WPcorrector

Violation of talk page guidelines

I suggest you read WP:TALK and keep your uninformed and ignorant opinions off Wikipedia. You've been around here long enough to know better. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you back away. --WPcorrector (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

DS alert for climate change

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hi, talk pages are restricted to collaborative discussions on ways to improve articles. Wiki bashing or political chest pounding is not allowed. If you want to discuss a cite that we define as a WP:Reliable source, well by all means... post away! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the only "political" issue is: is the NPOV still a WP rule or not?

Climate "science" failed, period. The model failed. The peer control failed. There is nothing "political" here. --WPcorrector (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Talk:Climate change denial shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

While talk pages don't usually count, a repeated violation of TALK certainly does. It's very disruptive, and, because of the ArbCom sanctions for the article AND its talk page, you risk getting blocked very quickly. Stop your grandstanding and pushing of uninformed personal POV which have nothing to do with article improvement. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No, YOU stop your grandstanding and pushing of uninformed personal POV which have nothing to do with article improvement. --WPcorrector (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Climate change denial. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This is disgrace. --WPcorrector (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you just don't belong here since you don't like the way we work. One more edit like[1] and you will be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm clear, I said "you will be blocked", not "you may be blocked". Either by me or another Administrator. You are not discussing the article, you are using talk pages to promote your pov. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You are a pathetic virtual dictator. --WPcorrector (talk) 20:57, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

You know good and well that making such a personal attack is itself a blockable offense, and on top of everything else, it shows you really don't belong here. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It's funny really. Enforcing democratically made rules is being a dictator? And nothing virtual, my ability to block is real. Dougweller (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are a real bully!

You are a pathetic failure. You are an inferior person. You are a degenerate. --WPcorrector (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been warned already to not make personal attacks, especially such vile ones like your attack against Dougweller. You're obviously not here to build an encyclopedia, but to use Wikipedia as a battlefield to push your personal fringe POV. There are plenty of grounds there to block you indefinitely from this project. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. You are an arrogant deluded buffoon with a defective brain. Seek medical help.

Newsflash: Wikipedia is a disaster.

--WPcorrector (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Vsmith (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)