User talk:Enrico Vandenberg

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Enrico Vandenberg, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Organic farming have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Repeatedly adding similar content without discussion on the talk page to reach a consensus is WP:EDIT WARRING. Other editors are removing your content for policy-based reasons, among them WP:notnews, and WP:UNDUE weight with the added content giving more attention to this study than other studies. I understand that new editors need some space to learn the rules, but if you are unwilling to accept that wikipedia policies take precedence over your desire to 'fully convey' the content of the study, you may have difficulty here. A brief mention of the Nature study likely can be included, but several paragraphs on a single study is not how wikipedia articles are written, and is not acceptable. Discuss the content on the talk page before adding it again. Dialectric (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 16:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you help me improve that text? Enrico Vandenberg (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh my god... I have noticed my serious mistake from your judgment. It seems like I was too biased into a separate study that didn't keep the article neutral and I conveyed a large volume of text for a study. Thanks you and please forgive me for this. I just started... So I really want to put it on WIKI, but how can it be okay ?! Can you help me write it? I intend to record it in a short text and need you to approve it! Please, I need the help! Enrico Vandenberg (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying. When adding new text, it is often best to look at examples that are already on wikipedia, either in the article you intend to edit, or a closely related article. The 'productivity' section of Organic_farming seems like a logical place to add content on the new study if other editors support the addition on the article talk page. I suggest 2 sentences at most, since in my estimation, that is the typical amount of coverage general articles in agriculture typically give to any one study.Dialectric (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Organic food. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

A suggestion for an edit of what you had added
I revised what you wrote to a style more suited for Wikipedia. Other editors may still disagree with the validity of the references, but not the writing style. David notMD (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Organic farming tends to have lower yields per acre. Thus, for equal yields, organic farming will require more land, which can mean deforestation and a higher "Carbon Opportunity Cost."
 * Thank you for giving me your goodwill help. Please allow me to rewrite everything of you into Organic Farming page. Can I do that? But I think that the reduced version doesn't fully show the content of the study. But people may not understand the "Carbon opportunity cost"! Because it has never been used until now. There are two important things in the study that are the Indirect emissions of Biofuels and the focus of the study on comparing two organic crops and two conventional crops. But the problem started when I wrote too much, they didn't agree. If I wrote too little then the meaning of the content became deviation. But there is an unclear paradox that is... Why the other editors may still disagree with the validity of the references? And I started to become crazy by this absurdity. Anyway, I also thank you so much for your kindness! Enrico Vandenberg (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are welcome to copy what I have suggested into articles. Wikipedia's directive calls for extraordinary citation support for extraordinary claims - in this case the idea that 'organic' farming is potentially worse for the planet than chemical-assisted farming. Right now, you have one study, reported in two places: Nature and the Chalmers website. Other editors may revert the content on the grounds that it is premature until other published content agrees. Lastly, Wikipedia's Talk areas at articles and Teahouse are not a soapbox, e.g. a place for people to go on and on and on about a new idea. Being short and neutral in tone wins out over lengthy screeds. Keep in mind that the editors who have responded to your edits have been at Wikipedia for many years. You have two options here: A) make changes to the article and risk being reverted again; or B) start a new comment in the Talk page for the article and post your proposed edit there. Other editors will probably enter the discussion at the Talk page. If you and they can move the content to a consensus, then and only then do you move it to the article. David notMD (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, thank you for taking the time for this trouble! After that, ... hahaha it's funny, while I'm writing these words, I can't control this. Honestly, the censorship and approval of other editors as well as Wikipedia's current situation is going to death for the world's fifth most popular website. Why, because a bureaucracy includes administrators chosen to prevent vandalism and also inadvertently hinder the free contributions of new editors. This is an operational meaning that goes against the initial expectations and thoughts of Jimmy Wales for the Wikipedia project. Jimmy Wales will be disappointed because he accidentally created this stupid "police team". This police team includes ordinary users who are selected as administrators. They were operating so rigidly and like a parrot. They even destroy vandals and also destroy new people. They create a stupid rule that goes against the freedom of contribution of Jimmy Wales. Enrico Vandenberg (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * That is I have not mentioned the rationale of content discussion. The research problem that I mentioned and added to the Organic Farming page was peer reviewed. Moreover, this is not the only study that shows this, there have been many studies before showing this. The research that I cite relates to Chalmers University and Princeton University. Its results have been proven very much in other studies in the past, a special feature of this latest study is the use of a completely new metric method. There is no reason to expect another study to acknowledge it, because basically, serious consequences for the environment have been mentioned by many studies before. Enrico Vandenberg (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it has been peer reviewed and so is the right knowledge of the present has been approved by people with important degrees in this academic discipline. We just need to add it to the Wiki as the endorsement of the knowledge update is not delayed by understanding for an encyclopedia. Until the latest research published we will continue to edit it to suit the knowledge of that time. But no, Wikipedia has a lot of pages that are delayed and seriously outdated. For example, this page, there are many pieces of knowledge that are only in 2010 but today is 2018. If think as you, did you know that the New Scientist magazine has shown that LIGO's claim is wrong and that an error in its system results in inaccurate results. But LIGO's 2017 observations have been added to WIKI, if one is ignorant and thinks like a parrot they will delete this update and ask to wait for another study to recognize LIGO's results. The more I said, the more frustrated I was by the presence of people who thought I was supporting Wikipedia but they were actually destroying it. The existence of a bureaucratic control system of a user community like this is death for Wiki. Enrico Vandenberg (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What I say, is not from my subjective thinking. Which is coming from an objective perspective. I do not have time to be stupid for amateurs who think they are police and act as elected administrators from ordinary users. They become an apparatus for controlling power abuse and hegemony. A bureaucratic system. Those who control against vandalism are also against the original goal of Jimmy Wales. And more importantly, they are also going against the knowledge update for Wikipedia. Why, because they should only do their own work is to prevent vandalism. They have no rights or knowledge or skill to order or approve content for a larger problem that they have never studied and learned and got a level. That's why, the millions of Wikipedia articles are outdated, its content has been updated for years. While every day there is a lot of new information published. That's why, millions of Wikipedia articles are outdated, its content has not been updated for many years. Consequences are an encyclopedia with obsolete knowledge of the distant past for many years. While every day there is a lot of new information published. This is especially in the context like physics, a new theory that is basically just theoretical and can be completely wrong when tested empirically. But that doesn't mean it's not added to Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia, not a selective book by amateur administrators. Enrico Vandenberg (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that you are frustrated with the process, but understand that with tens of thousands of editors, and millions of articles, process is essential to maintaining readable articles. For science articles in particular, there are specific guidelines for how new research is included. See WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS. New science publications often come along that seem to revolutionize a field, but wikipedia's tendency is to limit these to a brief mention at most, until the research has been validated by replicated experiments and review articles. Also, your writing suggests that English is not your first language. Wikipedia has versions in many languages, and you may find it easier to contribute to the wikipedia version written and discussed in your native language.Dialectric (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)