Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-02/Egg (food)

Where's the dispute?
In the talk page of article Egg_(food), the section with subject "thiamin! again"

What's the dispute?
User Leujohn refuses to allow modification of thiamin quantity in eggs which I stated it's not correct. I have posted my source which is same as Wikipedia's(USDA National Nutrient Database) where thiamin is shown as 0.066mg/100g not 0.66mg/100g as it currently appears on the website.
 * I don't think you quite get me. I turned it down because it was per 100g, not per egg. Also, according to the talk page, the exact same request was already turned down. I see no reason why I should accept the edit. Leujohn  ( talk ) 08:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No you don't get me. On Wikipedia page it says clear "Nutritional value per 100 g" not per egg. I provided the values per egg in the first request(because I thought the editors will realize an egg is not 5g, so the thiamin can't be correct) and per 100g in the second. So the requests were not the same. If you would have checked the source you would have seen the values for thiamin is 0.066mg/100g. Hopefully someone will eventually check the USDA National Nutrient Database and accept my request.Thank you.Mircs (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Mircs, I think Leujohn has misinterpreted what you said on the talk page by thinking the request is identical to the previous one, but this is understandable. It is pretty common on wikipedia that when there are two requests from the same person about the same general subject, they're actually identical.
 * Leujohn, I think Mircs' second request was based on a different source and the correct 100g quantity. As I said above, I can fully understand not doing a comprehensive check, but taking a quick look at USDA Nutrient database (search for egg; choose Egg, whole, cooked, hard-boiled; select per 100g) I do indeed see 0.066mg / 100g. It seems like there was a mistake in the original transcription.
 * mjec (t/c/p) 21:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a brief dispute that burned out as soon as a definitive source (the USDA) was brought in. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just realized that this case has a mediator. Switching case status to open. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After looking at it again, I think I know what happened. First of all, I would like to apologize for my carelessness in reading the request before. I had interpreted the results of the request before as "The chart" = the link you included, which made me think that the link that was included was talking about 1 egg, which means that would not be a good citation. When you sort of included a citation and talked about the USDA nutrient database, I had no idea what you were talking about! (I live outside of America, you see) I assumed you wanted to gave me the same link, so I turned it down. Leujohn  ( talk ) 13:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)