User talk:Sterculius

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Sterculius, 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

I see you've made an addition to global warming. That article is both very high profile and already featured, so it is often most constructive to suggest new edits on its talk page. Generally, it does make the most sense to simply be bold, but also, follow the summary guideline that tries to keep the main article accessible and readable while putting further information and details in articles that are more focused; in this case, that article would be Attribution of recent climate change although your edit was really more relevant to Global climate model or Effects of global warming. I'm going to revert your change, but please keep editing the encyclopedia. - Enuja (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in any single article 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. Please use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific consensus

Did you actually read the article, or just glance at the title? The article clearly states that the word consensus is explicitly used by the science academies of the major industrialized nations, among other groups. See Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming

I've reverted two of your edits today. Both of them appear to be original research that is not verified by reliable sources. I think there are a lot of discussion points on global warming, but if you're going to make edits, support them with high quality references. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for tendentious and disruptive edting at global warming. You've probably hit 4RR too, though I haven't checked that. You're also probably a sock, too William M. Connolley (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Effects of global warming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I guess this was a waste of time. A sock and blocked for tendentious editing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]