Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:16, 1 July 2008

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following: Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives

2006 2007 2008

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

Please explain reversion

I have reverted your revert at Talk:Linux/Referring_to_this_article but do not wish to enter into an edit war. Please explain, at the section I have added on that page, why you think the statement is untrue. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Because GNU never had anything to do with the Linux project. The Linux projects used GNU utilities, since they were free, and could be used without getting into copyright problems. The GPL was the protection from this. If you take the argument that because GNU tools where used, then it must be a GNU project, then you are arguing against the GPL. Which specifically states that you can use it "as you please" as long as you retain the GPL and make the source available. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't get baited

Paul Beardsell's new trick appears to be posting deliberately contrarian summaries of other people's arguments. I've decided to stop replying to these; the threads themselves contain accurate arguments, and his last refuge is to claim that they say the opposite of what they do. I'd advise letting him have the last word on those threads, or we'll be at this forever. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Carbon Footprint External Links

Hi,

Just wondering why you have removed the link for www.click4carbon.com .

I do not believe that adding the external link is considered spamming. Click 4 Carbon is relevant to the subject in question (http://en.wikipedia.org/Carbon_footprint).

Click 4 Carbon contains a wealth of information, regular news and blog updates, facts pages that are all Carbon Footprint related. Having checked the wikpedia policies.

1) There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article.

2) Misplaced Pages articles may include links to Web pages outside Misplaced Pages. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic.

I look forward to hearing from you.

JockRusky (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You should read WP:EL and WP:LINKFARM. Misplaced Pages is not an inventory for useful links. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As a sidenote - there are lots of these sites, and they all get removed for the same reason. Check the history of the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Flat earth?

Please read this. Comment invited. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I ask you to comply with Chris's admonishment at Talk:Linux_distribution#revert_warS. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't get baited II - The Revenge

Seriously. The easiest way to ensure that contentious editors get away with contentious editing indefinitely is to make it look like their accusers are acting on the basis of a personal feud. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i'm sorry. But this was my last comment to him, within this discussion. I've gotten fed up with it. I probably shouldn't have said it but done is done. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thank You --68.223.235.168 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming political cartoon

I took the liberty of removing a political cartoon posted by you and a comment by another editor about it. I don't think this line of discussion was helping. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Since i haven't added any polical cartoons, i'm pretty stunned about your comment. Case of mistaken identity? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a case of me being dumb and hitting the wrong talk link. Sorry. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Interlibrary loans and Talk:Fred_Singer

Your comments:

• "if you are too lazy to request an interlibrary loan yourself"
• "check with Raul, if you are too lazy" (edit summary)

could be construed (or misconstrued) as inappropriate given your tensions with this editor. --A. B. 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the support. I have added this item to WP:BLPN per the instructions found in Misplaced Pages:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material, rather than attempting to handle the problem myself. I note that this same reference is being used to include content in the body of the article as well, and so will apply to that content as well.

Clearly it will be impossible for me to prove a negative, i.e. that no such verification exists, nor should I even have to attempt to do so since, per per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

Since there already has been such a verification of the off-line source. The burden lies on you to do a cross-verification if you need it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It is also clear by simple googling that this particular reference is becoming detrimental to the reputation of Misplaced Pages itself as I can find numerous sources that refer to this exact page and this exact topic. --GoRight (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many ways that things can be "misconstrued". The fact is that the editor in question was wrong, and that he apparently hadn't bothered to read the Talk page, where both Rauls' posession of a PDF, and the existence of the source, had already been discussed. Instead he edit-warred - and tried to reverse the burden of evidence. He also (apparently) misunderstood WP:V. Construe that as you want. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For the lazy person, who can't be bothered to check the talk-page. I was referencing this: Talk:Fred_Singer#Moons_of_Mar. If Raul is still in the possession of the PDF, GoRight can get it there - or he can do an inter-library loan, like Raul did. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The 1960 volume of Astronautics (ISSN 0096-669X), published by the now-defunct American Rocket Society, is no longer held by many libraries. It's not clear that all editors have ready access to interlibrary loans or even know of them. It's also unclear what the fees might be to editors not affiliated with major research institution that subsidize journal article requests. --A. B. 20:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And as you should know. There is no requirements in WP:V, or in any other guidelines on Misplaced Pages, that sources must be available online - or in the library of choice of an editor. Its already been verified - has anyone bothered to check with Raul for it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I got the pdf, and posted a link to it on the talk page (I deleted the linked-to file after about two weeks because it is copyrighted material). I still have the pdf on my home computer. I'm spending the summer in Louisiana with only my laptop, so I'm not sure if I have a copy of the file (I have copies of all the emails I've ever sent or recieved, so there's a 50/50 chance it's in there if I dig for it) Stephan, to whom I sent the file, recently offered to post it for Goright's benefit. So he definitely has a copy. Raul654 (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If either of you could make it available for download someplace it would be greatly appreciated, but I don't expect anyone to go to extraordinary efforts here ... if it is not readily found then forget it.

I have decided to drop further attempts at removing this material, although I still find the duplicate reference found in the further reading section to be gratuitous at the very least. And while the current description does not technically state that Singer believes in Martians, I also feel that it is worded in a manner that may leave the reader with that general impression. --GoRight (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

carbon dioxide

Forgive me for reverting your recent edit to carbon dioxide. When I read Appendix B of the cited reference ( http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/fire/co2/co2report.html ), it mentions "drowsy" only twice, both times at 10% to 15%. So ... Is the "1%" currently in the carbon dioxide article a typo, and so needs to be changed to "10%"? Or were you referring to some *other* reference that claims there is an effect at 1%? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Singer and Martians

Among others, you apparently, based on this revert .

Also, I would remind you that Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive. --GoRight (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember to sign GoRight.

No i do not. There is a difference between addressing a possibility, and believing it true. And there is also a large difference between past tense and present tense. Had there been an honest q/a it would have been "did you at one time entertain the possibility that there ...". When Wikilawyering - you should read everything, not just cherry-pick... I believe you will find D9 interesting as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Template Abuse

Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to ] has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. My edit attempted to reach consensus by addressing both your concern and that of the other editor, as well as improving the technical accuracy of the article. My wording appears to be a win-win all around on those points. As for your lame attempt to mount some sort of smear campaign against me, your actions are duly noted. I would ask you to be WP:CIV in the future as tendentious editing charges are not to be taken lightly, which you know, which makes the charge a WP:CIV violation in my estimation. You need to WP:AGF as well. --GoRight (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep - its a smear campaign. (if the sarcasm isn't obvious - it should be). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I seek a truce or cease fire of some sort

We have been going back and forth for days and the incidents seem to be increasing. I am sure that this is frustrating for both of us so I seek some sort of understanding to address the situation. In the short term, say a week or so, I think it would be best for all if we avoided making reverts of each others material ... at least for these minor points that we have been bickering about such as on Singer and Gray.

Beyond that I would agree to something along the lines of when either of us has a problem with the other's edits that we first make at least one round of discussion on our user talk pages BEFORE taking any action such as reverting. After that I would agree to a self-imposed limit of a single revert per individual change of the other's edits if you would be so inclined. This would reduce the edit warring and generally allow other user's opinions to play a larger roll in the final outcomes.

This is just a suggestion. I am open to other options as well if you have any suggestions. But retaliatory revert wars from either side will be disruptive as I assume you will agree.

What say you? --GoRight (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

GWC

Hello my good sir, is this what you meant? Brusegadi (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

't seems not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to take care of this. I will try to resort everything in the process and see if I can bake something everyone can eat. Brusegadi (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but sadly the dough has already collapsed.... But i thank you for you kind offer of assistance, which while much appreciated, was tragically stifled by my premature meddling. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as its not extremely poisonous its fine. Take care and I'll see you at the articles' talk pages. Brusegadi (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comments on user:GoRight

Your input at Misplaced Pages:Requests for Comments/GoRight would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)