User talk:Shulae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Shulae, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --*Kat* 04:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Feingold

I see you're making progress on the project page. I haven't got much time to check it out at the moment, but when you think you have got something that's ready for prime-time, please nudge me! You can also ask me about formatting etc. if it's not looking the way you want or expect.

Thanks for the effort, and keep up the good work! --Slashme 11:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


Thank you. It will be a while I think. I'm having some trouble with external links or footnotes. I've been just using the external links for now, but I suppose they should become footnotes eventually. --Shulae 13:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Was I supposed to answer you on HERE or somewhere else? -Shulae 13:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, missed that comment. It's reasonable to answer here, but then I don't get a flag telling me that I got a message, so it's best to make a note on my talk page as well.

As for the external links and footnotes: It's best to make footnotes with the complete citation of the article, so that the user is not dependent on another site being up to be able to get the reference. When I put this material up for the first time, I was still pretty green, and I screwed up a bit. What you have to do is, for each reference, decide on a name or number, for example, you could call your first reference "Rimland83". If you want to refer to that article, type {{ref|Rimland83}}. This will give a footnote, like this.[1]. Then at the end of the article, under the ==References== section, type #{{note|Rimland83}} followed by the actual reference, in the Journal reference style if it's a journal ref., or another appropriate style.

Important: You have to keep the references in the text in the same sequence as at the bottom of the article, otherwise the numbering is out. This is something that I, as a LaTeX user, didn't anticipate, so the numbering in my version is way out.

You can find templates for these at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations

I have also included the reference for that particular article here in a mock reference section.

Notes: If you link any outside articles, you have to give them text, like you have been doing so far. If you don't (like for example, [2]), you can foul up your numbering. Also, if you have to refer to an article twice, you need to jump through a hoop or two. The details are at Wikipedia:Footnotes#Example_with_multiple_references_to_the_same_footnote. It's not so hard once you get the hang of it, but the task was a bit big for me on this article by the time that I had figured out how it worked.

Hope this helps --Slashme 18:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ↑  Rimland B (1983). "The Feingold diet: an assessment of the reviews by Mattes, by Kavale and Forness and others.". Journal of Learning Disabilities 16 (6): 331–333. 

[edit] Food dye

Hi Shula!

I've been a bit busy lately, and have decided to put my Wikipedia activity on the back burner for a while, :-( but I will definitely make time to do some proofreading etc. when you get around to editing the Feingold Diet page. I only saw your comment today, because we had a conference at work last week.

As for the food dye article, I would suggest that you change the wording to say that those studies are quoted by manufacturers of food dyes, and note your criticism of their methodology. If you can cite a review article that addresses these issues, it would be excellent. In summary: I wouldn't suggest removing the references themselves, but just adding context so that readers can see both sides of the argument.

Hope that helps!

David --Slashme 07:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Schoenthal-headbig.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Schoenthal-headbig.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 08:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feingold diet/Objections

Hi Shula!

I see you've started hacking away at the Feingold diet page again. Good for you! This should spur me into action in a week or so (when I take a break from "advancing the frontiers of science" ;] ). I see you put in a query: "Jane's book - 46 pgs to read online - permissible? .... please advise".

That's a bit cryptic. Do you want to link to the book, or include text? Also, what is the copyright status of the book? If it's public domain, you might transfer it to wikisource and link to there. Otherwise, you could link to the site where it is currently hosted. (remember to leave a note on my talk page to attract my attention if you want to know more)

 Well, I wanted to do both, if permissible.  On our website, we provide almost 
 50 pages of text to read (the book is 400 pgs long), as well as the index.  
 See at http://www.feingold.org/why1.html .... since there is also a link to 
 buy the book, here, it could be called advertising, which would not belong 
 here, I guess.  Or perhaps I should just list the book in the references, 
 with the link to information about it?  That is at http://www.feingold.org/book.html 
 and the "read it here" link is on that page anyhow. Shulae 17:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the book is available to read online, and gives important information, it might be a good idea to say something like 'The Feingold Program is set out very clearly in the book "Why can't my child behave?" [3]'. This should

  1. ↑ Jane's Book.

Best regards

David --Slashme 10:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem with linking to books on other websites - then the copyright isn't our problem. As for how and where to link, I would advise against putting in an image which links to the book, as that isn't consistent with the Wikipedia style: Users here don't expect external links from images. I would say the best would be to make a footnote to the complete reference to the book (ISBN, date etc.), with a link to the URL where you can read it online. I can help you with formatting issues here. You can use the following template for the citation (note, the title will be linked to the URL you specify):

  • A preserved specimen (which will be easier to read if you click on "edit"):

{{cite book | last = e.g. Smith | first = e.g. Firstname Middlename or Firstname M. or Dr. Firstname M., Snr. | coauthors = e.g. Bloggs, Joe and Mercury, Freddy and Li Mu Bai | others = e.g. Illustrated by [[Mike Wilks]] | year = e.g. 1999 | title = e.g. The Meaning of Life | publisher = e.g. Random House | location = place of publication, e.g. New York | id = e.g. ISBN 1-111-22222-9 | url = e.g. http://www.books.org/MeaningOfLife.html }}

  Is the "nowiki" on/off part of the code, or is it here in order to 
  show me how the code looks? Yes, it looks MUCH more clear in the edit. Thanks Shulae 17:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the "nowiki" is just to show the code --Slashme 07:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And a live example (once again, click on "edit" to see how it works.):


Hope that helps. --Slashme 07:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent articles: pdfs wanted

Hi Shula,

Our local university library has only general topics, and all the medical journals are over at the med school campus. I could go over there, but it's a mission. Do you by any chance have pdfs of the recent articles about the Feingold program? If so, could you mail them to me? I want to do a bit of a literature study this weekend, so that I can make a serious contribution to the article, and get it ready for "publication". If you don't have, I'll just order the articles next week, and get onto it in a weekend or two.

David --Slashme 14:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ADHD page

Hi Shula,

I'd say the right way to do it would be to correct the wording on the ADHD page, and explain on the discussion page.

You might like to make the first edit as simple as possible, while removing the inaccuracies, maybe by changing

despite the diet eliminating a wide variety of foods, including most processed foods[23]. For
example, adherance to the diet would drastically reduce intake of refined sugar

to

despite the diet eliminating a wide variety of foods[23].

Then you buy time to work out a more complete discussion.

PS, any comment on my previous question about the articles? --Slashme 10:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pdfs etc

Hi Shula,

Sorry, I clicked on "last change" and didn't realize that you'd left me more than one note.

You're right: You can't put an article's full text up on any website without violating copyright.

Please do mail me pdfs, as many as possible - they can sit in my gmail; I still have about 2 GB free!

I appreciate your efforts. I know it's a bit of a schlep to scan articles and transform them to pdfs, but it would make it a lot easier for me. I tried clicking on http://www.diet-studies.com/PDFDstudies/goyette.pdf, but drew a blank. Is this due to copyright issues? --Slashme 13:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References: up-arrows and external links

I am confused about what I see in the references. There are up-arrows, but they don't go anywhere. --User:Shulae

Those up-arrows are backlinks: You can click on the reference number in the text, and it will go down to the appropriate article in the reference list. Then when you click on the arrow, you should be taken back to your place in the text.

As for linking to the articles, yes, you can do that, and ideally you should. I've done it in my more recent work, just not yet in that list. I'll go edit some of them, then you can see how it's done. --Slashme 14:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The pdfs

Thanks, I will look out for the threatened flood of articles. I have now given the article a thorough going-over, without doing a proper literature study, of course.

Unfortunately, I used an editor that reformatted the line length. This is a good thing to a certain extent, but it does make it really hard to tell exactly what I changed! I promise this wasn't a scaly attempt to insert evil food-industry propoganda. The main upshot is that I've just given you even more work. You'll now have to re-read the whole darn thing. This could be good, in a sense, as you'll be forced to approach it from a fresh perspective.

I don't think I made a massive difference to the position (i.e. pro or con) of the article as you left it, but I have moved the tone quite a bit away from sounding like an activist website to sounding somewhat more like an encyclopedia. You might take issue with some of the re-wordings I did in the criticisms vs rebuttals section, but we can work on those.

You'll also notice that I changed the three-circles diagram to an svg. This is much smaller, and scales much better than a jpg for line drawings. My text placement wasn't perfect, but I'll take another look at the diagram sometime.

Anyway, have fun editing, and let me know when you are done, and maybe we'll have a "final" draft ready before next month is out — then we can see what the rest of Wikipedia does to the article. I'm not a parent, but I guess Wikipedia articles are like kids — you do what you can to guide them on a good path, but they're bound to change in ways you never expected ;-)

--Slashme 18:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi again!

I sorted out the problem with the refs: You had a | before the {{, which wasn't necessary. I'll check out the references to the NIH '82 report and the AAP guidelines - maybe I can figure out what to do.

I must admit I haven't read any of the articles you sent me yet, but I'll get onto them this weekend, and if all's OK we can release the article into the wild. --Slashme 08:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pdfs, mail, US English

Hi Shula,

Thanks for alerting me to the older comments on my talk page.

As for the ADHD page, I completely get what you're saying about picking battles. Once we've done this and I've got some more free time, I'd be happy to help out there, though.

Thanks also for the pdfs. At the moment, I'll just download them. Next weekend, I'll probably get around to reading them all, making notes, and forming a so-called "informed opinion" ;-) Maybe it'll lead to some more editing. I'd like it if you can email me the rest. I'll send you another mail then, to remind you of my address.

As for British spelling, sorry, my bad. We South Africans are conditioned to consider US english as an inferior dialect ;-] The Wikipedia policy is to remain consistent within each page, as we know it's an impossible struggle to have the whole wikipedia consistent, and it would be ridiculous to have en-us.wikipedia.org and en-gb.wikipedia.org. This page can be American. I'll fix the diagram that I edited, as I see that's also now "wrong".

Regards

David

--Slashme 06:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ADHD

Hi Shulae, I have spent the last two nights re-writing and re-structuring the ADHD article. Please take a minute (or three) and read over it and tell me what you think. Please, post your response on the ADHD talk page. *Kat* 06:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red dates in refs

Hi Shula,

Don't worry about the red date-links. I don't really see why the authors of the citation templates put in date-links, but we should leave them like that for consistency.

I didn't get around to the articles this weekend, as everything was a bit rushed, but I'll get onto it "Real Soon Now" ™

--Slashme 08:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Articles needing sources

Hi Shula,

The Category: Articles needing sources listing is simply due to the "citation needed" tag on the research about how much colouring it takes to make ketchup green. Nothing to worry about. --Slashme 07:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: What happened to the Feingold Diet page

Hi Shula,

The page looks fine to me. I guess your browser didn't completely load the page. You might try going to the page again and clicking the "reload" button while holding down the shift key to force your browser to reload it without using cache. Let me know if it doesn't come right. --Slashme 05:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recruiting doctors, tone

Hi Shula,

I saw the recent discussion on the Feingold diet page, and after reading the article again, I can't help but agree with the points made. In places, it really doesn't read like an encyclopedia article to me. I have invited a few wikipedian doctors to take a look at the article, and I have tagged it as requiring attention from a medical expert (not to say the article is sick, though ;-). This will probably generate a good number of edits, not all of them minor, and not all of them necessarily in line with your point of view so keep an eye out, and maintain a cool head! --Slashme 08:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(Science, medicine and opinions)
BTW was I supposed to reply to the note ON my talk page, or did I do this right to reply on your talk page?

Hi Shula,

I much prefer it when you post on my talk page, as you did, because then I get a message telling me to check it out.

So far there hasn't been much response, but we'll see whether User:Tmassey comes up with anything worthwhile. --Slashme 17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/h/u/User_talk%7EShulae_8164.html"