User talk:Samsee

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify this was the sentence you changed:

"The detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus[10][11] identifies elevated levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity as the main influence"

You changed what the cited scientific consensus was (from main influence to one of the influences) even though the attribution was the same. You can't do that. If you want to introduce the idea that the scientific consensus is that human activity is just one of the influences you will need to provide new sources as the ones given do not say that or any variation on it.Zebulin (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, 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 Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I reverted your addition of a new sentence (and a good source) in the lead of Global warming and explained my revert on Talk:Global warming. Although I think that your conclusion from the article was incorrect, and I think any complete description of the article would be far too unwieldy to go into the lead section of global warming, I am glad you found and added that source. I do think it needs to be used in an article or section describing past climate modeling (but not future climate modeling, as it wasn't about future climate modeling). Hopefully, we can work together to put it in a good place. I know there is a lot of reverting that goes on at global warming, and I hope that it hasn't turned you off from editing this encyclopedia; it's a very high profile article, that gets lots of edits, and it's a such a good article that its even featured, so it isn't easy to make an edit that improves the article. It's easier to improve badly written and organized articles (of which there are many), and your work even on global warming is very welcome, even if the editors there (including me) are a revert happy bunch. Enuja (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming/FAQ
Howdy, I noticed your edit to the Talk:Global warming/FAQ. I believe the intent of the page is to represent the consensus of editors, which your edit does not appear to be in line with. As such, I have reverted it. Also be mindful of the three revert rule, which forbids more than 3 reverts in any 24 hour period (by any one editor). Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note that being unreferenced (alone) is not really a good reason to remove a section, unless it is unlikely that the section could be referenced. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The page seems to receive additions willy-nilly, without any proper consensus considerations. It's misleading to say it does. ~ UBeR (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Global warming
My, you seem to have an interest with the global warming article.

That's fine, and I appreciate your interest. I must warn you though, changing the lead of the article can create qualm for some editors. I would advise that you first try to change the body of the article, as the information in the lead should be explained in more detail later in the body. Even more preferable would be if you edited the relevant article first--for example the effects of global warming. It'd be proper to discuss changes to the lead, or any changes for that matter (though not always necessary). See here to find relevant policies and guidelines. I hope you do consider my suggestions for a more enjoyable stay at global warming.

Again though, welcome. ~ UBeR (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)