User talk:Twelvestitches

License tagging for Image:Globe west .jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Globe west .jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Please make sure that all content you add to Wikipedia is supported by high-quality reliable sources. See WP:RS for more information. This is especially true when it comes to contentious information, and information about living people (which is subject to a special policy - see WP:BLP. Your additions to the radical environmentalism article are not in keeping with Wikipedia's requirements, and will have to be removed. Please make sure that future additions meet the sourcing requirements.

Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that you responded at ANI and expressed a willingness to communicate with your fellow editors. It is troubling, however, that you seem to think you can insert your own personal opinions into articles in the form of rants, or lecturing to readers. This is simply unacceptable and you must stop. An example is your entirely false claim that environmental groups have convinced people that water is routinely destroyed. No such group makes that claim and all educated people know that the only way to "destroy" water is to break it down into hydrogen and oxygen, which requires a massive energy input. When you put forward such a spurious argument without solid evidence, then you are pushing your personal point of view which simply is not allowed here. You must edit in compliance with our policies and guidelines in the future, or you risk being blocked. Consider this both a warning and an opportunity to change your behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Until you are willing to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:No original research and agree to follow what other editors are telling you, this account will remained blocked indefinitely as you are continuing to express unwillingness to follow basic policies. To appeal this block, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Alex Shih (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I did not revert the Pacific Institutes page or make any edits to any page while we have been talking. We were talking in the Admin section and I was talking with Cullen so I don't understand why you blocked me except to prevent me from further giving my side of the issue.

Decline reason:

With edits such as these it's perfectly obvious that you either do not understand the purpose of Wikipedia, or are ignoring it. You're pursuing your personal agenda. You're misrepresenting sources. You don't acknowledge any of the significant issues with your conduct. It's abundantly clear that having you edit wouldn't improve the encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You can give your side of the issue right here on your talk page. Read, study and understand the links given to you above. Then, explain that you are committed to neutral editing in full compliance with our policies and guidelines, and will not repeat the past behaviors that led to the block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twelvestitches: I will no longer edit the Pacific Institutes Wiki page. Can I create a Wiki page that gives the other side of the argument?

You must explain convincingly that you fully understand our policies and guidelines, especially the neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a place for soapbox advocacy or for pushing a particular point of view. There are countless other websites that allow advocacy. This is an encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To offer a slightly shorter answer, no. Wikipedia is not a forum for argument. WP:POVFORK might be useful to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twelvestitches:Wikipedia is not a forum for argument? The Admin section is. I was encouraged to discuss the issue then I was blocked for discussing the issue.

ANI is not the place to discuss content issues or your unique theories on water conservation. It is a place to discuss editor behavior. You persisted with the same behavior. That must change. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And a slightly longer answer this time, to be more specific on what I meant: Wikipedia is not a forum for for individuals to come along and add their own arguments and reasoning to articles. That means you, I, whoever... we do not get to contribute our own opinions, arguments, or synthesis. If an author has criticism of a body published in a reliable source (see WP:RS - really, please) then it can be included in a Wikipedia article about that body in a disinterested third-party point of view. What you wrote at Pacific Institute was clearly your own personal arguments, not a report of third-party criticism as published in reliable sources - and until your arguments are published in a reliable source first, they are not going to be published here in a Wikipedia article. It really is a simple as that, and until you understand that you have no chance of being unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twelvestitches: Dams have existed for thousands of years. Every modern country uses dams. Much of human civilization is protected by dams. The idea is not new. The environmental movement is somewhat new in human history. The EPA was formed in 1970, and the extreme environmentalists are even more recent, so, THEIR theories are the new ones, not mine. This is the problem, the extreme environmentalists have twisted the information and most of you are not educated in science so you don't know the truth. Using water is not wasting water. One of my friends doesn't allow her son to flush the toilet until both of them have gone multiple times. She thinks she is "saving" water. The cities in California over regulate water use and fine people for using water when the only option is to allow that water to flow into the ocean. That is not saving fresh water, that is wasting it. I persisted with the same behavior in the Admin discussion? The truth is important. The Pacific Institute can still argue their radical side but the other side, the truth, should be public information and each person can make up their own minds. How much college science do you have? Any? What proof do you have that using water is wasting it or removing it from the hydrologic cycle? If you can do that I will concede.

Since you are persisting in arguing about your theories instead of talking about how you will change your behavior, there is no chance that you will be unblocked. Listen carefully: No one here cares about your theories. This is 100% about your behavior as a Wikipedia editor, which is currently unacceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you are continuing to refuse to even listen to what you are being told about how Wikipedia works, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page. See WP:UTRS if you wish to make a further appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And for anyone considering an unblock, this has been going on for some time - see here, from 2016 and here in August 2017. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]