Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:36, 26 November 2009

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 2009

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

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

Silly ol' me

A sad tale of futility ► RATEL ◄ 01:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Socks

So many abound.

Sometimes it's best to ignore

Till a block is found.

-Atmoz (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

God morgen. I would suggest fight the socks not the edits. The edits I have seen are really not that bad and I wouldn't class them as vandalism anyway, disruptive edit warring maybe but if you go down that path you both get a block :). Polargeo (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

God eftermiddag. I do not necessarily disagree, scibaby does at times make good edits - the thing he was banned for though, was the disruptive nature of most of his edits. (see for instance the recent one here). We are fighting the socks, on the average (in the last couple of weeks) there have been 1-2 socks per day, and all in all confirmed socks of scibaby number are >400 (not all are there). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC) nb: i agree with you on the polar bears/global warming article btw. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Cuts on Stephen Schwartz Bio Page

Hello Kim Dabelstein Peterson. I see you have cut much material out of the BLP page http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stephen_E._Schwartz . I am not familiar with the jargon of wikipedia but as the subject of the bio I find the material that you have cut germane and accurate. I guess I could simply restore the cut material but would prefer a more or less plain English justification of why you have cut the material and whether and how the material might be restored. -steve schwartz Steve1941 (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the only thing i've cut in that article, was the category:American Jews, which i cut because there was no reference for it. I think you are referring to this which was cut by User:Atmoz. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted; thank you. Steve1941 (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Desperation... Oh dear. Sorry, but that particular contribution had nothing useful to do with improving the article. It was (it seems) an attempt to call cabal!. The civility of it could be discussed. You should take a look at the policy being quoted in that particular thread - and notice what bullet-point #2 and 3 state. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If you believe I'm being uncivil, please discuss it with me on the article talk page or on my user talk page instead of blanking out article talk page comments. When you blank things out, you call attention to them and raise the level of drama for no reason. Thanks. I'll be returning to that talk page next week. In the meantime, I hope you feel free to answer my remaining question during our exchange here. As for Irbisgreif, I'm glad he left. He was one of a small number of editors who have recently been behaving strangely. Flying Jazz (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/William M. Connolley for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn! You must really be desperate. Check my front. I'm locateable by latitude and longtitude. Sorry - but people can both agree and disagree with you without being socks or meatpuppets. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The cool thing about accusations of meatpuppetry is that unlike accusations of sockpuppetry they cannot be proven or disproven by objective means. One must instead attempt to divine intention. This ensures maximum duration and intensity of drama. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

So based on the evidence, Ig must be a sock of NealParr? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was obvious? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

John Lennon put it best. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

Your removal of my comments on the Global Warming talk page is censorship pure and simple. This is inappropriate in general and especially in a medium that purports to present the best current understanding of scientific findings and ideas. If you disagree with my views then say so and explain why on the discipline-specific talk pages - that's what they're for.Dikstr (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but wikipedia is censored if you do not stick to WP:TPG and WP:SOAP. Your comment was unrelated to the article, and 100% about editors (see also WP:NPA). Something which isn't discussed on talk-pages. I've pointed out the relevant fora for you on your talk, to put this "information" if you truly want to go on about it. But t:GW is not the place. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation of how and why you delete other editor's comments on Wikipeidia talk pages. I have, on one rare occasion, deleted and/or refactored talk page comments in the past for similar reasons, so I understand where you're coming from and appreciate your goals. Situations spiral out of control when talk pages start being about editors and stop being about the article. The difference between what I have done and what you are doing is that I had permission from the repeated perpetrators to take these actions. See Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-19_Talk_at_Redshift for how that permission came about. If you are assuming this role of deleting talk page comments that are unrelated to the article and are 100% about editors, it's also critical to be consistent in your actions and remove all posts that match these criteria instead of only the posts from those who may disagree with you or your friends. That leaves you and your friends free to violate the policies you mention while others are not. I would appreciate an explanation about why this post was not deleted by you. I look forward to your reply. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The answer is obvious. You're lost William M. Connolley (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Kim & William, from WP:TPG "Discuss edits: The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale." This means "deleting without prior discussion is bad practice", don't you think? --Damorbel (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

I got sidetracked with real life, but finally responded in Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Inclusion_criteria_is_inappropriate. I can explain further, hopefully after going through the discussions already there in more detail. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Resignation

You Win

I'm resigning from Misplaced Pages. You are all so much the same. And the information in the articles cannot be relied on because of your sameness. Misplaced Pages should upgrade from a cult to a recognized full blown religion.

Enjoy your power thrills!

DasV (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. But the trouble was that you fail to understand what Misplaced Pages is, and what its not. Article talk pages are not "free for all" discussion fora, nor are they soapboxes where we can all shout out our personal views.(like ) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, KimDabelsteinPetersen. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 20:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war Mojib_Latif

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop your disruptive editing, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. TParis00ap (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice (again!)

Hello, KimDabelsteinPetersen. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 16:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

For those of us in the peanut gallery (hey, thats the first time I've used that phrase) could you fill in the bits of the template about what the topic is. ANI is sometimes busy William M. Connolley (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning - only to one part?

You gave me an 3RR (even though I've not done 3RR). You didn't give ChrisO (talk · contribs) a 3RR even though he has done at least 3RR in the article Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident? Nsaa (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dikstr&curid=21346331&diff=325094354&oldid=325093639