User talk:Kotra/Archive 2

Alternative coagulants - source needed for 35% claim

Hi - your request is not that easy to fulfill. OECD says: cheese production 2004 world wide 17.9 million tons of cheese - http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/milk/supplychainforum/pdf/pvavra.pdf . One ton is aprox. 2 kg of rennet with 165 IMCU. Worldwide need: 35.8 million kg of rennet. 1 stomach is aprox. 1 kg of rennet. Available stomachs of young suckling calfs and milk-fed calfs worldwide aprox. max. 12 million pieces - this is a fact that I know from my job. At http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/X6121E/x6121e02.htm you can find the complete cattle population worldwide - reduce for India, Bangladesh, Brasil (meat production) and many other countries and estimate the percentage of calfs killed for meat than you will arrive at these figures. So how to source this? US cheese-production is about 95% microbial or GMO rennet - claims of Christian Hansen and other producers of artificial rennets - same for UK - this is already 36% of the worlds cheese production. Believe me these cheap products are fed to the people with min. 65% of the worlds cheeses. So if you tell me how - I will try to source this claim. But this article about rennet is supposed to inform about rennet and artificial coagulants and should not be blown up into a study about worlds agricultural production!? I can of course also tell the people - including the source - that the americans eat 95% of their cheese made with artificial coagulants because of price, religion or vegetarian reasions - but I wanted this article to be objective and informing and balanced (Wolfgang 17:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

Unfortunately then, the 35% figure seems to be original research, which is not admissable on Wikipedia. I applaud your efforts, but by your description, the figure also sounds inaccurate. Rennet comes from only one of the four stomachs of a calf, as I'm sure you're aware, so your maximum of 12 million available stomachs (which is also a disputabe figure, as it is not sourced) would actually be 3 million. Not to mention that "estimating" the percentage of calves killed for meat worldwide with any accuracy at all is impossible for non-experts like you and I. That's why original research isn't admissable on Wikipedia. -kotra 23:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

never trust statistics that you did not fake by yourself............. so I will try again: if you have a look at http://www.indexmundi.com/en/commodities/agricultural/animal-numbers-cattle/ you will find the figures about total calf slaughter worldwide - which was 2006 something around 18.5 mio. heads - according to your calculation 74 mio stomachs of whom again only 18.5 mio are rennet stomachs. Than you have to know that only a part of these calves is milk-fed, another part is grain-fed. For rennet you can only use the milk-fed ones - otherwise you only have pepsin in the rennet and no chymosin. Than you have to consider, that in many countries there are no big slaughter houses where the stomachs can be collected in sanitary conditions. Then: if you look at http://www.indexmundi.com/en/commodities/agricultural/dairy-cheese/2006.html you can see the cheese production world-wide (the figures differ from OECD - but no matter). 2 kg of rennet (165 IMCU) for 1 ton of cheese, 50% of the calves milk-fed - 1 fourth stomach is aprox 1 kg of rennet 165 IMCU. With this simple calculation you arrive 25.6 mio kg of rennet need and 9,2 mio kg of natural rennet which is 34%.

So again - here are the figures - you should show me now how to but them into the article about rennet without blowing this article up to something different - or you also could draw back your claim(Wolfgang 12:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)).

discussion continued on Talk:Rennet#Alternative coagulants - source needed for 35.25 claim.

Stephen Colbert's Alleged Chickasaw Ancestry

Thank you for removing Stephen Colbert from the "Notable Chickasaws" section of the Chickasaw article. I suspected it was a joke, which is why I added the "fact" template so that it could be checked by another user. --TommyBoy 19:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted another anonymous user's re-addition of Stephen Colbert to the "Notable Chickasaws" list. We may need to keep a close eye on that list in order to ensure that he is not re-added to the list. --TommyBoy 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have the page on my watchlist, though I only take a look at it every few days, so I may not catch things like that very quickly. -kotra 20:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

a Thankyou

Hi, my name is Ryan. I just wanted to take a minute to thank you properly. I had almost given up hope on finding the adjectives for the planets, and was about to remove the discussion from my watchlist. I never knew they were in the articles info bar! I wish more Wikipedians could have taken the time to tell me like you did. Cheers mate ;) Ryan4314 03:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Also note, I forgot Uranus: Uranian. -kotra 21:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Green Zebra (publication)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Green Zebra (publication), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Fabrictramp 21:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've removed the tag and given a rationale on the talk page. I would also like to express concern at the reason you gave for deletion. In particular, a Google search does indeed turn up several articles from independent sources, not least of which is a lengthy article from the San Francisco Chronicle. I will assume that you just were unaware of boolean search operators, and that you gave up after the first two pages of results for "Green Zebra". I did a search for "Green Zebra" -tomato "San Francisco" and it helped enormously. It returns only results that contain "Green Zebra" and "San Francisco", but not "tomato". I recommend using this technique in the future when using Google hits as a reason for notability, because otherwise Google can be misleading. Also, calling it a borderline candidate for speedy deletion as advertisement I feel was a bit irresponsible. Blatant advertising is one thing, but mostly neutral wording that isn't backed up by sources is different (though it's still not ideal). I can see why you might think it was advertising because there were no sources, and you didn't find any after a quick Google search, but speedy deletion should only be used for obvious cases, where consensus is assured. So I urge you to not advocate speedy deletion in the future unless you're sure. Thanks for reading my ramblings, and, again, for notifying me! -kotra 22:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I did "Green Zebra" -tomato -wikipedia, and didn't come up with the sources you did. I suggested on the article's talk page that you add them to the article itself, rather than the talk page, if you think they establish notability. It would help the AfD debate come to a just outcome, and if they do establish notability they belong in the article anyway.

Also, I prodded instead of speedied exactly because it was not an obvious case, just highly suspicious with nothing but primary sources and a lack of ghits. (And it's still possible that the previous editor of the tomato article added this as advertising). Please assume good faith on my part and don't call the prod "a bit irresponsible". Thanks!--Fabrictramp 23:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you didn't come up with the sources I found, so I'll refrain from making judgements about that. It's beside the point anyway. I've reworded the whole article and added at least one of the references now, so hopefully the article is better now. If there are still reasons for deletion, I suggest we talk about it at the AfD discussion, so we don't have to be having the same conversation in three places.

Sorry about the "bit irresponsible" thing. I was trying to assume good faith, but I couldn't understand why you would suggest possible speedy deletion when it wasn't suspicious at all to me, or how you didn't find any google hits. I don't know the full picture, so it was stupid of me to jump to conclusions like that. -kotra 00:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Green Zebra (publication)

Green Zebra (publication), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Green Zebra (publication) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Zebra (publication) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Green Zebra (publication) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fabrictramp 23:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for notifying me. -kotra 23:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of The Green Zebra

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Green Zebra, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Green Zebra is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Green Zebra, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 14:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Safia Aoude

In order to defeat the "deletionists" would you be prepared to keep Safia Aoude's article?Phase4 11:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my late response; I was away from computers for several days. Though the AfD has ended, my answer to your question is a sympathetic no. I do not consider all article deletions to be unjustified, nor do I think it's a good idea to label those with opposing views as "deletionists", because it factionalizes the discussion and discourages consensus. I never saw the article itself before it was deleted, so I can't make an informed opinion, but based on the AfD discussion, it seems that the deletion was justified (barely), because there weren't enough reliable sources asserting the subject's notability. But I sympathize, because an article I supported was recently deleted for the same reason. I hope you will not be discouraged, and if you can find more independent, reliable sources that will prove the subject's notability, I encourage you to recreate the article in time (it's best to wait a bit, though). -kotra 00:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's encouraging. I'm inclined to follow your advice.Phase4 22:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ingo Swann

Ingo Swann is an artist and author, best known for his work as a founder of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)'s remote viewing program. Where is your citation for this? This is not true as far as I know. It is a bit of an exaggeration. Where is your documented source? To me it looks like when the CIA entered the picture Swann skated out. In fact he retired.Kazuba (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know that this is disputed. I thought it was commonly held that the remote viewing program was funded by the CIA from the beginning, but perhaps it isn't commonly held. I originally learned of this subject from [1], which admittedly makes wild claims, but seems reliable nonetheless. Also note Remote_viewing#Early_SRI_experiments, which makes the same claims about the CIA's sponsorship, and appears to be well-sourced. But regardless, I'll trim the "United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)'s" part from it, since that can be found out by going to Remote viewing or Stargate (or not, depending on whatever is the current state of those articles), which I will add into the sentence. To be clear though, it isn't disputed that Swann is best known for his work in remote viewing, correct?

Also, if you don't mind, I would like to copy this discussion to Talk:Ingo Swann, so that others may contribute to the discussion if they wish. -kotra (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Ingo is best known as the Father of remote viewing. Sure. Go a head.Kazuba (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(this discussion is continued at Talk:Ingo_Swann#CIA_involvement_in_remote_viewing_program)