User talk:Kuzaar/04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives[edit]

Previously archived pages can be found at User talk:Kuzaar/03, User talk:Kuzaar/02, and User talk:Kuzaar/01.

Current discussion[edit]

Depersonalization External Links[edit]

Kuzaar, you have always been extremely helpful to us, and so I hope you are able to help out with this as well.

In both the subject "depersonalization" and "depersonalization disorder" someone is continually tampering with external links and putting themselves first even if that was not the original order of links, and moving things around. I believe it's for advertising purposes, but don't know what to do, as I only see an IP address.

The tag next to their IP says "site owner continually tampering with article, next time it will be reported."

There are even times our site and one other has been deleted from these topics, and we've had to put it back in as it is completely relevant to the article and the topic.

Grrrr.

Thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by SleepingSiena (talkcontribs)

thanks![edit]

i really appreciate your vigilance to the List of Internet Slang article, keep up the good work! Bloodpack 13:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sean Hannity[edit]

I like the edit. My only problem with the way it was is the sentence begins "According to Hannity" so it should reflect his thinking. I don't think really think the code pink part should be in there in a paragraph on a different criticism. --PTR 15:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the edit as is. Thanks for the offer of help. I'll take you up on it if I need to, however; I'm mostly involved in copy editing. I like things to read cleanly and be correctly cited and that's what I'm experienced in. --PTR 15:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sean Hannity - Redux[edit]

You said to ask if I had questions :)

On the page there are several quotes Hannity has been criticized for but I can't find any citations for him saying the quotes. I'm not saying he didn't say them but shouldn't a BLP have cites for him saying the quotes? --PTR 16:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warnings. I'm not interested in getting into edit wars. I noticed you put some citations on the page. My point actually was not citations for the criticisms but citations for him actually making the statements. I couldn't find any transcripts or any other reference except FAIR and Media Matters that quotes what Hannity said and they only paraphrase with no link to a transcript. I think if you put in an article that he was criticised for saying it; you should also put a link to what he said. --PTR 18:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Then it is okay in a BLP to say someone was criticized for saying something but not actually show that they said it? Again, I believe Hannity did say everything the article covers after researching him and his show. (I don't watch/listen to his shows, I came into the article because of the clean up tag.) You can see from my edits that I leave the controversial stuff alone, but I've read WP:BLP and it does say if the source has an agenda to push then it is better to rely on a third source.
Second, the paragraph:
During the Terri Schiavo controversy, two of Schiavo's nurses appeared on Hannity and Colmes to argue that Schiavo was not brain dead. Talk show host and actor Harry Shearer obtained a video tape[2] where Hannity can be heard coaching the nurses on how to respond to Alan Colmes's questions. He told them to respond "I'm just here to tell you what I saw", no matter what Colmes asked. After the segment, Hannity can be heard saying "We got the points out...But you did great, both of you"[3].
Implies criticism but doesn't say who criticized what, just that someone obtained a vieo tape. It leaves the reader with the impression that something here is not right but what? The way he works with Colmes?
I've taken this to your talk page because you offered to help but I'm taking up all your time and space; you'll have to archive soon :). Any further discussion, I'll put on the talk page.--PTR 18:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding so quickly. The problem as I see it with the Terri Schiavo paragraph has been pretty much eliminated since the section is no longer called criticisms. I do understand OR but the paragraph is implying that Hannity did something wrong but never states that someone (a reliable source) said he did something wrong. I guess it's semantics but if it's in the criticism section (which it's not anymore) then I think it needs to say what was being criticized and by whom. Also, isn't Media Matters a biased resource when it comes to Sean Hannity? He is totally right-wing and they are pretty much left-wing.--PTR 19:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I had added a question for Jossi already. It's more a verifying for myself question so you probably want to add your own comment. Thanks for being so nice to a new person. --PTR 16:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

DJ Cheeses Comment[edit]

You got my artical deleted.
Thanks D:
Happy?

Protest Warrior's non-notability[edit]

Hiya K-man!

I brought up Protest Warrior's non-notability on the talk page, and hope you will keep and eye out for any slings and arrows directed at yours truly for bringing this unfortunate truth to light. Thanks! NBGPWS 09:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair.org[edit]

I don't know anything about Fair.org but I'm wondering if all the criticisms, since they involve his shows and not him personally, should not be moved to his shows' pages? --PTR 20:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

OnePeoplesProject.com[edit]

Fair.org says their information came from OnePeoplesProject.com and this is the only item on Hannity I could find on their site. (I searched in google for OnePeoplesProject and hannity.) They don't seem unbiased according to this piece and I couldn't find the lying Louima reference here.

http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Itemid=27 --PTR 14:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I could not find a reference to the onepeoplesproject on the article on Fair.org. According to the article at fair.org, it was written by their senior analyst- can you find a link to where you saw the article was taken from OnePeoplesProject? --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hannity - Criticism section[edit]

I have no problem with the controversies section or the controversies being weaved into the article. My only reason for removing the controversies section is that all of the controversies have (as far as I can find) only been reported in biased sources. That's why I removed it to the talk page so we can find reliable sources for a BLP and weave it back in as Sandy and jossi and plange suggested. --PTR 15:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I do still think we can find non-biased sources for controversies and weave them in. I've look at Keith Oberman and Bill O'Reilly's pages and they seem to have controversies woven in or a small controversy section with transcripts of the shows or main stream media sources. --PTR 19:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, just to jump in here, I noticed that you mentioned that you may not be interested in further pursuing the dispute over on the Hannity page, but what's going on over there is crazy. Should we really just give up and let a small circle of Hannity-favoring Wikipedians completely remove anything that even remotely mentions any controversy in his past, no matter how well referenced or neutral? I need your help on this one. I have noticed that while User: Getaway feels comfortable with using a biased source (such as The Log Cabin Republican) in one article, and is allowed to use it, any source that is cited for a Hannity controversy is unnacceptably non-neutral. Aren't the guidelines on this somewhat ambiguous? Surely MediaMatters does not have a reputation for publishing false information, despite any political leanings. And isn't it logical to find a reference for a controversial issue on a site with an opposing view? FOX isn't going to put any of this controversial info up, it's their show! I have been working briefly with PTR on this, but I really have no idea how to proceed at this point, and any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. --Jackbirdsong 04:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My work is not inconsistent. That is a fact. I have attempted to work on both articles (Hannity and Phelps), but the problem is NOT me, so drop that. The problem is it is difficult to come to a concensus over all of the Wikipedia on what is a reliable source and what is not a reliable source. That is part of the problem with Wikipedia--so do not attempt to use this situation as a opportunity to talk badly about me. I read the talk page for Kuzaar because he somehow shows up on almost every page that I edit: (1) Hannity, (2) Brownback, (3) Phelps, Sr., (4) Phelps, Jr., (5) snowflake babies, (6) Robert Byrd and others. Also, dear jackbirdsong, you happen to show up wherever I end up. That's fine. That's your right, but do not get in your head that I going away and do not get in your head that I going to quietly allow you to talk about me and create a stink about me because I will nip it in the bud. Wikipedia has many, many inherent problems and one of them is inconsistency throughout the whole project. With 1.4 million articles being edited by virtually anyone that wants to there is going to be inconsistencies. I see the same pattern in the edits of Kuzaar and you. However the difference is that I am not attributing to you a underhand motive. Actually, neither you or Kuzaar are supposed to be talking about my motives. You are supposed to give me the benefit of doubt called "good faith." I have extended it to you and to Kuzaar, now I will expect Kuzaar and you to extend it to me. I have recorded other examples of where Kuzaar has begun the process of engaging in banned Wikipedian behaviour, to wit: discuss my motives and attempt to win a POV war by attacking me personally. That is not acceptable and I will not tolerate it. It is NOT a coincidence that with 1.4 million articles and Kuzaar showing up at least six that I can remember where I am editing that Kuzaar has been following me around. I know that you are both there now and I will respond and forcefully to attempts to belittle my work and my motives. And finally, dear Kuzaar, you have stated numerous times that you are just working to maintain neutrality the hallmark of you work. I commend you for that. Remember there are edit histories for all of our work. Have a good day!--Getaway 13:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, Kuzaar, for your information. Jackbirdsong and I have had a previous run-in. I reverted a long and rambling edit that he made to the Hannity article and told him on his talk page to stop it. He is obviously still smarting from that. You can review the long and rambling edit filled with personal observation, lack of citation and just all around sloppy here: Jackbirdsong's long and rambling edit with personal commentary on the Sean Hannity article And you can review the comment that I left on his talk page, which he has since completely deleted instead of the proper procedure which is to archive it here: Warning to jackbirdsong not to add personal commentary to an article.--Getaway 13:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Jackbirdsong: I have decided to stop editing at the Sean Hannity article because other editors seemed to be opposed to neutrally representing any controversy about the subject's career in the article. My idea about using the only available sources to make the claim that there was controversy at all was soundly rejected by the crowd there. My idea for using an editorial published in a reliable, widely respected publication as a way to note there was controversy (without going into details, per WP:BLP) was soundly rejected as well. The individual sections were then moved to the talk page, and then the section deleted outright.
I did not feel the editors there were interested in consensus, or what I thought of the article, or of using my experience in editing troublesome articles. I felt my edits were going to waste and achieving nothing, so I don't think I'm going to edit there any more. Neutrality is one of the things most important to me in editing Wikipedia, but in this case I don't think that there are any constructive ideas I could throw out that would not be immediately rejected for whatever reason they have been so far.
Getaway: As to your first point, from the couple of edits I've seen JBS make, he seems politically liberal. You'll find that in editing political articles, people with similar beliefs share similar interests and similar biases. I do not know that editor from anywhere, and if it seems we are working together, consider alternately that we might instead agree on the subject. Alternately, if you believe that he and I are the same person, I encourage you to open a Checkuser request if you want official demonstration that your suspicion is incorrect. Comments like these, and your accusations of me "following you around" are simply not true. We both edit political articles, and we disagree on how to word things most of the time. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, maybe I should rethink this entirely. I can't get away from editors who want to fight even when I have said that I'm not going to fight about it anymore, even on my talk page. I am going to be on Wikibreak until further notice. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Because I do not believe in engaging in a verbal war with getaway on your talk page, and frankly could care less what edits he makes so long as they are NPOV and adhere to Wikipedia guidelines, I will ignore his post and get down to brass tax. I understand that some individuals are being a bit difficult about reaching a multilateral concensus on a more neutral Hannity page, but at this point not only do we have a rather diminutive article, but no mentioned controversies in regards to a controversial figure. I think that your work with the Louima thing was well executed, and that it should be mentioned briefly in a new condensed controversy sec. for starters. As well, the Mediamatters source for the other controversy should not be questioned insofar as it's validity, bias or no, as it is laced with quotes. If you believe there would be any problem (from a Wiki standpoint) with me condensing and adding these two bits into a new controversy sec., let me know what needs to be done. Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 21:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR, etc. on Soybean article[edit]

Thanks for your interest - I've been unable to flag an admin for help in this situation. The 3RR violations going on stem from a sockpuppet case, where either sockpuppets or meatpuppets of a user are making non- neutral point of view edits to a select list of articles related to soy, biological value and PDCAAS. Whenever I tag one user as a sock (such as DoctorColgan) another appears (AndyCanada) to make the same reversions. I've outlined in detail what has been happening on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messenger2010. Regards, Yankees76 15:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

POV on the Soybean Article.[edit]

Please check the history of the soybean article.

All edits by Yankee76 is to ERASE my rfernces to support his POV preferred version.

ERASING valid references in an attempt undermine the facts is POV or may be preceived as vandalism.

I hope you will take a serious look at the refernces that Yanjkees76 ersed without merit, validity, or verification.

After he erased my references then he puts a [citation needed] to continue to push his POV agenda.

This user is accusing being a sock. Why? Yankees76 is trying to intimidate me to support his preffered version.

Please ask Yankees76 why is he erasing references. If he does not like the references then why doesn't he just find some references and add them to the article instead of erasing?

I consider blanking of references is obvious POV. Please help!

Also, be careful of the user Yankees76 opening up dummy accounts to make edits like mine and saying it is me when in fact he may be reverting his own edits back and forth in order to confuse the situation and attack me to push his POV (I am just speculating and that though). This is complex and tricky.

Again please help. I am not sure but someone made some edits like mine to pin me and say I'm the sock when the other user could be anyone.

Also, Yankees has broken the 3 revert rule. And blanking of references is POV.

Regardless, look at the article and see who has added references and who has erased references.

Example Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soybean&diff=84058633&oldid=84056061

-AndyCanada 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is important that the POV dispute sign remain in the article until all info is validated and references.

If Yankees76 does not like the references so then why is Yankees76 erasing the references instead of finding additional ones.

This is a serious question. I think the answer is simple: to undermine the facts to push his agenda. AndyCanada 16:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

After I recently contacted Wikipedia by e-mail I just received an e-mail reply.

Please read this.

The founder of Wikipedia said...

Jimbo Wales has said: "There's no specific policy against it,

So the socks complaints have zero merit. It is a dead issue.

Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet

Yankees76 just wants to push his points of view by intimidation and deflecting away attention from the article to the editors!

Now, lets get back to the issues about the article and as to why is Yankees76 reverting other users contributions? AndyCanada 17:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to some of your questions and points on your talk page. As it so happens, I am still a little perplexed to the specifics of this dispute, and I'd like some more details. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand why you are perplexed about the dispute. If you look at the edits. Yankees76 is just erasing contributions from other editors. Example: the reference as noted above from the soy article. There is actually no dipsute. Yankees is just being uncivil. That is it. Why is Yankees76 erasing valid references. I just don't get. I am just as perplexed as you are. I could make an educated assumption though. Maybe Yankees76 is just annoyed with me. I have a powerful tone and voice with my comments and Yankees76 just doesn't like that. Yankees76 is amusing to me by the way (This is kind of funny what is happening.)- AndyCanada 18:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh boy, I'm sorry the above had to ugly-up your talk page, but here's the nature of the problems with the user above (and the puppetmaster, and other sockpuppets). First, a sockpuppet (such as AndyCanada), that uses multiple accounts to avoid vandal tags, and trick other uses into thinking your case has more support than it does is in the wrong on Wikipedia. The user has freely and maliciously used sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny from other editors, avoid vandalism warnings, uncivility warnings, avoid the 3RR, and most importantly, they're being used to support a specific angle in a debate by pretending to be an authority (User:DoctorColgan|DoctorColgan). These single-purpose accounts are all here to push one agenda and generally all edit the same pages. And at the same time one of the IP socks and AndyCanada is accusing me of being a puppet here[1] and here on your own talk page - (all without evidence or even what "dummy accounts" I've even used). Once one sock is called out as a sock it stops editing, another like AndyCanada fills it's place and continues the reverts. The arrival of multiple newcomers, with limited Wikipedia background and predetermined viewpoints arriving in order to present those viewpoints, rarely helps achieve neutrality and most times actively damages it - such as in this case - no matter what one might think. And that's what is happening here.
I beleive the edits by the user above across a large number of articles are an attempt to unfairly place the Soybean, soy protein or PDCAAS in a negative light. The user is claiming that soy protein is an incomplete protein based on the "fact" that a term "complete protein" is merely a marketing term. This simply isn't true, soy contains all 9 of the essential amino acids. The user also refuses to admit any criticism - not matter how well sourced of the biological value method of determining protein quality into articles - when it's clear that BV has inherent weaknesses; and finally the sock refuses to recognize that the FDA uses PDCAAS as it's "measuring stick" for determining protein quality because the FDA has determined it to be superior to other methods (including BV) - all of which is true no matter how you spin it, because it's law. Lastly the user makes a bold claim that biological value is superior to any other method of determining protein quality that does not receive proper refencing to prove so. Not only does the user above have trouble formulating a coherant response (see above) in a way that makes his case easy to understand; he uses improperly-given (bad formatting, foreign language missing dates, publications, publishers) references from the 1920's and 1970's (the PDCAAS method wasn't developed until 1989 - so how to these references compare the two?). When I ask for more references and sources, I get opinions like "ask anybody"[2], strawman arguments, and harrassment like this[3] - which I've protected my user page from.
I feel that certain information is being repressed and anyone that has presented an opposing point view or even information that confirms the opposite to the user above is being harrassed and even blocked. The full specifics of the many points of the debate can be seen on the biological value talk page and soybean talk apge - during which I was debating under the assumption that there were separate users in this, before I discovered there was a puppet master and that there were anon IPs and registered users participating. While it's difficult to wade through, the strawman arguments pop out right away - the user constantly presents a misrepresentation of the my position, refutes it, and pretends that the my actual position has been refuted. That's the modus operandi this user has used in attempt to deceive other editors who are less versed on the science of the subject and 'get their way'. This deception has resulted in a drawn out debate and one admin with the background and ability to mediate Glen S is taking some time off. If you have specific questions, I'd be more than happy to assist. Thanks, Yankees76 18:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Wow. This goes deeper than I ever thought.

Digest this; the user Yankees76 is encouraging an IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.240.246.79 to continue making the same type of edits on the soybean article which Yankees76 alleged are "valid edits". An IP vandalized the soybean article and Yankees76 is supporting the vandal. This is weird! Clearly Yankees76 has an agenda. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia. Yankees76 has forgotten this. Please help. Please investigate. Please look into Yankees76 repeated revert to other editors. Comments such as this is incivil and could be preceived as a personal attack. I will be cool and as always maintain a civil tone. AndyCanada 18:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Another strawman argument in an attempt to deflect critcism away from you. How is this uncivil? I'm merely offering support to the user and informing them that I've used them as an example to prove a point against you, and that I have references that user can use once they're unblocked to make constructive edits.
What other editors? It's all you - the same person! And even your initial attempt to have the IP above blocked was refuted as a NPOV dispute. The IP was blocked because he went about it the wrong way - unlike you, he did not create multiple accounts to attempt to show more support than the subject actually has. And he was blocked by an admin for failing to get involved with arguments on the talk page and instead simply pushed his edits too many times in the main article - which was a mistake on his part - which I don't defend. You'll as always be cool? Please, you've made what, 12 edits with this account? What about your other sockpuppets? How many are there? 20? The ones I listed and others as well. They weren't so civil. I received a warning for the infraction above, and in a debate like this it's not uncommon. Yankees76 19:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

According to Greenman in the discussion of the soybean article the term complete protein is a marketing term. Consensus has been reached already. There is no such thing as complete protein relevant in science to which of measuring protein for utilization and synthesis. This is easy to understand. Yankees76 is not about contributing to the article. He is just about disagreeing with me as noted by his incivil behaviour. The only thing Yankees76 wants to do is delete other edits. The evidence has already been shown that her IP edits who I do not know was blocked for vandalism. Why is Yankees76 thinks the IP edits was wrongfully blocked? It was vandalism. So the question is why is Yankees76 claiming otherwise. This is a big question. Again, I am not Greenman. I hope Greenman will make valid contributions soon because he has a good point. Yankees76 has offered support to a known vandal. According to Yankees76 comments on the vandal's talk page, Yankess76 said I quote "valid edits". AndyCanada 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

3 users (with two of them being sockpuppets, the other Greenman - who you're quoting out of context by the way) does not make a consensus. It's reasons like this that I'm persueing the sockpuppet issue in the attempt to minimally get all of your sockpuppets blocked. "No such thing as a complete protein" - completely false[4]. You're using psuedo science to fool other editors with no background on the subject. And yet again more strawman arguments with regards to what you think are my intentions here. The real question is why are you using sockpuppets to reach a "consensus" (with yourself) on a talk page and then after you're exposed as a puppet continue to claim there was a consnsus? Yankees76 19:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

Please explain why in the world you wrote "valid edits" on the talk page of a known vandal.

Please explain why you think this reference you removed (blanked) is wrong. http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/AnimalvsVegetable.htm

Please explain what Greenman's position is on the term complete protein, if I quoted out of context. Well, feel free to go right ahead and quote Greenman (I think you won't).

There is no such thing as complete protein in scientific terms. Its about science, not terms that imply beans are as high in protein utilization activity as Whey Designer Protein.

You can call beans complete protein too. According to Greenman, the term is misleading.

The real question is why is Yankee76 blanking other editors contributions!!! AndyCanada 20:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Known vandal is up for debate - the admin that blocked him, blocked him because he was participating in an edit war (see that admins talk page) - not because his edits were incorrect. None of their edits are any less valid than the edits done by your sockpuppets - and in fact I'm very surprised you weren't blocked as well for participating in an edit war with that user.
2) www.afpafitness doesn't support what you're claiming.
3) Your Greenman argument is a strawman argument. (rather than choosing random words off of my user page to make your new sockpuppet name, you should have just used Strawman). A consensus can't be reached by 3 people when two of them are sockpuppets of each other - regardless of what Greenman meant - and even then an anonymous Wikipedia editor calling it "more of a marketing term" doesn't make it a verifiable fact. And since he doesn't appear to be running here to defend you, there's no reason for you to quote him.
4)No such thing as a complete protein in scientific terms? Funny, but Medline Plus Medical Encyclopedia seems to think so. But they must be wrong too - after all they don't see eye to eye with your point of view. Seriously, drop that argument, you have nothing. Wikipedia will always choose an encyclopedia as a verifiable source. [5]
4) I'm not blanking anything - I'm reverting edits made by sockpuppets who are imposing their point of view unfairly, by subverting Wikipedia guidlines, policies and manuals of style.
Again Kuzaar, sorry for making your talk page a mess. I see though that my post of claims on the sockpupets noticeboard remains undefended by the accused. Yankees76 20:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Gothcha!

Yankees76 has failed to explain why he removed the reference as noted above from the soybean article. His answer is CLEAR. He is against what he calls my point of view. He has reverted edits which he admits. So whats wrong with the reference or is it just me. If you can't explain why you removed a reference then you are caught. You are just against me. How is the reference explaining about protein methodology wrong. You have blanked all the references pertaining to the methodology of estimating protein quality from the protein section including this one ---------------------------------> [6]. Here is the Wikipedian Evidence of Blanking which Yankees76 categorically denies but his edits show clearly the complete opposite ---------------------> [7]. NICE TRY! AndyCanada 21:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, a strawman agrument - you're presenting a misrepresentation of my position and refuting it and pretending my actual position has been refuted. I'm not opposed to your point of view, I'm opposed to the subversive methods you're using to defend your point of view including introducing incorrect information, sockpuppet edits, strawman arguments on article talk pages and unsourced and unverifiable claims. Your're posting your viewpoints on the subject and improperly citing them or citing them with questionable resources, while at the same time preventing an alternate viewpoint from being presented - well sourced or not, by claiming the other source is that of a "POV pusher" (one of your catch phrases). And you're doing so by using various sockpuppet methods to sway discussions and avoid penalties for reverts. This is totally against what Wikipedia is designed for. All views that represent both sides here, provided they are valid and verifiable, must be present, and one view is being systematically removed - the one that seems to oppose your own (as you've admitted to doing on my talk page through 2 of your already-blocked sockpuppets last night after you were outed as a puppetmaster)
The article in question doesn't support your claim that "The relevant scientific method for measuring protein is the biological value methodology for protein quality and utilization in humans". It shows BV is a scientific method - big difference. In fact actual text from the source describes it as "an accurate indicator of biological activity of protein". That's a big discrepancy. I'm not sure how you can draw a parallel between the two claims. This is yet another example of you being unable to properly back up the claims you're making in these articles. Don't you think your time might be better spend actually doing some real research in medical journals and other proper sources than wasting time creating sockpuppets and harassing established Wikipedia veterans? You can start here [8], and here [9].Yankees76 21:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

Your last statements are a bit confusing to me. If you think the references are good then why did you erase them. All you had to do is just reword the sentence instead of erasing (blanking the references). If it is "an accurate indicator of biological activity of protein" then what in the world are we even having this debate about in the first place. You agree with the article (I think) and you agree with me (I would assume then). If you think it is a discrepancy then why don't you go ahead and make the proper edits instead of erasing all the references. All you had to do was make the edits and improve the article. So why aren't you doing this? I am more confused now more than ever.

Please explain all this. (Off topic: What do you think about soy and do you think it is safe to eat?) AndyCanada 22:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I replaced them - not erased them. I replaced them with a [citation needed] template, to give everyone the chance to source the claim. You've been arguing this claim tooth and nail for three days and you expect me to edit the claim and then expect you to leave it as is?
My own personal opinions on soy are not relevant here. I don't care about it one way or the other. Yankees76 22:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

What your saying does not make any sense to me. The references are good. You did erase the references not replaced them. If you think the sentence is written wrongly then you could put an improvement citation on the sentence in question not blanking the references. It is constructive to fix the sentences instead of deleting the references. An article could have a dozen references but according to you when sentences are not written properly it is better to erase every single of the references instead of fixing the sentences. So you are telling me in the future when I spot sentences that I think are wrong I should right away erase the references instead of improving the sentences. You are not making any sense to me. According to your (Yankees76) method of editing, erasing entire references is the whey to go instead of contributing to an article by improving the sentences I would assume.

Note: Please let me know Kuzaar what do you believe is the appropriate action to take per Wikipedia's guidlines. -----> Rewriting a sentence or erasing every single reference. AndyCanada 22:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The references are not good, you've failed to provide sources that properly back up the claims you're making (and that's not even getting to the fact that some of your sources are 70 years out of date, and others yet would fail under Wikipedia rules as reliable sources) - that's what I've just finished proving. Jimmy Wales actually says that uncited 'pseudo information' "should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." So technically I should have removed the entire sentences/claims in question and forced you to provide verifiable evidence before the material even makes it into the article or gets a [citation needed] tag - after all the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material - not those looking to remove it.
Your strawman arguments are growing tiresome and predictable - and I refuse to participate any further in this waste of time until the RFC on the Biological Value article has been addressed and your sockpuppets have been banned. (I won't feed the troll any further). I'm not going to waste Kuzaar's time anymore - I have a detailed case already on display against you. Goodbye. Yankees76 02:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The policy:

  1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
  2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
  3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankees76 (talkcontribs)
It looks like you guys had a pretty extensive discussion about this. The following is correct, though- that a statement that any user disagrees on should be sourced to a reliable source or removed. To not use reliable sources in assertions in an article makes for original research, which is one of the things that wikipedia's cornerstone rules prohibit. There's a whole, whole lot of discussion that's happened in my absence, so I'm just giving an opinion on this last little bit, but almost any mainstream idea can be appropriately phrased in an NPOV fashion and attributed to a reliable source, it's just a matter of wording and sourcing. As for what I'd do, I'd calmly discuss it on one another's talk pages or the talk page of the article in question. Please leave any more questions for me below. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh Really?
It seems like, your answer is not an answer. You are being vague.
Lets get to the point with all due respect, sir.
What is the appropiate action to take? Suppress information as by vanishing links and reliable references or simply just make a simple (even a child get do this) and easy modification to a sentence. If you look at Yankees76 behaviour (edits), he seems to want to suppress info by removing sources INSTEAD of simply rewriting a sentence or two. What's going on here? Is their some type of agenda? I thought articles should explain all points about a subject. I still don't get it. Why is Yankees76 so quick to jump and erase references? A simple change in a sentence would be easy I would think. Or should I do what Yankkes76 does, remove reliable references from articles!?
Please tell me what to do. DELETE entire reliable references or simply make a simple change to a sentence. Please, no more vague answers.
Remember, Yankees76 (deletionist attempts) ERASED entire references. Is that the whey to go? AndyCanada 18:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This is black and white.
I want to INCLUDE information (improve sentences and find more references) while on the other hand -- Yankees76 aggressivley wants to REMOVE information!!! AndyCanada 18:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how what Kuzaar said could be considered vague. If you want to include something in an article - you submit reliable proof that what you're saying is true. If you don't, anyone can go and remove it. The burden of proof is on the editor who is looking to include the material - not those seeking to remove it. That's a Wikipedia policy in a nutshell. Aggressively removing uncited material and unreliable references (such as yours) is done everyday on this encyclopedia. I'm not sure why you're going to such lengths of deceit and sockpuppetry to continue in this juvenile disruption of Wikipedia. Yankees76 21:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
What I am saying, AndyCanada, is that when there are disputes with other users, controversial statements in articlespace need to be aggressively and reliably sourced to verifiable sources. Failing that, standards allow for controversial comments to be directly sourced (using an attributon, also) to a verifiable, reliable source. In the edits that you made to the page, you added several sources but only one of the sources was verifiable given the facilities at Wikipedia, and that one was not reliable. The standards at WP:RS must be carefully followed in order to keep from giving undue weight to views which are not necessarily prevalent in the scientific community. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

WPCIV[edit]

Please be civil to me Policratus 20:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been civil to you. I was not in any way hostile to you when you jokingly nominated Ainu people for deletion and White Dawg for featured article status, but Wikipedia is not a project about humor, it's a project about building an encyclopedia. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Signing[edit]

You may want to sign [10] here. JoshuaZ 20:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Good man, you caught it before I did. :) --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Edits In The Soy Protein Article[edit]

There is very suspicious edits in the soy protein article contributed in part by Yankees76 as the evidence reveals his true nature.

Yankees76 says one thing here (but his behaviour) and then does the opposite over there. >>> Click Here To Read Fantasy Information In The Protein Section

Let's get serious folks. "Practice what you preach." Do you understand now??? I want to improve while others want to prelude.

There is >>> fantasy <<< information right now in the soy protein article. It is a complete mess. With all due respect, what a joke.

What does it mean when someone says one thing and then does the about face opposite. Let me give you a hint. -----> Hypocrite! <----- AndyCanada 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks will get you nowhere (except blocked). And FYI, there was more than one editor working on those edits - and other editors are welcome to clean whatever mess you say is there up. And could you be any more vague? The link you just posted says nothing. Yankees76 22:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The link shows everything. You believe the information is good and relevant. That is why you organized the fantasy la la info.
The link speaks louder than both our words -- could ever. AndyCanada 23:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
What information specifically? Please try to formulate a coherant thought instead of ranting and I might be able to address your claims. Yankees76 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If you're talking about 71.240.246.79' edts, well funny thing about that, but that IP seems to have the same service provider as yours. It sure is a small world on the soy related articles on Wikipedia! Yankees76 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a perfect example of fantasy information in the article: (There is a lot more than this. This is just the tip of the iceberg.)

The article claims the Biological Value of whole soybenas is *96

Source of Protein (*Bological Value, **Digestibility)

  • Whole bean : *96 ** 91

Also, there was blanking of sentences. Sentences just happened to vanish. Why? And rewriting of other sentences by who? I know who. Check the soy protein history!

I lost all faith with Yankees76. All he does is continue to call me a puppet, a strawman, and undo other editors hard work without merit. The ENTIRE soy protein section is a TOTAL MESS and is obviously VERY DISORGANIZED (Its annoying too!) I had it with you and this. Revert all that nonsense (vandalism) right now and then add the new information slowly back but only the legitimate info and NOT the many fantasy vandal's information.

Or just wait a couple of days and I will revert the whole mess.

Or this goes deeper than you still think.

Do I know the 71.240.246.79 IP? Is that IP a friend of mine? Or maybe it is me. (Just kidding.)

Or is it just a coincidence the other IP and me are working on the same exact identical articles!!! AndyCanada 00:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well you do have the same service provider and only edit the same articles, I wouldn't be surprised in the least bit if it was just another sockpuppet of yours. And I won't be surprised if you're banned entirely once all of this sorts itself out.
I've removed the information on BV that is incorrect. And stop making demands - you're the last person right now who should be making demands of other editors. You're as much to blame for the "mess" of the article - in fact more so - than anyone. With your sockpuppeteering, edit warring, spelling and grammatical mistakes I'm surprised it's in as good shape as it is. I've only worked on a small section of that entire article, and let's be honest, have had some pretty shoddy material to work with (depsite what your name says, I doubt you're a product of the Canadian school system). Yankees76 00:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kuzaar For Your Comments About Improving The Protein Section in the Soybean Article[edit]

I have updated the soy protein article based on your comments in the soybean talk page. If you have any more suggestions, that would be helpful.

I want the information in all the overlapping articles about protein to be informative and explain all points of view! AndyCanada 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Highly unlikely, if you want to do that, then you also might want to stop using misleading (and wrong) titles for your citations. Stuff like "Information Explaining Which Protein Is Best And About PDCAAS Inherent Limitations" [11]. If you think no one is catching this devious behaviour - you're sorely mistaken. Yankees76 22:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh really. PDCAAS alleges soy is similar in protein value to whole eggs. Not so fast. Let me tell you straight. Soy is 74. Eggs is 100. BV is accurate and PDCAAS is inaccurate. Solution. There needs to be serious modifications to PDCAAS to account for proteins that obviously have a higher biological activity.

Conclusions, The validity of PDCAAS is flawed according to the studies as noted!!!

Perhaps, Kuzzar, can you add your two cents in about this for improving the articles in question.

Thanks Yankees76 for your ongoing personal attacks. Your are amusing to me! AndyCanada 22:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Another strawman argument! You've been caught adding misleading journal article titles to Wikipedia articles and this is the rationale you give? There's a reason why the pages were protected from noob editors. And save your pseudo-science for somewhere else - it won't work here, nothing you've just posted above says anything but your own opinion. As for personal attacks, you and you're sockpuppets are down to their last warning - you might want to watch what you say. Yankees76 00:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kuzaar,

This sentence below is making certain assertions that a protein above 1.0 is considered to indicate that the protein contains essential amino acids in excess of the human requirements. According to what study? A room full of people at a meeting is just another meeeting. Meetings do not determine human protein requirements. It is just an opinion. The sentence is making wild claims that are not backed up by science. Please overlook this sentence to see if it needs to be removed per Wiki guidelines.

This is because in 1990 at a FAO/WHO meeting it was decided that proteins having values higher than 1.0 would be rounded down to 1.0 as scores above 1.0 are considered to indicate that the protein contains essential amino acids in excess of the human requirements. <<< Meetings???

This sentence above is in two articles at the moment. A meeting cannot decide about human requirements. Studies and science do. Also, let me know your thoughts about PDCAAS versus Biological Value for improving the articles. Which method do YOU think is more accurate? Rounding at 1.0 or having different protein values? Thanks for your help. AndyCanada 02:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? It's simply a statement of fact. The World Health Organization decided in 1990 not to have values over 1.0 for PDCAAS. Are you contesting this as a fact or contesting this because you don't agree with their conclusion? If it's the second, all you're posting is your opinion and quite frankly you can keep that to yourself. One could make a similar conclusion about whey protein which somehow has a BV of 104 and yet, it's impossible to store more than 1 gram of nitrogen for every 1 gram of nitrogen consumed. Yet nobody is posting message after message challenging the entire BV methodology, the laws of thermodynamics; and challenging every single claim or change to any related article on Wikipedia, posting the same tired arguments over and over again. And now your asking for more opinions from another Wikipedia editor to confirm your position? Do you think this is some sort of me vs. you "edit war"? Here's some news for you, I could care less what position is correct, BV or even PER could be the best for all I care - I have better things to do than waste my time being so worried that my beloved opinion on a subject might be criticized on Wikipedia by some editor that probably works at a donut shop. My opinion means nothing, which is why I haven't presented it on every talk page on the subject. I'm only interested in ensuring the NPOV of this encyclopedia and that includes citing every claim with verifiable research. Luckily for this encyclopedia, I know quite a bit more about this than you do. No responsible Wikipedia editor with knowledge on the subject should sit back and let you and your sockpuppets formulate the "truth" on these pages without ensuring you're going about it the right way. You're not, so that's why I'm still here. Yankees76 04:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

According to what assertions... are considered to indicate that the protein contains essential amino acids in excess of the human requirements.? This is an opinion at a meeting not science? Or your NPOV position as you call it? Really? A meeting cannot decide or consider science based research! Just another straw-hat-pizza-man arguement.

Please Kuzaar, it is time to overview these strong allegations from a 15 minute meeting? AndyCanada 04:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Proteins with a content of essential amino acids exceeding that in the amino acid reference pattern (you know that the Amino Acid Reference Patterns are right?). Research and education are a good thing my friend. And a 15-minute meeting? Let's come back to reality shall we? Yankees76 05:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

The PDCAAS score of egg is 1.0. According to info Yankess76 has put in the article its now changed to a 1.19. What's going on here? 1.19 score is NOT on the PDCAAS scale. The highest possible score is 1.0. This is getting strange. Please help Kuzaar!!! AndyCanada 05:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The rounded PDCAAs score of egg is 1.0 (after 1990 - see above meeting). It's true score is 1.19, milk is 1.21, casein is 1.23. I guess you didn't find that in your "Dr." Colgan book did you? Here's some reading for you - go visit a library. FAO/WHO/UNU [1985]. Expert consultation. Energy and protein requirements. Technical Report Series 724. World Health Organization, Geneva. Yankees76 05:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What you are saying is the true score was 1.19 then it was capped off at 1.0. You are proving everything I have been saying all along. PDCAAS is totally flawed because it caps off the true scores of proteins!!! "Thanks!" AndyCanada 05:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Um yeah - that proves everything (sarcasm is in italics for any challenged readers). PDCAAS values that are >1 are rounded off to 1, based on the argument that (digestible) essential amino acid concentrations in a protein that exceed those in the reference amino acid pattern do not provide any additional nutritional value. Unlike BV which somehow allows proteins to break the laws of thermodynamics. Class dismissed. Yankees76 05:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Yankees76 about the rounding to 1.0 was done after a meeting.

Since the score is capped off at one it is flawed. Right? I agree with Yankees76 when he said, The rounded PDCAAS score of egg is 1.0... Thanks again. AndyCanada 06:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks for reassurring me of your truth is the same as my truth. AndyCanada 06:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree the rounded score (from 1990 onward) of egg is 1. That's common knowledge that even your well-read Colgan book should have. Yet you've failed to adequately demonstrate how this is "flawed" other than saying it limits its usefulness as a comparative tool (for four proteins - only whey, egg white, casein and milk are scored the same and three of those are milk proteins). How does this make the actual methodolgy flawed? Yankees76 06:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the PDCAAS is flawed because it gives the false impression that whole eggs are equal to soy protein isolate and so on. It is flawed. Egg whites and and milk are different in their protein values. When the numbers appear so close because they are all leveled off because of the government as alleged by Dr. Colgan in his book this then gives a false impression to vegetarians that soy is equal to animal sources of protein when us humans require higher quality proteins for muscle growth. Do you agree with the facts or you are going to say your ideas or as you put it your opinions are not revalent? Lets here what your ideas and thoughts are on this crucial subject. AndyCanada 06:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

How is it a false impression? PDCAAS was created to compare the quality of different proteins based on amino acid requirements necessary for humans, not to determine how well a protein will grow muscle. We've already pretty much agreed that protein synthesis and muscle growth is better determined using a protien that ranks high in nitrogen retention tests. However it seems to me that you're basing your flawed argument strictly on needs for muscle growth which is out of context and much different than requirements necessary meet daily protein requirements. Yankees76 07:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Daily requirements may not be met when a vegetarian is eating just plant sources of protein. It is a lot easier to eat high quality proteins than soy. Soy will never achieve the same type of muscle growth in any one. You should already know this stuff. A high BV such has egg white has essential branched chained amino acids. When the body braked down these branched chained it has physiological factors that send messages to increase muscle growth that is impossible by just eating tofu. I read about it in the book. I am convinced. Should I stop eating egg white, fish, chicken, turkey and become a veggie quack? I don't hide how I feel as other do. AndyCanada 07:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fish and Turkey[edit]

What is the BV of fish and turkey?

What is the PDCAAS of fish and turkey? You may be right! There is not 5 proteins with an identical PDCAAS scores.

In fact, there may be 6 or possibly 7! Well. what do you think? AndyCanada 06:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suspect the PDCAAS of fish and turkey would fall somewhere around were beef is (0.92). 13:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I was close 0.97 for Turkey, 0.96 for fish. Yankees76

PDCAA Score of 100 Methodology[edit]

The PDCAA Score of 100 was conceived in late 2006 due to an inherent weakeness of PDCAAS "capping off" protein scores at 1.0 as the highest possible rating when in fact their are proteins including egg which have a relatively higher protein value. The PDCAA Score of 100 formula uses eggs as a sticking point of 100, respectively.

Scientific Formula: Egg = 1.19 of old PDCAAS score; 1.19 multiply to thereby of 84.03362 = 100.

A PDCAA Score of 100 uses the value of 100 as the highest, and 0 as the lowest score, as the table demonstrates the ratings of commons foods below.
whey (100)
egg (100)
beef (77.3)
soy (76.4)
kidney beans (57.1)
rye (57.1)
whole wheat (45.3)
lentils (43.6)
peanuts (43.6)
seitan (21)

Class Dismissed!!! ---AndyCanada 22:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)---

BLP mess[edit]

Good to see you back on Hannity. --PTR 17:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)