User talk:Slick12

How can anyone defend putting in an unreferenced definition replacing a properly referenced one? Slick12 (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking down the comments it appears that the scientific consensus is with the two EFA's being LA and ALA... certainly it's the only reference that has been presented attesting to it... and the reference was from an impecable source. Slick12 (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All other comments seem to argue that the derivatives of the two EFA's should be called EFA's too... which is illogical.

A parent (EFA) can have children (derivatives) but children cannot have parents.

Hope the analogy is not lost on everyone? Slick12 (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just edited it back and put in reference to provisionally essential fatty acids. There are now 3 references to Linoleic and Linolenic acids being EFA's (the only EFA's)... one being cited is from the existing reference list. The other 2 include a specialist nutritionst and biochemist who specialises in oils and the main nutritional text book.

Unless you can substantiate an alternative point of view with a reference please don't mess with this. Unreferenced material is worthless in the context of a scholarly work... as it is mere opinion. Wikipedia does not support this kind of editing.

If someone would like to further elaborate on what provisionally essential fatty acids are, edit this section or even remove it entirely that would be reasonable... as the entire area of conditionally essential fatty acids is contentious (a lot of opinion). It seems to only become essential to supplement with these additional fats if the supply of EFA's (ALA and LA) are insufficient or if some dysfunction exists eg. if delta-6-desaturase is not functioning adequately additional GLA may be required.

Mongongo

@Slick12: You said some time ago: "Hi I have a GC of Mongongo which is much more informative than what we have up at the moment."

What we have is in fact unacceptable (try totalling some of nutritional components!) so what is your problem with replacing it? (What is GC anyway? Gas chromatogram?) JonRichfield (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...GC is gas chromatogram.

No problem with fixing stuff up... but you seem to have drawn that quote from some other comment and inserted it into this one? Thus it is out of context?

Are you commenting on Mungongo oil or the EFA issue?

What would you like to correct?

My previous objection was that people were inserting opinion rather than fact into the edits. Before the edit neither of the two essential fatty acids were recognised in the article on essential fatty acids. This in fact reflects the poor level of knowledge about EFA's in the community... and the fact that they are virtually ignored in many text books. They rated only one paragraph in the nutrition text book I quoted... which seems weird if they're that important? There are very few books and articles which give these fats the prominence they deserve so the knowledge on the ground roughly reflects the level of interest in literature.

My comment on Mungongo was basically just signalling that I have tested the oil and have hard results. This arose from some confusion when a manufacturer of the oil incorrectly labelled the oil... so I had to test to clarify what really was in it.

Can you clarify your comment?

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:TheLongWalk-Rawicz-1956.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:TheLongWalk-Rawicz-1956.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]