Cboudre7
Welcome!
editHello, Cboudre7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Organic food
editHi! Please don't edit war. I don't know if you are familiar with the guideline, WP:BRD but it basically encourages editors to be Bold, but if you are Reverted, then Diiscuss. It is the wikipedia way - the opposite of edit warring, which is what you are doing. Please come to the Talk page and discuss. If you don't know where the Talk page is, you can get to it through a tab at the upper left hand corner of the article. The direct link is Talk:Organic_food. I have opened a discussion on this at the bottom of the Talk page. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Also, with respect to the content you wanted to add about the obstetric study, please read WP:PSTS and especially for health-related information, please read WP:MEDRS - we do not base content on primary sources -- we use secondary sources. This is especially true for health-related information - we need to have a review article that puts the obstetric study in context. Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- why are you not discussing things on Talk page of Genetically modified organism? Please do not edit war like this! Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
December 2013
edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Genetically modified organism. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. clpo13(talk) 19:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok seriously, I have admitted some relevant, and highly useful information to different locations on this page. I'm simply trying to fulfill an edit requirement for a university course. I understand that these topics are somewhat subjective, but who's to say that my information is any less applicable? I'm sick of it, how about I go in an delete everything I view as 'bullshit' on Wiki...there would be no Wikipedia left.
- OK seriously. Wikipedia does not exist so that you can get a grade in your college course. Do you see how crazy that is? (By the way, if your goal was to bang this out, you made kind of a bad choice to work on a controversial topic that is also technically difficult - but there are loads of articles that are not controversial and that have more simple subject matter, that need attention. See the list of topics here: Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention) I assume that the point of the assignment is that you make a useful and durable contribution to the encyclopedia. You have written content on the controversial topic you chose, that violates NPOV and is off-target. Your earlier effort was basically a copy/paste job from the abstract of a scientific article. None of that is good. Most importantly, you have blown off the key aspect of Wikipedia, which is that it is produced by a community of editors who follow the 5 pillars. It is not anybody's personal sandbox. If you want to get your assignment finished and you want to keep trying on this topic, please read what I wrote on the Talk page of the GMO article and respond there; we can talk together and work things out there; I also provided some pointers as to where some of the content could actually fit. Alternatively you could switch to a non-controversial topic - you could pick some article that needs attention from the article i linked to above. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't respond to part of what you wrote above. You wrote "who's to say that my information is any less applicable?" There actually are standards for Wikipedia - there are policies about content and sourcing, and those policies matter; they are what make Wikipedia a useful reference tool and not just a slag heap. It takes time and effort to learn the policies and guidelines. Every day, people have rational conversations about how to apply them to a given chunk of content. The answer to your question is "the community says, as they rationally apply policy and guidelines to content disputes", and "the community" is initially the editors who are involved in working on a given article at a given time; if good faith discussion on Talk doesn't resolve the dispute, there are ways to get wider community input, and if that fails, there are ways to bring in mediators who are also part of the community. It is actually all thought out. It is not subjective, as you describe. But you have to take some time to learn, and more importantly, you have to be committed to building a great encyclopedia, not just trying to bang out an assignment. This is actually an interesting example of conflict of interest. Your goals here are not aligned with Wikipedia's.Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK seriously. Wikipedia does not exist so that you can get a grade in your college course. Do you see how crazy that is? (By the way, if your goal was to bang this out, you made kind of a bad choice to work on a controversial topic that is also technically difficult - but there are loads of articles that are not controversial and that have more simple subject matter, that need attention. See the list of topics here: Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention) I assume that the point of the assignment is that you make a useful and durable contribution to the encyclopedia. You have written content on the controversial topic you chose, that violates NPOV and is off-target. Your earlier effort was basically a copy/paste job from the abstract of a scientific article. None of that is good. Most importantly, you have blown off the key aspect of Wikipedia, which is that it is produced by a community of editors who follow the 5 pillars. It is not anybody's personal sandbox. If you want to get your assignment finished and you want to keep trying on this topic, please read what I wrote on the Talk page of the GMO article and respond there; we can talk together and work things out there; I also provided some pointers as to where some of the content could actually fit. Alternatively you could switch to a non-controversial topic - you could pick some article that needs attention from the article i linked to above. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
hahahaha yes, it was clearly my decision to incorporate wiki edits within a university curriculum....as if I was the one who figured this was a good idea....go get a life bud.
- The topic was your choice, I assume. Is it time we reach out for your instructor to help? Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
We were told we had to select a topic that was controversial...trust me this is not my idea.