User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to my talk page.
  • Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
  • Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
  • Please use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics.
  • Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" 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.
Archive
Archives
2006 2007 2008


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

Contents

[edit] William M. Connolley

I am not sure where in the policies or guidelines or suggestions you found the instruction that we should "assume William M. Connolley is right". I am willing to assume good faith behind his actions - that he truly believes that G33 is a person whos history suggests he may have been the one who made the anonymous edit to the article. However, even assuming the WMC believes with all his heart, there is no reason that WMC should be making such an accusation in an edit summary or on talk pages if he doesnt have enough evidence to take the item to WP:SSP or WP:RCU.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "OR" about global warming

HI. Don't understant this rv : [1], there was no original work, the sources were provided, at least for russia. The german 2005 study i quoted (did you read it before reverting my edit??) clearly says much of siberia could become arable. So i've readded the information, with two extra sources who clearly speak of farmable domain extension. --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The original research lies in the speculative part. You are speculating that there will become more arable land. And in your new edit, you are not reflecting the actual source. In fact the references make no such large assumption in arable land, (they mostly assume that there will be a longer growing season), and assume a loss in agricultural yield because changes in precipitation will offset gains. Most of Russia is permafrost over areas that isn't arable even if thawed (its old swamp-land).
To be very specific - you have a personal hypothesis (WP:OR) here, and you are attempting to make sources match that personal hypothesis - thats WP:SYN. That is allowed in an essay for school, but not on Wikipedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again did you read completely the references before making that accusation? The source from Russian Analytical Digest says verbatim : "Some believe that climate change will have positive effects on Russian agriculture. The extent of farmable

land will increase 150 percent. The frost-free growing season will expand by 10-20 days a year. The quality of the soil in the Black Earth region will improve. The extent of land for growing warm-climate crops will increase. However, the extent of droughts will increase across Russia.". There there may reserves to make (positive and negative effects, nobody knows the balance), but the extension of cropland is not my personnal hypothesys as you accuse. --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I did read the references. The way you are writing the section does not reflect the sources - but instead imply significantly more than that. By stating that there is only 8% and then saying that arable land will increase - you are projecting a picture of significantly more. And by not reflecting that agricultural yields will (by the same source) probably fall despite increase in area, you are providing a different picture than the actual source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Then why don't you decide to be productive and complete the information with the other parameters to provide a more complete picture, instead of throwing everything away ? --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The onus for inclusion lies on the contributer. If you want a description of this, then its up to you to reflect the literature (ie. not just one source) in a neutral and appropriately weighted manner. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
There is some dishonesty here, because before i first editing the article was simply saying "Climate change is likely to increase the amount of arable land near the poles by reduction of the amount of frozen lands.", a completely unsources statement, greatly exagerated (the areas in question are nowhere near the north pole, much less near the south pole) that was there for months and remained untouched. I wanted to add precisions and sources to that and I'm the one accused of OR. --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No dishonesty - but rather that i was reacting to the diff, rather than on the article itself. Most of the tertiary climate change articles (agricultural, carbon credits, corporate, ...) are a mess of OR, SYN and POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
And your current writeup is much much better. If you'd inserted this in the first place, i wouldn't have reacted at all ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Painful endeavors

Re this[2]: you may as well beat yourself over the head with a plank of wood. At least you'll eventually stop. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but its worth another go ;) Even if the odds are very long. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical cyclone - global warming

Pleas see the Talk page. Fireproeng (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP - EL

What is this please? I couldn't find it in the Wiki policy list.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL ← --Hu12 (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain reversion

I have reverted your revert at Talk:Linux/Referring_to_this_article but do not wish to enter into an edit war. Please explain, at the section I have added on that page, why you think the statement is untrue. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Because GNU never had anything to do with the Linux project. The Linux projects used GNU utilities, since they were free, and could be used without getting into copyright problems. The GPL was the protection from this. If you take the argument that because GNU tools where used, then it must be a GNU project, then you are arguing against the GPL. Which specifically states that you can use it "as you please" as long as you retain the GPL and make the source available. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't get baited

Paul Beardsell's new trick appears to be posting deliberately contrarian summaries of other people's arguments. I've decided to stop replying to these; the threads themselves contain accurate arguments, and his last refuge is to claim that they say the opposite of what they do. I'd advise letting him have the last word on those threads, or we'll be at this forever. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon Footprint External Links

Hi,

Just wondering why you have removed the link for www.click4carbon.com .

I do not believe that adding the external link is considered spamming. Click 4 Carbon is relevant to the subject in question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint).

Click 4 Carbon contains a wealth of information, regular news and blog updates, facts pages that are all Carbon Footprint related. Having checked the wikpedia policies.

1) There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article.

2) Wikipedia articles may include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic.

I look forward to hearing from you.

JockRusky (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You should read WP:EL and WP:LINKFARM. Wikipedia is not an inventory for useful links. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
As a sidenote - there are lots of these sites, and they all get removed for the same reason. Check the history of the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flat earth?

Please read this. Comment invited. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I ask you to comply with Chris's admonishment at Talk:Linux_distribution#revert_warS. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)