MrOllie

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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.[1][2][3]".
• (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)Reply

That is a very thorough answer, and extremely helpful. Thank you. Wiki142B (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Thanks Dear.

h

t Eram7 (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

 

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)Reply

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)Reply