User talk:Pditlev

Welcome!

Hello, Pditlev, 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:

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

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! William M. Connolley (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation) for Conflict of intreset.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:53, 1 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I edited a section on the page (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation), firstly from a French ip-address, since I had forgotten my login, and retrieval of passwd didn't come through. When it came through I edited after having logged in. I am not sure if that is the reason for the blocking. If it is related to the change of content, I will appeal the blocking. The paragraph describing our scientific work is erroneous and strongly negatively biased without proper references: "a pair of researchers" (rather than proper reference by name, as in the rest of the article) as well as "there was widespread agreement amongst experts that the paper's proxy record was "insufficient", with one saying the projection had "feet of clay"." ("widespread agreement" is unsubstantiated, and the "one" scientist should be named). Furthermore, it is claimed that the analysis used a lower-complexity model (less reliable than the CMIP models used by the IPCC). This is wrong. The study is a data study not using neither lower-complexity models or higher-complexity models. I find the revision I had made more neutral and with proper mentioning and referencing to the critique dominating the present version. Pditlev (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The stated reason for the block is that you have a conflict of interest with the subject of your edits, but have not declared this per the conflict of interest policy, and you shouldn't be directly editing about your work. Please review the policy as well as how to make edit requests- which you may do on the talk page as you are only blocked from the article itself. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2024 (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.