Jump to content

Talk:Synergistic gardening

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Quotation from Wikipedia : WikiProject Spam – LinkReports – groups.yahoo.com:

Reporting statistics of link groups.yahoo.com; 59 records.

…

Link is not on the blacklist.

…

Below a full report on all use of the link groups.yahoo.com.
This list is intended to see how the external link gets used, it does not imply that involved accounts are having a conflict of interest in adding the link, or that the involved accounts are spamming the link.

——--macropneuma 01:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User-generated content with no editorial oversight is not considered a reliable source. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 02:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Says who, where? False rhetoric, non–policy. Wrong (again). No policy cited, only woolly, false rhetoric. A 'snow job' –WP:PETTIFOG, again? WP:BAIT? Chasing me to pages i'm editing? –WP:HOUND? Oh no of course not, not again? Discuss first on this talk page with correct citing of WP policy before reverting. ——--macropneuma 03:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've been given the link countless times before, macro. WP:SPS. Since you're enjoying throwing around links, why don't you read WP:BRD and try following it? You made an edit, it was reverted, then you have started edit warring to restore it. Why not follow your own advice and "discuss first on this talk page" before you revert a revert? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 03:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In reality not true, again. Discussed the outstanding point that needed documenting that yahoo groups are not on the blacklist, nor conflict of interest, nor spam. Often neither WP:SPS nor WP:BRD have been followed by guess who. So i have lost faith in that username and don’t know what random thing they’re gonna do next—seriously. ——--macropneuma 05:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of the category error is correctly based on the best source of all, the author’s own position and views, in other words the author talking about themselves; one of the quotations: "but i have nothing to do with the institutional empire that bill tries to create with the institute, tagari & the pc trademark.", according to Wikipedia policy WP:SELFSOURCE used here with great care. The WP:PETTIFOG falsehoods attempt above, carelessly throwing wrong policy WP:SPS at me, is ignored. Also undue hounding about policy WP:BRD not caring to abide by it them self. Refer also to Letter and spirit of the law. The Wikipedia policy "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves", quotation:

Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
——--macropneuma 06:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In reality, i was not being bold, and did not even enter into the WP:BRD policy’s domain. I was editing very conservatively, deleting an overused category, by my using the best source on the author’s own position regarding that category, the author’s own consistent emails on her own position; and according with WP policy WP:SELFSOURCE. ——--macropneuma 06:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've misinterpreted the author's position. She said she doesn't like the institution of permaculture, not that she doesn't like permaculture itself. It's akin to someone saying they are Catholic but they hate the institution that is the organised Catholic church. They're still Catholic, and Hazelip still identified as part of the permaculture philosophy. The source I provided you with was authored by Emilia Hazelip herself. The first section is an excerpt from Permaculture Magazine, which she herself included in her own writing. It's impossible for you to argue that Permaculture Magazine is somehow a bad source and that Hazelip's writing is clearly superior when Hazelip herself endorsed the article from Permaculture Magazine in an article she wrote herself. So again, you've grossly misinterpreted the position Hazelip expresses in your Yahoo Groups emails.
Even without that misinterpretation, Yahoo Groups is simply not a reliable source. It's self-published material. Again, I direct you to the bolded section in what you quoted: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. It's bolded because it's very specific. You can use her emails in an article about her, and you'll notice I haven't objected to your inclusion of those emails in her own article, but you can't use that reference, under that section of the policy, in an article about anything that is not specifically about her. I'm aware she created synergistic gardening, but the policy is explicit in its wording for a reason - self-published sources are extremely weak, they're only useful for confirming opinions or personal facts.
You were being bold in the BRD process. The parts you removed had been stable in the article for 7 years. You boldly made a change. You don't have the option to 'ignore' anything that doesn't fit your particular world view on a collaborative project, fortunately. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only saying all those falsehoods—house of cards, WP:PETTIFOG—above because of reading, what’s written above (by me) providing one of many quotations of hers, here above. Have not read all her emails and have not given the person (me) who has read all her emails, the assumption of good faith. Point scoring silliness! ——--macropneuma 06:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"it's quite ironic that b.mollison would be so hung up about intellectual

property , but perhaps hi is just only projecting to the world what he himself, has done to his student: david holmgren, whose thesis known as "permaculture" , bill the mentor, accaparated [grabbed, accaparated is a french word for grabbed] it...transforming the original permaculture ethic that holmgren had in his thesis,(inspired by fukuoka), into a pyramidical classic cut throat type bussiness that by now is even hurting those people that had responded to the ecological solution that

holmgren intended permaculture to be. …"

— Emilia Hazelip, Email 23 Dec 2001.
——--macropneuma 07:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore in reality on the historical facts side of this point that Emilia is right on also, see David Holmgren documenting, honestly, the same matters of facts side of this point himself—talking about himself in his chapter in the book: Dawborn, Kerry & Caroline Smith (eds) (2011) Permaculture Pioneers: Stories from the New Frontier Daylesford, VIC, Australia: Melliodora Publishing. One of many David Holmgren WP:SELFSOURCE’s for his WP article. ——--macropneuma 07:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP has many errors of facts, still, for longer than even seven years. WP:BOLD does not mean the opposite of a long time present statement nor does it mean the opposite of a stability. Bold means bold, alone. Oppositional ideology, again; falsehoods—a house of cards only precariously staying standing in a mess while each card continues fighting all the others. How very silly. The bleeding obvious isn’t good enough, for guess what. It is not bold to correct a clear, unsourced error, no matter how long it has remained uncorrected in WP. ——An evident mindset fault. ——--macropneuma 07:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 13:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you take an action to change the status quo, that is the 'bold' step of BRD. Removing stable information from the article is the 'bold' step of BRD. As for the rest, your second quote still doesn't show Hazelip differentiating her method from permaculture. She still addresses the politics of the permaculture 'brand' that she criticises Mollison for corrupting, but not the permaculture philosophy itself. Her later email states that she distinguishes between the two, indicating she has faith in permaculture as a philosophy, but not in permaculture as an institution or brand being pushed by Mollison. The fact that she reproduced part of an article that stated her system was strongly influenced by permaculture in the preface of an article she authored herself strongly indicates to me that she doesn't believe the statement to be false.– NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 08:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And to be clear, I agree with you that the original wording, calling synergistic gardening 'a form of permaculture', is unsourced. That's why I changed it to the sourced statement that synergistic gardening is strongly influenced by permaculture. If you think the category is still inappropriate, I won't oppose removing that, but there's nothing wrong with the statement itself, since it has been implicitly endorsed by Hazelip in her own writing. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 08:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In reality not true. Quotation:

"…i became interested

in permaculture mainly because fukuoka-san was mentioned, but permaculture for the annual plants either advices to consume less bread made out of wheat (& more out of chestnut, etc), or in spite of having raised beds & mulch for the vegetable garden, advises the use of compost & many other over the counter

bought products to keep going production…"

— Emilia Hazelip, Email 9 Nov 2002.
They provided: No policies except mis-appropriate ones under pressure. No reliable, fact checked, accurate, unbiased, sources. No quotations. ——--macropneuma 09:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are they going to claim next? That they think their English language abilities so much better than mine that they advise me that the word stable is identical in meaning to woefully neglected. –And now back to the real world… . ——--macropneuma 10:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this quote doesn't show any particular dislike for permaculture, simply that the methods could be improved upon, which is precisely what she did. It remains true that her work was strongly inspired by permaculture, a fact she implicitly endorsed by including the statement in an article she wrote. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 11:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Synergistic gardening. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Synergistic_gardening&oldid=1199442757"