User talk:137.132.181.10

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I'm hoping to end the edit war between us at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofiction under the "Social Impacts of Ecofiction" section. I feel that you have brought in a new section that is a useful one but that partly focuses very specifically on a different genre that has its own wiki page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_fiction. (The animal study was missed on my part, and has been retained to your original addition.) One study originally referenced (still referenced now after many reversions between both of us) is specifically about climate fiction, which is related to but not the same as the ecofiction category. When I removed that study and added one specifically about ecofiction, to stay more on topic, you removed it on the technicality that I typoed and called an academic paper a "scientific study," which I admitted to. I did not revert back to it, hoping you might see some usefulness in it after I explained myself in the Talk section. The actual ecofiction study is currently not part of this ecofiction article, but a study about climate fiction, a different genre, is.

Summary: Yes, climate change is a topic in the field of ecofiction. It is one of hundreds of topics within this field, though these days it is pretty huge. "Climate fiction", however, is a different, newer, and less historical field of study. Some do consider it a subgenre (also may be that ecofiction is a composite subgenre of many fields). Also, as cited in the Talk section, major authors who actually explore climate change within fiction are not in agreement that "climate fiction" is a suitable branding universal for this literature--it excludes traditional genres and other newer genres that also cover climate change in fiction. But simply, I'd like to stay on topic in the ecofiction genre and leave climate fiction and its social impacts to the Wiki category that has already been established for it. Note that the ecofiction Wiki article already lists climate fiction as related. I don't think there's need to focus more on it any more than we should include genres such as Afrofuturism or solarpunk. As passionate as I am and as big an advocate I am on this literature, I don't want to waste my free time going back and forth, so call in the mods to help. I can provide quite a bit of subject matter expert opinion and advice in this field as well studies that support my thoughts (despite the fact this editor would fail me in his class <grin>).Duende Sands (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

---