User talk:Sakkura/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Sakkura, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  TimVickers 21:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you had a look around Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology? Good to see more scientists getting involved. TimVickers 21:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think you are talking about "myth" --> "urban legend". All those edits came from anon(s) from 76.* so I reverted them all to err on the safe side. If you check now, that anon's been at it again.

You've just violated a number of policies.

"BEEN AT IT AGAIN" Excuse me? You just not only just violated AGF, but you are clearly part of a conspiracy to keep the facts myself and others support off of the MSG page.

"Reverted them all to err on the safe side"!!!! WHAT? You can't just revert statements to "err on the safe side". I'll have to look up all the rules that violates.

You have no business editing the MSG article. Anonymous081222 (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What? You do realize that was posted almost 2 years ago, right? It has nothing to do with the recent changes to the MSG article. Sakkura (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, my apologies then. But look at it from my perspective; you change one of my edits, I go look at your page and find something about "anon at it again", "urban legend", etc. with regards to the MSG page; I go by anon and have been mistreated badly over the last several months for making legit edits to the MSG page. So it was an extremely easy mistake to make. But again, apologies. Anonymous081222 (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! That's great! Adenosine^talk 00:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Sakkura has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page Iowa class battleship, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this error and reverting it:

"Reverted good faith edits by 24.201.121.15; The F-22 program was not cancelled, only new orders were proposed for cancellation. this took place in april, not summer."

I was not able to be at my computer earlier today, when the DYK was first posted, so you did me and the other editors of this article a big favor, when you corrected that. Please keep up the good work. Ti-30X (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sakkura (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually meant to remove the content from 'Nutrition' with the intent of re-adding it. I believe this part of the article has extreme bias as whomever added part of the entry to WHOLE PLANT FOOD DIET, references 'one study in China' (this being The China Study book) which has been shown to be very flawed research from someone who is vegan. Talk about bias!

As well, this section gives the idea that Okinawans diet was relatively void of animal products, and that the reason they had great health and longevity was because of the plant based diet, however, what is not noted is that Okinawans consumed huge amounts of pork, and cooked their food in lard. This was a very important source of much needed fat and Vitamin D. Most pigs would have had access to sunlight for most of the day, and their bodies create Vitamin D and store it in their fat. Pastured lard (as well as rendered beef tallow, etc.) are high sources of Vitamin D. One of the main fats in lard is actually oleic acid, a monounsaturated fatty acid, which is often touted for the reason why olive oil is suppose to be so healthy. Yet lard is looked as bad for health?

I am in now way saying that a diet rich in whole plant foods is not healthy, it is for sure! But the way this part of the nutrition article is written, and given the sub-heading of 'healthy diets' reads more like an advertisement for vegetarianism or veganism.

There needs to be talk about a varied diet, and discussion of animal products in with the healthy diets. This is what I was going to attempt to correct.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.251.168 (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Should I only edit when I have the information completed then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.251.168 (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I split this discussion into a separate section, hope you don't mind. My opinion on the matter would be that it is better to find sources that criticize the china study and/or the whole plant food diet, and include them alongside the stuff that advocates it. Then the reader can make up his own mind. If there is a huge difference in the number or reliability of sources in favour of the critics, then it would also make sense to label the diet a controversial or fringe theory in the article. Anyway, just deleting it all seems a bit rash; my revert was partly for that reason, and partly because there was no obvious reason or explanation given. If you do feel that it should be deleted despite my reservations, you could take it up on the nutrition article talk page. Sakkura (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for watching the article and for your perfect reply to the question asked on the Talk Page. Graham Colm (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Nagorno-Karabakh War you deleted several sections. That you are a vandal. I'm back and remote sections of the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.110.29 (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The anon vandalist should be reported, what is your recommendation?

I don't think that's necessary at the moment. Who knows, with the right directions the anon may yet be convinced to contribute more productively. Sakkura (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.