User talk:Phenylalanine/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Phenylalanine! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 13:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary Request

I have noted that you edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 13:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Paleolithic-style Diet

I haven't looked into the WP policies specifically, but I'm quite sure that you can cite letters in peer-reviewed journals as sources, and that quoting from them (so long as you don't quote the entire text of the paper) is fair use. --Kajerm 22:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks for you help!Phenylalanine 20:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You deserve it. I'm sure there are few editors as meticulous as you. Kakofonous (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, are you readying the article for FAC? It seems that every time I take a look at my watchlist, you've changed another thing :) Kakofonous (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you a mind reader? Do you think I should give it a shot? --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not? You never know. Kakofonous (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it try. Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is now featured. Nice work! --Kakofonous (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on Paleolithic diet

For your tireless and diligent effort on raising the article Paleolithic diet to featured article status and for the help you have given me in improving the article on the Paleolithic era I am awarding you a caveman!--Fang 23 (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

File:Neanderthal 2D.jpg

I humbly accept this caveman. Thanks!! --Phenylalanine (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Phenylalanine, I just wanted to say the work you have done on this article, particularly since it has been featured has been nothing short of phenomenal. --WayneMokane (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. The article still requires some work: expanding the "basis" and "history" sections, formatting citations, improving flow in the criticism sections and getting some feedback from a paleodiet researcher (one researcher I e-mailed has already said he might make some comments!). Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Paleolithic

Do you think this article is good enough now to be awarded Good article status?--Fang 23 (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You've done a heck of a job expanding and improving this article and I'd love to see this article achieve good article status. I'll take a closer look at the article ASAP and I'll give you my impressions on where it stands. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the picture of the beans on the Paleolithic article with a new more relevant picture.--Fang 23 (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I added this source that you suggested on the paleolithic talk page should be used in the article.--Fang 23 (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Phenylalanine (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Paleolithic-style diet

Hi, TFAs are actually chosen by the FA Director, Raul654, so I'm afraid you'll have to check with him for the reasoning. I just update the article pages as Raul updates the archive. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for info. --Phenylalanine (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Paleolithic-style diet on the main page

This is a fascinating article, which I learned a lot by reading. Thank you for all the work you put into it, and congratulations on getting it on the main page. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It means a lot! Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You survived the influx of vandalism on the article once it was on the main page! Congratulations. --Kakofonous (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't very productive at work today. I'm thrilled it was posted on the main page, but now I can rest... :-) --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on featured artcle

Just wanted to congratulate you on your diligent work to enhance a formerly weak article - Paleolithic-style diet - into one that has now been deemed to be of sufficient quality to become a featured article on Wikipedia. Kudos to you! OccamzRazor (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. It's nice to be appreciated. ;) --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Enjoyed the pal-style diet article, beautifully built, informative – keep up the good work! Julia Rossi (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Merci! --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"China is a country"

Hi, I'm attempting a re-write of the opening of China to resolve the definitional issue that has plagued the article. I noticed that you commented previously on the issue. I've opened a straw poll to gauge whether consensus is to define "China is a country". Could I ask you to comment/vote at Talk:China#Straw poll? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I gave my opinion. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WPMED tags

I'm not sure why Natural foods and Whole foods have {{WPMED}} banners. This feels a little like tagging Water or Air as pages that the medicine project should improve. It doesn't seem to relate to medicine's core activities (diagnosing and treating patients), although obviously some related issues, like malnutrition and pesticide poisoning, are relevant. Did you have a particular idea in mind? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'll remove the banners. --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Page numbers

There's no standard way, as long as the same format is used throughout the article. However, some reviewers dislike "pp. 250-1" as it looks untidy. Epbr123 (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

New Free textbook chapter available in PDF format-Biological anthropology

I went hunting and gathering around on the same site you found the other good textbook (http://www.ablongman.com/html/productinfo/millerwood/MillerWood_c08.pdf) for more good references and if found another free textbook preview on that site that provides more additional useful information about the evolution of humans and culture during the Paleolithic and Paleolithic technology society and religion. I am going to use it as a reference for the Paleolithic article. --Fang 23 (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)the link to the chapter I recently found

Also

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		You deserve this barnstar for doing an excellent job in continuing to improve the Paleolithic diet article and in helping me on the Paleolithic articleFang 23 (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

health or medicine?

I'm interested in your opinion on where Paleolithic diet should be classified. I see you've added it to Category:Medical treatments. Based on that paper, would the sub-Category:Experimental medical treatments be better? IMO it only becomes a "medical treatment" if used clinically rather than experimentally. Even if it does have a use as a medical treatment, are most people adopting/promoting this diet as a means to a statistically better chance of improved health and lifespan? That puts it in the same category as high fibre or low fat eating choices, though it is more complex than either. Colin°^Talk 12:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Paleolithic diet is said to specifically prevent all diet-related diseases(!). But that remains to be experimentally proved, you're right. Thanks a lot for making me aware of the sub-category. I'll replace the category I added with it. I would prefer this diet be moved to the category "medicine" on the "Featured article" page, as the diet is promoted as a (hypothetical) benchmark for optimal health, not for weight-loss or other lifestyle reasons. --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Categorising isn't easy. People lose weight for health reasons (both to cure and prevent illness) as well as social reasons (appearance). The proposed split into "Biology / Health and medicine" may help make the problem go away. Why don't you add your 2p to the discussion? Colin°^Talk 16:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: SENS

Okay, I will withdraw the nomination. Because the result must be a Pass or a Fail, it will be Failed. However, the article can of course be resubmitted to WP:GAN at any time. I look forward to seeing it again! Gary King (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Rceent edits on SENS

I take very strong exception to your recent edits on the SENS article. You have apparently removed all of the detailed criticism of the theory on the excuse onf WP:SYNTH. Perhaps you intend to rewrite it--it does seem a little over-detailed. But if not, I am going to restore it. I point out that you justified the removal of the material from the Life Extension article as WP:BOLD. I reverted it, by putting it in anther article. The next step is normally discussion, not reversion of my edit. I am therefore going to restore it, unless you put in some sort of a rewritten version. I have no particular POV on the matter--I havent the least idea of whether he makes sense or not, but I do care about NPOV and the article must remain balanced. I cannot help noticing from your user page that you do see to have a definite position on the matter. But you cannot simply remove all the detailed criticism. If you think no criticism can be included, we're going to have to discuss this on the talk pages of the relevant articles and probably at the relevant noticeboard. I am at this point working on this as an editor, not an administrator--to avoid any possibility of confusion, if admin action is necessary to maintain NPOV, I will ask another admin to do it or review it.

Incidentally, I agree with your suggestion that the article should be moved to SENS, preferably spelled out. I'm just trying to get a coherent nonduplicative set of balanced articles. DGG (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The criticism was removed per WP:SYN. None of the sources it contained referred to "SENS" or "Engineered negligible senescence". --Phenylalanine (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

ArXiv links on Safety of the Large Hadron Collider

Oops, sorry, I missed the existing abstract links there while checking the diff. I've fixed the PDFs links to point to the stable "arxiv.org/pdf" URLs, per http://arxiv.org/help/arxiv_identifier_for_services, instead. Have a nice day! --Vyznev Xnebara (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Vyznev Xnebara. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but....

Hi there, I know you said you had moved on from the Safety of the Large Hadron Collider article, but there is still issues ongoing that I think you could have valuable input, including your interpretations of reliably sourced. Any insight is appreciated, even though I may disagree with it ;). If you get a chance to look here and add your thoughts, or let me know where you think my train of thought goes astray would be appreciated. Thanks ^Khukri 13:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at the discussion. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments to Warren Dew on Paleolithic diet

Just FYI, I'm responding to the comments on the article talk page.

One thing that isn't directly relevant to the article but may be of interest. You obviously have an interest in various forms of diet related life extension. Have you looked into data on Caloric restriction? What do you think of it? Warren Dew (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The research looks promissing, though it hasn't been proven to work in humans yet (and might not extend human life more than a couple of years, like 3 or 4 years. Out of all the diets out there, CR is probably the hardest one to do correctly. You need immense discipline and you have to keep track of all the food you eat (nutritional software is essential). There are also concerns related to osteoporosis. Another diet similar to CR is "methionine restriction" (MR), which may provide the same benefits. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding LHC

What is (ref "name="TGPngm"/)? It was creating a lots of errors on article reference section. Orion11M87 (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:REFNAME. Cheers. --Phenylalanine (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Howdy!

Hey, I saw that you were interested in diet-related articles (from WP:F&D), so I was wondering if you could spare a wikiminute to help with Odwalla or its peer review. It would be much appreciated. Also, any responses would be preferred on my page. I'm leaving these wikispam requests on several pages, so I probably won't get any response unless it's thrown at my talk page. :) Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I saw you briefly commented on the peer review (hooray for the watchlist!) and I hope that, whenever you find time, you can help out some more! I'm a N00B at this stuff, so it'd really help to have a more experienced editor on call. Have a great day! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

A Toxicity of cooked foods section has been added to the Raw foodism article. I feel strongly that it is Undue weight for this subject. What do you think? --—CynRN ^(Talk) 00:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

RCC

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on the Roman Catholic Church page. I normally watch out for it but missed that one and could not undo it after I made my edits. I was just about to waste a lot of time looking for the new edit until you came to the rescue - thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 02:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving the LHC

Hey Phen..... Would you mind cutting back on how often you archive the talk page by a little bit, though I might disagree with everything JT believes he has disappeared for a bit and last thing I want is for the editors on that article to be accused of sweeping issues under the carpet. Cheers muchly. ^Khukri 11:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. By the way, wouldn't it be great if we could get the LHC article featured on the main page for the October 21 unveiling? Also, I might submit the safety article for peer-review or GA review soon. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Would be nice, and to be honest an endorsement of all the effort you and Will have put into the article etc. You know my position though. I'm not a great fan of the need for the article just because we are focusing too much on the issue raised by a few when it's the LHC in my mind that should be the one we push for FA etc, as to me that is the real triumph of science etc. But anyhoo, that's a side issue, and you've done alot to keep the issue clear for the readers but have to say I'm reverting alot at the moment, editors coming in adding their two cents. cheers ^Khukri 12:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you've done keeping it stable during the night (for me that is), now to just try and do the same during the day. Truely appreciated. ^Khukri 08:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Good morning, see you've started editing again hope you're ready for a busy day. I hope you realise I cannot go in deleting or making huge changes to the articles, due to my position, and COI etc, hence I have to do everything via the talk page unless it's blatantly wrong, just don't want you to think you are on your own.^Khukri 11:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand your position. Let me know if there are any specific issues that I have overlooked. Also, I will be off to work for the rest of the day, so I won't be able to look at the article during that time. I'll be back this evening. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

LHC Time Travel

Hi: I've added the time-travel question, under Research sub-heading, along with some very appropriate sources, some of which are The Telegraph and New Scientist, among others, just to make sure that this is NOT seen as speculation, but as a real-issue at hand. --Bugnot (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, as expected, LHC passed the test on 1o September, without any harm. Cheers.--Bugnot (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Collisions will begin the 21st of October. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Safety of the Large Hadron Collider

I see you added a "toofewopinions" banner at the top of the article. Where is this explained on the talk page? Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My, your quite the watchful bee, aren't you? :). The reasoning is now posted on the talk page; At the time you gave me this nudge asking where the commentary was, i was still in the process of writing it. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. ;-) --Phenylalanine (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Titles of scientific articles

Hi, could you explain to me how you interpret the standard for italicizing the titles? Giddings-Mangano's paper is italicized somewhere the article and not italicized elsewhere. And what is the point of having one reference for the preprint [29] and one for the journal version [30]? I can guarantee that this is not common practice in scientific publications (just check the reference section of the GM paper itself). If a paper has been published in a journal you cite the journal reference and (optionally) the preprint number. If it has not been published you just cite the preprint number. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I fixed the refs per your suggestion. My understanding is that once a paper is published, the journal title should be italicized and the journal article should be in quotation marks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider

The article Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider for things needed to be addressed. Million_Moments (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligent review! --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Million_Moments (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar for your exceptional contributions in attaining "Good Article" status for the Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider article. Your work in producing a fair and balanced article has been appreciated not just by the Wikipedia community but also those involved in the LHC project itself. Good work and thank you. Khukri 15:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Khukri, I really appreciate it. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

THANKS

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Just wanted to say thank you for your edits to Odwalla, which just passed FAC! Those early edits really were very helpful! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness! --Phenylalanine (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [1]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 00:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow Thanks

Wow thanks for reverting that vandalism on my userpage. That's very kind of you. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The rollback feature

Thanks for telling me about it, I just applied to get the privileges.--Megaman en m (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Plaga's article on cosmic rays

Hi Phenylalanine, what is the point of adding ref.[63] in the "Safety of the LHC" article? Is it just to prove that Plaga is indeed an astrophysicist? In that case I don't think it's necessary: Plaga IS an astrophysicist, albeit one with perhaps a crackpotty streak ;-) According to this criterion, we would have to provide credentials for everybody else (Ellis, Mangano, etc.). Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Credentials?

Hi Phenylalanine,

I noticed that you are the top contributor for the LHC article. Out of curiosity's sake, I was wondering if you were ever involved on the project, and what your credentials are?

Thanks,

Pat

99.253.213.197 (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pat. No, I have never been involved in the LHC project and I do not work in the field of physics. I have completed college-level courses in physics. The only content that I added to the "Large Hadron Collider" article is the Large Hadron Collider#Safety of particle collisions section. Most of my contributions to the LHC article were moved to "Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider". The main content contributors to the LHC article are User:Khukri, User:Wwheaton, User:Ptrslv72, User:SCZenz, User:Orion11M87 and others (see here). Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Love your username

Hi! I happened to see your username on my watchlist (because you posted to User talk:Abd.) I just wanted to tell you that I love your username! How about methionine? How about lysine? How about phenylethylamine? For that matter, three cheers for each of the essential nutrients! (Not that phenylethylamine is one.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks! My first pick was "methionine", but that username was already taken, so I chose Phenylalanine. A lot of people just call me Phen! Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I was right on, mentioning methionine first! I never noticed before: my own username also contains an essential nutrient! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your username has a nice ring to it also. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

A discussion on WP:SYNTH

Since you have previously been involved in discussions about the policy WP:NOR, it appears that you have a depth of understanding about this policy. I would appreciate your comments concerning an application of this policy's section WP:SYNTH here. Thank you. 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Link to Catholic article

Yes! It is very helpful. Thanks for offering it. I am responding to you here in an effort to keep from cluttering up the voting area with too much talk. NancyHeise ^talk 03:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hunter gatherer

Most of that information added by the anon user was cited, should I add the cited parts of that information back into this article?--Fang 23 (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fang, sorry for the last response. If you can confirm that source cited supports the information as presented, by all means, readd it. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I will try to find Traditional Peoples Today: Continuity and Change in the Modern World by Göran Burenhult and see if this refrence supports the statment that is cited by it, perhaps i can use some of that information for the Paleolithic article when i start working on it again.--Fang 23 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR, Bob's idea

I apologize for the misinterpretation of what Bob_K#### had in mind at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Propose_keeping_a_record_of_decisions_for_WP:NOR. The misinterpretation gave way to my brief quip to you. It appears you may have much more correctly understood his intent than did I. Good regards. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. Your remark was quite funny actually. Cheers! Phenylalanine (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

new essay

I took a quick look at your "directly related" essay... looks fairly good to me. I probably could suggest tweeks and changes if I really delved into it, but I am focussed on other things right now (both in Wiki-life and in real life) so I don't really have time to do a detailed critique. But thanks for thinking of me. Best, Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for taking a look at the essay. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Paleolithic diet

I have nominated Paleolithic diet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes

I meant to write a message of support but didn't get round to it. Now you're gone. Damn. And no email. You can email me if you want. You can blank this if you want. I don't know why you've gone so perhaps you just fancy a change away from WP. I wasn't happy about the way Paleolithic diet was rubbished and thought you handled the criticism well, considering. And I had to unwatch WT:NOR because that just got too stressful. I hope you enjoy a break from this madness and decide to return. Trim your watchlist of all those time-sink discussion/policy pages, and enjoy writing articles again. Take care. Colin°^Talk 18:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)