| Revision as of 14:53, 10 April 2015 editKimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,610 edits →April 2015: warning: Ok, i'll back off a week or two - since you are determined to consider me the bad guy.← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:01, 15 April 2015 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,296 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Archive 2015) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| -- <includeonly>{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}currentdate }}</includeonly> | -- <includeonly>{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}currentdate }}</includeonly> | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:TWA/Navigation2}} | {{Misplaced Pages:TWA/Navigation2}} | ||
| == Request for arbitration == | |||
| I have of the issues you are involved in on ] pages. ] (]) 18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Query == | == Query == | ||
Revision as of 04:01, 15 April 2015
 | 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
Query
- Revision as of 06:27, 25 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS.
- Revision as of 10:00, 25 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
- Revision as of 22:47, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
- Revision as of 23:46, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
- User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, aren't you deleting a lot of sources against WP:MEDRS? Where is your comment on the talk page to support deleting so many sources according to WP:PAG? IMO no reasonable argument has been made to delete so many reliable sources including deleting reviews such as (PMID 24732159) and (PMID 24732160) and (PMID 25572196) after over two weeks. Please review the current discussion on the talk page. What could possibly be a logical reason to delete so many sources? Please try to help editors at the talk page understand your reverts back to an older version. Please see Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Removal of mammoth edit. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Each and every one of those reverts carry a text that describes why i reverted. Is any one of those texts problematic to you? --Kim D. Petersen 11:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think there is a clear consensus at the talk page that your edits were largely counterproductive. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Positions for example. If you can acknowledge you made a mistake, especially with deleting MEDRS compliant reviews, we can move on. Or do you still think the page should be wholesale reverted back without the sources. Do you think all the sources you deleted were unreliable? I don't see your argument on the talk page to justify deleting all the sources. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes/Archive 2#Mammoth edit adding position statements. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- And once more i think you should read the revert reasons and reflect upon what they say - instead of conflating them with other issues. Do you understand what an RfC is, and that it has a closing time? --Kim D. Petersen 20:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think there is a clear consensus at the talk page that your edits were largely counterproductive. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Positions for example. If you can acknowledge you made a mistake, especially with deleting MEDRS compliant reviews, we can move on. Or do you still think the page should be wholesale reverted back without the sources. Do you think all the sources you deleted were unreliable? I don't see your argument on the talk page to justify deleting all the sources. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes/Archive 2#Mammoth edit adding position statements. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Each and every one of those reverts carry a text that describes why i reverted. Is any one of those texts problematic to you? --Kim D. Petersen 11:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Declined ArbCom case
The arbitration request concerning electronic cigarette articles has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
See Arbitration request. It was the opinion of some of the arbitrators that the issue may still be resolved by the community. For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations
Any election win is important, I was wondering why you have not been editing lately. You probably have been very busy. AlbinoFerret 23:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you :) Yep, it has been a rather hectic period, and probably is going to get even more hectic now that the Danish implementation of the TPD is on the table. --Kim D. Petersen 23:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. And you got a message from a ferret, what could be better? William M. Connolley (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations
Just heard about the election. Congratulations, I hope you can get some good work done making the TPD not destroy vaping in your community. SPACKlick (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thx. Will certainly try. --Kim D. Petersen 14:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
General Sanctions: Electronic Cigarettes
Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to electronic cigarettes.
The details of these sanctions are described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
QuackGuru (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you QG, i', well aware of the general sanctions. Especially since i !voted to have them :) --Kim D. Petersen 12:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
April 2015: warning
Kim, this edit is a simple provocation, and it's obvious from article talk and your edits elsewhere who it's meant to provoke. Talking about "the proposal by S. Marshall" in the edit summary doesn't abrogate your responsibility; you added the tag, following an (IMO) obviously jocular, if mean-spirited, suggestion by User:S Marshall on the talkpage a week earlier. The user you're trying to bait doesn't need to see such spitefulness at the top of the article. Nor do our readers, indeed I'm surprised you have so little consideration for them. Considering your COI, you need to be much more circumspect around the e-cigarette articles. I'm glad to hear you're aware of the general sanctions. I'll topic ban you from electronic cigarette-related pages if you make any further battleground-y or otherwise inappropriate edits in the area, especially to the article itself. Bishonen | talk 12:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC).
- Actually it wasn't an attempt at provocation - it was meant as half-way meet. I was concerned that the reinstatement of the POV tag would result in QG reverting again. Perhaps i'm naïve with this, but the tag text seemed appropriate to the content problems, and might be less of a red-flag than the POV one. Warning acknowledged though :) --Kim D. Petersen 14:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused here. What are you referring to when you say that i have "little consideration" to our readers? That seems to require a bit more explanation. --Kim D. Petersen 14:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- I guess I can't help your confusion. If you really think it's OK for that trolling "tag" to be the first thing to meet our readers' eyes when they come here to read about electronic cigarettes, I don't know what to tell you. Bishonen | talk 14:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC).
- I'm sorry, but it seems that you've determined that i'm the bad guy here. So i'm just going to step away for a week or two. Have a nice day. --Kim D. Petersen 14:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- I guess I can't help your confusion. If you really think it's OK for that trolling "tag" to be the first thing to meet our readers' eyes when they come here to read about electronic cigarettes, I don't know what to tell you. Bishonen | talk 14:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC).