User talk:Gemtpm

You appear to have resumed your edit war at

Climate Skepticism just now [1]. Would you please self-revert as a matter of urgency, and continue arguing your case on the talk page with a view to finding consensus? --TS 18:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

If the page is to be deleted, it should go through the deletion process. The redirect is not agreed, and no, I will not go along with it, for the reasons amply iindicated. If, as you say, you seek to be neutral on Climate Change matters now, take over removing the redirects for me, Tony! Gemtpm (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're new to Wikipedia and obviously cannot be expected to understand our ways. I'll make allowances for that. However I must ask you not to revert that article again, even if somebody recreates the redirect. Your article has been challenged as a POV fork, and you must resolve this by discussion instead of trying to force your opinion on the article through by edit warring. This is a basic minimum conduct requirement that we all have to accept. --TS 18:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I'll leave it to you. It is obvious that people wishing to suppress the sceptics view have indeed deleted/redirected every single attempt to indicate this vast and highly relevant literature. This is a seriouys failure on the part of WP. No one has offered any 'content points' for debate, and I don't suppose there are any to be had - these 'editors' are appearing quite clearly as part of a non-serious lobby pushing their personal beliefs. If you are more serious, then, as I say, you should remove the redirect and ensure that my page, and others in this area, are judged simply on their value as part of a neutral reference source. At present WP provides no guidance as to why a large group of people (and experts in the area) dispute AGW. Okay? Gemtpm (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you duplicated an article that you had created [2] [3], which was subsequently redirected. I've repeated the redirection and suggest that it's counter-productive to repeatedly create such duplicates.

Also I notice that recently you've been making inflammatory statements on talk pages of articles in the topic of climate change:

• 19:22, 17 October 2010: "I see this as attempting to rebalance the awful WC-led coverage fo this issue."

The initials WC clearly refer to an identifiable Wikipedia editor and constitute a personal attack on that person.

We've just had a very long and painstaking arbitration case that mainly addressed this kind of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

).

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 "

talk) 05:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Economics of nuclear power plants may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[The Doomsday Machine (2012 book)|The Doomsday Machine ]] by Martin Cohen and Andrew McKillop ]) that what is often not appreciated in debates about the economics of nuclear power is that the

Thanks,

talk) 11:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gettier problem, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert Chisholm and Martin Cohen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

Paradigm Shift: How Expert Opinions Keep Changing on Life, the Universe and Everything, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martin Cohen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject

.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The turtle on the stick from 101 Philosophy Problems.jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]