Hello, world!
If you post to my talk page, I will reply exclusively here unless otherwise noted. If I posted recently to your talk page, I will read responses posted there (which I do by watchlisting your talk page for a brief time).
Please make sure and sign your message with ~~~~ Thanks!

Hi, I put it there to show the contrast and similarities to the page, I find it striking. As for the edit war between me and goethean that shall last for some time to come, until he has decent respect for me as an editor, until he becomes more realistic about "the vision" of his page. So yes, once again it degenerated into edit battle with goethean, but I contend I did not throw the first shot. -ForrestLane42 03:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

The comparison seems moot to me: why should we care what other pages look like? Personally, I didn't bother to look at it, and it seems goethean took some offense at what was said, so overall it was just reducing the signal-to-noise ratio, and I removed it. Pro crast in a tor 03:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry u see it as moot, but shouldn't others get to decide?? goethean takes offense to anyone other than himself - whatever I said, he would have gone crazy over. i just think that looking at both pages might help to enlighten the situation, sorry u differ. -ForrestLane42 04:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]

Recently, Goethean and ForrestLane42 have both come to me for administrator mediation of sorts, each accusing the other of various wrongdoing (personal attacks, harassment, etc.). I noted that you have worked with both of these editors on Ken Wilbur, and I would like to hear your point of view regarding these two and their volatile relationship. If you are uncomfortable with discussing this on the wiki, feel free to email me. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 09:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Larry V, nice to meet you. I'm not sure what I can do to address your request: everything I can see on the Ken Wilbur pages and the editor's respective pages, are also available for you to see. But I can pontificate on what I've seen, and am happy to do so in a public forum, I follow the the WP:DGAF, and find the whole thing pretty amusing. Hilarious, even.

From what I can tell, Goethean is determined to document Integral theory, and ForrestLane42 is challenging the notability of most everything Goethean is trying to do, as he believes most of this theory is not notable. Note that I'm basing this on just three or four pages I've seen: I have no idea if this is a representative sample of their interactions.

I think Goethean tends to be too verbose and inclusive in his editing, with a POV showing at times. I think ForrestLane42 tends to be too strict in his interpretation of notability (showing his POV) and is quick to take offense, with the additional baggage of not being a very strong editor. Watching these type archetypes battle it out is like a novel that writes itself.

As is usually the case, I'm pretty sure the truth lies somewhere in between. I think ForrestLane42 needs to discuss edits and deletes more on the talk page, as you have mentioned, and especially to ask on the talk page before adding new tags because he's a junior editor and seems to get it wrong more often than not. It would also be helpful if Goethean presented a more NPOV when editing so ForrestLane42 wasn't right as often about his POV showing, including POV by omission of criticism and POV by subject verbosity (drowning out everything else). As an example, AQAL by Goethean has no criticism section, even though critiques of AQAL are easy to find, making the article POV IMHO. But if ForrestLane42 were to tag it as POV (which is what he'd probably do, rather than actually fix it by adding a criticism section), he'd be right, but they'd be off to the races and would need someone else to step in because neither one will actually fix the article. At least, that's how I'd envision it happening if I were writing the story, but I don't think it'd be too far off. Pro crast in a tor 11:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC) (and amused that he's spent more time on the Ken Wilber article than on his books at this point)[reply]

------------

Hi Larry V, you asked me about this on my talk page, and Pro crast in a tor kindly invited me to centralize the discussion here, so here I am. I'm not a devotee of integral theory, so I can't say anything about POV or content, but it's clear these two have it in for each other, and are semi-stalking each other, and when they collide it tends to result in a series of secondary explosions on talk pages and admin notice boards, etc. But it's not all that bad. It's childish and also (as Pro says) kind of amusing. But I don't think it's at the point of sanctions yet — neither of them is a vandal, they just have what might be called maturity problems. ForrestLane42 also has a bit of a literacy problem — it's sometimes hard to discern what he's trying to say — so he seems to find it easier to add tags rather than text to articles, and goethean, in turn, baits him with unnecessarily florid language (e.g. "You seem to have declined to rebut my supposition in regard to your motivations for the nomination," which utterly cracked me up). Anyhow, I think they just need to be gently admonished. Eventually it will get through to them that this war is uninteresting, and they will disengage and go on to do productive work. At least that's what I hope. Cheers, Eleuther 14:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ken Wilber, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ForrestLane42. — goethean ॐ 15:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to our recent conversation over in the at Hot tub, I often have a very hard time deciding what's linkspam and what's not and which links should be allowed to "sneak by" and which shouldn't. But the test I've been using more and more is "Would this list grow out of control?"

So, for a (hypothetical example), if I was looking at the Atomic absorption spectroscopy article and I saw a set of links to the vendors of such devices, I'd be tempted to leave the links because there just aren't that many vendors of such gadgets; how big could the list grow? And people might have a genuine need to find these vendors.

But for hot tubs, I know that there are many, many manufacturers and seemingly millions of dealers, and if we let one in, then the next thing you know, there are a hundred links and everyone wants to know why we're deleting their link but not the link to Harry's Hot Tub Emporium and Bikini Shop. So for that kind of article, I tend to be ruthless, routinely eliminating all the external links even when they contain some useful data (as the rotomolding link did). The Rolex article goes through the same sorts of cycling.

None of this is any official policy, of course, just some heuristics I've developed after editing here for a while.

Atlant 13:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ken Wilber. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Tom, I'm trying to get some real content and structure into the XOM page. You seem to be following some unknown-to-me style sheet for a corporation (e.g., move financial data and board composition to bottom). Can you point me to your model? I'm trying to get up the MoS learning curve, also, as you can see. I'm sick and tired of people turning this page into a punching bag for their personal anger toward XOM, whatever its merits and faults. I figure more factual content will drown out the noise.

By the way, I would hardly call Lee Raymond a minor name and unworthy of mention on the page (I can take or leave the Bush administration gopher). There really should be a place for former executives, engineers, and scientists of note, especially if they already have a Wiki page. MJRathbone, 8/21/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MJRathbone (talk • contribs) 03:59, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Hey. Thanks very much for your good work on putting together a good attempt at an article. I clearly didn't have the time or know how. I don't understand why I was attacked, insulted, and my psychological status questioned--other than I'm a noob and there are people who enjoy power tripping on here. The same folk have only given you minor editing, free of insults. Good luck with the work. and thanks again.

--Natevoodoo 22:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the rules. They aren't set in stone. like real laws, they can be debated and interpreted. I gave my interpretation. wiki is not a place for intelligent debate however. and while i was upset and defensive, it doesn't mean that i wasn't personally attacked. and i'm not alone in finding webhamster and calton abrasive. there is a clear difference between the comments and tone calton cast at me and the ones at you. there was a clear difference between those like corvus cornix who disagreed with me yet was polite and also good at explaining his POV. calton makes up for his lack of clarity with abuse as far as i can tell.

it seems like you made a noble effort, and that's what my thanks are for. i didn't have time to do it or really any journalistic skill. my only argument for the one sentence, that I myself didn't even write, was that it's a stub that is worthy of people adding to. At one time wiki was open to this, i observed it. and now they are not. Wikipedia hopes to be notable itself perhaps, but they are still not taken seriously so I wonder if it's worth deleting so much potentially useful info towards that unreachable end. whereas less control results in something much more alive, vital, and reflecting what's actually out there in life.

it's really made me question using wikipedia at all. at least with a paid service there is someone responsible who can be fired, and just as limited a scope in view.

i hope you will consider unblanking your user page. i would love to refer others who can add to it in it's current form and contribute as a group. a group can always do more than an individual. the last discussion for your page was not to repost it, it didn't ask that your userpage stop existing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natevoodoo (talk • contribs) 23:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to leave you a note earlier - thanks for the pointer to the HuffPo article - I hadn't seen it, and I don't think the reporter mentioned it. Actually they got it pretty right, it seems to me, as a veteran of the Obama dab disputes, but why no interviews?. I added it to the Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs press page anyway. As for Monday's WashPo piece, I have the impression that it was a good deal longer, and was cut down - not surprising - so you and your Romney editing may have been cut by an editor who wanted it to be more focused. On the other hand, now that things are heating up about Great-grandpa's exile to Mexico, there could be a follow-up article, or one by someone else. Truth is, I talked more about other things than about Fred vs Freddie, which I never thought was such an important point - but it does make for a lively article. As for pseudonyms - I like yours. Mine isn't too opaque, but I'm not concerned about anonymity (obviously) - and I'm not really sure why so many editors are. Anyway - thanks for your note! Tvoz |talk 23:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on my talk page. Wikicharts is a work in progress, and I hope that one day Leon's stats will settle down so we can cite them with greater confidence. But my views on semi-protection of these articles don't depend on how many people read them or how often they are vandalized. My long-standing difference of opinion with Tvoz and other contributors at Talk:Barack Obama is not about whether semi-protection is sometimes called for to calm suspected outbreaks of coordinated vandalism, but rather the appropriate duration for each instance of semi-protection, and whether less intrusive revert+warning-then-block methods ought to be tried first. The admin who recently protected Mitt Romney's article applied an expiration of two weeks, which I think is a quite reasonable limit.

Uncivil behavior is, always has been, and will likely continue to be a part of political life. The US legal system has set a high standard for what speech should and should not be tolerated for public figures and for the liabilities of publishers. It's surely not pleasant seeing people throw mud at your work, but even mud can sometimes tell us something useful. Sometimes the mud sticks. It gets washed away, but some of the writing that preceeded it comes off with the dirt. That's when we are collectively prompted to rethink the neutrality of our collaborative writing and challenged as a community to improve it. I think it is just those kinds of everyday living and learning improvements that set Wikipedia apart from other information sources and makes editing here a unique learning experience for readers and editors alike. Thanks again for your note, and good editing. --HailFire 16:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, hello, Sorry you dont approve of my handle. (Its based on my name.) I had never thought of it as being read that way. It is a bit disconcerting to be told that your name is offensive, but I guess people will see what they want to see. I appreciate your efforts on the campaign pages, and hope you will bear with me when our opinions don't always agree. I know your intentions are for improving the quality and comprehensive nature of wikipedia. I hope I can support you in that effort in my small way. (As an avid newspaper reader, I hope my interests, and perspective will be of some use.) I don't like conflict-- perhaps more than your average person, and so will rarely stick my neck out as far as to make deletions, or edit without consensus. Especially because our opinions sometimes differ, I value your input as a healthy balance to my own. This is a completely unrelated subject, but I noticed your interest Mitt Romney's ancestor's polygamy. I was talking to a friend who is an exchange student at a local university. We were discussing the recent verdict in the Warren Jeffs case. I suppose he sensed that I'm not judgemental (at least I hope I'm not) and mentioned that his father is a polygamist, and that his family in Nigeria are amused by the puritan attitudes of Americans considering human history (according to him) is mostly polygamist. It made me realize that perhaps my viewpoint has been too Euro-centric. Looking forward to hearing from you again, on the candidates' pages, or elsewhere, -R.K.C. Rawkcuf 07:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Rawkcuf[reply]

It was in the talk part not on the Article itself rules say to do it there???? And how is it not relevant you can't say not relevant since it is the way the fuel is dispenced. Automatic Temperature Compensation (ATC) Liquids expand as temperatures rise and they contract when temperatures decrease. Gasoline has a high expansion coefficient. Five years ago major Canadian oil companies, with the approval of Measurement Canada, accepted a system devised by U.S. oil refiners for their upstream operations and set a retail industry standard of temperature compensation at 15 degrees Celsius. As such, most retailers in Canada now have temperature compensated equipment that adjusts to that standard. It is a fact that 15 degrees Celsius is the American Petroleum Institute's accepted standard at the time of product transfer between refinery pipelines, ships and terminals. However, in all northern US states where the average ambient temperature is below that mark, industry practice, or law, excludes the sale of petroleum on a corrected basis into tank trucks or retail. In most states where the average temperature is above 15 degrees Celsius, retailers sell product on an ambient basis. Manic mechanic (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procrastinator, Please do not edit war at Lyme disease and pls read the talk page and the sources before you make major edits. Thx. RetroS1mone talk 03:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your message! I am sure we can agree on good edits. RetroS1mone talk 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is probably a wierd question. You made an edit about how to tell the difference between cane sugar and beet sugar. I would like very much to do that... Do you know how to do that or anything? Is it only possible with some monster lab equipment? To keep it on topic, I could try to add it as an experiment on Wikiversity if it can be done easily. Much appreciated, ~ R.T.G 21:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RTG, yes, it's monster lab equipment project: see Isotope_ratio_mass_spectrometry. I'm no expert, and there could certainly be other, simpler chemical tests that could be used with non-refined sugar. Easier yet is to call the manufacturer and ask. :) Cheers, Pro crast in a tor (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I thought it might be a centrifuge or that thing where you soak the paper and it seperates at different levels but yeah that thing looks like a very complicated laser. Thanks for answer ~ R.T.G 09:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts at Common cold. However, we've got a problem. The study says:

Meta-analysis of six case-control studies suggested that physical measures are highly effective in preventing the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome: handwashing more than 10 times daily (odds ratio 0.45...

and you're reporting SARS results as if they applied to the common cold.

The actual results for the common cold are reported a quarter of the way through the study:

Repeated handwashing significantly reduced the incidence of colds by as much as 20% in two trials.

and was already mentioned under Common colds#Prevention.

There's no particular rush, but if you've got a few minutes, please consider correcting this. If not, I'll get to it later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhatamIdoing, it's fixed, the source jumps between SARS and common cold and I grabbed the wrong snippet. I'm moving the hand washing snippet to the prevention section of the article, where I'm making more severe changes as most sources cited discuss influenza instead of the common cold. Should be done in an hour or so, and a review of changes would be appreciated. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through the changes, and wanted to ping you about the statement "Frequent washing of the hands reduces transmission through the common routes of both indirect and direct contact", which is doubtless true (how could it not be?), but I'm not actually finding it in the named source ("Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings"), which is mostly about other kinds of infections. I suspect that the problem is my choice of keywords. Can you point me to a particular page in the pdf?

(Added clarity: I'm looking for support for the "both indirect and direct contact" statement. That frequent handwashing reduces transmission—in the artificial setting of a (large) healthcare provider, between adults, which is a caveat we need to include—is supported by the source.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe the source cited was already present before my changes, though I did amend the statement to add "indirect". Reading direct contact, I see that direct contact includes indirect contact, so I've removed this change. I have a cold and I'm not thinking clearly. :)

There was another problem with the 20% reduction in cold statement. Jefferson said in his meta-analysis, "Repeated handwashing significantly reduced the incidence of colds by as much as 20% in two trials.23 73". However the two trials cited are "Effectiveness of a training program in reducing infections in toddlers attending day care centers."[1] and "Hand hygiene and sickness among small children attending day care centres" [2], both of which are about adults washing hands to avoid spreading pathogens to children. I've punted, and gone back to the "it's recommended to clean hands" by "Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings" article, then moved the studies into a separate paragraph. I'll probably do some more work on this in the next day or two, specifically, the alcohol-based sanitizer paragraph doesn't seem supported by the reference, either. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you're over your cold by now. I have two thoughts:

• Rather than directly citing the two primary studies, we might be better off sticking with the guideline. (It amounts to an expert endorsement that the two studies are worth paying attention to.)
• What do you think about a section called ==Transmission==? We could dump all the transmission-related stuff into it, rather than spreading it about in cause, pathophysiology, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhatamIdoing, thanks for the good thoughts, I'm feeling better and presumably my viral load dropping rapidly, but this virus isn't done with me yet.

I think a Transmission section is a great idea. When I mentioned to a friend that colds like mine are mostly spread through direct contact, they asked me, "how long are the viruses contagious?". Right now, there's no good place to put this information in the article, and I had been mulling what new topic would be needed to add this data.

As far as referring to the meta-analysis instead of the particular studies, that's a good point in most cases and I think that's what I usually do, but this particular meta-analysis seemed to include no analysis at all about these two studies, and mentions them almost in passing. Linking to the abstracts that discuss that both studies were about toddlers in day care settings, and that one of them highlighted that monitoring itself changed outcomes, seems more useful to the reader than the single buried sentence "Repeated handwashing significantly reduced the incidence of colds by as much as 20% in two trials." That's my thought, at least, and it's not a strongly held one: if you change it back I wouldn't object. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi P.C.I.A.T, thanks for your interesting debate on the Malinspike article. I've traveled a lot and seen Customs / TSA play these games with simply random people. I believe what I believe on this point: Malinspike was singled out because he was "uncooperative" more than because of who he is. And quite honestly, that scares me even more than if he had been targeted, because it means we are all subject to such abuse. None the less, I've said what I have to say and am finished objecting to the paragraph in question. If you wish to remove the POV Tag, feel free. I will not, but you can if you want. Thanks! =//= Johnny Squeaky —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J.S., how the heck can you say with any authority what happened on the numerous times he was stopped?!? I don't understand how you could possibly say something like "There is no proof Marlinspike was targeted.", when there might, in fact, be proof that just wasn't publicized? Perhaps Mr. Marlinspike caught a glance at a gate screen, like Mr. Appelbaum did, but chose not to highlight it and/or the journalists decided that it was too tangential and didn't mention it? TSA lists aren't publicized and they'll never confirm or deny anything, even under subpoena, so they'll never be "proof" in a legal sense. I certainly concede that there's a chance you might be right, but given all the available data, I'd say there's at least a 50% chance that he's actually being targeted after appearing in Mr. Appelbaum's phone list. As they say, "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that people aren't out to get you". And assuming you've read the article I highlighted about Jacob Appelbaum, given his spokesman's appearance for Wikileaks, would you at least agree that it's clear Mr. Appelbaum is on a TSA watch list of some sort? ps: it's "Marlinspike". Pro crast in a tor (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's doing his deletionist thing again. Borium23 (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Specific carbohydrate diet. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, a single revert is not an edit war. I was trying out different wording in previous edit, cf [3]. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is not appropriate for an article talk page. if you want to discuss user behavior, please do that at a user talk page (as i am doing here) or at a community discussion board. Please see WP:TPG. I will refrain from responding there, to give you a chance to change it. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate reverts and POV-pushing are worth mentioning on the talk page, don't you think? I'm justifying every change I made, and asking for your comment. WP:Dispute_resolution says to use the talk page first. WP:AGF reads, "If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence", which is exactly what I've done. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

moved reply here, that was left on my talk page in this diff Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to my comment about your GMO article banning -- it's hard to tell, because I wrote about a dozen things and you simply called my edit "this" -- WP:No_personal_attacks says that a personal attacks are "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." And linking to your GMO article banning is exactly what I did. It was not a personal attack, it was a statement of fact. And I think seeing the same sort of behavior repeat itself should be called out. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, you replied twice, ok then. I cut/pasted the 2nd response here, to keep the conversation in one place.

In general, article talk pages are for discussion of article content. My topic ban is not about article content. I said nothing about personal attack nor about AGF. Please just WP:FOC. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to say, that when you do several things at once, the likelihood of getting them to stick goes down. It is good to do one thing at a time, especially when there is disagreement. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

jytdog, other editors should not have to make small changes one at a time in order to keep you from reverting my edit wholesale. When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. I know you haven't been around as long as I have, but you should know that by now. Or if something has changed, can you tell me where the new WP policy is that requires small edits to avoid wholesale reversion? Pro crast in a tor (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pro crast in a tor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am new here, but I have been asked by patients to update the page on the Specific Carbohydrate Diet as the information is very dated. With my healthcare background and as a speaker on the subject, I have made a revision to include 23 references in peer reviewed medical journals and to bring a more balanced and up to date page. It was reverted immediately without time to read, my original conversation with jytdog is continuously erased so it is hard to follow the discussion, but I will glad post it here if you may have time to read both articles and weigh in on the discussion. I have asked a third party to please also join the discussion, but without the discussion content it is hard for them to follow. As you have posted to the talk page previously, you are likely more knowledgeable on the subject and may have interest as well in updating the page. Many thanks.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Specific_carbohydrate_diet&oldid=869474734beall4```` 26 November.

In the Talk page for the article on Shellenberger, you had a discussion with SunshineMeadows2012 about the removal of the Criticism section you had added. When you get a chance, would you please look at the article again and see if it should be added back? I strongly suspect that SunshineMeadows2012 was attempting to game the system. In any case, regardless of the motives behind that edit, the lack of a Criticism section is a glaring omission. --Mar 15, 2019, Williambloom