User talk:PRONIZ

Welcome!

Hello, PRONIZ, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

meco (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Glenn Beck. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for edit warring[edit]

You may keep track of the report and find its result here. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Glenn Beck. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. CIreland (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please carefully examine the history of the Glenn Beck page. I created an edit and was then reverted multiple times. I did not revert anyone's edit. I brought the issue up on the talk page first, proposed an edit, received no feedback and then made the edit. Only then was a discussion initiated on the talk page. I was the editor who was being reverted. I calmly made my point on the discussion page. My point is - The quote in dispute was inappropriate for a biography and was not carefully examined as required by WP:RS. Another editor used inappropriate language while reverting and I kept calm. Please unblock. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Yes, you were undoing others edits, as shown [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]; you were reverting another user's reversion, which is just as much. When you disagree with someone's reversion of an edit you make, and you start discussion on the talk page, you drop what you're doing on the article. You were warned not to do this, but you proceeded to continue this activity, hence the block. –MuZemike 20:20, 30 August 2010 (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.

Also, you received feedback from two editors TWO HOURS before your first edit to the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither your comment nor the other addresses my point.PRONIZ (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We pointed out that just because you think that it's an opinion piece (the original basis for your claim) does not make it so. We pointed out that the source does meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and that there isn't any reason question the number. We did address your point, we just didn't agree it was correct. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leuren Moret[edit]

Please PRONIZ, would you take 30 minutes to read the relevant policy on reliable sources? None of the remaining 5 references in the article are self-published, and self-published references are not forbidden at all. --Pgallert (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I read it, in detail, before challenging the source on the Leuren Moret article. I am not saying that the articles used as references for Leuren Moret are "self-published" news pieces. They are clearly not. However, they contain "self-sourced" information from Ms. Moret. In other words, it repeats information that she provided to the writer of the article. For example, it was a simple thing to verify that she is not on the Berkeley Environmental Commission, even if she tells reporters to who she is giving an interview, that she is. Please look at WP:NEWSORG in particular. It is very important not to use circular sources. We can't use the news article in which she claims to be a "recognized expert" to establish that she is a "recognized expert". That would be circular. Other secondary reliable sources should be easy to find to establish her expertise. PRONIZ (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How in your opinion are biographical articles written, in the news or otherwise? By asking the person in question, of course. Do you think the birthday of Obama has been found out by browsing the population register? No, they phoned his assistant, got the information, believed it and printed it. By publishing it in your newspaper/book/magazine you state that you think the information is reasonably reliable. You make the statement your statement. That is not circular but the way publishing works---everywhere. In this particular case, the newspaper lead states she is an expert. The lead is not part of the interview. --Pgallert (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A birthday is a point of fact. Biographical articles should not be expressing opinion. PRONIZ (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They should not express the writer's opinion about the individual. Notable opinions by the individual are of course always covered. That LM is a researcher is covered by Harding, that she is an expert is covered by the Tehran Times. That she is a whistleblower is apparently only claimed by herself, and the article clearly says so. I see no problem. --Pgallert (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you again remove the most credible reference from the article I will consider this to be vandalism and report you. Please treat this as a level-2 warning. --Pgallert (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering how this book, now that I've got a copy, supports the claims? Moret is mentioned on page 24 in a footnote; page 251, which references her claim about DU in the gulf war; and page 256 which is a quote about her claim that low-level radiation is more harmful than high-level radiation. (Clearly a fringe idea.) Also, when you say "...most credible reference..." what is the implication about the other references? PRONIZ (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "level-2" warning mean? I removed the reference because you were using it to support unsubstantiated claims. PRONIZ (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The four levels in ascending order are notification, caution, warning, block. I used it to support a previously unsupported claim. That's what references are for. --Pgallert (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't these warning levels for vandals and not for individuals making good faith edits? Do you really think another editor can just hand out what you call a "level-2" warning? You are funny and taking this a bit too seriously, IMO. My advice is for you to Relax a bit. PRONIZ (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature[edit]

Hello PRONIZ. I noticed here that your signature does not contain any internal links. Per the guidelines, a signature must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page. It appears that you changed your signature in your preferences, but if you simply uncheck the checkbox marked "Treat the above as wiki markup", the required links will be automatically added. An introduction to customizing your signature can be found here. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Thanks for letting me know. I checked the check box and it was not checked. I'm not sure how to fix it. Could you help? Thanks! PRONIZ (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature is correct now. Thanks for taking care of it so promptly! —DoRD (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moret[edit]

Glad to see that you have stuck to your guns on Leuren K Moret. Gallert does not like my references because I obtained them myself, but he accepts the Tehran Times (a state organ of a hostile power Iran). Moret has never been interviewed by anyone who actually understands that she is not a scientist. A BS in Geology with no known work experience does not a scientist make. Her work at Livermore was also extremely brief and unrelated to radiation or uranium. Want to know more, write me directly - I welcome that. My e-mail is DUSTorydashowneratyahoogroupsdotcom Rhotel1 (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm on Rad Safe and we've communicated before, if you are who I think you are. Now - if we can only get some clean up on the DU article. It looks to me like the activists have moved into placing multiple links and bad information into the talk page of DU and somewhat given up on the main page there. PRONIZ (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that I am who you think that I am. Gallert accepts anything that is result of Moret being interviewed by anyone, but not information that is developed by anyone corresponding with anyone else. The response to a Freedom of Information Act or Public Records Act request should be considered evidence. It is a government document. In the case of FOIA, you can even see the FOIA logs on Government Attic so you could see that the request was indeed made. Investigative reporters use these sources all the time and Wikipedia should also consider them to be reliable. Moret claimed that she is the Berkeley Environmental Commissioner, not that she was one of nine citizen members of an unpaid commission that met about two hours per month. She gives the impression that she had job and staff and clout, when all she was is a member of the commission and thus entitled to the honorific of "Commissioner". Please, do write me direct. We can then collaborate on Moret, Busby and the whole gang.Rhotel1 (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Moret is self-described whistleblower. There is a way to check. One, I am a whistleblower myself and I corresponded with attorney of Livermore whistleblowers and some of the genuine Livermore whistleblowers. They had never heard of Moret. Two, the US Department of Labor has on-line case file archive of all whistleblower appeals and Moret is not listed in that archive. It is inconceivable that if Moret had indeed been subject to termination (she only worked for Livermore for 11 months) that she would not have filed an appeal.Rhotel1 (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PPS - I checked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Electronic Reading Room for all documents with Moret in them. Self-described whistleblower Moret had three documents on file. Two were petitions that she had signed as Berkeley Environmental Commissioner and the third was a post card that Moret had sent in. All were anti-nuclear power. There was no substantive submission of any kind with Moret's name in it.Rhotel1 (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, PRONIZ. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 13:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRN and edit warring[edit]

Hi PRONIZ. I've just read & replied to your post at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I noticed that you've not attempted to discuss this issue with the other editor yet, such as by posting on the article's talk page, so I closed the discussion. Please remember that DRN should only be used once other avenues of discussion have failed. Also, you are starting to edit war with the other user, which I strongly urge you to stop doing. Even if you think that you are right, it is always good practise to talk about the issue on the talk page, instead of just reverting each others' edits. If you haven't, I recommend you read our policy on edit warring and ensure that you discuss the issue through the proper channels. If you continue to edit war, you are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PRONIZ. You have new messages at ItsZippy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANEW[edit]

Please read my comments about your report at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring report has been closed with a warning to you. See WP:AN3#User:Utgirl1990 reported by User:PRONIZ (Result: Submitter warned). If you continue to restore unsourced negative information to the article you may be blocked without further notice. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depleted Uranium talkpage being used for soapbox.[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Depleted Uranium talk page has been used for soap box type information for a couple of years. There are no edit requests or discussions. Can the information be deleted? Should it just be archived? What is the best way to approach? PRONIZ (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the lengthy Fallujah discussion. At a glance that does seem to be related to the improvement of the article, namely the inclusion of text about the long-term health risks of DU weapons and the sources to be used for such an inclusion. Providing sources that might be used for the improvement of the article is an acceptable use of a talk page. It will be archived by User:MiszaBot I anyway; the bot leaves a minimum of five threads on the page, though. Huon (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]