User talk:Forp
Welcome[edit]
Welcome!
Hello, Forp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
A8UDI talk 19:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
NPOV, sourcing.[edit]
hey forp.. thanks again for all your hard work. just wanted to give you some advice, for what it is worth. Two things. 1) You would do well to work harder to make sure that content you create is NPOV, especially if you create content in Wikipedia's voice.... and 2) you may want to consider looking for more rigorous and "neutral" sources. When you are working on content that may be controversial, i recommend that you try to read what you are writing, and what sources you are using, and consider whether somebody on the other side of the issue would find the content neutral, and whether they would find the source authoritative. (picking sources like Forbes and Reason may not fly with people on the left, for example; and think about how you would find it, if someone who has a different perspective from you, wrote strong content sourced from Mother Jones or the like.) Wikipedia is created by editors being WP:BOLD for sure, but strong content in controversial articles must be neutrally stated and very well sourced to endure. Anyway, good luck! Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work, Jytdog. I agree that Forbes is right-of-center, so I disfavor it. I think that I had only two or so such references and many more left-of-center references also in my recent edits (e.g. Guardian and New York Times). I do prefer middle sources and particularly rigorous sources, but I only had a limited time. I have not checked your edits, because the tone of your comments seems to imply that your edits are NPOV, thoughtful and constructive. I believe that they provide quite an improvement anyway and my further edits would probably not make much positive difference. Thanks! --Forp (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
organic[edit]
Hi Forp - if you add stuff to an article and it gets reverted, please make sure that you follow WP:BRD and discuss it on Talk, before you just add it back as you did at Organic farming. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and we need to work together in good faith to reach consensus, when there are disagreements over content. Please be willing to discuss things. It is actually your responsibility to open a discussion if you add content and someone else reverts it, and you really want to get that content into the article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing got reverted, but 15 Feb I had moved a Rodale propaganda quote from the intro to a more suitable section and Redddbaron then had added it back to the intro without removing it from the other section, so March 1st I removed one of the two copies. Was this OK? Additionally, I made then some completely new edits too: Redddbaron had added further Rodale claims etc. as "facts" parallel to most reliable scientific results to negate them, so I rewrote them as opinions except that I completely removed some Rodale comment or the like that actually did not say anything, just some "has been studied" without stating the results or linking to other than Rodale, as far as I remember. Redddbaron reversed all my 1 March edits, and I haven't touched the article since. It does have too much Rodale-type propaganda instead of best scientific results and should be cleaned up, but after being reverted by Redddbaron I prefer to leave that job to third parties like you. However, I'll at least replace a study by its newer version. Forp (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- all i am saying, is that when there are disagreements over content, it is good to open a discussion and Talk it through - you can provide more reasoning (based on policies and guidelines if those are relevant, or it is just a matter of your personal preference, try to persuade other editors that your version improves the article). please keep in mind that if it is a matter of preference and not policy, making it a "win/lose" game means that everybody loses - you have to try to work toward consensus, which means honestly trying to find common ground with people who think differently. this is where wikipedia can become a nightmare (when people don't try to reach consensus but instead just ignore or bash the other guy) or can become something really beautiful - where people who think differently work together to try to create something excellent. Just editing back and forth with brief or no edit notes without discussion doesn't help reach consensus and make the content stable and and as excellent as it can be - it just makes the article unstable and makes everybody upset. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ok. I now wrote there. I believe that this will produce some convergence in any case, but I would prefer some completely neutral third parties taking stand or even editing. Though I'm in principle impartial, I admit that I am motivated by the fact that the page was pretty much a pro-organic propaganda page and still is to some extent. Redddbaron seems to want to keep the propaganda and has written it so that it is difficult to distinguish it from scientific results. And seems to call scientific results from neutral journals "anti-organic propaganda". So neither of us seems completely free of biases. Forp (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- all i am saying, is that when there are disagreements over content, it is good to open a discussion and Talk it through - you can provide more reasoning (based on policies and guidelines if those are relevant, or it is just a matter of your personal preference, try to persuade other editors that your version improves the article). please keep in mind that if it is a matter of preference and not policy, making it a "win/lose" game means that everybody loses - you have to try to work toward consensus, which means honestly trying to find common ground with people who think differently. this is where wikipedia can become a nightmare (when people don't try to reach consensus but instead just ignore or bash the other guy) or can become something really beautiful - where people who think differently work together to try to create something excellent. Just editing back and forth with brief or no edit notes without discussion doesn't help reach consensus and make the content stable and and as excellent as it can be - it just makes the article unstable and makes everybody upset. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing got reverted, but 15 Feb I had moved a Rodale propaganda quote from the intro to a more suitable section and Redddbaron then had added it back to the intro without removing it from the other section, so March 1st I removed one of the two copies. Was this OK? Additionally, I made then some completely new edits too: Redddbaron had added further Rodale claims etc. as "facts" parallel to most reliable scientific results to negate them, so I rewrote them as opinions except that I completely removed some Rodale comment or the like that actually did not say anything, just some "has been studied" without stating the results or linking to other than Rodale, as far as I remember. Redddbaron reversed all my 1 March edits, and I haven't touched the article since. It does have too much Rodale-type propaganda instead of best scientific results and should be cleaned up, but after being reverted by Redddbaron I prefer to leave that job to third parties like you. However, I'll at least replace a study by its newer version. Forp (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 16[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Organ trade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equality. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 13[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Organic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 23[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Right-wing authoritarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Factor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)