User talk:DemocratGreen

References

Dear DemocratGreen, after having read quite a lot of your edits I have the impression that you are using scientific publications as references in different pages without really reading them. As an example, in the page Avobenzone, you wrote that it is banned in Mexico citing this paper and in Bonaire citing this one; neither of them talks about avobenzone ban. In the Certified Organic Sunscreen page you wrote the sentence "Other reasons why the contamination likely occurred was the degradation of benzene-based ingredients, such as petrochemical UV filters or from supply chain neglect" supported by this and this papers. The former describes the set up of a lab experiment and has nothing to do with degradation of organic molecules, the latter states that "The report concluded that the contamination was due to supply chain issues in the manufacturing process rather than degradation of sunscreen filters", disproving part of your sentence. As you can understand, adding wrong information to a page and putting an unrelated scientific publication to support the claim just after it is quite problematic. LostMyAccount (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear Lost My Account,

Thank you for your diligent review of my contributions. I understand the importance of ensuring that the information added to Wikipedia is accurate and well-cited. I would like to address the concerns you raised:

a) Regarding the ban on Avobenzone in Mexican Nature Reserves, it appears there was a misunderstanding. While I did not find a specific ban on Avobenzone, I found that some nature reserves in Mexico have approved bans on certain chemical sunscreens due to their potential impact on marine ecosystems ​1​.

b) On the mention of Bonaire, I acknowledge the mistake and appreciate your correction. However, the discussion on potential bans in the European Union and Brazil is ongoing. According to a publication in Environmental Sciences Europe, similar bans are actively being discussed in these regions ​1​.

c) Concerning the Certified Organic Sunscreen page, the point about benzene contamination emanates from the broader discussion about the potential risks associated with petrochemical-based ingredients. The FDA has alerted drug manufacturers to the risk of benzene contamination from drug components made from hydrocarbons​2​. While the FDA alert primarily concerns drugs, the broader concern about benzene and hydrocarbons is pertinent to the discussion on certified organic sunscreens, which avoid the use of petrochemical ingredients. I will work on providing more robust sources to substantiate this claim.

Additionally, I will review the Valisure report and the FDA link more thoroughly to ensure that the information provided aligns with the cited sources.

I am committed to improving the accuracy and reliability of my contributions to Wikipedia and am grateful for your guidance in achieving this goal.

Warm regards,

DemocratGreen DemocratGreen (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Certified Organic Sunscreen

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Certified Organic Sunscreen, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Certified Organic Sunscreen

Regarding this, your understanding of the field seems again very confused. According to your definition, "A Certified Organic Sunscreen is a third party certified sunscreen product consisting of certified and approved organic ingredients". Both COSMOS and Natrue do certify sunscreen products (here the first two examples I found with google [1] [2]) and thus they must be included in the page. LostMyAccount (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe it may be significantly challenging to secure ECOCERT certification for a sunscreen product due to the stipulations regarding mineral components. Upon reviewing the public customer database provided by ECOCERT, I did not find the mentioned brand, which suggests it might not be currently certified by ECOCERT. On the other hand, NATRUE does specifically certify sunscreens as organic and accommodates reasonable allowances for mineral active ingredients, as outlined on their official website (https://natrue.org/why-us/what-makes-the-natrue-label-unique/). It appears that the NATRUE standard has evolved rapidly, which I may have overlooked or forgotten, hence it was incorrect to exclude them initially.

Furthermore, it's pertinent to note that organic natural standards often categorise petrochemical UV filters as petrochemicals, as opposed to organic uv filters. Therefore, I concur that employing the term "petrochemicals" to refer to such ingredients is more accurate and should be adopted in our discussions moving forward. I have edited the ECOCERT section accordingly. DemocratGreen (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact that it might be challenging is irrelevant, ECOCERT is a certification for cosmetic products, and sunscreens belong to this category. I don't understand the second part of your answer, could you provide an example? --LostMyAccount (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

"COSMOS standard prohibits organic molecule UV filters in cosmetic product, while allows inorganic compounds only if obtained by well-defined production methods, as they are not from renewable sources" --> COSMOS standard prohibits petrochemical UV filters in cosmetic product. The standard permits the utilization of minerals such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, contingent upon their acquisition via meticulously defined industrial processes, owing to their lack of agricultural origin DemocratGreen (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Certified Organic Sunscreen

The article Certified Organic Sunscreen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

All primary sources, secondary sources do not speak about the topic of the article specifically as far as i can tell, after inspection thus doesn't seem to be WP:NOTABLE

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Remsense聊 01:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)