User talk:Benutzer~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello, Benutzer, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! William M. Connolley (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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

February 2012
Your recent editing history at Scientific opinion on climate change shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN3
You have been reported to WP:AN3 for suspected edit warring. Please feel free to go there and defend your case. Thanks GimliDotNet (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Censorship by promoters of AGW
On Saturday February 18th, I added a new, perfectly legitimate section to this page together with reputable references (one from the FOIA Climategate site and the other from the IPCC itself). This is in order to bring balance to this page, which, like many others on the Internet is censored to only show the AGW side of the picture. I did not delete or modify any of the existing text.

However, within minutes my change got reverted. Then I reverted the undo, and it got undone again. It is true that I reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, but that was because I am new to Wiki editing and unaware of the 3-revert rule. So I got legitimately warned by another editor.

Then this morning, I undid the deletion of what I added on Saturday. It got reverted. I undid again. I aimed to stick within the 3-revert rule per 24h. Yet another editor reported me (despite myself not breaking the 3 revert rule today).

Obviously the intent here is to censor any alternate view to the page.

Unless I am advised otherwise, I intend to continue adding my section to the page, but if reverted, I will make sure I will not undo the deletion of my content by other editors determined to censor, more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Consensus is obviously hard to achieve on a subject where one side is determined to present their view as the absolute truth.

Addition to Climategate article
Below is the addition I posted only. I am open to moving this content to another part of the page, but I am not ok with censoring what the Climategate emails reveal, simply because the pro-AGW lobby intends to paint only one side of the debate.

Climategate Revealations

However, the climategate emails show clearly that the IPCC has not been honest about the claim that 97% of climate scientists have proven anthropogenic global warming. In fact these emails show that climate scientists were incensed at the IPCC portraying their work as proof and suppressing the many caveats that they had documented: [1]

"Few investigators doubt that the world has warmed recently. Nor that the enhanced "greenhouse effect" of pollution from gases such as carbon dioxide, will warm the planet. But in the past five years, climate researchers have growing increasingly aware of how little they really know about the natural variability from which they must pick out the "signal" of human influence.

Many researchers most intimately involved in the search are still far from sure how the probabilities balance. And some of the sharpest concerns are coming from the places where the original early warnings of global warming emerged in the mid-1980s. Places such as Briffa's base at the Climatic Research Unit in Norwich, and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California.

Nonetheless, the findings should serve as a warning, Barnett says, that "the current models cannot be used in rigorous tests for anthropogenic signals in the real world". If they are they "might lead us to believe that an anthropogenic signal had been found when, in fact, that may not be the case."

Barnett knows how easily this can happen. He was a lead author for a critical chapter in the last IPCC scientific assessment, which investigated "the detection of climate change and attribution of causes". It formulated the IPCC case that the evidence points towards a human influence on climate, but it warned repeatedly that great uncertainties remained. "We wrote a long list of caveats in that chapter," says Barnett. "We got a lot of static from within IPCC, from people who wanted to water down and delete some of those caveats. We had to work very hard to keep them all in." Even so, when the findings were first leaked to the New York Times, it was under the headline "Scientists finally confirm human role in global warming.

The statement from the IPCC that 97% of climatologists have proven anthropogenic global warming is, therefore, clearly untrue.

In addition, a read of the IPCC Third Assessment report clearly shows that many of the predictions in the early 2000s, simply have not come true. An example is the prediction on the predominance of ice storms replacing snow: [2]

"Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point. It is difficult to predict where ice storms will occur and identify vulnerable populations. The ice storm of January 1998 (see Section 15.3.2.6) left 45 people dead and nearly 5 million people without heat or electricity in Ontario, Quebec, and New York (CDC, 1998; Francis and Hengeveld, 1998; Kerry et al., 1999). The storm had a huge impact on medical services and human health. Doctors' offices were forced to close, and a large number of surgeries were cancelled (Blair, 1998; Hamilton, 1998). One urban emergency department reported 327 injuries resulting from falls in a group of 257 patients (Smith et al., 1998b)."

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Scientific opinion on climate change shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Scientific opinion on climate change. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I really recommend revising that. It had nothing to do with censorship. You were the one who made more than three reversions in a 24 hour period, so you were edit warring.  It had nothing to do with what you were adding.  If you check your appeal at AN3, you'll see that it's been turned down for that reason.  You may also want to really read Guide to appealing blocks and Assume good faith.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

,


 * What evidence do you have that the editors who reverted you were pro-AGW censors? Per WP:NOTSOAPBOX, wikipedia is not a platform for promoting ideas, especially ideas which are not supported by the majority of the scientific community (see WP:FRINGE).  Per WP:Assume good faith, you should assume that other editor's own views are not the issue unless you can present evidence otherwise.
 * Also, your report was unnecessarily long. All that a 3rr report needs is a link to the original page, and the links to the four reversions by the same editor.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Benutzer: I think you need to step back and take a look at this from outside the dispute.  Your comment "once the block is lifted in 31 hours, I will try to add the same modification" seems to suggest you don't understand how Wikipedia works.  Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS.  What that means is, when two (or more) editors disagree on what an article should look like, they go to the WP:Talk page of the article to discuss the change.  What this does is it keeps the article stable because there is no need for edit warring.  When editors go back and forth on edits, the article becomes unstable and presents a terrible image to our readers.  If you continue to restore the edit, even if you don't actually revert 3 times, you may still be blocked for edit warring.  As far as your concern about Wikipedia being censored; we hear that a lot and the accusation really no longer has any effect.  Censorship would be if there was a community effort to restrict a certain peice of information.  What you are experiencing is a disagreement with another editor.  Please don't use charged language in an effort to get folks to do what you want.  That's called a chilling effect and is not tolerated.  Also, you said "decide what action to then take to protest continuing censorship", this could be considered a legal threat.  I suggest you clarify what you mean because legal threats are also not tolerated on Wikipedia.  My suggestion on a way forward is to discuss your change on the article talk page.  If no consensus can be achieved, elevate to a relevant noticeboard.  Feel free to seek help from other users or administrators.--v/r - TP 21:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is on the talk page of the article
See also the comments by people who made the Undos

10:29, 20 February 2012‎ Vsmith (talk | contribs)‎ (102,492 bytes) (Reverted to revision 477842244 by Squiddy: WP:SYN ..... (TW)) (undo) 07:02, 20 February 2012‎ Squiddy (talk | contribs)‎ m (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477840885 by Benutzer (talk)) (undo) 19:37, 18 February 2012‎ GimliDotNet (talk | contribs)‎ m (102,492 bytes) (Reverted edits by Benutzer (talk) to last version by Harizotoh9) (undo) 19:16, 18 February 2012‎ Harizotoh9 (talk | contribs)‎ (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477581751 by Benutzer (talk) This page is under a 1 revert rule restriction due to the climate change topic community probation.) (undo) 18:56, 18 February 2012‎ NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs)‎ (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477577563 by Benutzer (talk) After being reverted the FIRST time, you should open a TALK page discussion, see process at WP:BRD) (undo) 17:21, 18 February 2012‎ William M. Connolley (talk | contribs)‎ m (102,492 bytes) (Reverted edits by Benutzer (talk) to last version by NewsAndEventsGuy) (undo) 16:51, 18 February 2012‎ NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs)‎ (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477556715 by Benutzer (talk) uh.................. no) (undo) 16:24, 18 February 2012‎ Squiddy (talk | contribs)‎ m (102,492 bytes) (Undid revision 477554170 by Benutzer (talk) - crap) (undo)

Yes, the article is about scientific opinion, but as the climategate emails reveal, 97% of climate scientists do not proclaim that they have proven AGW. Only the IPCC misrepresenting them does so. The censorhip is to hide that fact from the general public.

"Barnett knows how easily this can happen. He was a lead author for a critical chapter in the last IPCC scientific assessment, which investigated "the detection of climate change and attribution of causes". It formulated the IPCC case that the evidence points towards a human influence on climate, but it warned repeatedly that great uncertainties remained. "We wrote a long list of caveats in that chapter," says Barnett. "We got a lot of static from within IPCC, from people who wanted to water down and delete some of those caveats. We had to work very hard to keep them all in." Even so, when the findings were first leaked to the New York Times, it was under the headline "Scientists finally confirm human role in global warming". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benutzer (talk • contribs) 21:15, 20 February 2012‎
 * You are allowed access to your Talk page while blocked ONLY to discuss your block and work towards unblock, NOT for continuing your argument about article content. If you continue the content argument, I will suspend your Talk page access for the duration of your block -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. Right or wrong, you cannot edit war on an article.  When there is a contested edit (contested, not neccessarily incorrect) then it needs to be discussed on the talk page.  You cannot keep restoring the edit just because you think you are right.  Wikipedia is not about winning and not about being right, it's about collaboration.  Discuss the change with the folks who disagree and come to agreement.--v/r - TP 21:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

@TP
After I am unblocked, I will try to follow your advice and go to the talk page and try to achieve consensus. But consensus is not easy to achieve with one side trying to only project their viewpoint.

There is clear evidence that scientific opinion on climate change is not necessarily as described in the wiki article, as revealed by the Climategate emails. This is what is being censored when the general public reads the article as is, and does not have any information as to Barnett's comments for example, on the IPCC misrepresenting them. I am not asking to remove any of the existing content on the page, only to provide the other side of the argument as well.

As to what action I could take in case attempts at consensus fail, it is not a legal threat and I do not intend to take any legal action. However, I might try to bring attention of this censorship on Wiki to the media or to political campaigns, such as that of Rick Santorum, who in a recent speech, has also made mention of this "theology" of AGW (his words not mine). Thanks to Twitter and Facebook, either is reasonably easy to contact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benutzer (talk • contribs) 21:28, 20 February 2012‎
 * Benutzer: Are you sure it's only one side trying to project only their viewpoint? Arn't you also only projecting your viewpoint?  Make sure you keep an open, collaborative, consensus achiving mind when discussing it.  'Getting your way' and winning is not how this project is built.  You're going to have to listen to their argument and consider them without bias.  You may end up learning something you weren't previously aware of that might change your mind.  Climategate is actually well known on Wikipedia and has been previously discussed in depth and you're jumping into a very contentious part of Wikipedia.  Arguments you'd like to make may have already been made and consensus has been against them.  Just keep that in mind going into it.  Editing against consensus will get you blocked.  If you want someone on Wikipedia, ignoring the community that maintains it is not the way to do it.  Any indef blocked or banned former Wikipedian can tell you that.--v/r - TP 21:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Benutzer, your suggestion that you are thinking of recruiting meatpuppets such as Rick Santorum does not help your case. You evidently fail to realise that Wikipedia gives due WP:WEIGHT to the majority expert view, the scientific consensus as shown by reliable sources, and not fringe views of politicians or your original research. Try putting your case on the article talk page in a civil manner, complying fully with WP:TALK in providing reliable sources for your proposals. . . dave souza, talk 21:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

@Dave souza - Calling Rick Santorum a meatpuppet and writing off the other side as fringe is exactly my point that AGWers have gotten their way as is clear from the article content. Barnett is not a politician, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by benutzer (talk • contribs)
 * So don't try recruiting him or anyone else as your meatpuppet, or if you prefer, supporter. WP:MTPPT applies. . .dave souza, talk 22:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Benutzer, Dave souza is not calling Mr Santorum names, he's referring to your suggestion that you might try to recruit him to your cause, which is something that is known here as Meatpuppetry -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Boing! Sorry, I am new to wiki editing so I may not be familiar with the colloquial terminology here. Mr. Santorum does not need to be meatpuppeted because he has already called AGW a theology in his speech in the Midwest over the weekend. And as long as only one side is projected in the mainstream media, he well may have good cause.Benutzer (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Benutzer, thanks for signing your post. Although Mr. Santorum or others may agree with you, it's not acceptable for you to contact them and ask them to edit the article or talkpage to give you support: that's what WP:MTPPT prohibits. Mr Santorum's theological views are irrelevant as this is an article about science, and we need good quality science sources.
 * As a handy hint, the points you've been trying to add date back to 1996 (and that's a dubious primary source) – there's been a lot of progress in climate science since then. A rather truncated version of the point was featured here, and one of the experts involved gave a detailed response raising issues that would have to be considered in any article describing these issues. It's rather detailed, and certainly has little or no signficance to current scientific opinion on climate change, so even mentioning it would be likely to give undue WP:WEIGHT to a WP:FRINGE claim. Note that "fringe" has a particular meaning in Wikipedia policy and guidelines, sometimes the terminology can seem a bit rude but it's developed over time to cover common aspects of editing. Hope you find these good reading, . . dave souza, talk 22:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

@TP
All I am asking for is that Barnett's comments be reflected on the Wiki Page. Any comments from myself are secondary. Anyways, as I understand that I am supposed to not discuss the article here, I will wait until I am unblocked to continue the attempt at consensus on the Talk Page of the Article, although I remain not very optimistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benutzer (talk • contribs)
 * As it says at the top, please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Your interpretation of Barnett's comments looks like improbable WP:SYN, you'll need to find a reliable secondary source making the interpretation or synthesis before it gets added to the article. Something for you to research. . . dave souza, talk 21:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And be sure to actually read the info I posted above about discretionary sanctions, before you find some imposed on you. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Benutzer. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Benutzer~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 22:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)