User talk:JournalScholar

You are a STAR!

		The Missing Barnstar
		You are doing great work here! This award for your efforts is long overdue. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Removing unverifiable and unsourced content in violation of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS is not edit warring. I only make good faith edits, provide clear reasons for the edits and always use reliable sources. MastCell gave no warning before frivolously blocking my account.

Decline reason:

It is indeed edit warring, and you were warned here. Favonian (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

Why are you claiming you weren't warned? I clearly warned you and you ignored the warning. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I also warned him not to edit war and to engage as well, on the talk page and on his user page. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do you freely violate Wikipedia policy by including content that violates, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR?--JournalScholar (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Which edit did I make that violated a Wikipedia policy? Apparently anyone can add unverifiable content and when contended does not have to provide a reliable source. --JournalScholar (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What edit did I make that violated Wikipedia policy? I would like the specific edit and how it violated policy. All my edits were for removal of unverifiable and unsourced content that violated WP:V, WP:RS or WP:NOR. These were all in good faith and I will hold any of my edits up for administrative review.

Decline reason:

Sorry, all of these are not subject to an exemption, see Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions. Max Semenik (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

As I have told you several times; when you remove content and it is restored, do not remove it again; you need to give people time to get things sourced or fix any issues; go discuss it on the talk page per WP:BRD. We don't just mass delete content we think is poorly sourced. You've been citing the policies without actually reading them. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am very careful about removal of any content and do my own extensive research to locate an reliable source for the information before removal. I will gladly apologize if you can prove me wrong and find a reliable source to support the unsourced information I removed. I may not be perfect but I am very thorough. Anytime contentious content is remove the burden of proof is on the person restoring the content to provide a reliable source that is verifiable. WP:BRD is not a policy and does not have to be followed. As per WP:V "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." --JournalScholar (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've started an WP:ANI thread about your deletions of sourced content which you have removed from numerous articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Just to be clear wtih you, as far as the edit warring policy is concerned there is no right and wrong in an edit war. Anyone who edit wars is wrong and is blocked to prevent them from continuing. The only exemption is reverting blatant vandalism, which is not the case here. We don't allow edit warring becasue it never helps resolve an issue, and it always makes it worse.

• What to do instead:

Mark disputed statements, or if needed the entire page with appropriate tags

initiate discussion on the talk page (note that edit summaries are not a substitute for actual discussion)

If that does not rectify the issue seek page protection and/or dispute resolution as needed.

Beeblebrox (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Lengthened block to indefinite

I've increased the duration of your block to indefinite. In a current thread at AN/I, there are significant concerns about the high volume of questionable edits you've made. More concerningly, there is some evidence of possible plagiarism in a number of your edits. I'd like to leave open the possibility of unblocking you at some point in the future, provided that we can be assured that you understand sourcing/content policy and the basics of plagiarism, but this block is intended to give other editors time to sort through your work and identify the scope of the problems.

I've posted this block at AN/I, where other admins will review it. If there's substantial disagreement with my decision to block you, then you'll be unblocked. If you'd like to make a statement, you can place it here and someone can copy it over to the AN/I thread for greater visibility. You can also see the guide to appealing blocks. MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That is absolutely ridiculous and uncalled for. I am unable to even defend myself! Why are you not allowing me to defend myself? I cannot hope to have someone copy and paste this to the ANI board. All of my edits are good faith edits that have been fully sourced and each edit fully documented. I have never removed sourced criticisms for dubious reasons - every single reason for the edit was clearly given. If you are not going to review my edits independently but attempt to claim by looking at a simple before and after diff then that I am "whitewashing" something then you are not attempting to be intellectually honest. I cannot defend myself on this talk page. All those editors complaining about me do not want me editing because I was attempting to give those BLPs a NPOV and not the negatively biased view that they are presented in. Any issue of plagiarism I will gladly correct and they were all in good faith. Other editors clearly read those and made no attempt to correct them or point this out as a problem of which I would have immediately corrected. I had assumed since those sentences were fully source it would meet criteria for adequate credit.--JournalScholar (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have not even been given the chance to defend any of the accusations against me. The editors attacking me strongly disagree with my editing various BLPs to a NPOV because they hold these people in a negative light. No attempt was made to contact me about any of these issues as I would have worked to resolve all of them. I would like the opportunity to defend each charge made against me. An indefinite block is absolutely uncalled for. I would like the possible to post to the ANI board to defend myself. "Looking at JournalScholar's editing, it appears that some of his edits are at least arguable, while others are pretty much straight-up removals of well-sourced material without adequate justification" - That is an absolute lie. I have never removed well-sourced material without adequate justification and will defend every edit I made.

Decline reason:

I read both your current unblock requests; you are only allowed to have one open at a time so I have removed the other one. I see a lot of passion and some good arguments. Unfortunately I see a lot of blaming other people and I do not see an unequivocal statement along the lines of "I understand what I was blocked for and I will not do it again". Having read this talk page and the AN/I discussion I think the situation is best summed up by whoever it was that said "being right is not a defence against edit-warring". So, I am declining this request as I still have concerns that if you were unblocked you might go back to the problematic behaviour that got you blocked. Take as long as you need to understand why you were blocked, read the guide to unblocks thoroughly, and come back with another unblock request if you like. Sorry. John (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

User:JournalScholar's two statements above have been copied to WP:ANI#Whitewashing to facilitate review of this block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I want to make it perfectly clear that every single charge made against me by IRWolfie and Nomoskedasticity are baseless and I would be willing to review every single charge with an administrator to show that those edits all fall within Wikipedia policy guidelines. I would request an administrator to review the Patrick Michaels page as a user has completely reverted all of the edits I made without justification. Each of my edits to his page were made within Wikipedia guidelines in relation to WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. For instance IRWolfie incorrectly stated that this edit was an "unexplained" removal when the reason was explicitly given, [1] "Source does not include quote in violation of WP:V". Also ThePowerofX was well aware of those edits he is now claiming plagiarism on and made no attempt to address these or bring them to my attention. They were made in good faith and would have been addressed if brought to my attention. It is obvious to me by not doing so but making these charges on the ANI board he is simply attempting to get my account blocked. Anyone can review my edits and see they are all made in good faith and within Wikipedia guidelines. I make no excuses that my purpose when editing those BLPs is to present them from a NPOV. If this is the charge then I would find myself guilty. --JournalScholar (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"rapid-fire removal of sourced content" - The edits are simply consecutive so they can be reviewed to conform to Wikipedia policy, there is nothing "rapid-fire" about them. Content was only removed if it violated WP:BLP, WP:V or WP:RS. Saying "sourced" content was removed is a baseless allegation as you will find I have done no such thing. Removing content that is "sourced" but to an unreliable source is within Wikipedia policy of WP:V and WP:RS. I will review and defend any edit I have ever made on Wikipedia with an adminstrator. --JournalScholar (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• First, I just want to be clear that the indefinite block is not a permanent block. It is a means of freezing your activity so that some serious concerns about your editing could be sorted through in a more speedy manner. You are absolutely allowed to defend yourself, as you have here.

• OK, let's get to some specific edits so we can better understand your thought process. How is this edit original research? How is this not a reliable source and in violation of BLP? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all are you an administrator? As I only wish to make my case to Administrators. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

[2] As per WP:NOR "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" That information is completely unsupported by any reliable source, and I could not find a single reliable source to support any of the information in that paragraph and the sole source does not mention Spencer. Contentious and unsourced information can be immediately removed from any BLP see WP:BLP. Also this is Roy Spencer's BLP not a discussion of the UAH satellite temperature record which should take place on the appropriate Wikipedia page, UAH satellite temperature dataset. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

[3] Self published sources WP:SELFPUB (a congressional submission by Holdren) cannot be used in discussions of third parties - Pat Michaels. There is no editorial oversight of these submissions. I also believe it to be speculative gossip and not appropriate for a BLP. Holdren stated "He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature" - that is not something that can be factually determined. "being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces" - That is a personal attack and not appropriate for a BLP. Do you really believe that is encyclopedic content? --JournalScholar (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone going to respond to my arguments? I feel like I am being convicted of a crime with no evidence to prove I am guilty. --JournalScholar (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

From the ANI Page - "The responses on his talk page about two specific edits do not indicate that JournalScholar is aware of the problems with his editing: the blatant copyvios in adding content; and the spurious reasons for removing sourced content with which he disagrees. Mathsci (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)"

This comment does not address any of my arguments. I have not removed any sourced content from a reliable source that I disagree with. The two edits selected by Jprg1966 deal with WP:NOR and WP:V for Spencer and WP:SELFPUB and WP:RS for Michaels. If you are going to charge me with a crime provide the evidence and address my arguments. He made no discussion of "copyvios". As I stated above I was under the impression that since those sentences were fully source it would meet criteria for adequate credit. --JournalScholar (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"I have not removed any sourced content from a reliable source that I disagree with": [4][5][6][7][8], [9][10][11], [12]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

1. [13] As explained to you repeatedly that is a "press release" which are self published and cannot be used to discuss third parties WP:RS. Please address my argument and show me where in Wikipedia policies a press release (self-published source) can be used to discuss third parties.

2. [14] That is sourced from a blog which violates WP:RS.

3. [15] Self published site [16] violates WP:RS. This section was also heavily editorialized from a NPOV ("the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change considers") and redundant as this was discussed in the "Debate and controversy section". The paper "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature" is still cited on the page. I also do not feel it is a WP:NPOV lede for a BLP.

4. [17] As I stated, "This is about Muller and Best not Watts and his Surface Stations project and does not belong here." Should Watts' BLP be used to discuss Muller's project? A compromise was reached and there is a section on this here Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) but it only now includes specific mention of Watts.

5. [18] I have already explained this multiple times. That is not fully sourced in anyway: As per WP:NOR "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" That information is completely unsupported by any reliable source, and I could not find a single reliable source to support any of the information in that paragraph and the sole source does not mention Spencer. Contentious and unsourced information can be immediately removed from any BLP see WP:BLP. Also this is Roy Spencer's BLP not a discussion of the UAH satellite temperature record which should take place on the appropriate Wikipedia page, UAH satellite temperature dataset.

6. [19] Where is the source? Are you even checking these before making false allegations?

7. [20] As stated, Sourcewatch is a wiki and violates WP:RS - have you ever read this?

8. [21] As stated "Removed information from unreliable source in violation of WP:RS, Huffington Post blogs are not reliable sources, cite incorrectly stated "Boston Globe".

Which one would you like to debate? I also would appreciate it if you do not make these false allegations about me in the future as you clearly do not understand WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP. --JournalScholar (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Let us briefly examine number 4. Your attitude was (is) very combative. What you describe as "compromise" is actually me walking away from the article, tired of attempting to reason with you. To recap: Anthony Watts commenced a research project, fearing that many temperature reading stations across the United States are poorly placed, compromising our understanding of global warming. He established a website SURFACESTATIONS.ORG to document his findings. A prominent physicist, Richard A. Muller, approached Watts for his data and proceeded to examine the issue in considerable detail. Among the many false claims that are advanced by sceptics daily, Muller considered this particular issue worthy of attention. Watts met with Muller and his team of scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and further publicised the enterprise on his blog.^[22] We also have direct quotes from Muller crediting Watts for the endeavour,^[23] and his work was reported by numerous quality sources. This undertaking is Anthony Watts' only project that has resulted in a paper submitted to a scientific journal. As Richard Muller himself explained: "When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups [i.e. NASA] had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that." The information is both notable and relevant to Watts' biography. Consequently, on 11 August, I started a new section (Surface Stations Project) that I now invite uninvolved editors to review. User JournalScholar resisted all effort to convey the above information because (dare I suggest) the result of the Berkeley study reflected negatively on the person whose reputation (s)he was attempting to uphold. A brief examination of the article history reveals the unnecessary wrangling that ensued (03:36, 12 August 2012‎) and the point at which I gave up trying to help create a concise section that made sense. — ThePowerofX 18:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC

You stating my attitude is "combative" does not make it so. Someone using someone else's data for their own project is not notable on a BLP. Watt's BLP is about him not anyone that uses his work. Muller's project has nothing to do with the Surface Station project started by Watts and does not belong in that section. This is the equivalent of including any person who cites another person's paper in the original author's BLP. The carbon brief is not a reliable source WP:RS. Watt's blog cannot be used to discuss third parties (Muller) WP:RS. Muller's project should be discussed on his own page. I rejected all claims you made that cannot be attributed to Watts from a reliable source as this is his BLP not Mullers. --JournalScholar (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Your assessment of what constitutes a reliable source is also dubious. Apparently, Anthony Watts' own website is not an acceptable source for his own opinion (diff) but adding FAKEWARRIORS.ORG to a BLP is perfectly fine. (diff) — ThePowerofX 18:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see a discussion of your use of the blog source in this instance as I prefer to air on the cautious side with BLPs and never try to use blogs to cite anything. I was also under the impression that 501(c)(3) organizations were a reliable source. If not could you point me to the Wikipedia policy that states otherwise. --JournalScholar (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The editor has demonstrated he doesn't understand WP:RS and WP:V. Despite being told numerous times it is not the case; he still maintains that a press releases and blogs are unreliable for their own opinion, including other dubious removals, if he is unblocked it is clear that he will still be disruptive as a result. He also has failed to understand WP:BURDEN, WP:PRESERVE and that we don't just mass delete content which can reasonably be sourced. He claimed this material had no source: [24], but the source at the end of the paragraph seems to be on the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Self published sources cannot be used for claims about third parties WP:SELFSOURCE "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: "2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);". You cannot use a press release to comment on a third party in this case a journal. WP:BURDEN specifically stated: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." and "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." [25] Please quote from that to support the contended sentence. I have never mass deleted content that could be reasonably sourced. --JournalScholar (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

JournalScholar: Having an unblock request declined is surely frustrating, but John's review was thoughtful and not lopsided against you. I encourage you to follow his advice by internalizing all of the policies he listed and coming back a bit later for reinstatement. Sorry to keep beating a dead horse, but "indefinite" just means "until you can prove you will not be disruptive." Some things that can help your case are voluntarily taking on editing restrictions like 1RR or steering clear of certain topics, or promising to discuss changes on talk pages first. One step in coming back is understanding the policies. The other step is showing you can edit collaboratively. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I'd like to see not just an understanding of the letter of policy, but of its spirit. For example, you frequently cite WP:BLP as justification for your edits, but your commitment to that policy is called into question by your use of patently unreliable sources in BLPs (e.g. [26]) and the fact that your userpage was, until deleted, an attack page aimed at a notable living person (deleted revision, visible to admins only). Taken together, this discrepancy suggests that you have not internalized the actual principles embodied in WP:BLP, but rather use the policy opportunistically to remove material which conflicts with your personal ideology.

You also haven't really addressed the plagiarism issue, beyond saying that it was done "in good faith". What are you actually going to do about it? You've created a good deal of work for other editors. Are you going to help them identify and rectify the plagiarism you've introduced? That would be a potential starting point.

That said, you don't necessarily have to convince me. As I've noted elsewhere, if another admin feels comfortable unblocking you based on your representations to date, I won't object, although I'm also not particularly encouraged thus far. MastCell ^Talk 20:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware of the deleted attack page. That makes it pretty hard to take seriously any edit you make citing WP:BLP. You are going to have to work hard to convince us that unblocking you would actually make Wikipedia better. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I completely understand my initial 24 hr block for edit warring and have no interest in revisiting that. However I believe my indefinite block is unjustly based on a plagiarism charge which does not meet wikipedia policy for WP:PLAG which states, "Wikipedians are more vulnerable to accusations of plagiarism than are most writers, because we are required to stick closely to the reliable sources. "For that reason, plagiarism concerns should be addressed calmly, with a view to educating rather than pointing the finger. The aim of plagiarism inquiries in most cases is simply to clean up the articles, rather than take action against the editor," These issues have never been brought up to me by anyone here and I was under the impression that since those sentences were fully sourced it would meet criteria for adequate credit. I would like to know if my good faith edits were in violation of Wikipedia policy and what is allowed in terms of paraphrasing. The user who accused me of plagiarism did so as if I did not fully cite those sentences, this is a fabrication as EVERY single edit I do when adding new content is fully cited. Please review my detailed edit history to confirm this. Again no administrator as made an attempt to discuss these issues with me before declining my unblock request. I can answer your questions if someone would talk to me.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I completely understand my initial 24 hr block for edit warring and have no interest in revisiting that. However I believe my indefinite block is unjustly based on a plagiarism charge which does not meet wikipedia policy for [[WP:PLAG]] which states, "Wikipedians are more vulnerable to accusations of plagiarism than are most writers, because we are required to stick closely to the reliable sources. "'''For that reason, plagiarism concerns should be addressed calmly, with a view to educating rather than pointing the finger. The aim of plagiarism inquiries in most cases is simply to clean up the articles, rather than take action against the editor,'''" These issues have never been brought up to me by anyone here and I was under the impression that since those sentences were fully sourced it would meet criteria for adequate credit. I would like to know if my '''good faith''' edits were in violation of Wikipedia policy and what is allowed in terms of paraphrasing. The user who accused me of plagiarism did so as if I did not fully cite those sentences, this is a fabrication as EVERY single edit I do when adding new content is fully cited. Please review my detailed edit history to confirm this. Again no administrator as made an attempt to discuss these issues with me before declining my unblock request. I can answer your questions if someone would talk to me. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I completely understand my initial 24 hr block for edit warring and have no interest in revisiting that. However I believe my indefinite block is unjustly based on a plagiarism charge which does not meet wikipedia policy for [[WP:PLAG]] which states, "Wikipedians are more vulnerable to accusations of plagiarism than are most writers, because we are required to stick closely to the reliable sources. "'''For that reason, plagiarism concerns should be addressed calmly, with a view to educating rather than pointing the finger. The aim of plagiarism inquiries in most cases is simply to clean up the articles, rather than take action against the editor,'''" These issues have never been brought up to me by anyone here and I was under the impression that since those sentences were fully sourced it would meet criteria for adequate credit. I would like to know if my '''good faith''' edits were in violation of Wikipedia policy and what is allowed in terms of paraphrasing. The user who accused me of plagiarism did so as if I did not fully cite those sentences, this is a fabrication as EVERY single edit I do when adding new content is fully cited. Please review my detailed edit history to confirm this. Again no administrator as made an attempt to discuss these issues with me before declining my unblock request. I can answer your questions if someone would talk to me. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I completely understand my initial 24 hr block for edit warring and have no interest in revisiting that. However I believe my indefinite block is unjustly based on a plagiarism charge which does not meet wikipedia policy for [[WP:PLAG]] which states, "Wikipedians are more vulnerable to accusations of plagiarism than are most writers, because we are required to stick closely to the reliable sources. "'''For that reason, plagiarism concerns should be addressed calmly, with a view to educating rather than pointing the finger. The aim of plagiarism inquiries in most cases is simply to clean up the articles, rather than take action against the editor,'''" These issues have never been brought up to me by anyone here and I was under the impression that since those sentences were fully sourced it would meet criteria for adequate credit. I would like to know if my '''good faith''' edits were in violation of Wikipedia policy and what is allowed in terms of paraphrasing. The user who accused me of plagiarism did so as if I did not fully cite those sentences, this is a fabrication as EVERY single edit I do when adding new content is fully cited. Please review my detailed edit history to confirm this. Again no administrator as made an attempt to discuss these issues with me before declining my unblock request. I can answer your questions if someone would talk to me. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}