You supported Military history of Switzerland, which has been selected as the Military history WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please help improve this article to featured article standards. Kirill Lokshin 00:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who the head honcho of the approved article stuff is, but I saw that you created the page and I have a question and comment I'd like to direct your attention to and get your thoughts on. I think your idea is great. see [1] KevinPuj 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Would you mind if i translate to portuguese your Topics by country chart? I've been thinking of doing something like that, and now, to my surprise, i see it has already been done. It'd save me a lot of work, not having to create one from scratch. Cattus 02:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 36 | 5 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. You voted to demote Ziad Jarrah from being a featured article. The reason you gave was that there didn't seem to be much progress on it. Since then, I have improved the writing, added inline citations, and reorganized parts. I'd be much obliged if you gave it a second look. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
HI MESSEDROCKER! :D:D:D:D:D:D -- CableModem 02:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
this is messedrocker
(talk)
02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It's truly nice to be back. In fact, I've gotten so many positive responses that I'm half-tempted to create a thank-you template! :)) However, I prefer the personal touch. Really, thank you so very much. I appreciate the support. - Lucky 6.9 15:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 37 | 11 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
Carnildo resysopped | Report from the Hungarian Wikipedia |
News and notes | Features and admins |
Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Messedrocker, can you help me with this article? My english is lazy, and i want to improve more that page. Can you link that? Greets, Slade ( The Joker) 21:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I have promoted you to Sysop. Raul654 08:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Yaaay! Go pwn some vandals now! And don't get burnt out! -- CableModem 01:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :D It was a pleasure to support - I know my sig causes confusion but Errant is my usual online 'persona' but unfortunatley it is already taken in most places. So I use Tmorton166 as a registration name then sign Errant. Confusing I know. Anyway good to see you promoted - I see you got no end of support. I'll see ya around hopefully - either here or over on WN!! --Errant Tmorton166( Talk)( Review me) 13:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Congrats. Sorry If I had messed your user page while adding the admin logo. Doctor Bruno Talk 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations on your promotion, and you're very welcome! -- Merovingian - Talk 02:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Messedrocker, Gold-Horn from Wikinews here. Just got back on Wikipedia after a year out with projects and stuff (computer programming... aaarggggh!!). Hope you're OK! -- LiverpoolCommander 08:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
They've tagged it 3 times since I posted the semi-protect request. They're using anonymous IPs that regularly change. I've already had one banned, but I realize it's pointless due to the new IPs. Please help. -- Bobak 01:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks for the message and congratulations on your own recent adminning! I've quickly learned that I'm not the type to rack up thousands of admin log entries (it's taken me days just to thank everyone for participating in my RfA!), so hopefully you'll pick up some of my slack, hehe!
hoopydink Conas tá tú? 04:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I have left you a personal poem on your user page. There is no need to pay me for this service. The Mekon 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Please delete this user. He has a completly inappropriate username for Wikipedia. Implificator 03:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC) (Thunderhead on Wikinews)
Please read Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. Protection is not a pre-emptive measure against anticipated vandalism. Do not protect or semi-protect articles that have had little or no vandalism. — Centrx→ talk • 22:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Ryodox [2] 66.246.72.108 13:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 38 | 18 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi there and congratulations on your brand new sysop flag. Now that you are an admin, you might want to help the community in a way you weren't able to before. The obvious example is clearing out the Category:Administrative backlog :-) You might want to start with Wikipedia:Requested moves which I find the easiest to deal with. If you have any questions, just drop me a note! Enjoy! :-) -- Dijxtra 09:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
From your edit summary I'm not sure if you realize that the above article was a copyvio, but the author added the GFDL tag to his website after I advised him of the ways to rehabilitate the article on the talk page, i.e., releasing the material under the GFDL:-)-- Fuhghettaboutit 00:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 39 | 25 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I really appreciate that, thank you. Hopefully now other editors wont have to worry about that unregistered person believing that he owns the page. DietLimeCola 11:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Just letting you know I've unprotected the article on Bindi Irwin. Please check the article history in future. There is no such edit war occuring. -- Longhair\ talk 11:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I added your comment onto the talk page for Arbitration. I use that link to get to arbitration, its just easier for me. I belive its useful, and commonplace to add those hats to pages - and I provided precedants on the talk page of that article. I'll use WP:ARB to get to it more easily - I'll leave it up to you to see if the hat is useful (it definately doesn't take up needed space on that short article). Fresheneesz 01:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why I had removed the fact tags on the River Dell Regional High School article. I will try to reconcile and reinsert the mising items. Alansohn 03:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 40 | 2 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
New speedy deletion criteria added | News and notes |
Wikipedia in the news | Features and admins |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I have listed some of the sources in the first page (although I just noticed that I had forgotten Guide to Places of the World). I've also checked glossaries of books like Wider than the Sky and Awakenings and, in fact, many books I had used for article sources. Unfortunately, the list is long. However, many parts of the lists are mainly based on my own notes I have gathered from a variety of sources. I've been also double-checking the lists in case the topic already has an article with some other name. - Skysmith 18:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 41 | 9 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 42 | 16 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the message. I had never heard of NicVax, but I read the article and it's really fascinating. The cigarette companies must hate it! I can work on putting the refs into journal style. Too bad the template is so bulky; it makes it hard to edit the article. Ah well. Anyway, good "meeting" you ... drop me a line whenever you want. Peace, delldot | talk 15:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
i love the idea behind the article referencing drive...but did you give up on it? JoeSmack Talk( p-review!) 17:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 43 | 23 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
Report from the Finnish Wikipedia | News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones |
Wikipedia in the news | Features and admins |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
I am the anon who has been working on the soybean article, biological value, and other articles. I was going to add more info to the articles including soy protein but you blocked it. If you approve of my edits in the soybean article then why did you block the other articles. I want you to block all the article or unblock all the articles. Not blocking the soy article and blocking the arrticles is contradicting yourself. Why? Because I am the one you and others sre calling a sock. You you don't like a sock then why the heck you did not block the soybean article too.
Go block the soybean article too to make it official buddy.
I can open as many accounts as I please. There is no policy against having 1 million accounts.
In facts it is none of anyone's business.
You can block all you want buddy. I consider your blocks a personal attack.
I am not being disruptive buddy. Please block the soybean article now.
Yankee76 has been policeing me and wikistalking me and HE has broke the 3 revert rule and then you have the oddessity to accuse me of being disruptive and then say my anon edits to the soybean article meets with your delight and approval.
You are a joke!
I demand you block the soybean article right now because now I am REALLY MAD.
After all my hours of hard work you call me disruptive. Forget YOU. 63.17.54.97 15:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well done, thanks for http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Image:Streisand_Estate.JPG&diff=68968076&oldid=68724759 ... -- Rebroad 18:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Please fully protect all articles in question.
Soy, biological value, soy protein...etc. This is a full scale EDIT WAR.
Yankees76 has made numerous reverts to some of the articles in question.
If you take a close look at the history Yankees76 he has BROKE the 3 revet rule.
Again, this is REVERT WARRING that show absolutely no sign of stopping.
I think the only solution for now is LOCK UP ALL THE ARTICLES RIGHT NOW!!!
If you don't the WAR will continue.
Just fully protect the article for only a week. Just one week for things to cool off!!!
Please don't let this CRAZYNESS WARRING continue.
Again, block everyone from editting until things cool off.
I am ready for anything either way.
If Yankees76 reverts my edits I will junp right in again and again and again.
Thnaks for your help. Messenger2010 19:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You might want to cut the experiment short - the page is getting vandalized probably as much as George W. Bush used to be. :) Cowman109 Talk 02:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
An IP has just added very suspious information to the soy protein article. I consider the edits vandalism.
Also, there was removal of sentences by the IP in question.
I know exactly who the IP (a sock-puppet of a registered user) really is who is trying to BAIT ME by vandalizing the soy protein article. I am NOT going to bite the fake bait.
I will let you handle this on the soy protein article.
Adding original (fake) information is never allowed on Wikipedia. I am tired of edit warring!
Please revert all FAKE info and blanking of sentences put their by the IP sock.
Soy protein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Soy_protein&diff=84477475&oldid=84461028 63.17.100.99 20:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE. After the IP added the info then a register user came in to somehow "legitimize" the FAKE INFORMATION. They are playing double dutch together.
This is a joke. A master and its puppet. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Soy_protein&diff=84481323&oldid=84461028 63.17.100.99 20:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm a sysop on Wikiquote and an occasional editor on Wikipedia. I've discovered through some recent vandalism on Wikiquote that someone is impersonating me on Wikinews. I don't have an account on Wikinews and have never posted there. - InvisibleSun 01:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 44 | 30 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi James,
I felt I ought to notify you that I supplied your name as an example of an admin to ask to review this template; I hope you don't mind and that if you are approached and review the template, you don't find it more trouble than you'd imagined! Maybe it might be best to unprotect it and see what happens... Best wishes, David Kernow ( talk) 02:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
...Thanks for taking the initiative so promptly! I've added a comment to the above which I hope might clarify the situation. Regards, David ( talk) 02:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Great! I've updated our project page with this new article. Thanks for reminding me, as I'm not able to go on Wikipedia as often as I'd like nowadays. - Frazzydee| ✍ 15:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 45 | 6 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yankess76 has repeately and continued to be disruptive.
Shows no sign of stopping. He is playing double dutch with himself and his puppets.
Has created many puppets to have articles semi-protected to potentially make POV edits to his prefered version.
Has made strange reverts back and forth. Just look here below: There are a few other articles too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Soy_protein&diff=84737970&oldid=84722550 <<< He claims the informatiom is incorrect one day!
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Soy_protein&diff=86827958&oldid=86826017 <<< And yet another day he happens to change his mind?
I think this guy is a nut! The only solution is to BAN the user Yankees76 from all the articles the he continues to play games on.
Wikipedia is not a place to continue to do edit warring or worse by putting incorrect information in articles to intentially bait other users. Seems like there is sockpuppetry going on here by Yankees76 to play with articles. Please help. Thank you. 67.150.255.120 04:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I could care less about his socks. The only thing I care about is the article. What could be done to stop him from putting incorrect information in the article. He swings back and forth with information. 67.150.255.120 05:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Correct Info Below.
Main Article: Biological Value
Another measure of a protein's use in nutrition is the Biological Value scale. The Biological Value method, which dates back to 1911 relies on nitrogen retention as an indicator of protein quality. However, it does not take into account certain factors influencing the digestion of the protein. A 1983 study by researcher E. Renner indicated soybean has a BV value of 74 compared to egg at 100. Soy protein has a lower protein value than all animal sources of protein for muscle growth according to the BV methodology. [1] Nonetheless, the Biological Value (BV) methodology is an accurate indicator of biological activity for protein quality and utilization in humans. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Mendel and Fine (1911-1912) made the interesting observation that soybeans produce a positive nitrogen(N) balance in a human subject.
Correct Info Above.
FAKE INFO BELOW:
Many N-studies since then have confirmed the fact that the digestibility and biological value of soy protein for humans is comparable in nutritional value and quality to animal proteins. [7] Attached below is Table 7.7.
Biological Evaluation of Soybean Food Products Based on Experiments with Human Subjects*****
FAKE INFO ABOVE.
It has been a long established fact that the Biological Value of soybean is 74. But according to this bogus table which is false the BV of soybean is 96 and egg is 97. Also, the rest of the chart is false info about the BV.
I have provided many references that prove my case. The BV of egg is 100 and the BV of soy is 74. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
Also, look at Yankees76 comments in the talk page. He claims the information is false and fact at the same time. He is playing it both ways. I believe he added the info with one of his anon IP socks. Then instead of removing the "vandal" info his strawman arguement is to assume good faith. This has gone long enough with that double talker.
I have provided many many references. CASE CLOSED!!!
-- 67.150.245.38 19:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Anon: I'll gladly submit to a WP:RFCU for any trumped-up sockpuppet you can put me down has puppeteering. In fact now that you've accused me here on another users talk page I demand that you prove these allegations.
If you really want the truth Messedrocker, the anonymous user here on your talk page has already been proven to be a sockpuppet/puppet master. After I suspected that this user was using socks to avoid scrutiny by other editors and dodge warnings, rather than going around on talk pages making accusations about this disruption and sockpuppets, I was actually following the proper channels. First with a sock puppet posting on the notice board Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messenger2010 then after review, I followed with a checkuser [3] that determined the anonymous user calling for my ban here on your talk page has been running a nice little sockpuppet ring. [4].
So as you can see, I'm hardly the one who is playing games here. The fact that I'm being called a puppeteer is ludicrous. Also, calling me a nut, a double talker etc. is yet another instance of this user being uncivil/making personal attacks. For which I've also filed a notice on the personal attack intervention noticeboard. [5].
So to the anon user, or AndyCanada or whatever sock user name you prefer, as the saying goes - put up or shut up - prove that I'm a puppeteer. Your allegations against me are here for all to see. Now let's see some proof. Yankees76 19:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yankees76 continues to support the source that he claims is valid and good. Why? Because I think he is the one that put the table in the article. Until Yankees76 admits the table is a lie then we must continue to protect the article before anymore anons or socks continue to put FAKE information in the soybean and the soy protein articles. Yankees76 continues to support the strawman table. I wonder why? That is all the proof I need. Case closed! 67.150.245.38 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
This discussion will only move forward once Yankees76 stop supporting his bogus information. Until then, article must be fully protected. 67.150.245.38 21:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The proof is in the pudding!
I have found this website very informative. Hopefully this will set the record straight. There are two more recent studies about Biological Value. A study by Renner in 1983 and another study by Harper in 2000. According to Wikipedia's standards we should go with the two recent studies. The info that Yankees76 is referring to is over 30 years ago. Now it is universally accepted that the BV of egg is 100 which is also the most widely used. We should go with th most widely used BV using egg at 100 and a footnote explain about whey is used at 100 as an alternative BV scale. We should not use outdated scales back in the 70s. Lets stick to the facts and also use the up to date BV scale. Putting different scales is very confusing and is a bad idea. I will not participate if others continue to play games. But hopefully this link will clear everything up. As detailed by research E Renner, biological value (BV) has traditionally been calculated with whole egg representing 100.
Please click and read carefully. http://www.wheyprotein.com/sec6.html http://www.21cecpharm.com/nutri/whey.htm Comments please. 67.150.253.23 04:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Anon, Andy or whoever you are, I'm still waiting for some concrete sockpuppet proof. You've had 36 hours to put together some evidence - so let's see it! I'm interested to see something besides "it's so obvious" and other circumstantial "evidence". Post a checkuser result or for lack of better words, cease and desist (STFU) with this ridiculous train of thought.
Secondly, it's interesting that you'd talk about 50 year old studies, considering you (or at least a puppet under your control) were the one that added reference #12 and #13 to the article (and others), two studies from, get this, 1924 and 1926! Here's a news flash, the BV of foods is not going to change from 1970 to 1997. Nobody is throwing money at researchers (or at least legit ones) to re-evaluate the BV of the basic foods listed here that were determined years ago. It's like researchers at MIT spending time measuring the amount of current it takes to light a common light bulb. Again you're simply twisting the situation to fit your own needs - first you claim lack of credible source (fantasy info), then we find the source (not such a fantasy was it?) and it's suddenly "outdated", and I have a feeling that once we locate the 1997 edition, you'll find fault with that too - all you're doing is posting strawman argument after strawman argument in an attempt to debunk any legitimate information that you happen to disagree with or doesn't fit your pro-whey protein agenda. Your motives are so see-through - if you're here with Wikipedia's best interests in mind then I'm the toothfairy. Yankees76 00:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 46 | 13 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant! ( Radiant) 11:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
When do you intend to select the next article from the referencing drive? Dev920 ( Please peer review here.) 21:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment. Cheers, -- TBCΦ talk? 10:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You supported Military history of Switzerland, which has been selected as the Military history WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please help improve this article to featured article standards. Kirill Lokshin 00:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who the head honcho of the approved article stuff is, but I saw that you created the page and I have a question and comment I'd like to direct your attention to and get your thoughts on. I think your idea is great. see [1] KevinPuj 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Would you mind if i translate to portuguese your Topics by country chart? I've been thinking of doing something like that, and now, to my surprise, i see it has already been done. It'd save me a lot of work, not having to create one from scratch. Cattus 02:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 36 | 5 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. You voted to demote Ziad Jarrah from being a featured article. The reason you gave was that there didn't seem to be much progress on it. Since then, I have improved the writing, added inline citations, and reorganized parts. I'd be much obliged if you gave it a second look. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
HI MESSEDROCKER! :D:D:D:D:D:D -- CableModem 02:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
this is messedrocker
(talk)
02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It's truly nice to be back. In fact, I've gotten so many positive responses that I'm half-tempted to create a thank-you template! :)) However, I prefer the personal touch. Really, thank you so very much. I appreciate the support. - Lucky 6.9 15:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 37 | 11 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
Carnildo resysopped | Report from the Hungarian Wikipedia |
News and notes | Features and admins |
Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News | The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Messedrocker, can you help me with this article? My english is lazy, and i want to improve more that page. Can you link that? Greets, Slade ( The Joker) 21:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I have promoted you to Sysop. Raul654 08:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Yaaay! Go pwn some vandals now! And don't get burnt out! -- CableModem 01:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :D It was a pleasure to support - I know my sig causes confusion but Errant is my usual online 'persona' but unfortunatley it is already taken in most places. So I use Tmorton166 as a registration name then sign Errant. Confusing I know. Anyway good to see you promoted - I see you got no end of support. I'll see ya around hopefully - either here or over on WN!! --Errant Tmorton166( Talk)( Review me) 13:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Congrats. Sorry If I had messed your user page while adding the admin logo. Doctor Bruno Talk 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations on your promotion, and you're very welcome! -- Merovingian - Talk 02:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Messedrocker, Gold-Horn from Wikinews here. Just got back on Wikipedia after a year out with projects and stuff (computer programming... aaarggggh!!). Hope you're OK! -- LiverpoolCommander 08:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
They've tagged it 3 times since I posted the semi-protect request. They're using anonymous IPs that regularly change. I've already had one banned, but I realize it's pointless due to the new IPs. Please help. -- Bobak 01:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks for the message and congratulations on your own recent adminning! I've quickly learned that I'm not the type to rack up thousands of admin log entries (it's taken me days just to thank everyone for participating in my RfA!), so hopefully you'll pick up some of my slack, hehe!
hoopydink Conas tá tú? 04:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I have left you a personal poem on your user page. There is no need to pay me for this service. The Mekon 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Please delete this user. He has a completly inappropriate username for Wikipedia. Implificator 03:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC) (Thunderhead on Wikinews)
Please read Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. Protection is not a pre-emptive measure against anticipated vandalism. Do not protect or semi-protect articles that have had little or no vandalism. — Centrx→ talk • 22:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Ryodox [2] 66.246.72.108 13:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 38 | 18 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi there and congratulations on your brand new sysop flag. Now that you are an admin, you might want to help the community in a way you weren't able to before. The obvious example is clearing out the Category:Administrative backlog :-) You might want to start with Wikipedia:Requested moves which I find the easiest to deal with. If you have any questions, just drop me a note! Enjoy! :-) -- Dijxtra 09:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
From your edit summary I'm not sure if you realize that the above article was a copyvio, but the author added the GFDL tag to his website after I advised him of the ways to rehabilitate the article on the talk page, i.e., releasing the material under the GFDL:-)-- Fuhghettaboutit 00:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 39 | 25 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I really appreciate that, thank you. Hopefully now other editors wont have to worry about that unregistered person believing that he owns the page. DietLimeCola 11:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Just letting you know I've unprotected the article on Bindi Irwin. Please check the article history in future. There is no such edit war occuring. -- Longhair\ talk 11:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I added your comment onto the talk page for Arbitration. I use that link to get to arbitration, its just easier for me. I belive its useful, and commonplace to add those hats to pages - and I provided precedants on the talk page of that article. I'll use WP:ARB to get to it more easily - I'll leave it up to you to see if the hat is useful (it definately doesn't take up needed space on that short article). Fresheneesz 01:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why I had removed the fact tags on the River Dell Regional High School article. I will try to reconcile and reinsert the mising items. Alansohn 03:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 40 | 2 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
New speedy deletion criteria added | News and notes |
Wikipedia in the news | Features and admins |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I have listed some of the sources in the first page (although I just noticed that I had forgotten Guide to Places of the World). I've also checked glossaries of books like Wider than the Sky and Awakenings and, in fact, many books I had used for article sources. Unfortunately, the list is long. However, many parts of the lists are mainly based on my own notes I have gathered from a variety of sources. I've been also double-checking the lists in case the topic already has an article with some other name. - Skysmith 18:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 41 | 9 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 42 | 16 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the message. I had never heard of NicVax, but I read the article and it's really fascinating. The cigarette companies must hate it! I can work on putting the refs into journal style. Too bad the template is so bulky; it makes it hard to edit the article. Ah well. Anyway, good "meeting" you ... drop me a line whenever you want. Peace, delldot | talk 15:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
i love the idea behind the article referencing drive...but did you give up on it? JoeSmack Talk( p-review!) 17:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 43 | 23 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
Report from the Finnish Wikipedia | News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones |
Wikipedia in the news | Features and admins |
The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
I am the anon who has been working on the soybean article, biological value, and other articles. I was going to add more info to the articles including soy protein but you blocked it. If you approve of my edits in the soybean article then why did you block the other articles. I want you to block all the article or unblock all the articles. Not blocking the soy article and blocking the arrticles is contradicting yourself. Why? Because I am the one you and others sre calling a sock. You you don't like a sock then why the heck you did not block the soybean article too.
Go block the soybean article too to make it official buddy.
I can open as many accounts as I please. There is no policy against having 1 million accounts.
In facts it is none of anyone's business.
You can block all you want buddy. I consider your blocks a personal attack.
I am not being disruptive buddy. Please block the soybean article now.
Yankee76 has been policeing me and wikistalking me and HE has broke the 3 revert rule and then you have the oddessity to accuse me of being disruptive and then say my anon edits to the soybean article meets with your delight and approval.
You are a joke!
I demand you block the soybean article right now because now I am REALLY MAD.
After all my hours of hard work you call me disruptive. Forget YOU. 63.17.54.97 15:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well done, thanks for http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Image:Streisand_Estate.JPG&diff=68968076&oldid=68724759 ... -- Rebroad 18:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Please fully protect all articles in question.
Soy, biological value, soy protein...etc. This is a full scale EDIT WAR.
Yankees76 has made numerous reverts to some of the articles in question.
If you take a close look at the history Yankees76 he has BROKE the 3 revet rule.
Again, this is REVERT WARRING that show absolutely no sign of stopping.
I think the only solution for now is LOCK UP ALL THE ARTICLES RIGHT NOW!!!
If you don't the WAR will continue.
Just fully protect the article for only a week. Just one week for things to cool off!!!
Please don't let this CRAZYNESS WARRING continue.
Again, block everyone from editting until things cool off.
I am ready for anything either way.
If Yankees76 reverts my edits I will junp right in again and again and again.
Thnaks for your help. Messenger2010 19:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You might want to cut the experiment short - the page is getting vandalized probably as much as George W. Bush used to be. :) Cowman109 Talk 02:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
An IP has just added very suspious information to the soy protein article. I consider the edits vandalism.
Also, there was removal of sentences by the IP in question.
I know exactly who the IP (a sock-puppet of a registered user) really is who is trying to BAIT ME by vandalizing the soy protein article. I am NOT going to bite the fake bait.
I will let you handle this on the soy protein article.
Adding original (fake) information is never allowed on Wikipedia. I am tired of edit warring!
Please revert all FAKE info and blanking of sentences put their by the IP sock.
Soy protein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Soy_protein&diff=84477475&oldid=84461028 63.17.100.99 20:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE. After the IP added the info then a register user came in to somehow "legitimize" the FAKE INFORMATION. They are playing double dutch together.
This is a joke. A master and its puppet. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Soy_protein&diff=84481323&oldid=84461028 63.17.100.99 20:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm a sysop on Wikiquote and an occasional editor on Wikipedia. I've discovered through some recent vandalism on Wikiquote that someone is impersonating me on Wikinews. I don't have an account on Wikinews and have never posted there. - InvisibleSun 01:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 44 | 30 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi James,
I felt I ought to notify you that I supplied your name as an example of an admin to ask to review this template; I hope you don't mind and that if you are approached and review the template, you don't find it more trouble than you'd imagined! Maybe it might be best to unprotect it and see what happens... Best wishes, David Kernow ( talk) 02:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
...Thanks for taking the initiative so promptly! I've added a comment to the above which I hope might clarify the situation. Regards, David ( talk) 02:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Great! I've updated our project page with this new article. Thanks for reminding me, as I'm not able to go on Wikipedia as often as I'd like nowadays. - Frazzydee| ✍ 15:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 45 | 6 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yankess76 has repeately and continued to be disruptive.
Shows no sign of stopping. He is playing double dutch with himself and his puppets.
Has created many puppets to have articles semi-protected to potentially make POV edits to his prefered version.
Has made strange reverts back and forth. Just look here below: There are a few other articles too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Soy_protein&diff=84737970&oldid=84722550 <<< He claims the informatiom is incorrect one day!
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Soy_protein&diff=86827958&oldid=86826017 <<< And yet another day he happens to change his mind?
I think this guy is a nut! The only solution is to BAN the user Yankees76 from all the articles the he continues to play games on.
Wikipedia is not a place to continue to do edit warring or worse by putting incorrect information in articles to intentially bait other users. Seems like there is sockpuppetry going on here by Yankees76 to play with articles. Please help. Thank you. 67.150.255.120 04:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I could care less about his socks. The only thing I care about is the article. What could be done to stop him from putting incorrect information in the article. He swings back and forth with information. 67.150.255.120 05:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Correct Info Below.
Main Article: Biological Value
Another measure of a protein's use in nutrition is the Biological Value scale. The Biological Value method, which dates back to 1911 relies on nitrogen retention as an indicator of protein quality. However, it does not take into account certain factors influencing the digestion of the protein. A 1983 study by researcher E. Renner indicated soybean has a BV value of 74 compared to egg at 100. Soy protein has a lower protein value than all animal sources of protein for muscle growth according to the BV methodology. [1] Nonetheless, the Biological Value (BV) methodology is an accurate indicator of biological activity for protein quality and utilization in humans. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Mendel and Fine (1911-1912) made the interesting observation that soybeans produce a positive nitrogen(N) balance in a human subject.
Correct Info Above.
FAKE INFO BELOW:
Many N-studies since then have confirmed the fact that the digestibility and biological value of soy protein for humans is comparable in nutritional value and quality to animal proteins. [7] Attached below is Table 7.7.
Biological Evaluation of Soybean Food Products Based on Experiments with Human Subjects*****
FAKE INFO ABOVE.
It has been a long established fact that the Biological Value of soybean is 74. But according to this bogus table which is false the BV of soybean is 96 and egg is 97. Also, the rest of the chart is false info about the BV.
I have provided many references that prove my case. The BV of egg is 100 and the BV of soy is 74. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
Also, look at Yankees76 comments in the talk page. He claims the information is false and fact at the same time. He is playing it both ways. I believe he added the info with one of his anon IP socks. Then instead of removing the "vandal" info his strawman arguement is to assume good faith. This has gone long enough with that double talker.
I have provided many many references. CASE CLOSED!!!
-- 67.150.245.38 19:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Anon: I'll gladly submit to a WP:RFCU for any trumped-up sockpuppet you can put me down has puppeteering. In fact now that you've accused me here on another users talk page I demand that you prove these allegations.
If you really want the truth Messedrocker, the anonymous user here on your talk page has already been proven to be a sockpuppet/puppet master. After I suspected that this user was using socks to avoid scrutiny by other editors and dodge warnings, rather than going around on talk pages making accusations about this disruption and sockpuppets, I was actually following the proper channels. First with a sock puppet posting on the notice board Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messenger2010 then after review, I followed with a checkuser [3] that determined the anonymous user calling for my ban here on your talk page has been running a nice little sockpuppet ring. [4].
So as you can see, I'm hardly the one who is playing games here. The fact that I'm being called a puppeteer is ludicrous. Also, calling me a nut, a double talker etc. is yet another instance of this user being uncivil/making personal attacks. For which I've also filed a notice on the personal attack intervention noticeboard. [5].
So to the anon user, or AndyCanada or whatever sock user name you prefer, as the saying goes - put up or shut up - prove that I'm a puppeteer. Your allegations against me are here for all to see. Now let's see some proof. Yankees76 19:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yankees76 continues to support the source that he claims is valid and good. Why? Because I think he is the one that put the table in the article. Until Yankees76 admits the table is a lie then we must continue to protect the article before anymore anons or socks continue to put FAKE information in the soybean and the soy protein articles. Yankees76 continues to support the strawman table. I wonder why? That is all the proof I need. Case closed! 67.150.245.38 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
This discussion will only move forward once Yankees76 stop supporting his bogus information. Until then, article must be fully protected. 67.150.245.38 21:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The proof is in the pudding!
I have found this website very informative. Hopefully this will set the record straight. There are two more recent studies about Biological Value. A study by Renner in 1983 and another study by Harper in 2000. According to Wikipedia's standards we should go with the two recent studies. The info that Yankees76 is referring to is over 30 years ago. Now it is universally accepted that the BV of egg is 100 which is also the most widely used. We should go with th most widely used BV using egg at 100 and a footnote explain about whey is used at 100 as an alternative BV scale. We should not use outdated scales back in the 70s. Lets stick to the facts and also use the up to date BV scale. Putting different scales is very confusing and is a bad idea. I will not participate if others continue to play games. But hopefully this link will clear everything up. As detailed by research E Renner, biological value (BV) has traditionally been calculated with whole egg representing 100.
Please click and read carefully. http://www.wheyprotein.com/sec6.html http://www.21cecpharm.com/nutri/whey.htm Comments please. 67.150.253.23 04:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Anon, Andy or whoever you are, I'm still waiting for some concrete sockpuppet proof. You've had 36 hours to put together some evidence - so let's see it! I'm interested to see something besides "it's so obvious" and other circumstantial "evidence". Post a checkuser result or for lack of better words, cease and desist (STFU) with this ridiculous train of thought.
Secondly, it's interesting that you'd talk about 50 year old studies, considering you (or at least a puppet under your control) were the one that added reference #12 and #13 to the article (and others), two studies from, get this, 1924 and 1926! Here's a news flash, the BV of foods is not going to change from 1970 to 1997. Nobody is throwing money at researchers (or at least legit ones) to re-evaluate the BV of the basic foods listed here that were determined years ago. It's like researchers at MIT spending time measuring the amount of current it takes to light a common light bulb. Again you're simply twisting the situation to fit your own needs - first you claim lack of credible source (fantasy info), then we find the source (not such a fantasy was it?) and it's suddenly "outdated", and I have a feeling that once we locate the 1997 edition, you'll find fault with that too - all you're doing is posting strawman argument after strawman argument in an attempt to debunk any legitimate information that you happen to disagree with or doesn't fit your pro-whey protein agenda. Your motives are so see-through - if you're here with Wikipedia's best interests in mind then I'm the toothfairy. Yankees76 00:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 2, Issue 46 | 13 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant! ( Radiant) 11:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
When do you intend to select the next article from the referencing drive? Dev920 ( Please peer review here.) 21:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment. Cheers, -- TBCΦ talk? 10:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)