Keep Please excuse me if I break any rules since I am not familiar with posting here. However when I saw that "The Gore Effect" page was up for deletion, being a AGW skeptic for many years and having heard of someone named "William Connelly" that seems to have a lot of pull for censorship of any articles in Wikipedia that are critical of the AGW crowd, I had to come here to see if he was behind this attempt as well...

Well..... no surprise here.... I say... keep "The Gore Effect" and stop deleting articles just because they don't support your particular beliefs.... Wouldn't it be interesting if the shoe was on the other foot, and it was skeptics that had influence in Wikipedia and deleted the AGW articles.... Catoni52 (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to the project page mark nutley (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming a mess of having to go back and restore individual !votes and comments and such, e.g. edits like this and this. If it is an egregious personal attack, edit it out, don't try to munge it up with some kind of revert. If there is a single-purpose account, tag it. No need to move it here. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think an even better idea is to not have lengthy discussion strings within the deletion page. Isn't that what this page is for? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, no. These aren't votes, these are discussions; editors can and should have their opinions challenged if someone feels the need to do so; trying to maintain a coherent connection from an editor's post to follow-ups from one page to the next would be a logistical nightmare. Talk pages of XfDs are rarely used. When they are, it is usually to note some procedural matter unrelated to the actual deletion/retention of the article. Tarc (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i moved it from here to the project page, but now it`s gone? mark nutley (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my horror I see that those edits are mine. I am very sorry about those inadvertent deletions of other people's comments. Of course neither were intentional. The pace of edit conflicts on that page was so large that I now think it is no longer worth trying to contribute to it. I was not aware that after the first E/C, you get no warning about a second one when using the E/C page to complete the edit, no matter how quick you are. Normally I do not use that page as it carries a copy of the whole target page and rarely works, but as this project page has no section headings, I felt it was as likely as anything else to work. It clearly doesn't. Anyway, I placed my !vote, justified it a few times (it only takes a second to type a challenge, then move on to challenge someone else's contribution, but sometimes a full and careful explanation takes a little longer), so now I'm outa here. --Nigelj (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't mention the 'Gore Effect', but sheds a serious light on [part of] what may be really going on here. This is more like the sort of thing that an encyclopedia should cover, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That story (or at least the original Science Daily version) would be a good source for another section about second-order changes in Effects of global warming, in which "the Gore Effect" could be described in context, IMO. - Pointillist (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That`s funny, last year they were saying snow was a thing of the past and our children would be astonished to see it, but as they got that so wrong after the record snowfalls this winter just gone now global warming will cause more snow :) I tell you if global warming gets any worse we`ll all freeze to death mark nutley (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, talk pages are designed to discuss the article. Are you discussing the article? Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you? mark nutley (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think its the proverbial "they" talking. Its amazing how "they" are always wrong!--Milowent (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nigel, for finding that. I agree with Pointillist that the original article fromScience Daily should be incorporated into Effects of global warming. This is actual science and deserves serious treatment, whereas "The Gore Effect" is simply a joke, one that I personally find amusing for its irony and worthy of inclusion in WP from the popular culture angle, but is totally meaningless in any scientific sense. --Yopienso (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hoped that it might help us get something useful out of this into some article or other, I just wasn't sure which article. I hope that we can thereby raise the standard of debate a little too. I agree that the Science Daily version is a better source than grist.org. Well found. The true original source is here, found via the note at the end of the Science Daily article. --Nigelj (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]