User talk:SanAntonioPete

Welcome!

Hello, SanAntonioPete, 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 and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
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! William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

Welcome to wikipedia. I ancourage you to slow down a little and make useful edits to non-controversial articles, before plunging into the thick of the fray. For now, you may be interested in reading WP:3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific opinion on climate change

The tone of the material you added seems to be highly opinionated and the sources provided don't seem to support the statements contained. Would you please discuss your proposed change on talk:Scientific opinion on climate change? --TS 22:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a discussion section on this subject on the talk page. Please join it and justify your edit. --TS 23:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Scientific opinion on climate change. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Although I tend to agree that something about ClimateGate should be there, even truth wouldn't be a defense against edit warring. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never can figure out how to talk to people. Is this how to do it? SanAntonioPete (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Pete[reply]

I didn't start any war. Why did someone just erase what I wrote. Have you censured that person? The Guardian and New York Times are valid sources. This information is all over the internet, and the quotes from these two scientists have been quoted everywhere. Exactly what do you object to. I believe that removing my contribution was vandalism. The person should have edited it if he wanted to, but he just removed it. That shows bias. Apparently he (was it you?) did not want the subject mentioned. SanAntonioPete (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Pete[reply]

You didn't start any war, but you're significantly outnumbered, so you need to explain why your contribution is relevant and appropropriate on the article talk page. Although sometimes considered disruptive, WP:BRD suggests that you may make your bold addition once, but you should stop once it's reverted. As for details, your contributions do not seem relevant to Dr. Ball, and have what we consider excess interpretation of the Guardian and the New York Times articles, and hence constitute original research. I think it may, someday, be relevant to the article Scientific opinion on climate change, but its relevance is not yet established. I'm also not sure whether the NYT item is an article or an editorial (or op-ed piece). If not an actual news article, it's not considered a reliable source for the purpose of Wikipedia unless the author is considered a reliable source per se, and there aren't contentious comments about living persons, per WP:BLP#Self-published sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Timothy F. Ball, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can think the Guardian and New York Times are not valid. This information is all over the internet, and the quotes from these two scientists have been quoted everywhere. Exactly what do you object to. I believe that removing my contribution was vandalism. The person should have edited it if he wanted to, but he just removed it. That shows bias. Apparently he (was it you?) did not want the subject mentioned. SanAntonioPete (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Pete[reply]

I think I am doing this all wrong. I am about to quit trying to talk to someone.

Maybe I am brain dead, but I can't seem to understand how to do this stuff (talk to people on these sites), and I am very frustrated that people who are biased against my additions to articles (yes I absolutely think that is true) can just erase them and pretend it has something to do with Wiki rules - when it actually has to do with their lack of neutrality. (SanAntonioPete (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)) Pete[reply]

People will be happy to talk to you here. As you've apparently realised, you don't know the rules. The correct response to this is not to forge ahead regardless, it is to *slow down* and take time to learn the rules William M. Connolley (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed your admin help template - you can put it back if you like, but there is no need for it. First off you don't need admin help - you just need help in general. Second, you've spammed quite enough talk pages with requests. Third, people are watching this page William M. Connolley (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some guidelines you should read:

WP:Consensus - if a change you make to an article is reverted, don't just change it back - start a discussion on the talk page and try to reach an agreed version
WP:Dispute resolution - how to proceed if you can't reach agreement
WP:Coatrack - which is what you seem to be trying to do at Timothy F. Ball
WP:Neutral point of view
WP:Soapbox

JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]