Glacierman~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello, Glacierman~enwiki, 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
• How to write a great article
• 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! --Dr.K. (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Séralini affair

I hope you understand my reverts on your edits were not based on positions but by wikipedia guidelines. Please review WP:V and WP:UNDUE. BlackHades (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I request deletion of the Wikipedia page called "Seralini Affair" on the grounds that it is biased and defamatory, and has clearly been created by Monsanto in order to discredit a scientist whose work found that Monsanto products were not safe. The public interest demands that this entry be removed permanently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glacierman (talk • contribs) 10:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This is not the place to get an article deleted; what you're using here is a template to request that an edit be made to a semi-protected article on its talk page. Moreover, it's not the talk page of an article but rather your own talk page. If you want an article to get deleted, you may nominate it for deletion here. A discussion will decide whether the article should be kept or not. smtchahal^talk 13:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Glacierman. You seem to be a pretty infrequent contributor to Wikipedia, so please allow me to try to help you. Making edits to a contentious article with inflammatory statements, like the one you made on the seralini affair article like "This whole article should be deleted. It is biased and defamatory, and has clearly been placed on Wikipedia by a Monsanto employee with the specific and unwarranted purpose of questioning the integrity and competence of an eminent scientist who discovere" is not a great way to get content that you want included in Wikipedia. The "high horse" attitude will just anger other editors, and in general the editorializing is unhelpful if your goal is to get content accepted. Further, one of the fundamental principles around here is assuming good faith from other editors (please see WP:AGF) - continuing to make broad and unfounded claims about other editors' motivations and identities - especially if you start to address them to specific editors, begins to approach harrassment and can get you banned. So I recommend you steer clear of that and focus on content. Please know that other editors, acting in good faith and without conflict, can have ideas that are different than yours. It doesn't make you good and them bad, or vice versa. It just means that there are differences. So please don't be so harsh, mind Wikipedia etiquette, and work with us. If you make changes and they are reverted, please bring the issue to the relevant Talk page (every article has a page for discussion, called Talk, that you can access via a link called "talk" in the upper left corner of the article, as described in the wikipedia guideline to be bold, and if you are reverted, discuss. For the seralini article, a link directly to the Talk page is here. And please, please be civil, and take your time. Wikipedia will be around for a while, and winning consensus in a "democratic" context like Wikipedia takes time and effort. Thanks, and good luck. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I see you nominated the article for deletion again. I am sorry you think there is just one truth. Please see Wikipedia:The_Truth. Also, you should go back and check your posting on the deletion page -- you left a space before the first word, which screws up the formatting. Jytdog (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog. You protest about the truth and claim that you work to Wikipedia guidelines. You do not. The Seralini article is not neutral, and it is not the truth. The truth is much more complex and nuanced. The article is a personal interpretation of the situation, with highly selective citations and -- dare I say it -- a powerful underlying commercial or political intent. I maintain the point that the whole article is defamatory and is so fundamentally flawed in its essentials that it is incapable of "improvement" when people like you are intent on blocking any of the edits that people like me attempt to insert, for reasons best known to yourselves.

Glacierman (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Glacierman. I think you are confusing "neutrality" with "giving equal time to both sides." See especially Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_.22equal_validity.22 and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fringe_theories_and_pseudoscience. And I do hope you stop making statements about the intentions of other editors. It is out of line and will get you in trouble. Also it is not a good sign, that you have not engaged with anyone on Talk yet. We normally talk about things. Jytdog (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This is what I am doing. Talking on Talk. The article is not neutral, nor does it give equal time to both sides. It is biased, and does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines. The article should be removed, whatever the motives of the original writer might have been. Glacierman (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"This" is not the Talk page for the relevant article, which is what I meant. You have posted there once, as far as I can see, and that wasn't discussion, but rather just to lay down your claim ... Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Séralini affair

You did not do this nomination right - it is not the 2nd nomination, and you did not follow the procedure described at WP:AFD#Nominating article(s) for deletion; howver, I have sorted it out for you, and the AfD is duly listed. Before commenting in the debate, please read WP:DISCUSSAFD.

I will leave you to notify the article's original author and any substantial contributors. You should do this by putting {{subst:Afd-notice|Séralini affair}} on their talk pages. JohnCD (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Glacierman. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Glacierman~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

00:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

13:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)