SV Resolution (talk | contribs) →Aspartame controversy copyedits: new section |
Hobartimus (talk | contribs) →3RR: new section |
||
Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
Thanks for your copyedits at [[Aspartame controversy]]. Do you feel informed enough, yet distanced enough, from the subject to offer an opinion on the neutrality of the article at [[Talk:Aspartame controversy]]? If you don't want to, please don't feel pressured. --[[User:SV Resolution|SV Resolution]]([[User_Talk:SV Resolution|Talk]]) 21:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks for your copyedits at [[Aspartame controversy]]. Do you feel informed enough, yet distanced enough, from the subject to offer an opinion on the neutrality of the article at [[Talk:Aspartame controversy]]? If you don't want to, please don't feel pressured. --[[User:SV Resolution|SV Resolution]]([[User_Talk:SV Resolution|Talk]]) 21:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
== 3RR == |
|||
{{3RR}} Please read 3RR. Thanks [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 11:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:04, 28 March 2010
Please contact me on my [Dutch Wikipedia user page].
Thanks
Thank you for comments on the probiotics article. Would you like to look at endocrine disruptor and phytoestrogens as well? These article need a skeptical eye. Pustelnik (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation in Coffee Hag albums
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Coffee Hag albums, by Hu (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Coffee Hag albums is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Coffee Hag albums, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Coffee Hag Albums
- Copied from Hu's talk page:
You [Hu] put a copyright notice on this page. This is not a copyright violation, see also the remark on the talk page. I am the author of both the Wikipedia site as well as the original site, see my own user page as well as the whois information of herladryshop.biz.Knorrepoes 18:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You put a copyright notice, I did not. What I put was a notice of copyright violation. You have to either decide that you own the copyright or not. If you give up the copyright to Wikipedia, then you can't claim copyright on it and must not put any notices on Wikipedia. I did this to force you to decide. You need to read up a bit about Wikipedia and Copyright. Hu 23:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Copied from Talk:Coffee Hag albums page:
The writer needs to decide who owns the copyright. If they want the text on Wikipedia, then Wikipedia must own it. There can be no copyright notices on Wikipedia except Wikipedia's GFDL license (so-called "copyleft"). If you remove your claim to the copyright and state here that Wikipedia has your permission to use the text from a page or a site that you own (so that it is clear that there is no copyright violation), then I will be happy to remove the notice. It just needs to be clear. As it stands now, there is an overlap of copyright claims here and that can't continue. Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights. Essentially, by placing text and images on Wikipedia you are giving them away for public use. Thus if you own the copyright because you created them and claim copyright elsewhere, then you must make it clear that you are giving it away. In practice, I would advise you to keep your text on your site and publish a condensed or reworded version on Wikipedia. Then there would not be any conflict or confusion over copyright. Hu 00:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the Speedy Delete tag to a ProD (Proposed for Deletion) tag, which gives the writer [you] more time to read the policy page and decide what to do. Hu 00:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem to give permission (otherwise I would not put it on Wikipedia...). The text as used now on Wikipedia is free to use and change by everyone. It is taken from my site heraldryshop.biz by myself and by doing so the texts have become available for public use. Knorrepoes 08:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You have gone half-way, but you still have the outstanding copyright claim on the article from it's talk page (use <s>your claim</s> to strike through your claim). Until you remove your claim of copyright to the material from everywhere in Wikipedia that you have made it, then the copyright situation is still clouded. Perhaps I am making too much out of not much, but that is my understanding. One thing is not in doubt, and that is that Wikipedia is very serious about getting copyright straightened out. Hu 13:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- doneKnorrepoes 14:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Given the strikethrough of the claim at the head of this page, I am withdrawing my ProD from the article, because my concerns have been satisfied. Looks like a good article! Well done. It is just the kind of article that could become a featured article, but that is a lot of work to chase down references and all the other details involved in getting it to that kind of status. First step is to get it up to Good Article standards. Hu 00:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Your recant edits to Innocent
Hello! I have recently undone your edits to Innocent Drinks
They must be probiotic because otherwise they would be removed from the market under false advertisement, by UK law. Also you might be interested to know that they are pasteurized before friendly bacteria is added so that the friendly bacteria is not killed, and the smoothie still has a decant shelf life. PhilB ~ T/C 12:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Helminthic therapy categorization as Probiotic
Hi, you recently removed the category tag Probiotic from the Helminthic Therapy page. Since according to the Probiotic page here on Wikipedia the definition of a probiotic is "According to the currently adopted definition by FAO/WHO, probiotics are: ‘Live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host’.[1]" it goes without saying that any Helminthic therapy should be classified as probiotic. Helminthic therapy is inoculation with a microorganism that in adequate amounts confers a health benefit on the host. The only difference is that it is a heretofore unused class of microorganism and the route for administration is not in all cases oral. Neither of those differences is relevant to the definition however.
So, I would like to restore the Probiotic tag to that page.
Thoughts before I do so?
FQ1513 (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I see your point, still I have two objections (..), a helminth is a nematode and those are generally not included as microorganisms, shich thus is not in agreement with the definition. Secondly a probiotic is normally a very well defined strain of a bacterial species (in nematodes you can't talk about strains I guess), which in this case is not true either.
- The WHO definition is rather poor and scientifically not really used. The two more common definitions are :
- Probiotics are officially defined as:
- Oral probiotics are living micro-organisms which, upon digestion in certain numbers, exert health benefits beyond inherent basic nutrition.
- A more common definition is:
- A probiotic is a live microbial feed supplement which beneficially affects the host by improving its intestinal microbial balance
- Here it is also stated an intestinal balance, although other applications are now included. The first one therefore is the most widely used.
- So, although I see similarities, it is too far off of what is normally seen as probiotic. Maybe we need a new word...Knorrepoes (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
An Invite to join Arctic WikiProject
Hi, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Arctic WikiProject! The Arctic WikiProject is a fairly new WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, to do with anything Arctic. |
As you have shown an interest in Sermersooq we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject. |
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! SriMesh | talk 06:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
Aspartame controversy copyedits
Thanks for your copyedits at Aspartame controversy. Do you feel informed enough, yet distanced enough, from the subject to offer an opinion on the neutrality of the article at Talk:Aspartame controversy? If you don't want to, please don't feel pressured. --SV Resolution(Talk) 21:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
3RR
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please read 3RR. Thanks Hobartimus (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)