519:
although I believe you've violated NPOV in about 10 different ways in your new lead, I have no doubt you believe what you're doing is right. I don't think you're being dishonest in putting forward your arguments; I just think you're not listening to what others are saying, because you've made up your mind that they're not acting in good faith. What you need to figure out is why I would waste my spare time doing something I didn't believe in just to annoy you. :)
380:. Calling someone a 'denier' is offensive, as is publicly asserting that someone is a 'extreme fringe theorist' or a 'conspiracy theorist'. It's the same as saying someone is stupid &/or dishonest, and given that Pete was simply making a point about what is and what isn't well sourced or neutral language in Knowledge, it was just a tad uncalled for too. You then proceeded, knowing that Pete is a geologist, to insult him professionally:
1211:. Do you really think it's appropriate to leave that message on the talk page of an editor who has more than 15,000 edits who you are in an active content dispute with? UW-NPA1 is clearly not written for an experienced Wikipedian - I mean, criminy, it includes an explicit welcome message! The appropriate way to handle this would've been to leave a polite non-templated message here telling Tillman that you feel his edit conflicts with
449:"Some geologists went to their graves not accepting that the continents move. Science progresses nonetheless, by the accumulation of evidence and the testing of hypotheses that account for it. Today it is difficult to find an article in geology that begins by allowing that plate tectonics is only one possible model among many other equally plausible ones - even though 40 years ago the theory was as hotly contested."
1438:
222:
1244:
1RR violations
Tillman has made over the last three days. My report on ANI concerned those violations alone, and were repeatedly met with personal attacks from Tillman in response. In fact, in that report and in this thread, I have not brought our disagreement over content into discussion. I am concerned that your continued involvement and reading of this issue is at complete odds with the facts.
100:
to push a POV. I'm trying to summarize the main points of the article. Perhaps you could do some research on the media controversy and write it in your own words. I'm willing to help add the FOIA content if I can find the right source. I see that the topic of FOIA is touched upon in the article, but it reads as a function of recentism rather than something important.
1015:
862:—that news outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch were responsible for propagating the climategate scandal meme more than any other media outlet. If you are seriously questioning this fact, then I suggest you begin by doing some research because your reverts tell me you are editing from your own personal bias rather than from the sources. For example,
1457:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see
1174:
Thanks for speaking for "everyone", Tillman. That Arthur Rubin, an administrator, does not understand basic NPA and talk page guidelines is troubling. That you are using the article talk page to repeatedly attack me is also troubling. That you have repeatedly violated the 1RR probation restriction
848:
There are multiple topics and issues at play here, but let's begin with the easiest one so as to develop a common ground of discourse where we can work towards agreement. I will begin with your revert of the Clive
Hamilton material. Recently, you removed the following statement from the CRU article
476:
Viriditas, I suggest you seek input from an uninvolved third party as to whether or not what I highlighted above is acceptable or not. Also have a look at
William Connolley's 'Naming of Cats' since he has strong views on what is and what isn't polite when addressing editors who uses their real names.
405:
Nice cherry picking, Alex. Tillman posted a comment explaining why he made a revert. I responded with "Tillman, your edits and reasons for making them are not supported...Your comments reveal you are pushing an extreme fringe theory that even the most public deniers gave up on years ago." This is
389:
Since I have diffs showing you've been treating all editors whom you think are 'skeptics' (including one who most certainly isn't a skeptic) in the same way since the beginning of April, and have made, on my count, over 30 personal attacks, it might actually be a good idea to ask yourself if perhaps
99:
My preference is to come to a compromise. I have already said I will agree to add a modified version of your FOIA material to the lead if you can show it is significant by way of secondary sources. And you should also consider a modified version that summarizes the media reception. I'm not trying
1536:
Outdenting is often necessary - when your text is compressing up too much against the margin - but it certainly isn't when you are only 2-3 indentation levels into a discussion. And even when you outdent - you should never outdent to a level where it impedes comments that are at a lower indentation
1127:
Never use headings to attack other users: While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at
Knowledge, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary
885:
In
December 2009, the Fox News executive instructed staff to include skepticism of climate change data in their reporting. The memo came just 15 minutes after Fox correspondent Wendell Goler accurately said on-air that the UN's World Meteorological Organization found that 2000-2009 was "on track to
1608:
about living people is unacceptable in
Knowledge. Calling identifiable, living people "clownish" and "sloppy" would not be acceptable anywhere, but I'm surprised that you would engage in that sort of behaviour on an article subject to arbcomm sanctions. Please remove your comment, and refrain from
1309:
When a given editor adds this template he or she must concurrently add corresponding text to the tagged article's talk page to explain their concerns relative to original research for the given tagged text unless talk already exists relative to such concerns. If a given article has been tagged and
1243:
This thread concerns
Tillman's continued personal attacks on the CRU talk page. I have no idea why you think I have disrespected Tillman or assumed bad faith, but I detect this has more to do with our personal disagreement on ANI than this issue. Furthermore, there has been no enforcement on the
1219:
I'm not saying
Tillman's behavior isn't problematic - certainly at least some of it is, but I'm choosing to comment on your behavior over his because you're the one trying to claim the high ground here. If you want to reach an eventual productive consensus regarding the issues on the CRU article,
414:
an "opinion...from a magazine notorious for pro-AGW bias" which he labels as "unsuitable" Tillman then, bizarrely, requests that we substitute a primary source for a secondary. All of this shows a major misunderstanding as to how
Knowledge works and how we identify and evaluate reliable sources.
1376:
If it helps you, I'd like to give my 2¢ contribution on the
Climatic Change Controversy. I believe the oil price goes up, the world economy is in a down turn and that Yellowstone will erupt in our average lifetime. So, I believe the world climate is cooling down ;) Stay cool, people on earth have
1314:
You do not appear to have read the documentation for the template, even though you have been asked over and over again to explain your edits on the talk page. In cases where there is a discussion on the talk page about certain aspects of your concerns, you have either failed to followup on that
870:
In the ensuing scandal after the e-mails became public, top climate scientists were accused of withholding information, suppressing dissent, manipulating data, and worse, particularly by right wing media and blogs. The controversy garnered dramatic press attention, especially on outlets like Fox
893:
The attacks on climate scientists emanating from the news outlets owned by Murdoch gathered steam as Copenhagen began, and continued day after day, week after week, month after month, until the results of the investigations appeared a year later, with little to no reports ever made covering the
844:
You have not responded to my repeated queries for you to explain your reverts on the CRU talk page. Because you have been ignoring my requests for 48 hours now, I have no choice but to bring my requests to your talk page. If you dislike that, feel free to answer them on the article talk page.
518:
While I appreciate any sort of concession from you by now, you still don't seem to have understood. Your apology is followed by another personal attack. You are claiming that I am not acting in good faith, and that I have a secret agenda, which implies that I am not honest. For what it's worth,
1310:
the tagging editor doesn't ensure that corresponding article talk relative to the tag isn't either already available or added within a short amount of time (ie: no more than 24 hours) then fellow editors are within their rights to remove the tag or alternatively, add talk in support of its use.
1215:
and asking him to change it. If you do not feel you can do that, then ask an uninvolved editor or administrator to do so for you. If you feel it was somehow a violation of NPA severe enough to merit sanction, then take the matter to an appropriate noticeboard. Nothing productive could have
419:
is a "personal attack" is unsupported. It is supported by Tillman's own words and edits. The statement that "geologists went to their graves refusing to believe in continental drift" is a popular history of science anecdote, and historians of science like Naomi Oreskes use the concept of
986:
You've just violated the 1RR for the third day in a row with your reinsertion of the syn tag at 17:41, 8 June 2011. This is the third time you've added the tag, and you've reverted its removal by two editors, myself and SBHB. Please self-revert immediately. 1RR means you can only make
360:
Could you please help me see where this so-called personal attack occurred and why my comment is considered an "extraordinary outburst" by yourself? And more importantly, what could possibly merit copying it to a private file? I would just love some help understanding this, Tillman.
817:. Please make a sincere effort to learn what a revert is and how to avoid breaking the 1RR in the future. Of course you are welcome to avoid any enforcement by self-reverting, in which case I will ask for a warning not a block. Right now, I'm asking for your block.
773:. I recommend that you self-revert yourself immediately. You have made a total of three reverts for June 8, 2011. It is evident that you are still having great difficulty understanding what a revert is and how to avoid it. I will therefore be reporting you.
499:
the topic from that of an encyclopedic subject to one of editors and contributors. Then, you turn around and claim that we are making personal attacks or engaging in incivility. I'm tired of your game, Alex. From now on, please expect me to address the topic
1128:
of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines.
1532:
Where is D to put his reply to B? Or E its reply to A? There are three possibilities: a) is below B indented - which affects the temporal reading. b) is below C, which affects the readability, c) is to indent C and do it at the correct indentation level.
122:
Sure. There are (ims) plenty of 2ry sources for the ICO stuff. I'm surprised none are cited. And I would greatly prefer collegiality & cooperation to confrontation. Perhaps you could tone down your talk comments a bit? They read pretty abrasive, at
1319:
immediately rebooting or starting a new thread about your concerns. What seems to be happening here, is that your concerns have been addressed, but you are ignoring the previous discussion and continuing to disrupt the article. This cannot continue.
857:
It appears to me that you have not performed the slightest bit of research on this topic. If you had, you would have quickly discovered that politicians on the left and right, journalists of every stripe, and publications across the spectrum
444:"...the most important contribution to Earth sciences in the last four decades may be the discovery of seafloor-spreading and plate teconics. And yet, some distinguished Earth scientists went to their graves unconvinced of the evidence.
595:
Do recall, this is supposed to be a pleasant, educational hobby, not a grim slog through ranks of Denier Enemies.... I'm reasonably sure everyone active at the page now truly wants to improve it. We do have different ideas of
1291:
The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any
791:
Policy does address closely-related edits, with this: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2011
1206:
Viriditas, all potential issues regarding Tillman's behavior aside, your own behavior is hugely problematic. Just taking a look at this section alone - look at what the NPA template that you gave Tillman actually
569:
What Alex said ;-]. V, you really need to get a clue that no one (or at least not Alex, me, or Arthur, sfaik) is out to "get" you, and your constant, petulant, weird personal attacks are wearing. Please stop doing
1298:
This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject. The personal beliefs of Knowledge's editors are irrelevant.
641:
One that immediately comes to mind is Fred Pearce's long Climategate series for the Guardian, but even he didn't get everything right. But we rightfully rely on his report extensively. Another would be Weart's
432:
held out until 1989, even though the scientific community accepted it by the early 1960s. That many geologists went to their graves refusing to consider new evidence is now a common expression in public
600:, but, you know, that's how this place operates. I was hopeful that this page could be rewritten so as to be fair and readable. Now I'm just trying to see that it doesn't get worse than before. Sigh. --
1160:
Viriditas, I think most everyone who deals with you is getting awfully tired of your constant, verbose, tiresome wikilawyering. For sure I am. Don't you have something better to do with your time? --
894:
exoneration of the scientists. Do you question this chain of events? Because if you do, I will suggest that you haven't looked at the sources on this subject. It's part of the historical record.
614:
Could you give me an example of what you consider to be a fair and readable secondary source on this subject? Since we write articles based on good sources, it would be a necessary prerequisite.
286:, battlefield conduct, etc.) has deteriorated, but I feel that unfortunately, you have played a fair role in it. This message is also being posted on the talk pages of Viritidas and Pete Tillman.
1671:
are not supposed to use an article talk page to engage in those sorts of smears. If you don't understand something so basic, you need to refrain from editing articles about living people.
1296:
The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame.
1228:, even if you disagree with them vehemently and think they are violating policies. The way you have been approaching this situation is only going to keep elevating and inflaming things.
1046:
1556:
is rather stereotypically funny in the sense of being ridiculous about science, your suggestion that you were just adding it to make me go "boom" indicates you were trolling. Don't. . .
1054:
Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user. (
462:
Alex, calling a user by their user name is not a form of disrespect. This discussion is obviously not going to bear fruit because neither you nor Tillman will recognize the problem.
260:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any
48:
43:
957:
I saw your comment on the ANI thread - all the revert rules are on a reverts per page basis - so if you reverted two different editors, you'll still be in violation of the 1rr.
1125:
That is precisely what "headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user". You may comment about the content, not the contributor. This is also followed by
972:
Oh, I guess I'll never get this stuff straight. Confused by the ". Undoing another editor's work—" business, I guess. Or just dumb. I'll self-revert one in a moment. Thanks! --
853:
Clive Hamilton of Charles Sturt University observed that news outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch played a major role in airing attacks on climate scientists during the controversy.
256:
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "
491:
My apologies. I agree that I can work on being more polite. I will put that at the top of my to-do list. While I'm busy doing that, I would invite you to study and review
933:
No. There are already multiple threads open on that page requiring your comment that you either refuse to respond to or continue to ignore. It's put up or shut up time.
889:...The Sammon memo was sent around the same time as "ClimateGate," a controversy fueled by conservative media that Fox News seemed to cover far more than other networks.
1582:
Kim: I'll try to pay more attention to indenting/threading. Did you find adding subheads helpful? WP's software isn't the best for keeping threads straight, ime. Best,
1489:
Is there a specific reason other than laziness for outdenting your comments constantly? The trouble with this is that you are impeding comments and the reading order.
745:
Viriditas: you cause no (or not much) offense by addressing me by my surname. Other than that, if you really can't tell why your comments are offensive, you really,
1023:
814:
249:
if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see
245:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
887:
877:
As you may or may not be aware, Fox News sent out memos—leaked memos covered by secondary sources—issuing instructions to their anchors and reporters to
1624:
I'm reasonably sure that I am echoing criticisms that have been previously published in RS's. Hence I don't believe that any BLP violation has occurred.
1264:
You are continuing to misuse dispute templates against best practices, and you have even violated the 1RR while doing it. Recently, you added both the
1132:
reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting edit warring or other incidents to administrators
722:
355:
Viriditas: just what part of WP:No Personal Attacks do you not understand? This is an extraordinary outburst, that I'll be copying to a private file.
770:
682:
382:
I realize that many geologists went to their graves refusing to believe in continental drift ... but AGW has had a solid consensus for 15 years now.
35:
28:
1030:
to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.
1469:
1449:
420:
continental drift as a historical parallel to the weight of evidence that led scientists to accept anthropogenic climate change. In her book,
265:
445:
313:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=432873968&oldid=432870459
309:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=432767732&oldid=432764289
42:
02:52, 27 April 2011 Tillman (talk | contribs) (104,096 bytes) (Pull manuf controv stuff & remove tag. See talk, last two sections) (undo)
150:
Sounds good. I might add some material about the FOIA if I can find some good sources. You're always free to improve it. I'm going to add
656:
Your own writing style is clear and readable. Where you fall down sometimes (in my view) is in the "Fair & Balanced" department. Best,
154:
to the list of criticisms in the lead (Pooley 2010) as this word keeps coming up in the secondary sources as one of the main criticisms.
1018:
Welcome to Knowledge. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to
495:. I can't help but notice that every single time myself or another editor tries to discuss and address a topic, you and others try to
1113:
on an article talk page. That's clear and to the point, and there is no misinterpretation possible. The statement that follows, '
1063:
Furthermore, we do not attack editors on the talk page as you did with "Continuing his usual pattern, Viriditas..." Please review
282:
Can you take two weeks off from this article please? It might not be entirely your fault that the general conduct (with persistent
1340:"This cannot continue." Oh, do I agree with that -- though for a different value of "this" than (I imagine) you have in mind. --
1300:
Do not add this to a page more than a reasonable number of times, instead use one of the other templates mentioned below instead.
1542:
749:
need to work on your Wiki-etiquette, your basic civility skills, and perhaps your common sense too. I hope you improve. Best,
1089:
a user. And "Continuing his usual pattern" would be appropriate if correct; we're discussing a problem with your edits on
649:
But the readability (and balance) of our article is really up to us. For an example of just how bad it can be, try reading
1118:
1019:
769:
Tillman, for the second day in a row, you are in violation of the 1RR editing restriction per the probation sanctions on
872:
1453:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a
700:
492:
237:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a
1516:
Here it is possible to reply to all of the comments (A...E) without impeding the reading order. Here is what you do:
653:. Knowledge is, of course, prose by committee, so we can't expect miracles, but we can do better than this. I hope.
378:
Your comments reveal you are pushing an extreme fringe theory that even the most public deniers gave up on years ago
47:
03:51, 26 April 2011 Tillman (talk | contribs) (103,366 bytes) (CJR: not appropriate for lead per consensus at Talk)
1538:
1458:
250:
1659:
attacks on people in Knowledge. If supported by reliable sources (which you have declined to provide) they can be
1315:
discussion, or have continued to ignore the points raised there. Please do not continue to add dispute templates
199:
Thanks. As you can see, we lost the photo of the test as well. I think I have another that might fly as FU. Best,
181:
881:
the story towards climate skepticism and doubt. According to Yahoo's senior media reporter Michael Calderone:
294:
1629:
Nevertheless, since others have objected, I will strike the comment. But try not to be so thin-skinned. Best,
233:
673:
524:
482:
395:
257:
151:
1486:
I know that this isn't policy and that this is only a question of politeness - so take it in that spirit.
1268:
1097:
1027:
704:
319:
685:
is to bring fairness and balance to the topic, so perhaps I should ask you for advice on how to proceed.
1418:
1382:
1233:
962:
678:
136:
Might be a day or two to get back to this stuff. Travel tomorrow & then again this weekend. Best,
1561:
184:
article has been reopened, leaving you a note in case you want to review and participate. Regards,
1676:
1614:
1359:
1325:
1249:
1188:
1139:
1072:
1035:
996:
938:
899:
822:
778:
730:
690:
650:
619:
538:
509:
467:
366:
287:
189:
159:
105:
58:
504:
and nothing else. I will not be baited or drawn into your little civil POV pushing trap anymore.
1651:? You can't just strike your smears and leave them readable there in the article text. No, it is
1081:
You've misinterpreted the guideline. "Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically
520:
478:
391:
1634:
1587:
1400:
1345:
1212:
1165:
1094:
1055:
977:
924:
804:
754:
712:
661:
605:
336:
316:
204:
141:
90:
17:
272:
1414:
1378:
1229:
958:
725:
to the disputed article indicates in spades. Please stop accusing others of your misdeeds.
242:
1557:
1473:
429:
425:
269:
671:
I appreciate the constructive criticism. Since you are the second major contributor to
1672:
1610:
1355:
1321:
1245:
1184:
1135:
1068:
1031:
992:
934:
895:
818:
774:
726:
686:
615:
534:
505:
463:
416:
362:
283:
246:
185:
155:
101:
54:
813:
Tillman, you have explicitly and unambiguously violated the 1RR. I have reported you
1392:
Heh. Since we are downwind of the enormous fire in E AZ, it already seems volcanic...
1225:
1064:
916:
912:
788:
Viriditas, IB you are confused re IRR. Please see Kim Peterson's discussion at talk:
1354:
Directly quoting the template documentation is not an "interpretation" of any kind.
1134:
has nothing to do with this discussion, as Tillman is engaged in a content dispute.
1630:
1583:
1454:
1396:
1341:
1278:
1161:
1026:. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
973:
920:
863:
800:
750:
708:
657:
601:
332:
238:
200:
137:
86:
1680:
1638:
1618:
1591:
1564:
1546:
1476:
1422:
1404:
1386:
1363:
1349:
1329:
1253:
1237:
1192:
1169:
1143:
1100:
1076:
1039:
1000:
981:
966:
942:
928:
903:
826:
808:
782:
758:
734:
716:
694:
665:
623:
609:
542:
528:
513:
486:
471:
399:
370:
340:
322:
301:
208:
193:
163:
145:
109:
94:
62:
450:
533:
What we have here is a breakdown in communication. I did not say any of this.
384:
Then you disrespected him as is your habit by addressing him with his surname:
1335:
I disagree with your interpretation, and will reply at the article Talk page.
1287:
Whenever one adds a pov-statement tag, the template documentation says that:
911:
Pls post this material at the article talk page, and I'll reply there. See
85:
Perhaps we should both take a break, eh? I'm done for the day. Best,
1216:
possibly come out of the way that you have approached this section.
34:
Hello. I wish to inform you that you've reverted my edits twice on
1573:
Dave: not trolling, trying for a bit of levity. Sorry it fell flat.
1115:
headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user
180:
The discussion on whether or not to include Suzuki's video in the
1049:. On article talk pages, we do not refer to editors in headings:
721:
On the contrary, it is you who appears to fighting a battle, as
1431:
Orphaned non-free image File:1940 Oldsmobile Station Wagon.jpg
1395:
Thanks for all the improvements to the mineral pages! Cheers,
1305:
In regards to your use of the syn tag, the documentation says
1045:
For the record the diff of your personal attack can be found
1436:
415:
Alex, your opinion that calling another editor out on their
390:
there really is some part of NPA that you don't understand.
220:
1667:
are not allowed to make these sorts of attacks on people,
799:
I will grant you that this is a confusing rule. Thanks,
386:
Tillman, you are in clear violation of FRINGE and undue.
1609:
engaging in abusive behaviour like this in the future.
1605:
1117:, is a paraphrase of the nutshell contained within the
646:, though it's not directly applicable to this article.
312:
308:
78:
73:
1468:
will be deleted after seven days, as described in the
1224:
to treat other editors with some level of respect and
264:
will be deleted after seven days, as described in the
1175:
without any enforcement is also troubling. Surely,
1109:
who has "misinterpreted" the guideline, Arthur. We
53:
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
1093:article, not a general problem with your edits. —
424:(1999) she describes, unbelievably, how deniers of
1284:templates in violation of their recommended use.
840:Fox News, Clive Hamilton, Michael Calderone etc.
410:what is in the sources and call a news story in
68:You appear to have reverted two of mine as well:
1123:Comment on the content, not on the contributor.
215:Orphaned non-free image File:One Man's West.jpg
1464:Note that any non-free images not used in any
681:movement, I'm sure your sole interest in the
376:Let me help you out here Viriditas. You said,
1024:Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy
8:
406:not a personal attack. Tillman's comments
331:Thanks, Arthur. I've self-reverted. Best,
771:Climatic Research Unit email controversy
683:Climatic Research Unit email controversy
36:Climatic Research Unit email controversy
29:Climatic Research Unit email controversy
1655:acceptable to engage in these sorts of
307:I think you may have violated 1RR, see
1663:in articles. If they are notable. But
1450:File:1940 Oldsmobile Station Wagon.jpg
1111:never address other users in a heading
7:
1413:Thx, fighting with an elephant ;) --
651:"Information Commissioner's Office"
1067:so that it does not happen again.
422:The Rejection of Continental Drift
241:. However, the image is currently
24:
1492:Please take a look at the below:
1179:have something better to do with
1260:Your misuse of dispute templates
1130:The exception to the guideline,
1013:
1552:@ Pete, I'd add that while the
677:, the so-called "bible" of the
1:
1459:our policy for non-free media
1022:other editors, as you did on
707:is corrosive and tiresome. --
251:our policy for non-free media
1470:criteria for speedy deletion
266:criteria for speedy deletion
886:be the warmest on record."
644:Discovery of Global Warming
493:Knowledge:Civil POV pushing
1699:
765:1RR violation notification
209:18:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
194:18:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
164:04:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
146:04:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
110:03:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
95:03:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
63:03:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1681:18:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
1639:17:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
1619:05:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
1592:21:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1565:21:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1547:19:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1477:05:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
1437:
1423:05:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
1405:13:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
1387:12:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
1364:03:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
1254:03:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
1193:03:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
1085:a user." It doesn't say
991:revert a day, not three.
849:without any explanation:
315:. Please be careful. —
221:
182:Suzuki v. Consumers Union
1350:17:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
1330:11:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
1238:22:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
1170:21:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
1144:19:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
1101:17:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
1077:11:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
1040:11:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
1001:03:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
982:18:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
967:18:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
943:03:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
929:17:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
904:07:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
827:01:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
809:01:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
783:01:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
759:04:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
735:02:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
717:05:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
695:12:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
666:18:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
624:19:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
610:14:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
543:19:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
529:10:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
514:06:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
487:00:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
472:21:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
400:08:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
371:00:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
341:17:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
323:16:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
302:15:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
214:
1372:My 2¢ on Climate Change
273:03:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
234:File:One Man's West.jpg
1442:
1312:
1303:
1060:
891:
875:
860:all agree on one thing
855:
226:
1447:Thanks for uploading
1440:
1307:
1289:
1052:
883:
868:
851:
705:Battlefield mentality
701:WP: Assume good faith
679:climate change denial
278:CRU email controversy
231:Thanks for uploading
224:
1377:other problems ;) --
349:Clarification needed
1119:no personal attacks
412:Scientific American
247:You may add it back
1443:
699:Viriditas: please
227:
1455:claim of fair use
239:claim of fair use
38:within 24 hours:
18:User talk:Tillman
1690:
1604:Making comments
1445:
1439:
1283:
1277:
1273:
1267:
1017:
1016:
723:your latest edit
703:. Your constant
674:Heaven and Earth
297:
258:my contributions
229:
223:
1698:
1697:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1602:
1539:Kim D. Petersen
1484:
1434:
1433:
1374:
1281:
1275:
1271:
1265:
1262:
1014:
1011:
955:
842:
837:
767:
430:Harold Jeffreys
426:plate tectonics
351:
295:
280:
218:
217:
178:
32:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1696:
1694:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1642:
1641:
1626:
1625:
1601:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1568:
1567:
1530:
1529:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1503:
1483:
1480:
1432:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1408:
1407:
1393:
1373:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1337:
1336:
1301:
1299:
1297:
1293:
1261:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1061:
1050:
1010:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
954:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
841:
838:
836:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
796:
795:
794:
793:
766:
763:
762:
761:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
447:
437:
436:
435:
434:
417:climate denial
358:
357:
350:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
326:
325:
279:
276:
268:. Thank you.
216:
213:
212:
211:
177:
174:
173:
172:
171:
170:
169:
168:
167:
166:
129:
128:
127:
126:
125:
124:
115:
114:
113:
112:
82:
81:
76:
70:
69:
51:
50:
45:
31:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1695:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1627:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1607:
1599:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1566:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1534:
1527:
1522:
1521:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1509:
1504:
1501:
1500:
1498:
1497:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1490:
1487:
1481:
1479:
1478:
1475:
1472:. Thank you.
1471:
1467:
1462:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1451:
1444:
1430:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1371:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1338:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1318:
1311:
1306:
1302:
1294:
1288:
1285:
1280:
1270:
1269:POV-statement
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1217:
1214:
1210:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1099:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1059:
1057:
1051:
1048:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1008:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
985:
984:
983:
979:
975:
971:
970:
969:
968:
964:
960:
952:
944:
940:
936:
932:
931:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
901:
897:
890:
888:
882:
880:
874:
873:
867:
865:
861:
854:
850:
846:
839:
834:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
811:
810:
806:
802:
798:
797:
790:
789:
787:
786:
785:
784:
780:
776:
772:
764:
760:
756:
752:
748:
744:
743:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
719:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
697:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
675:
670:
669:
668:
667:
663:
659:
654:
652:
647:
645:
625:
621:
617:
613:
612:
611:
607:
603:
599:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
544:
540:
536:
532:
531:
530:
526:
522:
517:
516:
515:
511:
507:
503:
498:
494:
490:
489:
488:
484:
480:
475:
474:
473:
469:
465:
461:
460:
459:
458:
451:
448:
446:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
431:
427:
423:
418:
413:
409:
404:
403:
402:
401:
397:
393:
387:
383:
379:
375:
374:
373:
372:
368:
364:
356:
353:
352:
348:
342:
338:
334:
330:
329:
328:
327:
324:
321:
318:
314:
310:
306:
305:
304:
303:
300:
298:
291:
290:
285:
277:
275:
274:
271:
267:
263:
259:
254:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
235:
228:
210:
206:
202:
198:
197:
196:
195:
191:
187:
183:
176:Samuari Video
175:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
148:
147:
143:
139:
135:
134:
133:
132:
131:
130:
121:
120:
119:
118:
117:
116:
111:
107:
103:
98:
97:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:
80:
77:
75:
72:
71:
67:
66:
65:
64:
60:
56:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
39:
37:
30:
26:
19:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1631:Pete Tillman
1603:
1584:Pete Tillman
1553:
1535:
1531:
1515:
1491:
1488:
1485:
1465:
1463:
1448:
1446:
1435:
1397:Pete Tillman
1375:
1342:Pete Tillman
1316:
1313:
1308:
1304:
1295:
1290:
1286:
1263:
1221:
1218:
1208:
1205:
1180:
1176:
1162:Pete Tillman
1131:
1126:
1122:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1095:Arthur Rubin
1090:
1086:
1082:
1053:
1028:welcome page
1012:
988:
974:Pete Tillman
956:
921:Pete Tillman
892:
884:
878:
876:
869:
864:Chris Mooney
859:
856:
852:
847:
843:
801:Pete Tillman
768:
751:Pete Tillman
746:
709:Pete Tillman
672:
658:Pete Tillman
655:
648:
643:
640:
602:Pete Tillman
597:
501:
496:
421:
411:
407:
388:
385:
381:
377:
359:
354:
333:Pete Tillman
317:Arthur Rubin
292:
288:
281:
261:
255:
232:
230:
219:
201:Pete Tillman
179:
152:transparency
138:Pete Tillman
87:Pete Tillman
52:
33:
27:Reverts on
1482:Indentation
1415:Chris.urs-o
1379:Chris.urs-o
521:Alex Harvey
479:Alex Harvey
392:Alex Harvey
1558:dave souza
1554:Daily Mail
1474:Courcelles
1213:WP:TALKNEW
1056:WP:TALKNEW
919:. Thanks,
433:discourse:
270:Courcelles
1673:Guettarda
1657:unsourced
1611:Guettarda
1606:like this
1537:level. --
1356:Viriditas
1322:Viriditas
1246:Viriditas
1185:Viriditas
1136:Viriditas
1069:Viriditas
1032:Viriditas
1009:June 2011
993:Viriditas
935:Viriditas
896:Viriditas
819:Viriditas
775:Viriditas
727:Viriditas
687:Viriditas
616:Viriditas
535:Viriditas
506:Viriditas
464:Viriditas
363:Viriditas
186:ThatSaved
156:Viriditas
102:Viriditas
55:Viriditas
1661:reported
1647:Are you
1466:articles
1121:policy:
866:writes:
835:Reminder
262:articles
243:orphaned
1649:serious
1499:B R(A)
1317:without
1528:C R(B)
1523:B R(A)
1510:E R(A)
1505:D R(B)
1502:C R(B)
1292:editor
1226:WP:AGF
1183:time?
1098:(talk)
1065:WP:NPA
1020:attack
917:WP:BOP
913:WP:BRD
747:really
497:change
320:(talk)
123:times.
1230:Kevin
1105:It's
1087:about
959:Kevin
871:News.
792:(UTC)
570:this.
428:like
16:<
1677:talk
1635:talk
1615:talk
1588:talk
1562:talk
1543:talk
1419:talk
1401:talk
1383:talk
1360:talk
1346:talk
1326:talk
1274:and
1250:talk
1234:talk
1222:have
1220:you
1209:says
1189:talk
1181:your
1166:talk
1140:talk
1091:that
1073:talk
1047:here
1036:talk
997:talk
978:talk
963:talk
939:talk
925:talk
915:and
900:talk
879:spin
823:talk
815:here
805:talk
779:talk
755:talk
731:talk
713:talk
691:talk
662:talk
620:talk
606:talk
539:talk
525:talk
510:talk
502:only
483:talk
468:talk
408:deny
396:talk
367:talk
337:talk
311:and
296:Talk
284:IDHT
205:talk
190:talk
160:talk
142:talk
106:talk
91:talk
79:diff
74:diff
59:talk
1669:you
1665:you
1653:not
1600:BLP
1461:).
1279:syn
1177:you
1107:you
989:one
953:1rr
598:how
253:).
1679:)
1637:)
1617:)
1590:)
1560:,
1545:)
1520:A
1496:A
1421:)
1403:)
1385:)
1362:)
1348:)
1328:)
1282:}}
1276:{{
1272:}}
1266:{{
1252:)
1236:)
1191:)
1168:)
1142:)
1083:to
1075:)
1038:)
999:)
980:)
965:)
941:)
927:)
902:)
825:)
807:)
781:)
757:)
733:)
715:)
693:)
664:)
622:)
608:)
541:)
527:)
512:)
485:)
470:)
398:)
369:)
339:)
289:NW
207:)
192:)
162:)
144:)
108:)
93:)
61:)
1675:(
1633:(
1613:(
1586:(
1541:(
1441:âš
1417:(
1399:(
1381:(
1358:(
1344:(
1324:(
1248:(
1232:(
1187:(
1164:(
1138:(
1071:(
1058:)
1034:(
995:(
976:(
961:(
937:(
923:(
898:(
821:(
803:(
777:(
753:(
729:(
711:(
689:(
660:(
618:(
604:(
537:(
523:(
508:(
481:(
466:(
394:(
365:(
335:(
299:)
293:(
225:âš
203:(
188:(
158:(
140:(
104:(
89:(
57:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.