User talk:Funex?

Hello Steve. I wrote the gluten free beer article. Unfortunately I also pasted your biography from the University notice board. I didn't mean that to cause any grief but that also coincided with me leaving my pc logged on, while some student played about. Another user who follows me around often reversing things I do without commenting is obsessed with you and your website, convinced you are me. Sorry about that - it really is unprovoked though. I have left a post on my user page to try to persuade him to stop, but it has become systematic harrassment. wikwobble

Hi Steve, following your question on gluten free beer, It is on your list of images as public domain. I always thought that this meant that it was open to reuse by others without asking? But sorry if it causes a problem. It looks like I've been a bit of a pain to you, overall. Yes I wrote the original article, despite a good deal of grief, although some others have contributed positively. The image is good, but could be better. I am happy to upload it for you, if you mail it to me. But generally look for the upload image link in the box of links to the right of your page - if your page looks anything like mine! - and follow the instructions. It is quite easy.

Can I suggest a couple of things for stuff you do in Wikipedia? If you want to give a heading it seems convention to do it by putting = twice before and after the header - it gives an underline as well. Where you refer to something in wikipedia put [ twice before and after the term and it acts as a hotlink to the article. When you finish in discussion sections you sign your name by putting (and its easiest to go to edit to see how) Funex? and that hotlinks to the user's page. There is another way to do it that leaves time and date but I have never bothered as you can see when a change was made by looking at the history tab, above, and it also helps see who is doing what on pages you are working on.

Again sorry if I have given you problems, but I have found a source of BeerUp which I know you are hunting for. It is being sent to me from Switzerland so a couple of them have your name on! Hope that makes amends. wikwobble

welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Funex?, 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:

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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Brian 17:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Images and References

Hi Steve. Have a look on the gluten free beer discussion for me will you? The user that I was talking to you about is actually entering into debate with me, but since it is really about gfbh.com, and the image you sent to me, I thought you might want to reply? Also, the guy has followed me about and made undiscussed changes to anything I do - so I will find it hard to type without expressing my frustration. I'll copy this to you by mail. By the way, the comment is copied onto my user page, so presumably any reply should go on the user page and onto the gfbeer discussion. Also see http://www.ciao.co.uk/Against_the_Grain__Review_5586134 where someone has written a dodgy article about ATG! wikwobble

Hi

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your comments. Are you claiming to be [name del]? SilkTork 14:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that means you are not claiming to be [name del] SilkTork 14:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(re above lines) I have deleted some detail I would rather wasn't here. I have emailed the person who wrote them - I don;t think they would realise why it matters to me. If the email has not arrived tell me! steve 16:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the sense of the comments in which I ask if you are who you claim you are. And then suggest that from your comments and use of language that perhaps you are not who you claim you are. SilkTork 02:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on creating NPOV in Gluten free beer

Please be very careful what you say on tghe gf beer article. There is no evidence that brewing makes beer safe for coeliacs. Piles of evidence that pllenty of gluten is not converted to amino acids. this is really dangerous. people reading the article will be very happy top believe statemnts to the contraqry and persuade themselves that one or two pints a wekk is ok. This leads to bowel cancer ande oseoperosis. How caqn i stress any mopre clearly the need to be accurate and not allow these dangerous claims be given equal balance with the scvietific evidence? if you have not recdieved my email, i do not care who yuo think i am, what you think of my face, or whether you have a jauniced view of me and my work. All you need to know is that a lot of people can die if theyt are not told an accurate truth. steve 09:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. My own research into the matter of brewing with a modest amount of barley shows there are differences of opinion. The aim of Wikipededia is to show a balanced view. Words like "claim" rather than "feel" give a point of view that is considered inappropriate for an encyclopedia. You are so close to your subject that you feel that your own reading of the evidence is the only view to take. My edits to the article are only trying to put in place a balance - to suggest that the brewers themselves have one view, and that there is a conflicting view which is not, as yet, supported by any more convincing evidence than the brewers view, but that the conclusion is that perhaps, for reasons of safety, it might be advisable to drink beers such as Budweiser with caution and in moderation. This article, for example, gives a balanced view: Is Beer Gluten-Free and Safe for People with Celiac Disease? SilkTork 10:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am oviously going to have to convince you - which is going to be timconsuming. There are loads of sources but they tend nto to directly say "trher is gluten in beer". Why? why woulod you write an article saying b"eer is wet"? It is directly observable. so is the result of an ELISA test. Thre is controversy over this test, but NOT over whether it detects gluten, but if it is sensitrive enough to pick up (or accurately account for) hordein. If anything it underestimates ethe level of glluten in beer. Also obvious is the head on a beer. What causes this? It is not detergent left over after cleaning the vat. It is caused by a sticky-stretchiness -GLUTEN (see para 1 under traditional beers at http://www.fosters.com.au/enjoy/beer/beer_and_gluten.htm - by the way this Fosters comment was written this way after I persoanlly indicated and proved their former comments were misleading). gf beers use different ingredientas and when there is a head it is caused by non-gliadin, nom-hordein, non-secalin proteins. how do we know? these proteins cannot be c`reated, and were not present from the start. I talk to the development scietists trying to improve ELISA. My research is extensive, and lets face it matters a lot to me. I am very happy you are going to do a point by point with wikwoble, I suppose I can oversee it. But please do not place anything dangerous ther until we have decided on a form or words. What you wrote is not balanced - it just give equal weight to a myth and a scie3ntific and provable fact. That is not balance. steve 10:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time consuming is the nature of Wikipedia! Time consuming, frustrating and sometimes stressful! But the aim is to create a balanced and credible online free encyclopedia - so all the work is worth it in the end. The process we are now going through is seen as one of the most valuable aspects for the ultimate credibility of Wikipedia. Editors debating the finer points of an article. While this goes on, however, there are established and important conventions that are at the heart of Wikipedia.

One is that "Wikipedia is not an advertising service." There appears to be - intentional or not - a desire to promote the glutenfreebeerfestival website. My concern, and I hope you share that concern, is that the Gluten free beer article remains free from the taint of being a promotional aid for a website that you appear to be quite passionate about. The article in itself should provide all the information a reader should need to evaluate the situation regarding gluten free beers. A link to a website which reviews gluten free beers is appropriate, but comments on how good that website is, and how significant or important the work of Steve Ford is, or an inflated sense of the importance of having a range of gluten free beers available at a local beer festival do the core values of the article no good at all. Reference links which "appear" to be more concerned with getting the name of the website on the page as many times as possible (intentional or not) are not giving the article a good impression. Both our aims here are to make an article on gluten free beer as brilliant as possible. Any stuff which looks like it is promotional taints the article. If there is an alternative route then, for the benefit of the article, lets go down that route. My next stage will be to go back to using references to the Bella articles as that takes away some additional references to the glutenfreebeerfestival website, and takes away the taint of the article being used as an advertisement for glutenfreebeerfestival.com .

Another convention is that material should not be original research. This is a tricky area and does cause a lot of stress! In order to show that an article is not original research, we like to have valid referencing. Some of the current referencing is to Dr Steve Ford of the glutenfreebeerfestival website. It is questionable how valid he is as a reliable source. It might be better, given the controversy surrounding the formation of this article and the ongoing debate, that Dr Ford's primary sources are used rather than quotes from Dr Ford himself, just to avoid any suggestion of original research, and to give more solid credibility to the viewpoints.

The final point is the one about point of view. Many of us have a slight bias in favour of a certain point of view. We have an opinion. That is why it is important to have a peer review of what we have written. It is an academically rigorous process and is valued among experienced editors. The end result is hopefully a balanced and hardened article. There are times in this ongoing debate about the gluten free beer article when I do question my own involvement, and the unbiased nature of my editing. I have asked an experienced Admin to look at what has been going on, and he feels that the process is unfolding as it should. I admit, though, I still have doubts at times, but I am hopeful that the step by step process of editing the article will reveal any potential bias on my part. SilkTork 12:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this is not for me. My point to you is about the dangerfous material that could arise (and did arise) under a mislpaced idea of balnce. I have already said I will not get involved in any refernce to me and my site - Take this up with the person you are primarly debating things with. But engage me on the point i made above. Personnaly I don't care if my name appears on these pages, I do care if someone uses your words to poisen themselves. steve 13:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The very aim of Wikipedia is to give all important points of view. It would be inappropriate and against the principles of Wiki for one view to dominate, unless that was a dominant view in itself. Wikipedia is not a soap-box. It is an encyclopedia. You are sailing slightly on the wrong side of Original Research and Point of View for an encyclopedia entry. Strong, one-sided views are appropriate on glutenfreebeerfestival.com, but not here. Here we hope to give both sides of the debate - EVEN IF WE DISAGREE WITH THEM! I acknowledge your points, and I hope that you will see that my careful edits include notes of caution. But I feel we would be wrong to dismiss the brewery scientists with an airy wave of the hand and the summary that they don't what they are talking about, even though there appears to be no HARD EVIDENCE that they are wrong - only SUPPOSITION (no matter how sensible that supposition actually is!). A quote such as this, from Donald D. Kasarda, research chemist in the Crop Improvement and Utilization Research Unit of the United States Department of Agriculture, shows the lack of hard evidence: "There is some evidence from analytical methods involving antibodies prepared to gliadins that there are peptides in beer that react with these antibodies. It is not proved beyond any doubt that the peptides in beer are actually toxic to celiac patients, but it is quite possible that the peptides remaining in any barley-based or wheat-based beer, Sapporo included, are harmful to celiac patients." To present your views, which are clearly not in line with Dr Kasarda's - an expert in the field, as hard facts would be inappropriate. SilkTork 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do not understand the point. It is not about peptides it is about gluten NOT being chenged in the brewing process. it IS hard evidence that ELISA tests show remaining gluten after brewing. I am not interested in suposed effects of peptides - I am interested in UNCHANGED gliadin and hordein. Sapporo's evidence is IRRELEVANT and used by those who do not understanfd what they mean - dangerous. You know what they say abougt a little knowledge? Thank you also for the lesson in epistemology but I sadly have to give them avry day. Note I have not put a single reference to my site on this article. it is not about whether I enjoy this arguemnt, but whether half understood comments are dangerous. There is zero evidence that gluten is remnoved to safe levels by brweing. There is plenty of evidence (not sensible suposition) that it is not. you are baloancing arguments over wherter pens have ink on the evidence thatpencils are ink-free. Please understasnd this point. steve 14:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note - I'm sorry if this debate is not enjoyable for you. I love this sort of thing myself - which is probably why I enjoy editing on Wikipedia. The challenge of a debate is quite refreshing - provided everyone remains civil and assumes Good Faith. SilkTork 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have knowledge of the subject, and some passion. The concern here is not about how right you are, but about the available debate. You appear to think of the article as an essay in convincing people of the dangers of regular beers. I am concerned with producing a balanced encyclopedic entry on the different viewpoints on the subject of gluten free beer. Asserting loudly how right you are in your view is actually not the way to convince me that you want to create a balanced article. Is there some material that you could point me to that you feel should be in the article, but is not? Or are you suggesting that the balance of opinion in the article is too biased in one direction? SilkTork 15:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually reading what I am writing? I am not interested in seeing my name on this page or references to my websiet . You are not givbvn a balenced view. there is no evidence to support what you are asying. Remove that reference RIGHT NOW. I would rather there was no article to gf beer on this site than one that encourageds readers "to maqke3 up own mind" ('Oh look, no one knows for sure') too many will use bad evidence3 like yours to rationalise po;isening themselves. And many like me will have no sympotroms - untjil they fall over and finde it is too lat e to repair their bones, or have bowel cancer. Look at teh fosters item. It is evidence. Look at the sapporo quote. It is not. If you do not undersatnd the difference find someone who does. your balance is irresaponsible. from the two sources, thaqt is 100% ecvidence. Stop trying to prove you are right, get over the ego trip, and do the right thing. the BALANCE of known facts are that there are DEFINITELY dangerous glycoproteins after a mash is brewd. It is not beeing loud - it is 100% evidence thta no one takenm seriously denies. if you ned more try http://www.regional.org.au/au/abts/1999/sheehan.htm or http://www.vscht.cz/kch/kestazeni/post03/8.pdf or http://www.asbcnet.org/journal/pdfs/2006/ASBCJ-64-0166.pdf or a multitude of references. dont get disatracteds by words like "peptides" - your use of thar other ;matter amonts to dissembliing not balance. balance is not givbeing ;equal weight to truth and untruth - or if it is this is notr an encyclopedia. lastly, you might find this entertaining. I have to do it for a living. i am only doing it here to stop your loack of underswtanding huritng sojmeone else. steve 08:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Face comment

By the way - I am not sure, but you have mentioned my comment on [del] face twice, and I get the feeling you think there was some insult intended. This is the comment: "Image revert to focus on beers rather than [del] face." There was no intent to insult, merely to point out that the article is about beer rather than [del]. I would have made a similar comment no matter whose face was on the image. SilkTork 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Oversee My Revisions

Hello Steve, thanks for your mail. I think you missed me by five minutes earlier, and I wanted to talk to you about DEG. I will do that by mail. Please do not give up on this resource. I understand why you want me to remove references to you and gfbh. I am replying here rather than by mail as I think it is important that the misinformation and problems are public. I have more time to work on this than you do, and I can try to keep it on track. I do not think reference to you legitimises other things that are said in an article that is collaboratively written. I will answer the issues raised individually with others and I am happy to dig into the sources to evidence the points you raise. There is no rush to deliver the image or the ELISA material. But if we abandon this resource others can write whatever they like, which will inevitably injure more people than if we make interventions, which I am happy to do if you can give it the expert once-over.wikwobble