| Revision as of 17:03, 25 October 2014 editKimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,610 edits →E-cigarette: how is asking an active editor at an article canvassing?← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:06, 25 October 2014 edit undoKimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,610 edits →October 2014: did you run out of reverts Doc?Next edit → | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (] · ] · ]) <small>(if I write on your page reply on mine)</small> 17:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (] · ] · ]) <small>(if I write on your page reply on mine)</small> 17:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :No, i'm sorry, but i have exactly 1 revert, as opposed to your 3. Funny how that works. --] 17:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | :No, i'm sorry, but i have exactly 1 revert, as opposed to your 3. Funny how that works. --] 17:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :Could this be because you ran out of ]? --] 17:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:06, 25 October 2014
 | 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.
"POV" vs. article content not supported by source
Kim, in a few cases you are calling things "POV" problems but what they're really turning out to be are WP:V problems -- the article content isn't supported by the source. You will get better traction with your concerns if you stop talking about them as POV problems and start pointing them out as WP:V problems. Zad68 19:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- When i am talking about POV issues, i'm not talking about WP:V problems. I am talking about a slant based upon a one-sided or cherry-picked read of sources. Basically what WP:NPOV is about and WP:WEIGHT is specific concerns itself about. I'm not a newbie editor, i've been editing the climate change articles, where such issues are often raised for the last several years.
- How do you think an error such as "e-cigs are as dangerous cigs" can sneak itself in? It does so because the editor in question wasn't considering what it was that was said, and no alarm-bells chimed when editing the sentence... it lends itself to either of two conclusions: 1) unfamiliarity with the topic area 2) a personal view that matches the text. Both of which do not bode well for the huge amounts of edits done.
- I'm not going to edit-war, and will keep myself to a strict 1RR, which is why i haven't corrected anything in the article. --Kim D. Petersen 19:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know if you're a newbie and am not asserting you are. I am saying that in certain cases you are using "NPOV" in a way that isn't in line with the actual problem, and that is getting in the way of seeing those problems resolved. Your statement that "the editor in question wasn't considering what it was that was said" is describing a WP:V problem, not an WP:NPOV problem. WP:NPOV is a technical term of art on Misplaced Pages. I am trying to be helpful but if I'm not coming across as helpful I will leave it to others to try to help.
Zad6819:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)- I was using POV in this case, because the sentence displayed a point of view that is not even supported by a one-sided reading of the literature. Yep it was also unverifiable, which is also the case with some of the statements in the lede - but that doesn't mean that the edits do not display a certain POV. --Kim D. Petersen 19:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC) -- ie. POV and V are not mutually exclusive. --Kim D. Petersen 19:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Re, "POV and V are not mutually exclusive." -- Per the definitions of the concepts, I disagree, but it probably would not be a productive to get into a big debate about it. My advice is: If it's a WP:V problem, prefer to call it that, people prefer to deal with WP:V problems over WP:NPOV problems.
Zad6819:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)- You can write lots of things that are verifiable, but which are significantly POV. For instance "anthropogenic global warming is negligible" is verifiable but at the same time a tiny minority to fringe view, and thus shouldn't per WP:WEIGHT even be considered in an article on mainstream climate change. (see WP:BALASPS which addresses this)
- But to continue at the e-cig article, the editor removed the sentence "Electronic cigarettes should have fewer toxic effects than traditional cigarettes" which is verifiable, and supported by the weight of literature, and exchanged it with the unverifiable "Electronic cigarettes are generally perceived erroneously as less hazardous than traditional cigarettes, when their health risk is similar", to correct for this the editor didn't return the old sentence, but instead chose to write about something entirely different with an implied slant of "e-cigs are as dangerous as e-cigs" .... that is either POV or incompentence. --Kim D. Petersen 19:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Re, "POV and V are not mutually exclusive." -- Per the definitions of the concepts, I disagree, but it probably would not be a productive to get into a big debate about it. My advice is: If it's a WP:V problem, prefer to call it that, people prefer to deal with WP:V problems over WP:NPOV problems.
- I was using POV in this case, because the sentence displayed a point of view that is not even supported by a one-sided reading of the literature. Yep it was also unverifiable, which is also the case with some of the statements in the lede - but that doesn't mean that the edits do not display a certain POV. --Kim D. Petersen 19:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC) -- ie. POV and V are not mutually exclusive. --Kim D. Petersen 19:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know if you're a newbie and am not asserting you are. I am saying that in certain cases you are using "NPOV" in a way that isn't in line with the actual problem, and that is getting in the way of seeing those problems resolved. Your statement that "the editor in question wasn't considering what it was that was said" is describing a WP:V problem, not an WP:NPOV problem. WP:NPOV is a technical term of art on Misplaced Pages. I am trying to be helpful but if I'm not coming across as helpful I will leave it to others to try to help.
Danke - Thank you!
Ich will Dir auf diesem Weg dafür danken, dass Du mit so viel Herzblut und Engagement bei dem Artikel "E-Zigarette" mitarbeitest! Ohne solche Nutzer wie Dich, wäre die Misplaced Pages nur ein Schatten ihrer Selbst!--Merlin 1971 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Vielen Dank :) --Kim D. Petersen 06:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring
You have been informed above so no need to inform again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Pot, kettle, black. --Kim D. Petersen 13:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
E-cigarette
Hi Kim, I have been very busy on the article this evening. The changes may not stay but I had good reasons and references for all of it. You may want to take a look at the article because the banner may not be as needed as it once was. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'll look at it tomorrow, time for bed right now, 'tis waay to late :) --Kim D. Petersen 01:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think you will like the changes. Most of them have been on the back burner because of the constant issues with QG. I finally had some free time to spend. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Fascinating. And you are WP:CANVASSING Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- How is he canvassing? I'm an active editor at the article. --Kim D. Petersen 17:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Fascinating. And you are WP:CANVASSING Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think you will like the changes. Most of them have been on the back burner because of the constant issues with QG. I finally had some free time to spend. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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 your 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, i'm sorry, but i have exactly 1 revert, as opposed to your 3. Funny how that works. --Kim D. Petersen 17:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Could this be because you ran out of reverts that you are allowed to do? --Kim D. Petersen 17:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)