User talk:ToreBKrudtaa

Welcome!

Hello, ToreBKrudtaa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Genetically modified organism does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — foxj 17:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page histories

Just a quick tip for you - you can see a blow by blow account on how a page has been edited on the history page. Here is the one for genetically modified organism. — foxj 17:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! I made an edit note that explained why I deleted one of your postings of those links. The Seralini articles are already thoroughly discussed here. Please learn how to use WIkipedia and please be polite instead of yelling with all caps. Thanks!Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

adding to controversy in GM articles

Please please join the discussion here Talk:Genetically modified food controversies - you are not a lone ranger -- there are a bunch of people who care about this. Wikipedia is collegial -- please join the discussion. ThanksJytdog (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC) (note changed wiki link to controversies talk page)Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. Yobol (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - SmartSE (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hello Tore. I noticed that you have returned and continued to edit war against the consensus of other editors who do not think that the material you are adding should be included. As people told you before, you need to discuss changes that are controversial if they are reverted - not continue adding it again and again. Therefore, please join the discussion at Talk:Genetically_modified_organism. If you carry on as you are, I will block you from editing again, and for longer than 24 hours - this is not to silence you etc. but because your editing is disruptive.

On a more general note, I also googled your username and noticed that you are active on a number of anti-GMO sites, for example here. You should be aware that Wikipedia reflects the scientific consensus on GMOs (as with anthropogenic climate change) and that the consensus is that GMOs are, broadly speaking, considered safe. If you think that Wikipedia can be used to advance your personal view that they are not safe, you are mistaken. SmartSE (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting on the talk page. I have moved your comments to a separate new section: Talk:Genetically_modified_organism#Comments_from_Tore_B._Krudtaa. SmartSE (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for that move! There is no secret that I have been involved in educating the population about those GMOs for some time, also via the website you mentioned. Note that most of the information on that website is based on studies and/or reviews from independent scientists or people with knowledge on the topic GMO. I notice that several people here claim my sources unreliable... that is all undocumented allegations... allegations by the way, I hope those people can comment more on in the talk-page.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]