| Revision as of 15:29, 20 January 2010 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Dispute resolution← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:33, 20 January 2010 edit undoTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Dispute resolution: formal notification of the terms of the probationNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| ==Dispute resolution== | ==Dispute resolution== | ||
| If you have a problem with edits made to Misplaced Pages, ] and address the content and not the editor. Use ] to resolve disputes, and avoid ]. These are Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Attacking your fellow editors and failing to engage properly to seek consensus are against Misplaced Pages policy. There is a difference between disagreeing with someone and impugning their integrity. Make sure you're aware of this and act accordingly. --] 15:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC) | If you have a problem with edits made to Misplaced Pages, ] and address the content and not the editor. Use ] to resolve disputes, and avoid ]. These are Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Attacking your fellow editors and failing to engage properly to seek consensus are against Misplaced Pages policy. There is a difference between disagreeing with someone and impugning their integrity. Make sure you're aware of this and act accordingly. --] 15:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| : I refer particularly but not exclusively to . Because you have edited ] I assume you are aware of the terms of the probation. If not, they are described at ]. | |||
| This is a formal notification of the terms of the probation. --] 15:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:33, 20 January 2010
Hi. This is my talk page.NimbusWeb (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
General comment
You may want to read the WP:BRD policy article. One of the key parts is that when a change is reverted it is taken to the talk page, not continually readded. When that happens, you start an edit war, which rarely ends well. Your path right now is heading towards a block for edit-warring - please consider reviewing how you edit. Ravensfire (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I did take it to the talk page. Please have a look at the Biosequestration talk page. All I am trying to do is stop editors who are removing multiple fully referenced sentences despite no consensus having been reached on the talk page. Because there are two of them and they are obviously higher up in the editorial pecking order my view is not considered as important as theirs.NimbusWeb (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- I saw it, and I don't see consensus for your changes from that. Right or wrong, Misplaced Pages articles are group-based, material has to be acceptable by a consensus of the editors. If you keep reverting as you're doing, you'll going to end up blocked. Just trying to make you aware of what can happen. It's possible for both sides in a war to get blocked, especially in a article on some form of probation, but if there's just one person on one side, and multiple on the other, it's usually going to be just that one person. Ravensfire (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
But all I'm doing is reverting deletion of entire referenced paragraphs for no valid reason. The reason they give is that Hansen doesn't use the word "biosequestration"; instead (as I've referenced) he refers to 'carbon sequestration' as a requirement for the operation of coal-fired power stations. This can only mean either 'biosequestration' or 'geosequestration'. I've even added a reference to Garnaut indicating that 'algal biosequestration' is a policy option for coal-fired power stations. Despite this they deleted the whole paragraph on Hansen's referenced ideas for carbon sequestration at coal plants. What should I do? Just allow that sort of vandalism? Why Should I be punished as the person who is trying to accurately represent a view rather than those who are simply trying to delete it or render it unintelligible. Clearly I am not a vandal or perversely motivated, my reasons for my reversions are rational and quite justifiable I'd submit. I want to see work that it took myself and others a lot of effort to prepare retained and I'm fighting against people who want to delete it without any valid reason.NimbusWeb (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NJA (t/c) 10:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
NimbusWeb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
WMC and AR have made all sorts of patronising personal attacks against me on the probabation page merely to distract attention from what they've achieved-the removal and rendering unintelligible of Hansen's idea for carbon sequestration on-site at power stations as a condition of operation. Just look for example at what's happened at biosequestration. There's now a sentence which doesn't make clear that Hansen argues for carbon sequestration on site at power stations. They are not blocked-even though what they've done is remove material which was properly referenced. If the wikipedia community can't see how much the coal industry wants to stop any suggestion that coal-fired power plants need operational on-site carbon sequestration of the environmental toxin C02 as a precondition of operation then you are all very naive. This doesn't stop the idea it just means teh value of wikipedia as a credible source of information in thsi area is diminished.NimbusWeb (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were blocked for edit warring.I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
NimbusWeb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
How have I damaged wikipedia? This edit war started when AR and WMC started a day ago to delete fully referenced sentences from multiple articles about Hansen's ideas on carbon sequestration and carbon tax. I tried to stop them. So am I to take it from this that AR and WMC have a carte blanche to remove whatever referenced sentences from wikipedia they feel like without any oversight and inhibition? What I have done is carefully develop referenced sentences about Hansen's ideas and then try to stop their deletion. How do you suggest I make a more useful contribution? Why is what AR and WMC doing considered useful? Because they have some sort of apparent exalted authority in wikipedia editing circles that makes the rest of you acquiesce in whatever agenda they want to play out? Just look at what the two of them have tried to do at biosequestration, carbon tax and kyoto protocol. You tell me-who is making the useful contribution and who is being disruptive? If the answer is them-then I would like an explanation of why their conduct is so much more justifiable in terms of wikipedia guidelines than mine.Please explain why they have received no sanction despite the warning to both of them that the probation discussion produced?NimbusWeb (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am sorry, but that removal does not constitute vandalism nor, so far as I am aware, are either of those users known for making pro coal industry edits. On the other hand, reverting time and time again over the good faith objections of other users is disruptive. Just think if everyone kept putting their own preferred text back into every article - the encyclopedia would be unusable. Consider also that there is no deadline - if your edits are truly superior, we lose a few days worth of pageviews to an inferior version, but ultimately have better articles. If you continue in your present vein without seeking compromise and collaboration, we lose the potential of all your future contributions. Besides, by waiting for discussion of the issues you could have the satisfaction of watching your fellow volunteers defend the text. When this block expires, please seek consensus at the relevant talkpages, and do not re-insert the text until it emerges. You might also consider offering the text at only the most relevant article, and building from there. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Dispute resolution
If you have a problem with edits made to Misplaced Pages, Assume good faith and address the content and not the editor. Use Dispute resolution to resolve disputes, and avoid personal attacks. These are Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Attacking your fellow editors and failing to engage properly to seek consensus are against Misplaced Pages policy. There is a difference between disagreeing with someone and impugning their integrity. Make sure you're aware of this and act accordingly. --TS 15:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I refer particularly but not exclusively to this comment. Because you have edited Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement I assume you are aware of the terms of the probation. If not, they are described at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation.
This is a formal notification of the terms of the probation. --TS 15:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)