User talk:Tillman

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Trinity nuclear test, 1945

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Trinity explosion2.jpeg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 09:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. And well done yourself on finding that bigger version and getting it up there. It did amazingly well. --jjron (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Historic images

Thanks for uploading some interesting historic images! If you haven't already, I suggest you check out Wikimedia Commons. For free licensed images (such as old public domain/US government images, etc) you can upload them directly there. Why? They will then be availible not only here on the English language Wikipedia, but also for Wikipedias in other languages, other Wikimedia projects, etc-- and putting them into any article here on the English language Wikipedia is still just as easy; do exactly the same as if it was uploaded here. Commons also has categories and galleries, allowing useful images to be found in multiple ways. Check it out, and let me know if I can be of help. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree! It saves a lot of effort having to reload them! Philly jawn (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I'm now uploading all new PD images to Commons -- Pete Tillman (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Trinity and Brixner

I just called up his daughter and asked her for information. I did that for about a dozen people so far. Its a lot easier than combing though archives to get a day and place of birth. Once you have the info its easier to confirm with a Google search, no one has refused to talk yet. I can't even get my own family members to cooperate on family history, so its nice when others do it. Have you ever cold called someone? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 64587bbede7c9e72dad9a261e031f445

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Planchas de Plata (etc)

Thanks for your additions to the mining articles. I have never been to Planchas de Plata myself. A friend and I made a half-hearted stab at it years ago, but we could not find our way over the dirt roads from Nogales. It would be fun to see it. Plazak (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Pete,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Trinity explosion2.jpeg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 26, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-11-26. howcheng {chat} 06:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Great image uploading

For Good Works on Uploading Images
Presented by SilkTork

Thanks for putting the new image in George Harrison. I had a look at what else you have done, and see that you have been responsible for tracking down and uploading some fine images. I would second the comment above that many of the images you upload would be useful at Commons, and that it would be helpful to upload new images there, and to seriously consider moving some of your existing 'pedia images over there. Though on Commons the images must be free use - usable by everyone, so more care needs to be exercised on what is allowable. Anyway - keep up the good work!

I've given you a Wiki award which you may display on your user page! SilkTork *^YES! 14:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, I've given you rollback. Remember only to use it for blatant vandalism, and revert manually when the edit is in good faith. You can test it out here. I also suggest you warn vandals with vandal warning templates. If you have any questions, please ask. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 02:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Art images

Wow, kudos to you for all the images added! I confess that I haven't really figured out WikiCommons - it's not as user-friendly as Wikipedia proper. I know low-rez images of art can be used as non-free fair use images, but haven't quite figured out the rules, so I stick to photos I've taken of public art or art in museums that allow photography. Michael Kabotie's passing is just shocking, since he was so active beforehand. Now that I think about it, there's a John Hoover sculpture that I have access too. Have a good evening! -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Regarding the Annie Antone image, as long as the image is low-rez (i.e. no one could replicate her design based on a photograph), I believe it would be regarded as your photograph of a 3-D art form. I'd suggest uploading the file at Wikimedia Commons. The photograph would be "entirely your own work." For permission you could put it into public domain by typing in: "{ { pd-self } }" (without the spaces). For anything before 1923, I enter "{ { pd-old } }" (also without the spaces) for the permission. Hope this helps! The Heard would be a good spot to photo more artists. Cheers, Uyvsdi (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Thanks for the tips. Too bad I'm such a rotten photographer. Usually, if I don't forget the camera entirely, the batteries have gone dead.

Lo-res, eh? Well, I could use the phone-cam! Too bad I have absolutely no clue as to how to export fotos from the phone....

Hmm. Actually, this computer has a webcam, which actually is (sort of) easy to use. I could try that for in-house art fotos. Hmm² --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Harrison Begay

Nice job! I encourage you to do more. Still quite a few redlinks on that page. Even initiating a stub is productive. I urge caution in linking to commercial pages explicitly selling items. Amerindianarts (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It's surprising how many first-rate artists don't yet have Wikipages. OTOH, it takes a lot of work to put together a decent one (as I just rediscovered). Good projects for bad-weather days.

I'll only link to commercial galleries when I can't find a decent noncommercial one -- and then only to low-pressure ones. But I take your point. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The Curator Barnstar

		The Curator Barnstar
		Thanks for locating all these historical images and writing fair use rationale for them as well! Uyvsdi (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Gadsden hotel

Hi Mr. Tillman, This is Robin Brekhus, The manager of the Gadsden for 22 years and I'm in a social networking class and checked out the Hotel on Wikipedia,(I didn't even know we were on there!), and I can't thank you enough for adding the photos and links to the Gadsden! It is wonderful. Once again, THANKS! If you're ever back in Douglas, stop in and I'll buy you a drink! Robin Brekhus robin@hotelgadsden.com

Thanks for the star

And all the great contributions I see you have made. :) Unomi (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hockey Stick

Glad to see an experienced editor take a look at this article. Good luck! David.Kane (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to try to do this without stirring up the controversy that usually goes with editing climate-change articles. I hope... --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Thank You Barnstar
		Thanks for being the first person to award The Geology Barnstar. It's the first barnstar I've made, and I was nervous about it. Gyrobo (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable artists

If you ever feel brave, try tackling List of Native American artists. I tried to get people from the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America to look at it, but no one would. It's a complete mess! Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Heh. I'm mostly doing mineral photos lately -- see these for some teasers. Great stuff. Who needs artists? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

=

Category:Shinkolobwe Mine

Thank you very much for these nice photographs of uranium minerals. Appreciated, :-), Cheers, Shinkolobwe (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Tillmann's it

As u r the only one of the Wikiprojekt Geology with a mineral name (Tillmannsite (Ag₃Hg)(V,As)O₄), I thought u might want to create the article :D cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverts on Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Hello. I wish to inform you that you've reverted my edits twice on Climatic Research Unit email controversy within 24 hours:

• 02:52, 27 April 2011 Tillman (talk | contribs) (104,096 bytes) (Pull manuf controv stuff & remove tag. See talk, last two sections) (undo)[1]
• 03:51, 26 April 2011 Tillman (talk | contribs) (103,366 bytes) (CJR: not appropriate for lead per consensus at Talk)[2]

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have reverted two of mine as well:

• diff
• diff

Perhaps we should both take a break, eh? I'm done for the day. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My preference is to come to a compromise. I have already said I will agree to add a modified version of your FOIA material to the lead if you can show it is significant by way of secondary sources. And you should also consider a modified version that summarizes the media reception. I'm not trying to push a POV. I'm trying to summarize the main points of the article. Perhaps you could do some research on the media controversy and write it in your own words. I'm willing to help add the FOIA content if I can find the right source. I see that the topic of FOIA is touched upon in the article, but it reads as a function of recentism rather than something important. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. There are (ims) plenty of 2ry sources for the ICO stuff. I'm surprised none are cited. And I would greatly prefer collegiality & cooperation to confrontation. Perhaps you could tone down your talk comments a bit? They read pretty abrasive, at times.

Might be a day or two to get back to this stuff. Travel tomorrow & then again this weekend. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I might add some material about the FOIA if I can find some good sources. You're always free to improve it. I'm going to add transparency to the list of criticisms in the lead (Pooley 2010) as this word keeps coming up in the secondary sources as one of the main criticisms. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Samuari Video

The discussion on whether or not to include Suzuki's video in the Suzuki v. Consumers Union article has been reopened, leaving you a note in case you want to review and participate. Regards, ThatSaved (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see, we lost the photo of the test as well. I think I have another that might fly as FU. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:One Man's West.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:One Man's West.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

CRU email controversy

Can you take two weeks off from this article please? It might not be entirely your fault that the general conduct (with persistent IDHT, battlefield conduct, etc.) has deteriorated, but I feel that unfortunately, you have played a fair role in it. This message is also being posted on the talk pages of Viritidas and Pete Tillman. NW (Talk) 15:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have violated 1RR, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=432767732&oldid=432764289 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=432873968&oldid=432870459 . Please be careful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Arthur. I've self-reverted. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Viriditas: just what part of WP:No Personal Attacks do you not understand? This is an extraordinary outburst, that I'll be copying to a private file.

Could you please help me see where this so-called personal attack occurred and why my comment is considered an "extraordinary outburst" by yourself? And more importantly, what could possibly merit copying it to a private file? I would just love some help understanding this, Tillman. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me help you out here Viriditas. You said, Your comments reveal you are pushing an extreme fringe theory that even the most public deniers gave up on years ago. Calling someone a 'denier' is offensive, as is publicly asserting that someone is a 'extreme fringe theorist' or a 'conspiracy theorist'. It's the same as saying someone is stupid &/or dishonest, and given that Pete was simply making a point about what is and what isn't well sourced or neutral language in Wikipedia, it was just a tad uncalled for too. You then proceeded, knowing that Pete is a geologist, to insult him professionally: I realize that many geologists went to their graves refusing to believe in continental drift ... but AGW has had a solid consensus for 15 years now. Then you disrespected him as is your habit by addressing him with his surname: Tillman, you are in clear violation of FRINGE and undue.

Since I have diffs showing you've been treating all editors whom you think are 'skeptics' (including one who most certainly isn't a skeptic) in the same way since the beginning of April, and have made, on my count, over 30 personal attacks, it might actually be a good idea to ask yourself if perhaps there really is some part of NPA that you don't understand. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice cherry picking, Alex. Tillman posted a comment explaining why he made a revert. I responded with "Tillman, your edits and reasons for making them are not supported...Your comments reveal you are pushing an extreme fringe theory that even the most public deniers gave up on years ago." This is not a personal attack. Tillman's comments deny what is in the sources and call a news story in Scientific American an "opinion...from a magazine notorious for pro-AGW bias" which he labels as "unsuitable" Tillman then, bizarrely, requests that we substitute a primary source for a secondary. All of this shows a major misunderstanding as to how Wikipedia works and how we identify and evaluate reliable sources. Alex, your opinion that calling another editor out on their climate denial is a "personal attack" is unsupported. It is supported by Tillman's own words and edits. The statement that "geologists went to their graves refusing to believe in continental drift" is a popular history of science anecdote, and historians of science like Naomi Oreskes use the concept of continental drift as a historical parallel to the weight of evidence that led scientists to accept anthropogenic climate change. In her book, The Rejection of Continental Drift (1999) she describes, unbelievably, how deniers of plate tectonics like Harold Jeffreys held out until 1989, even though the scientific community accepted it by the early 1960s. That many geologists went to their graves refusing to consider new evidence is now a common expression in public discourse:

• "...the most important contribution to Earth sciences in the last four decades may be the discovery of seafloor-spreading and plate teconics. And yet, some distinguished Earth scientists went to their graves unconvinced of the evidence.[3]
• "Some geologists went to their graves not accepting that the continents move. Science progresses nonetheless, by the accumulation of evidence and the testing of hypotheses that account for it. Today it is difficult to find an article in geology that begins by allowing that plate tectonics is only one possible model among many other equally plausible ones - even though 40 years ago the theory was as hotly contested."[4]

Alex, calling a user by their user name is not a form of disrespect. This discussion is obviously not going to bear fruit because neither you nor Tillman will recognize the problem. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, I suggest you seek input from an uninvolved third party as to whether or not what I highlighted above is acceptable or not. Also have a look at William Connolley's 'Naming of Cats' since he has strong views on what is and what isn't polite when addressing editors who uses their real names. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I agree that I can work on being more polite. I will put that at the top of my to-do list. While I'm busy doing that, I would invite you to study and review Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. I can't help but notice that every single time myself or another editor tries to discuss and address a topic, you and others try to change the topic from that of an encyclopedic subject to one of editors and contributors. Then, you turn around and claim that we are making personal attacks or engaging in incivility. I'm tired of your game, Alex. From now on, please expect me to address the topic only and nothing else. I will not be baited or drawn into your little civil POV pushing trap anymore. Viriditas (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate any sort of concession from you by now, you still don't seem to have understood. Your apology is followed by another personal attack. You are claiming that I am not acting in good faith, and that I have a secret agenda, which implies that I am not honest. For what it's worth, although I believe you've violated NPOV in about 10 different ways in your new lead, I have no doubt you believe what you're doing is right. I don't think you're being dishonest in putting forward your arguments; I just think you're not listening to what others are saying, because you've made up your mind that they're not acting in good faith. What you need to figure out is why I would waste my spare time doing something I didn't believe in just to annoy you. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What we have here is a breakdown in communication. I did not say any of this. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What Alex said ;-]. V, you really need to get a clue that no one (or at least not Alex, me, or Arthur, sfaik) is out to "get" you, and your constant, petulant, weird personal attacks are wearing. Please stop doing this.

Do recall, this is supposed to be a pleasant, educational hobby, not a grim slog through ranks of Denier Enemies.... I'm reasonably sure everyone active at the page now truly wants to improve it. We do have different ideas of how, but, you know, that's how this place operates. I was hopeful that this page could be rewritten so as to be fair and readable. Now I'm just trying to see that it doesn't get worse than before. Sigh. --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you give me an example of what you consider to be a fair and readable secondary source on this subject? Since we write articles based on good sources, it would be a necessary prerequisite. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] One that immediately comes to mind is Fred Pearce's long Climategate series for the Guardian, but even he didn't get everything right. But we rightfully rely on his report extensively. Another would be Weart's Discovery of Global Warming, though it's not directly applicable to this article.

But the readability (and balance) of our article is really up to us. For an example of just how bad it can be, try reading "Information Commissioner's Office". Wikipedia is, of course, prose by committee, so we can't expect miracles, but we can do better than this. I hope.

Your own writing style is clear and readable. Where you fall down sometimes (in my view) is in the "Fair & Balanced" department. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the constructive criticism. Since you are the second major contributor to Heaven and Earth, the so-called "bible" of the climate change denial movement, I'm sure your sole interest in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy is to bring fairness and balance to the topic, so perhaps I should ask you for advice on how to proceed. Viriditas (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas: please WP: Assume good faith. Your constant Battlefield mentality is corrosive and tiresome. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is you who appears to fighting a battle, as your latest edit to the disputed article indicates in spades. Please stop accusing others of your misdeeds. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Viriditas: you cause no (or not much) offense by addressing me by my surname. Other than that, if you really can't tell why your comments are offensive, you really, really need to work on your Wiki-etiquette, your basic civility skills, and perhaps your common sense too. I hope you improve. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

1RR violation notification

Tillman, for the second day in a row, you are in violation of the 1RR editing restriction per the probation sanctions on Climatic Research Unit email controversy. I recommend that you self-revert yourself immediately. You have made a total of three reverts for June 8, 2011. It is evident that you are still having great difficulty understanding what a revert is and how to avoid it. I will therefore be reporting you. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, IB you are confused re IRR. Please see Kim Peterson's discussion at talk:

Policy does address closely-related edits, with this: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I will grant you that this is a confusing rule. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Tillman, you have explicitly and unambiguously violated the 1RR. I have reported you here. Please make a sincere effort to learn what a revert is and how to avoid breaking the 1RR in the future. Of course you are welcome to avoid any enforcement by self-reverting, in which case I will ask for a warning not a block. Right now, I'm asking for your block. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

Fox News, Clive Hamilton, Michael Calderone etc.

You have not responded to my repeated queries for you to explain your reverts on the CRU talk page. Because you have been ignoring my requests for 48 hours now, I have no choice but to bring my requests to your talk page. If you dislike that, feel free to answer them on the article talk page.

There are multiple topics and issues at play here, but let's begin with the easiest one so as to develop a common ground of discourse where we can work towards agreement. I will begin with your revert of the Clive Hamilton material. Recently, you removed the following statement from the CRU article without any explanation:

Clive Hamilton of Charles Sturt University observed that news outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch played a major role in airing attacks on climate scientists during the controversy.

It appears to me that you have not performed the slightest bit of research on this topic. If you had, you would have quickly discovered that politicians on the left and right, journalists of every stripe, and publications across the spectrum all agree on one thing—that news outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch were responsible for propagating the climategate scandal meme more than any other media outlet. If you are seriously questioning this fact, then I suggest you begin by doing some research because your reverts tell me you are editing from your own personal bias rather than from the sources. For example, Chris Mooney writes:

In the ensuing scandal after the e-mails became public, top climate scientists were accused of withholding information, suppressing dissent, manipulating data, and worse, particularly by right wing media and blogs. The controversy garnered dramatic press attention, especially on outlets like Fox News.[5]

As you may or may not be aware, Fox News sent out memos—leaked memos covered by secondary sources—issuing instructions to their anchors and reporters to spin the story towards climate skepticism and doubt. According to Yahoo's senior media reporter Michael Calderone:

In December 2009, the Fox News executive instructed staff to include skepticism of climate change data in their reporting. The memo came just 15 minutes after Fox correspondent Wendell Goler accurately said on-air that the UN's World Meteorological Organization found that 2000-2009 was "on track to be the warmest [decade] on record."[6]...The Sammon memo was sent around the same time as "ClimateGate," a controversy fueled by conservative media that Fox News seemed to cover far more than other networks.

The attacks on climate scientists emanating from the news outlets owned by Murdoch gathered steam as Copenhagen began, and continued day after day, week after week, month after month, until the results of the investigations appeared a year later, with little to no reports ever made covering the exoneration of the scientists. Do you question this chain of events? Because if you do, I will suggest that you haven't looked at the sources on this subject. It's part of the historical record. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Pls post this material at the article talk page, and I'll reply there. See WP:BRD and WP:BOP. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No. There are already multiple threads open on that page requiring your comment that you either refuse to respond to or continue to ignore. It's put up or shut up time. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

1rr

I saw your comment on the ANI thread - all the revert rules are on a reverts per page basis - so if you reverted two different editors, you'll still be in violation of the 1rr. Kevin (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I'll never get this stuff straight. Confused by the ". Undoing another editor's work—" business, I guess. Or just dumb. I'll self-revert one in a moment. Thanks! --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You've just violated the 1RR for the third day in a row with your reinsertion of the syn tag at 17:41, 8 June 2011. This is the third time you've added the tag, and you've reverted its removal by two editors, myself and SBHB. Please self-revert immediately. 1RR means you can only make one revert a day, not three. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record the diff of your personal attack can be found here. On article talk pages, we do not refer to editors in headings:

Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user. (WP:TALKNEW)

Furthermore, we do not attack editors on the talk page as you did with "Continuing his usual pattern, Viriditas..." Please review WP:NPA so that it does not happen again. Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your misuse of dispute templates

You are continuing to misuse dispute templates against best practices, and you have even violated the 1RR while doing it. Recently, you added both the {{POV-statement}} and {{syn}} templates in violation of their recommended use.

Whenever one adds a pov-statement tag, the template documentation says that:

The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor

The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame.
This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to misrepresent the views of high-quality reliable sources in the subject. The personal beliefs of Wikipedia's editors are irrelevant.
Do not add this to a page more than a reasonable number of times, instead use one of the other templates mentioned below instead.

In regards to your use of the syn tag, the documentation says

When a given editor adds this template he or she must concurrently add corresponding text to the tagged article's talk page to explain their concerns relative to original research for the given tagged text unless talk already exists relative to such concerns. If a given article has been tagged and the tagging editor doesn't ensure that corresponding article talk relative to the tag isn't either already available or added within a short amount of time (ie: no more than 24 hours) then fellow editors are within their rights to remove the tag or alternatively, add talk in support of its use.

You do not appear to have read the documentation for the template, even though you have been asked over and over again to explain your edits on the talk page. In cases where there is a discussion on the talk page about certain aspects of your concerns, you have either failed to followup on that discussion, or have continued to ignore the points raised there. Please do not continue to add dispute templates without immediately rebooting or starting a new thread about your concerns. What seems to be happening here, is that your concerns have been addressed, but you are ignoring the previous discussion and continuing to disrupt the article. This cannot continue. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)