User:Unitanode/GW edit war

Anti-AGW

1. (cur) (prev) 12:10, 2 February 2010 Marknutley (talk | contribs) (127,323 bytes) (As has been explained. remove the source you think not reliable, not an entire section of good faith contributions)
2. (cur) (prev) 10:09, 2 February 2010 Thegoodlocust (talk | contribs) (127,323 bytes) (per WP:NPOV - WMC's reasons for exclusionism have already been explained not to hold water)
3. (cur) (prev) 01:04, 2 February 2010 Thegoodlocust (talk | contribs) (127,323 bytes) (Not a violation of WP:Weigh. If anything not including it violates NPOV , which is something many editors have noticed about these articles and that is due to such exclusionist tactics)
4. (cur) (prev) 23:27, 1 February 2010 Thegoodlocust (talk | contribs) (127,323 bytes) (Icecap is only one of the sources - remove that if you like, but there are about 5-6 other sources.)
5. (cur) (prev) 23:06, 1 February 2010 Marknutley (talk | contribs) (127,323 bytes) (notability proven McKitrick's chart has been in published papers for years as shown in talk)
6. (cur) (prev) 22:35, 1 February 2010 Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (127,323 bytes) (Undid revision 341329314 by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk) I disagree with the removal; see talk page)
7. (cur) (prev) 18:21, 1 February 2010 Marknutley (talk | contribs) (127,184 bytes) (rv remove the one ref you don`t like, do not remove entire section of good faith contributions, go to talk first.)
8. (cur) (prev) 09:45, 1 February 2010 Thegoodlocust (talk | contribs) (127,184 bytes) (The other person removed the other references when altering it - not sure why. And yes this is a notable criticism Stephen and I think I'm more aware of skeptical arguments)

Stats

Marknutley = 3 reverts

Thegoodlocust = 4 reverts

Arthur Rubin = 1 revert

Pro-AGW

1. (cur) (prev) 11:38, 2 February 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (125,993 bytes) (rv: as before: not a RS)
2. (cur) (prev) 08:55, 2 February 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (125,993 bytes) (rv: all the obvious reasona laready given)
3. (cur) (prev) 00:27, 2 February 2010 Yilloslime (talk | contribs) (125,993 bytes) (Undid revision by Thegoodlocust. 1) Clearly, there's no consensus to include this factoid (yet). 2) this criticism is not on par with the other critiques of GW. including like this violates [[WP:WEIGH)
4. (cur) (prev) 23:11, 1 February 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (125,993 bytes) (rv: per Kim: icecap still not even vaguely close to RS)
5. (cur) (prev) 22:48, 1 February 2010 KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs) (125,993 bytes) (Reverted to revision 341329314 by KimDabelsteinPetersen; rv "It is the onus of he who adds or readds material to demonstrate notability". using TW)
6. (cur) (prev) 19:46, 1 February 2010 KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs) (125,993 bytes) (Reverted to revision 341254070 by William M. Connolley; rv WP:UNDUE as well as WP:NOTNEWS. This particular issue has almost no adherents, and *none* at all in the science literature. Yes: None..)
7. (cur) (prev) 10:29, 1 February 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (125,993 bytes) (rv: agreeing with Stephan: icecap not even close to RS)
8. (cur) (prev) 09:13, 1 February 2010 Stephan Schulz (talk | contribs) (125,993 bytes) (Icecap is not remotely a RS, nor notable enough for an attributed opinion here.)

Stats

William M. Connolley = 4 reverts

Yilloslime = 1 revert

KimDabelsteinPeterson = 2 reverts

Stephan Schultz = 1 revert