| Revision as of 23:48, 2 August 2007 editRktect (talk | contribs)3,917 edits →3RR/Rktect← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:07, 3 August 2007 edit undoJc-S0CO (talk | contribs)Rollbackers3,017 edits →your revertsNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| Look at the date on the front page. These June 15, 2006 comments were incorporated in the 2007 report making it possible to cite them from the 2007 report and reference back to the fact that they derived from comments made in 2006. I pointed out that they were incorporated in the report. They should be in the article.] 23:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | Look at the date on the front page. These June 15, 2006 comments were incorporated in the 2007 report making it possible to cite them from the 2007 report and reference back to the fact that they derived from comments made in 2006. I pointed out that they were incorporated in the report. They should be in the article.] 23:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::If you can find these statements in the report itself, then you may have something to build off of. But that does not change the fact that the comments themselves are specifically labelled with a message saying not to associate them with the final report. References to the comments are not valid as a source. ~ ]<small><sup>(]|])</sup></small> 02:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:07, 3 August 2007
If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there and I will reply whenever I can. |
3RR "loophole"
Noticed your question on William Connolley's page and since it's after midnight in the UK thought I'd reply in the meantime. There are lots of good reasons to make numerous small edits in a row instead of a single big one. For example, on active pages this can help to avoid edit conflicts, i.e., someone else making an edit after you've started but before you've finished. Therefore consecutive edits by the same person -- whether reverts or normal edits -- ordinarily are counted as one. Welcome to the project and hope this helps. Raymond Arritt 01:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
MWP
Just take a quick look at this Google search: "IPCC erased the Medieval warm period". --Kim D. Petersen 18:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, we can leave it in. ~ S0CO 18:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
3RR/Rktect
Replied at my talk. Raymond Arritt 02:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
your reverts
(cur) (last) 15:01, August 2, 2007 Jc-S0CO (Talk | contribs) (80,670 bytes) (Undid revision 148773695 by user:Rktect: Please. It says right on the front page "review comments...are not to be represented as results of the IPCC assessment.") (undo)
Look at the date on the front page. These June 15, 2006 comments were incorporated in the 2007 report making it possible to cite them from the 2007 report and reference back to the fact that they derived from comments made in 2006. I pointed out that they were incorporated in the report. They should be in the article.Rktect 23:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you can find these statements in the report itself, then you may have something to build off of. But that does not change the fact that the comments themselves are specifically labelled with a message saying not to associate them with the final report. References to the comments are not valid as a source. ~ S0CO 02:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)