User talk:FrancescaGiganti

April 2016

Hello, I'm Donner60. An edit you recently made to Food waste seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a blog, forum, fan site or advice site. It does not include advice, personal opinions, commentary or unsourced information likely to be changed, challenged or disputed. See Wikipedia:Five Pillars, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed addition to the article on Food waste copies verbatim most of an article found at http://food.unl.edu/14-ways-consumers-can-reduce-food-waste which has a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. Addition of copyrighted material without permission is contrary to copyright law as well as Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others. See also Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Wikipedia:Copyright violations.

Also see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Note specifically "1. Instruction manuals," where the following applicable sentence is found: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." As noted earlier on the page, Wikipedia also is not a forum for advocacy of any sort. A blog or a forum is a more appropriate venue for that. Even if this is not considered advocacy, it still falls within the guideline on instruction manuals.

If you wish to seek another view, the article falls within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink and Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment. You could ask about your proposed edit on the talk pages of those projects. Questions also can be asked at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions where new users/writers/editors in particular ask questions. While I do not think you will get a different answer, you are welcome to ask at those pages. Donner60 (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should have noted that since you are a student at the University of Nebraska, perhaps you can clear the copyright hurdle, at least, by getting permission to reuse the article from the appropriate University office. The Wikipedia:Copyrights page also has some advice on how to get such permission and what you may need to show in order to do that. If you could get past that problem, you would still need to overcome the instruction manual guideline problem. I would defer to the opinion of an administrator or experienced editor in that area but again, I doubt you can get an opinion that such content is acceptable for Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the edit again, or at least parts of it (if it has not already been done by someone else). I'll explain the problems here first since you don't seem to understand what's going on.

Nothing to do with why I'm removing the material, but your username is in violation of our username policy and is likely to be blocked since it implies it is a shared account. Wikipedia accounts are for individuals. If your school has you working in pairs or larger groups then you will have to create an account for each member. Please read WP:USERNAME, particularly WP:ISU. You may abandon this account and create new ones, or if you wish, you may rename this account at WP:RENAME and create new accounts for the other users.
Your edits are not minor. Content edits are never minor. See WP:MINOR.
You made a bold edit. User:Donner60 undid your edit. Per WP:BRD it was then up to you to take the edits to the article's talk page for discussion. If edits are contested then you need to attempt to reach a consensus that the edits are valid. Instead you raised the issue on Donner60's talk page, he explained his undo there and copied his response here, abut you ignored his comments and restored the same edits.
I suggest that you not make content changes in multiple sections of an article all in one edit. It makes it too difficult for other editors to selectively undo parts of your edit. There may have been portions of your edit that were acceptable but were undone because Donner60 (and likely me when I undo you) didn't want to split everything out.
Copyright violation is taken very seriously. Wikipedia cannot host copyrighted material. Restoring it, as you have already done once, is a sure way to be blocked. See Donner60's comments.
Arbitrarily changing the lede is a bad idea. Taking two terms which Wikipedia is treating as synonyms and stating that they are different without any explaining why in the article or first getting consensus for the change is not acceptable.
Don't change existing national language versions in articles. Not every Wikipedia article is written in US English.
Please read one of the referencing guides (the Beginner's Guide is WP:REFSTART) and do it properly. Citations are made inline where they are used. They don't need to also be added manually to the reference list.
Don't invent new header styles. There's no need to bold one particular header (Food Processing). Meters (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for self reverting. I'm sure that much of your edit will prove to be acceptable, and I have to apologize for my comment about the lede change, since I see that the distinction is already discussed in the text. Striking my comment. Meters (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that the picture you added File:Harvest cabbage in Poland 2.JPG justifies the caption you used: "Harvested cabbage that will be discarded because of appearance." The uploader of the immage described it as "Rotten harvest. Waste." Rotten sounds more serious to me than a mere appearance issue. Meters (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me for all of my, and my partners previous edits. I had no Idea there were such specific ways of doing things on here. People underestimate wikipedia way too much.

Hopefully I am responding properly, but thank you (Meters) for all of your advise on how to I can learn to do this project. I'm not sure if Donner60 can see this too, but my partner did not mean to disrespect you. She was a little confused on the purpose of our project.

Any further help will be much appreciated and I hope my most current edits are all legal and correctly formatted. Thanks again for all of the helpful links FrancescaGiganti 16:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries. It was obvious you were trying to improve the article, and new users often make mistakes. As long as they are willing to listen to more experienced editors' suggestions it's not a big deal. Thanks for changing your username, and I'll keep an eye on the article for a while. Meters (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]