User talk:Q1abus

May 2023

You e-mailed me about an edit to the article on "conching" made in 2015. As you probably already have noticed, usually editors on Wikipedia have at best an interested layman's understanding of the topics we write about. I certainly have no particular expertise in the field. I don't recall the reasoning for the edit 8 years ago, but looking at the edit comment I expect it's because someone changed something that was referenced to say the opposite, without providing a new reference. If you have a suitable reference for the edits you want to make, you don't need anyone's permission to go ahead. This is not the place to discuss your personal quest to reform Big Chocolate, unless you can find publications that suitably discuss the issue. Please read up on what Wikipedia considers reliable references, as most sources that are readily available on-line have low credibility and reliability; industry handbooks beat forum postings, for example. I don't know why anyone edits Wikipedia, I regard it as a time waster on the level of playing FreeCell. Anyone who has any expertise on a topic is rapidly driven away by know-nothings and the stifling Wikipedia bureaucracy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freecell? I started with the 9x9 and learned how to right-click, which made it less tedious. I am duly impressed by your generosity to the public domain. We all sharpen our expertise on the shoulders of past generations. I acknowledge your experience with the bureaucracy and can only imagine what you went through.

What matters is how you spend your free time and how you feel inside. Look in the mirror and look into your eyes. You're the only one in this world like you. Thank you again. The rarity of people like you humbles me.

I remember precisely when I first encountered the statement that dissuaded us from deciding to go into the chocolate business for eight years. So, yes, Wikipedia influenced and delayed our entry into the field.

In your reply, you said: "I expect it's because someone changed something that was referenced to say the opposite, without providing a new reference," it appears that you changed the words from "chocolate is conched for as little as six hours." to "Lower quality chocolate is conched for as little as six hours." Definitely an NPOV violation. And that hurt.

Your expertise in Electricity and all its branches share one absolute: it's repeatable and few deviations. Not so with chocolate making. There is no right way or wrong way to make chocolate.

On the Conching page footnote is a fallback reference to something published more than a hundred years ago from an industrial point of view that is shaky as a reference.

My focus is on selling healthy chocolate, minimally ground/oxidized/conched, focused on people concerned about the over-processed but wasteful colonial practices in the chocolate industry today.

You can help redeem yourself by assisting me in updating the Conching page to something more inclusive of other than an industrial point of view.

You left out one parameter that is vital to take into consideration about conching, what is it? Q1abus (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Conching, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donald Albury 23:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]