Welcome!
Hello, GrayDuck156, 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:
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
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! --
Edcolins (
talk)
18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Genetically modified food. 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 Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog ( talk) 00:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
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) 21:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Given your recent edits over at genetically modified food, it is pretty apparent you are what we call a single purpose account. Please read about the issues associated with that at WP:SPA. Part of this is evidenced by WP:BLUDGEON behavior at the article's RfC where you are seeking out nearly every support vote and attempting to discredit it. It also appears you aren't familiar you how we source content at Wikipedia where we pull from reliable sources, namely secondary sources (see WP:RS and WP:MEDRS) while not engaging in original research as you are drifting into for many of your arguments. Tied to the SPA behavior, WP:ADVOCACY also appears to be a problem in that it appears you are trying to use Wikipedia to further a certain point of view rather than accurately reflect what the reliable sources are saying. Advocacy is a common problem for new editors, especially in a controversial topic like this. Please read the various sources of guidance provided here to see where the various issues with your behavior lie and how to avoid them. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 01:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Gray,
Would you consider changing the highlighting color of your recent additions? It is such good work, and something I've been meaning to do: summarize the RfC. But people here aren't used to reading highlights, and it looks foreign; subconsciously it reads as slightly untrustworthy. People are used to seeing green, but using a different color in general might be off-putting. The red is very hard on the eyes, and it's really hard for me to read. I imagine it would be the same for others.
Here is how it usually appears when highlighting is used.
Thank you for all your good work, petrarchan47 คุ ก 01:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, GrayDuck156, 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:
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
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! --
Edcolins (
talk)
18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Genetically modified food. 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 Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog ( talk) 00:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
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) 21:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Given your recent edits over at genetically modified food, it is pretty apparent you are what we call a single purpose account. Please read about the issues associated with that at WP:SPA. Part of this is evidenced by WP:BLUDGEON behavior at the article's RfC where you are seeking out nearly every support vote and attempting to discredit it. It also appears you aren't familiar you how we source content at Wikipedia where we pull from reliable sources, namely secondary sources (see WP:RS and WP:MEDRS) while not engaging in original research as you are drifting into for many of your arguments. Tied to the SPA behavior, WP:ADVOCACY also appears to be a problem in that it appears you are trying to use Wikipedia to further a certain point of view rather than accurately reflect what the reliable sources are saying. Advocacy is a common problem for new editors, especially in a controversial topic like this. Please read the various sources of guidance provided here to see where the various issues with your behavior lie and how to avoid them. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 01:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Gray,
Would you consider changing the highlighting color of your recent additions? It is such good work, and something I've been meaning to do: summarize the RfC. But people here aren't used to reading highlights, and it looks foreign; subconsciously it reads as slightly untrustworthy. People are used to seeing green, but using a different color in general might be off-putting. The red is very hard on the eyes, and it's really hard for me to read. I imagine it would be the same for others.
Here is how it usually appears when highlighting is used.
Thank you for all your good work, petrarchan47 คุ ก 01:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)