User talk:Harej/Archive02

Military history Collaboration of the Fortnight

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)

Approved Article question/comment

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)

Topics by country

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)

Thanks. Cattus 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 5th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 36	5 September 2006	About the Signpost

Everyking desysopped	Explicit images spark debate
Report from the Italian Wikipedia	The English Wikipedia reaches 1,000 administrators
Voting begins in Board elections	Wikipedia in the news
News and notes	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

Ziad Jarrah

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)

Wooooo

HI MESSEDROCKER! :D:D:D:D:D:D --CableModem 02:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, look who's hyper! —this is messedrocker (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am eating Frosted Mini-Wheats. --CableModem 02:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

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)

Signpost updated for September 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

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

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)

Barrio 19

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 (TheJoker) 21:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

RFA

I have promoted you to Sysop. Raul654 08:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to change the water in the bucket. Teke ^(talk) 13:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done on your RfA success! Please ask if you have any questions about being an admin - I will do my best to answer you! (aeropagitica) 15:02, 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)

• Congratulations! Michael 17:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Enjoy your new mop. See ya around! JungleCat talk/contrib 19:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, Messedrocker! Have fun as a sysop! --Nishkid64 20:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Congratulations from me as well. :) --TBCTaLk?!? 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• My pleasure, and congratulations! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Congratulations! Keep up the good work. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 23:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Congrats. Sorry If I had messed your user page while adding the admin logo. Doctor BrunoTalk 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Congrtats from me too - you'd be a fine admin. If you've any problems, feel free to leave me a note. Grutness...wha? 23:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your promotion, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian - Talk 02:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there

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)

Pete Carroll semi-protect request:

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)

Thank you. I realize at the time it was less vandalized, but I assumed it would end up getting the brunt of it after their little game with GameDay was taken away (one out of five of the previous GameDay vandals also went after this article). Thanks again :-) --Bobak 01:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Go raibh maith agat!

File:Ireland 37 bg 061402.jpg

Hi there, messed rocker!

Thank you so much for supporting my RfA! It ended up passing and I'm rather humbled by the support (and a bit surprised that it was snowballed a day early!). Please let me know if I can help you out and I welcome any comments, questions, or advice you wish to share.

Sláinte!

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)

Wow! That's awesome (especially compared to my own puny log; I think I have two blocks and two deletions under my belt)! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 04:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A poem

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)

It is truly a godsend for The Mekon to write a poem for you. --Dreaded Walrus 22:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate Name

Please delete this user. He has a completly inappropriate username for Wikipedia. Implificator 03:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC) (Thunderhead on Wikinews)

Pre-emptive protection

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)

what do u make of this

Ryodox [2] 66.246.72.108 13:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 38	18 September 2006	About the Signpost

"Citizendium" project aims to rival Wikipedia	Report from the Simple English Wikipedia
News and notes	In the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and International Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

Helping out with the backlog

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)

DYK

On 20 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article NicVax, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

• Let's hope this vaccine doesn't stop the DYK facts reaching the reader's brains. ;) --Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

RNLB Guy and Claire Hunter

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)

Signpost updated for September 25th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 39	25 September 2006	About the Signpost

Erik Möller declared winner in Board of Trustees election	Wikimania 2007 to be held in Taipei
Arbitration clerk Tony Sidaway resigns	Report from the Dutch Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

Thank you for Semi-protecting Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy

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)

Please look at the page history. If you will, you will see that DietLimeCola showed up there as a vandal a few weeks ago. When the POV and fancruft they added were deleted, DLC started an edit war on the page, using either sockpuppets, or friends with different user names editing the article from the same computer. Either way, it's the same thing. The article was fully protected for almost 2 weeks, during which time DLC appeared to become contrite and willing to work with the community. As soon as the protection was lifted (by my request), DLC began to edit the article using poor grammer and sentence structure, and adding POV. Take a look at the edits made during the past 24 hours, and decide for yourself who is damaging the page. If anybody is intent on having their own way with the page, it's DietLimeCola. Most of the kind of edits this user is adding have long ago been discussed and discounted by the community, but DLC is not willing to accept that. I have just finished cleaning up the page again: I suggest that you go there later today, and look to see if DLC has changed it again. Pay particular attention to the sentence structure and grammer, neither of which is up to Wikipedia standards. I and a few others have been keeping this article cleaned up and meeting Wikipedia standards for months. Now DietLimeCola has decided to "own" the page, and is not willing to accept the will of the community. Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to work? I think not. -- Elaich 15:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection of Bindi Irwin

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)

hat on arbitration

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)

River Dell Regional High School

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)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.

The Wikipedia Signpost

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

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)

List of missing articles.

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)

• Go ahead - I cannot write about all of the topics myself so wider awareness would be welcome. But could you add additional topics to the thematic pages as well? - Skysmith 22:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 41	9 October 2006	About the Signpost

Interview with Board member Erik Möller	Wall Street Journal associates Wikipedia with Grupthink
Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down	Report from the Portuguese Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

Signpost updated for October 16th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 42	16 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wikipedia partially unblocked in mainland China	$100 million copyright fund stems discussion
Floyd Landis adopts "the Wikipedia defense" as appeal strategy	News and notes: Logo votes begin, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

NicVax etc.

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)

article referencing drive

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)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.

The Wikipedia Signpost

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

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 Messedrocker,

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)

Streisand Estate

Well done, thanks for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Streisand_Estate.JPG&diff=68968076&oldid=68724759 ... --Rebroad 18:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Full Protection to prevent ongoing edit war

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)

RuneScape

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)

Oh, scratch that. Centrx ruined the fun. :P Cowman109^Talk 02:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalsim on the Soy protein Article.

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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?title=Soy_protein&diff=84481323&oldid=84461028 63.17.100.99 20:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Impostor

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)

Signpost updated for October 30th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 44	30 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wales resigns chair position as reorganization underway	Hypothetical valuation of Wikipedia scrutinized
Work underway to purge plagiarized text from articles	Librarian creates video course about Wikipedia
Report from the Japanese Wikipedia	News and notes: Commemorative mosaic started, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

{{Countries of Europe}}

Hi James,

• Template talk:Countries of Europe#Recent changes (specifically ¶18)

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)

• Template talk:Countries of Europe#Outside review

...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)

Re: Article Referencing Drive

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)

Signpost updated for November 6th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 45	6 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration election campaigns begin	Blogger studies Wikipedia appearance in search results
Intelligence wiki receives media attention	Report from the German Wikipedia
News and notes: Foundation donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

POV Editor

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/w/index.php?title=Soy_protein&diff=84737970&oldid=84722550 <<< He claims the informatiom is incorrect one day!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

In regards to your concerns, if you honestly believe that Yankee is running sockpuppets, please file a request for checkuser. This will verify his use of sockpuppets. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 05:07, 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)

One thing I notice is that when he removed it the first time, the information had no source. Then when he re-added it, there was some sort of sourcing. Maybe his concerns are about sourcing in the article. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 14:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was a source there when it was originally removed. Perhaps he removed the information thinking it was false, then he realized there was a source and re-added the information. It's best that you assume good faith. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 15:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That was the case. I requested that the anon user provide a source - see his/her talk page - they returned with the edit and the source. Yankees76 19:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct Info Below.

Biological value of soy protein

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. Nonetheless, the Biological Value (BV) methodology is an accurate indicator of biological activity for protein quality and utilization in humans. 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. Attached below is Table 7.7.

Biological Evaluation of Soybean Food Products Based on Experiments with Human Subjects*****

• Source of Protein *Bological Value **Digestibility
• Immature bean: 65
• Whole bean : *96 ** 91
• Defatted soy flour: *81 **92
• Full-fat soy flour: *64 **84
• Soybean milk: *91 **89
• Soybean curd(Tofu): *64 **96
• Soy protein isolate: *71 **85
• Textured soy flour: *81 **92
• Eggs: *97 **97
• Milk(cow): *90 **91
• White wheat flour: *41 **97

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.

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)

RE:POV Editor

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)

Hopefully you've addressed some of that message to the anon, because I'm not really accusing you of anything. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 19:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Sorry if it wasn't clear. My bad. Yankees76 20:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Proof

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 won't go anywhere until you assume good faith, anonymous user. Consider that. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That's merely speculation on the part of th anon user and defamation of character. Proof would require to him/her 1)List what IP socks I'm using 2)Demonstrate how I'm connected to those IP addresses. So far all I see is finger pointing and wild accusations - all amounting to nothing. As a side note, if the BV of say Defatted soy flour is not 81 - what is it? Anon seems so sure the information in the table is incorrect, then surely they must have the answer?

Again, anon provide some real proof about your sockpuppet accusations, and I'm being quite serious about this. If you're going to run around and attempt to sully my name on Wikipedia, at least have something to back it up. Yankees76 21:25, 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)

It looks pretty good, though I'm a bit concerned that the website is operated by a corporation that deals with protein — the facts may be warped a bit. Anyways, I'm going to do a bit of research on what it uses as references and see if it's acceptable. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 04:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As am I. What authority published that website? It appears rather unscrupulous to me. Nutrition and supplement companies/websites are notorious for using obscure studies/values in order to meet their marketing agenda. The whey protein industry is no different. For years they were saying whey had a BV of 159, and they still use 104 in many instances, which as anyone with any sort of nutrition/biology background will know, is physically impossible. The source for egg being 93.7 is quite real and easily verifiable. If it's 30 years out of date, it's odd that not only does The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations recognize 93.7, but so does Iowaegg.org, Canadaegg.com [6] who hosted the 2004 Egg Symposium in Banff Alberta; The National Egg Coordination Committee [7], Utah State University [8], The Michigan Farm Bureau [9], FLEX magazine (May 2002)[10], the Egg Nutriton Center [11], and numerous other sources of which I'll link to a few just to cover all the bases: Chapter3.pdf, [12], [13], [14]

Hmm, anon, that doesn't really look like 100 is "universally accepted" now does it? Water boiling at 100 Celsuis would be, but unfortuneately, this isn't, unless it appears that alot of people are "playing games", or maybe - and let me throw this wild theory there - maybe, it's really just one anonymous Wikipedia user playing games, and wasting time and resources so that they can make themselves feel special when they think they've won the "game" or "closed the case", as you've so often called this edit war you've been engaged in since late October (oh, and let's not forget making sockpuppet accusations they don't have a shred of evidence to back up - I'm still waiting for this evidence by the way). And while were on this topic of evidence, can you post the links the journal entries that those two studies (Harper, Renner) appeared in? No, don't post what you've copied and pasted from a search engine or what Designer Whey is referencing to back up a marketing claim - I can use google just as well as the next guy, if the studies were peer reviewed, they'll be published in a reputable journal and available online.I find it odd that people are still funding studies in 2000 on something that was figured out at the turn of the last century. Let's have a look at these updated "studies". Yankees76 06:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the study by Harper and it doesn't seem to make any sorta reference to what wheyprotein.com said on that page about BV. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 06:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. A number of the studies referenced don't quite match up to what the text is saying. It's almost as if they were pulled from the bottom of a related article and passed off as verifiable for the claim made. Yankees76 06:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Amusing. The table that Yankees76 is working on is also confusing. It is quite funny too. The studies the anon 24 has provided dates back over 50 years. Interesting. Oh by the way. Not only are the studies outdated the book is as well. Even more interesting is the updated book may have the updated BV. Hmmm. Updated 1997 Edition!!! The dusty old book provided by the anon 24 is not up to date. If you want the updated copy with the up to date facts you may be able to find it at a library. Someone should tell Yankees76 that the outdated studies and the outdated book is not acceptable by Wikipeida's standards. I wonder when will he finally get it!!! The information the anon socks provided does not belong in any encyclopedia, period. CASE CLOSED!!! 67.150.247.146 20:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (Off Topic: I think we both know exactly who the anon socks is. Isn't that right Yankess76. It is so obvious.)

Unfortunuately, unless there is more recent information, older information has to be used. I would appreciate it if you could find more recent information, add it onto the table on the talk page, and properly cite it. Also, please stop making allegations of sockpuppetry (this goes for all sides of this dispute) until you can provide evidence. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've already provided evidence needed - I've had a WP:RFCU performed that came back as confirmed, Gingko100 has already blocked all the socks and continues to block new ones as they surface - and she's also taking steps towards making this an RfC/user and even going straight to ArbCom to end this nonsense once and for all. Yankees76 00:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The 1997 edition of the book is the more recent edition of the book than is cited in the table. The table is using an outdated edition of the book with outdated studies. The anon Ip 24 has given info from an outdated book when a newer edition is avaialble. I have already found more recent information, the 1997 edition!!! So the table that cites the old dusty book must go. 50 year old studies are outdated when there are newer studies available. Case Closed. 67.150.247.146 21:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What about for those who cannot afford a $150 book to update an article? (My library does not seem to carry it). ★MESSEDROCKER★ 21:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You can ask your local library to request a copy from another library. Or just add amusing (as well as confusing) info to the article. 50 year old studies is a nice joke. Interesting indeed. 67.150.247.146 21:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I emphasized that I was using a region-wide search engine that searched all the libraries in this northern half of the state (and part of the southern part). Though I suppose I can ask the library to order it. Y'know, I'd like to someday start a library of my own. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 22:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for sockpuppet proof

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)

If you don't mind, I would prefer if my user space wasn't used to fight wars between people that aren't related to article collaboration. This message applies both to Yankees76 and the anonymous editor. That being said, I don't think it's so much that the biological values are suddenly changing, but that they're coming up with better evaluations now that science has improved so much in the last fifty years. Remember when they thought trans fats were good for you? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I wouldn't like it either - sorry. See the problem with having a BV of 100 for egg lies in the methodology of determining the Biological value of protein. Basically the number value assigned is a % (nitrogen retained/nitrogen absorbed times 100). In the old days, egg was considered to have highest BV and was assigned a 100, meaning 1 gram of nitrogen was absorbed for 1 gram ingested. However, when a protein supplement is listed as having a BV over 100, the company/scientist has intentionally manipulated the number for marketing purposes or unintentionally confused BV with another method of rating protein quality. Certain whey protein proponents claim that whey is "superior to whole egg" so the percentage sign on BV had to be dropped and the scale extended beyond 100. That's why you see sources listing whey as 104. But if you open up any nutrition textbook it will tell you that it is impossible to have a BV over 100. Since it is thermodynamically impossible for the body to store more nitrogen than was ingested, a BV of over 100 is equally impossible. That's why egg has been re-evaluated and is listed at 93.7 with whey at 100. Any chart that shows egg at 100 and whey at 104 is either outdated or manipulated unscientifically. That's why as well, sources that I've listed showing egg at 93.7 tend to be more reputable sources (councils, boards, bureaus, organizations), while anon's sources, tend to be more corporate/company related (Turn up the Heat, Yahoo search results showing Designer Whey Protein etc.) Yankees76 05:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 13th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 46	13 November 2006	About the Signpost

Full accessibility, dramatic growth reported for Chinese Wikipedia	ArbCom elections: Information on Elections
Report identifies Wikipedia as a leader in non-US traffic	News and notes: Board passes four resolutions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

WP:POPE

Brilliant! (Radiant) 11:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

referencing drive

When do you intend to select the next article from the referencing drive? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 21:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your reply. If Islam remains the only nominated article, can you wait until the improvement drive ends to select for the referencing drive? ;) Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 11:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the compliment. Cheers, --TBCΦtalk? 10:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)