::Hi again.  I saw elsewhere that you havent had a chance to look into this yet, and I understand how that can be.   I'm glad to see that Greg is holding off on the RfE until after you have looked at it.   I have intentionally stayed away from the talk page on this because I was hoping you and/or others who were not involved in the dispute could take a look.   Attempts are being made to muddy the issue, so I will ask you to look specifically at these items:  Here's a  brief recap of the essence of the dispute: SA added text saying that Watts is a denier and included an edit summary that said three peer reviewed articles support the label "denier";  User Wenchell changed the word "denier" to "skeptic" with appropriate edit summary; SA reverted Wenchell and said again that according to the sources Watts is a denier; on the talk page marknutley took issue with SA's characterization of the sources as "peer reviewed" and also disputed that any of the sources called Watts a "denier" or "denialist".   One of the sources was behind a pay wall and had to be provided off-wiki by GregJackP.  You have been provided that source.   SA continues to maintain that the articles are peer reviewed and that they place Watts in the denialist camp.  Several editors have attempted to correct SA in stating that the three sources are not peer reviewed and none call Watts a denier or place him in the denialist camp.   Sources indicate that Watts is a skeptic, not a denier.   Inclusion of SA's edit would be a BLP violation, including a perjorative label that is not applicable and not supported by the sources cited by SA 

 ::The issues:  1.  Are the three sources cited by SA peer reviewed articles as SA is representing?  2.  Do any or all of the three sources characterize Watts as a "denier" or "denialist"? 

 ::Thank you for looking into this.