User talk:Minor4th

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Sennecaster 100 0 1 100 17:20, 25 December 2024 6 days, 4 hours no report Hog Farm 2 157 11 9 93 02:47, 22 December 2024 2 days, 14 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 12:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

George Zimmerman call transcript

Not sure why you removed it. Maybe to cut the length? The other cleanup was very good. I noticed you said "primary source" in the edit summary, but there's no prohibition on using a primary source in this way, and actually having the entire transcript might be good in this particular situation since news media mangled and summarized it many times. -- Avanu (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding discussion on my Talk page in which you say that I edit warred

From my Talk page:

This is what occurred, and my latest edit:

You made major changes to a section, including removing a phone call transcript and revising text. The section had been the way it was with only minor changes for months. I reverted and said it should be discussed first on the talk page.

Another editor partially reverted my edit, leaving the text changes but restoring the call transcript. You had started the talk discussion, and you reverted that editor, saying it should be discussed first. Your original edit is what should have been discussed first, however. The other editor removed what might be questionable, the text (even though it's been there months), and Talk discussion showed that the transcript was acceptable and another source, Mother Jones, could be given. Since the transcript wasn't objectionable I reverted to the version of the other editor. The consensus on the page seemed to be that the transcript should stay. One editor mentioned that some text added to the transcript, such as noting when sounds of a car door opening are heard, could be removed, but that is the only mention of it. And those things could just be removed, if you object to them. Psalm84 (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to post this also to your Talk page. Psalm84 (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Psalm84 (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've addressed it on the talk page. You reverted the same info back in twice. The fact that there was an intervening edit does not matter. If 1RR is no longer the rule, so be it, but you made these reverts when other editors were right in the middle of discussing it, and you did not even bother commenting on the talk page. You should anticipate that such editing behavior is going to escalate the dispute. Take the time to actually consider my points about the transcript, rather than quickly reverting to your preferred version. Minor4th 03:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not revert the same info twice. I reverted to Avanu's version which is only the transcript and which left your edits. And all the other editors have been for keeping the transcript, saying it's helpful and it isn't OR but WP:TRANSCRIPTION. One said that some added text could come out, but that isn't the same as removing the whole transcript. Psalm84 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Psalm84 (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You have an interesting personal definition of what constitutes a revert and what doesn't. You reversed all or a part of the same edit 3 times now, and I note that you continue to edit war. Have at it, the article means a whole lot more to you than it does to me. I was trying to improve it, but the rules and guidelines are suspended on this article, and it's fallen to POV editors.Minor4th 07:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Kewl Kitteh!

—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet  Br'erRabbit this user is a sock puppet 06:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment at Administrator's Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I made a comment regarding the Shooting at Trayvon Martin page that relates to the present issues regarding the article. Psalm84 (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll at Shooting of Trayvon Martin

This notification is to inform you of a straw poll being conducted at the talk page of Shooting of Trayvon Martin, your comments would be welcome and appreciated on the allegations of witness #9. [1] Note: If you choose to comment, please mention you were contacted via this notification. Thanks!-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Seattle Public Library

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sons of Perdition (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oprah Winfrey Network. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Noticeboard

Please see WP:RSN#Use of a lawyer blog in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. for a discussion in which you have been involved at Talk:Bowman v. Monsanto Co.. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 18:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for editorial review

M4th: would you do me the favor of reviewing the top article in my Sandbox for NPOV and other WP requisites, before I put it up. Our pal is bound to take exception (if not hysteria) to it as a matter of principle. I would like it to be as sound as possible beforehand. Feel free to tear it up (constructively). Thx. PraeceptorIP (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Will do as time allows.Minor4th 15:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)See User:PraeceptorIP/JEM Case. I've worked on it some for him. GregJackP Boomer! 15:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Greg.Minor4th 15:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

recent edit on mattress performance talk page

Hi Minor4th, I recently moved a comment Mattnad made, which he placed in the middle of one of my previous comments[2] because it removed my signature from the comment. I see you reverted. [3]. Was this a mistake? It's a relatively minor thing, but I think it's clearer if that comment that I made in one edit, remains in one piece (it was a two part edit, directed at two different editors, but breaking it up removes my signature from part of it). Do you mind if this is changed back?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That was a total mistake. Had no idea I did that.Minor4th 18:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom case

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, -Tryptofish (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

admin vs. content

I understand what you're saying, and can even agree in a very small way - but since you mentioned it, I will say that Wehwalt is an excellent example of an admin who does great content work. — Ched :  ?  03:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Wehwalt would be a glaring exception, if he's an admin. I don't know that I've ever seen him doing admin work. Minor4th 03:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

He usually acts if he's asked directly, I think. He was one of my inspirations, actually. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 03:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Bravo for this. Of course, you do realise that speaking out in such a fashion will expel you from any future RfA you may wish to undertake. Good on you! Cassianto^Talk 12:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and yeah, there will be no RfA's for me ;) Minor4th 13:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th, I don't think we've ever "met" before, but I found your insights to the overall atmosphere of content editing to be insightful and thought-provoking. Thank you. Montanabw^(talk) 02:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw. We haven't "met" but other editors have mentioned to me that you're one of the best content creators; so I've followed some of your content and discussions. I don't edit very much - mostly because the atmosphere can be so toxic when one is actually trying to accomplish something here. I get too frustrated and discouraged and find other things to do that don't leave me feeling slimy. :D Best -- Minor4th 03:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw RfA

The nomination has a snowball's chance of success, so maybe it's high time to stop badgering the opposes: ([4]). This process has been stressful for all involved, and the continuing confrontations there are so unlikely to impact the outcome that they appear egregious at this point. RO^(talk) 16:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Minor4th 16:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If the nom got no more opposes and seven supports per hour, it would still fail. So it seems really unnecessary to continue to badger opposes this late in the process, as the outcome will not change. But I'll leave it at that, since you either get my point now or won't get it no matter what I say. RO^(talk) 16:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I made exactly one reply to exactly one oppose; it was substantive and civil. I have not "badgered" anyone. But if there's no reason to comment on the RfA, why do you continue to "badger" the candidate? It's a rhetorical question - no need to answer ;) Minor4th 16:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't commented there in three days. RO^(talk) 16:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

liar. Cassianto^Talk 17:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't counting copyedits to my oppose rationale as independent comments. BTW, you're really popular over at Wikipediocracy: ([5])RO^(talk) 17:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but I knew about it on the 17 September, so sorry to piss on your parade RO. IT's nice to know that while the trolling fuckwits are talking about me they're leaving someone else alone. Cassianto^Talk 18:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"the trolling fuckwits" Such language for an educated adult. I am deeply saddened that you've recently adopted this persona, because I remember seeing you around last fall, but I don't remember you acting so aggressively. Maybe you take this place a little too seriously, but I'm glad you realize that most of us are having a good laugh about it. RO^(talk) 18:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you think it's "recent". I don't forget RO; supporting someone who likened me to a person who mocks rape victims is about as low as you can go. It's behaviour like that which causes me to act "aggressively". Cassianto^Talk 18:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You totally misunderstood me then, and you're still carrying that misunderstanding with you today. I never said that, Cassianto, nor did I think it at the time or now. It's ridiculous. I never supported that accusation; I tried to help you two see that you were talking past each other and not seeing the other person's point, just like you're doing right now. RO^(talk) 18:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to make anymore comments about this here, but if you want to discuss this please feel free to come to my talk page. If you bring some diffs, I'll be able to show you I did not take the position that you think I did. There's too much long-term grudge holding around here, and if you want to make an effort to end ours I'll be very happy to discuss it with you. RO^(talk) 18:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger, just to let you know, we're moving pages now. Tell the others, won't you?  ;) Cassianto^Talk 19:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case. The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

FAC of Schmerber v. California

Hi Minor4th, I hope all is well these days! I have nominated an article I wrote, Schmerber v. California, for FA status. I know that you are a subject matter expert and you are generally an awesome Wikipedian when it comes to legal articles (and all other articles), so I was hoping you would be willing to take a look at the nomination for Schmerber. Here is a link to the nomination. Thanks in advance for your help! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Notecardforfree - I will take a look and give input if I have some. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/United States v. Washington since you participated in the FAN discussion. Minor4th 17:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Minor4th! I just went to the TFA nomination page for U.S. v. Washington to express my support. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI - Tryptofish

Tryptofish - FYI, I did not request that you be blocked. I don't know if you ever saw my comment responding to you, but I asked for a warning. I never thought that you meant anything malicious - my concern was that your comment would lead others to further outing and harassment. Minor4th 21:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You have asked me not to post on your talk page, so out of respect, I am leaving you a message here and you are welcome to respond if you care to.

Regarding this comment [6], I think Roger Davies was referring to the other editor you mentioned in the oversighted diff -- you had proposed a site ban for him, not me.

About the edit itself, I don't think anyone believes or has accused you of any kind of malicious outing (and that's why the block was very short); I would characterize your comment as more careless than malicious. I reported the diff because I wanted it oversighted to prevent any "opposition research" based on the real-life connections you were trying to make. I did not request a block or any other sanction other than a warning, but a short block was appropriate while Arb contacted you and sorted it out. As one who values privacy, you should understand that completely.

While your feelings were hurt by the block, I assure you it feels worse to have one's anonymity/privacy compromised. You are a long-term, experienced editor and you should have known better than to have made that post, as you have acknowledged. So, I am asking you please to give the Arbs a break and stop insisting that they apologize to you or admit to some kind of wrongdoing in the wake of all this because it gives the impression that you do not actually regret the post and that you do not think there was anything wrong with your behavior, and that is pretty hurtful to the targets of your post. Minor4th 21:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll note also that Tryptofish is the one who added me as a party to the case even though I had never edited in the GMO topic area - he added me unilaterally without even stating why I should be included. He subsequently proposed that I be sanctioned with an interaction ban and proposed that the other editor he mentioned in the diff be indefinitely site banned. With that context in mind, Tryptofish's oversighted diff that led to his short block looks like an invitation to conduct opposition research as was alluded to by one of the Arbs.

I could have proposed a FoF and remedy regarding Tryptofish in the Arb case, based on his conduct on the Arb pages during the case. I believe that it would have been warranted; I was content to let it go and move on, but he has recently "re-started the discussion" and I find it very offensive that he is now portraying himself as the victim, wronged by ArbCom and by me implicitly. Minor4th 19:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Patent litigation

You said better material was needed for the patent litigation of Monsanto. I notice the arfticle starts at a late date. If you want to go back to when M was selling herbicide but not seeds, you could summarize the CA3 case of Monsanto v. Rohm & Haas on propanil. Just excertpt what you consider worthwhile. PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I'll take a look. Please feel free to jump in yourself. Minor4th 00:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your diligent contributions on all 3 pages of Arbcom re GMO. I very much appreciate your hard work ! Wuerzele (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Wuerzele! Minor4th 18:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Seconded. And the wait drags on. Jusdafax 00:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Tick tock tick tock ....Minor4th 00:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Big fan here, too. petrarchan47คุก 01:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Awww. You guys are too much! Take a look at Guillerilo's talk page. He says it's still going to be a few days before the PD. Minor4th 15:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez

Dear Editor, In compliance with Wikipedia regulations, we would like to inform you that we have filed a discussion in the NPOV board that mentions your name. Thanks much for your attention. 181.228.138.187 (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

Proposed revision to Career Section in BLP Ariel Fernandez

Dear Editor Minor4th, Following your valuable suggestions on the NPOV board for improving the BLP for Ariel Fernandez, we have now included in the Talk page of the article a proposed revision of the Career section. We have quoted reputable secondary sources to back up the assertions. Hopefully the tone is now more neutral and balanced. We would much appreciate your help with this revision of the career section. 181.228.138.187 (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

Dear Minor4th, Thanks much in advance for your help improving the BLP for Ariel Fernandez regarding NPOV. We are ready to work with you at your convenience on the proposed edits to the career section. We placed the edited version in the Talk page quoting the appropriate primary and secondary sources. Thanks much for your help with this.181.228.138.187 (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

Thanks. I have been busy but I will take a look when I have some time. Minor4th 15:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Minor4th. Your intervention in the BLP would be most valuable in order to achieve the required neutrality and balanced point of view. I concur with the proposed revision to the career section.50.4.224.33 (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Ariel Fernandez

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

A toast for your help with Schmerber v. California!

Many thanks for your work to help Schmerber v. California achieve FA status. The article was promoted today, and I hope you will raise a glass with me in celebration! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Congrats and cheers! Minor4th 21:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez article editing

Dear Minor4th: We feel that Dr. Ariel Fernandez has been unfairly treated by Wikipedia. As you and other editors have noted, his BLP article places undue weight on negative content, is not balanced and does not comply with the neutral tone requirement. The BLP focuses on three questioned papers, while the subject has published over 350 peer-reviewed papers, two books as sole author and holds two patents, all with several secondary sources, as indicated in the proposed edits (Talk page). We and others in academia would be very grateful to you if you could fix the article when you get a chance.198.30.200.95 (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)OSU

I'm not interested in working on this right now because my time is very limited. Minor4th 16:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood. 128.146.70.145 (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)OSU

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi Minor4th. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

Dates: 5 to 15 December 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event Host: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in religion to participate. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and learn more: →here← --Rosiestep (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-edit warring

Hi Minor4th. Thank you for making your recent edit over at the GMO ArbCom case. It certainly needs pointing out what Kingofaces43 is doing. However, I am a little concerned about your phrasing in the post. Kingofaces43 has accused me of edit warring, and you seem to have repeated this in your posting to ArbCom. I do not believe I am edit warring on the Glyphosate article. I made two reverts of material since December 4th, here[7] and here.[8] I have not made any reverts since. I started the Talk page thread here[9] at 19:43, 4 December 2015. This was between my first and my second revert. I really do not understand how this constitutes edit warring. It was one revert, open discussion, and a second to revert to the status quo. Am I missing something here?DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) On these high-conflict articles, a 1RR policy is best. 2RR can get people claiming there's an edit war... silly, but there you have it. Montanabw^(talk) 09:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

the page is 1RR per an early arbcom decision.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought I saw 3 reverts by Chrissy and 3 or 4 by BogHog. But my comment wasn't about whether or not Chrissy was edit warring - it was to question why KOA jumped in the middle of an ongoing revert war with an additional revert and why he only named Dr Chrissy when there was another editor who was more egregious but just happened to agree with KOA's POV. Minor4th 17:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)thats exactly how I read your comment.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez article editing

Dear Minor4th, I just read the proposed edits by Argentine Natl Research Council (CONICET) dated November 30th (end of Talk page). The proposers strive to get a neutral point of view in Career section. The subject has done much more than getting papers questioned by the NIH software contractor Joshua L Cherry (in Wiki Molevol1234, etc.). The proposed edits follow your suggestions and those of Gamaliel, quoting the required secondary sources. I am not related to the subject, although it seems everyone who tries to defend him is accused of that. I am hesitant to make those edits fearing the reversal by editor Nomoskedasticity, who has been reverting just about everybody who tried to fix the page. If you could take a look at the proposed edits that would help a lot. With your approval I can go ahead.Spinrade (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I really trust Nomoskedasticity, especially on BLP issues. Try making the edits, and if they get reverted, start a discussion on the talk page to see if the issue can be resolved. Minor4th 22:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that time of year....

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)
	Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water, and it won't catch fire.
	Wishing you a joyous holiday season... ...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉
	--Atsme📞📧 22:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)	Pure pun-ishment. [10]

Genetically modified organisms case closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.

2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.

7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.

11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case closed

Edit warring at Glyphosate

Your recent editing history at Glyphosate 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. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that you just edit warred content in that had been previously discussed on the article talk page and did not have consensus for inclusion. Such actions, especially when you had been alerted there was discussion and that consensus should be reached before re-adding it, are edit warring even if you have not violated 1RR. The arbs were clear that edit warring other than 1RR violations would likely result in sanctions at enforcement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, I suggest you stop templating everyone who posts something you disagree with. Your behavior is inappropiate. Montanabw^(talk) 02:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I reverted one edit and that brings an edit warring template? Careful Kingofaces43, the article is under discretionary sanctions now and you're already starting the battleground behavior right off the bat. You are the one who undid another's work by removing content you don't like. I restored the properly sourced content with my one edit and I will be happy to discuss it on the talk page. Minor4th 03:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm responding to your edit warring behavior, so please refrain from accusing me of "battleground behavior right off the bat." The short of it was that I removed an edit that had already been discussed awhile ago with no consensus and not added then while specifically citing WP:BRD to bring people to the talk page if they felt strongly. You instead hit the revert button ignoring all that in violation of WP:EW (even one revert can do that in contexts like this). If there wasn't all that context, I would have been more hesitant about a template, but your edit started some edit warring drama when it should have been perfectly clear that reverts at that point were inappropriate and people should have been leaving the article alone to focus on the talk page. The principles and sanctions from the case were specifically meant to prevent exactly what happened starting with your edit and instead get people on the talk page getting consensus for disputed edits instead. Please refrain from inappropriate behavior like this in the future that raises drama. What happened starting with your edit was a continuation of the edit warring environment before the ArbCom case started, and that really needs to stop unless someone actually wants to go to WP:AE. I for one would rather get the article working smoothly again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, once again you are casting aspersions and if it happens again I will see enforcement at AE. I have no problem at all with AE -- that's why we have DS. And, yes, templating someone for edit warring after one edit is indeed perpetuating a battleground and creating drama. Making the controversial revert the day your opponents are topic banned is what started the edit warring and drama. I am always just stupefied by how you seem to lack any scintilla of insight into your own behaviors. I have left a comment on the talk page for discussion - please actually discuss the content and the relevant sources. And stay off my talk page in the future. Minor4th 05:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Séralini affair page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

1RR at Séralini affair

As you know, a 1RR restriction applies to this article. Your latest revert breaches that. You are encouraged to self-revert to avoid a risk of arbitration enforcement. Alexbrn (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It does not breach 1RR. My last revert was more than 24 hours ago. Discuss on the talk page issues you have with my edit. Minor4th 16:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see our WP:EW policy: "revert means undoing the actions of other editors". You have twice rapidly reverted to your own preferred version of the text (it does not require that the "undo" button was pressed). Alexbrn (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I have not done that. Editing is not synonymous with "reverting." But I've noted your warning. Minor4th 16:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Your two reverts are:

1. 1st revert 15:40, 21 December 2015‎
2. 2nd revert 16:14, 21 December 2015‎

The initial earlier edit where you removed the word "cancer" from the lede (i.e. your preferred POV) is [11].

Alexbrn (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Very well, I shall file a report at WP:AE. Alexbrn (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)