User talk:Phenylalanine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phenylalanine.

If you leave a message for me: I will respond here. Either add this page to your watchlist or ask me to notify you of a response on your talk page.

If I leave a message for you: Respond on your talk page. I will add it to my watchlist, so you don't need to notify me.

This prevents the same discussion occurring in multiple stages on multiple pages.

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Phenylalanine! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 13:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summary Request

I have noted that you edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 13:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter November 2007

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter November 2007
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 04:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paleolithic-style Diet

I haven't looked into the WP policies specifically, but I'm quite sure that you can cite letters in peer-reviewed journals as sources, and that quoting from them (so long as you don't quote the entire text of the paper) is fair use. --Kajerm 22:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Thanks for you help!Phenylalanine 20:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter December 2007

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter Decemberr 2007
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 22:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter January 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter January 2008
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You deserve it. I'm sure there are few editors as meticulous as you. Kakofonous (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, are you readying the article for FAC? It seems that every time I take a look at my watchlist, you've changed another thing :) Kakofonous (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you a mind reader? Do you think I should give it a shot? --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not? You never know. Kakofonous (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it try. Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is now featured. Nice work! --Kakofonous (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work on Paleolithic diet

For your tireless and diligent effort on raising the article Paleolithic diet to featured article status and for the help you have given me in improving the article on the Paleolithic era I am awarding you a caveman!--Fang 23 (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I humbly accept this caveman. Thanks!! --Phenylalanine (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Phenylalanine, I just wanted to say the work you have done on this article, particularly since it has been featured has been nothing short of phenomenal. --WayneMokane (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. The article still requires some work: expanding the "basis" and "history" sections, formatting citations, improving flow in the criticism sections and getting some feedback from a paleodiet researcher (one researcher I e-mailed has already said he might make some comments!). Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paleolithic

Do you think this article is good enough now to be awarded Good article status?--Fang 23 (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You've done a heck of a job expanding and improving this article and I'd love to see this article achieve good article status. I'll take a closer look at the article ASAP and I'll give you my impressions on where it stands. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the picture of the beans on the Paleolithic article with a new more relevant picture.--Fang 23 (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I added this source that you suggested on the paleolithic talk page should be used in the article.--Fang 23 (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Phenylalanine (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paleolithic-style diet

Hi, TFAs are actually chosen by the FA Director, Raul654, so I'm afraid you'll have to check with him for the reasoning. I just update the article pages as Raul updates the archive. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for info. --Phenylalanine (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paleolithic-style diet on the main page

This is a fascinating article, which I learned a lot by reading. Thank you for all the work you put into it, and congratulations on getting it on the main page. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It means a lot! Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You survived the influx of vandalism on the article once it was on the main page! Congratulations. --Kakofonous (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't very productive at work today. I'm thrilled it was posted on the main page, but now I can rest... :-) --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations on featured artcle

Just wanted to congratulate you on your diligent work to enhance a formerly weak article - Paleolithic-style diet - into one that has now been deemed to be of sufficient quality to become a featured article on Wikipedia. Kudos to you! OccamzRazor (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. It's nice to be appreciated. ;) --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Enjoyed the pal-style diet article, beautifully built, informative – keep up the good work! Julia Rossi (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Merci! --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "China is a country"

Hi, I'm attempting a re-write of the opening of China to resolve the definitional issue that has plagued the article. I noticed that you commented previously on the issue. I've opened a straw poll to gauge whether consensus is to define "China is a country". Could I ask you to comment/vote at Talk:China#Straw poll? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I gave my opinion. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WPMED tags

I'm not sure why Natural foods and Whole foods have {{WPMED}} banners. This feels a little like tagging Water or Air as pages that the medicine project should improve. It doesn't seem to relate to medicine's core activities (diagnosing and treating patients), although obviously some related issues, like malnutrition and pesticide poisoning, are relevant. Did you have a particular idea in mind? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'll remove the banners. --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page numbers

There's no standard way, as long as the same format is used throughout the article. However, some reviewers dislike "pp. 250-1" as it looks untidy. Epbr123 (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Free textbook chapter available in PDF format-Biological anthropology

I went hunting and gathering around on the same site you found the other good textbook (http://www.ablongman.com/html/productinfo/millerwood/MillerWood_c08.pdf) for more good references and if found another free textbook preview on that site that provides more additional useful information about the evolution of humans and culture during the Paleolithic and Paleolithic technology society and religion. I am going to use it as a reference for the Paleolithic article. --Fang 23 (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)the link to the chapter I recently found

Also

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		You deserve this barnstar for doing an excellent job in continuing to improve the Paleolithic diet article and in helping me on the Paleolithic articleFang 23 (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

(Discussion copied from SandyGeorgia's talk page for reference) Are "letters to the editor" published in peer-reviewed journals considered reliable sources on Wikipedia? Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

They are reliable only to the extent that they are an indication of what the author believes or stated; they aren't reliable, vetted, peer-reviewed statements. They are opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To jump in on this... They aren't peer-reviewed, but they are "vetted" in so far as the journal editor(s) has accepted them for publication. In those journals with which I'm familiar that include such letters (and very few do; I'm thinking for instance of the Publications of the Modern Language Association), they are an important forum for criticism and discussion of the journal's articles. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear if all journals vet them to the same extent, or if some journals are less persnickity about what they will print. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am wandering whether this one is "vetted"... because I'm using it as a source of criticism in the article "Paleolithic diet". This letter does cite sources for all it's claims, sources which I added in the article on top of the letter to the editor to support the criticisms. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

TimVickers (talk · contribs) or Eubulides (talk · contribs) would probably know, or you could ask at WP:MED. Even if they agree it's "vetted", you might want to be sure to directly attribute the text to the author in the body of the article, to make it clear that it's someone's opinion. (By the way, do you have time to look at Colin's Ketogenic diet?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. The Ketogenic diet looks interesting. I'll take a look at it. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Phenylalanine, for your comments. I'll try to address them. From the mistakes you found, I believe you are a very careful reader. I see you've decided to take a wikibreak, which is Wikipedia's (temporary) loss. Hope you come back refreshed. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 14:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome.--Phenylalanine (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On the reliability of letters to the editor

(Discussion copied from the WPMED talk page for reference) Are "letters to the editor" published in peer-reviewed journals considered reliable sources on Wikipedia? I was told that some letters are "vetted" when the journal editor(s) accept them for publication. I am wandering whether this one is "vetted" because I'm using it as a source of criticism in the article "Paleolithic diet". Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're okay there. Think of it as being more like a magazine article than a scientific report. You're allowed to cite The Economist or New Scientist, and this material has similar qualities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Letters are typically not peer reviewed, just reviewed by the journal editors. This effectively reduces their scientific power, but not dramatically. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's an important point - they're reviewed in the same sense that letters to the editor published in a reputable newspaper are reviewed. An editor thought they made an interesting or debatable point. They are not vetted extensively for scientific accuracy, and they naturally tend to reflect the specific opinion of the letter writer. They are potentially citable, but we should be careful not to put them on the same level of reliability/weight as actual journal articles. BTW, "Rapid Responses" from the BMJ seem to make frequent appearances when there's a minoritarian POV to be pushed - these are a special case and are no more reliable than lightly-moderated blog commentary. MastCell ^Talk 22:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What about NEJM? They ran a blatantly inaccurate full journal article on Tourette's once, they never retracted, but they did run one letter to the editor the next month from a neurologist, who pointed out that their article was just Wrong. How did that happen? In this case, the Letter to the editor was more accurate than the peer-reviewed journal article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] health or medicine?

I'm interested in your opinion on where Paleolithic diet should be classified. I see you've added it to Category:Medical treatments. Based on that paper, would the sub-Category:Experimental medical treatments be better? IMO it only becomes a "medical treatment" if used clinically rather than experimentally. Even if it does have a use as a medical treatment, are most people adopting/promoting this diet as a means to a statistically better chance of improved health and lifespan? That puts it in the same category as high fibre or low fat eating choices, though it is more complex than either. Colin°^Talk 12:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Paleolithic diet is said to specifically prevent all diet-related diseases(!). But that remains to be experimentally proved, you're right. Thanks a lot for making me aware of the sub-category. I'll replace the category I added with it. I would prefer this diet be moved to the category "medicine" on the "Featured article" page, as the diet is promoted as a (hypothetical) benchmark for optimal health, not for weight-loss or other lifestyle reasons. --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Categorising isn't easy. People lose weight for health reasons (both to cure and prevent illness) as well as social reasons (appearance). The proposed split into "Biology / Health and medicine" may help make the problem go away. Why don't you add your 2p to the discussion? Colin°^Talk 16:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation style in medical journals?

(Discussion copied from the WPMED talk page for reference) What is the most widely used citation style in medical journals? Many thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals are widely followed. They require the use of the Vancouver style for citation formatting. See this summary. PubMed follows this style, though they drop any restriction on the length of author lists (et al), which is understandable since they are a database, not paper. Colin°^Talk 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)