User talk:MarkR1717

Welcome!

Hello, MarkR1717, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Vsmith (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:3RR in regards your edits on Michael E. Mann. Please discuss your concerns on the talk page rather than repeatedly reverting. Vsmith (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HSC

Hi. Re [1] - please don't; its not going to work, for the obvious reasons William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also be aware of the three-revert rule. You will likely be blocked if you revert on hockey stick controversy again. Oren0 (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have now broken the 3RR rule despite being warned (4 reverts on the 20th). You have a clear consensus against you, and you are dodging that you (as the inserter) have to provide the evidence (in this case that it isn't irony). I have no intention of going further with the 3RR, this time - try consensus building instead of editwarring. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, so that you can see your 4 reverts: Version reverted to[2], first revert [3], second [4], third [5], fourth [6]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please be aware that edit warring is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and that it is possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule. You are currently engaged in an edit war on the Hockey stick controversy‎ article. If you wish for administrative intervention, please see WP:AN3. Please also note that the notability of John Theon has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Theon, and it was decided to delete the article. Introducing the same information in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies article will result in it being removed as a violation of the policy on biographies of living persons. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theon's biography was deleted, that does not mean this quote should be.MarkR1717 (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re edit wars, it is you and others who are seking to suppress any divergence from your own views.MarkR1717 (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you actually technically exceed three reverts you are likely to be blocked for edit warring if you continue as you have been at Hockey stick controversy. You should use some other means of resolving disputes. Kevin (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, there are two sides to edit warring and you have ignored the fact that several people are suppressing valid information for no good reason, I have discussed and they have ignored. I shall now take this to the next level, if any.MarkR1717 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

paragraph on Goddard Institute for Space Studies article

I came across your edits because I watch listed the request for comment on Andrewjlockley, and I was curious about the editing history, based on your comment on the RFC. I have a personal one-revert rule, so I will not revert this [7] edit again. However, it is clearly an inappropriate edit. Senate committee reports are political documents, and are not reliable sources, so you cannot base edits on them. And, despite your edit summary, "NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fears soothsayer" is still included in that edit. I encourage you to contribute constructively to this encyclopedia, but in order to do so, you must discuss disagreements with other editors instead of just reverting again and again, and you must be willing to accept the Wikipedia is not the place to convince people of anything, it's just a place to compile information from reliable sources.

FYI, the three revert rule is not an entitlement: you can be banned for edit warring without breaking the three revert rule. - Enuja (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one of my edits was to correct my own mistake. I don't think you provided a reason for your reversal.MarkR1717 (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that I am participating in an edit war is clearly inaccurate. I reverted two different edits of yours on two different articles. I reverted each edit only once. In both cases, there were pre-existing sections on the talk article that were convincing about the inappropriate nature of both edits, and my own personal judgment indicated that the edits were not appropriate. Please don't take editing here personally! - Enuja (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, I didn't see that you deleted that part of your statement. You can see that I did provide reasons in both of my edit summaries [8] [9] - Enuja (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning at Goddard Institute for Space Studies

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dayewalker (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the discussion page, and they have never come up with a proper reason for reverting.MarkR1717 (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMC & Kim's behaviour

If you feel strongly about WMC and Kim, maybe you should open an RFC? I do sympathise with your comments on my RFC, but they're perhaps more directed at WMC than at me.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]