User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Archive 2012

Such a slowpoke!
I don't know if you're just too fast, or I'm just too slow. At any rate, my apologies for any angst caused by my being such a slowpoke in putting up Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change. I think you raised a good point, and my reversion of it from the subpage was solely because I thought that was the wrong place. I still think that is the wrong place, but not wanting either of us to get tangled up in 1RR I don't object to leaving it there a while. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw your reversion at the moment you did it... went on the can ... and expected that you'd completed it. You hadn't so.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I really should invert the order how I do that stuff – it is only a little easier not to – but my inner whatever probably needs just one more whipping-on to be convinced. Sigh. As to moving your comment, perhaps that was the better place? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I got as chuckle out of a recent edit
I got as chuckle out of this. You and I don't see eye to eye on everything, but I think we are in agreement on one issue—there's something annoying about an editor telling you what you think, and getting it badly wrong.

One irony is that it isn't far from a useful technique—I think it is useful to ask someone else to summarize my argument, as it may be illuminating as to where the differences lie, but there's a big difference between some telling me that I think X, which is wrong, versus I'll summarize your position to see if I'm understanding. I think you are saying X, is that right?

A second irony is that I may be trying to tell you what you think about editors who do this, but I hope the caveat "I think we are in agreement" avoided the problem of presumption.--  SPhilbrick  (Talk)  12:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that I was not trying to tell Kim (or anyone else) how he thinks. I was, as you consider, summaring my understanding of what Kim was saying.  I am a little mystified how this should be taken in any other way, and if there is any particular way in which I may have mis-suggested that I wouldn't mind having it pointed out. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well - since you seem to lack an understanding ... let me try to explain (although i've already done so):
 * Kim's general view seems to be that not only does WP:V not require fully identifying the location within the source (a view I dispute), but also forbids any tagging that requests such a location. (And note that a tag is only a request, no one is forced to respond.) I find that bizarre, but this entire topic seems to be too sensitive for many folks, so perhaps further discussion woudl be futile. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets dissect it:
 * "not only does WP:V not require fully identifying" <--- completely wrong. WP:V requires as much identifification as needed to locate and verify the source. And this is as much as is needed for the case at hand: "IPCC AR4, Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers, Table SPM.1", notice how i didn't put links in there, no page numbers, etc. I did that deliberately since that is information beyond what is needed to fully identify and locate the information!
 * "but also forbids any tagging that requests such a location"' <--- i'm baffled at how you can come to this conclusion, even with reading a hell of a lot into my comments that isn't even remotely hinted at (mindreading).
 * Let me repeat: Tagging is there to hint at a problem, since there was no problem, the tagging was unnecessary. And your insisting on it staying there hints at you not understanding the difference between clerical/gnomish/style questions and real article problems. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Back up a step or two. What I was replying to was SP's comment that I was telling you what to do (and indirectly to your comment that I was mindreading}.  As I said above, I was stating my understanding of your view. My lack of understanding in this discussion is how my statement could have been taken otherwise.  As to WP:V, tagging, etc.,  I wasn't proposing to discuss that here.  We could, but I am thinking we should first smooth out some of these little bumps we seem to be encountering. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of rollback
This use of rollback apparently destroyed two constructive edits. Assuming that a user in his right mind would not revert each of these unreg's edits spotted in isolation, you probably also engage into WP:wikistalking curiously, I did not know that this policy is deprecated in en.WP. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:DENY. The editor in question is the same as User:97.87.29.188 who was [blocked] for a month on Feb 1. Since then he/she has made the same kinds of edits repeatedly using ip-hopping. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC) User is very recognizable by his/her edit-summaries, and for using Wikipedia as a news aggregator - no stalking involved, he/she turns up very prominently in my watchlist (and all other watchlists who have climate change articles) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See for instance the last parts of Talk:Regional_effects_of_global_warming for the non-constructive type of talk-page usage by this editor (which also shows the ip-hopping). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What for should I see WP:DENY? You realized what I mean… these two edits have no signs of attention seeking or (advertising of) some edit war campaign. These are constructive edits without anything excessive, edit summaries were purely descriptive, not worse than of an average WP user. You can apply to IP blocking for a ban evasion, but you must not use rollback blindly. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. The user is blocked. We do not accept edits from blocked users, no matter if they are good or bad edits! Which is what WP:DENY is about. See also WP:NOT3RR 3rd point:
 * Reverting actions performed by banned users, their sockpuppets and by tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts.
 * I have little to no patience with block-evaders. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nb: Regarding blocking the IP - it has little effect (see comment on ip-hopping), user is on AT&T dynamic IP. Which is also why there hasn't been a rangeblock performed earlier. The only way to "stop" him/her is to WP:DENY them access. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional note: You will even find, that the IP's and my POV are rather similar, but that doesn't change that he/she is a block evader, and is persistently disruptive. (with >2 threads on AN/I about him/her). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind my chiming in on your page, Kim. Incnis, ff Kim had not reverted, I would have, because these have the hallmarks of a certain sockpuppet; Their block specifically includes other IPs; The block should be enforced because this editor earned the block for external spam link vandalism after a prior block, and then immediately started IP hopping during the 30 day block! Doesn't matter if you think their current edits are relatively benign in content because they are an implicit in-your-face gesture towards the community and our guidelines. When they come back after the block expires, if they come back, they can make contribs then. If they do not honor the block, then they do not merit the community's trust or welcome after the block runs out, and for each new infraction, the block should be extended. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behavior while evading the block. User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may also be blocked.
 * This is what the policy says about block evasion. We see curious attempts of two (or probably more) users to accommodate Wikipedia policy to their perceived problems with some articles, and perverse interpretations of "deny recognition" such as ‘to "stop" him/her is to WP:DENY them access’ in direct contradiction to that policy's goals. Indiscriminate reverting of perfectly constructive edits is actually a recognition, not a denial of recognition. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, i have rather extensive experience with one sockpuppet, and thus have been interested in the topic... and blocking dynamic ip's is not a solution. Do note that the policy you quote is on when to block or extend blocks not about what to do about block-evaders as regular users. I suggest that you take it to WP:ANI if you consider this a large problem - since i'm going to continue to revert identifiable edits by this blocked user. Nb: The recognition part is not there - since i revert all edits by the user - be they good or bad, recognition would be if i only reverted bad edits. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free btw. to reinstate "good" edits, but be aware that when you do so, you are the one taking responsibility of the edits. Per our policy on sockpuppets. Regarding blocking - see Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Administrators_instructions section I - point 2. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for quoting that policy Incis and I stand corrected. What I should have said is that pursuant to the first clause of that policy, the 30-day clock on the block should be reset due to the mere fact of block evasion, regardless of edit content.  When viewed devoid of any other context, I agree the particular reverted edits referenced in this thread would not, all alone, constitute blockable behavior.  For this reason, the second part of that policy you quoted (the part about increasing from 30 days to more than 30 days) would not kick in.  But the way I read the first part is that since there was block evasion, regardless of edit content, the 30 day block-clock can be reset.  No essay you cite (such as WP:DENY) can trump policy, unless there's agreement to ignore the rules, which is not the case here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Update, I am new to the procedural folderol, so I may not have posted in the right place, but FYI, I just requested a block clock reset and add'l IP softblocks at the talk page for the admin who originally responded. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Repeated BLP statements
I appreciate your pointer to WP:BLP. You don't have to repeatedly make the same point over and over again as if going to WP:BLPN were the only way to handle the issue. Given that we are discussing things on the talk page, I suggest that you stick to discussing the content related to the article. If you feel the need to take the discussion to WP:BLPN, by all means feel free to do so. I (and others) will of course do the same. aprock (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with BLP/N. It is a very simple requirement that most people seem to ignore. I have my reasons for repeating it, just as i have my reasons for not commenting on specific persons. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you could explain your reasons you might find some more sympathy. aprock (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. It wasn't your reasons per se: .  Good to know. aprock (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are actually capable of looking up information. Good to know. And the "per se" is the case, and the reasons my own. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That I can look up information was never in question except by you, who for some reason chose to go to battle over the fact. You get bonus points for characterizing the AbrCom restriction as being your own.  That it would be there without WP:ARBCC is clearly false.  How about it we call those reasons a "team effort" eh?  As it is, you look to have violated your 1RR restriction on the talk page.  Tread lightly Kim. aprock (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it clearly false? Thats interesting - from what i recall i was on a voluntary such before the ARBCC case opened. Thank you for the warning - it is appreciated... but then again i would suggest that you read the ARBCC case thoroughly, since refactoring talk-pages very much was part of it. Btw. the pages still are under WP:General sanctions. As for whether you can "look up information", this is the first time that you've displayed this ability - good for you - continue on that path, and you might even find us to be more appreciative of your views. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to file an AE request over my editing, please do so. aprock (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Putting words in my mouth
"Where exactly does any policy say that the inclusion criteria need to be an exact duplicate of something that is mentioned in another reliable source?" I'm not sure why you ask this question. No one has said this. If your goal is to knock down straw-men, knock away. Disruptive editing like that does not serve you well. aprock (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You just did it again on the talk page - claim that criteria must be a duplicate of a criteria in another reliable source - by stating that the IPCC must define them as "criteria to identify". So, No, i'm not knocking down "strawmen" - i'm trying to ask you about something very substantial that you claim again and again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No one said anything about "exact duplicate". No one said anything about "duplicate".  Nothing in the IPCC mentions identifying opposing scientists in any way.  Nothing at all. aprock (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can't define what you mean, without actually saying something that others perceive as something else, then it appears that you've failed. And you seriously fail here, because you've just said duplicate implicitly again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When you infer things that are not there, that's putting words into my mouth. Provide the diff where I use the word duplicate, or keep knocking at that straw man. aprock (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh! You are now building the strawman yourself - as if the word "duplicate" must be literally there. Fine... i'm done. You appear to refuse to specify your claims, and instead will continue to broad brush and hand waveing without substance. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been very clear: . That I'm not interested in going roundy-round with you is entirely due to your disruptive editing behavior. aprock (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Your backradiation black box example has no merit. cannot use perfect fridge to warm object you are cooling
You need to think about this rather than slavishly following the line of thinking somebody has convinced you is possible even though it breaks the laws of thermodynamics The sceptical science argument is the correct one and they are pro global warming Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Detail
Hi Kim,

I enjoyed your direction questions to Aprock in this edit. I hope he answers. For clarity, where you wrote still fullfill the same purpose and not require attribution? please consider adding "except on the image description page at mediawiki" before the question mark. It is what you meant, of course, but others may not know about those mechanics of attribution.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

CRU email threats?
If you object to my edits, kindly say why.

If not, please don't batch-revert! --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted the diff of your changes (and what was current) at the point when i reverted. And i addressed it on the talk-page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your revert, and your note at Talk, refer only to the Norfolk police bit, in a different section. If you have no objection to the email threat cleanup, as discussed at Talk, kindly self-revert. Batch-reverting is poor form, as I'm sure you know. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your removal of that text is also not consensus based. In fact as far as i can see from that discussion - you are the only one holding the position that this is irrelevant. In fact in the thread about this, i demonstrated that your interpretation of this also was wrong. So i believe that the revert was correct. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  04:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Danish and Danes
Hello again, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the respectful way in which you showed me I was being a jackass. I do now realize that I shouldn't edit as if things are still the way they were 100 years ago in France. Feel free to change any edits that I have made that you feel where inappropriate, I only intended to work on that topic for that afternoon, and I am not territorial about edits I have made.

On a mildly-related note, while we were talking about page titles I realized that Danes and Danish people had a split history due to a cut-and-paste page move. This has now been fixed, but I am not sure which of the titles is more appropriate. If "Dane" is more appropriate, I would think it would be at Dane (people). Since you claim denne bruger har dansk som modersmål, I thought you might have an informed opinion. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  00:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(",)

 * Thank you for you contributions to Talk:Regional effects of global warming. Please see wp:Tea.
 * Thank you regarding Talk:Global warming (see related Talk:Climate change) too. 99.119.131.192 (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If still of interest
It appears Talk:Regional effects of global warming is awaiting your continued involvement. 99.181.147.154 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I move it?
Kim so far you and I are the only ones to comment under "specific ideas" section on List of sci opposing blah blah blah. May I have your permission to move that subthread to a thread all of its own? (or if you beat me to it and want to please do) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

you can probably revert your revert and not have it count against you
Kim, You can revert your revert at and not have it count against you. Note that the "essay" is an excerpt from a "lecture", not very typical of peer review. I think her essay was so popular that she did eventually find a sociology journal to publish a more complete paper. But the 0.1% you restored and other specifics of the statement would remain OR and a mischaracterization. You should get your revert back, it may be needed later.--Africangenesis (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You really should drop your WP:BATTLE attitude. I reverted because i think you are wrong - not because of tactical reasons. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you care enough to read the supporting citation, to check the history? You will be right more often if you check these things.  If you are going edit scientific articles, it helps to have some scientific literacy, to be able to read the literature.  You apparently aren't willing to perform the due diligence even after your revert has been called into question, that should should have done before your reverted.  Now that you know you were wrong, are you failing to reverse your revert, because you think I am wrong, or for tactical reasons?--Africangenesis (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are using the wrong venue - Use the talk page at the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Windows RT Edit War (sigh)
Please contribute to the poll on Talk:Windows RT. (You are being asked because you commented on Linux.) Tuntable (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Roman Warm Period
I request that you remove the inappropriate remarks. I created this article and it's mainly my work. I don't why I should have to put up these kind of remarks. Someone doesn't like the article, they can take it to AFD. Kauffner (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Its not your article: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used and redistributed by other people at will. William M. Connolley (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're treating the talk going as a freefire zone for name calling, I can play that game too, you know. Kauffner (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you've descended to trolling. Have you no self respect? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:GW
Hi, This is in reply to your request;

Although I reject your characterization of some of my organizational efforts as having "reworked" anything, I did copy-paste a section heading, diff, and copy of disputed text to below your last remarks. You asked me to simply waste it, but that does not satisfy me, whereas keeping it but in the new location does make me happy. Will preserving it in the new location also satisfy you? I took the liberty of deleting your request in the above diff, assuming the answer is yes, and will watch your talk page for further discussion of the issue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Answering questions
So, I'd like to address all your concerns about all my contributions to Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

Your most recent comment asks for further explanations and answers to questions. Shall we start with explanations?

"Has anyone ever posted an analysis of any sources' content to demonstrate how that content establishes notability? Seems like it would be useful to have a bullet list of sources and brief summary of how the content of each one helps establish notability." Was this unclear? --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you quoted me asking that question, I'd like to note that Aprock posted a list of such sources. Initially you said they do, then you said they don't, and then you said they do but we should find better ones anyway.  At the time you delivered your third opinion, there was no indication from you that you had actually read them, and no explanation for your reasoning.  So unless you later offered a FOURTH opinion, I am relying on your third one,that notability was established, and I am relying on policy that subject matter notability is all-or-nothing.  If you have better ones to offer, great. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi NewsAndEventsGuy. If you feel this needs to be discussed, I think it should be done on your talk page. I started this discussion to address KimDabelsteinPetersen's concerns. I don't want that to be sidelined in any way. --Ronz (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)