Talk:Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

I don't get this. You want to delete this page because you 'couldn't find evidence it exists'... Their 2008 report is referenced IN THE ARTICLE. Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.140.83.68 (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm going to put this up for deletion unless I get a good answer to: there is no clear evidence that this organisation exists, except in S Fred's mind. The "report" doesn't appear to exist, only the summary. No-one knows who organises it or funds it, if indeed anyone does. In these days of home pages for everyone, it doesn't have a web site William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Report has been published here: http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf

The report is clearly attributed to The Science & Environmental Policy Project - Founded by S. Fred Singer.

The publich website is maintained here: http://www.sepp.org/ 208.17.215.235 (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The "report" hasn't been published. What you point to is the "summary for policymakers" (isn't it funny how they ape their opponents?). I do detect some evidence that they are trying to confuse people over whether the report, or the summary, has been produced William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite. It's just an attempt by some fringe group to pretend they're doing real science 81.102.156.177 (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that people would try to censor and suppress this work, without having read it? This seems like a rather extreme debate tactic to use against what amounts to a politically unpopular scientific position. Clt510 (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to be an unpopular scientific position, it has to be scientific first. Oil-industry funded disinformation posing as science does not qualify. Raul654 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So is Raul suddenly the world's expert on climate change? I'd stack Singer's curriculum vita against Raul's anytime, any day. I may not agree with Singer's positions, but to describe his arguments as nonscientific is purulent nonsense. As to funding of "oil-industry funded disinformation" I suppose Raul is referring to the $110 million dollars Exxon-Mobile gave to Stanford to study climate change. The problem with politically inspired memes is the facts rarely square up with the narrative. If you don't think it's scientific, why not go through the document and point out to us why you think that is? That's a challenge to all of you who are trying to suppress ideas that you don't personally like. Otherwise, nobody in academics will side with you on this one, it smacks of academic censorship. Clt510 (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a good candidate for deletion... Brusegadi (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I buy this as a standalone article either from a notability standpoint (hence the notability tag). I added three sources but two of them mention this in passing (as we sure that this is even supposed to be an organization as opposed to a one-time conference?). I think this should all just be merged into Fred Singer with perhaps a mention at global warming controversy if we think it's notable enough. Oren0 (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I could agree to moving it to Fred Singer's page. I agree there doesn't seem much evidence in the document that it was produced independently of him. If that were to change in the "final document" (assuming that ever appears), or if the organization were to materialize as more than a webpage, then a separate web page would seem warranted in my opinion. I don't think who funded it is relevant to the veracity/notability/reliability. of the document though. That's just an ad hominem dressed up pretty. Clt510 (talk)

I've "prod"ded this; no-one seems to be really defending it. Just to be concrete, my objections to this are:

• its a PR-exercise dressed up as a report. The report itself doesn't exists, only the summary.
• the article is nominally about an organisation; there is no evidence that this organisation exists, not even as a web page.
• even if the organisation exists, its non-notable.
• everything about this leads back to S Fred. It would be better on his page.
• who funded it is irrelevant to its notability. Not knowing how it was funded (on the off chance that it actually has enough existence to require funding) is just another aspect of the lack of reliable sources about it

William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This may well end up being deleted (or merged/redirected), but it's obviously contentious, so AfD is a better venue than PROD. Suggest you take it there. Jfire (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

* How do you determine analytically it's a "PR-exercise"? What about the document tells you this?

* The website is www.sepp.org, is there a problem with this link?

* The document looks as if it has been prepared in the main by Singer. He is actually the only author for whom there is an "About" section in the document (see page 29), which seems rather telling.

* I disagree about the relevance of the funding source. If I use University funds or research foundations to perform research, is the research some how less notable because of that? How does the funding source tell us if its relevant? If Exxon-Mobile gives Stanford $100 million to perform climate change mitigation research, is the SU research somehow less notable because of that? This still seems like an ad hominem to me.

* Wouldn't proposed merger with Singer's web page be the appropriate course of action? Clt510 (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note to something that was said above, this Washinton Post article suggests that "the document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists". [1] So it may not be just Singer. I although have other questions that still need an answer. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability of the Conference and Report

Recent media coverage:

• Washington Post [2]
• UPI [3]
• National Post [4]
• World Net Daily [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58024]
• John Tierney New York Times blog [5]
• Wall Street Journal blog [6]
• Business Media Institute [7]
• Thomas Sowell [8]

The conference and report are notable, having generated a good number of news articles. Fred Singer, the editor of the report, is a distinguished scientist who has been involved in atmospheric sciences for many years. The conference and report are not without controversy. The above articles provide a number of negative points (i.e. SEPP was formerly funded by EXXON) that will allow the article to be balanced. There is no reason to delete the article. The report provides reliable information about the history of the IPCC which is not readily available elsewhere - evidence the IPCC ignored scientific papers contrary to their conclusions. Also, a great deal of peer-reviewed research was published since the last IPCC report (which the IPCC could not have included) is also discussed or referenced in the report - including the Schwartz and Spencer papers - which indicate global warming is not likely to be problematic. There is no reason to limit readers access to this report. RonCram (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the deletion. The point that the "NIPCC report" and "Summary for Policymakers" are confused is valid - the document on the sepp webpage indicates that it is a summary in the title, but - in reading it - it appears to be the report itself (the are many references to the "current report", etc.). It seems that the "summary" part can be ignored. Having said that, Singer does have a notable scientific resume and is qualified to comment on climate change. The report is notable and has been picked up in the press. Singer's (and others) alleged ties to the oil industry are irrelevant - just as it would be irrelevant to dig into sources of funding or political leanings of the authors of IPCC reports or any other contribution to the climate discourse. 99.232.3.7 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Krass

If you believe it's notable, add those sources to the article. I don't believe it to be notable and so far I'm the only one to add any sources. Oren0 (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, the report is notable. The NIPCC as an organization is not so clear though, whereas the news sources who covered the report all point to it. But right now, it can be described as a project, but not as an org imo. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the panel - and so far there has been absolutely zero evidence that such a panel exists. It calls itself the "summary for policymakers" - but a summary of what? Apperently of something that doesn't exist. Most of the press-coverage hasn't been of the report or the panel (in fact i don't think i've seen any coverage with this focus) - they were about the Heartland conference (and mostly quite negative - and pointing out that this is a fringe view).

So where exactly is the notability?

• In the report that doesn't exist? (to our knowledge)
• In the coverage that doesn't exist? (its only mentioned in passing)
• In the panel that doesn't exist? (to our knowledge)

I'm just wondering.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This report seems to be a background summary (which makes the terminology confusing) for a three day conference; The 2008 International Conference on Global Climate Change, sponsored by the Heartland Institute, [9] held in New York March 2-4, 2008. The Program shows that the range of speakers included well respected scientists in this field. As such their views, and the summary of their views are notable and any deletion could be viewed as suppression and censorship of non-mainstream opinion and as such a disgrace. --Timdaw 09:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a great list of reliable sources. But some people will want to delete the article, no matter what. I've made many well sourced edits to the global warming article citing scientists who were skeptical of global warming, and every one of them was erased within a few hours. And it was always the same certain person who erased them. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

AFD

I've nominated it for deletion. I think that the content should be integrated into S Fred's page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I note that William M. Connolley proudly boasts[10] he has "unkindly sabotaged" the entry on this report on Fred Singer's page. This indicates a bias that is unwelcome here.-- Timdaw (talk 14:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is my vote and comment:

• Keep. The article is clearly notable unless some new measure of notability is being applied. Connolley's comment that other things appear in the paper without getting an article is without point. This is an effort by notable scientists to be the "Team B" (their term) to the IPCC's "Team A." They believe policymakers deserve a second opinion on climate change. This is a notable endeavor, whether they are successful in gaining the ear of policymakers or not. The report is edited by Fred Singer but is co-authored by 22 other notable people (mainly scientists) including Dennis Avery, Robert M. Carter, Vincent R. Gray, Craig D. Idso, Zbigniew Jaworowski, William Kininmonth, Lubos Motl and Tom Segalstad. This is not the work of one man and it should not be merged with the Fred Singer page. RonCram (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

NIPCC Conference

Connolley's claim this report is all the work of Fred Singer does not fit the facts. Information about the NIPCC conference can be found here. [11] Two leading organizations appear to be SEPP and Heartland Institute. Other organizations sponsoring the conference are listed here. [12] If you look at the conference program, you will see listed a large number of speakers who are not listed as co-authors of the report. [13] RonCram (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are confused. This article is about the NIPCC "organisation" not the NIPCC "conference" William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not confused. The organization is new. The conference is the first event they have put on. You cannot discuss the organization without discussing their work - their work includes the report and the conference. You really should let this go, William. You are embarrassing yourself. RonCram (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron, you are confused. The conference was not their event. It was organized by the Heartland Institute - the "summary" wasn't a major feature, it wasn't even mentioned until during the conference (afaik) - and there is no evidence at all that an organization such as the NIPCC exists at all, other than as a promotional feature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not as crystal clear as you make it sound. There's 23 persons involved, they started the project in 2003 and got going in 2007. So there are signs of an organized project although it's not clear that it's a permanent one. We will know only later. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm? According to the P.R. for the "panel" it started in Vienna April 2007[14] - "foundation layed" is not "started the project". (it could be anything from a "we first met" to "someone talked about". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just read Fred Seitz's foreword (p.3 of the report). --Childhood's End (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read Seitz' foreword - and it doesn't show us much. Lets assume that its a PR stunt (which i know that you do not accept), then the foreword is part of the PR game, to establish the basis. In effect all you have is the creators claim, without other evidence to back it up. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Childshoodend, there are many more than 23 people involved. Those are just the co-authors of the paper. Many more people presented at the conference, including Ross McKitrick. The Heartland Institute is one of the publishers of the paper and a major co-sponsor of the conference (as is SEPP). Did you see the list of organizations co-sponsoring the NIPCC conference? It is mainly a bunch of think tanks, including: Cascade Policy Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C Marshall Institute, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and International Climate Science Coalition and about 14 more. Check some of the links I provided above. This is a new organization, but they are acting like they know they have the science on their side now. RonCram (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron - the conference was not "the NIPCC" conference - it was a Heartland conference. Please get over your confusion. On the invite there is nothing about the NIPCC, there is nothing in the background info, there is nothing in the program. In fact (afaik) noone has ever heard about the "NIPCC" until during the conference, except possibly the authors (and i'm not even sure about that). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the NIPCC report release was a feature of the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, whose principal sponsor and organizer was the Heartland Institute. The NIPCC was on the conference program though, so it existed before ([15]). It still looks to me as a project run 'under' the SEPP, like some subsidiary. But we cant say for now wether it is permanent or not, or at least I did not find info so far. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I believe you are drawing a distinction where none truly exists. The Heartland Institute is a leading sponsor, along with SEPP, and both are publishers of the NIPCC report. There were over 100 speakers at the conference with somewhat divergent views. But the one thing they had in common was a belief the IPCC was not handling the science correctly. RonCram (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is pure original research and unless you can find some backing for that claim - then it has nothing to do here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I took out the list of speakers at the Heartland conference. The conference, at least officially, has little connection to the report. The conf *isn't* the NIPCC conf, its the "2008 intl conf on cl ch"; and the background material [16] doesn't even mention NIPCC William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The NIPCC was on the program [17] --Childhood's End (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeees... so what? Its one talk amongst many. Its still obviously *not* the NIPCC conf (you aren't defending that mistake, are you?) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was the NIPCC conference. --Childhood's End (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I called it the NIPCC conference. While that name is evidently not the official name of the conference, the connection is valid. This is the conference where the NIPCC report was released. The driving forces behind the conference and the NIPCC are Heartland Institute and SEPP, both of which are publishers of the report. For the purposes of an encyclopedia, I agree the official names should be used - but this is a distinction without a difference. RonCram (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone point to any incorporation document for this organization? User:Eli Rabett —Preceding comment was added at 05:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see why you look for such a document, but as I indicated at the AfD, incorporation is not a requirement. I would not be surprised that they dont incorporate even if they expand and/or maintain the project. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bias by the IPCC

Eli Rabbett has complained about my choice of support for the statement the IPCC has been accused of bias. I linked to several of Roger Pielke's blog postings because he lists a number of specific issues where the IPCC bias is clearly seen and he references the peer-reviewed papers the IPCC ignored. Other examples include the resignation of Christopher Landsea and others because of perceived political bias. Here are a few other web pages where the IPCC bias has been discussed. [18] [19] [20] [21] These are just a few of the discussions about IPCC bias I am aware of. If you can find others, please add them here so we can select the best for use in the article. RonCram (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few other pages on IPCC bias. IPCC accused of glaring omissions, false confidence and misleading statistics [22], collective confirmation bias [23] and numerous other biases. [24] Here is a peer-reviewed article on IPCC bias. [25] RonCram (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron article talk pages are not your personal soapboxes. What you are trying to do here is to take random unrelated sources with a somewhat common theme, and synthesize it into your own personal conclusion. And that is out per WP rules and guidelines. Please limit yourself to what reliable sources specifically state about the NIPCC. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And please read and understand the guideline on reliable sources - all of your references are un-reliable sources for wikipedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to follow you about the use of unreliable sources, but please also consider Raul's ExxonSecretsFactsheet in your analysis. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And silence came with no surprise. --Childhood's End (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I know you have a penchant for trying to whitewash our articles, but you're not doing it here. It's clear to everyone involved that this is a PR stunt undertaken by the climate denial machine, and you're not removing sources tying its participants to it. Raul654 (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed the part where WP:OWN was no longer applicable? --Childhood's End (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oil conspiracy theories

I'm not going to argue with Raul564 over whether Exxonsecrets by Greenpeace [26] is a reliable source that meets WP:BLP standards to support potential libel and/or personnal attacks against living persons in Wikipedia. He reverted his pet story back again [27]. Wondered if someone else than me could talk him. I can't see a single good reason why someone would insist on having stuff like "The Western Fuel Association is also suspected of funding Idso's employer" in an encyclopedia (my emphasis). So much for WP:OR, WP:V, WP:BLP,... --Childhood's End (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger

The AFD favored merger by almost two-to-one, and Jossi closed it as such. I merged it into the Fred Singer article (which, admittedly, was an arbitrary choice - IMO, it would could have gone with equal validity to SEPP or the Heartland Insitute). Childhoodsend reverted, claiming (falsely) that there was no consensus to merge. I have reverted and protected this article. I'm fine with merging it elsewhere, but the result of the AFD as to whether or not this article itself should remain was pretty clear. Raul654 (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I agree that a merge is in order; however, there is not consensus on where to merge it, so merging to Fred Singer without further discussion is premature. Furthermore, as this article is undergoing a content dispute in which you are involved, it seems to me that protecting the page yourself was not an appropriate use of administrator tools. I respectfully suggest you unprotect it and seek consensus on the merge destination. As I suggested at the AfD, I think an article on the conference is the most appropriate destination. Jfire (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I protected it because Childhoodsend, being a reprobate anti-science POV warrior and a troll, refuses to accept the outcome of the AFD, and reverted the first attempt. This article is not his personal playground for revert warring, so I protected it.

Now, as to where to merge it - As Jossi said when closing it, and as I said above - it could legitimately go to any of those three. (Note - "merging" it to a new article about the conference - which is not a merge at all and would in fact be a rename of the article, is not one of these options. You were the only person on AFD who suggested it) I have already merged it into Fred Singer, but neither than article nor SEPP nor Heartland Institute are protected. Therefore, protecting this page does not in any way stop someone from shifting the merger elsewhere. And if that's what you guys want to do, I'm fine with that too. Raul654 (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm getting a bit bored by personnal attacks coming from an individual with apparently little background in science or philosophy whatsoever and who presents himself as the defender of the whole realm of science, spreading his Greenpeace-sourced oil company conspiracy theories everywhere. Several people have told you already that your attacks are out of line and that you probably are more biaised than I am. You took this personnal (again) and acting on passion and assuming bad faith, used your admin powers a little too quickly (again). Acknowledging your mistakes would be the first step to go here. --Childhood's End (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

How about that, using your admin powers to protect your own view and edits. Myself have considered the merge and still think it should be contemplated eventually, but the AfD ruled nothing in this regard. The good way to go now is to keep your cool and let things go. A quick read of WP:MERGE#How to merge pages will suggest you a good way to ensure a friendly, transparent and legitimate process ("If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, or believe it might be controversial, or your merge ends up reverted, you can propose it on either or both of the affected pages."). Let me see, humm "just go ahead and protect if you're an admin" is not an option. --Childhood's End (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Raul, the NIPCC issued a report co-authored by 23 people. It was not the work of one man. If the community votes to merge it, it should have merged with SEPP or Heartland Institute. I do not see how you can call Childhoodsend a "reprobate anti-science POV warrior and a troll," nor do I think it appropriate for you to be calling people names. Your actions are contrary to the community standards. RonCram (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a majority of the AFD merge !votes favored merging with Singer (not SEPP, not Heartland, and not my preferred choice of Climate change denial). That's why Jossi recommended it, and that's why I used it. But as I said above, I'm fine with any of the three - Singer, SEPP, or Heartland. Raul654 (talk) 05:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The merge is not a merge at all but pure vandalism. The substance of the original article is missing from the Fred Singer page. Gone is the history of the NIPCC and the evidence of IPCC bias. Gone is the section on the goals of the NIPCC. Raul's merger is nothing more than censorship - and then he protects the page! RonCram (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather amusing non-argument there. Even while the page is protected, you have access to the history and can merge any other sections you want (because typically "merge" does not mean copy-and-paste one article entirely into another.) I used what I considered the most relavant portions to the discussion of the NIPCC and Singer's role therein. Criticism of the IPCC is not relevant to Singer's article; goals of the NIPCC are debatably so. Raul654 (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not true, Raul. I do not have access to all of the data I want. A lot of work went into the references and citations - work that is not available to copy and paste when the page is protected. You should do the right thing and unprotect the page. There is no hurry for you to have your way. The world is not going to end if people make changes to it. RonCram (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Work that is not available to copy and paste when the page is protected. - Wrong Raul654 (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Then explain to me how I am supposed to be able to copy it when I cannot hit the "Edit" button? That is the only way I know to get to the html. RonCram (talk) 06:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I just gave you a link!! Click "Wrong" in my preceding comment. Raul654 (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I did! It is not a link to the right version! RonCram (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I take it back. It is the right version. Thanks!RonCram (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I do not necessarily disagree with the merge that you made--in the afd my own opinion was to leave it open, but it should have been discussed on the talk page first. I mention that a non-consensus close with a recommendation to merge does not force the merge to be made. If you think or it as BOLD, then the revert was also acceptable. It still had to be discussed--it is only a recommendation. you have no business whatsoever protecting a merge that you made. You should have asked another editor., but of course they would have protected whatever version existed at the time, which would not necessarily have been your preferred version. I notice you protected indefinitely. We dont use or need indefinite protection to stop an edit war, and I am not even convinced there was one. Just for the record, I totally disagree with childhood end's view on the underlying subject of climate change, but that doesnt matter. DGG (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The vote was in favour of merge. This thing is going to be merged somewhere. If Ce hadn't reverted, the page would be unprotected and people would be free to shift the merge to somewhere else. I'm a bit baffled by why those who like this thing haven't bothered to paste a bit more of the text into Singer. If Ce will promise not to revert back to the page content, then this page can once again be unprotected William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with WMC. Raul654 (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What kind of talk are you holding here? I'm not even against a merger [28]. What I thought I could try to explain to Raul is that the AfD did not rule for an immediate merge but rather suggested it, as confirmed by Jfire, and that if a merge was indeed in order, that the good target article was far from being clear. Oh, and can I even mention WP:MERGE? Anybody cares for what the policies say when it does not fit one's agenda? --Childhood's End (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're not against a merger, then stop reverting the page back to an un-merged state. On the assumption that you've seen sense and aren't going to do it again, I'll unprotect the page. Reverting it again won't be looked on kindly. But feel free to redirect it elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why dont you tone down your usual rhetoric and check again what happened? i- I reverted once, which is not what normal people would consider worthy of a full protect; ii- Merger was not ruled by the AfD closure as been explained above so it was fully legitimate to revert, while Raul's revert/protect was against WP policy. Now if everybody agrees with the merge, that's fine and you can have your cake for my part. --Childhood's End (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A revert was a WP:POINT waste of everyones time. If you've given it up, hurrah William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)