User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Archive 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

AAPG

I don't know about the paper you're referring to - it may well be unreviewed. But you are absolutely wrong to suggest that the bulletin as a whole "has no peer review system". Likewise, it is not "an oil industry publication". It is the publication of the society of scientists, many of whom are academics, who research topics such as sandstone petrology and paleoenvironments. All of this is of interest to the petroleum industry, to be sure, but the papers themselves are scientific contributions that in many cases have no oil industry sponsorship. So - I have no problem with you saying whatever you want to say about Peischer's work, which is clearly slip-shod and unscholarly. But don't make the same mistake yourself.Ungavan (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Ungavan

Reversions

Would you please read/reread Help:Reverting, particularly section 1.2. For example:

  • Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
  • Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Your wholesale reversions of my edits, such as at James Hansen, clearly violate Wikipedia policy. Pete Tillman (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, can you read plain English? "Do not revert good faith edits... Mere disagreement is not such proof."
You're getting a bad reputation for this sort of thing. Please desist, and observe Wikipedia policy. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Pete - please take a long hard look at WP:BLP - your quote without a context is not adhering to a neutral point of view. It is a cherry picked quote, which when examining both the discussion articles about it, and the original source, is incomplete and doesn't represent Hansen's views. (i'm referring to Carbon Capture and Storage).
And i can assure you that i try my very hardest to stay within WP rules and guidelines - but since i mostly edit on a controversial subject, a perusal of my talk page will give a scewed view. I'm not assuming any bad faith - and i request that you do not either. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on James Hansen. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Had you pointed that out - i would have self-reverted, and i'm deeply sorry. But may I suggest that you yourself take a look at WP:3RR - since you violated it before i did? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
In effect you are gaming the system. In fact you are now standing at 5RR . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] - i suggest that you rerevert back to the last version before 3RR violations --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
(copy)I also strongly suggest that you read WP:3RR thoroughly, since BLP violations is excerpt from the rule:
There are other instances where multiple reverts may not constitute a breach of this policy:
  • reverts performed by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, WP:BLP violations, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere;
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[transferring this back to your page, as I think a record of your behavior is likely to benefit others]

Kim, with all due respect, you are making it very hard for me to assume good faith for your actions. You have now reverted my contribution NINE times. Not once have you made an edit. Would you agree that this is excessive? Pete Tillman (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
In the face of WP:BLP violations - No.
The rule for BLP NPOV is very simple - we must err on the side of caution. Which is what i've done. The good faith part goes both ways, and frankly i have at no time during this dispute considered your part as being with bad faith. I'm simply not that interested in that particular quote - so if you want it on the article, then you must ensure that it is written in a way so that it is not inflammatory and provides even an implicit POV. Try to address this instead of assuming bad faith. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, the "BLP violations" exist (sfaict) solely in your own fevered imagination. So far, neutral third parties agree. Why don't you try doing something constructive? Pete Tillman (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Am i going to have to ignore this, and just assume that "fevered imagination" is somehow civil and assuming good faith? Or is it what i think it is... a personal attack? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Are the following direct quotes from KDP civil? "Gaming the system"? "libelous material"? "dragged me with you"? Perhaps you should look in the mirror (or your own posts) before hurling accusations. Cool it, please. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Tillman, the "libelous" is a direct verbatim quote is from WP:BLP - and to some extent i believe that the quote is bordering this (by indirectly giving a false impression). But i will assume (and do) that your original break of 3RR was an error, and that you had no intention of gaming the system - by luring me to revert and break 3RR myself - as i said in the above - if you had pointed this out nicely, we could've resolved this in peace, you instead chose to ignore that you yourself had broken 3RR prior to me, and even put a warning message on my talk-page. That remarkably enough made me somewhat pissed. This is the reason that i called for both of us to be blocked for 3RR violations. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim: Here's a real apology, for venting over at Ron Cram's page. That was uncalled for, and I apologize.

Here's a real question, too: what do you hope to accomplish, over at Hansen's page? This started as almost a moment of trivia, for me -- I happened to see mention of his death-train quote, boggled, googled, and, on impulse, posted the item at his Wikipage. It's a 3-line item, and of no great cosmic importance, I'd certainly agree -- though elected officials and political appointees have lost their jobs over similar gaffes. You may recall Earl Butz's "loose shoes" bit of barnyard humor cost him his job, and a similar gaffe cost wossisname, the Republican Speaker, his, more recently. Note that I'm certainly not suggesting Hansen should be fired over this, and in fact I find it more amusing than shocking, but really, the man needs a minder! And is fortunate to be civil service (I think).

Anyway, I don't think Hansen needs you to protect him from his gaffes, so this is just honest curiosity -- as I've been forced to spend way, way more time on this than it's worth. Or knuckle under, of course. Which I'm not going to do, this time. Hope this clears the air a bit. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fishing

Good work not taking his bait.[6] I wish I could consistently practice such self-restraint instead of getting sucked into those endless circular arguments. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The wish on consistently resisting fishing like this is something i share with you - and i have to say that i think you are a lot better at it. (ie. resisting not wishing ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On the global warming list

Sure, I agree there's tons of trolls vandalizing articles on global warming. Fortunately, I'm not one of them. See the global warming userbox at User:Zenwhat/Userboxes#Politics and User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Weasel_words_on_Global_warming.

The term "former scientists" seems like patent nonsense. Most people on the talkpage seemed to agree. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That article does however seem particularly bad. It seems to be the Alamo of the global warming deniers. It isn't linked to on any of the main articles on global warming. I suggested to William that he added a "criticism" section, backed with citations ridiculing these nutcases. In the meantime, I'm going to remove the articles from being linked from a bunch of articles (like Volcano) where they don't belong and I'm going to link them to the main pages on the issue, so it becomes more visible. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi...about my edit at the "swindle" page...

Kim, I should have read first before editing, thanks very much for "catching" me and perhaps thereby avoiding a controversy. I don't know if you caught my edit summary, but it pained me to make that change. I would still maintain that as much as I detest the film and it's producer, I still think we need to "get it right", and I hope you understand my motivations. I do not see that the editorial community on Wikipedia has agreed on how to represent "consensus" yet, and my New Years Resolution is to work hard to be scrupulously encyclopedic even if that means "writing for the enemy" once in awhile.

Thanks again, and sorry to consume your time...riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have reverted it none the less - we have no obligation on Wikipedia to represent fringe or minority opinions views equally. So there is no reason to be in pain. The scientific opinion is clear, so to argue that it isn't is undue weight. (i'm a bit tired so if this makes no sense then just forget it ;-). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense. Thanks (very much) again... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Frederick Seitz

hello, i'm kinda curious about why you reverted all of my edits when you were only disputing whether or not he was dead. please advise. --emerson7 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Collateral damage ;-) - i was at the time convinced that Seitz was still alive, and therefore reverted back to a version before the past-tense changes (which was 4-5 versions before yours). As you saw i realized my error and reverted back to your version. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of IPCC AR4

Howdy Kim, I understand your reason for reverting my addition to Criticism of IPCC AR4, but after looking into things more, mostly disagree with the action. National Center for Policy Analysis and J. Scott Armstrong are both notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entries, and the reference I included is on a topic in the field of his expertise (forecasting), so I would maintain that work that they produce would not be so fringe as to fall under WP:UNDUE. Could you flesh out your reasoning a bit more for my understanding? Thanks! —Mrand Talk • C 18:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Mrand, Notability doesn't inherit.
What that means is that what notable people say is not automatically notable. Notable is always determined on context - not on subject. The critique from Armstrong is in this context not notable enough. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Very sorry to be a bother, but I still don't understand. Note that I don't care one way or the other if the entry contains the bullet and/or reference - I have no vested interest. I truly am just trying to get a better understanding. I agree with the idea that notability doesn't inherit, but you didn't really explain why it isn't notable enough in this context. That's what I'm trying to understand... the 'why', because to me it seems like he is commenting on his area of expertise. Thank you! —Mrand Talk • C 03:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Literacy map

Sure, I could get around to doing that.Sbw01f (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Where might I find the data? I did a quick google search and came up with nothing. Sbw01f (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Its actually linked in the article (even directly to the spread-sheets), if you want, i can send you the redacted data (without all the other (for this particular part) irrelevant data. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what you want mapped, correct? (page 280) [7] Sbw01f (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No thats the 2006 report - the data for the 2007/2008 report can be found in spreadsheet format here (zipped archive of all tables), i used the summarized literacy column in Table 1. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
ah sorry, got it this time. When you said UNEP I thought you were referring to a different organization/branch. Sbw01f (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
My bad. UNDP of course ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:World_literacy_map_UNHD_2007_2008.png
Made it in kind of a hurry so if you find any errors let me know. Sbw01f (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


Indention

Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Restepc (talk • contribs) 00:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your revert

Kim, your latest revert at talk:GW didn't just remove the bafflegab (which of course needed to be removed) but also removed your exchange about the hockey stick. Did you mean to do that? I think the short exchange about the HS should remain. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was my meaning. I got baited - and recognized my mistake ;-) We should include it in the FAQ (instead of revive the comment) - since it seems that this BS info about the HS is from the CEI's book "The politically incorrect guide to Global warming". I remembered the 2 locations in the AR4, because i was discussing it in another forum. (and looked it up). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Obedium

I have started the thread at ANI, hopefully she will not be around too long. Its daily and punctual! Brusegadi (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Persistent bugger ain't he/she? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Referee the talk page?

Do you really have authority to referee the Global warming talk page as you did there [8]? I put forward a suggestion that I thought could improve the article, may you disagree or not, and you have no right to delete in the very next instant without even allowing comments or discussion on the talk page. This was from a study done at Michigan State University. Please do not put yourself in a position where you could be found to have vandalized a WP page, and please remember the basic policies that are WP:AGF and WP:TALK. I find your behavior uncivil and antagonistic. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you recall - the general consensus on the GW article agreed to delete posts that didn't work to improve the article.
And can you please tell me exactly where in the general GW article that you think that this particular information has its place? I'm all ears - since i really really can't see where it would fit. (without undue weight (ie. its a minor cause)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think there's a line between automatically deleting posts that obviously dont relate to the article (ex : Easter dinner at my aunt's house) and deleting posts that an editor thinks relate to the article but which you feel might not help improve it. Debating this is what the talk page is for. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Debating is what the article talk pages is for - but not every kind of debate. Is there any chance in hell that this (even if directly related to global warming) would significant enough merit on itself to be mentioned on the main global warming article? I think not. And the discussion there seems very much to agree with me.
I don't know why you thought it relevant for that page - but i have to say that i believe that you just fell over the information, and thought you wanted to share it. (fair enough - i can dig that) - but a few more thoughts (imho) should've gone into it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
And still there was a discussion, which shows that you should not have deleted right away. Sharing your thoughts therein the way you do now here would have been a quite better approach imo. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
At the time when i removed it - there was no discussion. A posting about the correlation between Pirates and global warming would generate discussion. The point is: it has to be relevant to, and contribute to the improval of the article.
Now you've dodge'd the question 3 times - will you answer the 4th?
Is there any chance in hell that this (even if directly related to global warming) would significant enough merit on itself to be mentioned on the main global warming article?
That is the relevant question. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
At the time you removed it, it had been on the talk page for something like... 30 seconds? I can guess there was no discussion indeed.
And I did not realize you really wanted me to answer this self-explanatory question. If I felt it had no merit whatsoever, I would not have posted it. My purpose was precisely to submit the information to appraisal so that its worthiness to the article could be discussed. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

This is just a friendly note to remind you that you have reverted the Greenhouse gas article three times[9][10][11] today, so that you don't inadvertantly violate WP:3RR. Regards, NCdave (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't tag the regulars - i'm well aware of how many reverts i've made. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
And just in case you wonder - my revert count is 2 not 3. RVV == Revert vandalism which is not counted. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't look like vandalism to me, Kim. It wasn't graffiti, and it wasn't "the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit." I didn't agree with the edit, but it appears to have been made in good faith. That means it does count as a revet, and you did violate WP:3RR by making four reverts[12][13][14][15] today, the last of them immediately after being warned that you had already made three.
However, I will take you at your word that you believed the first one was vandalism, so I will consider it a good-faith error, and you'll notice that I've not reported you on the noticeboard for 3RR violation. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if, from now on, you would discuss on the article Talk page the improvements that I (try to) make to the article, rather than just instantly reverting all of them.
Will you do that, please? Can't you find anything to like in my work, or at least that you can live with in a spirit of compromise? It really is disheartening to be immediately reverted whenever I try to make an improvement to the article, as you did in all three of your other reverts.
Remember, 3RR is not a license to revert three times in any 24hr period. Immediately and repeatedly stomping on the good-faith efforts of other editors is edit-warring, and is just as prohibited as 3RR. NCdave (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There is less chance of being reverted if you actually tried finding a consensus on talk before restoring reverted material. This is actually an important part of the bold,revert,discuss editing method. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This could be progress. The key to bold,revert,discuss is a willingness of the participants to seek compromise: "Discuss the changes you would like to make with this person, and reach a compromise.". I am willing. Are you? Restepc and Raymond & I are batting around various wordings on the Talk page. Will you please join us? NCdave (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I've discussed it all the time.... In fact i've only reverted when the edit wasn't discussed or agreed upon. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for joining the article talk page discussion, and helping us arrive at a compromise wording that we can all live with. NCdave (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oreskes

Kim,

Have you been removing my edits? I have made changes to the Oreskes page to remove errors that unfairly cast Benny Peiser in a bad light. The portrayal of him and his critique did not do justice to either.

Before making the changes, I contacted Peiser. He confirmed that my edits of his role in the affair were accurate. Only after this confirmation did I post the corrections to the Oreskes page.

Larry 16:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can document in reliable sources that your claim is correct, your assertion of correspondence with Peiser is irrelevant (and original research). From the top of WP:V:[quote]The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.[/quote]
Please familiarize yourself with the rules of Wikipedia, specifically the 5 pillars. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please verify the following statement: However, Peiser’s letters to Science[4] on the subject were rejected by the editors, who stood by the integrity of the original paper.

Please also explain what objection you have to my comment, that the editors rejected Peiser's letters without explanation. It seems to me I am making an uncontroversial statement of fact that is unlikely to be disputed by anyone while you are making an assumption based on no verifiable evidence. Larry 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. Peiser is on record as saying that:
    some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included.
    Yet your edit restates the 34 as if correct.
  2. You are putting undue weight to Peiser's argument - which is rather strange, since Peisers critique is A) unpublished B) accepted as wrong by Peiser himself.
  3. Oreskes doesn't specify how may abstracts were in the explicit category - thus your edit stating that Peiser showed only 2% explicit "has no basis whatever for her findings" is original research - and worse of all explicit POV.
    Not to mention that the 2% is dependent upon Peiser being correct in reading the abstracts - which is very much doubtful - since he got the 34 wrong.
  4. "rejected by the editors without explanation" is incorrect. The editors explicitly explained this by saying
    After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter. We appreciate your taking the time to revise it.
And thats just some problems with your edit.
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please answer my question. Where have you verified that "the editors stood by the integrity of the original paper." Larry 02:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Climate change denial

An editor has nominated Climate change denial, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Network of African Science Academies

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Network of African Science Academies, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.aasciences.org/index.php/About-NASAC/About-NASAC.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Biodiesel

[16] Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered as a bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Unintentional deletion caused by an edit-conflict. I responded on your talk page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, wanted both of you to note the comment.. striking the above--Hu12 (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Biodiesel

(Removed 3RR warning again)--Apis O-tang (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not tag the regulars - especially not when its as WP:POINT. That is not assuming good faith.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for that. In hindsight I realise it would be interpreted like that, it actually wasn't my intention though. I wanted to point out that you had made three reverts also so that further reverting would break that rule. But I guess that was unnecessary.--Apis O-tang (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Plate tectonics and el nino

Actually there is evidence of a relation between plate tectonics and El Niño. For example before the Pacific and Atlantic were joined, then the warm water carried across the Pacific in equatorially trapped Kelvin waves could just go right on through to the Atlantic instead of smashing against the coast of S. America. But I doubt that's what our friend has in mind... Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps a note in the El Niño article? But as you said, i also doubt that our friend had that in mind Alfred (loathe) Wegner indeed ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice - i learned something new, again today. I hadn't read about Kelvin waves so far. The reason i actually debate this in other fora is that for each new argument, i have to read up on things - and that makes for a nice learning curve.. Its always easier to read up on tough stuff if your interest is already there ;) I already knew that the Panamanian Isthmus had a large impact on climate past and present though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008 Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Naomi Oreskes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ThePointblank (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page at Naomi Oreskes instead. Reverting items that are in conflict with WP:BLP and WP:SPS is not a bad thing. And please try not to template the regulars. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is good news - good news. Thanks Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grazen (talk • contribs) 13:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, KimDabelsteinPetersen. Thanks for your message on my talk page. I've replied there. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Climate change denial

I'm not necessarily opposed to this [17], but my question now is why dont you cut the other threads? Close to none are very relevant (which points to a problem with the article more than with the talk page imo). --Childhood's End (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In general i have more leniency towards newbies, who do not know better, especially on low throughput talkpages. Its only when people "bite" to the trolling/non-relevant comments, that it ends up being problematic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll assume then that it was just a lapse that you let go Raul's lecture on free speach... --Childhood's End (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting newspaper article

See here  :) Count Iblis (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had seen it, and actually also responded to it [18]. Hopefully in a calm and rational manner. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Edits to Article Talk Pages

Do not remove other people's comments under WP:TALK. Only do so when you have the original comment writer's permission, or the comment is about something other than the topic at hand. If you keep this up, I will have to have you banned for a short while as article talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion, even if you mean well. ThePointblank (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. I suggest that you reread WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. If the comment in question has no chance of improving the article, and at the same time is uncivil and calling for conspiracy and a cabal - then its very much something to delete. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
To respond to your comment, what you deleted was in no way shape or form not relevant to the article, and was very much indeed about improving the article as it dealt with how editors are behaving when editing the article. Furthermore, as per the Arbitration Committee's findings, there is NO policy on removing personal attacks and incivility, as such a policy can be very easily misused to unjustly censor someone just because someone disagreed with what someone said. ThePointblank (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no simple policy. And the arbitration committee does not say that its not allowed - they say that "there may not be consensus for it". Get a consensus to change WP:NPA or WP:TALK if you really feel that this particular section of WP:TALK should be removed. As the arbitration committee recommends.
I suggest once more that you actually try to read the comment. And notice the nice claims about all the other editors. Biased, Zealots, Orthodoxy, claiming a cabal, may be civil in your book - but it certainly isn't in mine (and is my guess - in most peoples). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably best to let him babble on. Then the evidence will be there for all to see when it comes time to issue blocks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
What I was aiming at, but thanks. Furthermore, there is no need for me to remind User:Grazen, as someone else has done so, and I am not normally involved in guiding newcomers. ThePointblank (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

E=mc² Barnstar

The E=mc² Barnstar
On account of your efforts to improve and maintain articles on the climate, and for your rational, cool-minded explanation of Wikipedia editing policies, I give you this barnstar of science on behalf of the community. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm curious btw. was this in regards to my comments to the NP article? Or just in general? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Who's Wicked?

I'm impressed you can stand arguing with them. Solomons column is ludicrous, although I guess it's supposed to get many readers, not be factualy correct. Sensational stuff is more fun to read so why bother with the truth (as they probably would have put it).

Hopefully I'm not the only one who see the irony in first publishing someones real name, from Wikipedia, in Canadian national media, calling him (or should we say her ;)?) a Wikipedian Zealot, and then claiming you have to hide your name on wicked pedia! [19]

I hope he eventually realize what that says about him, although I suspect I will be disappointed. --Apis (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think these articles will be essentially uneditable while the impeccably neutral intellectual giants brought in by the NP screed are having their way with them. Instead of actively reverting, it may be best to wait until the furor dies down. So the articles are lousy for a few days... it's not like they'd be the only bad articles here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
From the sudden torrent of new users I'd say you are right, looks like I just made things worse. :( Apis (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess I should be glad my username ain't Tabletop at least. Apis (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Heh - it's pretty plain to anyone with half a brain cell (and the time to trawl through all the "work" you've done) that you're biased and unfair. I know you're going to delete this comment but it'd be nice if someone in Wikipedia management paid a bit of attention to the draconian tactics of 'editors' like yourself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.171.254.66 (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, to bust your prejudiced opinion, but i'm not in the habit of deleting comments that are reasonably civil. I'm sorry to hear that you think i'm biased and unfair, personally of course i have a rather different view :). You are welcome to take any issues that you have with my editing to an RfC though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-prot

I semi-protected your user page to cut down on the incisive and well-thought-out commentary that has been added by some of your devoted fans. If you'd like semi-protection of your talk page let me know. Conversely if you'd prefer your user page not be protected let me know that too, or ask another admin to lift it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the user-page protect is appreciated. If people are reasonably civil, then they should have the opportunity to express their opinion, so lets leave the talk-page free, unless vandalism gets out of hand ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! You're in the News

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=440268&p=2 68.181.222.190 (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

http://digg.com/environment/Wikipedia_s_zealots_2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.160.3 (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nigel Evans MP

If you'd bothered to check out the citation I put in, you'd find he's in the British Parliament, and on the committee that oversees British Broadcasting, and so his on-the-record opinion about what was a widely criticised program is relevant at shedding light on both (a) his views, and (b) the political forces which supported the airing of such a program. Now please undo your hasty reversion, if you don't mind.Goatchurch (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

He is a member of that panel - but he is not leading enough to be mentioned on the panels page. (i checked - only the leader is mentioned) So in effect he is a rather anonymous british parliamentary member. Why his opinion should be interesting is still something that i'd like to know. Is he an expert on the subject? As far as i know OfCom oversees the broadcasting - and the panel oversees the BBC. But i could be wrong.
You still have to establish that its notable. I'd prefer if you do it on the articles talk page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
(1) Nigel Evans is listed here on the "Members" of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. Only the chair is listed on the front page of any Select Committee.
(2) The Department of Culture, Media and Sport -- which this Parliamentary Select Committee scrutinizes -- oversees all of broadcasting and media in Britain including Ofcom, newspapers, the lot, not just the BBC.
(3) In his own words,[20] at the place I cited, he said:
I'm a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. I got in touch with Andy after The Great Climate Change Swindle was shown, one of the best and most controversial programmes I've ever seen on television, particularly for those who don't like being spoonfed by Al Gore. So, I just want to piece it down as to how much you think this new subsidy would cost and what would your reaction be if that was to be top-sliced, or the suggestion that it should be top-sliced from the BBC budget?
which suggests he is not such a non-entity as to be denied the possibility of phoning up the chief executive of Channel 4, as well as the appearance that he has a say in whether BBC license money could be diverted to this Channel, which is showing more of the sort of "controversial" programs he approves of.
(4) You may relocate this discussion to the article-discussion page if you wish, but my impression was that Nigel Evans's praise for the program in a public forum to the face of the chief executive is of no interest is probably a minority view. Now please put it back or tell me you're not going to delete it on sight when I do.Goatchurch (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say that he wasn't a member - just that he wasn't a ranking member. Is he speaking in for the committee? Nope. Is it an important position? Nope. Did i say he was a non-entity? Nope.
He is an MP speaking his personal opinion.
Now the question remains: Why is this MP's opinion relevant? Has any other MP said their opinion? etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

This page will soon be unprotected. Please consider carefully the policies WP:SYN, WP:V, and WP:BLP when editing. Particularly, when reporting a source we must include what the source says, not what it may imply, what we'd like it to say, or what the combined effect of several sources is. If User:Mofb mentions legal action further, please report him to WP:ANI for a breach of WP:NLT. I can't force you not to edit this article, but I very strongly recommend you don't, because it's been causing needless headaches. (And I will be saying the same to User:Mofb.) Stifle (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. User:Mofb has already been blocked for legal threats. So you can ignore that part of the message. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This [21] was a bit rude, don't you think? Try taking a look at the editing history of Monckton, and you'd notice that i haven't in fact inserted or edited anything on that page for a loong time. I've been involved in the discussions on talk though. And i can assure you that i'm not one to break either of those rules and guidelines. Monckton was in fact completely wrong about my involvement on that article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you were offended as I did not mean any offence. Stifle (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, you might wish to see WP:AN/I#Request for community review. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bouncing back

I almost forgot this...

The Resilient Barnstar
For a graceful recovery from some disgraceful excuse for "reporting," you deserve the Resilient Barnstar. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but i don't think the series on Wikipedia is over yet. Seems to me that its the new deniers series for Solomon --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, no doubt a modern-day All the President's Men is in the works, its subject not the foibles of the Nixon Adminsitration but rather "zOMG teh cabal reverted my wiki editz!!!11!" Really, I know it's become cliché to mock the laziness and superficiality of the current representatives of the Fourth Estate, but this has to be a new low for "investigative reporting":
  1. Make controversial and inappropriate edits to Wikipedia.
  2. Have said edits reverted.
  3. Write scathing exposé which applies thin veneer of concern for "academic freedom" over obviously wounded ego and personal animus.
Hell, they must be teaching this algorithm in journalism school... MastCell Talk 06:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Good call by Raymond; I endorse it too. Thanks for your contributions William M. Connolley (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Awards

My impression is that it is easy to label Academy Award wins and nominations as a big deal. Considering the different kinds of wins and nominations there could be, the phrase is kind of nebulous. If I had the manpower and resources, I'd improve all these articles, not just in regard to that phrase, but with better structure and more detail. An editor's job is never done. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; that's why I tip-toed a little more around the more controversial films like An Inconvenient Truth and Sicko. In retrospect, I should've linked to WP:MOSFILM#Lead section and elaborated that the wording was badly placed to imply credibility without specification. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming Controversy, Violation of WP:3RR

Just a friendly reminder that you have committed three reversions within a few minutes to this article. Since you seem to feel some source supports your viewpoint, why not cite the particular source and discuss it on the talk page before performing block reverts? FellGleaming (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't tag the regulars. You've just come back from been banned for editwarring - perhaps you should calm down and take a break? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't a template, it was an individual message. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you totally eliminate Lindzen's Boston Globe quote? If the people don't see that he was only given a tiny amount of money they would think he might be an oil shill based on the $2500/day characterization. You say it was editorializing, but you erased all the reference to his clarifying that he only received $10k and eliminated the entire reference including the link! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.192.98 (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it was editorializing. You presented a point of view, instead of relating what the article said. The rewritten paragraph is a lot better. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You BLANKED ALL OF THE INFO instead of editing...period. Only after I called you on it by reverting, did you pose yourself as editing instead of blanking. To say you didn't initially blank the quote and link and all reference to the point that he got a small sum of money from oil interests is a lie.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill0756 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i reverted according to WP:BLP. Your second edit had merit, the first one didn't. It had nothing at all to do with you "calling me" on it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

"OR" about global warming

HI. Don't understant this rv : [22], 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)