anyone else's behavior. On the article talk pages, stick to talk of how to improve the article.  Avoid discussing the dispute.  Discussions on how to resolve a dispute might fit better on personal talk pages.
 * Sometimes, experienced editors aren't interested in explaining to a newcomer why a reference is or is not WP:RS. You may want to seek out members of verification projects as you gain experience.
 * Assume good faith. If you adress other editors on their own talk pages, maintain WP:COOL.  Let your words speak for themselves.  Don't accuse anyone of unfairness, or bother to discuss anyone else's acussations of WikiLawyering or WikiBullying.  Such discussions won't help resolve a dispute.
 * Because your user page is not a good place to discuss proposed improvements to the article, I won't talk specifics about the article here. Here are some general thoughts on WP:OR and WP:RS.
 * I think User:Tom_harrison made a good point that primary sources are not always best.
 * It is pretty easy to read primary sources and draw your own conclusions. That would be synthesis.  Which is WP:OR.  Wikipedia should state the facts -- these sources say there is an aspartame controversy.  The readers can go on to draw their own conclusions.
 * Articles on the Aspartame Controversy from generally-respected news organizations might be the most appropriate to document that there is a controversy.
 * Giving a lot of weight to the current back-and-forth in the peer-reviewed journals may be inappropriate. The work is obviously still underway, and drawing conclusions would be synthesis WP:OR.  A small section summarizing "recent scientific work" might satisfy everyone's NPOV concerns.
 * It is not WP:OR to state the conclusions of GAO HRD-87-46. That report is a WP:RS.
 * It would be WP:OR to write the article to comment directly on the validity of the survey of 69 self-selected scientists in GAO HRD-87-46. That survey was the original research of the authors of the report, and was not subject to peer review.

Best of Luck to you! --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your helpful comments and background information.


 * I must admit I was taken aback by the responses of User:orangemarlin et al. I also found it pretty funny that they would on one hand throw wiki tags at me without further explanation on how it applied, and then later accuse me of sock puppetry when I read them and used them. I have and continue to try to engage them in open discussion about how to move forward.


 * When I saw the line regarding the survey information I felt that it was poorly written, it was poor English, pure and simple. I tried to find ways where the information could be included in the least of contentious ways, which would be a simple table reproduced from the primary source.


 * The GAO87 is not used as a 'scientific study' it never claimed to be one. As the article already contained some of the survey information I figured that the inclusion of the survey was not contentious.


 * The 2 direct quotes that got the whole thing started are taken directly from GAO87 as statements of fact. It is hard to see how anyone who read the source document could have found it contentious.


 * I am considering getting further guidance on how GAO87 can be used as per wikipedia guidelines. Unomi (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"XXX controversy" articles are more tricky than ordinary articles. They are not about "XXX" itself, but about the controversy. And they're controversial. You won't see everyone's best WP:EQ. You'll get a warped view of what a good Wikipedia collaboration ought to look like. Other editors are less likely to offer you gentle guidance. I think you've seen this already. OrangeMarlin and KeepCalmAndCarryOn spend a lot of effort defending articles against undue-overweighting from fringe POVs. They step in when the gentler souls have fled. They don't see themselves as school-teachers. No matter how you try, you may not get the type of discussion you want at Aspartame controversy.

Better to learn somewhere else. How about Peanut, or anything on the WP:WikiProject Citation cleanup list. Talk to any of the Citation Cleanup participants. Take a step back. Apologies again for offering unsolicited advice. Go learn, and enjoy. --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A personal plea
Unomi,

I apologise for the alphabet soup that sometimes accompanies Wikipedia editing and disputes. It can be confusing, even annoying, for new editors. But it is also, often, the way we communicate. You were recognised as a new incarnation in a long line of socks at this article. That's partly why people didn't bother with niceties. Again, I apologise if everyone has been wrong about you and you are simply a new editor with an uncharacteristically advanced knowledge of Wikipedia editing.

At the moment, your single-purpose edits are viewed by other editors, including me, as tendentious and disruptive. Taking the same issue to multiple noticeboards is seen as "forum shopping", or trying until you get the answer (or an answer) you want. Reporting me for violating the three reversion rule (for a single reversion!), was puzzling, and you are fortunate nothing happened.

Please, if you want to be seen as anything other than a single-purpose, agenda-driven editor, take some time to reflect on your recent behaviour and take steps to change it. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding to me; I accept and cherish your apology :)
 * I happen to be a computer programmer and deal often with wikistyle templates and have read my fair share of RFCs, while I am sure I still have much to learn, following the examples of others allowed me to apply the basics. I did not intend to report you for violating 3RR which you certainly did not, I wanted to report that we were embroiled in an editwar and I needed outside assistance in getting to the root cause of it(as none of the reverting parties were particularly talkative). As for 'forum shopping', I don't really think I did that, a number of issues seemed to be raised as is underscored by the number of wikitags thrown in the mix, these had to be resolved in different forums, I also had an unclear picture of where to go with these issues.


 * I am not quite sure what is entailed by 'Single-purpose, agenda-driven' editor, I knew nothing about aspartame or the surrounding controversy until a few days ago.  As I've stated elsewhere, I happened to come across the Sweet Misery 'docu' and decided to read up on it wikipedia. I must admit I was surprised by the lack of a mention of it, as err, exists. I also decided to read some of the sources and came across some curious discrepancies compared to the Wikipedia article.


 * I would think that it is quite normal and natural that newcomers to wikipedia will find one initial article that they want to improve, rather than throwing themselves over a swath of articles all at once. I hope to later add and improve other articles but obviously this one has bogged me down for now.


 * Of course wikipedia will attract all kinds of folk, and not all will be able to improve or appreciate what wikipedia strives to be.
 * In my mind there are good and important reasons as to why Assume Good Faith, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV are important tenets of wikipedia. They need to be honored no matter what the situation, IMO. Perhaps down the road I will consider myself so great an authority and wikicitizen of sufficient standing that I will forget that these rules apply to me as well, but I sincerely hope not.


 * Returning to the aspertame controversy article: I will continue to work on it for the foreseeable future, I continue to hope that all involved work together to improve the article. This is not because I have vested interests or that I wish to push a certain POV, but simply because it is deeply problematic the way it is now, if I were sufficiently surprised at missing information to add it, then so (I hope) would others. Hopefully we can save them the effort and allow them to work on other aspects of wikipedia instead. I think the term WP:TEND is inappropriately directed at me, please see the second to last item listed under 'characteristics of problem editors'. As far as I remember, but correct me if I am wrong, the only information that I have tried to add has been well cited and pertinent. Also please see what [disruptive] means in this context and take a fresh look at the talk pages. Please let me know if you still feel that I was the one being disruptive or tendentious. I promise that I will take your further comments to heart.


 * Again, Thank you for your apology and taking the time to respond to me here, I hope that we will all laugh about this later :) Unomi (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 08:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI
I have filed a report on your tendentious editing behavior here. I am also intending to add a sock report, since it is clear you are an abusive sock of one or more editors. That should be posted soon. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 03:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to bringing this drama to the appropriate authorities, I welcome the upcoming discussion. Unomi (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NPA.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read it, I am curious as to why you bring it up, perhaps you could clarify. By the way have you seen Civil? Unomi (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Please see this sockpuppet investigation. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 04:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, this should clear the matter up. Unomi (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked - apparent sockpuppet of User:Immortale
This account is indefinitely blocked due to apparent sockpuppetry, operated by User:Immortale. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(block message removed following unblock - gwh)

Unomi (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So checkuser was run, and it apparently came up :

For what it's worth, this is a really really really strong negative checkuser result. Does the sort of editing involved seem like that of someone going out of their way to be dishonest? Just a thought. (Only reason I'm here is I saw Unomi's unblock request.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Predictably, orangemarlin continues to hold that I am a sockpuppet based on conclusive evidence of behavioral sockpuppetry

The details of this evidence is unclear. Apparently it centers around the fact that I disagree with OMs POV and have imperfect sentence structure. I have tried to address some of the misapprehensions that OM at and others hold here. Unomi (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick note: this user came to #wikipedia-en-unblock, and after cursory inspection of their edits, I'm not sure that Unomi is the same person as Immortale. A couple of things stand out to me:
 * 08 March @ 21:53 by Immortale
 * 08 March @ 21:54 by Unomi.
 * A little too overlapped yet manic for it to be the same person.
 * newbie 3rr report.
 * Similarities in talk page postings might be due to monkey-see-monkey-do of a new user trying to ascertain The Wikipedia Way, so to speak.
 * Controversial articles tend to draw in more people, more frequently (and make them seem like new socks).
 * Sharply different geolocation on the ips that were visible without checkuser.
 * Could still be a sock/meat of someone, or it could just be a new, quick-to-catch-on user. But, my initial guess is that at the very least Unomi != Immortale.  Keep in mind, I'm also typing this while up late and in an WP:AGF mood, so I could be totally wrong. :P  I'd support an unblock, though.  I'd also suggest that the editor in question possibly consider undertaking edits elsewhere on the encyclopedia (the backlog? Maybe other controversial articles? :P), mainly to better establish an editing pattern outside of the given topic (and thus avoid allegations of sockpuppetry).
 * -- slakr \ talk / 07:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking
Checkuser evidence indicates that the behavioral identification I made above was likely a mistake. While it is not impossible that you and Immortale were somehow working together, the checkuser was emphatic that you're not anywhere close to each other.

Reexamining the evidence, while your cooperation with Immortale and behavior were extremely suspicious, I don't see enough cause to conclude that you have to be coordinating at a distance somehow if you really are some distance apart. While I am still suspicious about some behavioral similarities, we have a higher standard of evidence than mere suspicion, even by experienced administrators. I don't think I can meet any reasonable burden of proof versus a verified geographical distance between you two.

On that basis, I have unblocked both of your accounts. While your behavior raised eyebrows and caused me to investigate in more depth, if you really aren't coordinating with Immortale then there's nothing about the current behavior that requires an administrator to intervene at this time.

I apologize for the disruption the block caused.

I want to ask you to make an effort to cooperate with OrangeMarlin on a civil and constructive basis - there is obviously some pain and distrust there now. Hopefully you all can get past your mutual distrusts and cooperate on making the encyclopedia better.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with unblock notice) FWIW, I strongly support an unblock. I have rarely seen such an unequivocally negative checkuser statement as that about Unomi, Karloff and Immortale at Sockpuppet investigations/Unomi. As to disruption: The only disruption that I have seen on Talk:Aspartame controversy was that caused by the article's current owners: OrangeMarlin and Verbal. Their disruptive (to the point of childish) behaviour can be observed particularly well at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Aspartame controversy. It is evident that these two users have zero interest in reaching a consensus, presumably because consensus means something can be changed about the article and they are happy with the status quo. To prevent a consensus (or at least with that effect):
 * they have endlessly repeated sockpuppet accusations in response to on-topic contributions by their opponents or attempts at reconciliation;
 * they have told their opponents
 * that they need to obtain a consensus before editing,
 * that even if a consensus were reached it would be useless because a consensus can't trump policies,
 * that the particularly strict standard of WP:MEDRS applies to every aspect of this article about a controversy that was widely discussed in the popular media, and
 * that they are POV pushing;
 * none of this was supported by evidence that I could see;

This is probably not an exhaustive list. In any case, nobody should be blocked based only on repeated unfounded accusations that they are disruptive or a sockpuppet. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * they have not addressed (AFAICT) the complaint that the article makes statements about a government document that are contradicted by a straightforward reading of the document itself, claiming that reading the document is original research and that it cannot be used because of WP:MEDRS.

Open Letter to OrangeMarlin
As Orangemarlin choose to delete my reply I am posting it here and reaffirm my position as stated.


 * I know they are socks--just have to prove it a bit more. I think they should be indeffed for reasons way outside of sockpuppetry, but I figured it was the easiest way to do it. Now Unomi and Immortale are going to enjoy running amok. This place sucks sometimes. But I appreciate your blocking them long enough to giving some breathing space to the article. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 08:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you might be overreacting slightly, no one is going to 'run amok'. But the article does need work and it does need to have more of the narrative that led to the current state of affairs. I realize that you are probably engaged in many articles besides the Aspartame Controversy, but I think that if you took the time to familiarize yourself further with the sources you will agree that there is plenty of room for improvement. I respect what I understand to be your desire to minimize fear mongering, but I also think that in doing so you do an injustice to the readers and underestimate their intelligence. As I have stated before :


 * We should be documenting the claims of 'evidence' and 'misconduct' by the minority view(as this is a minority view article), fully and correctly and then counterbalance that with the evidence of the majority view. I believe that is a matter of policy, it also happens to be the most effective way to defuse scare mongering and conspiracy theories.


 * Finally, and please don't take this the wrong way, perhaps you should see Assume bad faith. I think we still have a chance to resolve this without a total meltdown. Unomi (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, I am quite serious. If you wish, we can talk on irc and see if we can't find a way to work our way out of this. Unomi (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Unomi, re your message at AN/I: please note WP:Mediation. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

RE : WP:Mediation#The privileged nature of mediation
CopperTwig I apologize for any inappropriate 'outing', truthfully I had not kept that section in mind. However and separately:

A line in that passage reads: Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately disrupt and subvert official dispute resolution

Unomi (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive conduct. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ''Stop personal attacks such as this one. '' Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 06:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to histrionics? Looks like an accurate description to me.
 * Your accusation of personal attacks is hardly more substantiated than this one was. There is a user conduct RFC waiting for you. I will start it when the dust has settled. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

if it quacks like a duck
"I believe those involved do not follow scientific principles or value intellectual honesty."

Yes, well put, and this is correct. The methods used by the pseudoscientists are anti-scientific, and these are the chosen methods of the anti-pseudoscience crowd on Wikipedia. Their desire to include their personal biases and platforms in every article they can possible wikilawyer and editwar their way into is destroying legitimate articles on Wikipedia. In particular, the loudest anti-pseudoscience editors do appear to want to or be able to read and quote accurately the references they provides to support their anti-pseudoscienc soap boxes in en.Wiki article space. Their soapbox, not the science, is the message.

Thanks for saying it. --KP Botany (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The proper way to counter pseudoscience is by use of scientific method: logic, evidence, use of reliable sources etc. Anything else muddies the waters and makes it harder to distinguish which side is pseudoscience. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with the pseudoscientific crowd is that they will selectively apply the criteria for what constitutes the above. One mans PR statement is another mans MEDRS, one persons General Accounting Office report becomes politically motivated primary source minority view. In general the tactics employed during discussion read like something out of a guerrilla warfare handbook. They present their argument so vaguely and generally that there is no 'front' to attack, once one issue has been shown to be resolved then it becomes another issue, hours can be spent in such a fashion. If the topic hasn't successfully been shifted then finally the joker that is WP:WEIGHT comes out. WP:WEIGHT seems to be understood exclusively in a exclusionist fashion, mercurial in its ability to be applied to any aspect and in a multitude of often internally inconsistent manners. Then end result becomes that engaging with the forces of pseudoscience becomes a Sisyphean exercise in masochism. Unomi (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a confusing use of terms here. Unomi (and KP Botany), you use the expressions "pseudoscientists" and "pseudoscientific crowd", when I think you mean "pseudoskeptical". (Even then, that would be an improper use of the term when applied to those editors you oppose.) Unfortunately you weaken your incivility case against them because you are pushing a pseudoscientific POV, while they are defending a mainstream scientific POV, but possibly using pseudoskeptical (incivil) means in the process. It's hard, especially for seasoned scientists and medical doctors (which is the case with your opponents in the Aspartame controversy matter) to be patient with those who exhibit great lack of understanding of the scientific process, and they simply blow their stacks and become incivil. If you were defending the scientific POV, you'd have a much stronger case. That's why ScienceApologist has lasted so long here, in spite of often being incivil. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I must admit I don't recognize the scenario you are describing. My edits have so far centered around fixing WP:PN wording, specifically regarding the GAO questionnaire responses. It is an issue that random readers continue to comment on because it is unclear in its current form. I would like you to point to which POV you feel that I am 'pushing', I have repeatedly stated that I hold no particular view on aspartame, but even if I did I would not try to misrepresent the available information to suit my POV. It is beyond my power to weaken any case of incivility against anyone, refraining from incivility is per WP:CIVIL a core principle and always applies, with no excuses. I understand that one of the involved editors have stated that they are a cardiologist, I think that there is considerable doubt in the scientific community regarding ones association with the medical field translating into being final arbiter on what scientific consensus or even mainstream scientific 'POV', should such a thing exist, is. A person that is professionally involved in the medical field should find no great difficulty in stating their case clearly, coherently and with appropriate use of sources. I agree that I have a lot to learn, and I welcome the opportunity to do so, but that does not translate into standing idly by while unilateral and poorly, if at all, justified changes are being made to an article that I consider myself a contributor to. The recent omega-3 debacle clearly shows that it is not appropriate. Regarding the labeling, I agree that it is not particularly useful to label or generalize, it distracts from the individual actions and allows a host of logical fallacies to creep into a discussion. Unomi (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the confusion. I got caught up in the terminology you were using to accuse other editors and began using it myself. I was also under the impression that you believed the conspiracy theories about the supposed extreme dangers of using Aspartame in normal quantities. If you don't believe them, then your issue is more related to the appropriateness of adding such a large amount of content that other editors consider to be unnecessary. The issue about how the controversy over your attempts has been dealt with is a related but different matter. The impatience and lack of cooperation you have perceived is what I have addressed above. Sorry for the confusion. If you don't believe in the Aspartame dangers idea, I retract some of my comments, and also distance myself from some of my use of your terminology as well, since I possibly shouldn't have used it in that manner. My main concern was that another term would serve your purpose better. I hope that at least that point was understood. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I too wish to apologize for adopting inappropriate and inflammatory terminology. I have previously tried to agitate for minimizing 'Us vs Them' rhetoric, it is regrettable that I now managed to 'fall in the trap'. I read your POV on NPOV and stance on undue weight, and I find myself in total agreement with your positions. I personally feel that my efforts are exactly trying to realize those principles. As for claimed dangers of aspartame, I really, truly, do not care. I smoke tobacco and I drink alcohol, I am quite certain that these are, by many orders of magnitude, more harmful than aspartame ever could be. My interest in the aspartame controversy as it stands now is twofold and admittedly somewhat conflicting. 1. I believe that hysteria and conspiracy theories are dangerous, for some it is just a hobby to pass the time for others it might satisfy some psychological coping mechanism. I think the absolutely best way to defuse that is by presenting the claims and counter arguments so that doubt is dispelled, I also believe that this coincides perfectly with the goals of wikipedia (documenting human knowledge). 2. I believe that the history of the aspartame controversy is quite interesting, it makes for compelling reading and insight into how important changes of how the FDA assesses additives came about. If these issues are not adequately addressed in the article it will continue to be a magnet for disruption. Further, I have pledged that I will bring the article to GA status, I think it is an interesting and viable challenge. Unomi (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Cloudbuster: Keep or redirect and merge?
The 2nd Articles for deletion discussion for Cloudbuster closed as "keep," with the note that "any merge/redirect discussions should take place at the relevant talk pages". However, the article was immediately merged and redirected into Orgone energy. The editor who participated in the discussion and then performed the merge believes that the merge/redirect is supported by consensus. I am posting this notice to the talk page of each of the editors who participated in the discussion, including the nominator, to ensure that this is the case. -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Aspartame
If you don't have the time the guys that want to change the article should propose their NPOV version. If not they are not allowed to cut what they don't like. Open your eyes and don't be shy! :-) --Calgaco (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For those interested in the background of the Burdock Group regarding the aspartame review and "neutrality" of the scientists, here is a fair evaluation of that. Unfortunately this link is not accepted within Wikipedia's guidelines. Therefore I mention it here. Immortale (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha WTF. Yeah I can see why this couldn't possibly be used as a secondary source.. Unomi (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)