| Revision as of 15:41, 27 December 2024 edit5.178.188.143 (talk) →Please stop edit warring: new sectionTags: Reverted New topic← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:45, 27 December 2024 edit undoUtherSRG (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators177,565 editsm Reverted edit by 5.178.188.143 (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot IIITag: RollbackNext edit → | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| ] (]) 09:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | ] (]) 09:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == Please stop edit warring == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about ]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> | |||
| I'm peacefully editing an article, expanding it with new information and sources, but you keep vandalizing it. Please stop! ] (]) 15:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:45, 27 December 2024
Hello, welcome to my talk page!
If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.
Thank you!
 Archives | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Nuetrality
Some text was removed and the reason was for copyright violation, but the text was not a violation of copyright so I undid it.
You reverted my changes and said it was not nuetral, I would like to ask how it is not nuetral?
It is discussing the historical origins of aquaponics, the sentence you removed was specifically referring to the evolution of system designs of the flood and drain system.
If it is not nuetral to say that todays flood and drain systems originiated from the work at NCSU, then why is the article allowed to say that the New Alchemy Institute laid the foundations for DWC? Why is it allowed to say that Rakocy's research had led to the adoption of deep water culture hydroponic grow beds? Wiki142B (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- For exactly the same reasons we discussed on your user talk page, in the section titled 'May 2024'. Please try to read and follow the relevant policies this time, rather than asking me the same question which will have the same answer. MrOllie (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, so the issue is with the wording and not the topic being discussed. If I remove the word "pioneering" it will make the statement nuetral.
- Thank you for the clarification and the prompt response. Wiki142B (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is not about single words, this is about the consistent tone of your editing - which is exactly what I said last time you asked me this. MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- You said that "Your writing is full of value-laden wording: examples include 'significant', 'pioneering', 'visionaries', 'significant strides', and so on. Please don't remove just those words and put the edits back - those are examples." I am unsure what you mean by the tone of my editing. The one being discussed now was a direct quote from a non-copyrighted source.
- So instead of;
- "The evolution of the “flood and drain systems” adopted in backyard aquaponics comes back to the pioneering work of Mark McMurtry."
- I should replace it with;
- "The development of 'flood and drain systems' in modern aquaponics can be traced to the research of Dr. Mark McMurtry at North Carolina State University." Wiki142B (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- You should not replace it at all - your reworded version is still more about puffing McMurtry than informing the reader. MrOllie (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is why I asked why the references to the New Alchemists and Rakocy were allowed, is it not "puffing" them up too?
- It's a factual history of the development of flood and drain systems, it informs the reader of the history, foundation and evolution of that specific system type. It is supported by a reference, it is not an opinion.
- An possible alternative would be to say "The development of 'flood and drain systems' in modern aquaponics can be traced to the research at North Carolina State University." Wiki142B (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not really interested in discussing unrelated sources or edits on my user talk page. The content of the sentence is promotional. There is no neutral way to word it because the promotion is the only thing there. MrOllie (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Replying to @User:Wiki142B—If you wish to promote work being done by a scientist a university, being one, and having done such for years, the path is straightforward.
- (1) Find a reputable secondary or tertiary scientific source—a review or text are examples—that makes a statement regarding the primary source research that you believe is pioneering. That is, it must be someone else that says this, in a reputable source, and not you or me (i.e., not WP editors). That review or book should not be by the individual on whom the accolade is being bestowed, nor should it by his research group, students, colleagues, collaborators, or university in any fashion (nor anyone else closely associated with him or the work). Otherwise, the individual making the statement has a WP:Conflict of Interest. That is, as we say here, the source needs to be from an independent, third-party source.
- (2) If possible, find a second source of the same type that says the same thing.
- (3) Etc.
- (4) Then, summarise the opinion of the two or more sources, regarding the primary research, and cite the secondary or tertiary sources using this sort of format (at the linked page, see the box at right). Note, if one reliable source says something positive, and another reliable source says something negative, it is standard practice to present both perspectives (e.g., when there are competing claims made with regard to a discovery), unless and until a consensus appears in the secondary and tertiary literature—in which case, it can be said, "Most individuals reviewing this matter conclude that it was the team of Brown and Goldstein (and their collaborators) that made the seminal discovery in this area.".
- (5) After this care is taken, as a courtesy, the primary source that all these sources point to as being important can then be added. And,
- (6) As indicated, in making the statement, (a) titles like Dr, Prof, Nobel Laureate, etc. should not be used, (b) English given names are generally omitted (indicating only the last/family name, and leaving the citation to elaborate more fully), and (c) institutions are almost never indicated, because the affiliations of scientists are often complex (involving multiple institutions/departments), it often moreover takes tremendous careful historical work (or involves prohibited WP:OR) to accurately determine with absolute confidence where a particular individual was working when they made a discovery, and/or the courtesy primary source citation just mentioned speaks for itself with regard to the individual's affiliation(s).
- That is how we have and would recommend accomplishing the edit that you appear to wish to make. Cheers. 71.239.132.212 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is a very thorough answer, and extremely helpful. Thank you. Wiki142B (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Replying to @User:Wiki142B—If you wish to promote work being done by a scientist a university, being one, and having done such for years, the path is straightforward.
- I'm not really interested in discussing unrelated sources or edits on my user talk page. The content of the sentence is promotional. There is no neutral way to word it because the promotion is the only thing there. MrOllie (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- You should not replace it at all - your reworded version is still more about puffing McMurtry than informing the reader. MrOllie (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is not about single words, this is about the consistent tone of your editing - which is exactly what I said last time you asked me this. MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of companies of Bangladesh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Daily Star.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Review
Hi Dear, I have made the valid contribution in Poonam Pandey wiki page, please review it again and revert the valid contribution from my side. She is an pornographic film actress. I have also added a valid cite too. Thank you. Eram7 (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- No. Have a look at WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and kindly do not rewrite the article based on tabloid sources again. MrOllie (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Dear.
- h
- t Eram7 (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Dear MrOllie,
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!! Best wishes to you, your family and relatives this holiday season! Take this opportunity to bond with your loved ones, whether or not are you celebrating Christmas. This is a special time for everybody, and spread the holiday spirit to everybody out there! 
From a fellow editor,
--★Trekker (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
This message promotes WikiLove. Created by Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook). To use this template, leave {{subst:User:Nahnah4/Merry Christmas}} on someone else's talk page.
★Trekker (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)