Please do not change the parameters of a merge template unless there has been a previous discussion of this (each such template shows a Discuss link to the current discussion). I have reverted your change.HGilbert (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the discussion page, and didn't see a discussion about it. My suggested merge is more logical. - Sidelight12Talk 18:07, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
The merge notice itself includes a link to the discussion. - 19:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I searched the archived discussion of one page and didn't find it. It's on the Ecological farming page. It's not logical to merge Ecological farming with Organic Farming. Although organic farming is a subset, they're not equivalents. - Sidelight12Talk18:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I read some of you comments. I agree that RT is and looks like ….
But it seems like you are treating wikipedia like a blog post or youtube post to discuss or show what you see wrong with them. This inevitably leads to biased editing either is substance or in tone. The most difficult task is to be unbiased when there is such strong emotions present. As you have described yourself (you hate RT for… all the right reasons I’m sure). But I don’t care, neither should you care about what I think.
The article needs to read like a very neutral objective presentation of what they claim to be, what they actually do and what the criticism are. All of this in appropriate section.
Respectfully209.59.106.25 (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I got carried away on one article, when I usually don't on others. Thank you for your sincerity and for reminding me. I've lost interest in the article. - Sidelight12Talk05:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]