User talk:Krystof

Howdy. To comment on an existing topic, click the 'edit' button near the title (not at the bottom). To start a new topic, please click on the 'New Section' tab.

Stevia article and discussion page

I reverted your opinion piece essay on the Stevia article. You can find a blog or social networking site to post this. Please feel free to add any questions without your soapbox essay to the article talk page, though. --Blechnic (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.[1] I apologize, you appear to want to work with the community, and I should have given you the benefit of the doubt from the start. Thank you! Let me know if I can help. --Blechnic (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Blechnic. You come on strong because you are evidently serious and competent. I also thought you were unbending but I guess I was wrong about that...! Well maybe your hands are a bit rough but that's what holds the Wiki together just like a volunteer fire department. Anyway it was a good thing you deleted my inappropriate "broad discussion". I have replaced this with "editorial discussion" which I expect you may disagree with but hopefully can consider appropriate. I renamed the section: "Suggestions to clarify 'unresolved questions' and 'whole foods' philosophy." Krystof (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apricot Kernel

Your recent edits to this page are not considered appropriate with regards to wikipedia's standards, being written from an editorialised voice and containing original research. As such, they have been removed. Halogenated (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message, Halogenated. I see your point. I also am very glad to see that you have not removed my most important edit: "...In spite of this, there were no USA deaths and only 1 serious toxicity from apricot kernels reported from 1979 to 1998..." Without this edit, the entire article was reduced to a misleading coloration of the sources. I think that my other points were pertinent, but perhaps I lack the skills to present them properly. I trust your judgment and I hope that everyone may now find both style and facts to be correct. I myself have read the article again and do not see any need for further changes. Krystof (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Reading the article again, I find that this sentence is unclear: . . . "A clinical trial of Laetrile (amygdalin) ... found among other things that several patients suffered from cyanide poisoning." . . . "Among other things" does not say anything. "Cyanide poisoning" is incorrect: the actual phrase is "cyanide toxicity" which in this context has very different implications. Also "several" is a precise quotation, but is almost meaningless for the reader of the Wikipedia article, especially without specifying the total number in the study. "Several" means "more than two but not many". Therefore I will change this to: . . . "A clinical trial of Laetrile (amygdalin) ... found that 'no substantive benefit was observed in terms of cure...' and more than two of the 178 patients suffered from cyanide toxicity." Krystof (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]