Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:45, 9 December 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

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)

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)

Since i haven't had interactions with you before, i had no knowledge of whether you knew the policy or not. On the other hand i did know that ChrisO knew of the 3RR policy. Simple as that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oki, thanks. Nsaa (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned

Kim, I'm becoming increasing concerned about your understanding of Misplaced Pages policy and how you are apply it to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. You warned User talk:Nsaa for breaking the the three-revert rule. Nsaa listed the diffs in question, and you said "All of the diffs are reverts" (emphasis added). I looked at just the first, and it is not a revert of a single character of a prior editor, but an addition with sources. Under your broad definition, virtually every change to an article would be a revert, and that is simply not true.

With respect to the issue of whether the documents were stolen you accuse me of Original Research, yet what I was saying was clearly not Original Research nor Synthesis.

I realize this is a contentious issue, and many people, myself included, may be guilty of reading and reacting too fast. However, this article is protected, so we have time to calm down and discuss issues in a rational manner.

I don't think this rises to the level that it needs reporting to ANI, but I urge you to read the points made more carefully.--SPhilbrickT 21:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You may be as concerned as you want - the very first is a partial revert back to duchamps version which was removed here. Perhaps you should try to check things abit more first?

Kim, I fear you missed both points. You said "the very first is a partial revert back to duchamps version which was removed here" Yet the first link is to an edit performed on the 25th of November, and the second link is to an edit performed on the 26th of November. I confess I sometimes have trouble reading diffs and figuring out exactly what happened, but I'm fairly certain you can't revert something before it is removed. Did you cite the wrong diffs?--SPhilbrickT 14:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It was the wrong diff - and i forgot why i counted it as a revert. It is not the references - but the removal of "stole and" which had been edit-warred over for a long period of time. Its not that easy to notice, but its there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the second part, i suggest you reread your own comment, since you were the one throwing around WP:OR first. (and i responded with same).

On Original Research, yes I used it. I think I used it correctly. The discussion isn't who used it first, but who used it correctly. Explaining how a certain observation could plausibly not be a crime may well be Original Research, but that makes it ineligible for inclusion in an article, not ineligible for use in explaining on a talk page why supposed fact might not really be a fact. I did the latter.--SPhilbrickT 14:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To mirror you - i'm becoming increasingly concerned with your ability to actually verify things. Feel free to adress this on ANI since i have exactly nothing to hide or be ashamed of. (on the other hand you should apologize for your lack in thorough checking). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a few examples of my inability to verify things? Like anyone, I make mistakes, but strive to do better. I did cite an opinion page of a newspaper, and later learned it was actually a blog. But "increasingly" implies multiple examples. Could you share, so I can improve?--SPhilbrickT 14:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Revert war

One of the edits made was my original edit (and therefore not a revert), and another was a complete rewording of the claim (and therefore also not a revert). I made my three reverts and won't make more. However, the reverts made to the comment really weren't fair, since it came down like a ton of bricks saying "no, you're wrong", complete with strawman arguments and outright mob rule logic.

I guess Misplaced Pages is a place where if enough people agree with you, it becomes true, now isn't it? Macai (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - but there are 5 edits. The first is the one i gave as "Version reverted back to", the other 4 are reverts back to that version. So you are at 4RR - not 3. As for the rest: Mu. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In re. Hudson on Climategate e-mails

Your note on Mr. Hudson (of the BBC) is appreciated. Apparently he had not received the full "FOIA.zip" archive uploaded successfully on 19 November, but was instead referring in his post of 23 November to a sequence of e-mails apparently originating among some of the CRU correspondents, who were complaining about his on-air remarks in early October, and which he had received on 12 October. Mr. Hudson seemed to have found that string of e-mails reproduced in full when he examined the data dump contained in the uploaded archive. Thus his information serves as a sort of representative "biopsy" of the archive's contents to support the contention that this archive is, indeed, a true reflection of the working files (data, climatological modeling code, etc.) and e-mail communications of the scientists involved in the AGW fraud. Is this your impression?
What has been reported with regard to the best estimate from within the UEA/CRU information technology services department on a date certain upon which the information used to create the "FOIA.zip" archive had been copied from their system? The account of the RealClimate hacking shows that on 17 November someone had succeeded in uploading that archive to their computer, but it should be possible to ascertain the time at which UEA/CRU security was compromised and the information was extracted from their computer system.
Please feel free to remove this note from your talk page after review thereof. Thank you. 71.125.143.179 (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you can think the Guardian and New York Times are not valid. This information is all over the internet, and the quotes from these two scientists have been quoted everywhere. And how do you see my article addition as "original research"? Exactly what do you object to. I believe that removing my contribution was vandalism. The person should have edited it if he wanted to, but he just removed it. That shows bias. Apparently he (was it you?) did not want the subject mentioned. SanAntonioPete (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Pete

Are you getting my message now?

Are you getting my message now? SanAntonioPete (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Pete

Pardon?

seems a touch harsh. Have you gone over to the Dark Side? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what happened there - i haven't done vandalism reverts in quite some time??? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

GoRight

He has mastered the art of being insulting and provocative while staying just short of clearly sanctionable behavior. Impressive, in a perverse way. The less time you waste on him and his kind the better. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but i also think that it is important to point it out when it happens. This particular one was imho not "short of", which i believe GoRight knows rather well, since he apparently doesn't dare to expand on what he means. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You have mail

Please check your e-mail. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: global warming has peaked

I never said that global warming was ending. However, global warming, at least Misplaced Pages's understand of it, is defined as "the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century", and in this regard, it can have a "current peak". It's like how we can have a "current peak" for population, even though it might go down for a while due to disease or famine or whatever. Same logic applies here; the temperature has hit its current peak since the mid 20th century on 1998, and global warming as a concept is contingent upon average global temperature and nothing else, ergo, global warming has hit its current peak.

But might I ask why you're so inclined to actually take the debate to my talk page? I'm not trying to be impolite or dismissive, but I was under the impression that the decision was largely made since most users (yourself included) were convinced that FAQ Q3 essentially refuted my claim's validity. Is persuading me of this of some significance to you? :O Macai (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"The increase in temperatures since the mid-20th century" is a delta value, not the graph of wiggles (which are caused by various forcings (natural and anthropogenic)) or the individual temperatures. When you say that it has "peaked" then you have dropped looking at the delta value, and started looking at temperatures. I simply felt that you were entitled to a more thorough explanation than what article talk space allows. Sorry if that is disturbing you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah, man, don't think I'm being disturbed. I just didn't think anyone cared that much. I'm probably going to go back to editing politically uncharged articles - articles where people won't get upset if you cite a mainstream news source or some random book since there's little reason to lie about stuff. I might be being a bit cynical, but I'm kind of under the impression that articles like global warming, Marxism, and so on are so popular because everyone wants to verify that their POV is dominating the article, and if it's not, to try to impose it. Like I said, cynical, but I think it might have some merit. Off to calmer waters. Cheers. Macai (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Butting in: I agree with you cynicism. Just FYI, in case you don't edit science and engineering topics much, the use of scientific sources is highly, highly preferred for even non-controversial science and engineering articles, not because other people are necessarily trying to lie, but just because they can easily get it wrong. So even when I'm writing about sand moving in streams or flow in the Earth's mantle, I try to use only peer-reviewed journal articles and respected books as sources. Awickert (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

On canvassing and harassment

I left a response for you on my page. Dimawik (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

CRU draft

Dear Kim: Friendly notice. Bug out. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A friendly notice doesn't come with a predescribed outcome ("I could use some support, if you're willing") as your comment was asking for (ie. "written to influence the outcome" or from the friendly notice section "if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion"). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Kim, do you find it all inconsistent that you object to a Cato source as unreliable in a non-BLP, while accepting RealClimate in a BLP? Cato is at least as reliable as RC - Cato a respected think tank with a POV, RealClimate a respected science blog with a POV - so why is the former unacceptable while the latter is acceptable even though the latter is cited in a more restrictive sourcing environment? This seems inconsistent to me. ATren (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No, i do not find it inconsistent, you simply have to try to understand more than just the surface of the arguments. The argument at RC is one about due weight as well as reliability of sources. Cato is not a reliable source on science nor on website critique... Michaels may be on the science, but he is representing a minority point of view, and it is very unclear as to whether his view on RC has any significant backing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the fact that the article has 2 praises and once had an entire paragraph filled with praise, one sentence criticizing the website does not give unequal weight. This leaves the minority arguement the only logical option to defend against criticism. The weight argument can only be made if you can prove they hold not just a minority view, but a view that amounts to pseudoscience. As we all know, minority views are welcome, but only if they come from notable and reliable sources. You cannot prove that Cato engages in pseudoscience and you cannot prove they are not reliable or notable. You may disagree with them politically but saying "I DONT LIKE THEM" is not good enough. That is as far as your arguement really goes. You are being incredibly inconsistent.(Meltwaternord (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC))

(e(c)You are falling into the fallacy of thinking that WP:NPOV means "equal time" to all sides.. It doesn't. Praise and critique must be balanced in such a way as to reflect the prevalence of each. Cherry-picking critique just because it's critique is False balance. And you are still failing to understand that Cato isn't a reliable source, they can only be quoted on issues where they are regarded as experts - or according to due weight where secondary sources have quoted them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

As an example of Cato's unreliability their bio of Michaels says he was a contributing author to the IPCC AR4 when in fact he was not. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing Cato's reliability per se, only their relative status as a source compared to RC. Both sites feature respected contributors and both have been quoted in media. From an objective perspective, I don't see how you can label RC as fundamentally more reliable than Cato. Yet KDP support RC on a BLP, and opposes Cato on a non-BLP, and I find that contradictory. ATren (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If Cato is willing to misstate something as basic as the qualifications of their staff, what else could they be lying about? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets see:

• Cato not a reliable source on science, not a reliable source on website critique, not a reliable source on BLP material.
• RC reliable source on science, not a reliable source on website critique, not a reliable source on BLP material.

And in all cases the relative perspective of sources must be cited according to relative merit.

• Pat Michaels, representing a minority point of view on science.
• Scientific American representing a majority point of view on science.

Does things become clearer now? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Should capital crimes be expanded to fabrication & obfuscation like you support? rndhyd68.180.38.25 (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jim Inhofe#Protected

I have locked Jim Inhofe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for one week, as discussion seems to have devolved into edit warring. I would like to unprotect the article as soon as possible if discussion can be restarted. I am asking each of the participants to please affirm that until one week from today they will refrain from editing any material at that article that is related to climate change. The idea is to mimic the effects of the lock without the software enforcement. Unless there is a firm consensus at Talk:Jim Inhofe, please do not make any potentially controversial changes. I expect to block any editor who continues to edit disruptively despite assurances to the contrary. I am posting this message to all relevant talkpages; please do not take this as laying blame on any particular editor. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Global warming sceptics

Hi I didn't know this category had been deleted already. I was looking at the article on Tim Ball and others and it struck me it would be good to have a category instead of a list. Why was it originally deleted? Regards I love SUV's (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page of the category (copied here):

Regarding earlier deletion: 1 + a later one which i haven't found the CfD link to yet (it was Category:Scientists Opposing The Mainstream Scientific Assessment Of Global Warming) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Unstruck comment

Hi just to let you know I unstruck User:Ling.Nut's comment here . While I can understand stricking the entire discussion thread that started with a sockpuppet, Ling.Nut was replying to Viritidas and a sockpuppet replied to LingNut so that wasn't the case here. Perhaps you hadn't intended to struck Ling.Nut's comment anyway. I've left the actual sockpuppet's comment struck of course. Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a mistake - seems i started the striking too early, and hadn't noticed that Ling.Nut's comment got struck as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate

You may not be interested, but check out the 'Matthew Effect,'and Mahoney, Michael J.: Bias, Controversy, and Abuse; Science Technology & Human Values 15,50-55, 1990. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.250.83 (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

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