User talk:Static623

Re:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident
Your recent edits to this article are not supported by consensus on the issue. Please use the talk page, in particular that thread, to discuss your edits. For what it is worth, your edit was almost identical to that of User:Heyitspeter made approximately 24 hours ago. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While User:Heyitspeter simply deleted the sentences, I moved them to the section allocated to Reactions from Climatologists. I have initiated a discussion under the thread you suggested.
 * And you removed it again. Stop doing that.  It is in the lead for a reason.  Without it, NPOV is violated and the lead remains one-sided.  Please take your objections to the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you do the same - you have said nothing on the discussion - quit pulling undo's without even participating Static623 (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read and understand WP:NPOV. I've discussed the inclusion of this material in various places, so you're wrong.  It is becoming increasingly obvious that your account is only used to make contentious edits. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.