Next steps  I understand that you are keen to contribute to our article on fields Now that your block for editwarring has expired you must decide how you want to progress this I notice that while blocked you continued to edit the talk page with an IP This is not permitted and I would be within policy and custom to reblock you for this see WPSOCK I decline this time to do so but I warn you not to repeat this or further measures will be taken against you I hope this will not become necessary as you will not require to be blocked again Do not edit war see WPEW but discuss with your sources see WPIRS and WPV on the talk page under your proper account   I know that editing here is a steep learning curve and I am willing to help you do it right You must accept that we are a mature community with very wellestablished policies and customs If you come here you have to work within that just like if you get a job in a university you have to listen to the people who are already working there I can tell you have a lot to offer to the project Please make your arguments in talk be patient and kind to the folks who wrote the article I am not one but was asked to look at this by someone who is This does not mean I endorse their opinion on how the article should read even especially when you disagree with their writing and accept that you will seldom get all of what you want just as in most areas of life I am a volunteer just like you but I have been around for a good while and I am entrusted with the janitorial role of making sure that things dont get damaged In support of that role I am allowed to block users protect articles from editing and certain other powers I would very much rather not use them any further here I am also a science graduate and have some passing understanding of the subject you are here to edit for whatever that may be worth  Please resume your discussions in talk but please do not editwar or sock again Let me know if you need any further help and I will be glad to offer it to you      My voice is important to me if you take it upon yourself to snuff it out or otherwise misrepresent it in my book you are not out to help   The good cop bad cop allinone schizo stuff is kinda weird  your paternalism is waaaay off the mark Ignoring you was not unwise  I am hardly intimidated by your inadequate mastery of the rules you wish to nail to the wall Perhaps you should review these dictates more closely yourself  check your double standards at the door I am speaking of editing my criticisms of your actions amongst other things  I did not start an edit war as you imply Your issue was personaldisobedience to be exact with a sprinkling of that self empowering sparkle which lording over others endowsthe joy of duct tape  racquetball which only a copatheart can understand I did not practice deception as you imply with the sock puppet I signed my name to every puppets comment I am not a perp as implied by your actions in sum Therefore you are barking up the wrong tree I dont buy it that you are a robot bound to regs just doing your job as implied you are a person making choices  you chose bad faith  laziness  The generalisms you sincerely  patiently list Im sure are relevant in the wider context  larger community that you refer to  Im sure what you do is of value there I dont envy your job In this case however were talking two people debating in a forum  an article that needs to be kept safe  sterile from any potential change lest something terrible happen Is the copcitizen ratio so mature in this community that there are resources to police such minor quibbles Where am I Disneyland Tracking IPs attached to names in order to reign in such terrorism is downright dumb for a supposedly progressive community See WP WTF  If you place an obedient noob filter on any  every minor impulseresponse test that passes though looking to improve upon the low grade blasphemy passing itself off for knowledge you will reap what you sow The page will never make it to the C grade it claims to be  I do care about the subject  your site is misrepresenting it for years now I will continue to do what I can to fix it with or without your rules if its important to you that you stand in my way There has been zero effort to address the fundamental criticism brought up a year ago now How many people are going to bother explaining themselves after stroking a potentially infinite series of well meaning but primarily selfserving policy enforcers hovering over a page in order to change a few sentences   Since you have a science degree you might know that this is a highly contentious topic This is not an article on the use  calibration of thermometers Therefore it is natural for the subject to attract highly contentious peopleyours truly for example There will be blood spilled before theres any movement of political ads  personal religions out of there to make room for a little truth to shine through Certainly mine is not going to be the last word If my words were left standing for yet another year without serious criticism  forcing of a change of my own view  prejudices to some degree I would just soon not have my words there at all However this is for me to decide not you  If constructive dialogue is more your style  you would rather be restrained on the powers you are allowed as you claim dont come out of the gate lurching straight for my nugs Pancho     I understand the points you are making and I encourage you to continue to raise them in talk when you are next able to do so I am able to do so However the page is locked Therefore the points remain silenced We can continue chatting about procedural matters until you get your important points through my thick skull Or you are free to unlock the content  perhaps risk massive vandalism  unthinkable horrible things Your call chief     Many thanks for your reply I have returned it to your talk page as this is where it was started The talk page of an article is not a forum but a place for focused sourcebased discussion of possible improvements to the article What the article ends up saying is not up to you or to me but to the community and it is them who you have to convince not me Neither the article nor the discussion page is locked so I am not sure what you mean there Your block was not for discussing in talk but for repeatedly making the same edit to the article You are free to do either so I am certainly not silencing you but I repeat the advice about editwarring and socking that I previously gave Other than that I have nothing to add but I repeat also the offer of more support should you need it     Actually it started on your talk page you moved it to mine to sanitize your response to the originating complaint httpsenwikipediaorgwindexphptitleUsertalkJohndiffnextoldid  Or perhaps you are attempting to demonstrate to me how to start an edit war Or is this ok cuz technically its WPRRNO In any case Ive told you already that I wasnt interested in the paternalistic slather yet you insist on reverting my edit  that I hear you  specifically on my page out of context of the original thread no less Thanks for the punitive kindness  concern but Im not interested in your interpretation of your gospel as I already explained a couple of times now  Theres likely very little Im interested in hearing from you if it doesnt sound something like Sorry dude didnt mean to bum rush the noob  cover my tracks