| Revision as of 20:50, 15 January 2013 editNohomers48 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,008 edits →RE: Why are you reverting my edit?: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:53, 7 February 2013 edit undoDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators264,086 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Race and intelligence. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
| Because there were other stat changes that other IP editors had done that hadn't been corrected, it was nothing against what you did, I was just bringing back the stats that were there before the vandals starting messing with the table. – ] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | Because there were other stat changes that other IP editors had done that hadn't been corrected, it was nothing against what you did, I was just bringing back the stats that were there before the vandals starting messing with the table. – ] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == February 2013 == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 05:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:53, 7 February 2013
Welcome
Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
IAASTD in GM food controversies article
hey
I saw you deleted the paragraph on IAASTD. I took a quick look at the report and I think I agree that the cited page mischaracterizes it (seems that IAASTD took great pains to make a nuanced report, and the cited source makes it black and white toward sustainable practices.. but I suggest you open a section in Talk on the GM food controversies page and present that.. if you don't I might do it. It's an interesting report -- thanks at least for calling my attention to it by deleting reference to it! Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- The cited article was just one person's interpretation of the IAASTD report. Moses Kiggundu Muwanga from the board member of "International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements". While the IAASTD report doesn't exactly give the most favorable outlook on GMO, it doesn't ever make the conclusions asserted by Muwanga. The IAASTD report was also heavily criticized by the scientific journals "Nature" (Off the rails. Nature Biotechnology 26: 247) and "Science" (Dueling visions for a hungry world. Science 319: 1474-76). BlackHades (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
RE: Why are you reverting my edit?
Because there were other stat changes that other IP editors had done that hadn't been corrected, it was nothing against what you did, I was just bringing back the stats that were there before the vandals starting messing with the table. – Nohomers48 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
February 2013
Your recent editing history at Race and intelligence shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)