User talk:Hog1983

Legal threats
Please don't make legal threats or try to out wikipedia editors as you did at Talk:Séralini affair‎ or you will surely not be welcome here. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this note - I was not aware that asking for information regarding legal action was not looked on well on Wikipedia - so thank you again - I would like you to please take a look at the comments I made regarding biased on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog1983 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 August 2013‎


 * Hi. I'm a volunteer Wikipedia editor and I just noticed your comments at Talk:Séralini affair‎. Please read this policy WP:NLT, which says in part, "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding." This is because ongoing interaction on Wikipedia while a legal threat stands may complicate any legal proceedings, and may have a chilling effect on the work of others. You will be blocked from editing shortly, while this matter is sorted out, unless you unequivocally retract the threat and make it very clear that you no longer intend to sue anybody over the content of this article.


 * To contact the people responsible for content, look through the article's history, where each individual change to the article is listed in chronological order, clicking "prev" to view each specific change. It's slow and tedious but the only way to pin down who did what to an article. If you click "talk" against the user name of the person who made an edit, you can edit their "talk page", and leave a message for them.


 * It is not usually possible to acquire the actual identity of editors. The foundation that hosts Wikipedia doesn't collect that information. The policy I linked to above says, "If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team at info-en@wikimedia.org". That's probably your best bet for now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have removed the legal comment from my talk comment completely - do I have to do something else? It was not a threat but I removed it anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog1983 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 19 August 2013


 * That should do it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)‎


 * Thanks for removing your legal threat. You are welcome to edit the article but do try to familiarize yourself with wikipedia rules first. Here's a start. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to confirm I will not be taking any personal legal action over the article.


 * The email address for that is info-en@wikimedia.org. Now, would you please remove that warning, as it falls foul of that policy I mentioned earlier, WP:NLT? Though it may not be construed as a threat from you, it may still have a chilling effect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)‎


 * Yes of course - removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog1983 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 19 August 2013‎


 * Thanks. Carry on.


 * You're clearly concerned about the balance of that article. I've done a lot of editing here so may I offer you some advice? I'm going to bed now, but if you want my advice, leave a note at my talk page, and don't forget to sign all of your talk page comments with ~ --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you I would like some advice - as all edits on the article which are in any way supportive of the scientist involved are removed and I don't know what I can do to make sure the article is balanced - I am very happy if I can somehow make sure that both points of view are put across - is this possible in anyway on Wikipedia? Or is the original Editor allowed to delete anything they want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog198 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 19 August 2013‎


 * No editor has special privileges in editing wikipedia, certainly not the editor who edits first. And I can assure you we do want a balanced article which gives all points of view a fair hearing, in this case both pro and anti GMO points of view. Just make sure what you add is referenced. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't have the time to get involved in that process myself, unfortunately. But here are some tips.
 * Don't forget to sign all of your talk page comments with ~
 * You'll notice editors usually prefix their comments (after the first comment in a thread) with a series of colons like this:::: When you reply to someone, add an extra colon to your prefix, and your comment will appear indented in relation to theirs. If you check the edit box for this talk page, you'll see that Squeakbox and I have been adding them to our and your comments to create the increasingly longer indents of our comments.
 * Bringing about change on a controversial article involves persuasion. You'll need to persuade the majority of editors who've taken an interest in the topic to your view. So, be polite and professional and, as Squeakbox said, work with people as much as possible. Some people will be rude to you - don't repay them in kind.
 * Now, that amazing list that Squeakbox has posted below is the best Wikipedia training manual I've yet seen. If you have the stamina for hours of sometimes really turgid reading, if you're able to grind your way through that list of policies and guidelines, you'll be able to hold your own in most Wikipedia discussions. I wouldn't recommend that if I didn't know that it is essential to master that set of norms if you wish to have any chance of prevailing in "content disputes" here. You also have to be right, and a fine rhetorician. But without a good grasp of that bunch of pages, all the right and reason in the world won't matter - you'll have rings run round you by intellectual pygmies. Sorry. I wish there were some easier way but, in my experience, there isn't. Take the time to master these. For health and safety claims, you'll also need to read WP:MEDRS. You can probably skip the following for now, but if you're here for any length of time, you'll eventually want to read them:
 * Wikipedia:Requests for oversight
 * Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion
 * Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention


 * Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I just had a look at the article's talk page, and I strongly recommend you read WP:MEDRS (mentioned above), WP:BRD and WP:EW, before going much further. Good luck! Now I really am going to bed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

editing warring vs BRD
Hi Hog1983

Key thing for having a reasonable time in Wikipedia, is following the guideline, WP:BRD. It says you should be bold and make changes to articles (always following policies and guidelines); if you are reverted, then do NOT simply re-instate your changes, which leads to edit warring. Instead, open a discussion on Talk and try to reach consensus. Discussion and consensus-building are the Wikipedia way - -trying to force changes through without discussion by reverting and reverting is not the Wikipedia way. Instead, be Bold, and if you are Reverted, then Discuss! BRD. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Hog1983, I know you are new here but WP:3RR applies to a single editor's changes, and you at that limit.  Please don't get blocked on your first day here by edit warring.   Please discuss in Talk - there is no need to edit war.  Also, as per someone else's comment, it is very bad etiquette to alter in any way, someone else's comments on the Talk page.  Doing that will get you blocked too.  Just come on over and talk... and please be civil.  Super important pillar of wikipedia.  Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Do not abuse the speedy deleted templates, particularly ones that blank the article, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, Hog1983, I've reverted your most recent change to the article's talk page, as all it did was remove another user's comment. I'd imagine it was unintentional, but in case it wasn't, please know that it is not allowed to modify another person's comment on a talk page that is not your own. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And please do stop putting deletion tags on the article. It's already been kept at AfD: PROD and CSD tags are no longer going to work on it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Writ_Keeper - I will stop editing now - I am disgusted by Wikipedia's policy on biased articles - and will not be writing again except formally. An official complaint will follow.Hog1983 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2013 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Do not put any more PROD or CSD tags on the Séralini affair article. Now that it has survived an AfD, neither are appropriate, and PRODs are actually explicitly not allowed. You may nominate it for another AfD (though I would strongly advise against that at this point), but you may not use any other process. If you continue I'm afraid I will have to block you. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The editor is at 5RR ... IRWolfie- (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * and he put a warning template on my user page after I reverted him once. Roxy the dog (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * *shrug* Maybe a real final warning will take; if not, it's only one more revert. @Roxy: he doesn't appear to have ever edited your talk page; are you confusing him with someone else? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My user page . Roxy the dog (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Did the same thing to me, after I reverted one time.Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hog1983, you are invited to the Teahouse
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I will be making no more revisions until dispute is completed through talk.

Hog1983 (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop with the notices
Can you please stop templating people inappropriately. The way to resolve a discussion isn't to go to my talk page and template me. It's to talk and discuss, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Progress
Hey. More unsolicited advice: If you want to make a change to Séralini affair, suggest a change - one change - on the article's talk page. Offer the exact text of your proposed new wording, compared with the wording it will replace.

If you copy/paste this into the talk page, replacing "Old text" and "New text" with your proposal

it will look like this:

Then cite on the talk page the journal article or government/professional body position statement that supports your change. The cited source must conform to Identifying reliable sources (or Identifying reliable sources (medicine) if it's health-related).

Make it one relatively straightforward change. Don't try to achieve everything at once. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much - I have followed your advice please view 'talk' pageHog1983 (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have taken the liberty of tweaking the formatting on your post there; if that was impertinent, please undo me. Actually, you ignored my advice that you deal with one change at a time! I strongly urge you to delete the second editorial suggestion you just made on the article's talk page ... for now.


 * I must stress that achieving change on that article, especially controversial health and safety content, requires considerable skill in a little-known craft: editing Wikipedia health-related content. Please believe me when I say this is a craft; one involving arcane knowledge (lots of policies that you've been linked to above and in discussions, and lots of behavioural norms that come with experience) and requiring practice, politeness, patience and time.


 * This is why I urge you to do one thing at a time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(Copied from Anthony's talk page - let's keep the conversation on one page.Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) ) How long should I wait for an answer for or consensus on the issues ? Or do I make the edit in the source? thank you in advance for your help.Hog1983 (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC) (End of copy)


 * A couple of days is usually long enough - to give time for editors from all time zones to think about it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If I may ramble on a bit more: Mastery of that craft I mentioned involves a firm grasp of the policies governing Wikipedia's content. For now, you should be certain to read both Identifying reliable sources and Identifying reliable sources (medicine) before doing anything else, because you are mounting an argument on the article's talk page based on the appropriateness of your sources cited there.

But progress here is the result of persuasion, ultimately - persuading some of the people with whom you are engaged in a clash of ideas. So, don't alienate them with assumptions of bad faith or worse. Most of the editors you've so far contacted are people of good will. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you I have edited the text so as not to suggest bad faith Hog1983 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the continuing communication - however I have now studied the guidelines and only included mainstream sources including Brazilian Food Safety Agency and Le Monde - one editor is now starting to agree with changes - but the other vetos everything - I don't know what I can do?Hog1983 (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

MedCom
I saw your note to the Mediation Committee listserve. I am a member of MedCom. There are various ways to approach a dispute on Wikipedia. The first, (and most important) step is to discuss the matter with the other party (or parties) and I see that you are doing that on the talk page. That's great. I've added a couple of comments there about sources. The consensus process can take some time when the issues are hotly contested in the wider society. That said, disputes on Wikipedia can sometimes produce better articles. Sunray (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sunray - I have tried to learn as much about Wikipedia as quickly as possible. I am now only going to use very certaqin sources for my comments - However 2 of the editors on the page I am trying to get some consensus on are now suggesting that I leave the page - - which is very distressing - considering the amount of time I have put in and also the amount I have learnt about the brilliance of wikipedia. They are the main editors working on the article and have never allowed any changes to be made on the article which goes against their point of view.Hog1983 (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You may wish to read Ownership of articles. This is a big problem on Wikipedia especially with controversial articles. Many just give up and walk away leaving the articles corrupted by the owners. It is very unfair to our readers but unless you have lots of editors to side with you and fight the battles then you will probably lose in the long run which could result in more and longer blocks. You can try contacting other editors that you feel may be on your side. That why you can gather sources and policy to back up correction of articles on talk pages and in the various 'drama' dispute boards we have here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what two users you are referring to (and you should always use names, and link to their names to notify them when you do refer to people). Hog, you  have been here for all of 2 days and not only have been blocked twice but you have already gone to the drama boards - which generally happens with newcomers to Wikipedia who refuse to learn how this place works. Not to people who humbly try very very hard to learn how it works.  And please don't ever write things like: "They are the original writers of the article and have never allowed any changes to be made on the article."   I don't know if you are aware of the "page information" tool in the toolbox over to the left, but if you look at that for the Séralini affair article, you will see that the article was created by User:Jinkinson who as of today has not had any interactions with you on Talk page nor reverted a single one of your edits to the article itself.  Writing blatantly false things like that - especially with regard to other editor's behaviors - and especially writing it to someone with power around here -  makes you look bad and just antagonizes the other editors who are working on the article.Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Quick note, Hog. If you write something and someone responds to it, and you want to go back and change it, you want to show your changes so the following comment still makes sense.  I generally do it like this.  (click "edit" to see the wikimarkup that accomplishes this -- I will use your text as an example: "They are the original writers of main editors working on the article and have never allowed any changes to be made on the article which goes against their point of view"  In this edit I set this up, and in the next one I will modify it. Jytdog (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC) (edit note - struck some text and added text - shown in italics Jytdog (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC))

Roxy's advice
Hi Hog, based on how I have seen User:Roxy the dog interact with you, he/she has been direct and polite (if blunt) and has consistently pointed you to the relevant policies. From my perspective, his/her advice does not suck, as they say in Seattle. "SPA", in case you are not familiar with it, means "single purpose account". When a user logs in and works only one article, and declares very clear goals as you have with respect to that article, it waves a red flag that the user ~may~ have some conflict of interest, or other "unhealthy" obsession with a topic such that the SPA editors goals are not aligned with Wikipedia's. SPA-like activity is the kind of thing that makes other editors take what you do here with a huge grain of salt (as, when you read an industry funded tox study, you may read it with an extra alertness for monkey business) and if it goes on and on might lead to bigger trouble for the editor. That is all I will ever say to you about this, and I am only saying it because you are new, and I wanted to make sure you understood what Roxy meant. Roxy's advice (while somewhat cheeky) that you go work on other articles so that you a) are no longer a SPA, and b) can learn the ways and policies and spirit of wikipedia better, makes some sense. I will add, that if this article is indeed really important to you, does it make sense to practice and learn the ways of wikipedia on this article, and while you are learning, possibly create some really antagonistic relationships with other editors who watch this article and with whom you will have to create consensus in order to make changes? Climb some little hills before you go after Everest -- practice doing some PCR on some bacterial DNA before you try doing a clinical BRCA test ... you know what I mean. I think that is where Roxy is coming from. But you will do as you will! Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Jytdog. Why is it when others consider you POV and SPA you call it personal attacks and yet you turn around and do the same to another editor?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow you really are stalking me. If you actually read what I wrote above, I did NOT say that Hog has an SPA.  He/she is a new user here and is still learning how things work around here. Hog was called an SPA by Roxy, and I was explaining what that meant because it is quite loaded and Hog was unlikely to understand it.   Unlike you, User:Canoe1967, I said very clearly "That is all I will ever say to you about this, and I am only saying it because you are new, and I wanted to make sure you understood what Roxy meant."   And that is indeed what I will do.Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Now you are accusing me of stalking. I came here to give this user some advice about the article and see that he his being given advice already. I won't say if it is good or bad advice though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out Jytdog that I did not find Roxy the dogs advice useful - in fact it was rude and inaccurate as I am following all Wiki rules of engagement: "For the record I remain entirely opposed to any of the proposed changes by this SPA editor. He has not made any attempt to understand the purpose of the wiki, and this page, and comes here with an obvious, clear, and unacceptable aim, i.e. to skew the NPOV away from consensus towards an extreme anti-GMO pov. He has been advised, warned, disciplined and remains unmoved by all the well meaning and tolerant editors trying to help. I think the only thing that would help @hog1983 now is to stop trying to influence this page for a while, and find another interesting, but less controversial subject on which to hone his editing skills, and wikiknowledge, otherwise he will become incredibly frustrated. Roxy the dog (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)"Hog1983 (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As you will! Thanks for replying.  (btw there was no need to repeat what Roxy wrote,  I linked to it in my post)  Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to be pretty good advice. I would follow it if I were you Hog1983. While I have no comment on the claim being made of: "an obvious, clear, and unacceptable aim, i.e. to skew the NPOV away from consensus towards an extreme anti-GMO pov", I would say that you have found yourself in situations that have caused you to be blocked. That is a little indicative of your behavior. Try to understand that Wikipedia is not always the most civil place to interact with people who have strong convictions on a subject, but civility is not as cut and dry as some might wish. To gain a better understanding of the situation, I suggest diving into all of our policy and guideline pages over a short period. it seemed to benefit me greatly when I took three moths to do so. Good luck and happy editing!-- Mark  20:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)