User talk:Prolancet

Edits to Soy protein. Yankees76 has accused me of vandalism.[edit]

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 14:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I content dispute is not vandalism. I improved article by removing unreliable references and improved factual accurracy. --Prolancet 17:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you removed consensus content (a sourced Biological value table) without a valid explanation.[1]. That's vandalism. Yankees76 17:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed unreliable references. They are outdated. --Prolancet 17:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've already had this dicussion on the articles talk page. If you still feel you have something to add, go about it the right way - don't simply blank the material - or you willl be blocked like the rest of your sockpuppets. Yankees76 17:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not blank anything. I removed outdated material and replaced it with reliable material. The outdated references will be removed. --Prolancet 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the diffs, you blanked an entire table. "Outdated" is subjective,and you're editing based on your own POV. The "outdated" references you're removing are being used after a consensus was reached on the articles talk page. Removing them with a valid explanation is vandalism. Yankees76 18:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing them (outdated and dubious references) with a valid explanantion is good editing. --Prolancet 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked. Yankees76 18:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed my edits. I removed references that are outdated and replaced them with reliable references. --Prolancet 18:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the discussion on the articles talk page? Where is the consensus showing the references are out of date? Where is the consensus that the BV table should be removed? Post links and other editors involved please. Yankees76 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked reliable references. Where is your discussion. Where is your consensus. I simply removed references that are over 50 years old and improved other sentences. --Prolancet 18:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the article's talk page. It's all there. Again, I'm waiting for your discussion on the articles talk page, the consensus showing the references are out of date, and the consensus that the BV table should be removed. Post links and other editors involved.Yankees76 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reporting him as a vandal. He's not going to be blocked. I'd suggest trying mediation or something similar. Let me know if you need guidance in that. alphachimp 19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some help would be appreciated. Thanks. Yankees76 19:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinserted the table you've removed from soy protein. I suggest that you stop being so reckless with your edits. Being bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories such as this one. If you would like to edit an article on a controversial subject, it's a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety, read the comments on the talk page, and view the page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is. As well, if you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning, and providing solid references. If you make deletions, you should try to explain why you deleted their contributions in the article talk page. This could reduce the possibility of reverting wars and unnecessary arguments. Simply removing the hard work of Messdrocker and 2 other editors without discussion or consensus because of your viewpoint on the validity of the sources, does not entitle you to remove the material completely. Note that as per WP:VAND, removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism. In your case, the reason for the removal of the content is not readily apparent by examination of the content itself. You've provided a frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content. Please do not remove this information again, without first gaining the consensus of the community. I hope you can be cool about this, drop your sockpuppets (I know who they are), and work with others on creating a consensus for this material. Yankees76 21:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my recent edits. You said you know who I am. What do you mean by that. --Prolancet 22:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how adding the age of the "studies" (when the reference is a textbook) matters or is notable when determining BV. Unless you want to find the full references for each of the studies quoted and attribute each BV value to a specific study. Since the method of determining BV has been standardized since the 1920's I don't see how it's relevant. I would take a well-referenced source from 1944 that is included in textbook directly related to the subject, than an article posted on a corporate website written by the CEO of a supplement company (Dorian Yates). Wouldn't you? Yankees76 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators should get involved now. I would not hurt if you contacted the media about the unreliable references added by an administrator. --Prolancet 23:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't think they're unreliable. Despite being fromm 1972, it is a textbook, on the exact topic of the article and it's very well-sourced (scientists, universities, professors, research labs). At a glance, the sources you're replacing it with (the ones directly contradict the textbook) are bodybuilding-related marketing or fitness articles. How do you qualify these as better sources? What science background does Dorian Yates have? They're bordering on even being able to qaulify as reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Yankees76 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite them being from 1972. No. The studies are in the 1940s and 50's. First, where did that PDF file come from. Did it come from an anon or an editor you can trust. Did someone make it up on their computor. Hint. I wonder when this guy will figure it out. I want to make headlines about this. Are fake studies in a PDF file made by a nut allowed on Wikipedia. Did you actually verifiy the text of that PDF file. Take a second look at the PDF file. Every time I click and look at the PDF file I am laughing. I can't stop laughing. This is a joke. This is beyond funny. I got a big smile on my face. Your move. Cheers. --Prolancet 00:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The PDF is a scan from various pages of Smith, A. K., Circle, S. J., “Soybeans: Chemistry and Technology”, Vol. 1, Avi Publishing Co., Westport, CT, 1972. This book is easily available on Amazon.com (yours for $42[2][3]), and is also extensively quoted by various publications - including United States patent 6,228,993[4]. We're not talking about an obscure text from East Germany here. Regardless of who scanned it, the material is verifiable. You're not really posting any tangible evidence that shows the there is a problem with this source, other than to assume that studies from 1944 are invalid or that the PDF is somehow altered. Please provide some evidence for the Wikipedia community that shows biological value studies that are older than 40 years are inherently flawed. Otherwise I fail to see how you have any argument at all. Yankees76 05:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]