User talk:Soniaprods

Hello, Soniaprods! Welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your experiments with Wikipedia. However, your recent tests, such as your edit to the page Chemtrails, have been reverted or removed because those are against our policies. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Geolodus (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Climate engineering conspiracy theory

Hello. Please refrain from inserting the content you have been adding, since the sources you have are unreliable (anyone can make a YouTube video; please read WP:SPS), and also because this theory has basically no reliable sources covering it, rendering it a WP:FRINGE theory ineligible for any significant coverage by Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any questions.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is nothing "questionable" or "fringe" about climate engineering, to which the layman's term "chemtrails" refers. Wikipedia policies prohibit wholesale deletion of content except where "the reason for removal is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." Because there is no readily apparent (legitimate) reason to "blank" the article (being that the sources are "neither questionable" nor the concept "fringe") and because you failed to provide any explanation in your hasty attempts at doing so, you have violated Wikipedia policies and are in danger of being blocked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniaprods (talk • contribs) 02:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is you who is in danger of being blocked in this case because the sources you provided are mostly unreliable. There are some reliable coverage of the chemtrail theory, but the great majority of reliable sources (including, most importantly, peer reviewed works) reject it. Per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, the burden is on you, not me, that this is not the case. There is no policy that prevents me from removing questionable material; in fact, per WP:V it is in fact you who has the burden to justify the change, not me. If you continue edit warring, you can expect to get blocked. --Jasper Deng (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Climate engineering is climate engineering. Chemtrails is about the conspiracy theories. Contrails may be produced as part of climate engineering but the article is about contrails. Those are three topics, each with their articles. Please also see WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Not all sources are reliable, with primary sources usually avoided. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia based on summaries of reliable sources; it is not a place for the promotion of conspiracy theories (WP:PROMOTION, WP:ABIAS). —Paleo Neonate – 06:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More details: We have for instance cloud seeding which is about weather modification. —Paleo Neonate – 06:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Contrail has been reverted.
Your edit here to Contrail was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5QCVhLrkro, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5QCVhLrkro) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no legitimate reason (nor policy-based one) to automatically delete videos of a scientist speaking at the UN. The AI censorship has been undone. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniaprods (talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is: see WP:ELNO. YouTube links are almost always to be avoided. Also, this is not as reliable as you think.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The teahouse

Hello! Teahouse invitation, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

—PaleoNeonate – 06:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Chemtrails. Thank you. —Paleo Neonate – 16:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Your recent editing history at Chemtrails shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. —Paleo Neonate – 17:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You appear to be engaged in an edit war on Chemtrails. Your changes to this page have been rejected by multiple users, and have resulted in a discussion being launched at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Please stop trying to add your controversial and non-consensus material and at least try to discuss the matter first. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Chemtrails. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Various user talk pages Doug Weller talk 17:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —Paleo Neonate – 17:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

clpo13_(talk) 18:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

It was perceived as trolling, but in case you are back after your block and were serious about the accusation of censorship, Wikipedia is not subject to free speech laws (WP:FREESPEECH for more information). It has clear goals and policies and editing is a privilege, with "the encyclopedia that everyone can edit" a slogan (and ideal). Editors are expected to mainly work building the encyclopedia and behave subject to those policies. Some relevant ones in relation to the material you intended to promote were already linked on this page. To prevent edit wars (it had not reached this level previously), I suggest reading WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. It's possible that you don't care at all about all of this if your only goal was to advertize, but the encyclopedia is large and it's possible that you'd have a much better time working on less sensitive topics. —Paleo Neonate – 19:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soniaprods, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Jasper Deng (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What?

What are you up to, Soniaprods??? What are you here for? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm not only were the recent actions an indication of not being here to build the encyclopedia but also a violation of the harassment policy - as such, I think that Malcolmxl5 has been very patient and that the new block is generous (not yet indefinite). It's up to you, since this will be my last message (except for standard warning templates if necessary): I suggest to answer the above administrator's question and to read all links that have been provided so far. As for the complaint of censorship, yes, Wikipedia is not for propaganda, pseudohistory or the promotion of conspiracy theories. It must document notable related material but in due weight and viewed from an academic perspective (WP:ABIAS). When external links are spammed, they also risk getting blacklisted. As previously said, the encyclopedia that everyone can edit is a slogan and an ideal, there obviously are policies and competence is required (WP:CIR). The problem is not the editors who reverted the material, or who ultimately need to block to prevent disruption; they do so according to policy. These also help the encyclopedia against becoming anything it shoudn't be (WP:NOT). —Paleo Neonate – 22:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]