User talk:Jjavier2

Welcome!
Hello, Jjavier2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your interest! 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

GM articles
HI - thanks for wanting to improve the GM food article. However the changes you have been trying to make are to sections that have fought over intensely. We have settled on approach of having "stub" sections to mark issues, with links to main articles at the top of the section -- if you look there you will see that the articles on genetically modified food controversies and the regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms are already large and comprehensive. Lots of people come along and want to throw stuff into these sections (especially the controversies section) and if we just let that happen, we would soon have a complete sprawling mess again, as the suite of GM article were about a year ago before the current crop of editors came along and started really working hard on these articles. And please remember the Wikipedia is meant to be global -- it is great that you want to describe the US regulatory system but there are regulatory systems in every country -- if we describe only the US, the article will suffer from bias. And if we are fair and describe all the regulatory systems here, the section becomes insanely long. Which is what led us to use a stub section here. See what I mean? Please take some time, read the Talk page, look at the History section. There is a whole community working on these articles. You are welcome to join it! But please also respect it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

specific feedback
I am going to try to help you here. Here was your last edit, with the ref tags removed:

Regulators need to consider the risks and impacts of genetically modified salmon. Some risks that they really need to consider is how they can avoid unintended consequences when consumers eat the GM salmon. (ref) Smith, Martin. "Digital Programs and Systems [Gateway]." Digital Programs and Systems [Gateway]. Science AAAS, 19 Nov. 2010. Web. 29 Mar. 2013.http://www.sciencemag.org.mutex.gmu.edu/content/330/6007/1052.full (ref) If genetically modified salmon were to be approved by the FDA, then it would be considered the first "artificially introduced" animal in our food supply. With this said, genetically modified salmon may not be labeled which means what people who consumes salmon may or may not know whether it is genetically modified or not. (ref) "GE Salmon." Food Water Watch General. Food and Water Watch, n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2013. http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/stop-frankenfish/ (ref)

Ok, so what is wrong? 1) as I wrote in my edit note, overall, this is not encyclopedic tone.  Wikipedia doesn't give advice "regulators need to consider..." nor does it advocate  "regulators really need to consider." --- the latter in particular violates WP:SOAPBOX. 2) as I noted, nobody can tell what the Science article is. You don't give the title of the article or page numbers - maybe the author is Martin Smith? and maybe the issue is "Science, 19 Nov. 2010"? and the link your provide is to your university's website which nobody else can access (see the "mutex.gmu.edu" in the middle of the address?) 3) sources need to be reliable, neutral POV sources.  Especially on controversial articles, it is really best to use a source that all sides of an issue can accept, not one that "sings to the choir" for only one side or the other.

It is really great that you want to make Wikipedia better. I am sorry that I keep reverting you, but things that go into the actual articles must meet Wikipedia's standards. If you want to practice things in Talk, that might be a less frustrating way to go. Good luck, really! 03:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * note, I found the article from Science -- I believe it is this one: Smith MD et al (2010) Genetically Modified Salmon and Full Impact Assessment. Science 19 November 2010: 1052-1053.    That is one way to give a useful citation - all the information, and a link to a public webpage of the abstract, or even better to a public webpage with the whole article, if you can find it.  Now that I found it, I see that this is not a scientific article, but is an opinion piece... also not the most reliable source you could bring. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

March 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 Genetically modified food. 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. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  04:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Genetically modified food shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  06:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding US regulatory agencies to Genetically modified food
Clearly there is no consensus for your edits. Please click on this link and discuss your changes with the other editors before you add them to the article. Discussion with other editors when there are problems, is a big part of being an editor on Wikipedia. If you continue adding your information without the agreement of the other editors, a report will be filed about your reverts and you may lose the ability to edit the article or any other article for that matter for a period of time, usually 12-24 hours for a first occurrence, longer for subsequent incidents. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you avoid that. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  06:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

An explanation as to why your edit was reverted
You wrote in part: The reason this was reverted was that the article is about GM food for the whole world and not only the US. So when you write: The FDA is the federal agency that the public relies on when it comes to food safety..., this is not really applicable to the article because the rest of the world does not rely on the FDA for their food safety. Only the US does. Therefore this edit, as it stands, does not belong in the article. Parts of it may be ok, if modified. But the edit must be discussed first with the rest of the editors at the talkpage of the article. Here is the link one more time. Click on it and please discuss your edits with the other editors: Talk:Genetically modified food#Request for full protection. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  07:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)