Revision as of 20:11, 25 June 2015 editMann jess (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,672 edits fix wording← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:17, 25 June 2015 edit undoTillman (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,591 edits reply to Jess, NPOVNext edit → | ||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
::See . I have no idea what your last sentence is supposed to mean. I also see no attempt on your part to actually discuss the dispute or respond to others. ] discusses "climate change skepticism" explicitly by name. Why would it not be the appropriate target? — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 20:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | ::See . I have no idea what your last sentence is supposed to mean. I also see no attempt on your part to actually discuss the dispute or respond to others. ] discusses "climate change skepticism" explicitly by name. Why would it not be the appropriate target? — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 20:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
:::Jess, consensus appears to be against you, in your continued attempts to override the long-standing consensus that climate-skeptical topics are best redirected to ]. Not only that, you have accused an editor of edit-warring at his first appearance here, . Perhaps you should look in the mirror? | |||
:::You requested a reply to the substance of why editors object to your poposal. Try following ]. The first line at the redirect (to CC Denial) says, | |||
::::This article is about campaigns to undermine public confidence in scientific opinion on climate change. ... | |||
:::Not a neutral redirect! Thanks, ] (]) 21:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:17, 25 June 2015
Misdirected
I believe it is wrong to direct this to climate change denial, it implies to people they are the same. It is a pity there is no really good article on this but I think one of the following is probably better
I think Global warming controversy is probably the most appropriate target. Dmcq (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, and have redirected to Global warming controversy. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- ...That post was from 4 years ago, and Dmcq no longer holds that position. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
As the climate change denial now discusses in some detail, the labels generally apply to the same thing. It's implied that there may be some instances where a Climate change skeptic doesn't come under the heading of denial, but specific examples are lacking and that's something to resolve on the climate change denial article with good sources. There certainly doesn't seem to be enough difference to justify what could easily become a povfork. . . dave souza, talk 18:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Mann jess says Dmcq has changed position, so I hereby ping@Dmcq: for confirmation. If it's true, that still doesn't justify Mann jess overriding two other editors and making the all-too-typical accusation that an editor who disagrees is edit warring. As for discussing this on the climate change denial article -- no, I can see by the title of this talk page that this is the talk page for what the contents of the climate change skepticism article should be. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- See here. I have no idea what your last sentence is supposed to mean. I also see no attempt on your part to actually discuss the dispute or respond to others. Climate change denial discusses "climate change skepticism" explicitly by name. Why would it not be the appropriate target? — Jess· Δ♥ 20:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Jess, consensus appears to be against you, in your continued attempts to override the long-standing consensus that climate-skeptical topics are best redirected to global warming controversy. Not only that, you have accused an editor of edit-warring at his first appearance here, diff. Perhaps you should look in the mirror?
- You requested a reply to the substance of why editors object to your poposal. Try following ]. The first line at the redirect (to CC Denial) says,
- This article is about campaigns to undermine public confidence in scientific opinion on climate change. ...
- You requested a reply to the substance of why editors object to your poposal. Try following ]. The first line at the redirect (to CC Denial) says,
- Not a neutral redirect! Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)