User talk:MaxwellBarr

Welcome!

Hello, MaxwellBarr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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) 17:45, 5 March 2015 (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

March 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Genetically modified organism has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Genetically modified organism was changed by MaxwellBarr (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.891531 on 2015-03-05T01:35:13+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi
Hi - I've noticed your editing on the Genetically modified organisms article. Not sure what happened with that first edit where you added a spamlink...  and I think your 2nd and 3rd edits were meant to come together (if you click "edit" and study how the article is actually built, you will see that references go inline, with tags around them ( right after it), and the software automatically creates a footnote and adds the citation to the references at the end.)  The links above, in the welcome message, will help you learn how to edit.

On a broader note, there is actually a suite of articles related to GMOs - briefly:
 * Genetic engineering covers the basic science
 * Genetically modified organisms is a broad overview article that shows what organisms have been genetically modified and for what purposes
 * Genetically modified crops focuses on crops themselves (primarily agriculturally focused)
 * Genetically modified food describes what kinds of foods are actually genetically modified, how, and why
 * Genetically modified food controversies covers all the controversies about all the above. Per WP:SUMMARY (please read that), a summary of the GM Food controversies article has been placed in all the articles above, with a link to the main article
 * Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms covers government regulation of GMOs and GM food. Like the controversies article, a summary of this article has been placed in the articles above, with a link to the main article.
 * Those are the key articles, but there are many others, which you can find in the Genetic Engineering template at the bottom of all those articles. (which you can see in freestanding form here: Template:Genetic engineering

This set of articles are pretty mature and lots and lots of people have worked on them; pretty much every issue imaginable has been raised and addressed somewhere in them, and there are often many conversations going on in the Talk pages associated with the articles. So please have a look around and orient yourself. See you on the article talk pages - good luck! Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog: I see you are following my advice of introducing yourself to the new user.  This is not bad.  However, it does give the misleading belief that the articles are more or less done--certainly not the case.  The new user should be WELCOMED to make POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS to the articles, and to engage other users on the talk page if there is disagreement with proposed changes.  Otherwise, I think you are on the right path here.  But not below as I have already said.  I also think this language should be discussed on the talk pages so it is more NPOV. David Tornheim (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

edit war warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Genetically modified organism. 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 Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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 and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * Don't let these threats scare you off. Anyone who tries to balance any of the GMO articles is immediately reverted and is often threatened like this.  Go to the talk page of the article instead and discuss there.  When Jytdog put an edit warring tag on my page, after 2 reverts, I put the same tag on Jytdog's page as well, since Jytdog reverted twice as well.  You can do the same because he is reverting your "good faith" additions without discussing on the talk page which is the proper forum. David Tornheim (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The above standard template warning was not a threat; it is a courtesy notice that informs people they are getting close to violating a Wikipedia policy. Many new users violate policy unknowingly, and warnings are essential.
 * this dif added content with edit note: "I put forth some evidence from a study done in France where rats fed GM foods grew tumors. I believe this to be controversial and is very relevant to GMOs."
 * I reverted with edit note: "revert b/c a) unsourced; b) UNDUE here; c) discussed at length in Controversies article linked here and in its own article"
 * Maxwell followed up trying to add a ref (clearly doesn't know what he is doing, which is not bad thing - and i spent some time above explaining how to add refs above)
 * I removed the stray ref
 * 17:54, 5 March 2015 I left the note above explaining how to do refs, and since the initial comment was written in seeming unawareness of how the articles are set up, i also explained how they are set up, and explained about using Talk pages.
 * 22:26, 5 March 2015 Maxwell edit warred the content back in, with edit note "Added some new information concerning animal testing of GMOs and some information of those whom caused the article to be retracted". This is unambiguious edit warring, not talking back, and just using the information I provided to properly format the ref and re-insert the text.  It does not violate 3RR yet, but is definitely warn-able behavior. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog: You did not discuss the reverts on the talk page, but in the edit comments--the same problem you had with me.  You did not work with the editor on the talk page to address your concern to this user's "good faith" edits, but instead engaged in an editor war with the user, and then discussed on his/her talk page out of sight, so that *we* could not see what was going on.  Only when I went to this talk page did I realize you were threatening this new user, which I noted you have done before.  You and others revert almost anything new added to articles like you own them as part of WP:GANG, and then if the new user tries to put it in again, because they don't understand the problem or the Wiki rules, rather than insist on talk page discussion they inadvertently end up in an edit war and get the 3RRR warning and then are scared off.  That's not okay and is why the article lacks NPOV.  This is not the right way to treat new users who see NPOV problems and try to address them.David Tornheim (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI -- your name mentinoed
FYI, I mentioned an edit you made on an ANI board here. I am posting this in compliance with the requirement that I must tell other users about their name if it is mentioned at an ANI board.David Tornheim (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)