| Revision as of 17:43, 8 February 2016 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →What I mean by "dial it down": ce← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:13, 8 November 2023 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,076 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Archive 2019) (bot | ||
| (39 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:TWA/Navigation2}} | {{Misplaced Pages:TWA/Navigation2}} | ||
| == ArbCom 2019 election voter message == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| <table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;"> | |||
| I have opened a section on AE concerning edits and talk page sections you were involved in. ] 18:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| <tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| :Shot in my 2 cents. Will be offline for most of the next couple of days, since i'm travelling to Bruxelles for CEN and ISO meetings. --] 20:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == Editorials == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. ] (]) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
| I don't want to re-open the discussion, because I suspect that Jytdog's right about the likely (lack of) productivity there, but just in case you're curious about this: MEDRS is oversimplifying the situation with respect to sources, in the hopes of being useful most of the time, without requiring weeks of study. Review articles (always) contain some primary material, and it is possible for an editorial to contain secondary material – for example, if said editorial "analyzes" or "criticizes" the evidence base used in a review. | |||
| </td></tr> | |||
| </table> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Coordination/MMS/02&oldid=926750292 --> | |||
| ==Merger discussion for ]== | |||
| That kind of dispute needs to be dealt with on the basis of ], not on the basis of ]. ] (]) 20:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ] An article that you have been involved in editing—]—has been '''proposed for ]''' with another article. If you are interested, please participate in ]. Thank you. ] (]) 18:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm in complete agreement that most of this is based in weight, and a weight argument is worth having. But there is also a very strong double standard being displayed. As we can see from this very similar case. In effects in the PHE/Lancet editorial case, critique is acceptable because ..., while in the WHO/Addiction paper case it is unacceptable because .... --] 08:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::We all know that to you, an "editorial" is an "editorial" That you can't, or don't, see the difference between the Addiction editorial and the Lancet editorial, doesn't make Doc James a hypocrite - what is "very strong" here is something else. That you cannot even fill in the blanks there shows that you are not even listening. It is one thing not to agree, but quite another to not even be able to state the other side's case. ] (]) 09:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::You may want to check again. The Addiction paper is a peer-reviewed response to the WHO report, written by experts on the topic. Not an editorial. And i don't think that i ever mentioned, or pointed anything out with regards to Doc James? Do read again - i think you've misunderstood quite a few things. --] 09:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My mistake, thanks for correcting me. But it is even worse than what i thought. It is just a plain old "research article" per and pubmed (per PMID 25196419). That doesn't even come close to being the same weight as the statement by the Lancet. You are comparing apples and oranges. I thought you were at least comparing oranges to orange trees. ] (]) 09:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::An editorial is not a scientific/medical venue, the writers are not experts, and its not peer-reviewed. Editorials are opinion, not science, we do not source science from editorials .... ''ever''. So you are putting quite a bit too much weight into it. | |||
| :::::These two are very similar because both are critiques of scientific reports, and in the one case it gets accepted, in the other it doesn't.... The least we should have is consistency, and not double standards --] 09:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To expand: The understanding from the first case, is that we (Misplaced Pages) do not involve ourselves in the scientific discussion/controversy on the primary level - but relied entirely on the secondary literature for what is and isn't the view on a topic. The Lancet case shows that this understanding apparently is false, and that the arguments in the first case thus weren't true or at the very least dodgy. --] 09:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Even worse Kim. In the Addiction case its the scientists who were referenced in Grana pointing out the problems with how their work was used. In Lancet we have a unnamed writer(s) criticizing something they possibly have very little knowledge of. Lancet has even less weight. ] 14:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| * again it is clear we are at impasse on this and repeating ourselves is both tedious and not productive. I have asked you both to respond on the article talk page about how you would like to proceed with DR - please respond there. And as I have said, we need to implement that in a way that doesn't drive third party commentators away. ] (]) 16:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == What I mean by "dial it down" == | |||
| I'll just start noting these here, to help you see what I mean. | |||
| * kind of caustic comment is not helping things. Please don't make comments on the motivations of other editors. If you disagree, please just state that, plainly, and explain why. Thanks. ] (]) 07:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| * , you don't have to ascribe motivation to the other editor. You can just say what you think about the content and why, without commenting on the contributor. ] (]) 07:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:13, 8 November 2023
 | Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:
|
 Archives |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Editing Principles - some things that i considered for the ArbCom case, but on seeing how it developed into person-problems rather than content and editing issues, didn't put in after all.
LoS: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/LoS
Playground: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Temporary User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Sandbox
Inhofe list: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Inhofe
William list: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/William
Created articles: Sami Solanki, Jan Esper
Linux Weight: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/LinuxWeight
CCD: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/CCD
Fossil treelines, et al
This is really a "thank you" for challenging my thinking, and catching a dumb error, over at the HS page. What a pleasure, particularly compared to interacting with the Wikilawyer at the Other Page... Once again, welcome back, and stay sharp! Cheers -- Pete Tillman
about wind power cost per one installization.
can u mail me, how much cost of a windpower plantation of an single. how much energy output. how much duration of time to install. all total cost of an one install.
Welcome to The Misplaced Pages Adventure!
- Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
--
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
About The Misplaced Pages Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Merger discussion for Global warming controversy
An article that you have been involved in editing—Global warming controversy—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)