User talk:AlienFood

Different articles for different aspects: Entomophagy and Insects as food
Actually I can. The redirect target is a fully developed article; you version adds less than nothing. So, I'll AfD it.TheLongTone (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A fully developed article on a different aspect of the topic, yes. To develop the topic of edible insects under an article focused on the culture and process of eating insects is just misleading. Example: A mealworm is an edible insect, a house cricket is an edible insect. The are food such as soy, minced meat, etc., have certain nutritional profiles, ways of production, legal requirements. How do you want to describe that in the culture article "entomophagy"? We need a second article Insects as food / Edible insects. --AlienFood (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Undue additions on the subsubtopic of using insects as food
Hi, I've reverted some of your recent additions to well-developed and well-balanced articles on specific insects on the topic of using them as food. Since relationship with humans is only a subtopic of an insect article, use as food is a subsubtopic, and should be covered only briefly, as was the case before you started editing in the articles I've seen. Since you have edited more than one such article, it seems necessary to reply here rather than sprinkling rather similar comments around insect talk pages.

I note that your username implies a strong interest (risking WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK, and perhaps WP:ADV) in the use of other species as food, though in the case of insects, this is hardly 'alien' as the majority of human societies, barring modern Western culture, have eaten insects since prehistoric times. If you have any commercial interest in the use of insects as food you should declare that here, and take great care to edit evenly given the Conflict of Interest that that would imply. If not, you should take great care to edit evenly on any article you touch, in particular avoiding WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. As a rough guideline, a subtopic like human uses of an animal should not exceed about 1/5 of the length of the body of the article, and where use as food is one of four or five subsubtopics, that should not exceed about 1/5 of the length of the 'relationship with humans' section to comply with WP:UNDUE. As an even rougher guideline, keep the coverage down to one paragraph and at most one image. I hope this is clear: Wikipedia policy is simple and fair, and as policy, all editors are required to comply. Editing contrary to policy across multiple articles could be seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message and guideline. The paragraph on the use of crickets for food in the cricket article was more than insufficient, looking at the global use and significance of this insect as productive lifestock. Even the paragraph on crickets in book stories is larger. Nothing against you, but I have not seen a comparable resistance against any participation and progress in developing articles as with the articles on edible insects here. Plus: I am just somebody interested in the topic of food and am focusing on that in Wikipedia, that's why I chose the name. I can assure you there is no conflict of interest, I have no commercial stake in that field, otherwise I would declare it. As with your constant reverts of any development, one could rather think there is a conflict of interest with you and that you want to keep this topic low profile no matter the cost, despite a growing public significance and interest. Instead of taking my additions into account, building upon it (maybe shorten it to meet the UNDUE standards), you are just reverting (i.e. deleting everything), thus losing valuable additions. This is devaluing any work a user is putting in developing an article. With a frequent behavior (and deletion culture) like that it is no wonder that the number of active Wikipedia users is stagnating or even decreasing. This constant deletion of any developments meets the linked definition of disruptive much better (preventing the development of the encyclopedia). Just give this a thought. All the best, --AlienFood (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * These are mandatory policy, not guidelines for the most part. It is no part of my business here to defend myself from anything, but as it happens I am not part of any "deletion culture", indeed I have created hundreds of articles and brought hundreds to Good Article status, as well as rescued many from deletion at AfD. But I have a question for you. I see that announcements are being made in the news today about product launches of insect foods. Are you connected with such foods in any way? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have seen that you have created many excellent articles in the field of biology, and I can understand your interest to keep these articles biological, but it is in the interest of an encyclopedia to show a full picture of a topic. Looking at your news example: maybe you are seeing now that the topic is of increasing public interest, and developing the articles on edible insects is just having the hand on the pulse of time. I don't know where you are located and where these products are entering the market. But I can assure you, to connect me with product launches or anything is your personal conspiracy theory. By the way, my first contributions to Wikipedia were about fish, not insects. And I want to participate in a much broader selection of topics. --AlienFood (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Do not accuse other editors of conspiracy theory or apply any other descriptions or adjectives to anyone at any time (WP:CIVIL is the policy, please read it). As it happens, I have no such thing. I just asked in case there was a conflict of interest, and am glad to hear there isn't one. I am not purely a biology editor, and have indeed created many articles on biology in culture and other topics altogether. The cricket article, for example, already contains a thorough and good section forming some 20% of the article on the cultural aspects, as has already been explained to you, and you have been able to see for yourself. This is the last time I will make any defence of myself, as you are now aware of the requirements of Wikipedia policy.Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you. --AlienFood (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Nutritional advice has been nominated for discussion
Category:Nutritional advice has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)