User talk:Anonymous081222

FACT: MSG causes migraine headaches and other problems in many individuals

It is a fact that MSG leads to migraine headaches and sometimes other problems ("regular" headaches, feeling ill in general, chills or hot flashes, etc.) in many individuals. This is a widely-known fact. See MSG article edit history versions, discussion page, and edit page history for dozens of cites (including the FDA's own findings). Unfortunately, this fact is not reflected in the MSG article (see the sections below for the reasons why).

!!! WARNING - MSG Article is WRONG

The MSG article is controlled completely by a group of non-neutral editors who would have you believe that MSG never causes any problems for anyone and that no one believes that it does. The truth is, MSG DOES cause problems for many individuals; that's a FACT. And many people DO know it does; it is a widely-known fact. Please see the MSG discussion page for details and an endless argument with the non-neutral editors.

Fact aside, I only request one, single, watered-down statement of fact in the MSG article: Many people believe MSG causes migraine headaches. This is a fact, but every effort to put this information in the article meets with irrational resistance.

Myself and those who agreed with me have been totally dismissed, even in the face of painfully overwhelming evidence and dozens of valid cites over the course of months. Inappropriate debate techniques (read: dirty tricks) have been used consistently to keep our point off of the page. The suggestion of compromise by posting BOTH points of view (which is very reasonable) is always dismissed. They do not use or respond favorably to solid logic, reasonable and polite debate techniques, and valid cites. They consistently make personal attacks and accusations against us of things we do not do but that they, hypocritically, do themselves (such as the afore-mentioned personal attacks). Other inappropriate debate techniques include making unreasonable sockpuppet accusations, posting when an article is supposedly "locked" but actually wasn't, making hypocritical accusations, bringing in pre-existing allies who pretend to be neutral at first, and dozens of others. You will find nothing but propaganda on the MSG page. I strongly suspect (and there is some evidence) that at least several of them are being paid to post the industry viewpoint. This is not a matter of losing a debate - go see the MSG discussion page for yourself if you don't believe me. It will make your jaw drop. Oh, and go see the history of the MSG discussion for other people who have been chased away - it turns out that there were like-minded folks that that came before us.

I have learned in my time so far on Wikipedia that much of Wikipedia is controlled by special interests (often paid). If you want some facts on non-controversial topics, Wikipedia is fine. But DO NOT trust Wikipedia with regards to ANY controversial topics or health-related topics - you will NOT find neutrality. It has even been in the media that companies pay people to strongarm various non-neutral propaganda into Wikipedia articles. Sadly, it has become a propaganda engine.

By the way, polite, constructive, honest, informed comments (i.e., actually READ the MSG discussion page) are welcome. The false, hypocritical nonsense that I have sometimes gotten in the past is NOT welcome (you know who you are - get lost).

Regarding "warnings" etc: The preceding points are a 100% honest summary of what has happened with regards to to MSG article edits and on the discussion page, so I don't want any hypocritical warnings about my complaints being considered personal attacks (and just to be extra polite, I've purposely avoided using any specific names) - go read the MSG page and talk to the dozens of people who made personal attacks against ME there, first, then get back to me and tell me how to make the following accusations appropriately formal:

- personal attacks against ME

- pre-existing allies

- posting for money

- ignoring fact in the face of 100% valid cites

- using the above inappropriate debate techniques I've listed (see above)

- guarding articles all hours of the day and night with non-neutral opinions

- editing a supposedly-locked article

- false and baseless sockpuppet accusations

- .. and nasty comments about the as-then unresolved (and since vindicated) said formal accusation

- threats from non-admins

(just for starters, then we can get to the next dozen or so)

I would love to make ALL of these accusations formally - the evidence is all right there front and center in the MSG discussion page. Oh, and check out the history of this page, as well, for more, if you need it (there are some interesting discussions from the December 08-Februrary 09 time frame that I removed because they were starting to clutter things up).

Anonymous081222 (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteering

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Anonymous081222. Thank you. Cacycle (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Baseless attack on my character and the character of those that agree with me. I'm taking a break right now (probably why this was done right now), so I'll just keep my responses short and to the point.

Apparently agreeing with my viewpoint is the basis for making blatantly false accusations.

Just one in a long string of inappropriate debate technique.

See the MSG talk page for details, and you'll see what is going on: dirty fighting from those that disagree with me. Anonymous081222 (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So when is this going to be resolved? When it lingers on and on it adds to the original intent to falsely discredit me (meaning, those making the accusation, not the admin(s) working the issue). Make no mistake, this accusation was nothing but a personal attack against those of us who dared to question the lack of neutrality on the MSG page. Anonymous081222 (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally vindicated. Now you can all see that this was nothing but an attack by the pay-for-propaganda crowd on the MSG page.

"In conclusion, these editors were accused of sockpuppetry because they edited the same article expressing the same opinions."

Anonymous081222 (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!!!

As you can see, cacycle is coming after us en-force. This happened right after I pointed out that he was the one that originally removed all of the health effects from the MSG page last year (on Jan 26th 2008). So I am thinking that he is going to try to block me for agreeing with you too much:( Guru isn't you, right? Imagine how angry he will be when he sees this--I don't even think he has posted for weeks! Well, if cacycle's campaign to silence all those who oppose him is successful and I am re-blocked, at least people will still have access to the articles listed on my discussion page, right? Or can he also delete my entire discussion page? Ugh.

Hey--if they do get me, but not you, could you do me a favor? I know your personal peeve is the migraine link but could you also work on the more general health risks too? Migraines are just one health risk--I feel there is more to discuss. Well, if we don't make it at least we have our real life right?:)) FFN001 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

PS the irony is I was going to leave no matter what answer cacycle gave!FFN001 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

KillerC said that there was some sort of technical check they could do so I should be okay after all. I am angry cacycle never answered a single question I asked him but I think I am going to lay off anyways. That guy definitely has something going on. Well, maybe someone else will be more successful than us at getting some health facts posted. Peace.FFN001 (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. No need to be sorry, I really appreciate all your help. Sorry you got dragged into this mess.

Anyway, after all the dirty fighting from them so far, this sockpuppet accusation is no suprise to me. Strange they could even do it when there was zero basis for it. Good thing about that tool.

Yep, Guru isn't me, I have only this one account. I'm glad some other people like Guru are helping out, but the problem now is that anyone with our viewpoint is going to be afraid to post for fear of being subjected to all sorts of accusations / attacks on character. That's dirty fighting by anyone's measure.

Re discussion pages: I sure hope they can't, but you never know with everything they've done so far.

Re other articles: I do certainly appreciate your help and would be happy to help. That said, this MSG thing is so bad that I'll probably end up only working on it, but I'll keep it in mind for the future if this thing ever comes to a positive end. Anonymous081222 (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Monosodium Glutamate. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. you are already at 3 reverts, one more and you will have broken WP:3RR. Also please stop adding material which is not supported by references, and which does not have consensus. sciencewatcher (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sciencewatcher: Oh please, give me a break. You are wrong, and you know it, so don't waste any more of your time with silly false accusations. You know perfectly well that I am mearly working for neutrality, fair behavior, and the compromise of listing both viewpoints (I'm getting NONE of this from your side in the debate - you and your allies are clearly NOT neutral!) and have all the cites I need, presented repeatedly. The discussion has been done to death, you and your allies just refuse to accept the facts. I am not edit warring, but frankly you and your side is.

But you are on my talk page now, so I'm going to lay out to brutal facts for anyone reading my page: You and your industry allies are not neutral, as FFN realized early on (frankly, I gave you guys the benefit of the doubt too long). It is crystal clear. And frankly I'm pleased that we had that lengthy discussion to prove that fact (as frusterating as it was to deal with you people). Anyone reading the discussion with a ounce of sense can see this.

Controversial subjects on Wikipedia are controlled by industry thugs. I can only hope people catch on and give it the lack of credit it is due asap. So rather than wasting any more time on the likes of you and your ilk, I've been spreading the word. So while you may prevent me from getting solid facts onto some internet page with your dirty tricks and false accusations, you can't prevent the eventual realization that Wikipedia is not to be trusted on these subjects.

Eventually what will happen is that the MSG industry (and I suspect other food additive industries) will end up like the tobacco industry. There will be a reckoning. You are mearly delaying the inevitable. I hope they are paying you a lot because I don't think I could sleep at night or look at myself in a mirror if I were in your shoes. Censorship and propeganda is an act to be deeply ashamed of. You are hurting real people for a buck. Anonymous081222 (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that most the editors you are arguing with are not employed by "the industry." I've warned you about some of the specific attacks you've made against editors. These attacks may result in blocks. Stick to the content and to finding reliable sources for your points. Cool Hand Luke 22:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Patently untrue and a hypocritical. I've had just about enough of the obvious pay-for-propaganda allies on the MSG page. You know perfectly well that I stuck to the content, logic, polite behavior, and compromise, and found a bunch of people who would trade peoples' health for a buck and made personal attacks against ME than do anything even remotely within reason. Compromise? Logic? I don't think they know the meaning of those words. Everything you've said here is the OPPOSITE and incredibly hypocritical - go talk to cacycle and those ... folks about personal attacks, sticking to the facts, etc; while I have bent over backwards to use logic and polite behavior and such, they certainly haven't!

Anonymous081222 (talk)

In fact, I have a better response:

Then lets make "my personal attacks", as you call them, formal complaints. How do I go about that? It's about time we dealt with the FACT that personal attacks are made against ME and those with my opinion on a routine basis. Or that the people on the MSG page flatly ignore valid cites. Or that they edit a supposedly-locked article. Or that they edit war with ME, making changes to MY edits without concensus. Or dozens of others. How about we deal with the glaring inappropriateness coming from THEIR side before you start telling ME how I'm doing something wrong in pointing it out. I'm not making personal attacks; I'm making honest complaints. So let's make those formal, ok? If you are actually neutral, I will expect that the next response from you or any like you to be helping me with the process of making those formal complaints.

Anonymous081222 (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"Stick to the content and to finding reliable sources for your points.": Already have. Over and over and over and over and over and over ... how long would you have me beat my head against that particular wall? Well, that said, that's what I've been doing (along with a few other brave souls). Or have you not read the MSG discussion page? As I already said, I want to file a formal complaint about that. And about several dozen other violations made by the opposite side in the debate (what you are misconstruing as "personal attacks").

Anonymous081222 (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

I reverted your edits to Monosodium Glutamate since they misrepresent the sources given. If you can find some reliable sources (eg. peer-reviewed articles about double-blind studies) that say that MSG causes migraine and other symptomes, go ahead and edit the article. Right now, the sources all say that no link between MSG and the symptoms can be found. Sakkura (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to dig them back out. We kept adding them, and several non-neutral pay-for-propaganda individuals kept removing them. So I thought they were still on there, but I guess they got removed again. There are dozens of cites supporting both statements. I have to actually go - could you please grab them for me? I think FFN has a bunch of his page and there's a huge list in a really old discussion page revision from several years ago - thanks.

In the meantime, I've removed an old statement by the non-neutral folks that never had consensus. We can leave it like that for now until I get back and dig up those cites.

Anonymous081222 (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)