User talk:Robsweet1975

Sockpuppet investigation
SmartSE (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what a sock puppet is, but am new to Wikipedia. and an Indian who has heard Dr. Shiva speak in Jaipur last year when he moderated a historic debate on GMOs at India's prestigious government run agricultural institute(http://www.ahuja-foundation.org/2015/10/we-care-about-mother-earth.html ), and have been very interested in his work. I want to contribute to Wikipedia.  I read his interview on Tamilnadu.com, http://tamilnadu.com/entertainment/personalities/interview-with-dr-v-a-shiva-ayyadurai-the-inventor-of-email-and-systems-scientist.html#comment-180, where someone had commented giving access to the Wikipedia Sandbox page, from which I added a citation, which I thought was well researched. I did not know this was a violation
 * Concerning my addition to GMO controversies page, I had initially posted something that was removed. I did not know that I had to post on the Talk page, before Undoing and re-editing. So, I am now posting on the Talk page.  Kindly forgive my lack of understanding the process. It will not happen again.
 * Concerning my recent edit, I did do the research on his work and believe I was fair. I also included Smartse's EFSA posting(http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/885e.pdf) to balance my response.  This is not promotional but the facts about Dr. Ayyadurai's work,  which have now been widely shared in the media. Please tell me what I need to do properly to get this included.  I had not intention of it being promotional, but what I felt important to share on  a GMO controversy on Soy that is going on.  Thank you.

User:Robsweet1975 (talk)

Hi
I saw your edits at GMO Controversies. Please be careful. The page is under "discretionary sanctions" (including 1RR). Discretionary sanctions are special rules that give admins the discretion to wield wide latitude in punishing you for minor indiscretions. Adding almost any negative information critical of GMO's will cause a storm of objection and protest and citation of numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:PAG) as justification to stop it from getting in, as I think you have already seen. Such attempts will be immediately reverted: look at the edit history of the GM articles. You are in no way unique. Or spend some time reading the walls-of-text in here. If you revert the material back in, as you did, you will be accused of edit-warring--that alone could get you banned from the GMO articles. This editor was recently banned for pushing too hard to get material critical of GMO's added: here. By trying to add anything critical of GMO's you are likely to be called "anti-GMO", a GMO advocate or activist, or akin to a climate change denier, for trying to add WP:Fringe beliefs akin to flat earthers, and if you complain about these ad hominem attacks, your complaint will be dismissed as having no merit. (See [ ). I don't support this environment, but I did want to make you aware of it, before you find yourself unexpectedly ambushed for saying or doing something you think is completely reasonable and you find a surprising lack of sympathy if you complain about it. The attitude at the various noticeboards is almost identical to talk pages, because all the same editors of the talk pages will show up there. RfC's are about the only thing I have seen that brings in 3rd parties (see this RfC). I wish you well and encourage you to edit, but I would do some research on the past drama by reviewing the talk pages, the history of the GMO articles and what happens at the notice boards (e.g. ) and at the ArbCom proceeding on GMOs, so you can see what happens to people who push too hard or complain too much. Some editors have learned to survive this unhealthy editing environment by exercising appropriate caution and learning what lines are never safe to cross... You already crossed one without realizing it when you re-added the material that had been reverted... --David Tornheim (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)