User talk:Vitaminman

Author notable?

How does this reference [1] meet WP:SOURCE? Looks like a non-notable, non-expert blogger. --Ronz 21:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Holister is a notable figure in the health freedom movement and is well versed in the issues. She is already referenced in the Health freedom artists stub, for example. She has her own websites at http://www.candida-international.org/ and http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/emma_holister/ Her articles and cartoons also feature on many of the popular health freedom websites. For examples, see http://www.laleva.cc/supplements/abc_holister.html and http://www.thenhf.com/vaccinations_98.htm and Rath International magazine http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/pdf-files/ri_2006_02_en.pdf --Vitaminman 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think such credentials make her blog an appropriate source. I'm bringing this up on the article talk page. Mind if I copy your response above to it as well? --Ronz 23:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to differ, of course, and by all means copy my response to the talk page. --Vitaminman 08:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I think Health freedom movement is developing well and you're doing a great job working with the other editors on it. I wish other alt-med-related articles had such cooperative editors. --Ronz 16:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ronz; your words of encouragement about my work on the Health freedom movement article are much appreciated. Whilst I have now begun to branch out a little into some other alt-med-related articles recently, I'll probably continue to concentrate mostly on Health freedom movement for the time being until I'm sure that it's well on course. --Vitaminman 18:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quackbusters

I have been working for the last days on the Vitamin C and Vitamin C megadosage pages and I have witnessed unfair practices, lack of neutrality and an apparent lack of self-criticism from the part of a bunch of editors who perceive themselves as being on a mission. I am asking you to have a look and see if you could compel them to address criticisms and if you could contribue a little. All this is making me very sad and angry. You can also check my user page. Thanks in advance. I see that you are a very competent and diligent editor. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 08:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Health freedom movement‎

While there are a number of ways that the current dispute could be approached (See WP:DR), there's specialized help at WP:NPR that might be appropriate as well. --Ronz 22:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

Hi,

If you're adding lots of sourced information, you may want to consider using citation templates, which is an easy way of creating a standardized citation to various information sources. There's also various tools to generate them, such as the following:

Thanks, WLU (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to the supplements directive

I'm fairly sure I remember reading about German opposition to the listing of St John's Wort, which is very popular there. Though I suppose it's not really a supplement. --Red King (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The EU's Food Supplements Directive http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_183/l_18320020712en00510057.pdf only deals with vitamins and minerals. St Johns Wort comes under the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_136/l_13620040430en00850090.pdf which is a separate thing entirely. The legal challenge was brought against the Food Supplements Directive. Vitaminman 21:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image with brand visible

Hello!

I see you removed the image from Multivitamin in this edit. You say in the edit summary "Removed photo on the grounds that the product's brand name is clearly visible in it."

I was not aware this was a wikipedia policy - can you point me to any document explaining it?

Thanks, and greetings from England! Mike1024 (t/c) 18:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An article on multivitamins that includes an image of a bottle whose brand name is clearly visible certainly contravenes WP:IUP and probably WP:NPOV as well. Vitaminman 23:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific, please, about how those policies are violated? Pages like Webcam, Mobile phone and Digital audio player all show branded products. Is there a particular line, section, numbered rule or similar within WP:IUP or WP:NPOV which deals with products with brands clearly visible? Thanks, Mike1024 (t/c) 16:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of a particular line, section, numbered rule or similar within the policies you cite that specifically deals with articles containing photographs that have brands clearly visible. Specifically, however, my reading of these policies suggest to me that the use of such photographs arguably contravene WP:Undue weight and that wherever possible a photograph that does not show a brand name should be used instead. Vitaminman 17:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

I responded to you on the Health Freedon talk page and mispelt your name because I was lazy and didn't read what I was posting prior to putting it up. I hate spelling peoples names incorrectly whether it's their real name or not. I did make the corretion immediately. I know this isn't a big deal but it is a pet peeve of mine, and I just wanted to let you know I am sorry.

You have worked hard on this article, I like your idea about deleting the red links sections. I wish I could help you on the article but I don't know much in this area except minor things and real life prevents me from doing proper research to know what I am talking about. So I pop in ocassionally to see how the article is going, I hope this is ok when I make little suggestions without helping out. Have a wonderful, heathy day, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't worry about misspelling my name, I promise that I won't take it to heart. :-) Glad you agree about deleting the red links sections. Think I'll wait a few days to see what others think before I dive in, just to be on the safe side. In the meantime, take care and have a fantastic weekend! Vitaminman (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

Hi there, since I see you have worked with this editor at multivitamin, you might want to comment on this RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, I've worked on that article and have noticed that editor's name here and there. But I'm not familiar with the issues being discussed in this RfC, so its probably best that I leave it to those editors who are.Vitaminman (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for having a look. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your comments

Hi Vitaminman, it's been awhile, hope you are well. I responded to you at my talk page for easier understanding in keeping the conversation in one location. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Vitaminman, [2] I just wanted to let you know I added under your comments. User:DivaNtrainin reverted you, then me and then Fyslee reverted back to having the Guardian included and removed the tag again. I don't know if this got through this time but lets keep an eye on 3RR though it looks like he is making sure his reverts are spread out by a day. I hope that what I said about him about wanting "The Ecologist" in the article, he will at least present what it is he wants. I hope I was clear enough for him to understand though I'm not sure he is really 'listening' to anyone. I would suggest though that if he reverts again a polite warning be put on his user page, and to continue the warnings if he continues to revert with no substance to his debate of what he is saying, which I will admit I don't understand him. :) Have a good day, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! :) I noticed Mastcell's warning after I posted above and was too lazy to make note of it. I didn't catch the page blanks and so forth when I just did a quick skim of the contributions, so thanks that explains a lot to me. Talk again soon I'm sure. I find you to be such a nice editor that I do enjoy the brief encounters we have had. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring additional citations

Please do not undo my most edit for the Code Alimenterus page. The reason for adding a (citation noted) under the contraversy section was because I felt additional references are needed and want to encourage other editors to provide references. I have left your reference intact. There is no harm in encouraging other people in finding additional references to support your claims. Please stop turning this into an edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DivaNtrainin (talk • contribs) 03:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DivaNtrainin, you know very well that you have repeatedly been removing the Guardian reference from the Codex Alimentarius article in recent days, despite the fact that it easily meets the WP:RS requirements and that several other editors have asked you to refrain from doing so. But I am at least heartened by the fact that you would now appear to be prepared to accept the consensus view. That said, I would still encourage you to read WP:OR as a means of understanding that these are not my claims, they are the Guardian's. Our opinions, as editors, are not valid on Wikipedia. What is valid, and what Wikipedia is built upon, is the concept of WP:RS. Vitaminman (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the ^{[citation needed]} needs to be in the article. If you can find another source to add to then please add it without removing the Guardian one without a consensus to do so. What Vitaminman has explained to you is correct and I support what he has said. Please lets not beat this to death anymore, it's not helping matters in my opinion. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read through the article to wikilink items. If you see something that shouldn't be please feel free to revert the changes at your pleasure. I don't get offended, it was busy work for me and I've been reading and rereading articles for my own comprehension as it takes me a little longer to absorb what is actually written. :) Have a good day, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. The only one that I thought wasn't quite right was the "delegation" link, which I've reverted. In this context, the word "delegation refers to the German team of delegates, as opposed to the act of delegating. Actually, looking at it again just now, I'm not quite sure about the chemicals link either, but I've left it for now to see what others think. Good comments on the Guardian citation too, btw. I agree with you that the ^{[citation needed]} tag isn't needed. You have a great day too!!!! Vitaminman (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarificational

"Clarificational" is not a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RafaelRGarcia (talk • contribs) 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically speaking, maybe not. However, given that Google currently references almost a thousand pages using it, including, amongst others, texts on the Stanford University website, the Journal of Biblical Literature website, the Rensselaer Polytehnic Institute website, and those extremely clever guys across at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, I'm clearly in good company using it! ;-) Vitaminman (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy discretionary sanctions

Articles on Homeopathy and related subjects are currently the subject of discretionary sanctions. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked or topic-banned by any uninvolved administrator from this and related articles. PhilKnight (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I hadn't seen the article's talk page before I made my edits yesterday. However, if you are trying to infer that my edits were disruptive, then I can assure you that they were in no way intended to be. Please also see my reply below to PhilKnight, for further clarification as to how I think the article can be improved.Vitaminman (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing advice

When editing homeopathy, you should discuss major changes on the talk page first, and establish consensus, prior to modifying the article. PhilKnight (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if I make any major changes I'll bear that in mind. Incidentally, I see the changes that I made yesterday have largely been reverted. I find this disappointing, as, linguistically speaking, the parts of the lead that I was trying to improve largely consist of a series of disconnected sentences. Isn't anybody taking account of the need for the article to have flow and be readable? So far as I can see, it would seem not.Vitaminman (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a fresh reading of the current lead, I don't really see much of a problem, but I understand your concerns. Maybe the reason you see this as a problem is because of the rules governing LEAD content (not format). The lead must reflect article content, so any significant matters in the article must get passing mention in the lead. This means that the lead should get tweaked each time the article content changes. (I have my own rule of thumb: if a matter is significant enough to get its own heading in the article, it should be mentioned in the lead.) What this all means is that the lead evolves, rather than being written with a plan and proper flow. That doesn't mean that it can't be tweaked to improve flow, but that needs to be done very carefully, since every word, intonation, and phrasing in the lead has usually been the subject of edit wars, so any type of alteration can start new edit wars, and that needs to be avoided. Proposals should be made on the talk page first, and hammered out there into a consensus version everyone can live with. I hope that sheds some light on the situation, since your concerns are certainly legitimate and apply to many articles here. -- Fyslee / talk 15:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Institute for Health Freedom

I have nominated Institute for Health Freedom, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Health Freedom. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only began that article less than a month ago, on 8th February. Is it reasonable to nominate an article for deletion before its author even gets a chance to develop it properly? Also, I note that your proposed grounds for deletion do not cite any specific Wikipedia policies or guidelines to support your reasoning. More to the point, all of the article's references easily meet the bar for WP:RS. As such, I contend that your claimed grounds for deletion are spurious and one-sided at best. It would be a sad day if all Wikipedia articles with references like these are to be deleted before they even get a chance to get off the ground.Vitaminman (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could use your opinion please

This edit I undid and my reasons are in the edit summary. What are your thoughts about my boldness here? Thanks, hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Crohnie, nice to hear from you again! I fully agree with your reasoning for undoing this edit. Also, I note that Hdhcst95 didn't provide any explanation in the edit summary. So I am definitely supportive of your reverting these changes. (Incidentally, based upon what I can see from his/her talk page, it would seem that Hdhcst95 has a bit of a history of adding nonsense and vandalising Wikipedia). I am very well, by the way, and enjoying a nice relaxing weekend. Hope you are too!!Vitaminman (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I noticed that too with the editor. ;) I also want you to know you did a good clean up over there, I have seen the work you just did. I am battling with a cold and some other major problems so I am miserable to be honest but glad to hear you are doing well. Take care and thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you approve of those edits. I'm going to keep bashing away over there and see what else can be done to improve the article. Sorry to hear that you're not well; I do hope that you are feeling better soon. You take care too.Vitaminman (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to you on my talk but figured I respond here to save you the time. The editor was indefinitely blocked here so I reverted back to your last edit per the indefinite and WP:ORG (Which was new to me, or I forgot about it which is also possible.) I remember what this article looked like at the beginning of it, what a big difference it is now compared to a while ago, good work. Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both responses! I'm never quite sure what the correct protocol is for talk page replies, so you're certainly not alone in finding new guidelines or forgetting stuff. And thanks too for the encouragement about the article. Hopefully sometime soon we'll reach the stage where the tag can come down. You take care too. :-) Vitaminman (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines help please

Hi! You seem to be quite experienced and perhaps you can help me. At the "Romani" site refs 70, 71, and 72 are not in English. Is this acceptable? Also, would it be fair to ask for a reference regarding the statement that figures re Romani crime have not been available for 20 years (see the Contemporary section of the article)? I just happened to read this article some time ago, and since then a whole new world of information has been opened up for me about the Roma and other Travelers groups. I love Wikipedia! This is not the first time that it has helped me to understand that what is common knowledge for even an intelligent and informed group of people is completely unknown to another. Gandydancer (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Wikipedia's rules for non-English sources can be found here: WP:RSUE. Regarding the statement that figures on Romani crime have not been available for 20 years, yes, you would be quite within your rights to ask for a citation for that. To mark a statement or sentence in an article as needing a citation, add a "citation needed" tag: [3] If you have any other questions just let me know! Vitaminman (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loreal head office

Hi! I noticed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%27Or%C3%A9al&diff=357796052&oldid=357681391

As the person who made the request for the image to be taken, I reverted the edit and decided to post this explanation.

Vitaminman, as a person experienced in dealing with images of French buildings, I will tell you that the usage of the image is solidly justified, and that it is impossible to represent this in any other manner. See, in France there are two licenses (that of the photographer, and that of the architect of the building) - Tangopaso would have been willing to license the image under a free license if that was possible. But this building, the Loreal HQ, was built in the recent era, and the building shows architectural creativity. Under French law the architect's copyright applies to any images of the building. Therefore, because the architect's copyright applies to any and all images of the building, it is impossible to get a truly freely licensed image that represents the building. Also the decision to add the image is justified because the building is discussed in detail in a dedicated section. When a particular building is described in detail, the viewer needs to see an image of the building.

As a matter of fact, in the French Wikipedia there is a specific selectable license for modern buildings in France. This shows that, on occasion, it is necessary to have copyrighted building images for French subjects. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WhisperToMe's analysis is absolutely correct. The point is that with any visual artwork, unless all components of the artwork are created by a single artist from scratch or by artists working under the direction of the lead artist (works for hire), the artist will have to get a license to incorporate any other artist's work into his or her work. For example, motion picture studios have to worry about getting licenses from the designers of structures, paintings, sculptures, apparel, or furniture that are clearly visible within movies. (In the U.S. they don't have to worry about structures but they do have to worry about all other types of visual artworks.) In turn, more and more motion pictures increasingly list law firms in the credits because it keeps a small army of lawyers busy just to get all the necessary licenses and clearances! --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring? Really?

You are better than this, I have seen it. Starting an edit war on an hours-old proposal that received exactly one (negative) comment? There is no need for that. One of those editors is quite new - I have welcomed them just now. Would you care to do the honors in showing proper use of sourcing and all that? See you back at talk, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the half-compliment. But accusing me of starting an edit war based upon the fact I made one edit is a bit much. If others are engaging in an edit war over this, then that's their business. For my part, I simply made one edit, provided an explanation on talk, and then moved on. I really can't see what, if anything, I have done wrong here. Vitaminman (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am over-sensitive from working at the 3RR board, but it looked to me like there was already a bit of an edit war going on, and that you joined in. Ah well, see you around. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps I am guilty of not sufficiently checking through the most recent edits to the article before I made my one. If so, then I apologize. Copying to your talk page, so as to make sure you know. Vitaminman (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Arlen Gargagliano for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arlen Gargagliano is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arlen Gargagliano until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Orlady (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circular

WP:CIRCULAR means we don't reference Wikipedia content via third party sources. Goldacre's book is drawn from primary and secondary sources, if Wikipedia is mentioned then it's in passing (and I don't recall it being mentioned as a source in Goldacre). Both Bad Science and Trick Or Treatment are good sources for the claims of quacks and the lack of evidence supporting them. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk comment, Alternative medicine

Your response,[4] and remarks on your User page, confirm what as a newcomer I suspected. If you haven't seen it may I mention Talk:Wallace Sampson. --Qexigator (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Medicine Page

The alternative medicine page is currently (Jan 2013) very heavily biased and ideologically motivated. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fwklemmer (talk • contribs) 04:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "currently"? If you're new here, you should realize that the Alternative Medicine page has been very heavily biased for a long time now. In fact, as I have mentioned elsewhere, at least one of the editors with the largest number of edits to this article has been accused of having close links to Quackwatch. Personally though, I've all but given up on it for the time being as there's almost zero chance of it ever becoming a decent well-written article any time soon. The degree of bias is now so deep, and the article so desperately far away from being even remotely balanced in its stance, quite how or why anybody would want to waste time trying to make any sense of it is, quite frankly, beyond me.

Requested move: Alternative medicine → Complementary and alternative medicine

Request initiated for the article Alternative medicine to be moved to Complementary and alternative medicine. I'm notifying you as major contributor to the article. Relevant talk page discussion found here. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check talk pages of Dietary Supplements and Linus Pauling

There have been a couple of good articles/books, lately debunking the entire concept (dear to your heart?) of Alternative medicine and etc.

I think misconceptions about these topics pervade (directly and indirectly) many areas of Wikipedia-- in particular, but not at all limited, to articles on various foods. Read Atlantic Magazine's article (cited on these talk pages) by Paul Offit and consider the research he cites. If you like heart diesease and cancer, then visit your local health food store, and talk to the supplements clerk.

108.204.142.171 (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Vitaminman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]