User talk:207.188.64.6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Vitamin D

Dear DO11.10 : You personally should undertake the editing and writing of the vitamin D entry yourself! You saw fit to delete in a heavy-handed way improvements that I made to add some reality to the article. You have discouraged me from ever trying to fix up Wikipedia. Its a waste of my professional time. My opinion of Wikipedia has gone down the sewer. ZERO credibility! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.64.6 (talk • contribs)
Please do not let a bad experience put you off from editing here. Where you have a disagreement over content please post it on the talk page to enable a concensus to be reached and, where possible, cite references. Any queries, please get straight on to me on my talk page. TerriersFan 23:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
First of all, please let me be the among the first to welcome you to Wikipedia. It was never my intention to make you feel unwelcome. I hope that you take the time to review the changes I have made to the Vitamin D article. I went back over your additions, and found that you had made several needed and useful contributions. The problem was the addition of some argumentative language that you included with those useful contributions. I have added many of your contributions back, save these argumentative pieces (and a section that I could not easily verify). As I mentioned above I edited the page with the intention of fixing a syntax error that occurred right below one of your edits, which is why I noticed it and removed it. The rest of your edits, in my mind, were then tinged with an air of suspicion. I hope that you reconsider your comments above, I for one would value contributions such as the useful ones you added. (But please no arguments on the article page.)
After reading, (and rereading this article a number of times) I agree with you that it has some major and distinct problem that are not easily fixed. While I do not know what your specific issues were some things that I noticed were 1) The steroid/vitamin debate is, in addition to being wrong, a moot point. Also, I believe that the statements made by Ronald Evans were either misrepresented or taken out of context, as his published record does not indicate his expertise on the subject of vitamin supplements. 2) An extremely heavy reliance on articles written by one author, and members of the same group. 3) Articles by other authors appear to be added as "puffers" in order to make a connection, that has not been proven, appear more scientific. 4) Overall repetition and contradiction that makes the article confusing, I have attempted to fix some of this. It was only with great trepidation (or trepination:))that I did not delete several sections of this article, I can only hope that other editors, such as yourself, see fit to adopt the article, and make it into what it should be.
I will also post the above on the Talk page, but I would like to hear your thoughts. Feel free to bring any concerns or comments my way, either here or on my talk page. (Please sign your posts though, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!). Again, I sincerely hope that you do decide to stay.--DO11.10 23:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)