This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KoA (talk | contribs) at 00:45, 23 June 2015 (Undid revision 668215143 by GregJackP (talk) further harassment from this user is not welcome on my talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:45, 23 June 2015 by KoA (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 668215143 by GregJackP (talk) further harassment from this user is not welcome on my talk page)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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 |
|
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)