User talk:174.126.200.228

MSG

No, I'm not looking for a perfect solution. The problem is that you badly violated WP:POV with your edit. It's very simple: there are multiple studies, some showing that MSG causes obesity, others showing that it doesn't, all of equal weight. So you can't simply put in the studies that only show that MSG causes obesity. If you have any questions, please bring the matter up on the MSG talk page. sciencewatcher (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

after a quick google search of msg+obesity I can't determine where your opinion has developed from. If you truly believe that you're right about msg not being linked to obesity, then you will need to present the sources on the article in question for anyone to take your edits seriously. If they are legitimate sources then I doubt anyone will contest your edit, so please don't be afraid to do your part and contribute to Wikipedia.

First of all, you can't use google search for this - you need to use google scholar and/or pubmed. Second, all the sources are already in the main health effects section so all you need to do is summarise that section. I'd do it myself but I don't have time. Third, I'd recommend discussing at the article's talk page rather than here (so that other users can discuss). --sciencewatcher (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's more than understandable that you don't have the time to make proper wikipedia edits. However, wikipedians should never resort to making improper edits. That does mean that you can't hope to hold an idea "ransom" on wikipedia in order to get others to complete work that you want done for you.174.126.200.228 (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I should further point out that the perfect solution fallacy is a means of fallaciously rejecting an argument, not a means of pursuing a specific "perfect solution." So when someone claims that you have used the perfect solution fallacy, they are making a claim that your argument is invalid, not speculating as to the quality of the solution you desire. You should do some googling on fallacies, you might find it enlightening.174.126.200.228 (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You won't get far on wikipedia by having a condescending attitude like that. Be civil or people will ignore you. I'm unwatching this page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Your editing philosophy is completely out of line, I don't know how else to say it man.174.126.200.228 (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring

As a Wikipedia administrator, I am hereby giving you notice that you cannot continue edit-warring to insert material in the Monosodium glutamate article against the consensus of numerous other editors. If you cannot get others to agree with you, you must stop adding the material to the article. Whether you are right or wrong, if you can't get any support, you can't win the dispute. Looie496 (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I have blocked this address for 31 hours, for continuing to insert material into the Monosodium glutamate article without first gaining consensus on the talk page. Looie496 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

this is interesting. I can no longer use the discussion page on the Monosodium Glutamate page, nor can I make edits on your discussion page. I suppose this is a pretty good "walking away" point for me. I would appreciate if you could place the below snippet into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monosodium_glutamate#Health_concerns_section.27s_low_standard

"But you have never actually given any reasons apart from 'Two hours doesn't seem like enough time to give for the deletion of an entire headered item'." "--Sciencewatcher"

Everything I said after I quoted the original poster pointed out the flaws in his reasoning for why the material should be deleted. I gave one segment of reasoning (which I repost below for your convenience) explaining why the material should NOT be deleted:

"Why should the health effects of sodium and glutamic acid, both naturally occuring in the body, be concerning at all?" "--Original poster"

"The food industry manufactures MSG using GMOs in a process of fermentation. When they seep out the ingredient, it's in an unnatural concentration of D-glutamate and L-glutamate, and the salts are not bound (together with a protein), as well as impurieies resulting from the manufacturing process. Manufactured MSG evidently causes neurological disorders and obesity in lab rats. When you look at the salt as a commercial food additive, you need to include stuff like health concerns, especially considering the policy of certain countries on things like GMO regulation. Thorough safty tests are often forgone to expediate the release of new products to consumers." "--my response"

If you can provide support for the materials deletion, do so by refuting my many counter points. If you can refute my reasoning for why the health information should remain in the article then do so by contriving a counterpoint of your own. Pretending to not understand what my objections are isn't helpful to the discussion when they are obvious. Thus far, all support for the contents removal has been addressed, except for "as we now discuss it above" which I assumed meant your dialog with the OP... If you meant the argument in the above section, then you still need to address my objection to your latest line of reasoning. Claiming that I was the one who was doing the POV forking, and claiming that your edit didn't rely on any type of fork what so ever). The simple definition of forking refutes this argument for me (which I provided for you above, but you have yet to comment on). But obviously you don't need to do that because the administrator you summoned has banned be from making edits to the page, and it can be assumed that this ban will be levied on me for as long as I make edits on this page. The fact of the matter remains clear, you made an entirely unprecedented edit to the page in deleting the "Asia" information, and when it lacked consensus it was determined to have consensus (possibly based on a discussion occurring in another talk page which made absolutely no reference to the material you propose we delete).174.126.200.228 (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Also it seems a bit out of place - the USA and Australia sections are about food safety, but the Asia section is just a research study about obesity (which is nothing to do with Asia) - other obesity studies aren't from Asia." "--Sciencewatcher"

Perhap the content should be placed under the header of "Obesity" instead of "Asia"? Perhaps the inclusion of health concerns in this article is in question? If so, then perhaps my objection to POV edit forking should be addressed as you've chosen not to discuss above.174.126.200.228 (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

174.126.200.228 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The basis for this block is a hoax. An edit was proposed, which I undid, thus there was no consensus and should be discussed in the discussion for the edit. But the originator persisted his edit with out using discussion.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= The basis for this block is a hoax. An edit was proposed, which I undid, thus there was no consensus and should be discussed in the discussion for the edit. But the originator persisted his edit with out using discussion. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= The basis for this block is a hoax. An edit was proposed, which I undid, thus there was no consensus and should be discussed in the discussion for the edit. But the originator persisted his edit with out using discussion. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= The basis for this block is a hoax. An edit was proposed, which I undid, thus there was no consensus and should be discussed in the discussion for the edit. But the originator persisted his edit with out using discussion. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

---