User talk:71.211.241.40

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello 71.211.241.40, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --TeaDrinker 09:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Warning

Stop adding biased content to Wikipedia, as you are doing to Global warming controversy. If you continue, you will be BANNED from editing.

Chrisch 02:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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.

Chrisch 02:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Biased! Please, I documented and refered to the specific grant on the Catalog For Domestic Assistance. The only part that might be biased is the commentary "Increasing funds for research based grants are driven by political considerations and lobbying having nothing to do with the scientific validity of the issue at hand," and that has been removed.

71.211.241.40 20:09, 28 December 2006 (MST)

71.211.241.40 said: 'The only part that might be biased is the commentary "Increasing funds for research based grants are driven by political considerations and lobbying having nothing to do with the scientific validity of the issue at hand"'

... and you wonder why you got warned about being biased...

Also note that the positioning of your edit let it to seem even more biased, so you may wish to watch that in the future.

Chrisch 03:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last warning

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Global warming controversy, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Chrisch 02:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Position

It was positioned exactly the same way the section following it was done. I used the same format and, rather than going one endlessly, posted the factual elements. As I work in and for the government, the commentary would be expert opinion, however, as that is not established or documented, it makes sense to leave it out.

71.211.241.40 03:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Personal Attacks

Wiki has a policy of WP:NPA no personal attacks, which you last paragraph of [1] clearly violates. Please be polite; and take 24h off to think about it William M. Connolley 11:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)