User talk:Redddbaron

Your article was deleted per the discussion. There was little to no coverage of the term outside of HMI's website and related programs. See WP:NEOLOGISM for more details on relevant policy. LFaraone 02:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my article. I was simply editing it to meet wiki standards when you deleted it right in the middle of my editing. Thats all I am saying. I had already probably changed the article enough to not need deleting, but I wasn't finished yet. Redddbaron (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and I'm saying it was deleted as the conclusion of the discussion I linked to above. I re-read through the final version of the article, and there are very few references talking about holistic management independent of the company. LFaraone 05:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • And there were no references at all anywhere of any type before I started editing it. As I stated before I was slowly working on it. (even before I made my own wiki account), so the page was far from "final form". I would request you undelete it or at least userfy it it until I can finish. Alternately I can rewrite it in a form that could be merged with Managed intensive rotational grazing. But I did most that work and research without saving it anyplace else as I had no sandbox before I opened a wiki account today for the very purpose of working on this important article. I don't think you realize how important this holistic management actually is. Since I am not connected in any way to any companies involved, I wouldn't be putting all this work into it if it wasn't important.Redddbaron (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. User:Redddbaron/Holistic_management. LFaraone 15:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redddbaron! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YOU WROTE: Hello tree! I am working on rewriting a page that was recently deleted. I could sure use some help as I am a complete novice. I only opened my wiki account a couple days ago. In fact the very reason I opened an account was to work on this page. Although it is deleted, I was able to get it wikified or userfied or whatever you call it here at wiki. I have basically rewritten the entire article and added a dozen or more references. Can you look at it and either let me know if it is ready for wiki or help me to get it ready? I chose you because of your interest in birds, and therefore obviously ecology.

Thanks, ScottRedddbaron (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scott. You chose a challenging article for your first. If you're willing to spend quite a bit of time doing more research and more rewriting, I think that an article on the subject deserves a place in Wikipedia. So far, you've done a lot of work trying to fix the old article. My first recommendation is to stop . Rather than try to fix a defective, deleted article, start over; write a good article yourself.

Before answering you, I looked at the deletion discussion and then your current draft. Try this yourself. Highlight the first 20 or 30 words of your userfied article and paste the whole thing into a Google search, then enclose that whole string of words with quotation marks. Google it. How many web pages use exactly the same string of words? Hundreds. I didn't search for the source of those words; they're promotional fluff, not encyclopedic information. I suspect the lead paragraph was copy-and-paste from an ad for Allan Savory's book or one of his web sites.

As I looked at articles related to the Holistic management article, I had to agree with comments in the deletion discussion. The original author(s) of the article and related articles did create a walled garden of articles centered on Allan Savory: Holistic Management International (also suggested for deletion, Savory Institute (already deleted and now a redirect to the Allan Savory article) and so on. I see parallels. Permaculture is to Bill Mollison as Holistic management is to Allan Savory. That Holistic management and related terms are Trademarked creates problems in writing an article in a neutral point of view that is not promotional on behalf of any of the related organizations or people (Go to the Trademark page and use the TESS tool to search for Holistic management.).

Now a few specific suggestions:

1. Learn Wikipedia's standards for citations. E-Gad! OK, you don't have to learn all that to create good references. Go to Referencing for Beginners and watch the six and a half minute webcast on that page and you'll consistently create acceptable citations the easy way. All you have to do is fill in the blanks. Bare URLs are subject to Link rot and attract unwanted attention as well as being a poor reference style.
2. Learn ways to search for sources and then to mine them. Try this. Use Amazon to search for Allan Savory. Follow a link to one of his books even though his books are primary sources and can't be used to establish notability for including an article in Wikipedia. Scroll way down below the About the author and Most helpful customer reviews and you should find a section titled Citations. Follow the list of citations which will be secondary and third party sources that are acceptable references.
3. Grok Holistic management as a concept. Take it out of the walled garden. Rather than writing an article about Allan Savory's trademarked Holistic management, write about it as a concept from an world-wide encycloypedic viewpoint. How does it relate to Overgrazing? Duh! Your article should link to Overgrazing and, once your article is accepted, Overgrazing should link back to your article. Does it relate to Grazing management? Well... that isn't an article, just a redirect to Ranch. That is probably too narrow a view for an encyclopedia. What about wildlife that graze? Elephants and antelope and all the other wild critters that graze on less and less available land. I added the {{Farming}} template to your draft to broaden the viewpoint. As you write, keep notes on related articles that should link back to your article and on articles that need expansion or improvement.

We're building an encyclopedia, the greatest collection of free knowledge on earth. You're helping. We have to do so in accordance with Wikipedia's core principles. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 15:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC) (Reply here. I'll be watching your talk page for a while.)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Keep up the good work, Scott! Of course there should be a Holistic Management article. Like you I'm not involved with it but I am convinced of its effectiveness and importance for the future of the planet. Kudos! Danny Sprinkle (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK Guys I spent many hours working on the article. I followed you guys advise and put many links where applicable to other areas related to agriculture or environmentalism. I completely cleaned up the reference section. No bare URLs anymore. I went "mining" sources and found several which I have added including one on how this can benefit birds' habitat. I am up over 20 sources now. Not bad considering when I first saw the article it had just one....in the criticism section no less! hahahahaha

I came across two potentially great sources to be mined, but as of yet I haven't figured out exactly how to do it in a way that meets Wiki standards.

One is His Royal Highness, Prince of Wales, Prince Charles' endorsement and call to action in a speech to the [IUCN]. http://www.iucn.org/knowledge/multimedia/video/?10774/Prince-Charles-sends-a-message-to-IUCNs-World-Conservation-Congress

And the other is a Ted Talk. http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html

Any help you guys could give me in figuring out how to incorporate these please?

Use the template {{cite AV media}}. More templates for unusual sources at WP:CT. Be sure to use IUCN as the source/authority. YouTube is generally not considered a reliable source. That the IUCN video is posted on YouTube shouldn't be a problem. The TED piece is primary source, not suitable for establishing notability, but a great explanation of Savory's ideas.

Besides that, any indications from you guys how close I am getting to an article acceptable to WIKI? My brain is getting exhausted already!Redddbaron (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look after dark tonight. Thanks for all your work, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 16:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, couldn't resist taking a quick look now (neglecting chores). Sections 3 and 4, The holistic management framework and The four principles are close paraphrasing of the content of copyrighted sources. Those sections need to be completely rewritten in your own words. It may be best to combine them into one section. The rest of the article looks pretty good, a foundation to build on as holistic management continues to develop. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 17:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK Guys. I have worked till my eyes are crossed. I rewrote 3 and 4 completely as you asked, not only is it in my own words, I think it now contains far more information (I hope). I think it may be ready for a consensus vote for publishing on Wiki. I am sure it no longer is a walled garden since it is linked all over the place in wiki and it has almost 40 references including both mainstream news and niche, scientific studies both pro and con, books including a State University level text book, a user guide published by an extension service, a major award or two plus a few minor awards, a quote from a notable person, Major NGO's, government publications etc... Notability should be no problem. I am certain it also isn't a Neologism anymore. I tried to keep a neutral POV by mostly talking about goals and purposes, and not talking so much about how effective those goals and purposes and methods are necessarily (except where needed to establish notability). There is basically nothing left of the original article, all changed. I do have an idea to potentially add a nutrition section and/or animal welfare section, but so far I left that off. Opening up that can of worms will bring a huge onslaught of controversy and might turn my article into a battleground. LOL I also chose to not use much from Joel Salatin (probably the most famous farmer using holistic management) or Michael Pollan although there is such a huge wealth of information there, it will inevitable cause a huge controversy. I did mention Salatin in passing (references) and could potentially do a block quote from Salatin and/or Pollan. They have quite a few juicy quotes that I can think of off the top of my head. Joels famous "respecting the pigness of the pig" quote especially! http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7857921 LOLRedddbaron (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just beefed up the criticism section a bit.Redddbaron (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everyone's help!Redddbaron (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SmartSE (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Congratulations on your Holistic management article getting moved into the article space. It looks great! I look forward to seeing more articles from you like this one! Technical 13 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The common term is 'holistic planned grazing.' What with all the competing terms going around it's advisable not to introduce yet another, i.e., 'holistic managed planned grazing,' which, when googled, comes up with only a few results, all apparently of your coining. Look at my change to 'biommimicry' and let me know what you think... Danny Sprinkle (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found it in a published scientific study. (it is referenced) I certainly didn't make it up. I personally think HMPG HPG and HG should all redirect to HM. I don't know how to do redirects though. Redddbaron (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I have no problem with your change at the biomimicry page. I really don't care if it is called "holistic planned grazing" or "holistic managed planned grazing" I have even seen it called "short duration adaptive planned grazing" and "short duration rotational grazing" and just "short duration grazing". And also "Mob stock grazing", "mob grazing" and "mob stocking" and also there is the "Managed intensive rotational grazing", "Managed rotational grazing" and just "rotational grazing". I think each term has a place and really depends on the context. In general I have seen "holistic" when one the goals is ecological. I have seen "ecograzing" when the main primary goal is ecology. I see "managed" when one of the goals is meat milk fibre etc..., I see "rotational" used usually when the livestock are put on the same paddock more than once a year. and I see the biggest scientific controversy over when these are "Prescribed" or "Adaptive" styles of management being applied. Keep in mind I didn't invent any of these terms. I simply spent hours wading through the published literature, much of which was not acceptable to being a reference for my article for whatever reason....Ie a youtube vid or a blog, a biased powerpoint presentation, a webinar, a TV show etc...Redddbaron (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to that published scientific study? Personally I like 'biomimetic grazing,' since it seems thats what it's all converging to: how best to mimic the way nature grazes. Danny Sprinkle (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where I first saw it. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140196309000962 I know I saw it other places too though.Redddbaron (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll be. Much thanks. Redddbaron strikes again! BTW, two links with which you may be familiar but just want to make sure. The first is an article by Salatin in Acres. The other is a classic Greg Judy talk. Cheers. Danny Sprinkle (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I had seen the Salatin one about a year before but had lost it. Now I have it to put in the references! Much thanks. I never saw the youtube link before. I saved it to my playlist. Many thanks for that too.Redddbaron (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still, might there be a way I could get you to adopt 'holistic planned grazing' instead of 'holistic managed planned grazing'? That's what Savory and company call it. Google favors it 28000 to 10. Could you change all of yours to 'holistic planned grazing' or give me the okay to change them? Danny Sprinkle (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! You obviously have done the research. So why would I care? I wrote the article, but I don't own the article. If you think a common name suits it better than the full scientific name. By all means. But I do think the full scientific name needs mentioned at least once. After that the common name is just fine.Redddbaron (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC) PS Ok I made some changes. After stepping back and reading it again from fresh eyes, I think you are right. It does seem to flow better now. I left only 1 full name and used the common names where appropriate. I even changed one of the "holistic management" to "holistic planned grazing" And it reads better! Read it through and see if you don't agree? IMHO your idea was fantastic! Thanks so much!Redddbaron (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Scott, for going with HPG. I feel much better now. But just one more thing. In looking again at the Rauch paper you gave me the link to, I notice it's actually Holistic Management Planned Grazing. It thus appears Holistic Managed Planned Grazing is entirely of your coining. Hah! Take that Redddbaron! Mind you, HPG is still the preferred term, but a search of the correct HMPG renders many more results, and at least one by the old man himself. So, if you could remedy this one remaining issue, all will be right with the world. And thanks for your kind words on another page. Danny Sprinkle (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOLZ OK fair enough. Done! ;) Redddbaron (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...much better... Danny Sprinkle (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, happy to. Let's deal with the AFD first and then we can work on a rebuild. Cheers, Stalwart111 07:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK How to "deal"? It is relisted, so it can be edited, references added etc.

Yeah, it can be edited while it's at AFD. I'll comment at the AFD and then give the article a once-over. Stalwart111 11:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added a little and also took off some, all documented on the talk page.Redddbaron (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, am doing the same. Stalwart111 03:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for all your help. It is already looking very good.Redddbaron (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curious as to why you removed the second reference to the PBS film? Isn't it relevant? In the vid itself it shows the land under HMI management. Also it says in the caption "holistic". Seems like it would be adding information. True it would be better if the whole movie could be referenced, but you have to pay for that. Redddbaron (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Tom Wagner photo.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom himself gave me permission to use the file. But as far as I know, no one is enforcing any copyrights on it anyway. I am writing a page for Tom. I have uploaded 2 other photos for other pages, but always ask permission first.Redddbaron (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:HMI Building.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, you should justify at least your revert. Linking agronomy and agricultural science together is exactly what has produced some problems on wikidata and all these interwiki asymmetries. If some languages merged agronomy with the wider concept of agricultural science is no excuse. I will leave a notice in their talk, I am actually starting right now with de.wiki after some cross-check in dictionaries, veryfing all the titles to my knowledge, but i strongly believe that forcing the situation has clearly proved not to be a good strategy. --Alexmar983 (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your uploads may be unfree. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 15#OTRS pending since July. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2 (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your files may be unfree. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 21#OTRS pending since September. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.[reply]

OK, you are really getting angry, and so am I. One of the things that is making this frustrating for both of us, is that you still are learning how Wikipedia works, but you are making stronger and stronger claims. I just realized over on my Talk page, that you have not understood the distinction between primary and secondary sources... I have been trying to say this to you over and over and this has been the key thing that you not getting. I am very much hoping that you will get it now. Primary sources and secondary sources are different. We use secondary sources not primary sources. And we use the most recent reviews.. and you will notice that the article already uses the most recent reviews. This is how Wikipedia works. Please acknowledge that you understand the distinction now. . This is Wikipedia, and we do things a certain way. You have to learn this if you want to keep working here. f you do not come to understand how we work and keeping making accusations and trying to add primary sources, you will be putting yourself at risk of getting topic banned. So please, please, understand this. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you 100 references to go through and figure out which meet wiki standards and which don't and let you rewrite the article so that instead of reading like an industrial ag propaganda piece, it reads like a quality encyclopedia. I could have given you at least twice that number, maybe more. I simply don't have time for an edit war, even if I wanted one. (which I don't) You seem to have taken the role of guardian of that article. OK Guard it then. Don't let the industrial ag advocates ruin a wiki page on organic food because they have a financial stake in discrediting everything about organic. That's my take on what is happening not only here in wiki, but also in the "bigger picture". (that's why it is so easy to find and reference that propaganda) I don't even want the page to be a fluff page for organic any more than you do. But there has to be a way to write the page that meets wiki standards and also doesn't tell well referenced propaganda from either side.Redddbaron (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here I can respond to. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Just know this then. I am not angry at you. I simply was following your advise. You advised me to play my role as an expert and provide sources that might not commonly be available to people who know nothing about agriculture. But you also advised me to watch and be careful about several other issues like advocacy NPOV owning and various other rules. So I gave you 100 references, and you or any other editor can use them or not as you see fit. I didn't change the page. Just gave references for others to use. Some are primary, some are reviews, but all are credible. If you read all 100 of them, and then read the wiki page, you should understand why I say the article is biased. I am happy to post in talk 100 more citations whenever you get finished with the ones I posted already. (and 100 more after that and 100 more after that.......) They are not particularly hard to find if you are knowledgeable on the subject. You are right. I am relatively new to wiki as an editor. But I am not new at all to the games people (including scientists) play in writing reviews. They simply narrow the criteria till only a limited number of sources qualify, say a dozen or so. Then in their review of say of those dozen or so studies, they found no evidence of this or that. When anyone like us here at wiki quotes that out of context, it reads like there is no evidence at all, not just that there wasn't any evidence in those dozen or so studies. Then bingo, serious science turns into scientific bias, and in extreme cases propaganda. That's why the organic food page reads like an anti organic propaganda blog. I am not by any means the first to point that out. Hopefully you can figure it out yourself, and fix it. If not, the 100 references (and any more that anyone else might need) can be used by anyone willing to take a stab at fixing the page and getting back to "good article" status for the agricultural project. I did my best time allowed for now. Time someone else did it. Later when I have more time, if it still reads like a propaganda blog I'll try again. In the mean time all I got is 1,000s of references that I obtained for my own research project that I am willing to post for anyone needing citations.Redddbaron (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you are not doing anything i advised you to do. i am sorry you misunderstood. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that's not your advise, then I am confused for sure. Even more confused as to why anyone would be angry at me for posting citations for editors to use to fix the page. Fact 1) The page is no longer considered by wiki to be a "good article" Fact 2) The page is excruciatingly and painfully biased. Fact 3) The bias is mostly the result of the lack of good citations. Fact 4) I have thousands of citations available to me to fix that. Fact 5) Nibbling away at such a fundamentally flawed wiki page by me ended up only causing controversy and ill will by nitpickers unwilling to even wait and see how it might turn out. Fact 6) I don't have time to fix it all at once. The obvious conclusion by me was to just list citations and let others fix the page...... until such a time as I have time myself to do major changes instead of nibbling a sentence or two at a time.Redddbaron (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if you have any questions i would be happy to answer you. but good luck. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Agriculture

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Agriculture for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 09:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiousity, what article(s) are you talking about with regard to all the POV-pushing and source rejection, in that WikiProject Argriculture interview for Signpost?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several actually. But the two most recent were organic farming and organic food. See I found I couldn't edit a paragraph on organic farming to remove the bias until the organic food article had its bias fixed. Apparently due to the requirement that wiki stay consistent within itself. But when I went to the organic food page to rewrite that, I met a massive stone wall.Redddbaron (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) SMcCandlish the "stone wall" that redddbaron ran into, was that he was trying to add content without sources, or based on WP:PRIMARY sources instead of WP:SECONDARY ones. There were additional problems with addressing the sourcing standards described in the guideline, WP:MEDRS. redddbaron is still wrapping his head around our policies and guidelines, and there is frustration all around as he learns. Redddbaron, your knowledge of ag matters and your desire to improve the encyclopedia are great, and I really value them. But the sourcing guidelines WP:RS and WP:MEDRS are important. I wish you would be more patient. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this essay interesting. Please note it has an AfD here. David Tornheim (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Yobol (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Yobol posted the same warning before I submitted mine. I removed my duplicate, but please keep in mind in the future that when an edit is reverted, it's generally best not to re-add that content, but hold off while discussing proposed edits at the talk page first to reach consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not warring. I was simply editing and when I attempted to add a citation the edit I had made moments earlier was reverted. This caused an edit conflict. So to add the citation (I ended up adding 2) I had to reinstate the content. Actually this amounts to WP:own and not by me. A good faith editor has to have a chance to finish the edit, including time to add the citations to back it up, before the subject can even be brought up on talk page. Else there is nothing to talk about! The article is poorly written and has been for a very long time. But if people keep trying to own it, it will never get fixed. Keep in mind stewardship in contrast to owning, is for good articles. That article lost good article status and was delisted October 15, 2007. Every attempt to fix that from multiple editors has been thwarted. Once it gets back to good article status, then we can surely justify stewardship. Until then you need to allow changes, or it stays poorly written.Redddbaron (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, please refrain from posting spurious warnings on user talk pages as you did here. I made one revert, and that to remove content you were continuing to edit war in without reaching consensus on it. Your content was reverted, so that is the time to stop adding it back it and instead reach consensus on what to do first. In that situation, you need to justify a proposed edit the others at the talk page and work on a potential fix to any issues rather than try to reinsert it. WP:BRD is very clear on that.

Also, please stop casting aspersions about OWN. That is a red herring at this point as it's been explained at the talk page what the issues are already with the specific content. You've run into issues with lashing out rather than approaching editing civilly, so please don't continue that. You are at a point where you would likely be blocked for going over 3 reverts if it was reported at WP:AN3, so please be mindful of focusing on discussing proposed edits first when it's been made apparent others are not in a agreement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a year of obfuscating the content of the article and insuring the article has a decidedly anti-organic bias is not a form of owning, then I guess it sure does take a lot to own something. I walked away already for months just because it was aggravating me and not worth the fight. When I returned I found the same ol same ol there. So fast in fact that my edit was reverted before I even had a chance to add citations. So fast in fact I couldn't even post due to an edit conflict. There is no way anyone could have actually thought out the edit. It is owned so thoroughly that rejecting edits is reflex action there.jytdog did think it through. clearly. (and usually does) So it's not everyone doing it. But it still happens. I may not be a diplomat, but my dad was a newspaperman, and I learned from a very early age how to spot deceptive slant in an article. There have been attempts to slant that article both ways, both pro organic and anti organic. The difference is that the anti organic largely remains and the pro organic is gone. It's even been tagged for it. What it needs is quality editing without slant. That paragraph in particular is slanted anti organic, and it is obvious due to the structure. Yobol even admitted it! He said, "re-order to move important info first" meaning it was important to get his slant in first even if it did make the paragraph unwieldy and inappropriate for a lead.Redddbaron (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting frustrated partly because it seems you're still not up to speed with how we do things at Wikipedia. At this point, you need to develop and propose specific content on the talk page if you want to keep pursuing it. If you cannot do that and instead start flinging accusations of OWN around in place of that, Wikipedia may not be the place for you.

Also keep in mind that we follow neutral point of view here. That does not mean we give equal time and prominence to opposing viewpoints, especially in science topics. Instead, we reflect the mainstream viewpoint and give it due weight (or due "slant" if you want). At this time, the science just isn't behind most pro-organic claims and aligns more with saying a lot of organic's claims are unfounded, so that's what we currently reflect. If the literature changes, we'll reflect that, but we're not going to see that paradigm shift with claims of a random variable being different while being confounded with other factors like we currently see. The science needs to tease that apart to really start making claims of differences, and that hasn't really shown up in the literature yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between acknowledging that some pro-organic content might be not science based, and removing it; and removing NPOV content that is science based because it isn't anti enough. What I wrote is the scientific consensus. If Yobul disagrees that's his issue he will have to deal with. It has no business being on a wiki page.Redddbaron (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content was removed for very clear reasons already discussed on the talk page. Again we don't care about pro or anti stances here, just what the scientific point of view is. You'll need sources demonstrating the specific scientific content. From what I've seen in sources so far, there isn't consensus there is any legitimate difference. If you want to discuss content, that's best left for the article talk page. This issues with your content have been posed there, none of which are insinuating the red herrings you are bringing up here, so please focus on the content issues being posed if you feel strongly about the content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are already numerous citations on the page proving that what I wrote is the scientific consensus. Here is just one more besides the two I used: Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses Marcin Barański et al but there are dozens. Not only that, but another source: Food Safety News ran an article: Report: Organic Industry Achieved 25 Years of Fast Growth Through Fear and Deception #43 is clearly an "anti organic" article used as a source. But my citation from the same Food Safety News: "Organic vs. Non-Organic: What’s the Difference?" which was written in a NPOV style was removed 3 times from the article (last time by you) and claimed to be "unscientific source" by you!Redddbaron (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redddbaron, while I agree with your edit and find it less tendentious than the current version, I suggest you let the Food Safety News ref go and focus on the medical journal review articles as refs for your changes. There are a number of editors on Organic foods and related pages who are very insistent upon the use of sources which meet WP:MEDRS for anything remotely related to health.Dialectric (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Redddbaron, I already outlined what you need to do on the talk page to make claims about scientific consensus. You need to bring up the reviews available to us so we can weight and summarize them for specific content. Again, it's best not to beat around the bush at this point if you want to pursue that. Currently though, Yobol's version seems to do a fine job of covering these very issues in a concise and non-vague manner. If you have improvements to suggest on this particular topic, best to discuss them at the talk page rather than here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dialectric, I have no attachment to my source, only used it to prove the hypocrisy of the people who insist on making the organic food article an anti-organic propaganda piece. If the same source reports something that is a negative puff piece, it is allowed, but report something neutral and science based (not even positive, just neutral) it is not allowed. It proves the editors insistence on a negative bias for the article. Negative puff citations are allowed and stand for months, neutral science based citations are removed within moments....and from the same publisher both! Now it is true that the source isn't a scientific study per se. Instead it is reporting on the state of scientific knowledge at the time it was written in the case of the one I used. But none of that matters, the point is the bias in this wiki article makes it a poor wiki page.Redddbaron (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors with a negative slant have no monopoly on the removal of sources. If there are negative health claims cited to non-MEDRS 'puff piece' sources, feel free to remove the sources using that guideline. While this may not be ideal, it can often be easier to correct bias through removal of poorly sourced content than addition of sourced, neutral content.Dialectric (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redddbaron, this behavior isn't helpful, and engaging in WP:POINTY behavior like you just admitted to will only stall development of the article and likely end in a ban on your part if you continue that line of acting. If you want to address a specific piece of content, then do so concisely at the article and talk page. You aren't going to get attention on issues if you start in on one thing and jump to another source or piece of content. The conversation needs to stay focused on specific content at hand.

I'm betting there's plenty of stuff on the page I just haven't gotten around to scrutinizing yet (and probably so with most editors there). Most editors work on content specific pieces at a time rather than article-wide, so you can't berate editors for a problem you see and call them responsible for it. If you see a potential issue, bring it up at the article talk page so it can get some focus (i.e. WP:FIXIT as Dialectric suggested. It could very well be others noticed the issue but just let it be for the time being. I for one am done in this conversation. If you have things to discuss about content, I'll be at the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly wish you luck and am assuming good will. I am somewhat skeptical though. As the whole fight over a simple rewording on the very first edit I made since I came back happened within moments of my trying to improve the page.Redddbaron (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See? It didn't take long. I removed the citation and the associated negative text just like you suggested and it is already reverted. If I revert it back I will be accused once again of warring. Just wanted to prove that to you Dialectric.Redddbaron (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically focused on health claims because these are the ones for which only MEDRS refs apply. Sorry for not emphasizing that point more. The claim you removed has to do with marketing, and subject not to MEDRS but just the normal reliable source rules. The source you removed should go and stay gone, but it looks like the 'promoted by the organic food industry,' is going to be more of a challenge to remove. I believe the Academics review is not a strong source and will add more on that on the article talk page.Dialectric (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an exact copy of my original edit in full once I completed it (yes it took a couple tries to get it all there as I was interrupted repeatedly): 15:04, 27 April 2015‎

"There are some qualitative differences between organic and conventionally produced food[3][4] However, the variable nature of food production and handling makes it difficult to generalize results, and there is insufficient evidence to support claims that organic food is safer or healthier than conventional food.[5][6][7][8][9]" As you can see no health claims made, Neutral POV, multiple reliable sources.Redddbaron (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I agree with your sourcing. Unfortunately even here user Kingofaces43 is saying only WP:ILIKEIT. The thing is, is that even on my talkpage I get warning from him. My suggestion will be to wait couple years then he will retire from the project, and that accusations of edit warring will be gone. Another thing to mention, as far as consensus goes, there is one, but when Kingofaces43 is behind it, then everyone need to agree with him because he is older and therefore more experienced. I however despise such a strategy, because not every editor is experienced and therefore can make mistakes. Furthermore, some editors do get paid, and probably Kingofaces43 is one of them, who knows. --Mishae (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redddbaron! I think the definition of Organic Agriculture needs a bit more thought. The one you have reverted to has a broken link, and is also not a complete definition. I could farm doing all those things "Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony", but if I used a small amount of synthetic fertilizer, or a synthetic pyrethroid derivative of low toxitity, it wouldn't be be defined as Organic Agriculture. I suggest reverting to the brief but accurate USDA definition for the moment. RAMRashan (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The broken link is because that entire section of the USDA government website is down. More than likely due to reorganisation or updating, but I sincerely doubt the USDA will be crashed forever. Patience would seem to be in order. Your argument is actually covered in the main body of the article, as yes, organic methods are increasingly being adopted by non-organic producers and slowly out of necessity the two are gradually merging. That wouldn't change the definition though, it would simply mean that you are adding organic methodology, but not quite there to a certifiable level yet.Redddbaron (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Keep in mind too that this is a general definition, as certification boards do vary internationally. So going by strict definitions of certification processes are often different than general definitions somewhat at least. It is analogous to a tomato being scientifically a fruit, but socially and legally a vegetable. In that location of the article we need a general definition.Redddbaron (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Scott/Redddbaron, I'm editing a number of agriculture related articles right now, I note you've done some major work on the subject here and I have a suspicion you fall on the other side of the ideological divide as me, hehe (no, I'm exaggerating, but I am more into conventional ag, methinks), so I would be very pleased if you might comment on my suggestions/changes/criticisms, as you likely have something to say. Also like to add that your edits do seem useful. Here's a few:

• Criticism: You authored Holistic management (agriculture), but I see many of the references used do not corroborate the text, do not even contain the word "holistic", you wrote this a long time ago, but what's up with that?
• Looking for feedback: See Talk:Managed intensive rotational grazing (rename) and Talk:Intensive farming (split (again)).

Thank you! Leo Breman (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I am around. I did author Holistic Management, but with a ton of help from other editors. It was certainly a challenging article to start out with and it has been edited since by others. Usually to make it into something worse though IMHO. As for your question, I believe you will find the citations reference the text rather than HPG every time. Sometimes the text might claim there are multiple closely related systems with similar results, even spawned by the same researchers. In those cases I would provide references showing the linkage. For example, Pastures for Profit: A Guide to Rotational Grazing - NRCS

Is an extension document showing how to use this research in a very hands on way using the generic term "Management intensive rotational grazing". in the text you will find a quote,

"There are many names for intensive rotational grazing; Voisin grazing, Hohenheim grazing, intensive grazing management, management intensive grazing, short duration grazing, Savory systems, strip grazing, controlled grazing, and high-intensity, low-frequency grazing. "

And should you read it carefully all the way to the end you will find an additional reading section with a few works by Voisin then Alan Savory's book,

"Holistic Resource Management by Allan Savory. 1988. Washington, D.C.:Island Press. 558 pages."

And then a couple other authors.

Now go to the article I wrote and you will find a similar structure, the early versions were the result of research by Voisin, who inspired the most advanced versions by Alan Savory. Keep in mind I paid hard focus to avoid a "walled Garden" effect as per Wiki policy. This is not an article about only some trademarked grazing system, but rather a more general generic use of the term holistic management in general as the management techniques are universal over a much wider range even extending outside of agriculture by now. To ignore Savory's influence would be wrong, but so would trying to make it exclusively about him as well. It is much wider ranging at this point. But just glancing at the article I see the same sorts of edits that originally got the topic pulled down to begin with cropping up again. I will try to clean it up a bit to make it more closely follow wikipedia policy again. I hadn't been watching it too closely for a few years now, and the flavor of the article is beginning to degrade again.

As for your other requests for feedback, I will visit those pages and see if I can help.Redddbaron (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding! Yes, but I believe Holistic Management still needs major work regarding tone and sourcing. I would be happy if you'd comment/check. An important distinction is if the article is about holisticism in agriculture in general, or specifically Savory's system. Hey, I've seen your edits here and elsewhere, they are good in many cases, but this first article you made still has problems. Let's work together to improve stuff! Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redddbaron! You created a thread called Edit war and sabotage of articles at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]