User talk:Maruti

Welcome!

Hello, Maruti, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GMO and pesticide topics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.

Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Glyphosate

You have violated the 1RR restriction at Glyphosate, as described above. Please self-revert so I don't have to report it. Geogene (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Geogene (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer your question about process on Talk:Glyphosate here, to avoid distracting from the content debate there. Your objective is to convince a few other editors by making a persuasive case to include it, as you're already trying to do there. Since the content has been disputed, in this case by two others, there should be a general agreement between editors in favor of it before it gets restored to the article again. And since this article and others closely related to it have been sites of disruption in the past, it's under more restrictive behavioral guidelines than Wikipedia is under generally. The one revert rule ("1RR") requires that we not revert/undo others' edits in whole or in part more than once in any 24 hour period. The software does allow you do so unknowingly, but then an administrator can suspend your ability to edit for a period of time as a penalty, usually for 12-24 hours the first time. More information on this is available at WP:EDITWAR and WP:CONS Geogene (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. But honestly - I can accept the Benbrook omission, albeit I don't condone the subjective "this professor is trustworthy, this one isn't" narrative. Objectively - if it's peer reviewed it shouldn't be Wiki's role to judge. But OK, I'll let that one go. But why is someone blocking news about an European Parliament report that is basically a continuation of what was already written in the EFSA part of the article (you even have a Guardian article sourced)? It's not a he said she said report, but a report commisioned by three major EP factions that was pivotal to the PEST committee report and to a vital EP vote that voices the need for transparency, independent assessments and so on. It happened, it's a fact. You may subjectively disagree with the report, but why is someone pretending it doesn't exist? In my opinion Kingofaces is acting very subjectively and biased trying to block news. And his discussion history shows major bias. Maruti (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]