| Revision as of 06:37, 14 September 2015 editKoA (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,888 edits →3RR again: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:22, 14 September 2015 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,236 edits →3RR again: You are risking a block for 3RRNext edit → | ||
| Line 393: | Line 393: | ||
| As mentioned previously, once a newly proposed edit has been disputed, that's the time to back it up on the talk page rather than hit the revert button again. Please do not make this article into a WP:]. ] (]) 06:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC) | As mentioned previously, once a newly proposed edit has been disputed, that's the time to back it up on the talk page rather than hit the revert button again. Please do not make this article into a WP:]. ] (]) 06:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :Per the new complaint at ], it looks like you have made four reverts in 24 hours. There may still be time for you to avoid a block if you will undo your last revert. In any case these reverts are silly because ] is chemically a sulfoximine. It acts in insects like a neonicotinoid, according to a number of reliable sources, though not all. Discussion on the article talk page can work out the best way of acknowledging the different properties of this chemical. But you need to negotiate it. Thank you, ] (]) 16:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:22, 14 September 2015
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see
What Misplaced Pages is not#Is it promotional in archaeological articles to mention the university leading an excavation?. Doug Weller (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Sulfoxaflor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please slow down, as you are adding content that is not reflected by sources see WP:OR and adding editorializing language. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Listen, bud, I am becoming concerned that you really are a corporate shill. You know damn well that a court of law has found that the FDA erred, and the court found against Dow. You know that sources exist. And it is you that are in front of arbcom. Now, if you are wise, you will cease your pro-industry stance and go away. Abductive (reasoning) 07:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, this isn't how we handle content disputes by resorting to personal attacks (WP:NPA) or avoiding discussing content disputes on article talk pages. Looking at your edit count, you should know better than the engage in this kind of behavior, inserting personal views that are unsourced, or scientific claims from newspapers. We don't suspend Misplaced Pages's policies just because the topic is pesticides. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2015 (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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
The posting can be found here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Abductive reported by User:Kingofaces43 (Result: ). It would be helpful to get your side of the story before this report is closed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
3RR again
Your recent editing history at Sulfoxaflor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
As mentioned previously, once a newly proposed edit has been disputed, that's the time to back it up on the talk page rather than hit the revert button again. Please do not make this article into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Per the new complaint at WP:AN3#Violation of 3RR (Result: ), it looks like you have made four reverts in 24 hours. There may still be time for you to avoid a block if you will undo your last revert. In any case these reverts are silly because sulfoxaflor is chemically a sulfoximine. It acts in insects like a neonicotinoid, according to a number of reliable sources, though not all. Discussion on the article talk page can work out the best way of acknowledging the different properties of this chemical. But you need to negotiate it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)