HarmonicSeries

I am gradually realizing that some pages don't require strict adherence to policy, while OTHERS (like the sex abuse one) require extreme adherence. Thanks for pointing this out. --StudiousReader (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that one of your recent additions has a small typo: "considers RealClimate.org the "the ...". The word "the" is duplicated. I would make the change myself except that there is some question regarding whether this page is related to my current editing restriction on "William Connolley-related" (the real world person, not the wikipedia editor even though that may sound confusing) pages. --GoRight (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I made a small edit here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Believe_global_warming_is_not_occurring_or_has_ceased

by replacing a short term climate graph with a long term geological temperature graph:

to show that warming has been natural in the past, but not necessarily proving that current warming is not caused by humans today.

The same group of people are busy reverting even this simple edit. The article already had one short term graph. I thought a long term graph would be more appropriate. My current edit includes the two short term graphs and the long term graph.

See [1] reverting [2]. Perhaps you searched for 'tree ring' or something but in any case, a reminder to take care when removing sources and make sure you look carefully. If searching for words, remember possible alternative spellings etc. If article isn't particularly long, may be wise just to read it if you still can't find anything Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the BBC link provided is sloppy reporting, but WP relies on reliable sources, and it qualifies. Please do not revert again, as certain people are looking for excuses to ban people.--SPhilbrickT 18:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)