Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:34, 30 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

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)

You ARE from Vejle, Denmark and have no business editing any english section of any wikipedia page. Refrain from editing any page concerning global warming or anything regarding science. And tell that to your friedn Schultz and Helle. None of you have any background in climate change science and it show. Political agents from europe are strickly prohibited from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.117.231 (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but can you please point me at the policy that states that you have to be english to edit wikipedia? (hint: no such thing exists - and the english wikipedia is the international version) And wow! you read my facebook page - woohoo its getting exposure ;-) -- Kim D. Petersen (talk)

More censorship! Is Kim part of the East Anglia Global Warming cabal? Or a sympathiser? See here: The above could just as well have been for personal attacks on another editor. Please follow the rules for wikipedia, or step away until you've calmed down enough to be able to do so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC) and note this link: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thread/d47e270e55141009?hl=en#

I see the makings of a conspiracy here. Is Kim one of William's friends? Likely, as she monitors the GW pages on Wiki. Anthropogenic global warming is real. But these hard core Greens want to hijack the debate about the effects of AGW. The IPCC itself has said the lower bound effect is likely a mere 5 cm rise in mean sea levels over the next 100 years. Nothing to worry about, but the hard core Greens don't want us to know that. Further research is needed, not action. I will be heard. Posting from Washington, DC, where I remain as a former lobbyist. Have a nice day. And no I don't care if you delete this passage or not; this is for your consumption, not for anybody else. Raylopez99 (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes! Wow! Doh! I'm busted! Yea! And goodness! They will notice that i personally fixed a lot of thermometers and shovelled the MWP in Denmark under the carpet, and burned the treerings that showed the wrong things - oh damn! What shall i do? Ooooh me ooooh my.

Fun aside - i have rather a lot of problems seeing your connection between my comment and the Google groups link. But then again - i'm also amazed at your (lack of) detector skills. I'm male - not female (its on my user-page - right here). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:23, 22 December 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)

I have no idea what you are talking about, since i have never commented on capital crimes. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:50, 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)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice. Ill have to remember to count to 10 before posting. I just finished reading the 5 pillars, so I feel in the future I can contribute a little more substance.lol

                                       Frank

PA on my Understanding

-- I don't think you meant a PA on my understanding. Please be careful and talk directly to me on my talk page when you have concerns about me. You will find I am a very reasonable editor with a compassionate heart and fierce logic. Thanks kindly. I must take a break now. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

William Connolley

Re William Connolley, could you please explain what specifically you object to in the edit you reverted here? Thanks.—Finell 03:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes i can. Notice how the sentences after the "copy-edit" didn't flow, and how there were several pellingsperrors inserted. As well as how the distinction of what version of Encyclopedia Brittanica got lost ("print-version"). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Actually the source didn't say anything about comparing Misplaced Pages specifically to the print version of Encyclopædia Britannica. The title of the source article is "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head" and was comparing the online versions of both. The other problems that I wanted to address are:

• Journals don't write articles; they publish them.
• There is no need to cite the same article twice in one sentence (or even in two sentences).
• The second citation of that article in the sentence gives the wrong title.
• In "comparison of the relative" the word "relative" is redundant. However, I should have said "compared the".
• Substituting the active voice for the passive is more concise.
• In a numerical range like 900–901, only the last 2 digits of the end-of-range are kept: 900–01 (see WP:ENDASH).

Are there different solutions to these problems that you prefer?

I do see that I misspelled "described" . Could you please point out the rest of the "several pellingsperrors inserted"? I guess we both missed the misspelling in Encyclopædia Britannica in the article.—Finell 06:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I may have focused too much on the spelling error (i was writing the above when i was rather tired). I was aware that the citations had been fixed but the rest looked worse (imho). Relative here is referring to the amount of articles compared i think - but go ahead and reinstate with the fixes, and chalk the comment and revert down to caffeine induced grumpiness ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

I don't know scibaby that well, but Fresno Area Rapid Transit (talk · contribs) seems familiar. Thoughts? Guettarda (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks very much like scibaby - >90% likely methinks. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Singer

You won't like my edit. There is some explanation here. --BozMo talk 22:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually i thought this already was resolved by the Singer thread on BLP - my concerns where on weight and spurious claim of a BLP issue, and since the ABC story says same - i'm not going to revert or otherwise comment. (sorry not to have answered immediately - i was rather concerned and occupied with the next section (below) - which is a *real* BLP problem). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to suppress information.

Millions of people turn to wikipedia every day for information. On websites, blogs, and message boards all over the internet, people are referring to the Diane Francis wikipedia article's claim that she has two children. The fact that you removed such information in this edit is something which should be of concern to anyone who favor wikipedia's policy of openness. It is very common for wikipedia biographies to cite the children of the article's subject. Please stop trying to remove this relevant, well sourced information from this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I find this rather disconcerting and have brought it up on ANI --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You reported yourself? That's very noble of you. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried. btw, I'm sorry the bullet points weren't entirely appropriate on either end (this is assuming both parties are reading), but it's meant as a blank civility agreement to just start over. Call it an "AGF Beans Platter", perhaps. One more try all around, but cramming beans up your nose or other WP:BEANS-worthy activities and *POOF*. Free to game to any sanctions. For parties not misbehaving, it's easy. Others? 90% of the time someone slips. There's very little room for gigantic ANI debate if someone stumbles after things being made that clear. It's a weird view, I know, but since there was no consensus moving toward anything whatsoever anywhere at all, at least this way I could claim I tried even if the debate went on indefinitely anyway. I don't know or particularly care about the "right and wrong" bit since I don't know the situation, but actions speak for themselves and here's one more try to behave. Wander over to WP:BLPN since that all isn't since that must-toted "content dispute" part isn't particular for ANI. Then again, you might have somehow dealt with that, I don't know. I haven't checked. ... Good luck. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Grundle is certainly not going to take advice - he is now in breach of his topic ban as well, since he just edited United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009. Sigh. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Nb. i wasn't stalking - article is on my watchlist. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because that is an international issue, not a U.S. issue. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You're not stalking me? Then how come you never edited Diane Francis until right after I did? Grundle2600 (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit would have appeared in Huggle or whatever other flagging tool script or displayof choice as a blind RR. New content was fully removed by one editor with 100% of the original plus more added in next edit. Seeing something like that would get me to check the edit history, at least, as which point it would have become fairly obvious if watchlisted. ...Or the article might just have been on watchlist already... or user was on RCP. A lot of explanations possible. Once seen, the edit summary given might as well be a big neon sign above the post screaming "ooh, patrol me!" To be honest, it's extremely weird things like that which get me into my more unusual edit work/discussings/???s.

Oh, then there's the fact that Kim didn't even respond to any other edits and was apparently content to collect evidence from above. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is launching an investigation into your activities.

You are becoming famous in the US for strong areming the wikipedia community. Several articles have been written about you, one of which is from CBS news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.117.231 (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you point me at that "investigation"? Since quite apparently no one has bothered to inform me about it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes please do tell - we're all agog William M. Connolley (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009

Please do not ignore the edit war referral to Administrators, and let them do their job. Flatterworld (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but administrators are not a special category of editors, that you can just appeal to - please see WP:Administrators, they most certainly aren't the ones that "judge" on content issues. In this case there are clear guidelines that have to be followed, amongst these are WP:NOT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Brittainia/Rameses

As voting is evil and User:Rameses has not edited Scientific Opinion on Climate Change or talk, I think that the comment should stand with the note. Is this an acceptable solution for you? GoRight asked for clarification on my talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Answered over at your place :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You asked for it

You got it. A start, anyway. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

New Scibaby Sock?

I have no idea about how sockpuppet investigations work, but I've noticed you've handled some details surrounding the scibaby socks -- this account might interest you. Cheers. jheiv (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

PA definition

I appreciate your concern here Would you mind If we asked Alex Harvey how he received the comment? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering that Alex in his comment was extremely less civil and accused his fellow editors of bad faith ("...Any one of our millions of readers can see, here, that the editors don't care a bit about misrepresenting Singer's view, because the editors frankly don't like him...") - your rather one-sided blanking is not appreciated. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What does this have to do with WMC's alleged PA, you seem to blame the potential victim? Are you implying that Alex's comments on how folks feel about Singer, warranted a PA? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Telling someone not to "whinge" is not a personal attack, though it may be seen as incivil to some. On the other hand a statement that says that other editors deliberately misrepresent the topic at hand (especially on BLP's) is a personal attack. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Replacing reliable secondary source with original research

I am quite supprised that any editor would actually replace a reliable secondary source with original research. This is the proposed lead to the article Scientific opinion on climate change:

Scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has repeatedly stressed that global warming is a serious problem and that governments need to respond to this challenge promptly. While the scientific agreement that global warming is taking place and that its consequences will be severe has been growing, it is not a universally held position among experts. Expert disagreement and uncertainty over global warming is particularly likely when scientists are asked to offer broad conclusions, such as the rate of global warming, potential effects, and policy suggestions, which involves value-laden and often contentious discussions of what should be.

Surveys of how scientists view the status of climate change research, conducted in 1996 and 2003, demonstrated a significant shift in scientific opinion regarding global warming, though there remains some disagreement about whether humans are responsible. There has been a significant increase in the level of expert confidence in some aspects of climate change research, most notably land surface processes and sea ice, but scientists remain uncertain about the accuracy of scientific models that offer predictions for future consequences of climate change. Disagreements focus mainly on the magnitude and rate of change, the severity of estimated warming, and its projected impacts — both positive and negative. Moreover, wide variations of scientific opinion accompany model projections of a warmer world: if these increases in greenhouse gas emissions continue, global average temperature could rise anywhere from 2.7°F to 10.7°F over the next 100 years. Because so much of worldwide energy is derived from fossil fuels, options for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose major challenges and controversy.

And this is what you replace it with this unsourced statement of opinion:

Since when did the article Scientific opinion on climate change not include the views of individual scientists? I have never seen original reseach substituted for a reliable secondary source in any article I have worked on. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, how about taking this to the talk-page instead of here? What you call original research is simply constraints agreed upon by consensus. Any articles on any topic can have such, since we cannot describe everything within a single article since there are limits to how big articles can and may be. And apparently most editors disagree with your objections, which should tell you something. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Constraints agreed upon by consensus" sounds like a euphamism for WP:OWN to me. But how can you tell if reliable secondary source represents the concensus or not? Does the addition of sourced content have to through some approval process that I am not aware of? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Once more: Take it to the talk-page of the article. Consensus is amongst editors of the article, and has nothing to do with ownership. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have taken it to the talk page, but it seems you don't want to discuss the issue there either. For an editor who is so keen on consensus building according to your edit summary, I don't understand why you would not want wider input into this discussion by removing the WP:3O template?. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read what WP:3O is for. It is used when 2 editors can't agree - to get a third opinion. In this case there are significantly more than 2 editors, and therefore the 3O tag is misplaced. And contrary to what you say, i have made my position clear on the talk-page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#hatnote removal

Thank you for starting that section after reverting. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you edit the truth?

Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both

From what you linked to in the edit on ]

How can you state that Steve mcintyre is not a reliable source? Your censorship of the facts is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 08:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read and understand WP:RS and WP:V which is our policy on what is and isn't a reliable source. Climateaudit is not a reliable source for such information. (and neither is the other blog) Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Would a national newspaper be a reliable source then?

However steve mycintyre is a reliable source, i would like to hear your reason as to why he is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 08:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Take your time and read our policy on reliable sources - i linked them in the previous reply. Whether or not McIntyre is a reliable source, has nothing to do with your or my opinion. You may also want to read our policy on what material that can be included in biographies of living persons (BLP) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok thank you, i believe i may use a national news paper as a reliable source.

However it clearly states "they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question;" and steve mcintyre is an authoritave source on climate change. I shall however use a newspaper as my source instead.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 09:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but McIntyre is not an "authoritative source" on climate change, by any stretch of the mind. He writes about it on a blog (or at least a subset of it), which doesn't in any way give "authoritative" status.

As for using national news papers - it depends on what kind of article, and which news-paper it is. For instance Op-Ed's and editorials are not reliable for more than their authors opinion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"He writes about it on a blog (or at least a subset of it), which doesn't in any way give "authoritative" status." That statement is not true. McIntyre discovered Mann's massaging of the data, he is thus the most authoritative person on the matter apart from Mann himself. He may be a lesser athority on some other matters but this is about Mann's treatment of his data and Kim Peterson's opinions on the authority of Mc Intyre this matter are just an irrelevant POV and should carry no weight in assesing suitability for inclusion in Misplaced Pages.--Damorbel (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to differentiate between what you perceive as reality and what is documentable as reality. For instance the statement that Mann should "massage" data (whatever that means), is relying entirely on McIntyre's viewpoint. (and ignoring (for instance) Von Storch's view - or any of the other paleo-people). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Rule 5, Kim. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Rule 51/2, "A "Rule 5" claimant is identified as a meatpuppet". Please don't do it Boris, you can do better than that. --Damorbel (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"For instance the statement that Mann should "massage" data... is relying entirely on McIntyre's viewpoint". Nothing at all to do with "McIntyre's viewpoint", everything to do with McIntyre's researches. McIntyre is well qualified at detecting defective statistics, deliberate or otherwise and his results are supported by the facts, and bizarrely enough in Mann's case, also by Mann's reaction to McIntyre's work and the CRU emails. Kim, for you to assert a statement is a POV is quite insufficient, you should at least be a little informative as to why you dismiss McIntyre's work, up until now you have shown precious little appreciation of it, neither have you shown the slightest willingness to understand it, with your enthusiastic editings surely you should show just a little understanding of what you are writing about?--Damorbel (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so from what i can see here is that KimDabelsteinPetersen has allowed his pov to infringe on the neutrality which is meant to be used in editing articles.

However i have found some other reliable sources such as the wegman report which also shows that mann`s "hockey stick" is fraudulent. I believe it is important to have the full truth of the hockey stick there on mann`s article, do you not? Would reports from senate hearings be acceptable sources from your pov? mark nutley (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Rule 6: Kim is male. Needs a FAQ I reckon. Can we have "pocket guide to zealots"? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we have "pocket guide to zealots"? I`d have thought you had one already. I have edited my post to get kims gender right. What is rule 6 btw? and can i have a link to these rules i keep seeing please. Once mann`s page is available for editing i shall update it with the new references i have. Thank you mark nutley (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

How exciting! Rule 6! Another (private) meatpuppet rule. I wonder what rules 1-4 are? (Boris has given us an idea of rule 5, I invented Rule 51/2) now can we please please have a link to these rules? It gives the impression that there is an inner sanctum of editors who have privileged access and powers. For the sake of Misplaced Pages will someone explain about these rules so that we can all understand them and abide by them, or are they just a silly fantasy? --Damorbel (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting on a link to these rules? Also kim, you say a blog may not be used as a source but realclimate is used as a source and it is a blog is it not? mark nutley (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:SPS pay special attention to the exceptions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"pay special attention to the exceptions" Forgive my plodding ways, but is this supposed to imply that RC is something other than a mouthpiece for AGW/CO2 apologists. I seem to remember posting about atmospheric potential energy only to have the very existance of atmospheric potential energy denied by, er, Bart, was it?--Damorbel (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to read this from you..

Kim, unless I'm missing something, your actions on skeptic BLPs does not mesh with this statement. In my experience, you have been more than willing to accept opinions in BLPs for skeptics. Can you explain the discrepancy? ATren (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you are surprised. Since i have been stating this always, and am quite consistent about it. Now try and sit down and read what i've written in different places (for instance on BLP/N) and combine these. Here are a couple of clues: Biographical material, regular material, exceptions to SPS, Biographies can contain regular material, articles can contain biographical material..... If you cannot determine what i mean from this ... then i'm sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim, Solomon's criticism of Connolley's work at Misplaced Pages is no different than opinions cited on skeptics' works in their BLPs. In the former, you cite BLP and remove; in the latter, you fight to keep. Your position is inconsistent. But no point in continuing debate here; rather, I will cite the above diff on skeptic pages from this point forward, starting with Lindzen and Singer, and you can present your "clues" to the audiences there. See if they get it.

The double standard on these articles is obvious, and it needs to be rectified. ATren (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have problems with reality here. Solomon's opinion article isn't about Connolleys "work", he is commenting on the person in specific. (biographical material). But lets put that aside for a moment: Even on the wikipedia subject, it fails WP:SPS (which op-eds and opinion sources approximate to) - Since Solomon is obviously not an expert on Misplaced Pages (so it doesn't fall under the "expert clause"), and it also raises a lot of red-flags by making claims that you as a wikipedian should have noticed where wrong. (just the headline should have made alarm-clocks ring in your head ... do we really have >5000 climate change articles?)

Of course you will probably ignore what i've just said (since you've done so before), but check when i comment on self-published sources, whether i mention the exception clauses for SPS, and whether i comment on whether its biographical material or non-bio material. I do make an effort to stay very close to the rules and policies ATren. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me summarize some of the aspects i look at with Opinion sources:

• Expert/Non-expert
• "Red flag" claims
• Noted commentator on the subject?
• How well regarded is the commentator?
• What is the commentators record for being correct?
• How well regarded is the specific media regarded on the specific subject?

(and of course other things)

All of these should be straight-forward and something that all wikipedian's should do.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim, your comment on Connolley's talk (the BLP, not the editor) was direct and unconditional. No nuance there. Now here you present this series of arguments which somehow delineates the hair-thin distinction, and it's mostly based on your perception of the content in question or the people involved. Have you ever stopped to consider that for judgements like "How well regarded is the commentator?", your own judgement may be significantly swayed by your POV? Solomon is a columnist for a reliable national newspaper (Canadian), is fully qualified to comment on Misplaced Pages (are you really saying he's unqualified to comment on an encyclopedia?) yet you apply your own standard of judgement and dismiss him as a source. Then you go to skeptic articles and defend similarly sourced material that aligns with your POV. It's a double standard, no matter how many wafer-thin arguments you raise to defend it. ATren (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes ATren, i have stopped for a moment and considered that. Specifically because i've been at the other end of Mr. Solomons pencil, and therefore might not have been objective. And despite this i still come to the same conclusion. You seem to have missed my point on WP:REDFLAG - can you spot the red-flags? So yes, considering all the errors that Solomon made in this Op-Ed and in all the others, i have to say that "Yes, Solomon is apparently not qualified to comment on Misplaced Pages" since he hasn't taken the time to research the subject sufficiently, and from this we also can determine that either the editorial oversight at the newspaper is non-existing, or hasn't checked or verified anything.

Now, have you considered that your personal POV isn't clouding your view? It seems to me that you haven't even considered the quite obvious errors that Solomon makes here - how come? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my POV is irrelevant, because I am not trying to cite a laundry list of subjective criteria for inclusion. My rule is simple: if it is reliably sourced and relevant, include it; otherwise, exclude it, and that goes for both skeptic and supporter. You, on the other hand, are actually judging the content and the authors even though we're not supposed to do that as long as the source is reliable. So don't try to turn this around to my POV (nonexistent as it is on this issue) when it is you who are enforcing your own value judgement into these articles. ATren (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Haven't you? I seem to recall that you have had rather a lot of conflict with WMC. Perhaps i'm mistaken? And sorry - but WP rules - this isn't reliably sourced. And you seem to be rather mistaken about what our purpose as editors is... We have to judge the reliability, weight and context of sources/references, that is what we're here for - otherwise we'd be a news-agregator and not an encyclopedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of opinion articles in newspapers is an open question; they receive less editorial oversight, rather than no oversight. I've seen the distinction applied inconsistently. I do agree that in a BLP it's best to err on the side of non-inclusion. However, if you have been a prior target of Mr. Solomon's articles, you should probably recuse yourself from this. If the reverts need to be made, they can be made by an editor who isn't personally involved in the dispute. (And yes I think that probably applies to Atren also.) Wellspring (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the reliability of opinion articles - it is usually a grey area. In this particular case (Solomon) i doubt if there is any editorial oversight. Finally with regards to reculas, it has been turned at AN/I with the general consensus that WMC didn't have a conflict of interest with regards to Solomon (same for me). The reasons for this was that a journalist/columnist/writer/... could otherwise "veto" people he didn't like, by mentioning them in their articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

revert on rating global cooling page

You state "Not your choice to make (nor mine) - and it certainly shouldn't be used as a "pressure item" for content disputes" on reverting my downgrade of the global cooling page. Are you asserting that ordinary editors may not grade pages on quality scales? Pray tell, who is qualified according to you to judge whether it's a b or a c article? TMLutas (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can do it, but i personally think that members of the respective projects should be the ones that do it. And i will stand by the "pressure item" comment - since that was rather apparent from your edit-comment, and the surrounding context. Now i think you have some explaining to do on the talk page? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This page talks about popular press stories from the 1970s but any efforts to include popular press stories from the current decade have repeatedly run on the rocks of the insistence that only peer reviewed articles are to be used. Treating decades unequally seems to be a habit with the AGW crowd. I don't recommend continuing on that path. Just to be fair, I did look at the project rules. What I did was allowed by the rules of the project but in case of controversy, evaluation edits should go to discussion and the rating set up by consensus. I think that getting people on record whether they think that *nobody* in reliable source land has talked about global cooling this decade and therefore a section is not justified would be an excellent idea, but only if the point isn't mooted by the inclusion of a 2000s section. If you want to run the discussion in parallel and not serially, that's up to you. At current moment, I'm waiting for your response on the global cooling talk page. Have you gotten the right paper this time? TMLutas (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone actually notice or care whether an article is a, b, or c class? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

KimDabelsteinPetersen apparently cares, though not enough to follow the rules laid out in the project FAQ which argued against a revert and instead opening up a section in talk to achieve consensus. TMLutas (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

ping

I made a comment in reply to another editor's observation which I believe you can be of assistance with. Thanks/apologies.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael manns page

Might i inquire as to why you removed the reference to this ]

This is an important part of this guys bio and i would like to know why you removed it. I have mention is the talk page of said article that i will be writing up a section about the hockey stick for his bio, i hope you will take a part in this. --mark nutley (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You may not :-) ] It was removed by Threeafterthree, because it is already linked in the lede (per WP:SEEALSO "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section,...") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

:) Sorry my bad lol, sorry but i do not see the hockey stick controversy anywere in there, what is the lede --mark nutley (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Lede/Lead is the introduction text. It is linked under Hockey stick graph --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kim, we can contiue this on the mann talk page --mark nutley (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

fourth assesment report

this appears to be on the verge of another edit war ], looking at your reason for your last revert should you not do a usercheck before reverting an article based on what you might think is a sock? I do not want this article locked out again. You also have not responded in the article talk page, when might you do so? Thank you --mark nutley (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you're new here, I'll butt in on Kim's talk and explain. "Scibaby" is a long-time vandal who continues his or her actions via hundreds of new accounts. Someone who has been here for as long as Kim is an expert at finding which accounts are Scibaby sockpuppets. Ideally, one would perform a checkuser first, but Scibaby's abusive behavior is so ubiquitous that waiting for checkuser would simply allow an abusive individual to change wide swaths of Misplaced Pages for unacceptably long periods of time. Awickert (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks awickert, 100`d of accounts, wow there`s a guy with to much time on his hands :) mark nutley (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Good stuff I love SUV's (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC) This section is also rather a mess. It is supposed to be about scepticism and debate, but is mostly about 'awareness'. The section, if about scepticism and debate, should briefly summarise the reasons that sceptics give, with brief replies if necessary, and a link to a sub-article that discuss sceptical issues in more detail. I would put this on the GW talk page, but someone called Tony Sidaway insists on deleting anything I put there. If you read what I say, it is mostly about the logic of the article, and explaining the issues in a clear way that ordinary people can understand, rather than a litany of which scientists and organisations support the hypothesis. I love SUV's (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

IPCC

Hi you recently showed interest in the following article ] and the inclusion of new text, one of the editors has asked comments ] and i was wondering if you had any further thoughts on this as i believe the consensus currently is to allow the new text it. Thank you.mark nutley (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please Do Not Vandalize the Monckton Article

Per WP:VAN I am making a good-faith request you not engage in further vandalism of user improvements to the article about Lord Monckton. Your wholesale reversions are not constructive. Without discussion or comment you deleted a quote I added about the President of the Czech Republic commenting on issues of tax policy. There is no "mainstream" or "consensus" on tax policy issues in any nation on the world and the published opinions of a sitting head-of-state are germane to any encyclopedic entry. Please review WP:VAN if you need help. Thank you. Nothughthomas (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - but my disagreeing with you on whether your contribution was an improvement or not, has nothing to do with vandalism. The rest belongs to the talk-page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Making wholesale edits without discussion under guise is vandalism. Please discuss edits on the talk page to obtain community consensus. An opportunity was offered to you. Contact via your talk page became necessary when you made the choice not to engage the community in discussion prior to edits. Please review WP:VAN if you need help. Thank you. Nothughthomas (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough there are lots of discussions on the talk-page, and yours isn't supported by them. So it is really you who are ignoring things, and making "wholesale edits" that go against consensus. Sorry. Under no circumstance are your or my edits vandalism. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not the case. There is obviously a vibrant back-and-forth both ways, as evidenced in the discussion page. Further, no discussion at all has occurred about inclusion of the Czech President's views, of the views of Daily Telegraph staff, or of any of the specific edits I contributed. The spirit of WP:NPOV would demand individual contributions be evaluated individually, not lumped into a verboten "positions" that can't be uttered in an entry, regardless of source. As I said, there is no consensus on questions of tax policy, which was among the contributions you deleted/vandalized. Aggressive edit-waring by you without attempting a civil discussion when offered can not be tolerated in interest of WP:CIVIL. You have been reported for WP:VAN. Please suspend your vandalism efforts until admins can have an opportunity to review this case. Thank you. Nothughthomas (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. Sorry but a content dispute is not vandalism. And your insistence on calling it such indicates a rather strong WP:BATTLE mentality. WP:NPOV is not a "equal time" concept, as i've stated before - it is a description of how the mainstream sees reality, if something is outside of the mainstream (as Monckton rather clearly is), it must be described that way.

Your argument about the Czech president is rather amusing, since if you had picked any other state-leader, then a disagreement with Monckton's viewpoints would have been a given, thus cherry-picking the Czech president is undue weight and a breach of NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have a citation for another head-of-state who has mentioned Monckton - positively or negatively - by name you should definitely include it. Do you? Thanks. Nothughthomas (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:User page#Removal of comments, warnings

If an editor removes material from their usertalkpage, please do not replace it - the removal may be taken as evidence that the post has been read. The warnings remain visible in the history, which due diligence requires be checked to inform any admin actions. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dikstr&curid=21346331&diff=325094354&oldid=325093639
2. Stephen J. Farnsworth & Samuel Robert Lichter: The Structure of Evolving US Scientific Opinion on Climate Change and its Potential Consequences, American Political Science Association, Toronto. September 2009, p.3
3. Stephen J. Farnsworth & Samuel Robert Lichter: The Structure of Evolving US Scientific Opinion on Climate Change and its Potential Consequences, American Political Science Association, Toronto. September 2009, p.4
4. Justus, John R. & Fletcher, Susan R. Global Climate Change: Major Scientific and Policy Issues,Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., August 2006, p.2