| Revision as of 20:50, 15 January 2013 editNohomers48 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,005 edits →RE: Why are you reverting my edit?: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:06, 7 February 2013 edit undoDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Oversighters, Administrators263,788 edits →February 2013: editor is at 3RR, the other isn't, and in any case more of this behavior will probably lead to a block for violating ArbCom sanctionsNext edit → | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
| Because there were other stat changes that other IP editors had done that hadn't been corrected, it was nothing against what you did, I was just bringing back the stats that were there before the vandals starting messing with the table. – ] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | Because there were other stat changes that other IP editors had done that hadn't been corrected, it was nothing against what you did, I was just bringing back the stats that were there before the vandals starting messing with the table. – ] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == February 2013 == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 05:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Completely false. I've made repeated attempts at discussion. In both the user talk page and in the talk page in the article. So I'm edit warring but the other user is not?...(bewildered). ] (]) 07:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes. You've made 3 reverts (restoring deleted material is a revert). The other editor made 2 (we count a series of reverts with no other users in between as one). So yes, you've hit 3RR and are at risk of being blocked. And 3RR is not an entitlement, you can't assume you can revert again with impunity and in fact will almost certainly be blocked if you continue. See the statement below. ] (]) 10:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == You are reverting an article which is covered by Arbcom sanctions == | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| | image = yes | |||
| | The ] has permitted ] to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at ]) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to ]. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], satisfy any ], or follow any ]. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "]" section of the decision page. | |||
| Please familiarise yourself with the information page at ], with the appropriate sections of ], and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.<!-- Template:uw-sanctions - {{{topic|{{{t}}}}}} --> | |||
| | valign = center | |||
| | ] | |||
| }} I recommend that you wait for consensus before making any more controversial changes at ]. Note the suggestions for editor behavior given in the Arbcom alert box at the top of ]. Thank you, ] (]) 06:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:06, 7 February 2013
Welcome
Welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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:
|
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
IAASTD in GM food controversies article
hey
I saw you deleted the paragraph on IAASTD. I took a quick look at the report and I think I agree that the cited page mischaracterizes it (seems that IAASTD took great pains to make a nuanced report, and the cited source makes it black and white toward sustainable practices.. but I suggest you open a section in Talk on the GM food controversies page and present that.. if you don't I might do it. It's an interesting report -- thanks at least for calling my attention to it by deleting reference to it! Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- The cited article was just one person's interpretation of the IAASTD report. Moses Kiggundu Muwanga from the board member of "International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements". While the IAASTD report doesn't exactly give the most favorable outlook on GMO, it doesn't ever make the conclusions asserted by Muwanga. The IAASTD report was also heavily criticized by the scientific journals "Nature" (Off the rails. Nature Biotechnology 26: 247) and "Science" (Dueling visions for a hungry world. Science 319: 1474-76). BlackHades (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
RE: Why are you reverting my edit?
Because there were other stat changes that other IP editors had done that hadn't been corrected, it was nothing against what you did, I was just bringing back the stats that were there before the vandals starting messing with the table. – Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
February 2013
Your recent editing history at Race and intelligence shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Completely false. I've made repeated attempts at discussion. In both the user talk page and in the talk page in the article. So I'm edit warring but the other user is not?...(bewildered). BlackHades (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. You've made 3 reverts (restoring deleted material is a revert). The other editor made 2 (we count a series of reverts with no other users in between as one). So yes, you've hit 3RR and are at risk of being blocked. And 3RR is not an entitlement, you can't assume you can revert again with impunity and in fact will almost certainly be blocked if you continue. See the statement below. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
You are reverting an article which is covered by Arbcom sanctions
File:YesThe Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
I recommend that you wait for consensus before making any more controversial changes at Race and intelligence. Note the suggestions for editor behavior given in the Arbcom alert box at the top of Talk:Race and intelligence. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)