User talk:Bork

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Bork, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk 00:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Studies and stuff[edit]

Hi Bork,

Here's some tools you might find useful if you weren't already aware of them:

This is indeed useful, saves many copy&pastes per reference. Thanks. Bork (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google scholar autocitation, a google-style search engine and reference generator. Useful when the article doesn't have a pubmed number (old, social sciences or humanities).
  • tools, but the above are my favourites to date

And here's an essay I wrote regards what wikipedia is and some other stuff I've learned since being here. It's pretty long, but there are some funny bits too. And welcome!! Excellent citations on the muscle page! WLU (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - keep up the great work adding citations to nutrition related articles. Adding citations is not an easy task, so it's great so see someone with a solid knowledge of studies adding to real value to Wikipedia. If you need any advice or help, please feel free to contact me. Cheers. --Yankees76 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signing[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in Talk:Form (exercise), you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you.

Yes, I simply forgot to sign. Usually I remember to do it. Bork (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a follow-up comment on talk:form. Wikipedia is not a how to manual, though you can sneak in 'advice' through careful wording, and sourcing becomes important. Generally it involves phrases like 'Proper form in the X exercise by placement of the heels directly beneath the elbows is indicated to prevent injury.[1]' Let me know if you've any questions or if I can help in any way (though you may not need it, you're doing quite well on your own from what I've seen). WLU (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well have you heard of placebo-controlled, double-blind studies showing injury prevention when exercise is done properly? :-) Bork (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My, I just noticed this as well! Thanks very much and thanks for reading so closely! Six different proof-readers and you're the only one to correct those mistakes : ) WLU (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I do not like this quoting feature done with : chars. It's not very clear and replies can be hard to find. I am now experimenting with divbox. Not very userfriendly. Color could also automatically change, for example -- now when you read my new additions, they could be red, but when you reload the page, they could be green. This would require more database accesses, extra coding and a new tag (instead of divbox, maybe replybox? Or do you have better ideas? Also, it can be done in an userfriendly way, for example, one could reply to any paragraph by clicking with mouse in appropriate place, and without manual hacking with formatting. - Bork (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, I'm finding your divbox comments quite difficult to read :) Try focussing on datestamps and alternating signatures; in most cases experienced contributors will all thread via indentation and chronological posting - by mixing your comments with mine above, you're making it harder for me to read because I'm used to the responses always being below the original posting. Note that it is WP:TALK that places the restrictions, not I, and you'd be just about the only person I've ever seen using divboxes. You get used to the indented threaded discussions after a bit. After what, 6 years and millions of editors, I think you'd get more acrimony than support for div boxes, though on your own talk page you've more leeway. They keep re-appearing and disappearing when I scroll around. It may be disorienting to you at first, but I bet after a month you'll be old hat. You may also want to consider using WP:DIFFs in the history feature to keep track of who says what. All that to say, I'd give it a couple weeks of contributing and discussing before trying to revolutionize how wikipedians communicate. Though you can always bring it up at talk:WP:TALK :)
Regards the signature warning - it's not a criticism, just a reminder. The more reminders you get, the less frequently you forget to sign. And I'm not aware of double-blind studies on form (an enormous tragedy that :) - most of the exercise/strength training pages are pretty low-reliability for a lot of the sources, because researchers are much slower to test than weight lifters and bodybuilders are to innovate. I'm not saying the information can't go on the page, just that it must have the best sources available (which often will be popular books by Arnie and other famous people rather than pubmed citations), and we have to carefully massage it. Also, there's always WP:IAR and WP:RS - if all the editors agree the information added is acceptable, then it can stay up. But if anyone challenges it, it is removed and it is the replacee who must provide the citation. It's an uneasy compromise that results in many unsourced articles that recapitulate the common wisdom of strength training. WLU (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am (still) accustomed to email type of quoting and thread handling (with no "top-posting"), but at wiki I would need to add signature for every paragraph, which is not nice, so I answer below the original posting from now on. I did not say divbox is the best idea ever, but I also do not undestand why different bg color makes it less readable. And rules are made for breaking! Similar scheme (different colors, or at least some other than only extra indentation) are also used on millions of different forums on the web.
Now there are more pubmed than book citations. I certainly would love to see more relevant quotes from Dr. Squat, for example. I was surprised there was no mention of using only own bodyweight in strength training (one-legged squat, pullup, ...).
Bork (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>You might get a better reply than mine at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines - I more or less accept the policies unquestioned while people there have informed opinions. Note that you can sometimes interrupt discussions, but it's just unusual. The chronological order of posts is generally the best way to read things if you're not following diff-by-diff and are reading after the fact. And again, the addition of pubmed citations is very appreciated, excellent job! You should also have a look at the Geological reviews tools - Physician and Sports medicine shows up on that one and it's google-style searchable. After Diberry and pubmed, that's always my next stop. WLU (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hi, Bork, and welcome to the Wiki! Thanks for the contribution over on the Thimerosal article. Unfortunately, such material is routinely purged, sometimes simply replaced by unscientific pov from the multi-billion dollar pharma marketing budgets in the guise of medical journal fodder. You're headed on the right course --toward making the facts stick-- with the David Geier citation. Have fun! Ombudsman (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undoed. Looks like that 1930 was "rewriting history".
FDA Thimerosal lists only one (lame) human test from 1931,
Deadly Immunity says:
Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product could cause damage -- and even death -- in both animals and humans. In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by administering it to 22 patients with terminal meningitis, all of whom died within weeks of being injected -- a fact Lilly didn't bother to report in its study declaring thimerosal safe.
Sorry if red is too dramatic.
Bork (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I saw that Eubulides is an editor on the page. There are few editors on wikipedia of whom I have a higher opinion. Very civil, knows his sources extremely well, responds well to suggestions, I could not have a higher opinion of him. For what it's worth - I'm but one editor. I'm not sure of Ombudsman's opinion. WLU (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello to you both. I realize there may be some folks with "interesting" conflicts of interests, but that only makes this funnier!
Interesting removals from Cholesterol and Hypercholesterolemia. Remains to be seen what happens with CHD, Atherosclerosis and Vitamin K.
Bork (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of your message to me[edit]

Dear Bork: I am trying to figure out the negative tone and sarcasm in your message:

"...Pretty funky! Considering over hundred studies showing serious adverse effects, and also that page you added says: Causes severe eye irritation. Skin and respiratory irritant. May be harmful - toxicology not fully investigated. Experimental teratogen. May affect fertility. May cause sensitization. In your opinion 0.025 µg/kg/day is "low toxicity"? And can you tell more about their usage in cosmetics and foods? You did not add references."

So I am puzzled by your response. Maybe you are mistaking me for someone else? I edit regularly, and sure, sometimes I err, in which case other editors correct me and we discuss stuff, etc, etc... So what's the deal: that you didn't like the reference I added or you objected to my edits? Fine, but, as they say, dont have a cow, man. Your bewildered fellow editor, --Smokefoot (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying you did not make that edit? History log says Smokefoot.
If you can explain more why the "safety" stuff was added, that would be nice.
--Bork (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I made the edit - that is what the log says. I am just perplexed by the vehemence of your response to my innocent and well intentioned edits. On rare occassion, chemical content can provoke loud responses. Some editors who write about chemical themes become frustrated by the clash between their ignorance of even elementary organic/inorganic chemistry and their intention to slant an article one way or another. For example, we are dealing with a very upset editor who is convinced that sodium fluoride is the basis of a Hitler-inspired mass poisoning. But such outbursts are fairly rare, hence my surprise. Your response seemed shrill (to the extent that one can assign tone to written words!). But since you asked, I will take another look at this bisphenol A article. It is very useful stuff and important to write about it. If you want to discuss this issue, we should probably do that on the talk page of bisphenol A. Let's just try to be friendly and we'll make more progress. Cheers,--Smokefoot (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you call vehemence and shrill, I call criticism.
Still, it would be interesting to know about BPA usage in cosmetics and foods, and what led you into unreferenced conclusions about BPA safety.
--Bork (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, here is the direct quote from the reference: it was deleted in the recent rounds from bisphenol A "Bisphenols are far less toxic than phenol itself. Therefore some of them can even be used as antioxidants in cosmetics and foods. Bisphenol A has an LD50 (mouse) of 4 g/kg, limits the weight gain in rats in feeding experiments, and has a clearly estrogenic effect. The permeation of bisphenol A through the skin is practically negligible compared with phenol. It is, however, reported that bisphenol A leads to minor skin irritation. Helmut Fiege, Heinz-Werner Voges, Toshikazu Hamamoto, Sumio Umemura, Tadao Iwata, Hisaya Miki, Yasuhiro Fujita, Hans-Josef Buysch, Dorothea Garbe, Wilfried Paulus "Phenol Derivatives" in Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, 2002. DOI: 10.1002/14356007.a19_313." I dont think that this statement appealed to recent editors mind-set so they deleted the statement that its not very toxic (the amusing part: these editors are probably wearing polycarbonate-based eyeglasses!). This kind of content makes some editors uncomfortable, they cannot handle NPOV.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, check out the recent addition to BPA [1]; industry+drug companies etc. usually
do not have negative point of view, from looking at their "studies":
A recent report prepared by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis and funded by the American Plastics Council concluded that
evidence for low-dose effects of BPA is weak on the basis of a review of only 19 studies ; the report was issued after a delay
of 2.5 years. A current comprehensive review of the literature reveals that the opposite is true.
...
Nonetheless, chemical manufacturers continue to discount these published findings because no industry-funded studies
have reported significant effects of low doses of BPA, although > 90% of government-funded studies have reported significant effects.
And your reference is based on 2002 year book. Now it is 2008.
Keep on contributing and doing good job. But always remember that someone might mistake that kind of modifications as lame attempt at Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt.
--Bork (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that BPA is more problematic and more complicated than described in the 2002 report. Of course the industrial types would tend to minimize the bad PR. But when the wiki reports get soap-boxy, then the articles lose credibility and the impact that we aim for. Nice talking to you. I will re-insert a paraphrase of the above quote. Happy editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting[edit]

Thanks for the reference tip! I'll surely use it. I also need one for Pub Med Central, so would appreciate any leads you have on that.


Sera Young (talk) Seralewise (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not better ideas at User talk:Diberri, you can always try using the URL option in Wikipedia template filling util -- at least it fills in the title automatically.
--Bork (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

melanin[edit]

Do we have references for the story that africans who were visiting the UK developed symptoms due to a lack of Vitamin D.? Gerriet42 (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During the Industrial Revolution? No references - but if Africans do not get enough Vitamin D now[1] (when not living near the Equator), I do not believe their Vitamin D status back in the 19th century was that spectacular, either.
Bork (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add comments above this line[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Egan KM, Signorello LB, Munro HM, Hargreaves MK, Hollis BW, Blot WJ (2008). "Vitamin D insufficiency among African-Americans in the southeastern United States: implications for cancer disparities (United States)". Cancer Causes Control. 19 (5): 527–35. doi:10.1007/s10552-008-9115-z. PMID 18219582. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)


Long lists of studies[edit]

These are not typically added to articles. Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bork&oldid=693174913"