Talk:Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment / Climate change   
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.
 

This thing doesn't deserve it's own article William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why? It's a legit geoeng technique. It's distinct from BECS, as it does not include biochar projects. It's a well cited technique and is therefore WP:NOTABLEAndrewjlockley (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Blanking[edit]

This has been through the AfD and the result was 'no consensus'. The outcome is therefore to retain the article. See Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed. I have therefore rv Atmoz as vandalism. I have given this user repeated warnings about breaching the AfD process. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bio-energy with carbon storage[edit]

Discussion of redirect at Talk:Bio-energy with carbon storage#Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage. -Atmoz (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have commented, but this has already been properly considered and rejected during the AfD process. Pls respect consensus. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense. The AfD closed with no consensus. It wasn't "considered and rejected" - and Merging is not and AfD subject, although it can be a result. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The result of discussion was 'no consensus', the resulting action was 'keep' - therefore the article stays. Further, we see again another example of 'merge' being used as an euphemism for arbitrary deletion. See WP:REDIRECT to understand why this is unacceptable. I've asked for that, and the AfD page, to be clarified to ensure that this repeated misinterpretation is forever quashed. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry? no consensus => no consensus. Not keep, or whatever outcome you feel rubs you the correct way. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Take it up with the closing admin if you don't like it. It's a keep, and that's that - AfD closed. Re-nominate if you want a different outcome. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage&diff=289448447&oldid=289418320 shows that there is NO CONSENSUS for removal. Further, closing admin on the AfD has determined there is no consensus and as a result it stays. Kim, please stop edit warring / vandalism / whatever and respect the consensus process. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD's have no influence on whether or not articles can be merged - sorry. It was a nice attempt at gaming, but no cigar. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't a merge, as no content was merged. It was a delete/redirect. The AfD process said keep, and you weren't the closing admin, so please stop your whining. Nice attempt at gaming, Kim, but no cigar. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Andrew, you are confusing things. Delete means complete removal of page - salting the earth - no revert possible - history gone - do not resurrect page. That is what an AfD does. That is not what has happened here - this is a merger, a change of page content to a redirect (page still exists, history still there, can still be changed). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what RELEVANT information from this article is NOT included in the Bio-energy with carbon storage? All relevant information was edited to the Bio-energy with carbon storage already two month ago. If you think that any important and RELEVANT information is missing, I don't see any problem with adding this. Right now your claims are just a WP:WL. Beagel (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

therefore the article stays - I think we're just going to have to learn that AJL always says this. There is no informational content. We just have to learn to ignore him William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
and here is one of the finest examples of the Connolley, Petersen cabal tag team attempting to control the POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.251 (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Grammar[edit]

Is it just me or does the phrase "believed to be too much to be able to be absorbed by conventional sinks such as trees and soil" not sound right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.157.35 (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)