User talk:Richard T Murray: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Stephen Ewen
imported>Stephen Ewen
Line 31: Line 31:
group with 113 members, 1,496 posts in a public archive
group with 113 members, 1,496 posts in a public archive


:The article is completely viewable to the public.  As for contents, that is going to be the domain of probably Chemistry editors. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 23:09, 4 December 2007 (CST)
:The article is completely viewable to the public.  As for sources, that is going to be the decision of probably Chemistry editors. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 23:09, 4 December 2007 (CST)

Revision as of 00:10, 5 December 2007

Citizendium Getting Started
Join this wiki | Quick Start | About us | Help system | Start a new article | For Wikipedians
How to Edit
Getting Started Organization Technical Help
Policies Content Policy
 


Tasks: start a new article • add basic, wanted or requested articles • add definitionsadd metadata • edit new pages

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start, and see Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any user or the editors for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! David Tribe 07:35, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Hi Richard

I was looking over what you've been up to on the wiki and thought I'd drop by and suggest you give CZ:Article_Mechanics a going over, to perhaps prod things along in that direction. Cheers, Stephen Ewen 01:08, 4 December 2007 (CST)


Hi Stephen

Thanks a lot for the very useful lead. Having initiated the Aspartame stub, I'm pleased to have "boldly" dumped a big heap of very important information, which some of us can carve into a decent, useful article. A lot of lengthly quotations have to be reduced to one-liners, and much has to be summarized.

I will be interested to see if competent others share my view that the 1496 archived posts in aspartameNM@yahoogroups.com qualify as the best trustworthy source for information about aspartame, especially its toxicity issues. Two posts are citations in the Wikipedia Aspartame Controversy article.

Is the Aspartame stub already open to the public, or only to registered Citizendiums? In mutual service, Rich Murray


details on 6 epidemiological studies since 2004 on diet soda (mainly aspartame) correlations, as well as 14 other mainstream studies on aspartame toxicity since summer 2005: Murray 2007.11.27 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.htm Wednesday, November 14, 2007 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1490


"Of course, everyone chooses, as a natural priority, to enjoy peace, joy, and love by helping to find, quickly share, and positively act upon evidence about healthy and safe food, drink, and environment."

Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@comcast.net 505-501-2298 1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505

http://RMForAll.blogspot.com new primary archive

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages group with 113 members, 1,496 posts in a public archive

The article is completely viewable to the public. As for sources, that is going to be the decision of probably Chemistry editors. Stephen Ewen 23:09, 4 December 2007 (CST)