User talk:Real Scientist b

Welcome!

Hello, Real Scientist b, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Neutrality^talk 06:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice regarding edits in particular topic areas

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Neutrality^talk 06:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important warning

Please read the following:

Wikipedia:Fringe theories - Wikipedia is not the place to promote climate change denial or other fringe theories.
Wikipedia:No original research/Wikipedia:Reliable sources - You claim to be a "a highly qualified and experienced atmospheric and air pollution scientist." Even assuming this is true, it has zero significance here. Wikipedia content is based on citations to reliable sources, not on the qualifications of Wikipedia editors.
Wikipedia:No personal attacks - You recently accused another editor, without evidence, of being a sockpuppet. That is a personal attack and is not tolerated on Wikipedia.

These are all important Wikipedia policies. Violations of these policies can result in the loss of the ability to edit. Let me know if you have any questions. --Neutrality^talk 06:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a shame

It's a shame you can't edit Wikipedia because you can't follow the fringe theory rules. Please note that climate change denial has no factual backing and wording in an article cannot suggest that CCD is a legitimate theory. Perhaps you can go on to less politically charged articles and correct wording there? N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 13:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that this matter has nothing to do with the fringe theory rules. My edit had nothing to do with climate change or climate change denial. Just for the record, I am not a supporter of either side of that debate. My personal stance in that regard is neutral. My edit was an attempt to adjust the tone of the wording of a biographical article about a living subject (Joanne Nova), to bring it into compliance with Wikepedia's guidelines for such articles - which clearly states that the tone of the wording of any such article must be dispassionate and neutral. At some point in the recent past, someone edited that up until then neutrally-worded article and inserted the abusive/belittling terms "climate change denier" and "pseudoscience" and made several other negatively-charged alterations. The total effect of all that was to change the tone of the wording in the article to what I would describe as at best, negative, and at worst a blatant personal attack on the subject of the article and her work. Why that clear breach of the Wikepedia guidelines for a biographical article about a still-living subject was allowed to stand is a mystery to me. My edit deleted the abusive/belittling terms and shifted the tone of the wording back towards the dispassionate and neutral tone that the Wikepedia guidelines demand. Within minutes, that edit was tag-teamed and repeatedly 'undone' by two other editors (Snooganssnoogans and Slywriter). As can be seen from the article's recent edit history, those two individuals have tag-teamed and vetoed every recent attempt to edit that article and remove its negative bias. Why? I don't know. You'd have to ask them that. Slywriter first told me that he was not going to allow any edit without provided 'sources'. When I pointed-out that 'sources' are not relevant in this case as no factual changes were made and only the tone of the wording was changed he then added "toning down the wording looks like whitewashing". Make of that what you will. The tone of the wording in that article is in clear breach of the Wikepedia guidlines and those two individuals are petulantly refusing to allow anyone to correct that. I'm seriously unimpressed with what I've seen in here so far, and with how the 'system' can be so easily abused and manipulated, and with the arrogant and hostile attitudes that I've encountered in here. So unimpressed in fact that I've lost all interest in continuing to be involved with this organisation. This is my final post. My next step is finding out how to go about it and terminating my account.

Real Scientist b (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through fringe theory rules (see WP:FRINGE if you want to read it yourself) , you can call something pseudoscience and give it negative charge if that is supported by realiable sources. You also cannot 'terminate' your account, but you can vanish. Do note you cannot vanish to escape negative attention. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]