User talk:JSpudeman/archive02

NPA

Of course you can. Only the arbcom can ban people from articles, not a simple old admin like me. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I would recommend discussing it on the talk page of NPA first. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I added it as Wikipedia:No personal attacks/temp Spum 11:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Glutamine

Hi. I removed the inuse tag, since it looks like you forgot about it. I'm checking out the rest of the article, now. --Viriditas 13:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why glutamine should be in that category. Can you show a precedent for any other amino acids that are categorized in such a way? (Please remember to add your sig to your original commment) --Viriditas 09:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you answered me or not. Can you show that any other amino acid is categorized in such a way? --Viriditas 09:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You may be interested in checking out Wikipedia:Category and the associated links at the top of that page. If there is a section of the glutamine article which could be better categorized under nutrition and dietetics, then you have a good argument for splitting the article off of that page (thus creating a new article and linking back to the original) and expanding it under another title, such as Glutamine (nutrition) or perhaps a better title. Then, yes, you could easily categorize that page under nutrition and dietetics. -Viriditas 09:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, well - i've read the page prior to adding it; and once again, it fails to satisfy my queries. It's becoming habit now :-/ Spum 09:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:How to break up a page and Wikipedia:Article size. I think you have a good argument for creating a new glutamine article related to nutrition, and categorizing that page. Put a small paragraph on the original article with a main template at the top under the heading {{main|Glutamine (nutrition)}} or whatever you want to call it, and start a new article. --Viriditas 09:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, still - dilemma is; if i named it (dietetics) or (nutrition), then mentioning the other would be off topic due to the title of the article? Spum 10:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, just the opposite. You're splitting the text off for treatment in a nutrition context. For example, in the nutrition section you have now, you would summarize the main points and add a link like this:

Nutrition

Main article: Glutamine (nutrition)

Summarize the main points in one paragraph and move the rest of your content to your new article. Categorize it as you wish.

--Viriditas 10:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, validation!

[10:10:03] <JesseW> Spum: I agree, you should add the nutrition cats to glutimate; good idea.[10:10:03] Spum 10:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at taurine. Do you see how they group the main cats? If you're going to categorize glutimate, it would be better to add glutimate to a sub-cat under nutrition, instead. --Viriditas 10:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Now take a look at the end result of adding Category:Dietetics to Category:Dietary supplements. That saves you a whole lot of work, and streamlines the process. Notice, glutamine is now a member of the dietary supplements cat. --Viriditas 10:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Aye, you're right :-) Spum 11:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Thanks for the Holiday message, Spum. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you. BTW, if you ever have free time, could you take a look at Vegan nutrition? It's a huge mess and desperately needs your expertise. --Viriditas 00:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Its OK. We have been discussing moving across the nutrition section from the vegan article as a starting point to develop the vegan nutrition page. For once consensus has been easy and good. Viriditas will of course reverse any edits I make out of habit but the rest of the regular contributors seem cool about this.195.82.106.69 01:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikistalking is harassment, 195.82.106.69. I suggest you stop. --Viriditas 01:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hi, and thanks for the invite. I don't know how much help I can be, but I will make an effort to drop in and take a look at some point. Thanks again for thinking of me. --Viriditas 07:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Howdy

Just want to say that I'm impressed with the behavior change I've seen in your actions on here. Keep up the good work! Oh and I agree with you on the class action suit. It's a complete joke. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, as I told you when we first crossed paths, if you argue issues and not people here, you will do just fine. You will never get all you want on here. Trust me. :) The key is to work with other users to try to get as much as you can. God, I sound like a teacher. :-D --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm still here, though I'm ready to give up my adminship. I'd discourage anyone from becoming an admin. It's just a pain. People seem to forget the "neutral admin" part. It gets to you after awhile. Happy New Year to you too! --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)--Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Well the problem is that people assume you are on a "side". It's like. No. I'm here to uphold policy. I'm just tired of being told that I'm things I'm. This week I've been called...racist...a censor...a jerk...and my favorite, anti-Gibraltar! It's just insane. And I have 0 interest in any of the articles themselves that I'm being called these things on. It's all from (correct) actions I've taken. Anyway. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Vegan nutrition

Thanks for taking a look at vegan nutrition. It's a very interesting topic that will greatly benefit from your expertise. --Viriditas 11:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy new year! --Viriditas 12:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

re: Misunderstanding

My thanks for the clarification on your intent. I indeed think we can work to improve the wording a bit to be more lucid. One concern of mine though is still the pertinence of said material. Namely the point that Vegans who do not attain correct dietary advice, and pursue a route whereby they eat vegetables which contain minimal amounts of protein as well as neglect to monitor protein intake; Can lead to protein deficiency. Within the self-identified vegan community I am wont to believe that this sort of protein deficiency is almost non-existent, precisely because legumes, lentils, soya, and other beans are not specialty foods for the vegan.

The point you raise seems to me at least more appropriate in the general context of a poor and lacking diet. Here is an illustration of my thoughts. Let F be the set of all food, V the set of vegan food, and P the set of foods consumed in a poor/lacking diet. Clearly a poor/lacking diet can be vegan, and the points you raise pertain precisely when P is a subset of V. However, the intersection of V and P is theoretically fairly small. Let S now be the set of food consumed by the Standard self-identified vegan. Generally, the intersection between S and V is probably fairly large (that is to say, most vegans probably consume a significant portion of what is vegan). Thus the percentage of vegans that restrict themselves to P are few and abnormal (anorexics, starving people in Ethiopia), ergo are the concerns you raise pertinent to the set V?

Basically, this is just to say that a vegan diet has a certain connotation that extends beyond just non-animal products, that is to say its basic definition. Since this connotation is not part of the vegan definition I must conceede that your points do have a certain pertinence. I speak mainly from experience and observation, and feel confident in saying that most vegans are in somewhat sensitive to nutrition, and, to be blunt, don't eat just a lot of crap. Therefor they probably eat mainly from insection of healthy vegan foods H with V.

In closing I want to thank you for most of your recent edits, as they have vastly improved the article. I will see if I cannot take a look at some of the wording. I still feel that the general spirit of the above information is malplaced within a vegan context, and perhaps there is another avenue where it can be expressed. I shall have to ponder the issue a bit more myself, though have no intention of an edit war or the like. Take care! Shawn M. O'Hare 20:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I defer to your own experience as a dietician, and you have convinced me that the information does have its pertinence. I just went through most the article again and cleaned up some sentences, and also wrote a few sentences that, if we work on them, might appease both of us. I did not include the following yet, as I wanted you to look at it first. Italics represents what is not yet added.

Vegan nutrition, like any Healthy diet relates closely to the practices of limiting the intake of fats, salts, and sugar, as well as avoiding foods which contain high quantities of such substances in order to avoid heightened cholesterol. Balance is particularly important for vegans because of the inheirant lack of protein sources from vegetables standard to the traditional Western diet. Vegans who do not attain correct dietary advice and solely eat vegetables which contain minimal amounts of protein and minerals can become nutrient deficient. Therefor it is important to augment a vegan diet with a variety of foods, such as legumes, lima beans, lentils, or chick peas.

Alternatively, I think we could be fine merely saying some form of Balance is particularly important for vegans because of the inheirant lack of protein sources from some common vegetables. Vegans who do not attain correct dietary advice and solely eat vegetables which contain minimal amounts of protein and minerals can become nutrient deficient. Therefor it is important to augment a vegan diet with a variety of foods, such as legumes, lima beans, lentils, or chick peas.

I feel that perhaps referring to a traditional Western diet, or "non-specific" foods is a bit too culturally biased. For instance, chickpeas and lentils are a staple of Indian food, tofu common in Japan. I feel that your concerns over people who think vegan diet=vegetables is addressed in the sentence that I basically took from your comment on my talk page, that Vegans who do not attain correct dietary advice and solely eat...

Language wise I am not 100% pleased with what I wrote up above, but I am a bit of a perfectionist.

Also, in the article you wrote there are still substances which cannot be attained through plant or fat-containing foods. For example - the lack of dairy foods within a diet could lead to minor malnourishment, due to lessened amounts of calcium and riboflavin. Were calcium and riboflavin meant to be these substances not attained through plant foods? I always thought tofu, nuts, hard water, and kale contained rather high amounts of calcium. I think in some circumstances (i.e., with the "non-specific" food comment) we should be more explicit.

Finally, what is your opinion on a section in the article that comments on perhaps negative factors of the "standard Western diet." I am cursorily aware of many of these negatives, but as a non-dietician I can't exactly sift through actual information and mere duplicitous propaganda. I could perhaps gather a collection of negatives one finds in common vegan literature, for you to possibly evaluate? Or maybe this entire idea would just muddle Vegan nutrition and belongs in some other article. On further thought I indeed feel it not pertinent to Vegan nutrition. Shawn M. O'Hare 13:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (I accidently responded to you without being logged in, so have edited it now to correct a few things I wrote and make it my time stamp).

Lord Voldemort

Keep up the good work. :-) --Deathphoenix 20:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Name picture

Thank you Spum and Stephanie for the "name picture". I like it very much. I'm looking forward to seeing Spum's name picture, soon. --Viriditas 14:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to keep the name picture on my talk page, for now. --Viriditas 02:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well great!

I'm glad things are turning out ok. I've been holding you up as my success story. :) Unfortunately, 99% of the users who have ever been blocked on here, even for just a few hours, never learn. You did and that's great. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom

No, you were denied suffrage because your account is too new. Your account is required to be made before September 30. It's to prevent sockpuppeteering. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 14:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)