User talk:SuperInfinity
Contents |
[edit] www.gmeducation.org
Do you notice how several editors are removing that link every time you put it in? By re-inserting it without opening up a discussion on the talk page, or while a discussion on the talk page is still going on, you are edit-warring. Edit-warring is not cool. I thought you were cool. Don't let me down. Be cool. TeenageWasteland (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- You let me down, bro. Not cool. TeenageWasteland (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
You obviously have an ideological ax to grind when it comes to GMO foods. If you want to help with this article, try adding useful, cited material and don't just delete things you don't like. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 21:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Alright. Just out of curiosity, how is putting something like "when he read the actual science" "useful, cited material" and not an ideological axe to grind? SuperInfinity (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- That was a summation of a direct quote from Mark Lynas. "So I guess you’ll be wondering—what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist." The full article can be found here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admits_he_was_wrong.html --NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 23:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting, I'm shocked you actually had an answer to that. But the point is that it's being dismissive or even "snarky" against something that is NOT an irrational stance to have.SuperInfinity (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- RationalWiki has a "snarky-point-of-view" policy when it comes to anti-science and pseudoscience. To be against specifically one genetically engineered organism for some supposedly good reasons (i.e. lets say you found some studies which backed up your position) is totally rational. To be blanketly anti-all GMO organisms because you've read pseudoscience that says they're all harmful or they're all made by giant corporations is irrational, its a gross simplification and not what the reality of the situation is. --NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 15:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting, I'm shocked you actually had an answer to that. But the point is that it's being dismissive or even "snarky" against something that is NOT an irrational stance to have.SuperInfinity (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- That was a summation of a direct quote from Mark Lynas. "So I guess you’ll be wondering—what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist." The full article can be found here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admits_he_was_wrong.html --NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 23:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Edit warring at the usual space.
Stop it. Nobody is buying it, and you're only wasting your time. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
17:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked
Come back in nine hours and consider another approach. This one clearly isn't working for you. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
20:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Father Vivian, there is "majority rules" and "rational science rules".
- What do you find problematic with what I wrote?
- It's hard to fit a square into a circle, and that is what the GMO lobby seem to be intensely trying to do by implicating anti-GMO activism as being "pseudoscience". The square is not a circle, and no matter how you look at it, it just won't fit. Or maybe I am looking at it wrong? Tell me how what I wrote is faulty if it is. Not trying to convince me for the sake of idealogical views, but because of what's true.
- SuperInfinity (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think their argument is that you shouldn't edit war content in. Maybe you could try the talk page? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- EC I care very little about what you wrote. What I find problematic is the edit-warring. Continuing to re-introduce something when a number of editors have removed it is not how we roll. Ever since you've been here, it seems like you've engaged in this kind of behavior. The fact that you've been editing here for almost 4 months and still haven't been given autopatrolled status, never mind been made a sysop, should give you a hint as to what the community thinks of your conduct and of the content of your contributions. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
20:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- EC I care very little about what you wrote. What I find problematic is the edit-warring. Continuing to re-introduce something when a number of editors have removed it is not how we roll. Ever since you've been here, it seems like you've engaged in this kind of behavior. The fact that you've been editing here for almost 4 months and still haven't been given autopatrolled status, never mind been made a sysop, should give you a hint as to what the community thinks of your conduct and of the content of your contributions. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
- I think their argument is that you shouldn't edit war content in. Maybe you could try the talk page? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
[edit] GMO Edit Warring again
Take your additions to the talk. Hash out your viewpoint with other editors. You just might get some useful additions in. Stop edit warring over the same non-useful phrase. NerdyWizard (talk) you believed that why? 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)