User talk:GrayDuck156

Welcome!

Hello, GrayDuck156, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Genetically modified food. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GM food RfC

Note about this RfC where you !voted. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPA warning

Given your recent edits over at genetically modified food, it is pretty apparent you are what we call a single purpose account. Please read about the issues associated with that at WP:SPA. Part of this is evidenced by WP:BLUDGEON behavior at the article's RfC where you are seeking out nearly every support vote and attempting to discredit it. It also appears you aren't familiar you how we source content at Wikipedia where we pull from reliable sources, namely secondary sources (see WP:RS and WP:MEDRS) while not engaging in original research as you are drifting into for many of your arguments. Tied to the SPA behavior, WP:ADVOCACY also appears to be a problem in that it appears you are trying to use Wikipedia to further a certain point of view rather than accurately reflect what the reliable sources are saying. Advocacy is a common problem for new editors, especially in a controversial topic like this. Please read the various sources of guidance provided here to see where the various issues with your behavior lie and how to avoid them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

font suggestion

Gray,

Would you consider changing the highlighting color of your recent additions? It is such good work, and something I've been meaning to do: summarize the RfC. But people here aren't used to reading highlights, and it looks foreign; subconsciously it reads as slightly untrustworthy. People are used to seeing green, but using a different color in general might be off-putting. The red is very hard on the eyes, and it's really hard for me to read. I imagine it would be the same for others.

Here is how it usually appears when highlighting is used.

Thank you for all your good work, petrarchan47 คุ ก 01:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the perspective and suggestion. However, my purpose in using alternative colors for my quotations was not to highlight them. I highlight very rarely in my writing and certainly did not want to draw particular attention to the alternatively-colored text. In fact, if anything, I was hoping that the reader would realize that the quotations were of already-known material and, therefore, needed less attention. My point was to enable the reader to more easily realize when a quotation had ended and the proceeding text was original. I also wanted the reader to be able to see how much of my text was quotation and how much was original. I tend to quote liberally in my writing for the convenience of the reader. The problem with doing so, however, is that it bulks up the appearance of the text and makes it look more voluminous--thereby, potentially, dissuading people from reading the text. By changing font colors, I hope that the reader will glance through and see all the quotations and count them as a courtesy--a time-saving service---rather than just additional text that they must read. That is the hope, anyway. From what you have said, maybe it is not coming across that way. By the way, please note that most of my colored text was brown, not red. Is that the text you found difficult to read? I only used red a couple of times, briefly. GrayDuck156 (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't see your reply until now. It was only the red that was hard on my eyes. The suggestion to use green when differentiating between quotations and novel text was based solely on that fact that it will be automatically recognizable to other editors. (The text box is good if you want to actually draw attention to the quotation.) But really, it's no big deal, and I sure don't want you to feel picked on. Thanks again, petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]