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]

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]