User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Archive 2016

WP:AE
I have opened a section on AE concerning edits and talk page sections you were involved in. AlbinoFerret  18:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Shot in my 2 cents. Will be offline for most of the next couple of days, since i'm travelling to Bruxelles for CEN and ISO meetings. --Kim D. Petersen 20:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Editorials
I don't want to re-open the discussion, because I suspect that Jytdog's right about the likely (lack of) productivity there, but just in case you're curious about this: MEDRS is oversimplifying the situation with respect to sources, in the hopes of being useful most of the time, without requiring weeks of study. Review articles (always) contain some primary material, and it is possible for an editorial to contain secondary material – for example, if said editorial "analyzes" or "criticizes" the evidence base used in a review.

That kind of dispute needs to be dealt with on the basis of WP:DUE, not on the basis of historiography. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in complete agreement that most of this is based in weight, and a weight argument is worth having. But there is also a very strong double standard being displayed. As we can see from this very similar case. In effects in the PHE/Lancet editorial case, critique is acceptable because ..., while in the WHO/Addiction paper case it is unacceptable because .... --Kim D. Petersen 08:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We all know that to you, an "editorial" is an "editorial" That you can't, or don't, see the difference between the Addiction editorial and the Lancet editorial, doesn't make Doc James a hypocrite - what is "very strong" here is something else.  That you cannot even fill in the blanks there shows that you are not even listening.  It is one thing not to agree, but quite another to not even be able to state the other side's case.   Jytdog (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You may want to check again. The Addiction paper is a peer-reviewed response to the WHO report, written by experts on the topic. Not an editorial. And i don't think that i ever mentioned, or pointed anything out with regards to Doc James? Do read again - i think you've misunderstood quite a few things. --Kim D. Petersen 09:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My mistake, thanks for correcting me. But it is even worse than what i thought. It is just a plain old "research article" per MEDLINE and pubmed (per PMID 25196419).  That doesn't even come close to being the same weight as the statement by the Lancet.  You are comparing apples and oranges. I thought you were at least comparing oranges to orange trees. Jytdog (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * An editorial is not a scientific/medical venue, the writers are not experts, and its not peer-reviewed. Editorials are opinion, not science, we do not source science from editorials .... ever. So you are putting quite a bit too much weight into it.
 * These two are very similar because both are critiques of scientific reports, and in the one case it gets accepted, in the other it doesn't.... The least we should have is consistency, and not double standards --Kim D. Petersen 09:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To expand: The understanding from the first case, is that we (Wikipedia) do not involve ourselves in the scientific discussion/controversy on the primary level - but relied entirely on the secondary literature for what is and isn't the view on a topic. The Lancet case shows that this understanding apparently is false, and that the arguments in the first case thus weren't true or at the very least dodgy. --Kim D. Petersen 09:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Even worse Kim. In the Addiction case its the scientists who were referenced in Grana pointing out the problems with how their work was used. In Lancet we have a unnamed writer(s) criticizing something they possibly have very little knowledge of. Lancet has even less weight. AlbinoFerret  14:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * again it is clear we are at impasse on this and repeating ourselves is both tedious and not productive. I have asked you both to respond on the article talk page about how you would like to proceed with DR - please respond there.  And as I have said, we need to implement that in a way that doesn't drive third party commentators away. Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

What I mean by "dial it down"
I'll just start noting these here, to help you see what I mean.
 * This kind of caustic comment is not helping things. Please don't make comments on the motivations of other editors.  If you disagree, please just state that, plainly, and explain why.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * here, you don't have to ascribe motivation to the other editor. You can just say what you think about the content and why, without commenting on the contributor. Jytdog (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement
Hi Kim, I created an essay regarding the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement on Meta and I am now looking for ideas regarding the project. I saw that you're interested in sustainability, so I'd love to hear your comments and maybe even have your support! Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:AR4
Template:AR4 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Electronic cigarette‎ that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message here. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Stating that "your POV is showing" is a personal attack in your book? Ok. How is your stance on comments such as those you yourself made here?
 * Glasshouses you know ;)  --Kim D. Petersen 13:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

DS alert
QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't template the regulars. And especially not when you know that there is a real problem here, with a possible WP:COPYVIO - which we according to policy are required to resolve! --Kim D. Petersen 20:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This deletion is interesting, right after tagging me. Well... now it is documented. For interested parties, the link to the discussion is here --Kim D. Petersen 20:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The images were reviewed. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)