User talk:Calgaco

Welcome

Hello, Calgaco, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Deepu Joseph (a.k.a. thunderboltz). Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Provide an Edit summary
Take a look at Consensus of standards. It is always wise to read the talk page of an existing article before making major changes on it. Even then, I typically ask if anyone minds that I make a change. Very often they do! ;-)
Create a User page

Again, welcome! And if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask - Just click here to leave me a message; or add {{helpme}} to this page.
thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK}

Aspartame controversy

Hi and welcome :)

Just a heads up to let you know that the aspartame controversy article is a bit of a battleground at the moment. I am very interested in improving the article from the ground up, but there are some that espouse the view that it is 'just fine' the way it is. It seems clear to me that there is a lot of material that deserves mentioning in the article but I do not have the time at the moment to write it up in a way that will be 'acceptable' to all just yet. If you haven't yet I recommend that you read the GAO86 and 87. They are surprisingly illuminating. Best Regards Unomi (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

Please do not use talk pages such as Aspartame controversy for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry beacause I completely missed your point. I will be grateful if you will be more clear i.e. less generic and more specific. Thank you. --Calgaco (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS

Please try to understand that maybe your opinion is just one opinion hence try to follow the discussion in the talk. Thank you.

Reverts

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult The bold-revert-discuss cycle for best practice to follow when another editor reverts an edit of yours. It is pointless to revert their revert saying "don't start an edit war", because by reverting a revert you yourself have started an edit war. Per our policy on edit-warring you can be blocked for disruption if you persist in this. Discuss the matter and establish a consensus before editing the article again. In the meanwhile, accept that your changes are not going to be made without consensus. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be good to read carefully the linked policies. Exactly how they work isn't obvious from their names. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of quoting you should start reading them carefully for yourself because you already reverted 3 times. --Calgaco (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement shows you don't understand the policy. Please don't undo anyone else's work until you have carefully read the policy. Again, how it works isn't obvious from its name. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that you started reverting. The history of the article shows that you did it 3 times without saying a word in the talk. --Calgaco (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The only~~ These edits you have made to the article have been reverts undoing other people's work:

08:55, 26 March 2009

14:28, 26 March 2009

15:43, 26 March 2009

07:42, 25 March 2009

~~Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)~~ Corrected my mistake, Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, as per usual, I started to edit without being logged in.--Calgaco (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Obviously I started to edit the talk.

Thanks, I've corrected it above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are still wrong, as per usual... :-)--Calgaco (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above "wrong, as per usual (sic)" is not in any way constructive, productive or compatible with a collegial editing environment. Please do not repeat it again. Comment on content, not the contributor. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Calgaco, Tom harrison is a good-faith editor. Perhaps he is feeling a little frustrated lately. Please, let's try to keep things calm over there. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any reason to doubt that Tom is a good-faith editor but I can see that he reverted the article to a cleary POV version. As you can see he started the edit war and I left the article in the way he wants. --Calgaco (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was going back to a version that was more like a version that previously seemed to have had consensus. It's gotten very confusing at aspartame controversy. --SV Resolution(Talk) 12:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make it less confusing when 'silent editors' like Tom Harrison undo edits without partaking in talk page discussions. Unomi (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's trying very hard. ~~There is no conspiracy over there to withold the truth. We can AGF and converse politely while we work toward consensus on balance.~~ --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Actually, what I mean to say is I think we can all agree that we want to present the facts in a balanced way. We aren't enemies on "opposite" sides. --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left the "field" for the second time! :-) I hope that he will realize that this behaviour provokes dangerous flames... --Calgaco (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS @SV: We have a different opinion but as I publicly said I like your posts and I strongly believe that we can find a balanced version.

Editing in my Namespace

I'm working in my namespace there so I can collect my thoughts. Please don't edit there. Your comments are welcome, of course. I've just made a timeline of all the references currently in the Ramazzinni section, and, later, will be able to tackle the rewriting. I see you made 3 changes while I was working. When I saved my work, your work in my namespace just disappeared. Of course, you can copy it into your own namespace if you like, or into the article.

As for your current discussion with Keepcalmandcarryon, I don't think you two are talking about exactly the same thing. I think you can see that Keepcalmandcarryon has become very frustrated that you do not understand what he is getting at. I think Tom harrison is also beginning to get frustrated. I'm not sure why you asked him to "give way". This kind of thing could lead to more misunderstanding and unpleasantness.

Again, in my opinion, this section of the article should accurately anc succinctly represent the conclusions Soffritti draws, and may use some information from the studies to make that clear. After that, it should accurately and succinctly represent the response from other scientists (pro and con), including scientific panels at government agencies, as well as Soffritti's response to the criticisms. As I said, I'm not sure how to work in the concerns about bias and conflict of interest. I think it is fair to say that, going into the studies, Soffritti already had the opinion that aspartame does cause cancer, just as it is fair to say that Magnuson, who already had the opinion that aspartame does not cause cancer, has done work supported by the aspartame industry. In the end, the article should say that Soffritti and a certain number of supporters (at least the 12 signatories of the letter to the FDA) are convinced, but that the EFSA, NZFSA, and FDA panels are not, that Magnuson and others are not convinced, and that Soffritti feels that Magnuson misunderstands or misrepresents the study in some key criticisms. He does not adress all of her criticisms. --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. That said, I will look at your proposed version as I work. It's just confusing to have you editing inside my own private "brain dump". Thanks for giving me space. --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paradox Interactive. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Saddhiyama (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]