| Revision as of 02:20, 28 December 2009 editScjessey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,030 edits Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sourced material on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. using TW← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:10, 2 January 2010 edit undo2over0 (talk | contribs)17,247 edits Warning: Potentially violating the three revert rule on Scientific opinion on climate change. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| == December 2009 == | == December 2009 == | ||
| ] Please do not add ] or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to ]. Please cite a ] for all of your information. Thank you.<!-- Template:Uw-nor2 --> ''Please self-revert immediately.'' ] (]) 02:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC) | ] Please do not add ] or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to ]. Please cite a ] for all of your information. Thank you.<!-- Template:Uw-nor2 --> ''Please self-revert immediately.'' ] (]) 02:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == January 2010 == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ''']'''  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the ]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to ] to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be ] from editing'''. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''Please discuss your issues at ].'' - ] <small>(])</small> 00:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a shared ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.'' | |||
Revision as of 00:10, 2 January 2010
Indeed the original data appear to be privately owned and not available for public review. So they were stolen and they are cannot be valid as scientific evidence.
December 2009
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Please self-revert this edit immediately. Scjessey (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
January 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Scientific opinion on climate change. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Please discuss your issues at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.