User talk:Mablonde

Welcome

Hello Mablonde and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.

Getting Started First steps • FAQ Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Community Portal • Help desk • Village Pump Where to ask questions or make comments • Request administrator attention Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a small message explaining the problem The Commmunity Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists		Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi, you asked for help about how to edit articles in Wikipedia. The short answer is: As you have a POV (Point Of View) that other editors disagrees with, you can only make your edits stick by writing the articles in a NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) way. If you want to add your POV you can only do that by refering to a RS (Reliable Source) that support your claims. The Wikipedia rulesbook gives a strong pro-establishment bias. Government sources as the FDA, The New York Times, FOX News Channel and JAMA are considered RS while almost all blogs, independent researchers and acitivists web sites are rejected. Try to find an RS that support your claims. Academic peer reviewed articles are usually accepted. Look at how other articles are written, such as Aspartame controversy, Opposition to water fluoridation and Dental amalgam controversy. MaxPont (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was under the impression that I had presented data. Data. What is more neutral (a NPOV) than data? The data presented are in the form of academic peer reviewed articles. You said those were RS. I did look at the article “Aspartame controversy”. I also looked at “Aspartame”. I would like to point out that the article, “Aspartame” contains a section called “Controversy”, but no section called “Health Concerns.” The “Monosodium Glutamate,” article has a section called “Health Concerns” that reads like glutamate-industry propaganda, but no section on “Controversy”. Health concerns include brain lesions, endocrine disorders such as obesity and reproductive disorders, learning and behavior disorders, and adverse reactions such as migraine headache, skin rash, nausea and vomiting, atrial fibrillation, seizures, and depression. They weren’t mentioned. I guess I don’t understand the rules. As presently written, “Health concerns” certainly has a POV. Is there someone who can point out where my alleged POV is showing?Truthinlabeling (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your message on my talk page: You may think that your sources are reliable, and they very well may be, but other editors obviously have an issue with them and the edits that you have made. That is a content dispute and the first place to attempt to resolved that is the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.. the advice to stick to reliable sources is good indeed. But, leaving that aside for a moment.. is there any credible mechanism by which dietary MSG could affect the body differently than other sources of dietary glutamate? Glutamate is present in a great many foods. People who react badly to dietary glutamate would have serious problems with a great many foods. There's no obvious chemical difference between the glutamate in food with added MSG versus the glutamate in foods that already contained it. If there's to be any sense made of the MSG controversy, this is a key question, I think. Friday (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a really good question. The processed free glutamic acid in monosodium glutamate differs from glutamic acid found in unadulterated, unprocessed, unfermented protein, in that the former is always accompanied by the unwanted byproducts of fermentation or manufacture, while the latter is L-glutamic acid, only. Manufactured free glutamic acid is made up of L-glutamic acid and D-glutamic acid, and may bring with it pyroglutamic acid, mono and dichloro propanols (which are carcinogenic), heterocyclic amines (which are carcinogenic), and other contaminants. The simplest way for me to give you data, is to send you to
http://www.truthinlabeling.org/manufac.html
The references you will need to check out will be found at the end of the article. Let me make it clear that to date there is no evidence that it is the contaminants that trigger reactions. I am only telling you that the processed free glutamic acid differs from the glutamic acid found in intact, unprocessed, unfermented, unadulterated protein. Yes, the L-glutamic acid in the one is the same as the L-glutamic acid in the other. But contaminants are ingested with the L-glutamic acid in monosodium glutamate and the other such ingredients found in processed foods.Truthinlabeling (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User name

Also if you want to make lasting contributions here, you might consider changing your user name. Many of us have learned by long experience that editors who put the word "truth" in their user names are rarely willing to pay attention to other people's opinions, so it tends to generate bad reactions. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, while it may not be technically a violation of WP:UN, it may give others the impression that you have an axe to grind. – ukexpat (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gives appearance of being connected to truthinlabeling.org.[1] Cool Hand Luke 21:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with changing the name (except I don't know what that would do to the dialog now going on). But what would be wrong with being connected to truthinlabeling.org? That's the web page of the Truth in Labeling Campaign. They provide consumers with information about food labeling. They maintain that consumers have the right to know what is in their food. Does Wikipedia find anything wrong with that?Truthinlabeling (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised concerns with your username here. Verbal chat 15:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk reply!

	Hello Mablonde. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved\|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
	You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 01:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? Why is it on my user talk page?Truthinlabeling (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a notification that somebody has responded to a question you asked at the help desk. Looie496 (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I meant what is this statement: ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 01:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a person's signature. Signatures can be customized, but making them so long and obtrusive is discouraged. Looie496 (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monosodium glutamate

I'm editing the MSG page to a NPOV if you're interested. I noticed you on the Glutamate-flavoring page. Alrich44 (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]