Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Verbal (talk | contribs) at 10:18, 7 June 2010 (→April 2010: move to right place). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Alternative views C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 February 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives

Nov 2006 – Feb 2008 Mar 2008 – July 2009 July 2009 – May 2010

Rel. source

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/13/specter.denying.science/ - BalthCat (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

user:Verbal see Talk:Denialism/Archive 3#May 2010 I did offer to discuss the changes before I made them by posting to this page on the 20 May. After making the first changes I waited to see if anyone objected. When they did not I made further changes. Those changes have been in place now for several weeks. I have made the changes gradually and incrementally, so that other editors could see what I was doing. You could have chosen to undo some of those changes, but reverting out all the changes is in my opinion not constructive. If you want to go back to an old version then it is up to you do discuss and justify reverting as some of the changes have been there for more than three weeks. In you own words "rvt large changes please discuss per WP:BRD". -- PBS (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I would not archive such recent material in the future. It remains relevant, and users are less likely to check the archives. My URL, for example, is completely useless in the archives, but may be noticed and put to use by someone on the talk page. - BalthCat (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of judgement. But apart my comments which are now linked at the top of this article the only other one since January was this one by you and that was over three weeks old when I archived it. However as it is very small section and if you would not have archived it then I have no problem with restoring it. -- PBS (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Please start a discussion to justify your changes, and people may notice this time. Verbal chat 09:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt BRD is intended to let you undo multiple edits without any justification. Why don't YOU try justifying your changes? (Also be careful with your nesting.) - BalthCat (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

user:Verbal I explained the changes I made both before I made them on the talk page and I also made the changes incrementally and put comments into the history of the article. Please look through the incremental edits I made and explain the ones you object to and we can talk about altering those. But I do not think that you justified in reverting all the changes without explanation.-- PBS (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Please justify your changes. Verbal chat 06:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on the changes I have made. To date your comments have been in the edit history

• 15:45, 5 June 2010 Verbal (Reverted to revision 360774190 by TimVickers; rvt large changes please discuss per WP:BRD. (TW))
• 09:41, 6 June 2010 Verbal (Undid revision 366272298 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) Please justify the changes on the current talk page & discuss)
• 06:20, 7 June 2010 Verbal (Undid revision 366457784 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) rvt large unjustified edits) (undo)

And on this talk page:

• Please start a discussion to justify your changes, and people may notice this time.
• Please justify your changes

I repeat "I explained the changes I made both before I made them on the talk page and I also made the changes incrementally and put comments into the history of the article. Please look through the incremental edits I made and explain the ones you object to and we can talk about altering those. But I do not think that you justified in reverting all the changes without explanation." -- PBS (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it help if I offered to help in discussing the proposed edits? If so, please give a short description of what it is either of you want in/out of the article and why. Cheers.--- Nomen Nescio _{contributions} 10:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, if PBS could give a justification for the removals he would like to make then that would be great. Verbal chat 10:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles