This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jytdog (talk | contribs) at 18:50, 12 June 2015 (→UNDUE: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:50, 12 June 2015 by Jytdog (talk | contribs) (→UNDUE: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Recent edits
copied from Jytdog talk page today by PraeceptorIP with my blessing Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Jytdog, what I was trying to do, first, was replace the pejorative term "loophole" with a more neutral way of putting it that did not suggest wrongdoing or bad intent by Bowman, as the prior writer did. Second, I think it is necessary to tell readers that crop soybeans are the same as seed, so that you can use the crop beans as seed to grow new crops. Otherwise it is unclear what is going on.
Instead of just reverting, why don't you come up with a way to do these things that you would find OK?
I think that is an improper revert. Maybe my way of saying this (what's in the first para. above) is not best, but what would you suggest? I would welcome a helpful edit.
PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- You are making it read like an essay intead of an encyclopedia article. Please don't use footnotes with asides, and please don't include WP:OR like "Thus far, there has been relatively little scholarly commentary on the case in law journals". Also we don't use honorifics like "Professor Gholsh". Just because he happened to write a blog (even if it was in patently-o) doesn't mean he is quotable. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, you edited out the subheads. You therefore have the three court decisions as part of the "Background." Court decisions do not belong in the Background section.
You are not editing carefully. Some of your edits are improvements. But some make the article worse (like what I mention above in the first three sentences). You shouldn't revert just for the sake of reverting. That appears to be what you did here. For example, why did you delete the sentence following the statement that he had a contract--that the infringing seed plantings were not the ones under the3 contract, so it wasn't a breach of contract that he did it. Otherwise, the preceding sentence is misleading. It suggests that Bowman "replanted" in violation of his contract with Monsanto--untrue!
Maybe we could discuss in detail what you want to revert and why. Then we could come up with an improved article, with fewer of the mistakes now in it.
PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- you mean this dif perhaps, where I reverted a whole boatload of OR that you added? Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- please continue this at the article talk page so others who care can join in. thx. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK. But before I switch Talk pages, that is *NOT* OR. I can provide cites. PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
what exactly is the content dispute at this time? Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
UNDUE
Praceptor you are giving a ton of WEIGHT to the Stern source. Stern is critical of the decisions of three courts in this case, and a whole history of case law around biotech in the US and abroad. It is fine to use him but please do not give UNDUE weight to his POV. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Categories: