User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Archive 2011

How Amusing
It's been awhile since I disagreed with your censorship regarding 'Climate Change'. Imagine my surprise to find sanctions against you!

I certainly hope they do not let you loose in March!

Gee even Wikipedia isn't completely brain-dead. LOLDasV (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry - but you seem to have misunderstood what my restrictions are - they are not sanctions. They are voluntary . I might have gotten sanctions if i hadn't taken a voluntary restriction, but that is something that we'll never know. And they do run out in March - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Trenberth and the missing heat
Hi Kim, I am interested to know if you think I have misunderstood something per the update at my talk page. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail
 maucho  eagle   ( c ) 01:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonpersonal sounds good
Hi Kim,

I observe that since I showed up on wiki, I've only heard two things from you about my various ideas: (A) silence, and (B) utter rejection. I also get told what I should be working on (when you are not working on it), and get sarcasm. One thing I do NOT get is your ideas about compromise. Its all either silence or a "blanket no" (with reasons of course).

I'd love to have a better working relationship, but the impression I get from the available data is that when you see my name, you just think "no" instead of working on each idea or edit for its merit. Am I mistaken in this impression? I'd love to have a nonpersonal relationship, and I'd like it even better if we could develop some knowing respect for each other.

On Global warming if you feel the more verbose form of the 1st phrase in the 1st sentence (with the word continuing) is so much better, I can live with it. But why not change that if that is what the problem is? Just a blanket revert in this context, when that simple edit is so readily available to you, makes it seem implicitly personal. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Your voluntary BLP-CC restriction
Are you still on it? I haven't kept up. NW ( Talk ) 02:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep - but i'm not commenting on BLP's ... i'm being very very very careful not to. But you will prolly say that i'm flirting with boundaries, which is prolly correct - and i'm going to bail :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So long as you remember to take care (and your posts seem entirely reasonable), I don't have an issue with it. :) NW ( Talk ) 02:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Kim -- I did wonder a bit when I saw your BLP-ish comments at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. But they seem entirely reasonable and constructive. When do your restrictions expire? Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference styles
Hi, I saw your comment about changes in reference style. Could you please provide a link? Recently, one person has completely changed the reference style at Planck's law‎ and I am trying to decide if this is a good change, not not. So far, I don't like it for perhaps 90% of the references. But for a few, it is a great idea. Q Science (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can certainly look it up. But basically it was a unilateral change of ref-style that was edit-warred over. I don't think ArbCom said anything other than "don't do it unilaterally - get consensus" and then went on to look at conduct. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was able to find this. I just thought you might have something different. I was simply fishing for some guidance before reverting the changes at Planck's law‎. Q Science (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Responding to my comments on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎
Hi, I've responded to a couple of comments you made on the "List..." talk page, specifically regarding the original name of the article and third party referencing. Could you respond there when you get a chance please? Thanks, merlin --Merlinme (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not having responded here - but i have responded on the talk page :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments.
As to what you said: maybe yes?

There are a whole lot of other people with whom I'd rather get into a fight than you. But I feel like you weren't hearing what I was trying to say, so I am feeling pretty frustrated. My last comment may have come across more sarcastic than I intended (perhaps I'll take another look at it in the morning), but there is an honest sentiment there: I am frustrated at walking away from something I think could help. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 00:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Buried subthread
Hi K,

This is just a private note to call attention to my reply in [this subthread]. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks....
-- for pulling back your sharp reply to my comment at the de Freitas debate. I'm also glad I held fire on a sharp retort, which I tossed.

Anyway, I'll strike the McIntyre link if you like. I'm not sure why McI so offends "your" side. He does careful work, and the bit I linked is well-done, imo,  if not so significant as the one just before, re Mann +12 2003. You might read both, and think about how many corners they trimmed to "discredit" Soon et al's work. Including playing fast-and-loose with peer review at AGU, exactly as they were accusing de Freitas of doing. It's all rather sad and pathetic, in my view. Academic pettiness ordinarily doesn't matter -- my Dad was a professor, so I saw a good deal of that second-hand. Here it somewhat poisons matters. I can't say I think much of Prof. Mann, either as a scientist or a man. Apparently, he grates on many of his colleagues, too.

Anyway, here it's important to be able to disagree while staying civil. I'm not terribly good at it, neither are you. Still, we must try. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

FOr god's sake
Did you even LOOK at what I did before claiming I deleted everything? I DID merge all content I thought weorth salvaging. This is getting merely obstructionist. 86.** IP (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How about letting other editors consider what the road forward is. What "you though w[o]rth salvaging" is not a measure of consensus. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well,t hat's the point; redirection does nothing to keep an editor from pulling out more . Indeed, just now, while it's fully protected on a redirect, I adapted two additional sections, with a little reworking to fix some balance issues. If you want to continue discussing productive things to do with the content, nothing stops that, but at some point, we have to actually start trying to do the merge, or it makes everything previous look like a delaying tactic. Do you actually object to any aspect of how I handled to content I moved over? Do you think that more of the content is useful? Those are things that we could discuss productively; but claiming that no progress can be made just means that no progress will ever be made. Seriously, in most cases, someone needs to make a start on things like this before discussion is even worth having, because noone knows what a theoretical merged page looks like. 86.** IP (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
86.** IP (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)