Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:25, 27 August 2015

Thank you (",)

Among other contributions, thank you for the Thwaites Glacier and Mark Serreze images. 108.195.137.66 (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for comments and please keep them coming

Thanks very much for investing energy and time contributing thoughts on efforts to draft a new first lead paragraph for Global warming. Please note I just posted ver 5 of my idea, and would welcome further pro/con criticism. I'm attempting to ping everyone who has taken time to speak up after past versions. If I overlooked anyone, please let me know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 3 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Flood basalt page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Climate Change edits

As an aside, I appreciate that climate change is a contentious issue, but so long as statements which have come from a reasonable source e.g. NSIDC are cited, I don't see the problem.

The wiki article suffers from bias, however. Extrapolating dodgy data is dodgy science. A classic example of that is Arctic sea ice loss. If you take a look at the satellite data which is only available since 1979:- http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png You can see a moderate decline from 1979 through to 2000, and that what looked like an alarming decline from 2000 to 2012, followed by the situation today not looking dissimilar to most of the period from 1979 through to 2000 i.e. an apparant recovery. Whether this recovery will continue or not, who knows. What's clear from the arctic sea ice data and the antarctic sea ice data, is that you can not conclusively conclude from either data sets that an increase in CO2 and any global warming that that may have produced can be directly correlated to any sea ice melt. Climate models have thus far failed. That doesn't negate the science, but what it should tell you is that the jury is still out and there is no settled science. Science isn't a popularity contest, that's politics. / Moved and signed for Jdey123, prokaryotes (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The numbers show the decline in recent decades, from the 1979–2000 mean 7.0 declining to 5.4 (millions of square kilometers). prokaryotes (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Links

Hey Prokaryotes, could I recommend to you to read over Misplaced Pages:Free links#Free links?

I have noticed that often you use the long form of an internal Misplaced Pages link in discussions and on talk pages. For example, at this talk page you provided an internal link that appeared like this. Not only does this appear to other users as being a link that leads off Misplaced Pages, it's not the standard practiced method of linking internal links. Instead it should appear like this. Notice how it has not arrows or lock symbol beside it? That indicates it's simply an internal link within Misplaced Pages. Nearly everything on Misplaced Pages with a few exceptions like history diffs can be linked in this way. Cheers, Mkdw 22:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Further to, I fixed the link on the page above and closed the discussion. I then noticed you sometimes do the internal links correctly when linking to articles, so perhaps you weren't aware the links can be done to any space on Misplaced Pages. Mkdw 22:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mkdw, i found the popup solution a bit to complicated at first and then settled with the quick solution i used since, great you pointed that out! prokaryotes (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

ZMapp has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Prokaryotes. ZMapp, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated for Did you know consideration to appear on Misplaced Pages's Main Page. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 17:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Redundant categories

Hi,

I had to remove the Category:Meteorology/Climatology that you have put on articles such as Katabatic wind and Atmospheric circulation. Both where already in subcategories of Meteorology (e.g. Katabatic wind is in the Wind category which is a sub-category of Meteorology). Please take a look at Meteorology and Climatology subcategories before future category adding.

Pierre cb (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok. --prokaryotes (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Pierre cb, is there a Misplaced Pages guideline for category taxonomy? Sometimes i think it makes sense to add main categories, i.e. it may help people to better understand a particular topic. --prokaryotes (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Look into the Misplaced Pages help pages for details (Misplaced Pages:Categorization) but a main category should not have articles that are in its subcategories because it is redundant. Pierre cb (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Pierre, for pointing this out. --prokaryotes (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

clarification

I clarified my comments at ANI, unfortunately you had already replied. Since I'm editing from a mobile device I didn't ser any way to continue with my clarification without simply replacing my original comment. Ferl free to modify or remove your reply as necessary based on my clarification. Nil Einne (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Nil Einne, i replied to you. --prokaryotes (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for ZMapp

On 23 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article ZMapp, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the experimental Ebola drug candidate ZMapp is manufactured in the tobacco plant Nicotiana benthamiana in a bioproduction process known as "pharming"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/ZMapp. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Avono (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Misplaced Pages Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Misplaced Pages Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Misplaced Pages work, make sure to include citations with links on Misplaced Pages: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Misplaced Pages:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Misplaced Pages community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Misplaced Pages Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

If you want to contest it, please go to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dan Fredinburg. Mangoe (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hang in there! None of the people supporting the article has ever seriously argued that 'dating an actress' constitutes or significantly contributes to DF's notability. Funny how the deletionists are so fixated on that detail—often as their first line of dismissive argument—but it's really a troll thing, almost a psychological hallmark. There's clearly a jealousy/envy issue in play. The article is strong. Please don't take the bait. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I've added a footnote and (minor) information from this, but hope you see it. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Good article i have to say. Good work. prokaryotes (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Take care not to Misplaced Pages:BLUDGEON the process. You don't need to respond to everyone, you've already made your argument. This message is just FYI, feel free to remove it. ― Padenton|✉   12:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• That is funny Padenton, since you got more comments in that discussion than me. But sure you always have some sort of guideline or policy you link as well. Pathetic. prokaryotes (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Not true. The difference here is also that most of my edits were in my own comment thread, where you were asking me about my argument. There's also the fact that delsorting isn't really a comment. Go take a walk and calm down. It's not the end of the world if Fredinburg's not deemed notable enough for an article. ― Padenton|✉   12:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but close. Also if you look at my replies, many are in response to other replies. Anyway, please leave me alone. prokaryotes (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

And as a matter of fact i got 1 edit more than you, trolololo. prokaryotes (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ignore him. The arguments for keeping are stronger than the arguments for deleting even if there are more users on the delete side. There is probably only one good reason for deleting and a lot of bad ones like Misplaced Pages is not a memorial, bad comparisons to firefighters etc. The closing admin should take this into account. If the article is deleted, you can always go the DRV route. ~EDDY ~ 15:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Eddy, you are correct. It's just not easy to understand why someone is investing so much afford to remove a good article in this particular matter, there are so many other more pressing issues. prokaryotes (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Reiner Grundmann

Deprodding of ]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from ], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Last time I saw a similar contentious effort, it was when someone tried to delete de:Nir Shaviv in the German WP. I count that as minor vandalism. Serten 12:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Grundmann

I don't want to blow up the delete discussion and may have a language problem. What did you not understand in "prune, improve"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I keep asking you personally about a possible misunderstanding between you and me here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

My impression is that even with improvements the person is not notable, and my arguments can be found over at the deletion discussion, no misunderstanding here. prokaryotes (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Gerda was in right as I had to provide some reviews, done now, same as for the presidency and British science festival contribution. You could have saved some effort by using google ;) That said, a professor with that background is far from being a case for deletion in any Misplaced Pages I am aware of. Your twitter quote was sort of funny - again google would have helped to get the various doi's. I am amused in a way, you really seem to fear science. Serten 21:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

PS.: I promise a bet: Try an AFD on the German, rather sloppy entry de:Reiner Grundmann. I bet an AFD won't stand for a week. The loosing side has to write an article of choice for the other, noteable topic, 400 words minimum. Serten 17:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

But I vote keep as has been suggested by editors. Thought this is clear from my recent comments. prokaryotes (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Not so far, but good to know. ;) Serten 21:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Michael Oppenheimer.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Michael Oppenheimer.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Misplaced Pages. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog) 02:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of content at Stefan Rahmstorf

Hello Prokaryotes. At this edit, I don't agree with you that the content you removed is unimportant, and of course you also removed the citation to a reliable source. Would you please explain your reasoning? Moonraker (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The content is a) not relevant for WP, it is a civil court case based on an argument, and b) not conform with BLP, c) the article links to the court case, which is hosted on a blog by Hans von Storch, someone who is always there to steer a controversy. Other editors challenged the content before, thus there is no consensus for adding it now. prokaryotes (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that the information is "not relevant for WP", because it is part of the history of this scientist's professional life and is clearly relevant to the question of whether he is a reliable authority. The article is not hosted on Storch's blog, it's on the web site of Der Spiegel, and there is nothing controversial about it, it is a factual report of a court case. Can you please clarify in what way it does not conform with WP:BLP? BLP does not aim to whitewash biographies of living people, it rightly insists on sources. Moonraker (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

For further discussion use the article talk page. You might also want to read WP:SYN. prokaryotes (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes has a strong COI - he is willing as well to remove content from Nature at Naomi Oreskes or trying to provide biased interpretations of other scientists work at will. That case had a major impact in the German press and is of cause relevant. Serten Talk 23:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Parmenides

Hello. Your additions to Parmenides need serious rewriting. They contain references that are incomprehensible. Eg., what does "(HaKo-rrov 6fx.fxa) and re-echoing hearing (iix-o-Kovrj, ib. 1. 52. &c. comp. 1. 89 ; Plat. Parmen. p. 135, d.)." mean? You seem to have copied sections without Wikifying them. If they are not rewritten they will have to be removed. Myrvin (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, the author's name is William Smith, not Smith William. And the citation does not work easily. This does. Myrvin (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the page, thanks for the notice. prokaryotes (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pythagoreanism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• considerable attention, and some important fragments of his on this subject have been preserved). We find running through the entire Pythagorean system the idea that order, or harmony of relation,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Universe

Hi Prokaryotes, I would like to suggest that your interests and editing skills would be usefully applied to the Universe article. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes - you seem to be making significant updates to Universe. When an editor decides to embark on a re-write of a high profile article such as this one, it is usually a good idea to discuss ideas on the talk page first, so as to avoid or defuse contention with other editors. For example, your decision to put Universe in italics throughout the article could be controversial. You may have discussed your ideas and achieved consensus for implementing them at some other forum that I am not aware of. But if not, can I suggest that you start a discussion at Talk:Universe to give other editors a chance to comment on your changes. Thank you. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, sure. prokaryotes (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Isambard Kingdom , and Gandalf61 for bringing this to my attention, do you have any suggestions, other than discussed on the talk page? prokaryotes (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Question about an external link in Orpheus

Hello ‎Prokaryotes, I had added an external link from the sscommons (Collection of Antiquities, CUL) database with 13 gems from the 19th century that represent Orpheus in different aspects. I thought that since this article talks about Orpheus, the external link might serve as a useful resource for researchers to know where to find more representations of Orheus. Why do you think that this link should not be there? Thank you very much in advance. EVDiam (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A page with some photos is not really a good external link. Should we begin adding all websites which contain photos from whatever the authors claim? If these were original ancient photos of related content, then it would be a good addition. prokaryotes (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean. You are right. Thank you for your reply! EVDiam (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Cabal caution

P, my impression may be off here, but I hardly think you are an uninvolved editor with any business doing non-admin closure when the underlying issue is climate change. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't involved with the user edits, and the particular edits are more about politics, but thank you for the notice NAEG. But maybe i have to read the guidelines again, not entirely sure. Anyway I am done with getting involved there for now, tried to defuse it, but well ... prokaryotes (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:BADNAC, but i don't think it applies here. The point is, expert knowledge ! = COI. prokaryotes (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

confirmation bias strikes again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Lol, You know there was a recent discussion about exactly this ... anyway have a nice week :) prokaryotes (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What thread are you talking about? If I made a mistake, teach me! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A brief discussion though, look here and search the page for William. And i don't think you made a mistake, and it was good to alert me here, but it is probably a bit of a grey zone - how you interpret it, since i wasn't really involved, and i didn't acted in a way to give me or others any advantage? prokaryotes (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? What on earth did you read there is even remotely on point? My god, confirmation bias was an understatment. While I try hard not to pigeon editors and their editorial POV, can you 100% honestly and in a nanosecond say you would have done exactly the same thing, with exactly the same vigor, had the discussion been with respect to a vigorous climate change denier, instead of someone saying denial is linked to neoliberalism and corporatism? Your edit history suggests the answer is, "ummmm, wellllll, NooooOOooOooo.... I guess not....." and so as I understand the principles in play anyone with that answer has a personal view of the subject matter that creates a conflict of interest. Never edited those pages so you're "uninvolved"? Bleah... that's a technical reading designed to overcome the higher principles at play, which is the stuff of wikilawyering. But its water under the bridge, anyway, now that U has been blocked 2 weeks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL NAEG, you continue to misrepresent my comments. I am noe done with you, please leave me alone. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Elite-Dangerous-Orbital-Station.jpg

Non-free rationale for File:Elite-Dangerous-Orbital-Station.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Elite-Dangerous-Orbital-Station.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Unsigned by Yamla

the traitor known as snowden

he breached a contract with the nsa, therefore his promises are shit. and he gave top secret information to both Russia and china therefore who are our enemies. so by aiding them that makes him a traitor, that's a fact not opinion.

Sorry but i really don't care. prokaryotes (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

One of my best

I'm the original author of WP:BAIT (under a different account name) and am quite proud of it. I think you will find it useful in light of some recent encounters you have experienced. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Boris. prokaryotes (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

AAAS

You should have received an email from me regarding AAAS a few weeks ago - can you please fill out the form linked from that email? If you did not receive the email (check your spam folder), let me know. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ping. We are hoping to process these as soon as possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Btw. Nikkimaria the email was addressed with your name. prokaryotes (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary reverts on adjugate matrix

The reverts are on a watchlist of potential edit warring. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The right place to comment on your edits is here. prokaryotes (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Prokaryotes reported by User:Cuzkatzimhut (Result: ). Thank you. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please slow down

GM crops/food/controversies is very... controversial. Please read WP:Controversial articles and please slow down. We have worked together before on the ZMapp stuff and that went OK. Please take it slow and keep in mind that lots of people have been discussing these articles for a long time. You are not bringing anything new to the table, content-wise, and your anger is not helpful toward working through things. There is a lot that you have to read and think about, and a lot of crap out there, on these topics. So the going is slow and difficult. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please leave me alone Jytdog, your tricks don't work for me. prokaryotes (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Just be aware that bringing lots of passion into a controversial topic usually leads to disruption which usually leads to a topic ban. It is not good for the community nor for you. I will let you be now - see you on the article Talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but i have no idea what you talking about. If you want to discuss a topic ban then the right place is at ANI, not my talk page. If you have reason that one of my edits requires a topic ban then i must ask you to provide the dif, otherwise keep it to talk pages. prokaryotes (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to balance the GMO articles. David Tornheim (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Please slow down. It is really a bad idea to edit aggressively on an article like this.

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 Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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) 00:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I notice that you make many allegations. However, notice that i will report you for this at ANI if you do not stop with your claims. prokaryotes (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

To be clear Jytdog, the next time you claim i edit war or act aggressively or any unfounded claim by you will result in you getting reported at ANI, and i look at your ANI history it seems there have been many calls for you to be blocked because of your relationship with other editors. prokaryotes (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You actually broke 3RR edited aggressively including reverting today and on the Talk page you wrote about 5 things that express little/no understanding of what you are editing about. GM food is something that people are very passionate about and so far we have been able to avoid arbcom and discretionary sanctions because people have exercised self-restraint and talked about things instead of trying to force content into the article. I and everyone else understands that you are fired up about the glyphosate. There is no deadline in WP - we can talk things through without edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC) (decided not to bring 3RR case, strike claim to reduce drama Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC))

I did two different reverts on the page, count again. Your claim that i don't understand the topic is very ignorant since i cite the WHO, if you want to suggest that the WHO has no understanding, well. So i suggest you either proceed with whatever you think is in violation or you leave my talk page. I find your arguments to be very aggressive and intimidating. prokaryotes (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I found my way here from the talk page of the article in question. I do not see 3RR as alleged. However, i do advise Prokaryotes to simply slow down and discuss more on the talk page before making edits. I do find the allegation of edit warring distasteful and off-putting. I think an appeal to simply slow down can be made on its own merits. I understand frustration. SageRad (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Sage, normally want to proceed and resolve things, and rather hate it when things go in circles or editors do not answer questions and things drag on. Though, i see my edits now done anyway, i tried to add the WHO finds, tried consensus finding talk, now as last option RFC, and to see what others think.prokaryotes (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Do keep in mind you are technically at 4 reverts now at Genetically modified food lumping uninterrupted edits into one in the rough 24 hr period. I'd be curious to see clarification from Jytdog on how he thought you apparently surpassed 3RR before this edit. Could go a few different ways, so I'm not going to try to dig into someone else's head. There is no question now though with 1, 2, 3, 4 reverts. You don't actually have to hit the revert button to have an edit count as such. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You apparently confuse a valid edit with reverting. prokaryotes (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, since these are serious allegations you make, I ask you to explain why you think that sourced content is considered a revert, per 3RR (as you describe above in Dif 2, 3 and 4).prokaryotes (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The reverts are all documented in my previous post. There shouldn't be any explaining needed at that point, so please read WP:3RR on what a revert is. You made four separate changes to the article the altered other editor's actions.

You are coming into the topic way too hot if you're missing this in addition to the other problems of casting aspersions about editors and what appears to be WP:ADVOCACY editing by the point of view you seem to be taking. We do have problems with editors with an agenda coming in, namely the Monsanto/GMOs are evil and must be vilified attitude (which a lot of is based in WP:FRINGE perspectives). It's really hard to focus on keeping cruft out of an article, legitimate criticism in, and focus on encyclopedic information in general when someone is kicking up drama such as casting aspersions about shills, etc. It's also really common for those people to accuse others of bias when it's in fact it's just editors responding to the person coming in pushing a POV. You're focusing really hard on a very select point of view in your recent edits across different articles. I'm not sure what personal beliefs are driving you to edit the articles in that fashion, but do read the advocacy essay for guidance on that. We are supposed to check our point of views in at login. I suggest you do the same both to cut down on drama inappropriate for article talk pages and to keep the focus on NPOV rather than each person's personal beliefs. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces, since you do not answer my questions, and then bring up keywords and guidelines which are not in line with my edits or what you claim i must ask you to retract your claims of 3RR and leave my talk page alone. I also notice that is not the first time that you have problems with understanding 3RR. Notice that i will take action against you if you continue to portray my edits falsely. prokaryotes (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• It sure looks to me like Jtdog and Kingofaces are attempting to WP:BULLY you, Prokaryotes. You have every right to edit and I thank you for doing so. Jusdafax 15:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax, the boil that needs to be lanced is advocacy - which drives editors to make tons of changes all at once and demand action on them Now. That is not how WP works. That is how advocacy works. WP:SOAPBOX is policy. If you want to encourage that kind of behavior, that is on you. I have been trying to get Prokaryotes to slow down. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)