User talk:Stauffenberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Glyconutrient

Let's all go gently on Glyconutrient for the next while, my friend. The last day of editing hasn't been very productive. Check Talk:Glyconutrient and consider contributing to that page for a while. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Ikkyu2's "delete" comment also was referring to my attempt to restart with a clean slate on "Glyconutrient" as I discussed earlier here [1] as well as others' edits. You incidentally deleted my "glyconutrient description" + "restart stub". Ikkyu2 has suggested the piecewise edit, so I have tried to restart with a generic description of the materials sold/used as "glyconutrients" (literally poor, home brew types with serious GI related problems in some cases). Pls read my responses to Ikkyu2 starting here[2].
Several editors specifically addressed the spurious claims element and rationale in their "keep" votes. I have repeatedly attempted to agree, to reason and to communicate with you about the MT problems in an analytical and productive way. I am *not* MT in any way or "8 sugar" friendly, rather I am trying to hear, now discuss, broader issues. Issues which in fact many multilevel mktg associates have not been too keen on either. Your discussions have clearly identified your basic concerns about monosaccharide absorbtion and potential adverse effects relying on the 8 essential monosaccharide hypothesis are noted. We are in Wiki edit mode now.
Please read Duane's detailed points carefully [3]. Then please carefully consider my responses to Ikkyu2. I would have thought you would have welcomed these points of view as at least somewhat complementary. In fact, working with these points of view in some way, might enable you to directly focus in on the MT statements, practices that you abjure most, in a concise, reasoned and professional manner. --66.58.130.26 06:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi, Stauffenberg.
  • Take a look around Wikipedia, will you? Click Special:Random a couple times. Do you see any articles with this kind of wording:

I submitted this article for deletion. Because someone who claims to know nothing about the topic decided it would be "censorship" to delete this, it is still here. So I will respond, INSIDE the article, with irrefutable fact below each misstatement. Each reader can decide for themselves. If the "glyconutrient" crowd dissapproves, which they will no doubt, tough.

  • Nope. The reason is that this kind of language violates a Wikipedia policy: no self-references. Referring to parts of articles as "irrefutable facts" and "misstatements" violates another policy: WP:NPOV. Readers don't need to be instructed that they can decide for themselves. They already know that. What readers of this article are learning when they see this kind of text is:
  1. A prior editor of the article didn't understand how things are done around here.
  2. A prior editor of the article, despite being in possession of "irrefutable facts," can't spell "disapproves."
  3. A prior editor of the article - I'm talking about you - is publically embarrassing himself.
  • So give it a rest, cool it a while. Here's a tip: You're nowhere near the bounds of acceptable Wikipedia behavior in consensus editing. You're way out of bounds. I've been trying to be neutral on this article, but let me share my own point of view with you: I'm a board-certified American physician and I'm well aware of the harm and damage done by quack remedies. I bet I'm even more aware of the heartache and grief, the financial damage, the shattered hopes caused by this kind of fraudulent nonsense than you are, son.
  • I believe that these glycowhatsises are quack remedies. But I also believe that I understand the way Wikipedia works well enough to know that the way you're going about it is not the way to get this opinion, which you and I share, into this article. What it "is" likely to do is get you banned for vandalism - as I see it, you're that far out of line. That doesn't accomplish your purpose, which is to make this a better article for the purpose of conveying truth to the people who will read it. (I mean, that is your goal, right? That's what we all want; that's why we're here.)
  • So cool it, maybe pick something else to edit for a couple days, let the glyconutrient folks put their assertions into the article without disrupting them, and then when the dust settles, there will be room for our assertions too. And believe me, I can write a mouthful. -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, and...

Welcome!

Hello, Stauffenberg, 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!  -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mannatech

Thought you might have some background or thoughts on this article, Mannatech and the company's claims to glycobiology connections.--I'clast 12:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/a/User_talk%7EStauffenberg_fc75.html"