User talk:ConcernedCitizenUSA

Scientific opinion on climate change[edit]

You placed your addition above the actual introduction, again (!) — it also has red links. Maybe it's better you bring such a massive addition to the talk page 1st. El_C 01:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns of improper placement of content above the introduction addressed. Please stop reverting article unless you have actual items that are incorrect. Every single fact is properly cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConcernedCitizenUSA (talk • contribs)

Principally, the issue is about undue weight given to climate change skeptics. You were bold, but were reverted, now the onus is on you to gain consensus for your changes on the article talk page. El_C 02:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm Kb03. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Scientific opinion on climate change seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kb03 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Absolutely nothing, not one word I added, gave any weight to "climate change skeptics". Everything I added revolved around a review and analysis of the Cook study. Furthermore, the issue of whether climate change is happening is not addressed nor even relevant to THIS article. There are other wiki articles that make it clear that climate change is happening, so the only controversy is whether that climate change is anthropogenic or cyclical (natural).

I urge you to stop reverting my addition. It is all properly cited and is neither for or against AWG. It focused on facts, all supported by citations, and most of them right from the seminal Cook study.

User: ConcernedCitizenUSA 19:11, 21 April 2019 (PST)

Again, you are the one who added the new content, so now the onus is on you to gain consensus for it on the article talk page, since multiple editors already reverted you. El_C 02:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert — violation of 3RR[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 you 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. El_C 02:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have accused me of taking sides and supporting "climate skeptics" and taking one side. This is false. Absolutely nothing, not one word I added, gave any weight to "climate change skeptics". Nor did I "take sides" nor was I "one sided". Everything I added was neutral and factual and revolved around a review and analysis of the seminal Cook study. It's laughable because the remainder of the article is very much "one sided".

Furthermore, the issue of whether climate change is happening is not addressed nor even relevant to THIS article. There are other wiki articles that make it clear that climate change is happening, so the only controversy is whether that climate change is anthropogenic or cyclical (natural). What I added directly reviews the actual Cook study which is 100% on point to the purpose of this article, which covers the scientific consensus and controversy.

Furthermore, your statement that I undid another editor's work is false. I have not undone anyone else's work. I simply added a completely new section. So in fact, YOU have undone my work several times now in violation of Wiki rules. Please stop doing that!

Your accusation that I have violated Wiki rules regarding an "edit war" is also false. This is very Orwellian, because you have not followed Wiki's own rules regarding how and why additions may be reverted. You have not supplied any foundation or rational reason why you reverted my additions. So in fact, you are violating Wiki rules regarding editing the work of others.

I urge you to follow Wiki's rules if you're to disagree with ADDITIONS to articles rather than summarily reverting changes.

ConcernedCitizenUSA

Re:Above[edit]

We have established policies regarding this. Your feelings have no bearing on this. I understand that you may feel frustrated but we have rules for a reason. Kb03 (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand that. But it's very clear that the person reverting my ADDITION of a completely new section to this article has not followed Wikipedia's own rules regarding making changes to (and/or removing) the content of other authors. Instead, they repeatedly violated Wikipedia's own rules regarding making changes to others work (by removing my new section) and then accused me of doing what they in fact did.

If you still disagree with me, I welcome you to follow Wikipedia's rules regarding the removal of other's work. If Wikipedia is to have any credibility and allow differing opinions to share content, then people must strive to follow Wikipedia's own rules regarding disputes. As it stands now, I have added a completely new section and now it's up to you or others to send that to dispute resolution.

Otherwise, I would appreciate if the other member could please stop their repeated violations of Wikipedia rules regarding the changing of other's work.

Thanks :) ConcernedCitizenUSA 7:57 PM (PST)

ps - It would be great if whoever wishes to change and/or remove my work (the new section) to come up with a rational basis for doing so. Making false accusations that I support climate skeptics and that my additional section is one side is patently false. Meanwhile, I have not touched the remainder of the article which is decidedly one-sided and full of misleading and incomplete content. E.g., they cited the Cook study to cherry pick their one-sided agenda, while I also quoted the Cook study with actual facts and data right from the study.

Edit warring report submitted[edit]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. El_C 03:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your email. You reverted four times

What other editors did isn't relevant - you may not revert more than three times, at the most. If you revert four times, that's an automatic block. Asserting that you think you're right and other editors are wrong, or that they didn't follow procedure doesn't get you off the hook. Editors are allowed to contest additions - you don't get a pass because you added something new, and new content is not automatically retained, far less if you add it back another four times after it has been contested. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

ConcernedCitizenUSA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #24821 was submitted on Apr 21, 2019 15:03:45. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet[edit]

I've noticed a couple of instances where what I take to be a long-term abuser has been trying to impersonate users I've blocked or cautioned, to get them in trouble. I take the latest editor of this page to be a new example. However, please note that creating sockpuppet accounts can lead to an indefinite block. Acroterion (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought this up at WP:ANI for other admins to review. Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

ConcernedCitizenUSA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #24823 was submitted on Apr 21, 2019 18:19:53. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

ConcernedCitizenUSA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #24824 was submitted on Apr 21, 2019 19:07:39. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other admins advise at ANI that the UTRS requests are not from this user. Acroterion (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't understand your latest note. Why would I impersonate a long-term abuser or impersonate users that you have blocked to get myself in trouble? That sentence makes no sense.

I can assure you I am not a sock puppet nor is my account fraudulent. I have already given access to administrators to view my account information which will show I have a valid non-proxy IP address and that I have not abused the Wikipedia system.

Your accusation that I might be a sock puppet are not only unfounded, but show extreme bias and speculation that violates the spirit of what Wikipedia was founded on. It's not nice to make unsupported accusations that an account is a sock puppet just because you don't agree with their views. I feel this is evidence that you have abused your authority as an administrator and I ask that you recluse yourself from any further actions on my account. ConcernedCitizenUSA April 21, 1:39PM (PST)

I don't think you are a sockpuppet - you're being set up by another user, evidence of which has been presented at ANI after I expressed concern that you were being impersonated. And no, I'm not recusing myself. You still need to understand and abide by the policies concerning edit-warring, which you don't appear to be taking seriously. Acroterion (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

ConcernedCitizenUSA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #24826 was submitted on Apr 21, 2019 22:36:09. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 22)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Boothsift was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:ConcernedCitizenUSA/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:ConcernedCitizenUSA/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

BoothSift 04:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ConcernedCitizenUSA! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! BoothSift 04:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User Link[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you were trying to get your user link to work. To do this, simply create a user page.

Hope that helps, --BoothSift 06:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boothsift: Thanks so much, I really appreciate you being proactive to help :) I'm about to read your new comments on my submission and I'm also going to read more about your suggestions and resubmit soon. User:ConcernedCitizenUSA Apr 22, 2019 8:37pm PST

AfC notification: User:ConcernedCitizenUSA/sandbox has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:ConcernedCitizenUSA/sandbox. Thanks! BoothSift 01:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:ConcernedCitizenUSA/sandbox[edit]

Hello, ConcernedCitizenUSA. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, User:ConcernedCitizenUSA/sandbox.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]