User talk:Dusha100

May 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at Séralini affair. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=556590310 your edit] to Séralini affair 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Séralini affair
Hi Dusha100. :) I've left you a message over at Talk:Séralini affair. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

HI Mr Stradivarius:

I think you may be misunderstanding who is responsible for which aspects of the Seralini affair page. You say, "Also, a great deal of this version consists of detailed criticism of the study". Yet my edits are an attempt to redress the detailed criticism of the study, which was the main thrust of the article before I got to it. Please read the article as it stood before I arrived and started editing. It is a demolition job on the Seralini study and without doubt defamatory to Prof Seralini and his team. My edits put the other side of the story. Can you respond to this please before I address the other points, as clearly I cannot get any further while this fundametnal misunderstanding persists.

Please also note that the Users bobrayner and runjonrun have been deleting my edits to a very substantial degree, whereas my edits to their work have been minimal and well explained. 99% of my edits have consisted of adding balancing material to a n unbalanced, unfair and libellous article. Please have a look at the edit history and let me know your response.

The one edit I concede is fair is that wiki does not allow 'original research', so I can find a citation for the fact that GM foods are not labelled in the US.

Unless I and other concerned wiki users receive something like fair treatment over this issue, I shall be pressing for removal of the page as defamatory.