User talk:JjlPierpoint

May 2020
Hello, I'm Flix11. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Freeman Dyson have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Freeman Dyson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Flix11 (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Who are you and why did you interfere with the correction? The existing text is misleading and needs to be corrected. JjlPierpoint (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Flixx11, Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Freeman Dyson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jjlpierpoint (talk) 06:13 May 2020 (UTC) JjlPierpoint (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

J: You have been an editor for one day. Flix11 has been here for 8+ years. Disagreeing is not vandalism. The proper step is to move the discussion to the Talk page of the article, to attempt to reach consensus, with other editors involved, too. If you look at Dyson's Talk page, you will see that his controversial views on global warming have been extensively discussed. The text you want to change is the result of past discussions. David notMD (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It only took 1 day to determine 8 years worth of distorting the facts. His position is clearly stated in the nyt article which was cited and the recent interview. In his own word both times. Vandalism IS NOT present when definitive corroboration accompanies the edit. In this case his actual words both via text in the nyt and via video of him speaking on the issue. If you revert my edit again I will report you for vandalism     JjlPierpoint (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Btw. You need to get over it. He did not believe Co2 was a material cause of warming and that in fact increased levels are a net benefit. See cite 14 and listen to him say it, and then refrain from defaming his reputation by attributing views to him which he did not hold. Doesn’t mean he was right. But we need to be properly recorded and the world needs to know that someone of his immense intellect differed with the establishment on this issue. Your reversion is defamatory if it does not reflect his views. JjlPierpoint (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Further, why don’t you read it in his words loud and clear I this Guardian article https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/letters-to-a-heretic-an-email-conversation-with-climate-change-sceptic-professor-freeman-dyson-2224912.html JjlPierpoint (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You are a cyber security vandalism group. Do not interfere with text added which has been validated by citations. JjlPierpoint (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Ps davidnotmd. It’s flix11 that is the cyber security firm. They have likely been hired by a climate group to harass editors of pages which conflict with their client’s narrative regardless of the accuracy of the revisions. So your comments about the disparity of editing experience is actually quite misleading, albeit perhaps unintentional. JjlPierpoint (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Flix11 (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk for Freeman
Your comments on the Talk page for Freeman were in a correct section, but because it was so old (2009) and therefor not near the newer bottom of the list, likely to be missed by many. Given such a time gap, more appropriate to start a new section on the same topic. And again, disagreement is not vandalism. Cardinal rules for Wikipedia include being civil, and disputing content, not the commentator. FYI: Edit warring can result in one or both parties being blocked for a short period of time, often 31 hours (and no, I don't know why that number). David notMD (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)