User talk:LVAustrian

AfD nomination of Political Compass
Your recent attempt to nominate Political Compass for deletion was done incorrectly and -- rather than attempting to fix the resulting mess -- I removed it. If you still want to nominate the article for deletion, please read and follow the steps in WP:AFDHOWTO and re-nominate.

Having said that, my advice would be to reconsider the nomination. Whatever your opinion of the site itself, Wikipedia policies concerning neutral point of view and original research apply only to the content of the article, not to its subject. In this case, the article does not appear to be substantially based on original research, nor to be particularly biased and I don't believe that your claim that the subject is non-notable will stand up to scrutiny. Cosmo0 (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

==What nonsense. Does that mean I can create a webpage and then use it as a source for wikipedia articles? Does that mean I can create a webpage and then create an article about my webpage? This is nonsense.


 * Reply on my talk page. Cosmo0 (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am not going to revert you again as I try to avoid reaching 3 reverts a day on any article. However I should point out that it is very likely that the next editor who happens along will revert your changes too. What you have added to the article may be the truth, but what we publish here is verifiable fact, not truth.
 * You appear to have a strong dislike for the presence of this article and would like it deleted. Unfortunately adding messages to the talk page asking for deletion will not have any effect. Articles at this stage of development can only be deleted through the AfD process. Please nominate the article for deletion if you wish for it to be removed. Road Wizard (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiki rules are most illogical. You an have an article based on nonsense, but you can't point out the nonsense unless some notable criticism has already been done. I could bring a link to the page on Pinochet or Milton Friedman to make my point, but that would be deleted as original research, thus allowing the junk that is the political compass to remain. I've also emailed those guys in the past to see if they would correct or explain their position. Not only are they rude but they refused to provide any sources. The entire page is based on opinions and they've been fortunate enough to find journalists and other people to sucker into buying into their game.

And yes, it probably will get reverted. Logic and rationality are not fond pastimes of most wiki editors.(LVAustrian (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
 * I can sympathise with your opinion as I have questioned the reliability of the Political Compass myself on previous occasions. However while I may question their reliability I cannot question their existence. That they exist is a verifiable fact.
 * Rather than adding your own opinions to the article, it may be worth checking it for unsourced statements. If you find any unsourced material you are free to remove it. Editors can reinsert the information if they are able to locate a reliable source. Road Wizard (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot remove material from a website I do not own. I can however point out the FACT that Political Compass has no sources.(LVAustrian (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
 * I was referring to the article. Our article about the Political compass should be made entirely of referenced fact. You are free to remove any content on the article that is unsourced.
 * While I am writing I should point out that we have a three revert rule here, which means you are not allowed to reinsert or remove the same or similar content from an article more than 3 times in 24 hours. If you do remove or reinsert 4 times or more you may be blocked from editing for a period of time. Road Wizard (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have significantly improved the referencing of the article now. It has good references from mainstream publications and also a section on the criticism of the site. There is next to no chance that it would be deleted at AfD now. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. —Apis (talk ) 07:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You POV pushing
is going to get blocked. This isn't even close to appropriate. -Atmoz (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not my point of view, Heartlands, its quoted and sourced and you're vandalising the page.
 * Heartland isn't a reliable source of anything besides outright lies. -Atmoz (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * that is POV, and not acceptable. (LVAustrian (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

WP:3RR
You've past it on RealClimate. -Atmoz (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC) You reached 3 already too. At least I'm not blanking pages but trying to add to the article(LVAustrian (talk))

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.


 * That was quick. Thanks. Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly did violate the 3rr. I don't dispute that. However, I was attempting to add a criticle section to the article which fanboys like William, HAEB and others disliked. They prefer to keep their own POV in the article. Their reasons for not including the CATO and Heartland quotes are simply lacking any basis in wiki rules. Frankly, they are making it up as they go along.(LVAustrian (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Is this the same William -a contributor to RC, the article which a criticism section has been repeatedly deleted? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/william-m-connolley/ that is why he can't be neutral in this dispute. (LVAustrian (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC))


 * To MasterCell,

I don't dispute the block. But I do dispute the other editors of that article. All they have done is to remove cited information. The have continued to make up reasons for not including the sources, none of which satisfy wikipedia rules. Cato and Heritage are verifiable, respected, and notable sources. The quotes are commenting on RealClimate and not the science of climate change. This is a partisan squabble, with one side simply trying to hide dissent. This is how edit wars are started. You will see I started a discussion which few attempted to participate in. Those that did, continued to make up excuses and made no efforts to improve the article.


 * The 3RR block is not a judgment on the merits of your argument one way or the other. It's a response to the methods by which you're pursuing that argument. You may be right, but you need to convince others, not edit-war (see dispute resolution for suggestions). MastCell Talk 21:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I never questioned that, you are right to enforce that rule. I would love to do a dispute resolution but I can't do that at the moment. I do not want RC contributors like Williams, however, participating if he can't remain neutral. Given the other editors resistance to discussion, I don’t think they ever intended to allow anyone to criticize the RC on the Wikipedia article. The last time I met this kind of stubborn resistance was on some minor article on some communist philosophy being monitored by a pre-teen communist girl from Singapore (no lie).

Real Climate
(The following section was deleted without discussion by individuals who may be invovled with or are fanboys of RealClimate.org) No single section of criticism has survived the page. In the past there was a large fight just to include the name of the server host (which is connected to other radical left-wing activities).

Criticism
- The Heartland Institute has described RealClimate as a partisan website designed " specifically to attack global warming skeptics." Dr. Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute considers RealClimate.org the "the most prominent place to see how climatologists mix their science with their opinions."

searching for more
(For some reason HAEB believes that undue weight means I have to give equal weight to searching for critics. This is a nonsensical interpretation, but it seems he'll do anything to keep out the opposition).

Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. publicly rebuked the website in a June 30, 2009 article for "erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving." Pielke, the former Colorado State Climatologist and currently a senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, countered Real Climate's claim that warming was "progressing faster than expected" with the latest data on sea level rise, ocean heat content and Arctic ice. http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1742/Climatologist-slams-RealClimateorg-for-erroneously-communicating-the-reality-of-the-how-climate-system-is-actually-behaving--Rebuts-Myths-On-Sea-Level-Oceans-and-Arctic-Ice see also, http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001446real_climate_on_mean.html

Real Climate dispute
I'd like someone who has not been editing Real Climate in the past to help settle this dispute. I think several of the editors may be sockpuppets or invovled with RC like William. (LVAustrian (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Hello. Re your mail. If you want to talk, I'm here William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As you are aware, Mr. Connolley, I cannot talk to you right now. I simply asked if you are the same William M. Connolley that was a contributor to RealClimate.org, the same website whose article you keep protected from criticism. Are you going to answer the question?(LVAustrian (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC))
 * User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you or are you not, the same William M. Connolley that contributed to RealClimate.org? Simple question.(LVAustrian (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I've tried to hint, delicately, that you're not being polite. If you want to talk you need to be polite William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dr. Connolley, have you been a contributor to RealClimate.org?(LVAustrian (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Yes. I was going to say, I'm William Connolley but I see that no longer helps you. When I decided to leave it alone, it would have . http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/goodbye-to-all-that/ is your reference William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. (LVAustrian (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Once you are unblocked you may wish to invite the Mediation Cabal to start an informal mediation process. Or if you prefer there are other dispute resolution methods to choose from. Road Wizard (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The latest delete is as follows:

However, Dr. Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, former climatologist at the University of Virginia and one of the authors of the 2007 IPCC report considers RealClimate.org the "the most prominent place to see how climatologists mix their science with their opinions."

Real Climate contributors who delete criticism
The following editors have reverted RC criticism at least once.
 * Vsmith
 * KimDabelsteinPetersen (political hostility to Cato)
 * HaeB
 * Stephan Schulz
 * Atmoz (political hostility to Cato)
 * Apis O-tang
 * William M. Connolley (contributor to RC)

They attack the Cato and Heartland quotes as a) not reliable, b) not notable, c) not peer reviewed d) fringe views on science.

Cato, at the very least is reliable (we see their material and scholars published in print - books and radio, and their staff appears on TV as experts. They are notable, see the prior example. Their work is peer reviewed, ask them. They send their more academic work to like minded individuals, just as the real academics do. Dr. Patrick Michaels is also a former academic, college professor, climate researcher and a writer for the IPCC. How much more reliable, notable, maintstream and peer reviewed do you have to get? Furthermore, the quotes were not quotes on science but quotes on the quality or material of RealClimate.org. Those opinions are not fringe views. Nor is the opinion of PJM who asserts that global warming is real, man made (in part) but not as bad as some alarmists make it out to be. (LVAustrian (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC))

KDP's opinion is illogical: he holds the assumption that only climate scientists in peer reviewed climate journals can old reliable and noteworthy opinions on non-peer reviewed climate blogs/and climate subjects. Other than being nonsensical this of course would imply that any RealClimate quote on any article would have to be removed and replaced with a quote from a peer reviewed article. It would also imply that all quotes on climate science must come from peer reviewed sources. Since Dr. Michaels quote has been excluded by him, and others, this further implies that even scientists with peer reviewed work cannot hold opinions on climate science with blogs, lectures, tv appearances, radio shows, newspaper articles or opinion columns. Drawing from her logic, the only reasonable quote, to her, comes directly from a peer reviewed journal. This would mean the wholesale rewriting of thousands of wikipedia articles. His opinion is absurd. Most of the other opinions seeking to eliminate this criticism draw from similar lines of reasoning.
 * First of all - as in the "naming of cats above" you are confusing me with someone (apparently), since i am male. Secondly, on the assumption that you are talking about me: You are attributing opinion to me, that i have never uttered, written, don't hold, and in all likelihood will never utter/write/hold or otherwise agree with. Try to actually read what i've written. (quite frankly i would doubt if you were talking about me, if the initials hadn't been mine (and that no one else has such)). I suggest that you try to read the policies that i've referred to in my postings (WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:WEIGHT). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read those articles. Your opposition to inclusion of criticism does not follow any logical interpretation of those articles. Your claims are baseless at best and most likely stem from not fully understanding the rules or arbitrarily applying what rules you like (merely an observation at this point). You see, any time you make a claim you have underlying assumptions in order to justify those claims. I’m merely pointing out what those justifications must be and demonstrating them to be illogical. The point was updated well before you made those comments. See below (LVAustrian (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Now i'm going to try to explain again, pay attention: Cato is not a reliable source, Michaels is a climate scientist, while Cato cannot be cited for their opinion about RC (since they A) !WP:RS B) because they have close to zero relevance), Michaels may (because of the exceptions to WP:SPS (the expert clause)), but to include criticism, you will have to address the merits of such critique: is it a single person? are the views widely shared by other RS's? ... (that is the WP:WEIGHT problem - and one that so far no one has even attempted to address). Now what is the difference between citing RC, and citing Michaels on some scientific issue? (and that is all we can use Michaels and RC for) One of them represents the scientific mainstream (we can see that from various other critiques by rather highly regarded sources), and the other represents a minority position on the science (which is also rather easy to show from most sources that cite him). (and again this is WP:WEIGHT)
 * WP:NPOV does not mean "equal time" to pro's and con's. Sorry. The common name for the "equal time" thing is False balance. I hope you understand now what my position is. And please if you do not understand my arguments - ask on the my talk-page, instead of trying to give some strange interpretation that lies lightyears away from what i've said.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your argument and it is just more partisan nonsense. The premise of your argument is faulty and illogical in comparison to what you are willing to include and your own comments. In addition to what I've said before: A) Cato Institute studies multiple issues including economics, urban development, international affairs, labor, history, philosophy and climate science. They are known as a multidisciplinary research institute. Have a logically consistent political philosophy as the background does not make them irrelevant or unreliable. Furthermore, your very strict interpretation leads to one logical conclusion on who can comment on the RC - that would be limited to only those organizations which strictly research climate. Thus, to be consistant, you would have to remove references from technocrati and the popular science magazine. The editors, based on your logic, would not be reliable enough to comment on the rc.
 * Nevertheless your point is a redherring. The Cato Institute, like RC, and your favorite little science magazine are merely platforms for opinions to be expressed. Dr. Michaels is the one holding the opinion - it just so happens Cato Institute shares it - afterall they employ him and publish his work. Additionally the new article link is from the Guardian. Are you suggesting we should get rid of articles from the Guardian? Are they not reliable enough? Or is it just opinion articles in the guardian? That brings me back to the opinion article generated in your science magazine. Why include that but not the guardian article?


 * No matter how you spin this KDP you are not logically consitant. You are attempting to squelch dissent because you do not like negative opinions of the RC. Its as simple as that. Your basis for exclusion are faulty and illogical and there is no way you can spin that fact.


 * In regards to equal weight, etc. You misunderstand the policy. In order for you to win that case and keep out the dissent on those grounds you have to prove that Dr. Michaels has a minority view which is so overthetop or "out there" that he is conducting pseudoscience. Frankly, there are enough scientists out there who are not participating in the Mann/Hansen/Gavin alarmist politicized hysteria to note that even if he is in the minority it is not such a fringe view that his opinions cannot be included. Suggesting that people may be hyping the dangers of climate change is not akin to saying the earth is flat. That is what you have to prove in order to keep Dr. Michaels out. You cannot do that because it simply isn't true. (LVAustrian (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

UPDATE: It appears I'm wrong. ScientificAMerican is simply a popular magazine, and has no peer reviewed work. This means KDP's opinion is nonsense no matter how you look at it. He had a non peer reviewed journal giving an editorial opinion on a climate blog but excludes a climate scientists personal opinion written on a political website. He is reaching to find any excuse. I can find no logic to her assumptions. It now rests on whether or not Cato is reliable and noteworthy. Given their publication history and appearance in the news media this would appear so. The next defense would be the minority view defense. Suggesting that Dr. Michaels holds a vew that is held by such a small percentage of the scientific community would be her only defense to exclude his opinion. Of course, Dr. Michaels believes global warming is real (mainstream) that humans are contributing to global warming (mainstream) that future warming will be mild and along the lower end of the IPCC projections (fairly mainstream, its an IPCC projection afterall) that climate modeling is not accurate (fairly mainstream as well, many scientists admit this). Perhaps his minority view is that some scientists have been overstating the case. That is not sufficient warrant to prevent his opinion from being heard. (LVAustrian (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Kim is male William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Connolley
More on him. Not only was he a contributor to the RC his name appears in the CRU email hacks. Maybe that is all meaningless...I'm not accusing him of anything but lacking impartiality.

CRU email hacking -   - Hi William. It's my understanding that the Climate Research University e-mail hacking incident touches directly on you, in that there was an attempt to hack RealClimate and in that some of your emails were among those hacked. I'm going to ask that you step back from editing our article on Climate Research University e-mail hacking incident and contribute at the talk page instead - I think this is close enough to sort of thing described in WP:COI to warrant attention. There are lots of eyes, both administrative and editorial, on the article, and plenty of attention on various noticeboards, so I don't think that restricting your participation on the article is going to leave the article neglected. I think some of the traffic on that page has been unreasonable in its tone, but nonetheless may have a valid point in that it would be best to restrain yourself from editing the article directly. MastCell Talk 20:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC) -   - : Yes, my name is in there, though as far as I'm aware in such an uninteresting way that no-one has noticed (actually it touches directly on MWP and LIA in IPCC reports but no-one has noticed. So I'm not sure I agree with your assessment. But I'm happy to let others deal with as much of the septic junk as possible William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

RE e-mail
Looks like you got the answer. It's not like WMC has been trying to hide this fact or who he is. I can't see that there has been any COI violation. In general I think conflict of interest is a far bigger problem with anonymous editors like you and me. For all we know you could be Patrick Michaels from the Cato institute and I could be Al Gore. Not to mention all the anonymous IP's and socks that might be editing. —Apis (talk ) 08:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the discussions. However, I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is a controversial article with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not. --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am trying to do that. That is why I posted the individual in question to the discussion page, not the main article. I was not sure how to address the issue. KDP and SS have not been willing to offer constructive criticism. (LVAustrian (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I find it extremely frustrating trying to work on this article as well. Constructive criticism appears to be a rarity there. --Ronz (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So let me try again - even though i think i've explained it already: To be included on the list, there are certain criteria:
 * The scientist must be notable. (here means that the scientist must have an article/biography on WP)
 * The scientist must have written at least one paper on natural sciences.
 * A quote, in the scientists own words, must unambiguously contradict one of the base criteria:
 * The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.
 * "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[2]
 * If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise of 9 cm to 88 cm, excluding "uncertainty relating to ice dynamical changes in the West Antarctic ice sheet". On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.
 * Your discussion on Eugina Kalnay fails #1 and #3 --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That is your best attempt to explain something yet. Thank you for taking the time. (LVAustrian (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Seriously...
You made accusations against me. Now either you need to apologise for your false accusations or you need to explain them in some rational way. Guettarda (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You reverted my addition of the geological graph. There is nothing to appologize for. You deleted it. I complained. End of story, go away. (LVAustrian (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC))


 * No, we have already established that I did not revert your addition. We have already established that.  You said that you were not the anon.  In case you weren't aware, the section you blanked it still in the page history.  So seriously - stop making up nonsense and explain why you are making these accusations.  Guettarda (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a real pattern of bad faith on your part that's got to stop. Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming&action=historysubmit&diff=330409775&oldid=330407866 now go away. (LVAustrian (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Seriously dude - that wasn't what we were discussing. Stop dredging up ancient history.  We were talking about this edit.  We were talking about my revert of the anon's edit.  Seriously - your bad-faith accusations and insistence on wasting people's time need to stop.  Guettarda (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about that edit, I undid the edit where you removed my chart. This isn't that hard to follow. Stop wasting my time. (LVAustrian (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Dude, seriously. I realise you're just here to waste people's time.  I went so far as to provide a diff for the edit, to clarify what were were discussing.  Obviously you are only here to waste people's time.  I see that you have no interest in contributing to this project to write an encyclopaedia.  But then, I suppose it was foolish of me to assume otherwise.  The evidence was pretty clear even before you started making nonsense up.  Very well.  I have no time for people who can't even be bothered with basic honesty.  Guettarda (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

1) I replace a short term graph with a long term graph 2) You revert that change 3) Some one else makes some changes 4) You revert their changes 5) I return some time later and put the graph back in 6) You revert that as well.

This is not hard to follow. Please do not add anything to my discussion page again.(LVAustrian (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Settle down
You are over the line on RealClimate. I agree with you on the weight issue but I can't agree with your tactics. Please stop. ATren (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right, I should. I'm going to step away for awhile. KDP is too aggravating to deal with at the moment. They keep stretching wiki rules and making up new excuses. This has been going on for 2 years on this article. No criticism is good enough.(LVAustrian (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Re: your email
Sorry, it takes a while to process those requests. They are generally answered in roughly the order in which they arrive, though more complex cases are sometimes skipped. Reverting a tag is still reverting, and subject to the three revert rule just like any other edit that substantively reverses another editor's contributions; additionally, WP:Edit warring indicates that three reverts in any 24 hour period is sufficient but not necessary evidence of edit warring. I spent about a half an hour on your block, mostly weighing extenuating factors and deciding whether to block anyone else or to protect the article. On the scale of hotly disputed articles, it is pretty quiet right now with decent talkpage participation, which hopefully indicates that protection will not be necessary. If you agree not to jump right back into edit warring at RealClimate or any other article, I will happily unblock you myself; you can also add the template unblock to this page to request review (though please read the advice at Guide to appealing blocks).

To any uninvolved administrator: please consider the above my endorsement of your judgment in this matter. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to note that I did not come back to this article until December 14th. I simply walked away from Wikipedia. The edit war has continued without me, as it has been going on for 2 years already...before I even came along. (LVAustrian (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC))