Hello, Geraldatyrrell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Please remember to
sign your messages on
talk pages by typing four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Vsmith (
talk)
01:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I've fixed a ref tag error for you at biodiversity. You have added considerable content with citation needed tags, please continue and provide references for those. Thanks, Vsmith ( talk) 01:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Geraldatyrrell - you are pretty new here. Please be aware that there is a community of editors who have been working on GMO-related articles for a long time. You are surely aware that there is some controversy around them.
I hope you are aware of WP:BRD - it is great to be Bold and edit an article, but if you are Reverted, Discuss. And do not edit war. Please come and Talk on the pages where you are working! Writing long edit notes is not the same as joining or starting a discussion on Talk - please see the article on tendentious editing]. I don't believe you have looked at the talk pages, but please know that we had a recent Rfc (if you don't know what that is, please see WP:RFC) about the consensus statement on the relative safety of GM food vis a vis conventional food, and the current statement and sourcing were accepted by the community. Editing against the conclusion of an RfC is another form of tendentious editing - the record of the RfC is here. I am writing to you here to try to help you not go down the wrong road - you are a newish editor and jumping into a controversial article and edit warring is not a great way to begin. More voices in the conversation are great - but please do join the conversation. Thanks. 14:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I am curious about one of your edits in particular - this one - am asking you about on the relevant Talk page... Jytdog ( talk) 17:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, just checking in. I remain interested in the questions above, if you care to answer (if you don't, then fine!) but with regard to content in article space... I had asked you in the Talk page of the GMO article the following: "I don't know if you understand what the main 2 genetic modifications actually are (Bt and glyphosate resistance) - do you? real question." I asked you that, because the literature written on the food safety issue, is written by people who understand what was done and how it works, and how it is the same/different from a) the "parent" plant and b) other things we eat everyday. I suspect that one reason the scientific community has formed the consensus, while the public remains so divided - a key part of the whole "seeing different worlds" issue - is that scientists do know, and the most of the public doesn't. I can explain them to you, if you don't know what they are.... hope you are having a good weekend! Jytdog ( talk) 12:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC) I am having a great weekend, its a great fall day here in Michigan. I hope you're having a good weekend too! Geraldatyrrell ( talk) 18:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Gerald, please read Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT#Failure_or_refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22 and reflect on that. Please ask yourself, when you opened the discussion and asked "Why is this the flagship source?" -- was that a real question? By "real question" I mean that you actually wanted to hear the answer and consider it - that you wanted to learn something (which is the reason we ask real questions) It is becoming clear from how you are conducting yourself, that the question was rhetorical - that you had already decided the AAAS statement was not a valid source, and you intended only to argue against it. Please, please start actually dialoging - hearing what folks are saying and engaging with it. Wikipedia is not some internet chat board where it is OK and normal for people to just talk past each other. We are a community that engages with one another. Jytdog ( talk) 11:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Jytdog linked my username, so I was notified of this discussion. Gerald, I've been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, and I've been in a lot of discussions such as these. It's pretty clear to me that you and I are at an impasse. You probably think that I am not really understanding or paying attention to what you say, and I'm sorry that you think that. Going forward, I am going to continue to read what you say on the article talk page, and think about it seriously. If you make an argument that persuades me (you haven't yet), I'll change my mind. I promise you that. But there is no point in my continuing to reply to everything you say there. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Above you wrote "Now I don't even feel comfortable changing the page because you and tryp act like gatekeepers" and I didn't address that. Now I mean to. This is a tricky thing. First, I reject completely that I or anybody else working on these pages WP:OWNs them. I and others are committed to these pages remaining NPOV, well sourced, and well written. The "community" part of Wikipedia is very present in these articles, as it is in many articles in controversial areas where lots of people watch. So yes there is going to be lots of negotiation. And negotiation can make people uncomfortable. Some editors have refused to own their own feelings of discomfort and have instead projected them into big conspiracy theories or even exalted them to self-images of martyrdom; it is hard to watch people twist themselves up that way, as those negative feelings become a heavy albatross around their own necks. Going that route also takes them out of the game - whatever contributions they could have made are lost, or become extremely difficult to implement. (we went through two weeks of hell with a guy who had a great point but was such a dick that it was hard to see that he had a good point) What it comes down to is one's ability to keep one's head and heart steady, and remain in honest dialogue with people who think differently. Civility matters a lot in controversial articles. Being strategic - picking your battles - is really important too. And when you put a stake in the ground and argue hard that a point is "right", you want to make sure that you are on really solid ground, policy- and guideline-wise, and are not just arguing a preference. Nobody who is consistently active on the GM suite of articles will flout a policy or guideline; an argument that is solidly grounded will be accepted. But if all you are doing is arguing a preference, it is really important to know that, and to know that you may need to persuade others that your preference should be accepted. There are tactics for successful persuasion in a negotiation among equals; they are different from tactics involved in making claims about right and wrong. In any case, I fail sometimes to persuade; it happens. It is part of what it means to be part of a community. So, with regard to your discomfort - I am sorry you feel it but am glad you recognize it. But please don't project that onto me or others as our fault. I do hope you stick around and join the community to keep improving these articles. There is so much still to be done! Jytdog ( talk) 12:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Geraldatyrrell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Please remember to
sign your messages on
talk pages by typing four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Vsmith (
talk)
01:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I've fixed a ref tag error for you at biodiversity. You have added considerable content with citation needed tags, please continue and provide references for those. Thanks, Vsmith ( talk) 01:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Geraldatyrrell - you are pretty new here. Please be aware that there is a community of editors who have been working on GMO-related articles for a long time. You are surely aware that there is some controversy around them.
I hope you are aware of WP:BRD - it is great to be Bold and edit an article, but if you are Reverted, Discuss. And do not edit war. Please come and Talk on the pages where you are working! Writing long edit notes is not the same as joining or starting a discussion on Talk - please see the article on tendentious editing]. I don't believe you have looked at the talk pages, but please know that we had a recent Rfc (if you don't know what that is, please see WP:RFC) about the consensus statement on the relative safety of GM food vis a vis conventional food, and the current statement and sourcing were accepted by the community. Editing against the conclusion of an RfC is another form of tendentious editing - the record of the RfC is here. I am writing to you here to try to help you not go down the wrong road - you are a newish editor and jumping into a controversial article and edit warring is not a great way to begin. More voices in the conversation are great - but please do join the conversation. Thanks. 14:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I am curious about one of your edits in particular - this one - am asking you about on the relevant Talk page... Jytdog ( talk) 17:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, just checking in. I remain interested in the questions above, if you care to answer (if you don't, then fine!) but with regard to content in article space... I had asked you in the Talk page of the GMO article the following: "I don't know if you understand what the main 2 genetic modifications actually are (Bt and glyphosate resistance) - do you? real question." I asked you that, because the literature written on the food safety issue, is written by people who understand what was done and how it works, and how it is the same/different from a) the "parent" plant and b) other things we eat everyday. I suspect that one reason the scientific community has formed the consensus, while the public remains so divided - a key part of the whole "seeing different worlds" issue - is that scientists do know, and the most of the public doesn't. I can explain them to you, if you don't know what they are.... hope you are having a good weekend! Jytdog ( talk) 12:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC) I am having a great weekend, its a great fall day here in Michigan. I hope you're having a good weekend too! Geraldatyrrell ( talk) 18:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Gerald, please read Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT#Failure_or_refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22 and reflect on that. Please ask yourself, when you opened the discussion and asked "Why is this the flagship source?" -- was that a real question? By "real question" I mean that you actually wanted to hear the answer and consider it - that you wanted to learn something (which is the reason we ask real questions) It is becoming clear from how you are conducting yourself, that the question was rhetorical - that you had already decided the AAAS statement was not a valid source, and you intended only to argue against it. Please, please start actually dialoging - hearing what folks are saying and engaging with it. Wikipedia is not some internet chat board where it is OK and normal for people to just talk past each other. We are a community that engages with one another. Jytdog ( talk) 11:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Jytdog linked my username, so I was notified of this discussion. Gerald, I've been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, and I've been in a lot of discussions such as these. It's pretty clear to me that you and I are at an impasse. You probably think that I am not really understanding or paying attention to what you say, and I'm sorry that you think that. Going forward, I am going to continue to read what you say on the article talk page, and think about it seriously. If you make an argument that persuades me (you haven't yet), I'll change my mind. I promise you that. But there is no point in my continuing to reply to everything you say there. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Above you wrote "Now I don't even feel comfortable changing the page because you and tryp act like gatekeepers" and I didn't address that. Now I mean to. This is a tricky thing. First, I reject completely that I or anybody else working on these pages WP:OWNs them. I and others are committed to these pages remaining NPOV, well sourced, and well written. The "community" part of Wikipedia is very present in these articles, as it is in many articles in controversial areas where lots of people watch. So yes there is going to be lots of negotiation. And negotiation can make people uncomfortable. Some editors have refused to own their own feelings of discomfort and have instead projected them into big conspiracy theories or even exalted them to self-images of martyrdom; it is hard to watch people twist themselves up that way, as those negative feelings become a heavy albatross around their own necks. Going that route also takes them out of the game - whatever contributions they could have made are lost, or become extremely difficult to implement. (we went through two weeks of hell with a guy who had a great point but was such a dick that it was hard to see that he had a good point) What it comes down to is one's ability to keep one's head and heart steady, and remain in honest dialogue with people who think differently. Civility matters a lot in controversial articles. Being strategic - picking your battles - is really important too. And when you put a stake in the ground and argue hard that a point is "right", you want to make sure that you are on really solid ground, policy- and guideline-wise, and are not just arguing a preference. Nobody who is consistently active on the GM suite of articles will flout a policy or guideline; an argument that is solidly grounded will be accepted. But if all you are doing is arguing a preference, it is really important to know that, and to know that you may need to persuade others that your preference should be accepted. There are tactics for successful persuasion in a negotiation among equals; they are different from tactics involved in making claims about right and wrong. In any case, I fail sometimes to persuade; it happens. It is part of what it means to be part of a community. So, with regard to your discomfort - I am sorry you feel it but am glad you recognize it. But please don't project that onto me or others as our fault. I do hope you stick around and join the community to keep improving these articles. There is so much still to be done! Jytdog ( talk) 12:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)