User talk:Geralu1

Welcome
 Hello, Geralu1, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Geralu1, good luck, and have fun. – Dat GuyWiki (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Hello, Geralu, and welcome to editing Wikipedia. There are a few things about your editing that I think you should be aware of. Firstly, links in articles to other articles should not be over-used. There are various ways in which some editors, particularly new editors who are not used to Wikipedia's standards, tend to over-use links. One thing which you have done at least once is to add a link to a word which is already linked. Having duplicate blue links scattered over an article is not helpful, and the usually accepted practice is to have just one link to a word the first time it is mentioned. Most of your edits add links to the work of a particular pair of authors. This may give people the impression that your purpose of editing is to call attention to those works, that is to say to use Wikipedia to attract readers to them, which would be contrary to the policy that Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion. Also, what you have written about those works has frequently presented opinion as fact: for example, "significantly more research is needed in this field to make it viable for the entire global population to survive using these methods" is an expression of opinion. Wikipedia policy is that articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should not propose or support particular opinions or make commentary. Again, editing in ways which present particular opinions as fact give the appearance of being done for the purpose of promoting or publicising those opinions. Finally, please preview and proof-read pages that you edit before clicking on "Save page", as at least one of your edits has posted content in the middle of an existing sentence, with the result that the content you added was preceded and followed by broken fragments of the original sentence. I have repaired the damage done by that edit,so you don't have to worry about it, but I am letting you know, so you can be warned to watch out for similar mistakes in future. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

''* I am copying here the following two messages you posted to my talk page, for the convenience of keeping discussion together, in one place. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)''

Thanks for the pointers. I reverted your deletions for all the alternative food edits I made -- for each of them there is a free link to the source - and if you check it you will see that it is non-commercial and my descriptions were accurate. I didn't add all the alternatives just one as an example - if you think they should be there - please add them in rather than delete everything. Thanks - -Geralu1 (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "Concerning the claim "significantly more research is needed in this field to make it viable for the entire global population to survive using these methods" is an expression of opinion." I am sure it is accurate - but I am not sure how to correct that -- the whole article by Baum et al. is essentially an outline of research that needs to be done. I like the approach of alternative foods during a catastrophe - but I think it is pretty obvious even without the big research outline that we (everyone) is not ready when the tshtf.Geralu1 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Whether the content you have posted is "non-commercial" or not is irrelevant: editing to promote opinions is contrary to Wikipedia policy. In connection with your statement that "significantly more research is needed..." that you are "sure it is accurate", but Wikipedia does not include content because someone who chooses to create Wikipedia account and edit is of the opinion that it is "accurate. Nor, in fact, do we include expressions of opinions and state them as facts because any person believes them to be accurate: if independent reliable sources indicate that a person's opinion has received sufficient attention to be notable enough to be worth reporting, we can say something like "John P. Smith believes that ..." but we do not state it in Wikipedia's voice, as a fact, and the mere fact that someone has chosen to publish a book expressing one's opinions does not automatically give one's opinion notability.
 * You say "I think it is pretty obvious even without the big research outline that we (everyone) is not ready when the tshtf". However, the fact that you, or I, or any other Wikipedia editor, thinks something is "obvious" does not justify including it as a statement in an article. We go on what is given significant coverage in reliable sources, not what we personally believe. Likewise, you say "I like the approach of alternative foods during a catastrophe", but the fact that you or I like or dislike something is not a basis for whether or how we write about it in an article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Global cooperation listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Global cooperation. Since you had some involvement with the Global cooperation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)