User talk:Vitaminman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Author notable?
How does this reference [1] meet WP:SOURCE? Looks like a non-notable, non-expert blogger. --Ronz 21:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Emma Holister is a notable figure in the health freedom movement and is well versed in the issues. She is already referenced in the Health freedom artists stub, for example. She has her own websites at http://www.candida-international.org/ and http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/emma_holister/ Her articles and cartoons also feature on many of the popular health freedom websites. For examples, see http://www.laleva.cc/supplements/abc_holister.html and http://www.thenhf.com/vaccinations_98.htm and Rath International magazine http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/pdf-files/ri_2006_02_en.pdf --Vitaminman 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think such credentials make her blog an appropriate source. I'm bringing this up on the article talk page. Mind if I copy your response above to it as well? --Ronz 23:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree to differ, of course, and by all means copy my response to the talk page. --Vitaminman 08:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think such credentials make her blog an appropriate source. I'm bringing this up on the article talk page. Mind if I copy your response above to it as well? --Ronz 23:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
I think Health freedom movement is developing well and you're doing a great job working with the other editors on it. I wish other alt-med-related articles had such cooperative editors. --Ronz 16:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Ronz; your words of encouragement about my work on the Health freedom movement article are much appreciated. Whilst I have now begun to branch out a little into some other alt-med-related articles recently, I'll probably continue to concentrate mostly on Health freedom movement for the time being until I'm sure that it's well on course. --Vitaminman 18:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quackbusters
I have been working for the last days on the Vitamin C and Vitamin C megadosage pages and I have witnessed unfair practices, lack of neutrality and an apparent lack of self-criticism from the part of a bunch of editors who perceive themselves as being on a mission. I am asking you to have a look and see if you could compel them to address criticisms and if you could contribue a little. All this is making me very sad and angry. You can also check my user page. Thanks in advance. I see that you are a very competent and diligent editor. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 08:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Health freedom movement
While there are a number of ways that the current dispute could be approached (See WP:DR), there's specialized help at WP:NPR that might be appropriate as well. --Ronz 22:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Citation templates
Hi,
If you're adding lots of sourced information, you may want to consider using citation templates, which is an easy way of creating a standardized citation to various information sources. There's also various tools to generate them, such as the following:
Thanks, WLU (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Opposition to the supplements directive
I'm fairly sure I remember reading about German opposition to the listing of St John's Wort, which is very popular there. Though I suppose it's not really a supplement. --Red King (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- The EU's Food Supplements Directive http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_183/l_18320020712en00510057.pdf only deals with vitamins and minerals. St Johns Wort comes under the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_136/l_13620040430en00850090.pdf which is a separate thing entirely. The legal challenge was brought against the Food Supplements Directive. Vitaminman 21:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image with brand visible
Hello!
I see you removed the image from Multivitamin in this edit. You say in the edit summary "Removed photo on the grounds that the product's brand name is clearly visible in it."
I was not aware this was a wikipedia policy - can you point me to any document explaining it?
Thanks, and greetings from England! Mike1024 (t/c) 18:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. An article on multivitamins that includes an image of a bottle whose brand name is clearly visible certainly contravenes WP:IUP and probably WP:NPOV as well. Vitaminman 23:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific, please, about how those policies are violated? Pages like Webcam, Mobile phone and Digital audio player all show branded products. Is there a particular line, section, numbered rule or similar within WP:IUP or WP:NPOV which deals with products with brands clearly visible? Thanks, Mike1024 (t/c) 16:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am not aware of a particular line, section, numbered rule or similar within the policies you cite that specifically deals with articles containing photographs that have brands clearly visible. Specifically, however, my reading of these policies suggest to me that the use of such photographs arguably contravene WP:Undue weight and that wherever possible a photograph that does not show a brand name should be used instead. Vitaminman 17:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific, please, about how those policies are violated? Pages like Webcam, Mobile phone and Digital audio player all show branded products. Is there a particular line, section, numbered rule or similar within WP:IUP or WP:NPOV which deals with products with brands clearly visible? Thanks, Mike1024 (t/c) 16:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] My apologies
I responded to you on the Health Freedon talk page and mispelt your name because I was lazy and didn't read what I was posting prior to putting it up. I hate spelling peoples names incorrectly whether it's their real name or not. I did make the corretion immediately. I know this isn't a big deal but it is a pet peeve of mine, and I just wanted to let you know I am sorry.
You have worked hard on this article, I like your idea about deleting the red links sections. I wish I could help you on the article but I don't know much in this area except minor things and real life prevents me from doing proper research to know what I am talking about. So I pop in ocassionally to see how the article is going, I hope this is ok when I make little suggestions without helping out. Have a wonderful, heathy day, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, don't worry about misspelling my name, I promise that I won't take it to heart. :-) Glad you agree about deleting the red links sections. Think I'll wait a few days to see what others think before I dive in, just to be on the safe side. In the meantime, take care and have a fantastic weekend! Vitaminman (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus
Hi there, since I see you have worked with this editor at multivitamin, you might want to comment on this RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, yes, I've worked on that article and have noticed that editor's name here and there. But I'm not familiar with the issues being discussed in this RfC, so its probably best that I leave it to those editors who are.Vitaminman (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for having a look. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

