User talk:Cb25

Welcome!

 * }

Your edit
Thanks very much for this but I've had to revert it. A few basic problems. One is that sources must meet our criteria at WP:RS (please read WP:VERIFY alongside it). Secondly, it appears to violate another basic policy, no original research, see WP:NOR. Finally, the language used doesn't meet our WP:NPOV policy. It would be great somewhere else, but Wikipedia is sometimes hard to get your head around for new users. It's not at all like writing an essay or an article for a journal where you can make an argument/case for something. Here we rely on what reliable sources as per our criteria above have to say about a subject, and relate what they have to say from a neutral point of view (which is not the same as being neutral, if you look at the types of sources we deem reliable and WP:SPS and WP:FRINGE. Please don't let my reversion put you off, you look as though you could be a very helpful editor. You might want to look at our fringe discussion noticeboard also sometime, WP:FTN. Another useful link on language is WP:WORDS. I learned all this by being reverted myself. Anyway, welcome again and you can ask me any questions at my talk page. --Dougweller (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Young Earth creationism. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —  raeky  t  03:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
 * 3) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * The talk page is at Talk:Young Earth creationism. Use it when others disagree. I've explained to raeky what you told me. --Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Skylon
Would you be interested in helping with this article? We could really use an independent perspective.--  Novus    Orator     13:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet more original research
While I support "don't bite the newbies" sentiments, you previously encountered our rules about no original research, so you already know you have to have what wikipedia calls a "reliable source" to insert new stuff like this NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

_____________

Thanks for your note. I would appreciate if you could explain how what I added was new. My input was an objective point in clarification of this part of the quote: "The fact is that it would be difficult or impossible to explain past changes in temperature during the ice age cycles without CO2 changes."

This "fact" is neither defended nor explained yet represents a key reason Gore's use of ice cores came under scrutiny.

Thanks

Chris
 * You can challenge unsupported assertions by deleting, or posting on the talk page, or marking with Template:Citation needed. Note that lead sections (befre the table of contents) are supposed to be a summary of the detailed sections and do not require citations to be repeated in the lead.  In other words, if something is wrong elsewhere, that doesn't make your own errors right.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)