User talk:Tcprosser

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Tcprosser, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

It's very important to understand that Wikipedia works by conveying information contained in reliable, published sources (see the relevant site policy). Our personal beliefs or knowledge, whether correct or not, are not a suitable basis for article content here (see the relevant site policy).

If you want to edit here, then you need to start by finding high-quality, reliable sources; a guide to this project's definition of "high-quality" can be found here. Your edits need to reflect the content of those sources, without adding your own personal spin.

As a somewhat separate matter, it can be hard to edit neutrally on an article where you have deeply held personal beliefs. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a venue for advocacy. The best defense against that sort of problem is to find high-quality sources, quote them, and accurately convey their content in your edits.

That's my advice. I have to tell you that you got off fairly easily in this case, since you were edit-warring and inserting information that ran directly counter to reliable sources (for example, you changed "highly persistent" to "not persistent", which directly contradicts the cited reliable source). Slow down on the edit-warring, focus on finding good sources, and use the talk page (Talk:Imidacloprid) to try to build consensus. If those things don't happen, then your account is likely to be blocked again, perhaps indefinitely, from editing here. MastCell ^Talk 19:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to interject my agreement with the advice given by MastCell with regard to sources on the imidacloprid page. I was quite surprised to see you making significant changes to a scientific article with few or no sources to justify your position. I took graduate-level toxicology, and I might well agree with you, but I need to see some solid evidence to support what you write about this insecticide. I'm not going to just take your word for it. Nonetheless, thanks for taking the time to contribute. --Gremlint (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned

I've mentioned your name at an SPI case since I noticed you were one of the editors working on the disputed article. You can respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will figure out how to do this. I thought my signiture was automatically put in, when I am logged in. tcprosserTcprosser (talk) 18:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have an agenda of WP:Neutral point of view. What is your agenda? Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My agenda is a an accurate and all sides included information. This includes the fact that pesticides such as this one are very beneficial to society if used carefully and as directed. I am a research scientist and my background is tree pathology, chemistry, and some entomology / pathology. I work for a large company that uses a variety of pesticides in our practice fortree health preservation. We use Imidacloprid as it is the safest and most effective tool for saving large old historic Oak trees from the two-lined chestnut borer and ash trees from Emerald Ash borer. Luckily, neither of these trees are bee pollinated but wind pollinated. There are a small handful of trees that are bee pollinated and we as a policy do not use this material on those. Many people look up and quote wikipidia - and the information about water, mammals etc is not balanced or really accurate. I believe it is more balanced now - but to call it a neurotoxin in the first sentence makes it sound far worse than it is. It kills insects by interacting with organs that mammals do not have. Thus making this point occurs to me as more of a scare tactic then helping peole understand and use this material properly. Before imidacloprid we had to spray trees with highly toxic carbamates and organophosphates and becasue of imidacloprid those ar mostly gone now. We and other companies would have to use a highly concentrated pyrethroid spray that would have significant environmental side effects. From what I can tell, imidacloprid has few if any of these negative side effects.Treeguyenvironmentalist (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hello Tcprosser. I notice you have been signing your posts on talk pages as 'Treeguyenvironmentalist'. Per the guideline at WP:SIGNATURE, you should use a signature that resembles your user name. If you prefer to be known as Treeguyenvironmentalist you can ask to have your account renamed at WP:CHU/S. This is usually a quick and simple process. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages removed

Hi, talk pages are not deleted. I restored them from at the ash beetle article. Gandydancer (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]