User talk:Robotdingo

John Coleman
Hi robotdingo, as you can see your edits at John Coleman (meteorologist) are seen as not improving the article by multiple editors. Reverting back and forth like this is edit-warring behavior and can result in bans (WP:3RR). Edit summaries are not the place to have discussions or evaluate sources. Please take it to the talk page Talk:John Coleman (meteorologist) and reach consensus before making further edits and reverts. CyreJ (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You should take 's advice and begin a discussion on the article talk page; wikipedia runs on consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS), and if you continue stubbornly attempting to force changes in without discussing, you will merely end up blocked for longer time-periods. (But I can tell you in advance that attempts to write out of the article the fact that Coleman's views are way out of the mainstream of expert opinion are not going to work; see WP:FRINGE.)  --JBL (talk) 17:50, 20 January 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. JBL (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Partial block
You have violated the 3 revert rule. As a result, you've been blocked from editing John Coleman (meteorologist) for 36 hours. El_C 14:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I have extended the block for one week due to block evasion. El_C 14:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like I misread the timeline (why have you reverted while logged-out, though?), sorry about that, but you nonetheless have not attempted any discussion on the talk page (which you can do) and simply returned to edit warring, so I'm still not inclined to lift the block extension. El_C 14:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi El_C. Since I received your message about the partial block (14:50, 20 January 2020), I have not engaged in any editorial activity whatsoever. As can clearly be seen, my last edit was at 14:35 on 20 January 2020. The article appears to have been "editorialized" by someone (67.187.30.225) later who removed an uncorroborated claim from the article (for which they should be commended) but I had nothing to do with this. As the history shows,  immediately undid the edit with the baffling remark "I don't see the editorializing. The sources are pretty clear." I fully intend to take up the discussion on the talk page at a future date. I have clearly not violated edit warring since I didn't engage in any editorial activity. I assume this is just an honest mistake and you've misread the editorial timeline. Robotdingo (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. But it is strange to have someone else repeat your revert. But fine, I have unblocked you. Happy editing. El_C 00:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Wasn't me who undid the edit in question. But I did see it and I wouldn't assume the IP address was the same user. CyreJ (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * My apologies. It looks like the edit was made by who echoed your reversion. Robotdingo (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I notice you have protected the article "John Coleman (meteorologist)" on the grounds of "persistent block evasion." Since no block evasion has taken place, as I have explained above, could you please lift the protected status? You are protecting an article that is currently in violation of a number of Wikipedia's policies, including neutral point of view and verifiability. Considering the content is in violation of these policies, it's little wonder that others have attempted to rectify this. Robotdingo (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but because of the edit warring, I prefer that nonconfirmed users don't edit the article in the immediate future, even if that wasn't block evasion. El_C 23:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi El_C. I assume you've been too busy with your other administrative duties to take a look at the section in question. In its current form, it is patently in violation of the policies I cited above (neutral point of view and verifiability). The protection policy states that "when protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content." Could you please look into this matter again? Thank you. Robotdingo (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Please bring your concerns to the article talk page. I can't use administrative intervention to rule on content. If you run into further difficulties, please make use of dispute resolution and accompanying requests to resolve the dispute. Good luck. El_C 23:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)