User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Archive 2015

January 2015
Your recent editing history at Safety of electronic cigarettes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. QuackGuru ( talk ) 23:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No i am not "continuing to delete text sourced to reliable sources". I'm reverting insertion of an opinion article/editorial, that has already been deemed unusable for the article by consensus here. And i also notice that you put this here right after reverting my comment from your talk page, and without addressing the talk page of the article with other than assertions- which i find interesting in and of itself.
 * Our policies are not gamepieces. --Kim D. Petersen 23:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Competency
I am starting to wonder at the competency of an unnamed editor. AlbinoFerret 23:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I unfortunately have to agree... --Kim D. Petersen 23:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ref pages
A friendly advice for when we eventually start up the madness again: specify pages or similar details when citing books, whether they're ol' fahsioned paper or e-books. Especially when you're making direct quotes.

Peter Isotalo 21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
I have requested ArbCom resolution of the issues you are involved in on electronic cigarette pages. QuackGuru (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Declined ArbCom case
The arbitration request concerning electronic cigarette articles has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

See Arbitration request. It was the opinion of some of the arbitrators that the issue may still be resolved by the community. For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations
Any election win is important, I was wondering why you have not been editing lately. You probably have been very busy. AlbinoFerret 23:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) Yep, it has been a rather hectic period, and probably is going to get even more hectic now that the Danish implementation of the TPD is on the table. --Kim D. Petersen 23:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And you got a message from a ferret, what could be better? William M. Connolley (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Query

 * Revision as of 06:27, 25 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS.
 * Revision as of 10:00, 25 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
 * Revision as of 22:47, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
 * Revision as of 23:46, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
 * User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, aren't you deleting a lot of sources against WP:MEDRS? Where is your comment on the talk page to support deleting so many sources according to WP:PAG? IMO no reasonable argument has been made to delete so many reliable sources including deleting reviews such as (PMID 24732159) and (PMID 24732160) and (PMID 25572196) after over two weeks. Please review the current discussion on the talk page. What could possibly be a logical reason to delete so many sources? Please try to help editors at the talk page understand your reverts back to an older version. Please see Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Each and every one of those reverts carry a text that describes why i reverted. Is any one of those texts problematic to you? --Kim D. Petersen 11:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there is a clear consensus at the talk page that your edits were largely counterproductive. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes for example. If you can acknowledge you made a mistake, especially with deleting MEDRS compliant reviews, we can move on. Or do you still think the page should be wholesale reverted back without the sources. Do you think all the sources you deleted were unreliable? I don't see your argument on the talk page to justify deleting all the sources. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes/Archive 2. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And once more i think you should read the revert reasons and reflect upon what they say - instead of conflating them with other issues. Do you understand what an RfC is, and that it has a closing time? --Kim D. Petersen 20:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations
Just heard about the election. Congratulations, I hope you can get some good work done making the TPD not destroy vaping in your community. SPACKlick (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thx. Will certainly try. --Kim D. Petersen 14:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

General Sanctions: Electronic Cigarettes
QuackGuru ( talk ) 07:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you QG, i', well aware of the general sanctions. Especially since i !voted to have them :) --Kim D. Petersen 12:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015: warning
Kim, this edit is a simple provocation, and it's obvious from article talk and your edits elsewhere who it's meant to provoke. Talking about "the proposal by S. Marshall" in the edit summary doesn't abrogate your responsibility; you added the tag, following an (IMO) obviously jocular, if mean-spirited, suggestion by User:S Marshall on the talkpage a week earlier. The user you're trying to bait doesn't need to see such spitefulness at the top of the article. Nor do our readers, indeed I'm surprised you have so little consideration for them. Considering your COI, you need to be much more circumspect around the e-cigarette articles. I'm glad to hear you're aware of the general sanctions. I'll topic ban you from electronic cigarette-related pages if you make any further battleground-y or otherwise inappropriate edits in the area, especially to the article itself. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Actually it wasn't an attempt at provocation - it was meant as half-way meet. I was concerned that the reinstatement of the POV tag would result in QG reverting again. Perhaps i'm naïve with this, but the tag text seemed appropriate to the content problems, and might be less of a red-flag than the POV one. Warning acknowledged though :) --Kim D. Petersen 14:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused here. What are you referring to when you say that i have "little consideration" to our readers? That seems to require a bit more explanation. --Kim D. Petersen 14:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess I can't help your confusion. If you really think it's OK for that trolling "tag" to be the first thing to meet our readers' eyes when they come here to read about electronic cigarettes, I don't know what to tell you. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC).
 * I'm sorry, but it seems that you've determined that i'm the bad guy here. So i'm just going to step away for a week or two. Have a nice day. --Kim D. Petersen 14:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.


 * Thread is Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hi Kim. Other than my work on health-related content in WP, I work a lot on conflict of interest issues.

I just became aware of your new status as President of DADAFO, as you disclose here. (My attention was called to COI issues when I read Zad's remark here) Of the relevant articles, since you took on that status:
 * You have continued to directly the electronic cigarette article
 * You have https://tools.wmflabs.org/usersearch/usersearch.py?name=KimDabelsteinPetersen&page=Construction+of+electronic+cigarettes&server=enwiki&max=100 have not edited] (ever) the Construction of electronic cigarettes article
 * You have not edited the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes article (one edit total in Jan 2015)
 * You have have not edited the Safety of electronic cigarettes article (17 edits prior to the end of Feb 2015)
 * You have have not edited the Legal status of electronic cigarettes article (11 edits prior to Jan 2015)

In my view, as the head of advocacy organization, you should not directly any article related to electronic cigarettes, but instead should limit yourself to discussion on the Talk page. I would also encourage you to include a link to your COI in your user name - you can see User:Alexbrn and User:Middle 8 for examples of this. (you can set that up in your preferences).

Is this something you can agree to? If not, we can take this the COI noticeboard, for the community to address. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not part of an advocacy organization - i'm president of a consumer protection organization with no monetary or professional interests in electronic cigarettes. I do not see any conflicts of interests in my editing, which has mainly been factual corrections in accordance with reliable sources. I see no reasons to limit myself the way that you are proposing, which essentially is to say that people who are in some way involved in a particular subject shouldn't edit these. That would include scientists working on articles within their fields, doctors working on medical articles, economists on economical articles, or politically interested people on articles within the political sphere. And, if i'm not mistaken, your particular approach to WP:COI has no consensus at all on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive_20), for the reasons i just mentioned.
 * The only place where i will limit my edits voluntarily is on the political aspects of electronic cigarettes with regards to Denmark in particular, or with regards to consumer organizations in general. Since i have a vested interest in these - and thus shouldn't edit these. Since i'm also the consumer representive on the Danish board/delegation to the European Committee for Standardization on CEN/TC 437 ("Electronic cigarettes and e-liquids") i will refrain from commenting on this as well.
 * As for adding a COI link to my username - i really do not see the point, since my statement is placed prominently on my userpage.
 * I will always edit with Wikipedia's goals in mind, and with full comprehension and respect towards our pillars. Just as i've always done. --Kim D. Petersen 23:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. OK, I will open a case at COIN so that others can weigh in.  I'll provide notice of that when it is done.  Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * by the way, i had no opinion on that RfC, which you clearly did not read nor understand. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, i did read that discussion despite your insistance that i haven't. May i note btw. that it is rather insulting of you to make such assertions without knowledge to the facts? I became aware of that discussion on May 11, since i'm a longtime lurker on User:William M. Connolley's user page .--Kim D. Petersen 23:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As a note: I welcome a discussion on the WP:COI board about this, but from my reading of our policies i am not even remotely in breach. --Kim D. Petersen 23:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you had read it, you would have known that I took no position on the question. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And if you had read what i wrote, then you would have noted that i didn't in any way or form indicate that you had taken a position. --Kim D. Petersen 00:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

the removal of GNU/Linux term on the GNU article
You are invited to join the discussion at the talk page of the GNU article, and to help improve its neutrality against the POV edits removing the "GNU/Linux" term. Thank you. Fsfolks (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)