User talk:Webaware/Archive2

Toum

hi there, you suggested that I copy the photo about Toum making to wiki commons, I'm not a very frequent editor of wikipedia, could you help me or show me how to do that... BTW, I usually use the login Abountu more than this Charbelgereige 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Forget the above... I uploaded them http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Jern_Toum.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Toum.jpg cheers Charbelgereige 23:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

G'day, thanks very much for this. I'll make sure that they get onto the relevant Cookbook pages. cheers, Webaware ^talk 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hard Cider

Actually, hard cider is NOT "a step in the freeze distillation process". Hard cider is apple cider that has fermented, which makes it a type of natural wine; that is, a fruit juice that has fermented due to wild yeasts instead of by the introduction of a specific yeast chosen to produce the type of wine the brewer desires. It is hard cider with no distillation ever taking place, as long as it has alcohol. Once you partially freeze it and pour off the liquid, that liquid with it's greater concentration of alcohol per ounce (and flavor, too, if done correctly) is now applejack, not hard cider. I won't bother reverting your edit, though, since "Hard Cider" just diverts to the "Cider" article anyway.

In my opinion, BTW, the Cider article needs to be corrected. The term "Cider", at least in America, is used to refer to natural juice from apples (or sometimes pears; always non-citrus, non-berry tree fruit) squeezed with pulp and skin (though it can be filtered later), even with no fermentation. That's how it reads in the "Apple Cider" article. It can even be pasturized and still be called cider rather than apple juice. There seems to be some confusion here. Rosencomet 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, North Americans need to get over Prohibition and relearn English. Cider is a fermented apple juice drink. Juice, whether it's filtered or not, is just juice. Webaware ^talk 23:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Kimchi article

While I sympathize, I still feel white chinese cabbage is an unknown and unused term. What is the term that's used in Australia for baechu cabbage?melonbarmonster 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Either Chinese cabbage (usually) or wombok. Why do you insist on using the American terms, and creating a redirect when the article for the item in question is Chinese cabbage? If anything, we should be referring to it as "baechu", given that the article is about a Korean food not an American or Chinese or Australian food. Webaware ^talk 23:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on this article. I agree with the basic idea of making Wikipedia less US-centric (it would make hardly any sense to a user outside the US). This user, however, seems to think that saying "Chinese Cabbage" is "POV" somehow, according to his edit summary. I tried to get a compromise version in there, I don't know what your thoughts are on it. --Cheers, Komdori 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I notice that he's already been blocked on multiple occasions for violating 3RR. cheers, Webaware ^talk 03:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying "chinese cabbage" is factually wrong. I stated that Komdori is a POV pushing editor, not that the term "chinese cabbage" is POV. As I stated the only reason Komdori and Lactose are participating in this article is because they are shadowing my edits trying to instigate revert wars. I hope you're not condoning such behavior.melonbarmonster 08:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing "factually wrong" about using Chinese cabbage in Kimchi, whether it be the variety known as baechu/napa/wongbok, or the variety known as bok choy. I've made kimchi with both, and both were good. As for "condoning behaviour", I don't much like any behaviour that violates Wikipedia guidelines, especially acting in bad faith and reverting edits without discussion. Frankly, I can't tell which of the three of you is worst. Webaware ^talk 08:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If other editors were shadowing your edits and reverting them, you would be reasonable in questioning their "good faith". Secondly, I always explained my edits in the talk page concurrently with each of the reverts and edits. Frankly, I wish we were engaged in substantive discussion rather than being sucked in to Lactose and Komdori's gamesmanship.melonbarmonster 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The concept of "discussion" is to talk about something and reach consensus before acting. Your current actions do not reflect this - you revert, then explain why you are "right", which is the behaviour of a dictator not a collaborator. Please act in good faith, conduct discussions with civility, stop the personal attacks, and stop the revert war. I don't appreciate that I'm now also a target of your personal attacks, and the insinuation that my response to the straw poll on the Kimchi talk page is not serious, simply because I do not agree with your views. Wikipedia is a collaboration, not a power game. Webaware ^talk 23:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it very POV that you're directing this only to me when the very things you're criticizing me of applies even more egrigiously to Komdori and Lactose. I find your warning of civility to be of ill-faith. I've only been courteous to you before you sided with Komdori and Lactose and started to attack me. Please tone down the disingenuous warning and patronizing and get back to substantive discussion.melonbarmonster 04:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You mustn't be reading what I wrote, because I have indeed expressed concern about their support of this edit war. However, they have been more civil than you, which is why I am asking for you to show some civility and not them. I am not warning anything, merely asking for your cooperation. If you see that as an imposition on your activities, then that is probably indicative of your attitude to working with other people with opinions different to your own. Webaware ^talk 05:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Webaware, you're right about the warring being kind of dumb. I guess I'm a bit slow on the draw and edit a bit too quickly sometimes. I realised a few days ago the trend (sorry, I'm slow), and pretty much gave up reverting to see if something would develop on the talk page. I've accidently got sucked into revert wars before, but I have to admit I think this is by far about the stupidest. For me it seems like there is a pretty clear consensus and I guess there's a fine line between enforcing the consensus against a lone outsider and just being disruptive. Clearly discussion is the way to go.

Hmm, to make this more productive, maybe if we can set up a straw poll on the page to try to more efficiently come up with the best wording. It seems to be basically bounding between two or three choices. It looks like LactoseTI tried your compromise earlier (I don't know if it's actually been tried or not). I'm fine with that one, too, we'll see if it sticks. Apologies again. --Cheers, Komdori 13:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that version wasn't satisfactory, either. I've set up a straw poll on the discussion page with three versions. Take a look if you get a chance, and if you can think of a better compromise version feel free to add that. --Cheers, Komdori 17:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gluten

Good point. food intolerances are not necessarily allergies. On the other hand, "Health" is not a property of gluten. We need a word that encompasses adverse reactions associated with exposure to gluten. Can you suggest one? Wugo 11:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "Intolerance to gluten"? Simple, and covers the majority of cases including recognised coeliac disease. Regarding gluten and health, there must be a cadre of vegans out there that would contend that gluten is in fact a contributor to good health for individuals not subject to gluten intolerance. OTOH, there is a growing (anecdotally based) evidence base for negative impacts of gluten (and casein) in people with a genetic predisposition for such things as ADHD, autism, schizophrenia, and other behavioural disorders (see gluten-free, casein-free diet and gluten-free diet). Webaware ^talk 12:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Intolerance to gluten" seems cumbersome to me, but it is accurate and inclusive. I'll make the change. Wugo 14:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)