Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GregJackP (talk | contribs) at 22:31, 22 June 2015 (→Inappropriate warning: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I'm sometimes online sporadically, although typically at least once a day unless it's around the weekend. I'll usually respond pretty quickly to any questions, but real life takes priority, so I may not always be the quickest to respond. Thanks for your patience if I'm offline for a bit.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For being almost infinitely patient with a user, despite numerous provocations and opportunities to not be, I award you the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar! We need more people like you :) Ironholds (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Your revert of Bayer

Your edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bayer&oldid=655974454 Your comment: "Nor really relevant here, but moreso over at Neonicotinoid."

If the findings of a new meta study implicate Bayer's Neonicotinoids, and there is a section called Neonicotinoid pesticides in that article with several paragraphs that tend to exonerate Bayer, how is my edit not relevant? If it wasn't you would need to delete the entire section.

Together with your reverting of text critical of Syngenta in the respective article that makes you look like a shill for big agro-chemical corporations.

I will undo your revert. If you want you can discuss this on the Bayer talk page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chic happens (talk • contribs)

@Chic happens: Assuming from your edit summary that the unsigned comment above was yours, this was pretty ugly behavior. If you have an argument for retaining the material based what is already present there, that's great. But the "shill for big Agro" comment was completely uncalled for and does not contribute in any way to collaborative editing. Formerly 98 18:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Chic happens, as mentioned above, those remarks are highly inappropriate. You appear to be a fairly new editor, so please remember to read the talk page guidelines, especially that we assume good faith and focus on content, not contributor. Referring to someone as a shill is never appropriate here. That all being said, conversations on content should be on the article talk page rather than user talk pages so others who watch the page can see. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your kindness, and extraordinary patience, especially when dealing with contentious editors. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

GM Food RfC

Note about this RfC where you !voted. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genetically modified food

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genetically modified food. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Aviation lists

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Aviation lists. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:March Against Monsanto

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:March Against Monsanto. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning

Please strike the inappropriate warning that you placed on my talkpage. You claimed that there were four reverts in a 24-hour period at Bowman v. Monsanto Co., which is not correct. I would suggest that you examine the edits more closely, because there were only two reverts, both of material that was not supported by the reference. My other edits were clearly not reversions, but mere editing, leaving the information in the article while removing a duplicate wikilink (but leaving the information in the article), etc. I would also suggest that if you claim to put the warnings up at three reverts, you explain why you have not warned Jytdog, who did in fact have three reverts and was editing against consensus. If you choose not to do so, I have no problem bringing this up at AN/I. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 22:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)