User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Archive 2014

AAH

Curious little edit there. Hypothesis: you are mad at me.

Also, I looked at your two references. They don't include images, nor do they discuss swimming babies.

So, that's interesting.

jps (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It is on my watchlist. I was curious about the edit, looked for refs, saw that there was general support for this in secondary sources. And that is it. Illustrations are not WP:OR the way that you present it. And i'm curious as to how you make the claim "nor do they discuss swimming babies" considering that the title of one of the references is "We are all water-babies" and have the blurb "An examination of the role of water in pregnancy, labour and the neonatal period, which covers water-based exercise during pregnancy, water birth and swimming for babies.". That aside even Hardy(1960) mentions babies and swimming. So where exactly is your problem? --Kim D. Petersen 20:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. I should have said, "images of swimming babies". Illustrations are fine when they are used by third-party sources. But neither source does that. It is curious that this particular page in on your watchlist since that was the first edit you ever made to that page or its talkpage. I get the impression that you think Wikipedia should be innovative. I'm not sure why you think that, but I strongly disagree with that position. We'll just have to learn to live with each other's different philosophies. jps (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I researched this topic when i was reading "The Science of Discworld", i assume that i must have corrected something at that time - or simply just added it to my watchlist out of interest. But i really can't see how that is pertinent, or any of your business.

I do not think that Wikipedia should be innovative - quite the opposite in fact. You are confusing your novel interpretation of WP:OR with real world wikipedia usage thereof - i believe that your past should have taught you some lessons about such assumptions?

Our manual of Style guides us in seeking out illustrations to our articles - and it more specifically guides us that such images don't have to be exact representations, but need to be illustrative of and pertinent to the topic. --Kim D. Petersen 20:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion about pertinence on the article talkpage. As to the other issues, I can't help but feel that you're very mean towards me in your commentary and edit summaries. Perhaps I am mean towards you too in a similar fashion; I don't know. Wikipedia makes for that kind of environment when you disagree with another person. Fresh off our disagreements over the list of global warming [euphemism for deniers] I see your name revert me within minutes and you've never made another edit to the article. That's alarming to me, and I don't like it when these underground disagreements fester. They fast become toxic. So I let you know how your revert made me feel. That's all. It's out in the open now, and maybe we can move on. This just reminded me of my conflicts with User:Polargeo a bit too much and I don't want to revisit those kind of WP:LAME arguments. We broadly agree, we just have slightly different levels of tolerance for editorial freedom on this website. Now, I guess we should get back to WP:ENCing. I'd give you some tea or some cookies or something, but I find that kind of wikilove somewhat patronizing, so I won't subject you to it. Tell you what, come to Boston and I'll buy you dinner. jps (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Section heading amendment

Feel free to change the whole heading to a polite and relevant something that would have been better to use in the first place. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Since i believe the original was polite .. it was merely the first part of the sentence. I cannot see why i should change something that someone not me added for good measure. I find the irony in that change to be amusing. --Kim D. Petersen 01:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI editing plans changed

Hi, FYI the work I was considering in this thread I have decided to table indefinitely. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

See also WP:DRNC. --Ronz (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

What nonsense Ronz. You are the one who is editwarring, you appear to presume that WP:BRD doesn't apply to you. I find your rather blatant disregard of our WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies on the list to be rather disturbing. --Kim D. Petersen 14:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's an essay that supports the policy, not nonsense. It describes your behavior and makes recommendations.

I'm glad you've now joined the discussion.

There are no BLP violations concerning the well-sourced information I've been discussing.

The only NPOV violations seem to be to prevent well-sourced information from being included in the article. --Ronz (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, it is not an "essay that supports the policy" because there is no discussion about policy, nor is there any direct relation to it. You are simply drawing your own personal conclusions about what the people on the list are. That is a direct breach of both WP:NPOV and combined with your constant usage of "denialist" on the talkpage a breach of WP:BLP. As for your "well-sourced" - since there are no sources, it most certainly can't be "well-" anything.

Btw. you may want to notice that our policies on adding material makes it your responsibility to get consensus, not mine. --Kim D. Petersen 15:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Most importantly, the sources and policies disagree. See WP:BLPTALK to start. --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Do your sources paint the whole set of the list in your light? Nope they do not. They talk about a subset. Painting the whole set in a particular light because of the subset is not allowed per WP:BLP. (as well as WP:BLPTALK). A climate contrarian is not by necessity a climate denier, it is as simple as that. --Kim D. Petersen 15:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No one is "Painting the whole set in a particular light", nor do we restrict article content in such a manner even if it did apply.

I think we're talking past each other. How about we take a break for a bit? --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

When you call the people on the list "deniers", then you are painting all of the scientists with the label "denier" - since only a subset of the list can be categorized as "deniers". You are breaching WP:BLP. --Kim D. Petersen 15:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least I'm going to take a break from it. Have a nice rest of your day. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope you're interested in continuing the discussion.

Re "deniers" [1] So, this isn't about content, but just objections to comments on the talk page? --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello? --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello what? But if you want an answer to your above: Nope. It is not only about "objections to comments", as the discussion at the article talk page also notes. But a large part of the problem with your edits have their root in your personal view that the people on the list are "deniers". --Kim D. Petersen 16:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

" But a large part of the problem with your edits have their root in your personal view that the people on the list are "deniers"." That's not my personal view. It is a gross misrepresentation of what I've written though, that ignores everything I've written to the contrary. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If you do not have that view, then why do you call them "deniers" and insist on linking them to views such as creationism and other such nonsense? Your comment here[2] also indicates that problem. There certainly are denialists within the set (ie. subset), but the whole set isn't one of denial. --Kim D. Petersen 09:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You ask two questions. On deniers: I simplify my language, summarize my previous points, and so just talk about deniers in general. Sorry that this causes editors such personal grief.

As for the rest, I follow the sources. I don't have personal problems with the comparisons that reliable sources make to creationism and "other such nonsense". --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that you don't follow the sources. You cherry-pick sources to fit your views, that much is pretty obvious. You may not even be aware that you are doing this, since you probably had a preconceived view that you can find the sources to support. If you look at the WP:WEIGHT of sources, they do not support it. --Kim D. Petersen 17:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we've gone far enough entertaining your assumptions on what my views might be. If that's all you got, you have nothing. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you able to put aside these assumptions or not? --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not consider the source when i evaluate the merits of proposals, never have and never will. Even stopped clocks are right two times a day. (see also WP:AGF) --Kim D. Petersen 16:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"POV" vs. article content not supported by source

Kim, in a few cases you are calling things "POV" problems but what they're really turning out to be are WP:V problems -- the article content isn't supported by the source. You will get better traction with your concerns if you stop talking about them as POV problems and start pointing them out as WP:V problems. Zad68 19:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

When i am talking about POV issues, i'm not talking about WP:V problems. I am talking about a slant based upon a one-sided or cherry-picked read of sources. Basically what WP:NPOV is about and WP:WEIGHT is specific concerns itself about. I'm not a newbie editor, i've been editing the climate change articles, where such issues are often raised for the last several years.

How do you think an error such as "e-cigs are as dangerous cigs" can sneak itself in? It does so because the editor in question wasn't considering what it was that was said, and no alarm-bells chimed when editing the sentence... it lends itself to either of two conclusions: 1) unfamiliarity with the topic area 2) a personal view that matches the text. Both of which do not bode well for the huge amounts of edits done.

I'm not going to edit-war, and will keep myself to a strict 1RR, which is why i haven't corrected anything in the article. --Kim D. Petersen 19:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you're a newbie and am not asserting you are. I am saying that in certain cases you are using "NPOV" in a way that isn't in line with the actual problem, and that is getting in the way of seeing those problems resolved. Your statement that "the editor in question wasn't considering what it was that was said" is describing a WP:V problem, not an WP:NPOV problem. WP:NPOV is a technical term of art on Wikipedia. I am trying to be helpful but if I'm not coming across as helpful I will leave it to others to try to help. Zad68 19:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I was using POV in this case, because the sentence displayed a point of view that is not even supported by a one-sided reading of the literature. Yep it was also unverifiable, which is also the case with some of the statements in the lede - but that doesn't mean that the edits do not display a certain POV. --Kim D. Petersen 19:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC) -- ie. POV and V are not mutually exclusive. --Kim D. Petersen 19:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Re, "POV and V are not mutually exclusive." -- Per the definitions of the concepts, I disagree, but it probably would not be a productive to get into a big debate about it. My advice is: If it's a WP:V problem, prefer to call it that, people prefer to deal with WP:V problems over WP:NPOV problems. Zad68 19:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You can write lots of things that are verifiable, but which are significantly POV. For instance "anthropogenic global warming is negligible" is verifiable but at the same time a tiny minority to fringe view, and thus shouldn't per WP:WEIGHT even be considered in an article on mainstream climate change. (see WP:BALASPS which addresses this)

But to continue at the e-cig article, the editor removed the sentence "Electronic cigarettes should have fewer toxic effects than traditional cigarettes" which is verifiable, and supported by the weight of literature, and exchanged it with the unverifiable "Electronic cigarettes are generally perceived erroneously as less hazardous than traditional cigarettes, when their health risk is similar", to correct for this the editor didn't return the old sentence, but instead chose to write about something entirely different with an implied slant of "e-cigs are as dangerous as e-cigs" .... that is either POV or incompentence. --Kim D. Petersen 19:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Danke - Thank you!

Ich will Dir auf diesem Weg dafür danken, dass Du mit so viel Herzblut und Engagement bei dem Artikel "E-Zigarette" mitarbeitest! Ohne solche Nutzer wie Dich, wäre die Wikipedia nur ein Schatten ihrer Selbst!--Merlin 1971 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Vielen Dank :) --Kim D. Petersen 06:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

You have been informed above so no need to inform again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black. --Kim D. Petersen 13:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No, i'm sorry, but i have exactly 1 revert, as opposed to your 3. Funny how that works. --Kim D. Petersen 17:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Could this be because you ran out of reverts that you are allowed to do? --Kim D. Petersen 17:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

E-cigarette

Hi Kim, I have been very busy on the article this evening. The changes may not stay but I had good reasons and references for all of it. You may want to take a look at the article because the banner may not be as needed as it once was. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll look at it tomorrow, time for bed right now, 'tis waay to late :) --Kim D. Petersen 01:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you will like the changes. Most of them have been on the back burner because of the constant issues with QG. I finally had some free time to spend. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating. And you are WP:CANVASSING Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

How is he canvassing? I'm an active editor at the article. --Kim D. Petersen 17:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Not only that you are the editor with the opposing view in the rfc on npov in the ecigarette article. I was just letting you know I had been busy editing the page and hoping you would like it and the rfc may be moot if you agreed and wanted to remove the banner. The comment was made last night before the edit difficulties today. This accusation is an example of not assuming good faith. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I would say that it is a step in the right direction. But the undue reliance on Grana, and on negative material, is the more serious problem. --Kim D. Petersen 23:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC

Please take a look at the e-cigarette talk page when you can. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on using secondary RSs at "List of scientists opposing maintream assessment of global warming"

In the most recent AFD of a particular article, you made a comment that referenced "original research" or "WP:OR". I am sending this same message to every non-IP editor who metioned either character string in that AFD. Please consider |participating in a poll discussion about adding secondary RSs to the listing criteria at that talk page. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution re McNeill for Electronic cigarette article

I requested dispute resolution with respect to this here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Violation_of_consensus

Please join the discussion. Mihaister (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"gray literature"

You have described the WHO source as "gray literature." Your interpretation of MEDASSESS with regard to this literature is unusual. I suggest that you open a discussion at WT:MEDRS to discuss that. mmm on second thought, I will do it. I will ping you. Jytdog (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how my interpretation can be unusual. The WHO source isn't published at all, it has no ISBN number or anything like that - it is even prefaced with text stating that this is a commissioned report for the COP delegates. That by all measures is Grey literature. --Kim D. Petersen 14:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

For other interested parties - the discussion is here: WT:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Gray_literature --Kim D. Petersen 19:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Poll

adjusted one question after your answer, just wanted to give a heads up. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Feel free to adjust the other one you were concerned with. "meaningfully" or "significantly" might work better.Formerly 98 (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I find the questions a bit too broad, and in many cases to be marked under "gut-feelings" rather than solid data. For instance: We don't know if it is more likely to work better than NRT's - we have data that indicates that it is so, but no solid conclusions can be drawn .. yet. My educated guess is that it will, because it targets smoking at more vectors than NRTs - ie. NRTs are primarily focused on nicotine, but ignore the societal aspects and the habitual aspects. So E-cigs have at least 2 vectors more in favour. But again the data is not there yet. --Kim D. Petersen 21:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

sorry, I tried to make these neutral and fair and informative, but some of your criticisms are very good and I have tried to incorporate them. You may want to adjust your answers accordingly. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No problemo i applaud the effort :) --Kim D. Petersen 21:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru called you an SPA

Thought you should be aware that over at ANI QuackGuru has called you an SPA. diff

Thank you for the heads up :) --Kim D. Petersen 08:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Renewed interest ? Updating to AR4 has come up again

FYI, you may wish to return to this discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holiday's

I hope you have a great time with family and friends and a happy new year. AlbinoFerret 20:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

TheNorlo ban request

Hi there, please feel free to support or oppose the ban proposal concerning me. Thanks. TheNorlo (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)