User talk:46.142.23.197

December 2019
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Scientific consensus on climate change. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * that is clear -sorry to say it plainly- bullshit: the article as is is of the kind you accused me of, it states things icc papers and statements themselves do not. All in all I just corrected the ductus forging scientific propabilities into certainties and correlations into causations. The thing is some understand some do not, you are of the latter kind, unfortunately, please abstain from hooking to this article and take a time out and let others just do the WP job, thank you --46.142.23.197 (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * The talkpage has extensive discussion which doesn't support your edits. Find consensus before making changes, and stop calling other editors "sweetheart." .  Acroterion   (talk)   17:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit Warring
My edit at Scientific consensus on climate change was clearly not edit warring. Don't make claims when you don't understand Wikipedia policy. See WP:WAR
 * sorry sweatheart, bullshit again: I clearly do understand - again, please abstain from emty sentences and warring reverts, thank you :) --46.142.23.197 (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not your sweetheart. Clearly don't know what you're talking about. I will revert what I like according to Wikipedia policy. Your revert of my edit was reverted anyway. Robynthehode (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)