Thanks for cleaning up A Watts, I tried years ago, but was overwhelmed by POV pushers. --Theblog (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider refactoring your comments to adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, the usual way to do this sort of drafting is with a user subpage, eg User:Alexh19740110/Lindzenearlydraft. This is easier to edit (you can invite others to contribute too, and then it's definitely easier to keep track) without cluttering up the talk page (which particularly with multiple drafts becomes problematic). Rd232 ^talk 03:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Richard Lindzen.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you make blatantly false accusations of me vandalising content again, I'll escalate. Your obvious attempts to inflate the non-existent qualifications of Watts won't succeed in the long run - Wikipedia requires evidence-based content - not your desperate need to validate anti-science bloggers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonoApe (talk • contribs) 10:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your belief, I'm not 'smearing' Watts - I'm merely motivated to ensure people, such as you, do not inflate and manufacture credibility and non-existent qualifications for someone who works to undermine scientific understanding and spread ignorance amongst others. Far from being overruled by other editors who are scientifically literate, they have undone your constant attempts to insert weasel words and hyperbole.

"If I told you he had a degree in zoology what would you say about that?" - I'd say you're welcome to your fantasies, but it has no place on Wikipedia. Simple, eh? I note that you have not replied to me in the talk pages or responded to the evidence that Watts is not a broadcast meteorologist according to AMS. Unless you have credible evidence, your wishful thinking will not be an acceptable substitute.

Also, I note your hypocrisy in smearing other editors by accusing them of "bias" when they disagree with your evidence-free beliefs. Spoken like a true Denier. --MonoApe (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Stephen McIntyre. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Try to stick to commenting on the content/discussions on content - and leave out the personal attacks, in general an assumption of good faith never hurt.

As for why i comment several places.... They are on my watchlist. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May i remind you again that assumption of good faith is a policy? The last part of this comment is not. In general please refrain from projecting assumed motivations to other peoples actions. Just as you, i have no idea why that was inserted, so i'm going to stay mute in that regard. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Guettarda (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make ridiculous claims like you did here "for the record". I added this simple boilerplate warning to help you avoid falling foul of Wikipedia policy. Guettarda (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Guettarda (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, hi: Why don't you email me at pdtillmanATgmailDOTcom, as this is a public forum, so I can't really be frank. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tillman"

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ► RATEL ◄ 13:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charming, quoting Ratel's talk page: (1) "Attempting to give a damn about your WikiWhining" (2) "Wikipedia Quote/Unquote:

I'm not an admin, don't ever wish to be one, won't ever ask to be nominated to be one (unlike some people) and won't ever accept a nomination to be one. I won't ever kiss an admin's ring and sure don't want anyone else to kiss mine.. well, maybe this one but not the bureaucratic one." So I guess that means you're not in a position to be blocking anyone, only making threats here? Meanwhile, any clues on what the "disruptive comments" or "personal attack" were? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]