You have been blocked from editing for violating an arbitration decision with your edits on Talk:The Heartland Institute. (TW) |
|||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
[[File:Information orange.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Please do not [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|attack]] other editors. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot|stay cool]] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> In particular, don't assume your interpretation of others actions and states of mind in the only one, or even close to the correct one. You have been badly wrong before. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 12:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC) |
[[File:Information orange.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Please do not [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|attack]] other editors. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot|stay cool]] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> In particular, don't assume your interpretation of others actions and states of mind in the only one, or even close to the correct one. You have been badly wrong before. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 12:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
:You might have some credibility if you also posted this on Dmcq's page. My characterization of him is factual, his of me is open to dispute. [[User:Poodleboy|Poodleboy]] ([[User talk:Poodleboy#top|talk]]) 12:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC) |
:You might have some credibility if you also posted this on Dmcq's page. My characterization of him is factual, his of me is open to dispute. [[User:Poodleboy|Poodleboy]] ([[User talk:Poodleboy#top|talk]]) 12:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
== July 2016 == |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[File:Balance icon.svg|40px|left|alt=]]To enforce an [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|arbitration]] decision and for [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]] and [[WP:NPA|attacking other editors]] on the page [[Talk:The Heartland Institute]], you have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''2 weeks'''. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. <p>If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] (specifically [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks|this section]]) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><span style="font-size:97%;">{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE{{!}}arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN{{!}}administrators' noticeboard]]. ''Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.'' ~~~~}}</span>. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the [[Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal#Usage|arbitration enforcement appeals template]] on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me ([[Special:EmailUser/NeilN|by email]]), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. [[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 15:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC) <hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications|procedure instructing administrators]] regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</small></p></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> |
Revision as of 15:34, 30 July 2016
{{unblock | I was not engaged in POV editing, Raul654 must be biased by his own POV. I am probably the most polite editor on the page, I participate thoroughly in discussions, I am specific and on-point in those discussion. I don't describe what others write as nonsense or engage in personal attacks. Raul654 was reverting material indisriminately, and without participating in discussion, and then presumed to block. If he finds that the evidence conflicts with his POV, then the proper scientific response is to change his POV, unless he has problems with the evidence. Raul654 is not participating in the community in good faith based on this behavior. Raul654 is making this decision based on 1 edit that was well sourced. I wasn't logged in (accidently), but here is another edit in the last 24 hours which is obviously not against any administrators POV, evidently, I cannot include links in this text so I will put them below}}
Raul654
You indiscriminately reverted more than my edits, do you read before you revert? Should you have been the one to block me, since you were participating in an edit war? Impressive. I follow the evidence, I have no POV unwarranted by the evidence, I admit errors, and participate in discussion. See the talk page if you have any doubts.--Poodleboy 00:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- How do I fill in something for the {{{1}}} above? It seems like I am supposed to give a reason there.--Poodleboy 00:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Place to complain about Raul:
There's already a section for him. Please find it and add to it. DyslexicEditor 22:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
examples of NPOV editing
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] In reviewing a couple months of contributions to Global warming all the editing is arguably NPOV. WMC has disputed whether then Annan article was observational or model based. I clearly showed it was significantly reliant upon models. WMC disputed the albedo information, it was well referenced, and did not go beyond the sources. WMC disputed a few citation needed templates, because he favored POV dismissive language "only a few", and wanted to retain what is almost the only non-peer review supported material in the science sections of the page, even though it was not even supportive of the point he was making. Probably 90% or more of my edits are to the talk page.--Poodleboy 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
July 2016
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- I urge you to read about discretionary sanctions. (Please note that while I am an admin, I am not issuing a warning as an admin, I'm trying to let you know for your own good.) You have already made edits that could get you blocked. Please slow down and get consensus on the talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'll also add, that while SBHB provided the canned response about edit warring, which mentions three reverts, The Heartland Institute is subject to DS (see top of talk page), which has a much shorter leash.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanx for the information, I hadn't noticed. Hopefully they are particularly harsh on flyby reverters like Fyddlestix who haven't been participating in the discussion. Poodleboy (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Poodleboy, you are the one who was deleting good, true, and properly sourced information, so the "flyby" reverts were proper. You were in danger of a block, and any repetition could bring down a discretionary block or ban hammer. Just be more careful to not edit in a partisan manner. That's all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Really? Demonstrate the quality of your analysis by participating on the talk page, instead of making a flyby comment. The attributed versions of the statements might have had a chance of being true, because they were truly the authors opinions, but those were reverted as well. Let's see you commitment to objective truth. Poodleboy (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Poodleboy, you are the one who was deleting good, true, and properly sourced information, so the "flyby" reverts were proper. You were in danger of a block, and any repetition could bring down a discretionary block or ban hammer. Just be more careful to not edit in a partisan manner. That's all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanx for the information, I hadn't noticed. Hopefully they are particularly harsh on flyby reverters like Fyddlestix who haven't been participating in the discussion. Poodleboy (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Climate change discretionary sanctions alert
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.ANI notice on edit-warring
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Poodleboy edit-warring on Scientific opinion on climate change. Thank you. Dmcq (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I searched Talk:The Heartland Institute for "working with"
Re: [11]. I searched the talk page and what I found makes it appear that you're continuing to edit-war over the content discussed in Talk:The_Heartland_Institute#Lede_removal. Please work to gain consensus. --Ronz (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- No you didn't because you didn't find anyone else who was in the edit war. ... Wait, that was you! And you weren't even on the talk page. Poodleboy (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- So you admit to edit-warring. Thanks. I hope this will be the end of it. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
OR at Heartland Institute
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Dmcq (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
ANI discussion about you
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Poodleboy at The Heartland Institute. Thank you. Dmcq (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. In particular, don't assume your interpretation of others actions and states of mind in the only one, or even close to the correct one. You have been badly wrong before. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- You might have some credibility if you also posted this on Dmcq's page. My characterization of him is factual, his of me is open to dispute. Poodleboy (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
July 2016
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. NeilN talk to me 15:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."