Misplaced Pages

User talk:MaxwellBarr: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:45, 5 March 2015 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits welcome!← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:55, 9 March 2015 edit undoDavid Tornheim (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers16,949 edits →ANI -- your name mentinoed: new section 
(10 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 15: Line 15:
* For help, take a look at the ]. * For help, take a look at the ].
* The following is the log entry regarding this message: ] was by ] ] ] ANN scored at 0.891531 on 2015-03-05T01:35:13+00:00 <!-- MySQL ID: 2148989 -->. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning1 --><!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> ] (]) 01:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC) * The following is the log entry regarding this message: ] was by ] ] ] ANN scored at 0.891531 on 2015-03-05T01:35:13+00:00 <!-- MySQL ID: 2148989 -->. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning1 --><!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> ] (]) 01:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

== Hi ==

Hi - I've noticed your editing on the ] article. Not sure what happened with that first edit where you added a spamlink... and I think your 2nd and 3rd edits were meant to come together (if you click "edit" and study how the article is actually built, you will see that references go inline, with tags around them (<nowiki><ref></nowiki> in front of the citation and <nowiki></ref></nowiki> right after it), and the software automatically creates a footnote and adds the citation to the references at the end.) The links above, in the welcome message, will help you learn how to edit.

On a broader note, there is actually a suite of articles related to GMOs - briefly:
* ] covers the basic science
* ] is a broad overview article that shows what organisms have been genetically modified and for what purposes
* ] focuses on crops themselves (primarily agriculturally focused)
* ] describes what kinds of foods are actually genetically modified, how, and why
* ] covers all the controversies about all the above. Per ] (please read that), a summary of the GM Food controversies article has been placed in all the articles above, with a link to the main article
* ] covers government regulation of GMOs and GM food. Like the controversies article, a summary of this article has been placed in the articles above, with a link to the main article.
* Those are the key articles, but there are many others, which you can find in the Genetic Engineering template at the bottom of all those articles. (which you can see in freestanding form here: ]

This set of articles are pretty mature and lots and lots of people have worked on them; pretty much every issue imaginable has been raised and addressed somewhere in them, and there are often many conversations going on in the Talk pages associated with the articles. So please have a look around and orient yourself. See you on the article talk pages - good luck! ] (]) 17:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

:Jytdog: I see you are following my advice of introducing yourself to the new user. This is not bad. However, it does give the misleading belief that the articles are more or less done--certainly not the case. The new user should be WELCOMED to make POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS to the articles, and to engage other users on the talk page if there is disagreement with proposed changes. Otherwise, I think you are on the right path here. But not below as I have already said. I also think this language should be discussed on the talk pages so it is more NPOV. ] (]) 23:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

== edit war warning ==

] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br>
Please be particularly aware that ] states:
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''.
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
In particular, editors should be aware of the ], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, '''breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a ]'''.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (]) 22:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

:Don't let these threats scare you off. Anyone who tries to balance any of the GMO articles is immediately reverted and is often threatened like this. Go to the talk page of the article instead and discuss there. When Jytdog put an edit warring tag on my page, after 2 reverts, I put the same tag on Jytdog's page as well, since Jytdog reverted twice as well. You can do the same because he is reverting your "good faith" additions without discussing on the talk page which is the proper forum. ] (]) 22:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

::The above standard template warning was not a threat; it is a courtesy notice that informs people they are getting close to violating a Misplaced Pages policy. Many new users violate policy unknowingly, and warnings are essential.
:: added content with edit note: "I put forth some evidence from a study done in France where rats fed GM foods grew tumors. I believe this to be controversial and is very relevant to GMOs."
:: with edit note: "revert b/c a) unsourced; b) UNDUE here; c) discussed at length in Controversies article linked here and in its own article"
:: Maxwell trying to add a ref (clearly doesn't know what he is doing, which is not bad thing - and i spent some time above explaining how to add refs above)
::
:: 17:54, 5 March 2015 explaining how to do refs, and since the initial comment was written in seeming unawareness of how the articles are set up, i also explained how they are set up, and explained about using Talk pages.
:: 22:26, 5 March 2015 the content back in, with edit note "Added some new information concerning animal testing of GMOs and some information of those whom caused the article to be retracted". This is '''unambiguious edit warring''', not talking back, and just using the information I provided to properly format the ref and re-insert the text. It does not violate 3RR ''yet'', but is definitely warn-able behavior. ] (]) 23:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Jytdog: You did not discuss the reverts on the talk page, but in the edit comments--the same problem you had with me. You did not work with the editor on the talk page to address your concern to this user's "good faith" edits, but instead engaged in an editor war with the user, and then discussed on his/her talk page out of sight, so that *we* could not see what was going on. Only when I went to this talk page did I realize you were threatening this new user, which I noted you have done before. You and others revert almost anything new added to articles like you own them as part of ], and then if the new user tries to put it in again, because they don't understand the problem or the Wiki rules, rather than insist on talk page discussion they inadvertently end up in an edit war and get the 3RRR warning and then are scared off. That's not okay and is why the article lacks NPOV. This is not the right way to treat new users who see NPOV problems and try to address them.] (]) 23:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

== ANI -- your name mentinoed ==

FYI, I mentioned an edit you made on an ANI board . I am posting this in compliance with the requirement that I must tell other users about their name if it is mentioned at an ANI board.] (]) 10:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:55, 9 March 2015

Welcome!

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

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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Genetically modified organism has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Hi

Hi - I've noticed your editing on the Genetically modified organisms article. Not sure what happened with that first edit where you added a spamlink... and I think your 2nd and 3rd edits were meant to come together (if you click "edit" and study how the article is actually built, you will see that references go inline, with tags around them (<ref> in front of the citation and </ref> right after it), and the software automatically creates a footnote and adds the citation to the references at the end.) The links above, in the welcome message, will help you learn how to edit.

On a broader note, there is actually a suite of articles related to GMOs - briefly:

This set of articles are pretty mature and lots and lots of people have worked on them; pretty much every issue imaginable has been raised and addressed somewhere in them, and there are often many conversations going on in the Talk pages associated with the articles. So please have a look around and orient yourself. See you on the article talk pages - good luck! Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog: I see you are following my advice of introducing yourself to the new user. This is not bad. However, it does give the misleading belief that the articles are more or less done--certainly not the case. The new user should be WELCOMED to make POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS to the articles, and to engage other users on the talk page if there is disagreement with proposed changes. Otherwise, I think you are on the right path here. But not below as I have already said. I also think this language should be discussed on the talk pages so it is more NPOV. David Tornheim (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Genetically modified organism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't let these threats scare you off. Anyone who tries to balance any of the GMO articles is immediately reverted and is often threatened like this. Go to the talk page of the article instead and discuss there. When Jytdog put an edit warring tag on my page, after 2 reverts, I put the same tag on Jytdog's page as well, since Jytdog reverted twice as well. You can do the same because he is reverting your "good faith" additions without discussing on the talk page which is the proper forum. David Tornheim (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The above standard template warning was not a threat; it is a courtesy notice that informs people they are getting close to violating a Misplaced Pages policy. Many new users violate policy unknowingly, and warnings are essential.
this dif added content with edit note: "I put forth some evidence from a study done in France where rats fed GM foods grew tumors. I believe this to be controversial and is very relevant to GMOs."
I reverted with edit note: "revert b/c a) unsourced; b) UNDUE here; c) discussed at length in Controversies article linked here and in its own article"
Maxwell followed up trying to add a ref (clearly doesn't know what he is doing, which is not bad thing - and i spent some time above explaining how to add refs above)
I removed the stray ref
17:54, 5 March 2015 I left the note above explaining how to do refs, and since the initial comment was written in seeming unawareness of how the articles are set up, i also explained how they are set up, and explained about using Talk pages.
22:26, 5 March 2015 Maxwell edit warred the content back in, with edit note "Added some new information concerning animal testing of GMOs and some information of those whom caused the article to be retracted". This is unambiguious edit warring, not talking back, and just using the information I provided to properly format the ref and re-insert the text. It does not violate 3RR yet, but is definitely warn-able behavior. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog: You did not discuss the reverts on the talk page, but in the edit comments--the same problem you had with me. You did not work with the editor on the talk page to address your concern to this user's "good faith" edits, but instead engaged in an editor war with the user, and then discussed on his/her talk page out of sight, so that *we* could not see what was going on. Only when I went to this talk page did I realize you were threatening this new user, which I noted you have done before. You and others revert almost anything new added to articles like you own them as part of WP:GANG, and then if the new user tries to put it in again, because they don't understand the problem or the Wiki rules, rather than insist on talk page discussion they inadvertently end up in an edit war and get the 3RRR warning and then are scared off. That's not okay and is why the article lacks NPOV. This is not the right way to treat new users who see NPOV problems and try to address them.David Tornheim (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI -- your name mentinoed

FYI, I mentioned an edit you made on an ANI board here. I am posting this in compliance with the requirement that I must tell other users about their name if it is mentioned at an ANI board.David Tornheim (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)