User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Archive 2010

Ping

Check your email ASAP. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Pong. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

potential misapplication of WP:notnews, WP:TIND, and WP:WEIGHT

You recently edited Talk:Global warming/FAQ and seem to be misquoting your references. You cite the policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"[1] under its alternate title WP:NOTNEWS. The Q22 you are annotating is concerned with citing papers, not making entire new articles. If you would reread the policy you link to, it should be very clear that the policy you cite has no applicability to the question "What about this really interesting recent peer reviewed paper I read or read about, that says...?". It's hardly a frequent occurrence that people wish to make an entire article out of a new peer reviewed paper. The impression is left (if you don't actually click the link) that citing a new paper is addressed in the policy. It is not.

You also cite the essay "Wikipedia:There is no deadline[2]", an essay with four separate viewpoints. View 1 is about creating articles again, not relevant (see above) view 2 is about waiting to delete new articles and permitting incomplete articles to go through the editing/improvement process before deletion, also not very relevant to the Q22 FAQ answer except to challenge the answer used. From View 2 "There is no publication date and Wikipedia does not have to be finished today. It merely needs to have improved on yesterday. Perfection is neither desired nor achievable." The addition of new papers improves on yesterday, waiting for papers to go through vetting is not consistent with v2. View 3 is about not letting conflicts fester and suggests urgency in resolving certain conflicts. Again, this is not very relevant to the Q22 FAQ answer. View 4 is a call for continuous improvement and a sense of urgency, that there are in fact deadlines. None of these essay sections fits and citing them is not helpful to providing an accurate impression for those who merely read the FAQ and do not read the underlying policies.

We discussed WP:WEIGHT on the global cooling talk page with your first comment on December 27. You were informed that you were misusing the policy then yet you persist in the error today. According to the policy, the cure for undue weight is not the exclusion of text but the framing of minority positions with adequate majority position compliant language to achieve adequate weight balance. And here you are again, less than a week later doing the exact same thing.

For all these reasons, I'm reverting the edit. You're more than welcome to cite policies, guidelines, essays, and procedures that actually support A22 in the GW FAQ but this round just didn't work. TMLutas (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can certainly assert that i am "misusing" WP:WEIGHT as much as you want, it is a whole other issue whether i am or not. I disagree with your revert - but will instead see if there is consensus for this or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Serious question, in what community on what page? I'd suggest that this really ought to go into WP:WEIGHT itself. Where are you pursuing it? TMLutas (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Eric S. Raymond

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Eric S. Raymond, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

Please note that I just added this due to the recent edit warring over blog-sourced references to the subject's global warming views, so obviously it was not under probation at the time of your recent edits. --TS 05:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Beep

It is "Beeb" not "Beep" (as in, Bee Bee Cee) :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Stopping because the forcings are logarithmic

Thanks for your comments on the talk pages. Please note the changes made, via Rick Norwood, to the GW article. Is Rick right to say that the feedback will the 'runaway'. I didn't understand your point about 'logarithmic' forcing. Thanks again. HistorianofScience (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Ah there is an explanation here [3]. But that concerns the effect of CO2 - as concentrations increase, the effect decreases. But what about the feedback of water vapour? What is to stop that running away until the temperature gets incredibly high like Venus? Or is it that the effect of water vapour is also logarithmic? So the temperature goes up, the forcing effect of water vapour increases, causing further increases in temperature, but this is logarithmic, so reaches a new equilibrium. Is that right? HistorianofScience (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Policy question

You reverted my edit with the comment "Don't insert things that are contentious." Please point me to the WP policy that supports this. And who gets to decide what is contentious? You? If anonymity is your standard, WP is doomed.Jpat34721 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You have already been notified that the article is under probation[4], so i shouldn't have to remind you. In this case a 1RR limit is in place. Looking over the talk-page, there are several mentions that people shouldn't reinstate or insert things that are controversial or being in hot debate. This is such a case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As an admin, you should know better than this. Article probation does not override WP:Bold, neither do opinions on talk pages. See also WP:PRESERVE which you did not see fit to follow. Reverting should be the last resort, after discussion has reached a deadlock. Your action was premature, unnecessarily divisive, and harmful to the consensus building process. I repeat, if you think that consensus is required before an editor makes a change, you are mistaken. Jpat34721 (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. And while WP:BRD exists, please notice that it is Bold-Revert-Discuss not Bold-Revert-Discuss-Revert. I have no bother with you being bold - what i was commenting on was your revert/reinsertion of something that definitively hadn't reached a consensus. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny you have no problem with User:Scjessey RV without consensus. Again, please read WP:PRESERVE and take it to heart. Jpat34721 (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey was the Revert in Bold-Revert-Discuss. Thats why i had "no problem" with it. Since i do not think that your edit was "usefull content" (i think i made that rather clear in the discussion) i was fully adhering to WP:PRESERVE. I do not think that the article should have more opinion sources (we already have too many), and i also do not agree with your "Balance" argument. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. Guettarda (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Winter of 2009–2010 in Europe

You just reverted an edit of mine on the aforementioned article. This edit was made subsequent to a comment that I made on the talk page that contains a policy based argument to make that change. Please read it and repond there. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 08:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any "policy based argument" there - what i do see is an argument based on self-published sources --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear KimDabelsteinPetersen/Archive 2010: Hello, my name is The Wordsmith; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-08/Global Warming

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A bit late for this innit? One of the mentioned participants is indef blocked for sockpuppeteering, and since then the climate change articles have been put under probation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Veteran Editor II (or Grand Tutnum)

Did you know you're eligible for promotion? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, hadn't noticed - guess i have to change the front then... If i'm not thrown out as a tendentious editor [5] :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Alex is having fun off wiki [6]. Who knows, he may be off at WR right now William M. Connolley (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It quacks like a duck

The Duck --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Better than Mallard, Moeliker ref, which leads me to [7]. But could become a proverb to rival "flogging a dead horse" ;-? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is the math error? This is relevant!

I wrote >>>>Viewed another way, since 1832, the global average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by .0103% (from 0.0284% to 0.0387%). To better sense the magnitude of this increase, one can imagine a room containing 10,000 tennis balls as a visual model to represent the gases in Earth's atmosphere. Since an increase of.010% (.0103% rounded to nearest .001%) is also equivalent to 1 part in 10,000, the increase in CO2 which has taken place since 1832 would be represented by only ONE of those 10,000 tennis balls.<<<<

You deleted that with this response >>>No, indeed the increase in percent is wrong and this is rather irrelevant. Increases in *trace* gases will always be small compared to the whole. <<<

You deleted that with this response >>>No, indeed the increase in percent is wrong and this is rather irrelevant. Increases in *trace* gases will always be small compared to the whole. <<<

1. How is it wrong? Is it wrong just because you don't like that argument or because their is a math error? If there is a math error, please be specific. I am an engineer by training so I believe I can handle your explanation. I hope you do realize that 100 ppm is mathematically equivalent to 10 parts in 100,000 or 1 part in 10,000?

2. As to the relevance of my insert, apparently you miss the point of my "viewed another way" beginning statement. The intent of my insert is to provide the reader with another perspective using the same facts. I think this insert is relevant because, as we all know, there are three kinds of lies... lies, damned lies, and statistics. This statement in the previous sentence. "This is 103 ppmv (36%) above the 1832 ice core levels of 284 ppmv" appears to have been written to alert or alarm the reader that CO2 is increasing in some alarming manner, when the reality is, as a percent of the atmosphere, CO2 has barely nudged. My point, the same information yields two different impressions when "viewed another way". Why not leave both arguments in the article??? You know, not every reader of this article is mathematically proficient. Viewing an increase of CO2 as being 100 ppm out of 387 ppm or 36% increase since 1932, leaves a far different impression than stating that CO2 has increased by only .01% of atmospheric gas since 1932. My view of this is to give everyone reading this, including non techy readers, a frame of reference so that the reader can, for himself, decide how relevant CO2 may or may not be to global warming.

As you apparently realize, CO2 is a trace gas, which means that CO2 exists in very small quantities. I, along with thousands of my engineering colleagues, do not believe that it is possible for CO2 at a level of only .0387% of the atmosphere, to have much of an influence on global warming. In addition, as you probably know, Water Vapor exists in the troposphere in concentrations 30 to 70 times that of CO2. And, as you may not know,H2O absorbs radiated energy in two of the same spectra as does CO2. So the fact that the same IR energy can in these two spectra is going to be absorbed by H2O at the 30 to 70 times the rate that it is likely to be absorbed by CO2 is not only relevant, it is central to assessing the potential impact of CO2 on global warming. Therefore, to understand the potential that CO2 may or may not have on global warming, the reader should understand something about both of those two facts. I am not inserting my opinion in the article. I am simply providing an alternative and equally accurate view of the same bit of data which is stated in the previous sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.231.169 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

removal of comment that Ian Plimer's book "heaven and earth" is refered to by the BNP

why did you remove it, the reference has major quotes from the book using them to justify the party's environmental policy (regretably to many of us) the party has growing influence in the uk Pete the pitiless (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Without any reliable secondary sources to point out that it is being used here, it is simply WP:UNDUE WEIGHT (and to some extent original research as well). You will need something to guide with regards to the relevance of this information, without it, it cannot go in. In other words: We are an encyclopedia, not a collection of random factoids - that means that we need reliable secondary sources to provide the relevance of information. Hope that explains it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hope this is somewhat betterPete the pitiless (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI

There is an issue being discussed at WP:ANI#Deleting and readding of talk page comments in which you may be involved.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

your discussion contribution to the first series of retirement requests to the IPCC head

you are claiming Lord Monkton is concerned about forces that are establishing a new socialist world order. there is a short claim that went along in the world for ages: In capitalism men rule on men. In socialism it's vice versa. Here's a quote from the mouth of a member of the Bush family (at least by the meaning, not word exact): If men would know what we really did, they would send us down the road throwing stones after us. So its all about knowledge, about information, about telling the people the truth (or not) to crash (or upheld) the ruling situation. I personally would stroke out the word socialist because its so exchangeable with any other word. In my current understanding Monkton is probably doing something against any sort of yet covered(!) "new world order" that leads to another epoch of men ruling over men.

You might not like the messenger - but only reading a smaller percentage of the wide spectrum of messages strongly exposes you to the risk of beeing limited to what others want you to know (or better believe) and not what your honourable thinking human mind would be able to recognize as possible, likely and after checking with the facts finally as what is called a truth. not searching for truth, even in the messages from some of the more extreme messengers is a serious fault in information management. a simple but true statement in my hemisphere is: one swallow does not account for summer. there must be at least some mini grain of truth in nearly any statement you can find but you have to read, understand and extract the essence. its just if you deny counting swallows, it wont stop the next summer from appearing.

its like they told journalists not to ask for this, that and those at the recent climate conference in Kopenhagen. some media do tell you quite clear what the sets of "dont ask" had been, others do not. in some way i can understand that no one was able to prepare in a reasonable fashion for the just happened "climagate" topic, same for the "Himalayah glaciers" topic - but Kopenhagen is gone already a few weeks whilst the questions are still open, or even look like they got "canned" by a bigger part of the press. whats does that predict for any sort of a "New World Order" in which the most thrilling questions of time dont receive the answer by what people call the main stream media? if you plan for a ne epoch of men ruling above men, then you better dont ask questions, you dont listen to the whole spectrum of messengers with their messages - probably you will then end up as the one sort of men rather than the other sort of men. telling others to not listen to the richness of arguments and then allowing to judging themselves without providing a good reasoning or explanation just puts you in the position of a ruler of minds whilst you are putting those others in the role of purely believing "sheep".

this is nothing with what you can gain much honours other than the honours of folks that want to educate the majority people to be sheep. at least that is what such obviously too short statement on generally ignoring speeches from other individuals would mean to me. freedom is about information and opinions. freedom is an individual attribute. performing pure commands like "do not listen to him" will damage the freedom of those who speaks up because with some percentage probability exactly those who are able to listen wont take that chance to do so. information transfer wont take place. that's just damaging of freedom and thus impacting on peoples individual rights. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you seem to be of the mistaken opinion that i'm limited in my reading. This is not the case, a have a serious infection of reading compulsion, and read just about everything that i can get my hands on, both pro-,contra- and mid-level information. And the whole "new world order" thing is really far-out. Monckton's "interpretation" of the Copenhagen document is supported by no one (except conspiracy theorists), and i'm also sorry to inform you that no where in the document (despite what Monckton claims) was there a notion or implied notion of making a "world government" (and yes - i have read the document. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Predictions

Hi thanks. What do you mean by "Predictions need not be of a future state, it can also be of states not yet observed"? Isn't that kind of a same thing? If something is in future, it's not observed yet, correct? Or am I missing something, sorry if you are a scientist and I sound ignorant to you. Thanks again Goldor (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, your edit to Paleoclimatology needs to be sourced, and it certainly shouldn't be in the lead of the article.

Second to answer your question, even when something has already been observed, a prediction can be made about a state in the observation that hasn't already been noticed. Lets say that someone hypothesizes that that at every 155 year mark in an ice-core would have specific properties, and then it later confirmed. The prediction of the hypothesis has then been confirmed.

This btw. only scratches the surface, since observation methods and their application are also involved.

Finally: No, i'm only a layman --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the start page when you register invites you to be bold and edit. So I was, about things I was pretty sure I am right about. Not sure that I understand your explanation about hypothesis. It still seems that my addition about climatology was correct. Is there some expert we can ask? Goldor (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

removal of material at Global Warming

Contrary to what you said on the GW talkPage, the onus is on the person who wants to revert material to demonstrate there is not due weight. Look it up at WP:IMPERFECT. When the only mentions of "Amazon" and "desertification" are removed real damage has been done to the article. There's barely any mention of "Antartica" either, which must astonish anyone reading the article.
It sometimes looks as if there are about 6 editors wanting this article to stay roughly the same and at least 20 who want to improve it. The fact that all 20 want slightly different things seems to act as an excuse for stone-walling against all improvements. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm, it's your responsibility to demonstrate compliance with policies. Don't try to shirk it. --Tasty monster 17:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Malcolm, first of all that policy doesn't address weight which is we are talking about here. You may want to read WP:BURDEN though. Since we are talking about a single individual here (Monckton), who in his Op-Ed is stating that most climate scientists are committing fraud, by stating that they are lying, a pertinent place to look would also be WP:REDFLAG. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Monckton's allegations look mild compared with those in today's Sunday Times. But that discussion is a side-show because people come to the article we're supposed to be slaving over in order to be informed. And large numbers of them arrive in order to be informed about the "science" that Monckton claims to be using. Why's it so difficult to give the reader what they want? Answer, mention of "Amazon" and "desertification" gets taken straight out again. Even "Antarctica" is not in the text! MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Corals bleaching isn't in the text either, neither is early springs, the need to double the capacity of all sewers in Denmark, regional impacts in a multitude of places, the combination of climate change and amphibian diseases that conspire to fasten their extinction, that weeds may gain considerably more from increased CO2 than feed-crops, ... and an extreme amount of other interesting things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(actually, this is part of another discussion moved here) The whole point of this article or suite of articles is (presumably) to make information easily accessible. Instead of which, it sometimes appears that the article is being made as un-helpful as possible. Sorry to bang on about things, but "Amazon" and "desertification" have been taken out - how can that be helpful? No mention of the Antarctic - an astonishing omission! If people can't answer questions on TalkPages, then it becomes doubtful they can write articles that answer questions either. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm you are confusing "not anwering" with "not knowing". Wikipedia policy does not allow for talk-pages to become a question&answer forum. We are "refusing to answer" questions that is not going to improve the article. You have to turn to blogs or other forums to get answers to your questions. We are also not here to seek the WP:TRUTH, but instead to describe the subject, as seen from science.

Some of your questions btw. are answered on Wikipedia, but they are answered on sub-articles, since every topic cannot be discussed at the top-level article.

Glaciers are described in Retreat of glaciers since 1850. IPCC ARII criticism is covered in Criticism of the IPCC AR4. Antarctica in Climate of Antarctica (amongst others), Coral bleaching in Coral bleaching, Arctic shrinkage in Arctic shrinkage, .....

There are so many different sub-topics that are related to global warming, that the top-level article only summarizes some articles, which again may have summaries of several other articles. At each step details are lost, that is not from ignorance, but from necessity. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

1)In these days of hyperlinks, all those topics need to be linked via keywords from the master article Global Warming. It will be necessary to take out some detail and put it into more sub-articles, but most people want that anyway. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

2)Today the UK’s chief scientific adviser, professor John Beddington said that "the false claim in the IPCC’s 2007 report that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 had exposed a wider problem with the way that some evidence was presented. “Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate. We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There’s definitely an issue there. If there wasn’t, there wouldn’t be the level of scepticism. All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, ‘There’s a level of uncertainty about that’.”

But none of the key-words enabling people to inform themselves permitted at Retreat of glaciers since 1850 either, despite the IPCC results being twice mentioned in the lead. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

False accusations

Kim, you have given me inappropriate & inaccurate labels regarding the info that I have added on the Mann talk page. I did not add anything false & included a reliable source. It's well known that you are heavily biased towards AGW in omitting data, being hypocritical & such. It's strange that your editing privileges have not been revoked. In removing my neutral comments, you claim that they are something that they are not. It's almost funny how you claim that "oil" does "something" to counter AGW, without any evidence. If there was a god, you would go to hell, for being dishonest & immoral, but your days on Earth, in freedom [which you oppress] are numbered, until you go to jail or worse. You are a threat to liberty.68.180.38.25 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)(:-()>

I'm sorry that you cannot take good advice. Your above comment is a distinct violation of Wikipedia policies, first of all you are forgetting to assume good faith, secondly you are significantly incivil. Both are things that, if you continue, will end up getting you banned from Wikipedia... Is that your intention? If not, then i suggest that you tone down your comments, and read up a bit on the rules of conduct for Wikipedia.

As for your talk-page comments, the reason they were removed was that you were in breach of our policy on living persons, which is in effect for both talk-pages and in articles. Claims of "fabrication" is libel. Thus the commments were removed.

Again, try to learn how Wikipedia works, and you may end up being a boon for it, but keep going like you've done so far, and it won't end well. In short: Being civil, and not making personal attacks, are requirements, not options. Good luck. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah another computer scientist from Europe with a global warming agenda

If only I had a nickel... I left some advice on Steve's talk page that definitely applies to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.6.124 (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Change i made in article was correct yet reversed

on this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate#endnote_b0 according to the cited source poland's literacy rate is 99.8, you can even see this byt scrolling to bottom and reading the cited source. Yet on the list it says that its rate is 99.3. so I changed that putting it into being tied for first but it was reversed.. why? January 28,2010 Phil S24.186.27.72 (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

    Will you respond anytime soon??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.27.72 (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 

Request

Hi kim, i would like your feedback on an article wip. [[8]] If you have some time give it a gander and let me know your thoughts on it, thanks. --mark nutley (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC

Outcome of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC:

• KimDabelsteinPetersen is warned that further participation in any edit war in the probation area will lead to a one-revert restriction or similar sanctions.

- 2/0 (cont.) 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PS - I know that we don't usually see eye to eye on various topics but hopefully we can come together on this. ChrisO, Hipocrite, and I started working on a joint proposal and have been working to gather support for it ever since. Please take a few minutes to give this proposal your full consideration and in the spirit of finding a compromise position both sides can live with. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Please, stop being a hypocrit and accuse a user for "vandalism" only because he have made a change that is against your POV. The only vanalism here, is what you do.

Please, act honest when you edit Wiki. 125.26.178.181 (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to notify you that i haven't accused or reverted anything of yours as vandalism. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

false positives

hi,

i am a false positive on the 400+list. i assume you can move my name to the false positives list. does hans vs know he is there?

i am not a wiki regular, and created this account to send you this message.

i assume i will get some notification if you answer this. i am happy to verify my identity by email or phone.

i hesitate to post things here, as i know not this system. i am based in the UK and will be online for a few hours more today.

thanks Alpha123abc (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You have to make a public declaration that can be cited as a source. You have my sympathy; several of my friends are on the list and it has caused them much embarrassment. Fortunately I'm not on it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Boris, i'm assuming that Alpha123abc is referring to this work-copy User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Inhofe, where i certainly would move the name to a false positive if i could. But the best thing would be to note it on their personal webpage where we can then link to the evidence and use it whenever someone is trying to push the list as a reliable source. (that goes for your friends as well). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As Boris said above, for WP to disregard it would require a public declaration (on your website/faculty profile or the like). But fortunately the list is considered unreliable for Wikipedia purposes. I would be obliged to move your name to a false positive position on my work-copy though, if you'd email me with your details. That won't give you much, but at least it would emphasize that you personally had emailed me to tell that you were a false positive :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You made a wondering statement

You made a wondering statement at William_M._Connolley talkpage. You wonder why? I wonder why every unpleasant comment (well sourced, even from BBC in this case) is removed. The article just seems to pinpoint the same attitude at some editors at Wikipedia as from the Green Party. That's it. Difficult to understand? Nsaa (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ponder your own POV, and you may also like to ponder whether it is appropriate to address editors this way. And i am very much still wondering what the Green Party has to do with anything. And what does party-affiliations have to do with anything? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

AR4

		The Services to Science Award
		Thanks for all the fish, Kim D. Petersen, and for working collaboratively to dispel the yapping terriers of ignorance. Splendid work on sea levels at Criticism of the IPCC AR4! dave souza, talk 21:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But i'm not really certain that i deserve it. But i am going to cherish it anyways :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Musing a bit on climate change article problems

I think there actually is a "problem" with the climate change articles on Wikipedia - but the reason for this "problem" has very little to do with POV pushing, ownership or other obnoxious behaviour. It lies solely with our policies of WP:NPOV and WP:RS (and at times also WP:BLP).

There is a large and heavy debate going on at various partisan blog sites, which also tips over into the opinion article land. It is a debate that mostly is conducted by lay-people, and it consists of various claims, counterclaims, bunkings and debunkings. This is the debate that many of the disgrundled editors have their background in, this is where they get most of their arguments, points of view, misconceptions, pre-conceived views and of course also sometimes good information (hopefully this goes into the articles).

The trouble is that most of these sites fail our WP:RS policy, and that very little analysis has been done by secondary reliable sources on the various fights (so that we could have an article about it), arguments and debates that rage at these. Once in a while a tid-bit of the wars that are being fought at these sites spill out into mainstream media, either via a short news-article, an opinion article or perhaps an advocacy organization writes about it....

And here comes the very real problem: For those that have followed the "wars", these items seem incredibly important (after all they've probably read dozens of blog postings, long debates etc on these) - so they want it to go immediately into the articles. And here it clashes with our WP:WEIGHT policy (ie. WP:NPOV)... The reason for this is that the issue simply isn't (or hasn't been) considered important in the "real world", there hasn't been long RS articles written on the subject, and it probably isn't discussed in the peer-reviewed press (and if it is, then it very likely is in direct opposition to the emerged tid-bit).

Since the editors now stand without being able to present that view on the article, and since no one will discuss it with them, for talk-page policy reasons. They come away with an impression that WP is biased, and that information is being suppressed, articles are being owned and whatnot. Many of these editors end up raging against WP, using the talk-page as a soap-box, complaining in several threads on how unfair things are, and in the long term, if they stay clear of being blocked, they occasionally rant on the talk-pages or keep attempting to insert their pre-conceived viewpoint from their personal favorite blog.

I don't know how we can solve this "problem", but it is a problem that we haven't got a solution for it.

Comments are welcome - i may have been a bit confusing or rambled a bit - but its late (or early if you want) almost 4AM, brrrr - will go to bed. Good night. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Luckily, you and Connolley and Schulz and your team of software engineers/computer scientists/and other IT-related guys, who are naturally also experts in scientific methodology as well as statistical proof bearing and climate science, are here to protect us against these douche-bags! You guys GET it! And you guys KNOW what a RS is! What would we do without you?! Viddythes (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, even though sarcastic. You may want to ponder that WP:RS is a wikipedia wide policy, and not something that is limited to this particular topic. Blogs are unfortunately not reliable for anything other than the opinion of their author, and unless that author is a subject matter expert - then they are out. Thats the rules. And that is one of the many things that trip editors to these articles.

I do not btw. consider any of my fellow editors douche-bags, and i don't think that my musing ever hinted at people being in bad faith - quite the opposite really. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, the comment was indeed sarcastic, but let me address the issue now seriously. I personally believe that the attitude demonstrated by you guys (Schulz, Connolley, and a couple of other individuals) is a part of the problem, rather than the solution. Allow me to elaborate (it’s going to get a bit SOAPy, but bear with me):

First off, let us establish two facts.

(1) You guys are a like-minded group. This is quite obvious, since you never seem to disagree (in ‘public’). Also, since you and Connolley are friends on Facebook (excuse the stalking, but I had to test my hypothesis), I presume that all of you are communicating outside of Wikipedia and coordinating your efforts.

(2) Due to this and your technical knowledge, as well as your experience on Wikipedia, you guys are able to overrule any individual editor’s efforts, regardless of whether this individual is ‘right’ or not.

While you correctly claim that blogs shouldn’t, in general, be considered reliable sources, it’s quite daft to ignore their contents, especially when they relate to quality blogs such as e.g. ClimateAudit. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that you guys closely follow, and adhere to, opinions posted on other (often censored) blogs such as RealClimate. I.e. your edits, are often in line with what is posted there (WMC even used to be a contributor). So, let us not play lawyers here, and ‘ignore’ content which is not officially RS, when anybody with half a brain, reading McIntyre’s blog, can see that his results are much easier to verify than many of the papers you cite as RS. Now, I’m not claiming that you now need to cite Steven’s blog as a peer-reviewed publication, but acting as if it doesn't exist, and ganging up on anybody bringing it up as if they were imbeciles (and winning due to (1) and (2) above) doesn’t help the discussion at all. This type of behavior enrages people, as you probably have noticed in your long career on Wikipedia.

So let us play a hypothetical game of me editing the global warming page (I’ll explain the background of a potential edit now).

I’m not a ‘layman’: I’m a economics/statistics/econometrics graduate student with a strong interest in the philosophy of scientific knowledge. My skepticism stems from actually reading the WG1, and failing to find a single proper empirical test of the AGWH. I then went through the literature on parametric statistical testing of AGWH, and found it below any standards acceptable within my, arguably much more mature, field (e.g. cointegration of a I(1) and I(2) series, see below).

Given that the AGWH is based on a phenomenological, rather than fundamental (big difference!), model, finding a proper correlation is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for this hypothesis, and all the projections/forecasts and computer simulations that follow from it, to be valid. Given that temperature and green house gas forcings follow a random walk (check the literature on this, e.g. Kaufman’s work), any possible correlation needs to be established via a technique called cointegration (so far, worth two real Nobel Prizes). However, green house gas forcings are integrated of the second order, while temperatures and solar irradiance are integrated of the first order. This implies that they can never be (linearly) cointegrated (this is a mathematical result). More general tests, such as polynomial cointegration tests (by Beenstock and Reingewertz (2009), two econometricians who know what they are doing), furthermore reject any long term relationship. These results are a HUGE red flag (methodologically), and were this a (phenomenological) economic model, it would have suffered a fatal blow as a result. So, I would conclude that these findings deserve at the very least a section on some global warming pages. (I could go on about statistics being abused by climate scientists / amateur statisticians, but I’ll snip).

Now honestly (please) imagine what would happen if I were to enter the discussion on the GW page, and attempt to add a section containing some of the issues listed above. I suspect that first, I would be called an idiot (probably by Connolley, he’s apt at that) because some pseudo-statistician at RealClimate has already ‘debunked’ this. Then, after showing references etc, I would be told that types like Beenstock are not climate scientists, so they don’t know what they are doing. Any personal contribution, simply to convince you guys that I'm not talking nonsense (I actually replicated many of those tests myself), would be dismissed as 'original research' (again, lawyer-speak). You guys would then gang up on me, hiding behind policies, start reverting edits, I would revert back (probably, due to my inexperience, breaking some peculiar wiki standard in the process), and it will result in me being banned or something similar. I would then leave in frustration.

Please correct me if I’m wrong. If you do so however, I challenge you to join me, and I will show you the statistics and papers, and we can make that edit together. However, judging by how you guys have been dancing around the CRU e-mail leak (and yes, it’s most probably a leak, as a software engineer you can read and understand your peer’s analyses of that, so let’s not start with RS lawyer speak), I have very little faith that you guys are actually looking to learn something new. To me it seems like your POV’s are set in stone.

In summary, people are frustrated by your control of these pages, and by the fact that when they come with some valuable information and results that contradict the AGWH (objectively valuable, even if it doesn’t always conform to RS standards), rather than being given some open-minded help by you experienced editors in putting their contribution in a proper context, they feel the full blunt of your clique’s influence. Often enough, it is YOU guys who decide what a RS is, because, even though this is a wiki-wide policy, slightly different standards apply to different topics and editors' discretion is the key. In the context of the AGWH, we can, especially after the CRU-leak, conclude that not all voices were equally represented in the debate as the peer-review process was performed by climate scientists, so RS is very tricky term here.

So, please, let's skip the formalities, and keep it real.Viddythes (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. However agitated my tone, this las edit was done in good faith. I hope you can see that. Viddythes (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I was going to respond to this, but I think invocation of Rule 5 is a better approach. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the exposition, and accepting the invitation to "correct you if wrong": (1) the effects of greenhouse gases is based on theoretical and empirical results, and is not simply phenomenological (absorption/emission spectra and soforth). (2) Temperature and greenhouse gas forcings absolutely do not follow a random walk (I checked Kaufmann's work, and from a quick glance, he uses this as a statistical test). If they did follow a random walk, what a funky world it would be! Awickert (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Awickert, that 'invitation' referred to me contributing to the GW page, not the actual topic, but since you pull my tongue, here's an answer to your 'questions' (indeed, you should have added question marks :).

A phenomenological model is based on observed and established relationships (look up the definition of phenomenological as related to physics). However, this does not make it fundamental (i.e. derived directly, and with that I mean DIRECTLY, from fundamental physical laws). It still must be directly tested and not indirectly via e.g. lab-based radiation absorption experiments or some partial tests of some partial effects. As of today, I have seen no convincing empirical test of this supposed relationship between CO2 and Temperatures (and I have seen a few rejections). And remember, a hypothesis cannot be its own proof (so no GCM's).

Anyhow, I shouldn't go totally OT, by explaining the finer details of cointegration here, there are plenty of places on the internet to do that much better than I can (Nobel prize website is good start), but let me state this very clearly: Statistics deals with what we observe and a lot of series (most of them actually) observed as a random walk are, in reality, not actual 'random walks'. However, if the tests classify our observations of them as such, we must treat them that way for the purpose of correct statistical inference. Cointegration is then the correct way to establish statistical relationships between these perceived random walks.

Also, I suggest you read Kaufmann's papers again. He treats those series as I(1)/I(2) for the purpose of statistical inference, as the ADF test statistics classify them as such (i.e. we observe them as such). Given that, we cannot relate them statistically without bending over backwards, through e.g. polynomial cointegration (and even then, any long term relationships is rejected). These are conclusions on the basis of what we OBSERVE, not on what some climate scientist dreams/smokes up together while pondering on a melting glacier.Viddythes (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The warming provided by carbon dioxide is provided by fundamental physics. The composition of the gas is known, as are its energetics and the shapes of its bonds and electron clouds. If one takes this along with incoming solar radiation its interactions with the atmosphere and the Earth surface, then the whole deal appears. But I think you mean that the complexity of the natural system makes the fundamental approach difficult.

As per this being OT, I'm not interested in discussing statistical methods for analyzing temperature changes, but I was responding to your statement, Given that temperature and green house gas forcings follow a random walk, which is incorrect (it is deterministic, not stochastic), but you've clarified what you meant by that, so thank you.

One of my major issues on the global warming pages is accuracy and clarity in writing, so I suppose I can close by saying that it is very important to be correct and write in a straightforward and interpretable fashion. So I thank you for clarifying. Awickert (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

KDP, i appreciated your analysis, however wiki has room for all RS POV, from my observations, as soon as a newly sourced POV is included it's deleted and attacked. The solution is to better manage were the best place for inclusion belongs. There is too much prejudice against "unscientific" sources it these articles. After all, it is the un-scientist who will have to buy the scientific POV if there is to be a balanced POV. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A partial solution to the problem would be the std NOTNEWs approach: don't allow stuff in until it has aged by at least, say, 3 months (as a bare minimum). This would put a lid on much of the froth, and would prevent over-excitement. Anyone with a genuine interest in the subject can wait that long; anyone who can't, should be doing something else anyway. This would also allow time for corrections; the most obvious example being the FOI law-breaking froth over the CRU hack, which now turns out to be wrong. The other RS problem is that newspapers are considered RS's for stuff like the CRU hack, even when they make multiple mistakes. Many good blogs actually do a far better job that the papers do. The RS noticeboard isn't much use in this regard, as witness the skeptics common threats to take stuff there so they can stuff it in. But overall, froth is the main problem, and delay the best solution William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That idea may have merit. How about we create a page in the Climate Change project, like a holding pen, so that nominated sources may be better sorted out and aggregated there. Aged like fine wine for appropriate distribution. That could sort out a few issues before they hit the articles. I guess this proposal should be reviewed in the Climate Change project page. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Verification

Hi there -- I'm a little confused as to why the following was labelled "verification failed" -- could you please clarify? Thanks in advance, Jprw (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"In 2009, the blog was attributed in The Guardian as identifying fundamental flaws in the method of recording data and measurements during the Catlin Arctic Survey."

Sure - read the article. What WUWT pointed out was that the data wasn't "live" (amongst many other bloggers - they were mentioned as an example). There is nothing in the article about WUWT (or others) having "indentified fundamental flaws....". More specific, the sentence about WUWT is: "Bloggers including Watts Up With That also picked up on the fact that biotelemetry sensors designed to send the team's individual heart rates and core temperatures to a "live from the ice" website appeared to be repeating the same data."

Or in other words: Bloggers thought the data was live, it wasn't. Not quite as exciting :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can see now that it is "lacking something". Thanks for the thorough explanation. Cheers Jprw (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it can be reworked -- The Guardian seem to be making a passing nod to WUWT's ability to collate and assess information. Jprw (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be rather extreme peacocking don't you think? There has to be better references than an article which only mentions WUWT in passing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

3 verification failed

Curious why you did this? The first one about judith curry is spot on Climate Auditors and the Blogosphere [9] It`s right there in the article? I think the third one is now fixed, and the second one is ok as that matt ridley thing is in ref no8. Would you look over the catlin arctic one again and tell me what you think know please? mark nutley (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark the connection is more than weak. She makes the statement "Climate Auditors and the Blogosphere" - Its not possible (especially considering that the rest of the article doesn't mention Watts) to make the connection. Maybe she included Watts in the "Climate Auditors" or maybe in the "Blogosphere" - that cannot be verified. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to sure i follow you Kim, here is the entire paragraph Climate Auditors and the Blogosphere McIntyre started the blog climateaudit.org so that he could defend himself against claims being made at the blog realclimate.org with regards to his critique of the “hockey stick” since he was unable to post his comments there. Climateaudit has focused on auditing topics related to the paleoclimate reconstructions over the past millennia (in particular the so called “hockey stick”) and also the software being used by climate researchers to fix data problems due to poor quality surface weather stations in the historical climate data record. McIntyre’s “auditing” became very popular not only with the skeptics, but also with the progressive “open source” community, and there are now a number of such blogs. The blog with the largest public audience is wattsupwiththat.com, led by weatherman Anthony Watts, with over 2 million unique visitors each month It`s in there with Climateaudit, looks open and shut to me? mark nutley (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that she calls McIntyre and the audience at climateaudit "Climate Auditors" - but the connection to WUWT is not called it - speculate on why she says "and" instead of "in the". As said: It is a guess whether she means that WUWT is a CA - but we cannot guess. You simply want it to read that way, try critical reading instead. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I`m not the only one who read it that way :-) [10] I added this ref along with the other one mark nutley (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"According to Leo Hickman at the Guardian[ref guardian], Judith Curry attaches the label "Climate auditors", to WUWT[ref curry]" is an acceptable use of that source. Opinion sources cannot assert facts--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool thanks mate :~) mark nutley (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

RWP

What do you think of this? It appears to support the other stuff in the article? [11] mark nutley (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating, and great to get another proxy mechanism (one that i hadn't heard about earlier). But only very useful if your article is called "RWP in and around Iceland". Combining bits and pieces yourself, is what is called original research, making a conclusion from it (as you've done) is a synthesis - and that is not allowed on Wikipedia --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask you an interesting (hypothetical) question: If most locations in the world had at least one decade, somewhere in the 16-17th century, that was warmer than the last decade of the 20th century at the same location. Would that mean that the world was warmer then, than in the last decade of the 20th century? (think a bit about it, and do notice what i say, and what i don't say) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I will get back to you on this, for now i am [12] :-)

GA initiative

I've asked WMC if he would be willing and able to help take the Watts Up With That article to Good Article status. As my request details, me and a couple of other editors have almost completed preparing the DeSmogBlog article for GA nomination, and I think it would be great if both reached GA about the same time. Observing your interest in the Watts blog article, I suggested to WMC that he ask you to assist. As you helpfully did with the DeSmogBlog article, could you properly format the references for the Watts article? A list of references is located here. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note

Concerning the article Climate change denial, Mackan79 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has opened an enforcement case against me at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. As someone involved with the page, I thought you should be informed. ► RATEL ◄ 06:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

350.org

Hi. Please see my comments after yours on this talk page. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Greenhouse effect discussion

I read your contribution here [13] "I'm sorry to have to inform you, that your interpretation is wrong - and we are not here to correct you." I have to ask you why "I am wrong" and if you feel the article is not capable of improvement along the lines I am suggesting? I happen to be an expert on heat flow, particularly in gravitational fields, so your suggestion that I have some difficulty with thermodynamics at best displays your limitations and worst ad hominem. May I ask your expertise in these matters? Should you be experienced there is plenty of opportunity to demonstrate your skill. Considering what I have written I find your claim to be in a position "to correct me" quite astonishing. Do feel free to correct me, I would appreciate it and you have a (Wikipedia) responsibility to do so, otherwise I suggest you do not contribute on this matter. --Damorbel (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but Wikipedia is not a place for general discussions (please see WP:FORUM). And i'm also sorry to tell you that your claims of expertise is just that: A claim. (and one that i seriously doubt, since you have expressed directly wrong claims about thermodynamics).

I (and others) are not here to "correct you", nor are we here to assess your claims of expertise. Please either demonstrate, via directly attributable secondary reliable sources that your statements are correct (without inference, or interpretation), or stop harping up that particular alley. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kim. That discussion has been done to death and is clearly going nowhere. I've given up even reading it - there is nothing new. However, I'm not convinced by "harping up an alley" - I don't think you can do that. You can harp on about things. And you can go down blind alleys. But you can't harp up them. Can you? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you agree with KDP is neither here nor there. Your contributions on heat flow in the atmosphere do not take temperature difference into account, so how is it you can say "there is nothing new"? We have been here before (I criticised formula of yours for just this reason) you made no answer then and you are trying to defend the same position now. I suggest you get to the basics of heat transfer (try here [14]) if you wish to be credible before making remarks like "I'm not convinced by "harping up an alley"", that is a not an appropriate response.--Damorbel (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the matter I am writing about is the quality of the greenhouse effect article and the descriptions of heat flow in the atmosphere that cause it, my contributions are entirely relevant. Your position vis-a-vis my contributions to the discussion page are untenable since you assert "[I]...expressed directly wrong claims about thermodynamics". The claim I make is quite simple, that heat flows from areas of high temperature to cooler areas, please explain how you find that this is somehow "wrong"? Be kind enough to read this [15] article on heat, it will provide you with an introduction to what is right about my contributions and what is wrong with the greenhouse effect article. You will perhaps gain some idea why your observations on my expertise are apparently not supported by your personal knowledge of the matter. --Damorbel (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The user averages 10 edits to article space per year. Ignore them. -Atmoz (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz, do you present that as a logical contribution?--Damorbel (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You're contributions show you are clearly an ignoramus, at least with respect to the greenhouse effect. The logical conclusion is to ignore you until you find another venue to spout your nonsense. The fact that some continue to feed your trolling is entirely flabbergasting to me. -Atmoz (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You may well ignore me but to ignore the argument speaks volumes about you. Terms such as ignoramus seem to define you, infact you appear to be a specialist in ignoring things.--Damorbel (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa0cz2V_VqU William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh William! You are a Monty Python fan? Wonderful! I'm glad somebody watches the stuff, don't do it myself - too slow. You wear thick woolly sweaters too, no doubt, gosh! --Damorbel (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Lindzen Article

[16] Your revert here make no sense to me, A load of text does not a ref make. Were did said text come from? Is it from a wp:rs? You say the minority position must be balanced to achieve a proper wp:npov yet do not actually give a valid ref? I ask you to either find a valid ref or i shall have to revert you per wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The reference is right after the note (which is a quote from it): "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions: Summary". National Academies Press. 2001. Retrieved 2007-04-05. It could of course be formatted differently - but it is cited, and to a very reliable source.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If the ref is there then why the idiotic ref which is not a ref but a slew of text? That is not how ref`s are meant to be mark nutley (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wind Power

The referenced link in the article clearly states the extra costs of wind power, when used to supply more than a small fraction of total demand, as well as additional problems caused by the intermittent, non-dispatchable nature of the source. Using graphs and hard numbers, it details the additional costs when wind supplies 10%, and 20% of total demand. The statement as it is written clearly misrepresents the source, and is intended to promote the POV that wind power "creates no issues".

Please read the actual source before reverting changes. Unless you can come up with something more substantive than your previous objection, I will restore the text as it was. FellGleaming (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Real Global Warming Disaster as a good article nominee

Hi KimDabelsteinPetersen,

I have nominated The Real Global Warming Disaster as a good article nominee. As someone who has not contributed to the article (or at least has made a very insignificant contribution), but who would I assume have an interest in this subject, I am writing to ask you if you would be willing to review it. Thanks in advance for your help, and at the same time I'll understand if you're too busy. All the best, Jprw (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to second Jprw's request. As an experienced, knowledgeable, and proficient editor, I think you could provide an excellent GA review and judgement as to whether the article meets GA standards, and, if not, what it needs to get there. Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[17] Why did you revert this instead of just removing the "s"? Given you and i are not to edit war do you not think your revert is akin to it? As it has been removed and replaced? Please self revert mark nutley (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on talk, and i don't think that this is an edit-war - merely a miscomprehension on your part on what the issue is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You were wrong, please see the article talk page, thanks mark nutley (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry i'm not. Your links show the opposite of what you believe they do. You will have to more than skim news-articles about science, you have to try to understand them and put them in context. I've replied there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

duplicated material deleted

Al Gore's Years of Spending Cuts in Environmental Clean-ups at America's Dirtiest Sites

Long text that belongs on the talk page

In an effort to bring relevant facts to this article, I have edited the Vice Presidential section to describe the $100's of millions in US federal budget cuts made by Clinton & Gore, reducing environmental enforcement and reducing environmental cleanups. For example, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) site had some of the worst radioactivity and High Explosives contamination in the USA from WW2 and the Cold War. Clinton and Gore cut LANL's Environmental Restoration (ER) Program's budget from it's high of $100 under the first Bush Administration, cut down to a level ($27 million)that supported only govt employee salaries, leaving no money for clean-ups & sampling of contaminated sites across LANL. Clinton-Gore cut federal environmental clean-up spending across the US, as evidenced by the dramatic reduction in sampling at contaminated DOD & DOE sites, causing 2/3 of the US environmental lab community to go out of business between 1993-1998, due to the dramatic drop in federal environmental clean-ups. I was an official at a large environmental lab that did work at all but 2 of the major US DOE sites, and the local and regional DOE officials and scientists were muzzled by their Washington management at the time. While I was working on a multi-million $ drinking water clean-up project in Kiev, Ukraine, Oct 1993, Al Gore personally negotiated visited Kiev and negotiated a deal eliminating the funding local USAID environmental projects, to pay for an agreement for the US to pay $60 million in Ukraine's previous year's unpaid fuel bills in return for "privatization" efforts by Kuchma & the Ukrainian Govt. Our USAID office manager made it very clear that Mr. Gore had to immediately take all of our Ukrainian environmental funding and other Newly Independent State's environmental project's funding to pay for his agreement with Kuchma. For the person who keeps deleting this information, look up the LANL ER budget from 1990 - 2000 and you can read the results for yourself. I currently do not have access to Govt. records, but a simple review of DOE and DOD environmental spending budgets during the Clinton Gore administration will prove the veracity of the facts that Clinton-Gore slashed federal spending on environmental clean-ups at contaminated DOD & DOE sites in an effort to reduce the deficits and balance the budget. ====================================================================================== If you are only interested in showing a biased politically-correct image of Gore, then ignore this.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately your text proposal is almost 100% original research and synthesis. You use it to draw conclusions that are highly partisan. And it is about a living person, which make it worse. This text/proposal is not acceptable in an encyclopedic article - please consider writing a blog or an op-ed, where such would be acceptable. Here it isn't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC) $4.4 billion cuts in environmental clean-up spending at highly contaminated DOE sites, cuts initiated by Clinton-Gore's own budget (before Congressional wrangling) is not partisan. It's a fact reported by the NY Times and other newspapers. It seems that the rejecting facts is the partisan approach. Help make the Gore articles reliable and better: research & report the facts.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC) NY Times December 20, 1994 reported "...senior Clinton Administration officials explained the broad details of proposed budget cuts in energy, transportation and housing programs, ... Of the $10.6 billion the Energy Department has proposed to cut, $4.4 billion is in its environmental budget. " http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/20/us/president-s-suggested-reductions-face-many-obstacles.html?scp=2&sq=+President+Clinton++%244.4+billion+environmental&st=nyt Does a $4.4 billion dollar planned cut by Clinton Gore, a cut in DOE environmental spending merit mention? I currently am outside the United States and do not have access to Federal Govt. Budget and Los Alamos official records, but I was working there during that period, and the Environmental Restoration budget at LANL was definitely cut from $100 million under the first Bush president, and LANL's environmental clean-ups ground to a halt under Clinton-Gore. A lack of sources does not change the facts. Gore's secret deal with Kuchma that cut US environmental spending in Eastern Europe will be more difficult to document, but no less true. Our company had $1 million and $5 million dollars cut from promised contractual funding on projects that I personally managed.15:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Additional References on Clinton-Gore's cuts in Environmental Clean-up Spending Another description of Gore-Clinton's ongoing plans slashing environmental clean-up funding: Jan 21, 1996 "Deep in the fine print of President Clinton's seven-year balanced-budget plan is a little zinger that might surprise supporters impressed by his vow to protect education and environmental programs. In the seventh year, Clinton proposes even deeper cuts in domestic programs than Republicans are proposing in their balanced-budget plan. By that time, he would be out of office, even if he were elected to a second term. The $110 billion in cuts in programs subject to annual spending bills, such as education, environment and defense, is the critical element that tips Clinton's plan into balance in 2002. " http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960121&slug=2309836 It is clear the Clinton-Gore had motive, intent, ability, and authority to cut environmental clean-up spending. I am still looking for the written proof with only crummy internet access. As to my credibility: I was also a US Federal Court Approved Expert Witness on environmental issues, called by the Dept. of Justice to support their actions with the DOE, and I spent 26 years working in US Federal Govt. environmental programs, so, I offer facts that I witnessed first-hand. If working for 26 years on environmental clean-ups creates partisan perceptions, then expert opinions are partisan by your definition. If you are interested in facts and reality, please help create an accurate article on Gore's complex history of environmental support. Please research the facts on DOE & DOD federal environmental budget cuts and halts of clean-up programs, deep cuts initiated by Clinton-Gore, and please provide refereces acceptable to you, since first hand factual accounts by govt. approved experts do not meet your standards or Wiki standards.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Provocative remarks should not be dignified with a response. They reflect extremely poorly on those who make them; let them stand as self-incriminating testimony rather than joining the fray. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - i let myself be tempted into commenting again. I'll keep your advice in mind. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Overlooked

"False friend" is a name used for a word or phrase in a foreign language that looks as if it expresses a meaning which it does not. Your English is good and I have assumed up to now that you are a native English speaker. But today you used the term "overlooked" as if it had the obvious meaning "looked over", or reviewed. Alas, in English that word means the exact opposite. To overlook something is to ignore it. Perhaps this is a case of a "false friend". It's certainly an instance of a very perverse anomaly in English. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct - it was a "false friend" Must have been coffee-deprivation, since both in Danish (at overse) and in German (zu übersehen) it has the same meaning as in english. Thank you for the compliment on my english... since i sometimes wonder if i am dragging danishisms (lol) into my commentary. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Min flyvebåd er fyldt med ål, apparently. --TS 21:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

:) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Singer

As an aside I wouldn't overplay how "highly reliable" CBC ABC and Newsweek are if I were you...that's the kind of thing which has a habit of biting the hand which feeds it. --BozMo talk 13:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, and even likely :) There are of course many aspects to reliable sources - in this case i'm referring to the comparative reliability of the references already used in the Singer article - which to a large degree is blogs, op-eds and other self-published sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

KA (not ka)

This[18] is actually OK by me. Choose your battles. (Note to TP watchers waiting to pounce: this is a common metaphor, not a suggestion that there is a WP:BATTLEGROUND.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC) LYoup, with me too - the reason for the previous revert was the other part about solar variation[19]. Apparently FG thought it was a bit over the top as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Image is vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medieval_Warm_Period&action=historysubmit&diff=356083732&oldid=356080231

Northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions for the past 2,000 years

You have rev. this image back in Medieval Warm Period. That is a vandalism and spoil of wikipedia. Many older and newer temperature reconstructions for the past 2,000 years are better.Haabet 06:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Err, No. I have no idea why you'd believe that "older" reconstructions exist. (since there aren't any) Or which newer reconstructions that you think that there are better (define better). But one thing that it certainly isn't .... is vandalism. Removing it with the spurious rationale that it should be "discredited/misleading/inappropriate" - is quite problematic though - since A) Its not discredited/misleading/inappropriate. B) Its well sourced C) It corresponds to the text in the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Willie Soon

The letter which purports to be the text of a letter by Goodall has multiple issues. It is a clear BLP violation. Not only is the source improper for attributing personals statements by Goodall (how do we know its even her complete, unaltered letter?), but even if it is genuine, it's being used as a source for the actions of other people. Finally, the text as written is not even an accurate representation of what the other RS in the article claim -- sources which existed long before my edit. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 17:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Danish help

I am developing an article on a very obscure rat from Brazil, Oryzomys anoblepas, and need some help with a Danish-language source (Winge, 1887, online here). Since you have Danish listed as your native language, I figured you might be able to help. What I need is anything encyclopedically relevant that Winge has to say—particularly characters he mentions, but also what he says about relationships, ecology, or whatever. I hope you have some time for this. Ucucha 11:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made a stab at it - you can find it on your talk - will do more later when i have more time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I put a question at my talk. Ucucha 20:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding

Do not do this [20] again A blind revert, made to a page you've never touched in your life, done exactly six minutes after you posted this [21]. Clearly done in response to the ongoing dispute with me.

Your revert clearly was not made to improve the content. I had added the content moments earlier; the sources were already in the article, just further in, and WP:PRESERVE says to flag situations like this, regardless. Additionally, your edit summary claimed Chrsyostom "did not live in the Early Middle Ages". Actually, he died in 407, 35 years after the start of the Hun Invasion, the nominative beginning of the Early Middle Ages. So your revert was not only made simply to irk and irritate, but it was misrepresented as well.

The policy on harassment states, "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason". I realize you disagree with my position on climate change articles, but I advise to act more maturely and not place personal spite ahead of the good of Wikipedia. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 07:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No. It was not a blind revert, and quite frankly i resent the accusation, which smacks extremely of WP:ABF. I did in fact do fact-checking on the addition. I didn't revert the later addition - though i should have - since it was original research. When you are citing an obscure text such as Chrysotom [which i incidentally did read, so again, not a blind revert], you are going to need secondary reliable sources to state what you are claiming that the text says. Chrysotom's text is not in clear english, it is written in a style that makes any claims of what the text says an interpretation (which means original research) - so it is not enough just to cite Chrysotem. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You violated WP:PRESERVE, you did so without discussing it on talk both before and after your edit, your edit summary was wrong, there was no reason to remove the material immediately and you gave me no chance to further document the text. Finally, you'll never convince any reasonable admin that, while being involved in a dispute with me, you stopped and went to a new page you've never touched before, in the spirit of improving Wikipedia. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 14:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Connolley

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you that Wikipedia is meant to have a neutral point of view, and not be a forum for people to insert their personal views into articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SkipSmith (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Vineyards

[22] Not until they actually produce a crop :) I really can`t see that happening, can you? mark nutley (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article more carefully - and consider why i wrote that there "is even a commercial one" ... Suffice to say that you are wrong. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don`t get you, the guy says This will be the first harvest that we actually pick the grapes They have not made any wine yet? mark nutley (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Read the whole thing - do not try just to focus on what you want to read. Perhaps something will dawn on you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

von Storch and The Deniers

You didn't answer my question. Do you have a version of Solomon's book which includes von Storch, because mine doesn't. Cla68 (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, if von Storch was in his newspaper column then I guess that is what you meant. Cla68 (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want one who is in the book, and where it is just as laughable - then just take Sami Solanki. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, he quotes Solanki's 2004 paper directly and makes it clear that Solanki believes the warming in the 1980s was caused by CO2, not solar activity, but that previous warming was likely caused by the sun. He states that Solanki believes that solar activity should be studied as a possible factor, along with CO2, as a cause of recent warming. Not only does Solomon quote Solanki's paper, but he sources this to a 2005 paper by David Schneider from American Scientists. So, what's so controversial about this? Cla68 (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Solomon either has no idea of the science, or he does not care. I don't know how much the book version differs from the NatPost series with the same title, but Solanki has an explicit rejection of the latter on his page at [23]. Nigel Wise has one, likewise, at [24] - I think he got left out of the book (that may be due to the stricter British libel laws, or just a timing issue). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well - he is wrong about most of it [ie. warming prior to 1980's according to Solanki]. Incidentally Solomon didn't interview Solanki, but just wrote it according to what he read in various media (as he did with most of the people there). It takes a lot to make a scientist put up a disclaimer that an account in the media is misleading and wrong - but Solanki did so with Solomons article. That solar activity should be studied is a strawman - everyone thinks so....

Btw: Why do you think that Solomon correctly quotes from Solanki's paper - or even relates Solanki's views correctly? Have you read the paper? (i have). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:DeSmogBlog

I hit rollback by mistake and have had to restore an older version. Your last comment was deleted, sorry mark nutley (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy

Oddly enough, you failed to respond to the salient point in this argument, so I felt compelled to repeat it here.

I reverted a change you made improperly. No Wikipedia policy grants you unilateral rights to adjudge remarks a personal attacks and remove them, except in rare cases where an editor's personal information is being compromised. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 00:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a very novel interpretation of policy. And of course it is not uni-lateral - by reverting me - you took responsibility of the personal attack. That btw. is noted in the comment refactoring enforcement request, as being disruptive....iff of course i am correct in it being a personal attack - do you disagree that it was a personal attack? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see the basic for your claim. Your link begins with, "Based on the discussion above I propose the following extension...." Was this proposal effected into actual policy? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 00:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough you failed to notice that the very next section on the enforcement archives, was a section where the "proposed" policy was used. The reason that i didn't respond was that yo A) Didn't respond to my question B) You attempted to try to wikilawyer yourself out of it. Quite frankly with your recent behaviour - i have the feeling that the last enforcement request is going to be repeated. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Released, Hacked or discovered

I've commented here. I thought it was fairly non-controversial, but maybe I'm wrong :). Thepm (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Opinion?

I've posted this at WMC's talk page too. It's a genuine request.

On the basis that you're one of the people least likely to agree with me, I'd really appreciate your opinion of this edit. It was made in good faith, but clearly wasn't appreciated. cheers Thepm (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I Should Have Guessed

No wonder you pitched a fit when I pointed out that Connolley had a conflict of interest on global warming articles. It turns out you do too. LOLOLOLOLOL SkipSmith (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And which conflict of interest might that be? That a certain Canadian had a clash with me, and wrote a rant in his column about it? Is that COI? [incidentally - see my userpage for links to my responses to the Solomon articles] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No thanks. I'm not interested in reading any more pissing contests between zealots. Which, incidentally, is pretty much why I've given up on Wikipedia. SkipSmith (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

guess which one i think got noticed?

[25] Did you read the source? "The interview, posted on the Bishop Hill blog run by the climate sceptic Andrew Montford and shown on Channel 4 News, risked undermining Muir's claim that the inquiry team was impartial". Obviously montford got noticed, he`s up before channel 4. Care to remove your tag? mark nutley (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i did indeed read the source. I read it very carefully. And at no point is it said that it was because of Montford or the blog. Its not even indicated. The interview is implicated - but that got shown on both Channel 4 (the large audience) and the blog (the small audience) - guess which one has the most impact? You are doing WP:OR, if you conclude that it was the Montford's mention that caused it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, C4 got it off of montford, he ran the story first. And if that is what it says in the source then that is what we use, it looks like you might be engaging in OR not me mark nutley (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Did C4 get it off Montford? Where exactly is this in the reference? Personally i think they got it off CRI. You are assuming and doing WP:OR - sorry but that is it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Remarks

Oh, I think I see what I did wrong, when I moved the links out of the box I neglected to carry over your entire comment? My apologies, I didn't mean to do that. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I usually give editors the business fairly hard when they alter other people's comments, so I deserve that warning and need to be more careful. Cla68 (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

re Thegoodlocust and Probation enforcement

The link you provided regarding clarification of the scope of the ban appears to example tgl commenting upon Marknutley's page - i.e. the issue that drew the clarification. Please could you check. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Corrected, thank you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Larouche

[26] It says no-were on their site that they are published by LaRouche? And even if it is published by LaRouche it obviously has it`s own editorial board, so why even mention the publisher? Why not just remove that and no more problem mark nutley (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

LaRouche publications are not reliable sources for Wikipedia, per ArbCom decision, because they lack basic fact-checking etc. So your "obvious" isn't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant they pick the stuff they want in 21st cen mag. If they are not a reliable source best to remove the section then mark nutley (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Its reliable that its Jaworowski who has written it. They just can't be used to cite anything from in other articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Climate Audit

The result was keep. Further discussion over whether to redirect or keep as an article may be continued on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Further disruption by restoring the redirect against consensus will result in enforcement action. Please stop your disruptive behaviour mark nutley (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the complete thing? ( Further discussion over whether to redirect or keep as an article may be continued on the article's talk page) Of course it was a keep - otherwise the redirect would have been deleted. And you really should try to moderate your language. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps false accusations of disruption fall under the terms of Marknutley's civility parole. Let's ask admin for clarification. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've advised Mark on his talk page to consider a different course of action. Cla68 (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that you haven't adviced Mark on moderating his language as well? Since that seems to be the more pertinent problem here.

As for your suggestion - that seems to be a bad one as well. How about working with consensus for a change? That would entail expanding the McI section, to the point where it could be split off, by consensus at Talk:Steve McIntyre. Another badly sourced blog-article really isn't what we need (yes - and that includes DeSmogBlog - which imho never should've been created). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no incivility in my comment. This is no different to all the times kim has posted on my talk page warning me. The consensus is for Keep, not redirect so the article stays. mark nutley (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark, calling someone's edit "disrupting" is incivil, and threatening with enforcement action the same. Especially when it is rather obvious that you haven't understood the AfD process - and apparently still haven't read what the closing admin wrote. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I retract my statement, the article is now being reworked in my userspace and we ca ndiscuss this further once it is ready for mainspace, you ok with that? mark nutley (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome.

I well understand the core policies of Wikipedia. You say my contribution I made to An Inconvenient Truth appears to carry a non-neutral point of view. Please detail how my edit is either factually incorrect, partisan or misleading. If my edit is none of these things, but in your mind still non-neutral, please reason how a factually correct, non-partisan or non-misleading assertion is non-neutral. I suggest that you review the article without my edit, do some reading on the factual representations made by the film - the subject of the article - and then, as you insist that I do, please remember to observe the important core policy of non-neutrality.

Your input is appreciated. Sincerely,

Hugh Denton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughiefd (talk • contribs) 01:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think these are correct[27]?:

• [AIT] has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to include significant errors.
• Justice Barton identified 9 significant errors within the film.
• ...discusses one of the scientific opinions on climate change, as well as one of the scientific opinions on ... [KDP: Whats the other ones?]
• The British High Court ruled there were 9 significant errors in the film.
• Gore failed to mention that the Earth has cooled recently
• Lord Monckton, a former Thatcher Government adviser and policy formulator has proven many of the claims of Gore to be incorrect

All of the above are either highly subtly incorrect or highly POV... For instance the British court did not identify 9 errors - they addressed 9 claims of errors (which everywhere in the court text is in scare-quotes), the ruling is quite clear in stating that most of these aren't errors, but that many of them have contextual issues, that aren't addressed in the movie. (for instance 20 feet is entirely correct, but without the context of a timescale, it may be misleading). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments, welcome and guidance. Deep Guy (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Of "level playing fields"

WMC notes that Lar does not think there is consensus for the ban, and Lar appears to be offering a platform where he may argue more strongly for a ban overturn - might you think that a comment regarding Lars previously voiced opinion that some editors are treated differently to others might be considered in a less favourable light in an instance where he is making some effort to assist WMC? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I was actually not specifically referring to Lar's argumentation (although i did use one of Lar's phrases), but rather more generally to reflect comments from amongst other(s) Bozmo, which weren't reflecting on policy violations, but on their view of WMC's editing in general. Iff WMC did not violate any policy, then the sanction is significantly problematic. Thus Lar's outstretched hand, while in good faith, would be based on the faulty assumption that there is something (policy violations somewhere) to the case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that i didn't speak up during the case, because i hoped that admins would actually see that the merits on which the case was based was problematic (to say the least). In general i've decided not to comment on sanctions, if i can help it, since there is enough chattering going on there. And that is despite the fact that i have comments to most all of the diffs presented in the case - where context of the situation, and context of the links aren't considered. For instance it is taken as granted that BLP is determined by article, not by context - which is a faulty reasoning. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if LHvU is actually reading this... But anyways i'm going to expand a bit on diffs and context:

In the case some diff's showing WMC restoring (not adding) references to RealClimate is being used to infer that WMC is in violation of BLP, since a simplistic reading of our BLP policy indicates that blogs cannot be used in such context. This is a faulty generalization, and one that has been turned over on the BLP/N board a couple of times... Here is one such[28] (see also the recent discussion here.

BLP is about any material pertaining to a living person. (context) It is not restricted or narrowed to biographical articles, nor is it in any way tied to biographical articles. Material not pertaining to a living person, is not under BLP restrictions (again no matter where it occurs).

Specifically: There is no difference in BLP policy between a sentence written in a regular article or in a biographical article, it is the sentence/context that defines whether it falls under BLP or not - not the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel I have noted my concerns regarding the rationale of BLP for the sanction at the appeal - my concerns regarding WMC's edits under which the Request was made have given me reason to think he should (be) withdraw, but only as one opinion among others - as I don't think he has violated BLP in this instance. I have noted that his past edits on the article which may have been contrary to how BLP issues are now dealt with, as regards his general conduct in editing the article, as part of my consideration for WMC to be topic banned. I think these are sufficiently different that I may support WMC being unable to edit the article, as one opinion toward arriving at consensus, yet support his appeal against the ban as levied. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I found your explanation of your rationale admirable, even though i disagree with some of it. The "the past is in the past" part is to my eyes a correct interpretation, no matter if the (past) issues are real or not. As for BLP, i believe that the description i gave above, is as correct now, as it was in the past, specifically i will note that ATren disagreed with the interpretation given at the quoted BLP/N thread, and tried to change BLP policy, so that it specified the interpretation (his) that BLP is dependent on article - and was turned down at the policy page as well.

Finally though: I don't think that it is a good idea to start imposing sanctions based upon what administrators "feel" would be best for articles, no matter if there is consensus for it or not. Ie. Either an editor violates policy or hir doesn't. The other is a slippery slope, and one that shouldn't be set upon. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is within the remit of administrators to suggest actions which would be in the best interests of an article, even where there are no specific violations of policy but a more accumulative one of WP:Disruption - a seemingly never ending cycle of two viewpoints being promoted or deprecated might apply. It would be a very difficult criteria to propose successfully, but not impossible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

How would you determine what is "in the best interest of an article"? Isn't that purely a content issue? How do you determine which viewpoint to support? Contrary to what some indicate, i'm very strongly opposed to excluding editors based on their views - it is their actions that are/may be a problem. I find it refreshing to get alternate viewpoints explained, even if they are (quite frankly) bogus from a scientific or rational viewpoint. Do we exclude people who are opposed to Obama from his article, on the basis that they are in opposition? (i should hope not) But we do exclude editors who aren't following content policies (and rightly so). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I can recall, the sanctions have been expressly about civility to the exclusion of consideration of content policy. When I raised the idea that disruption would be reduced if editors were expressly required to give due weight to majority views as well as showing minority views, this was rejected. Something to review. . . dave souza, talk 22:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

BLPSPS

Courtesy link. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And the very first response mirrors exactly what i said :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It is btw. a very bad attitute to try to change policy when the policy doesn't adhere to your personal opinions. The correct venue would have been BLP/N, and iff there was a positive response there, to try to make policy reflect that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom case

Because you have been involved in the recent SPI I am informing you of the arbcom case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence Polargeo (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect AfD

You previously commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. A new version of the article has been created at The Gore Effect and has been nominated for deletion. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Gore Effect" BLP/N

I have referenced one of your recent edits to "The Gore Effect" within a comment to "The Gore Effect" BLP/N. This is to notify you of that reference should you care to contribute an observation to that dialogue. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP

[29] I was just wondering, have you every used a blog or editorial to add information to a BLP article or neglected to remove such information from any BLP articles in which you were an active participant? Cla68 (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as i know, all blogs that i have used have been covered under the "expert clause" of WP:SPS, and with information that related to the professional side as opposed to the personal side. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, well, the policy you link to also states, "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer: see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." Have you ever allowed the use of a blog, such as RealClimate, for example, in a BLP that was about someone other than one of the contributors to the blog? Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better if you just stated what it is that you are fishing for? The frame of your question is wrong btw. But i will answer anyways: I don't believe that i have added BLP material solely referenced to a blog. (as opposed to about non-living material produced by a living person) where that particular sentence has been in WP:SPS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sub-issues questions

A few of your questions on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop do not conform to the requested single-sentence question requested by the Committee. Please rephrase your sub-issues to be a single sentence. Thank you, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Will that do it? Note Stephans comment btw. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change arbitration

Hi, I have requested that your name be added to the list of involved editors in the climate change arbitration case, as you have been a major editor in the topic area. --JN466 14:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Allegations vs. formal charges

I noted with interest your recent comments at Talk:Al Gore. I think you are right: if it is a mere allegation, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. My question is, in light of this, how would you deal with Death of Jeremiah Duggan? --Queen of the Dishpan (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Voting on Al Gore Talk Page

Kim, Just wondering if you'd like to vote on the Al Gore issue. I have set up a little voting section here, and I am sending this note to everyone who participated on the talk page. --Regards KeptSouth (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

[30] You think i should be cautioned for being called a proxy for socks? All WMC had to do was remove that accusation, he did not and is now wasting time and causing disruption because of his intransigence. mark nutley (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You were "proxying for a sock"[31]. And for that you should be cautioned, more specifically because your later talk-comments indicate that you still haven't figured out what was wrong with your action. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No i was not, i was following WP:TPG which says do not alter or remove another editors comments. Until the guy was blocked then the comment should not have been removed. I give up on you, regardless of what WMC says you rush to cover has arse, he broke his civility parole by accusing me of proxing for socks. His refusal to remove the attack is disruptive. mark nutley (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:TPG says no such thing. It in fact states that "harmful edits" can be removed. And edits from a sock is considered harmful. By reinstating the suspected socks comment - you were meatpuppeting (or "proxying") for the suspected sock. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly to my eyes you are digging yourself deeper by not recognizing that this was a mistake. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

My last comment on this WP:TPG Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism What i restored was none of those, it was a harmless comment. You have now writte Suspected several times. That was my point, it was a suspected sock and until he was blocked his comments should not have been removed. I`m done with you mark nutley (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:GS/CC/RE#Suspected_Scibaby_sockpuppets as to why you are wrong. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Quit VANDALIZING the Al Gore Article

The 'charges have to be filed' standard is one you WHOLLY made up. It is NOT a wik policy.68.41.55.171 (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on the talk page. And it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy first, before accusing someone of vandalising [which it most certainly isn't - no matter how liberal one is with the word]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that is the standard on diaries, go clean up the Nikki Haley diary. If not, you demonstrate that the reason you are editing it is solely political. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.82.168 (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Diaries? Where does diaries come into anything? And sorry - i haven't even got a clue as to who "Nikki Haley" is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP/CC enforcement request

here. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, i have responded. I just wish you'd stop misrepresenting stuff. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Malcom K. Hughes

Re: Malcolm K. Hughes: In November 2009 Malcolm Hughes was implicated in a scandal involving falsification of climatic data. [3] A subsequent investigation by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia chaired by Sir Muir Russell stated in Finding 37: "In relation to “hide the decline” we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance ... the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading ...." This is a real issue with credible references. Do not delete it just to support a political point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.34.131 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete it to "support a political point of view". Your addition was severe POV - it presented a significantly slanted view of a situation. And if you reinsert it, then i suspect that it will be removed again rather fast. Please read our policies on what is, and isn't acceptable in biographies of living persons. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Picard

This probably related to the super-sekrit SlimVirgin emails, which likley purport to show a connection between the old "IDCabal" and the new "WMCCabal." The Picard article included for some time a possibly unbalanced section dealing with her signing some petition. This got banned user Moulton very angry, and he rained some sort of theory of mind on everyone about it.

If you haven't yet seen the super-sekrit SlimVirgin emails, I suspect asking for them on your talk page might make them appear. Of course, since I don't have the super-sekrit SlimVirgin emails, I can't send them to you, but someone might. (PS - I don't want the emails, so please don't send them to me, unasked. Thanks.) Hipocrite (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

*I*'d like to see the super-sekrit emails. Are they exciting? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• I can't show you the super-sekrit emails, but I can direct you to a song parody about them. —Albatross 10:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

tagging scibaby

Look at the history of WP:SOCK and who just changed policy and protected the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.231.22 (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"shrug" - as long as it gains consensus. I can certainly emphasize with false positives, which is why i don't usually tag those i suspect, but instead try to let SPI work their thing. If the (false positive) editor never notices that hir was suspected, then all the better :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Attention and participation

As you might know, The Signpost has been reporting on the Climate change case for the past several weeks. One of the drafting arbitrators is clearly unhappy with my reporting, and a couple of other users share a similar view. However, some users disagree (and on at least one occasion, one case participant disagreed with the objection raised (see this). Each user is obviously going to have their own opinion, but irrespective of the outcome, I think actual participants in the case (who are involved in the dispute or may be affected) should add their input. Therefore, I think your attention and participation is invited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello KimDabelsteinPetersen! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 52 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. F. Stuart Chapin III - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad books....

Doesn't it hurt to have to buy bad books just to be able to find out how some people misrepresent them? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a good public library :) I don't even have the funds (or space [despite having ~70 shelf meters :-)]) to buy the books i really want to own. In this particular case Amazon makes it available for searching inside. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

~70 shelf meters is more than I have. To quote (from memory) Clay Jenkinson: "If you buy more books than you can afford, more books than you can store, more books than you can read, and more books than the people around you can stand, you do have a substance abuse problem". Hi, my name is Stephan and I'm a bookoholic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer bibliophile :) But i do admit to books being a substance abuse problem. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, sometime I'm going to get around to reading A Lycanthropy Reader, Werewolves in Western Culture. And The Physiology of Taste. And Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. At least the books I own and haven't read are high-class books. So I don't have a problem. At all. PhGustaf (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

More Grundle2600 nonsense

The following articles were created by sockpuppets of banned user Grundle2600. You should delete all of these articles:

Aiyana Jones

HD 10180

Into The Universe with Stephen Hawking

Megaleledone setebos

Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation

Sack tapping

Spinoloricus sp. nov.

Lucy McGillicuddy (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't off topic

Just dropping you a note to say that this wasn't off topic as far as I'm concerned. It is very much on topic (though you should explain SPS for those who don't recognise such initialisms). The bit I removed later in that thread was people talking about each other, rather than about the topic of the discussion. And thanks for clarifying the bit about the online comments on newspaper articles. I sometimes wonder if newspapers knew what they were letting themselves in for when they started adding comments sections to their articles and columns. Anyway, please feel free to restore the bit you reverted. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, and why his ruminations on a blog aren't a RS

Kim, I don't want to drag out a discussion which is not central to the PD (and heaven knows it is too long already), so I'll respond here. If anything is said here that is useful to add to the PD discussion, we can do so.

Gavin's involvement in the IPCC doesn't make him an expert on the process. His involvement consists of doing work that is referenced by the report. By that measure, there are literally thousands of people who are "involved". A chicken is involved in the process of making an egg, but that doesn't make a chicken an expert on egg-making, much less an expert on the process of writing a report about egg-making. Gavin's comments are undoubtedly interesting to those who follow the subject intensely, but do not qualify as a RS, simply because his name appears on a paper referenced in the report.

Yes, the report remit is broader than pure governance, my apologies for sloppy language, but the report is about the organizational issues and process issues, not about science issues.

I think WP needs to have a serious discussion about RS, but it ought to be a community discussion, not solely about CC sources, and it ought to be community driven not ArbCom driven. I don't see ArbCom making substantive policy on RS in the arbitration.--SPhilbrickT 19:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Its quite alright that you bring it here, since i haven't got any intention on having a more specific discussion (at Arb... We can talk about it another time :-) see later) - as said there - my objection was to the blanket rejection that Cla68 was bringing - context, author, publication venue, editorial oversight et al. are the defining factors in what is an isn't a reliable source in a specific context. But that is as far as i'm willing to go here, since i'm still on a voluntary ban from CC outside of the PD at the moment - and i intend to keep it :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

On a different subject, I signed up for the same voluntary ban, but the ban was to end when the decision came out or two weeks. It has been more than two weeks. You can obviously respect the longer period of time, but as I note some problems in some articles, and plan to address them today, I would be quite interested to know if you think I've misread the termination time.--SPhilbrickT 11:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that you have misread it. But the terms where so lax/non-descriptive, that i personally have chosen to take a more broad view of it, its finished either when the decision is in - or Jehochman decides that enough is enough... (and i did see your comment there). Its a broad area, and there are most certainly other editors that will take up the slack, unless they are frightened away by the current batch of editors, who i'm sorry to say aren't an improvement. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability as a suicide-pact

1. Using sources to present own opinions instead of the authors.
2. Pushing references for the sake of the reference instead of the content.
3. Misrepresenting what references say. (assuming that it must be there, instead of checking).
4. Presenting opinion as fact.
5. Cherry picking opinions to gain semblance of weight, to present summary/conclusions/facts not supported/described by 2ndry sources.
6. Deliberately using vague references to make verifiability difficult.
7. Ignoring retractions/corrections of material because the material is verifiable and says what we want.
8. Using minimal 2ndry material to write content that is larger in volume than in the 2ndry material.
9. Using off-hand comments or single sentences in articles not about a topic, to "buff up" the topic.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Do anyone recognize this pattern (and person(s) matching it)? And do you think that it is worth it digging up recent diff's to make a case? Or am i simply being paranoid, and this isn't a sustained pattern of disregard of wikipedia's pillars? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A tragedy....

I just finished reading my danish version of the french comic La Cite des eaux mouvantes (for the umpteenth time), and thought i'd look it up on Wikipedia.... And the tragedy here is that almost none of the magnificent comics in the Valérian and Laureline have been translated to English. Has any of the many sci-fi/comic readers here ever seen these? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

For info, I've moved your response on /New proposals2 (archive) to the main PD talk page here.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, since I don't know you and you don't know me I'd like to ask you a question so I can clarify things better. Of course you don't have to answer me and I promise I won't hold it against you. What I'm trying to figure out is if there is any history between you and JohnWBarber. The reason I ask is of course I've seen the two of you interact on the PD talk page but I was just looking at different arbitrator's talk pages to see what was going on and I saw you and him interacting there. So to my question, what is the history here because I honestly don't know and would like to? I am going to him next to ask the same thing. It's hard, not knowing the editors, to understand what they are talking about. Like I said you don't have to respond and there will be no hard feelings if you decide not to. Please use the talkback template or just a note saying you responded at my talk page so I don't miss it. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, nice to get to know you :)

As for previous history with JohnWBarber... i don't think that i have one (although it is possible), the first time i can recall encountering him, was on Global warming and in a discussion about an FAQ item. We've since been in discussions over other issues, which i think JWB is linking to in his evidence. It is quite possible, though, that there are other instances, but they haven't been noticeable or something that i remember. Then again, i'm not generally someone who recalls encounters very well - its my opinion that every discussion/conflict should start afresh, both because context in most situations are completely different, and that its rare that lessons/generalities can be drawn between such, and because i think that we'll get no where by feeding grudges. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Note also that JWB used to edit as User: Noroton. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I appreciate it and yes I'd like to get to know you also. This is what my checking has concluded too, that the two of you basically don't know each other very well, would that be a fair statement? I've found him connected to some of the editors he's been complaining about, like TS, so I am trying to make sure he's not just using this case to get even for matters from the past. Yes Stephan I do realize he used to be Noroton. I just noticed, this account is not connected to his JWB account, shouldn't it be along with the other names he's used and discarded? I don't remember the other ID's he used in the past, but if I remember correctly he did have one or two and then he said he got bored with them and would move on to a different ID. But don't the rules for this say that the accounts need to be redirected or something? Stephan you're an administrator, am I right or not? I remember something on AN/i a long time back about his two user names and picking one or the other, I think if my memory is correct which may or may not be. That's kind of why I've been checking things out just a little to see if there are connections with others. When he first started his discussions he gave me the appearance that he was uninvolved, like me. I've never touched this area of the project as far as I am aware unless it was done accidentially while doing recent vandal patroling. I have to be honest though, that after his comment when answering my question about how he knows so much about the editors in this area of "being a victim of it" or doing the research I started then to look for any connections between him and others in this area. I mean how can you be a victim of it if you haven't been editing in the area of disputes? This all was probably because I made the mistake not him in assuming he wasn't an editor in the area and we all know what is said about assuming things.

I have to be honest though, I really believe an FoF on him is now due. I've never done one but just with the behavior he has on the PD talk page shows that he's in battle mode, see his comments to and about Tony Sidaway or WMC as examples. Some of it's been archived away but he's been too agressive there which is what I remember of him when he was Noroton. You all seem to know him better than me anyways so what do you think of this and is there any interest? I have brought this up with an arbitrator but haven't heard anything yet. I just have a gut feeling after all of this but nothing major other than the behavior with TS and the comment about being a victim of the abuse (which I believe can be found under the FoF for Viridas.) Anyways, I'm off to go see what has been said since I signed off for the night. This case has been a good learning experience for me. That being said, good luck with the case. I have made my comments about things and hopefully the arbitrators are listening. Be well both of you,--CrohnieGal^Talk 10:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Users are allowed to have multiple accounts, as long as they don't abuse them (Tony also edited as User:Anticipation_of_a_New_Lover's_Arrival,_The, probably inspired by Iain M. Banks). And, to be fair, User: Noroton links to User:JohnWBarber, and he has a list of his previous accounts on User:JohnWBarber, too. I'm not aware of any misuse of his multiple accounts. Restricting a user to one account only is a typical remedy in cases of abuse or sock-puppery, but it is not the default. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

They are, but there are hints of past misbehaviour. CD is currently blocked with '2009-10-28T06:02:00 Versageek (talk | contribs) blocked CountryDoctor (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: checkuser block) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

First Stephen, I learned about the multiple account at AN/i which I think is what WMC is talking about how that account got blocked or at least it was discussed there. That is also when, I think, all the accounts got connected to each other.

Kim I just read at Roger's talk page that you are at your wits end about all of this. After reading the new comments about you at the PD talk page, I think what you should do is add your own difs there about things instead of feeling at a loss. I am under serious weather watches right now with a tropical storm about to be named this afternoon as a hurricane, I'm in FL. So I have to go because my internet is kind of off again/on again because of the storm bands we're getting. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate change ArbCom PD

I have started a discussion involving you at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#3.3.19 - KimDabelsteinPetersen (remedies). - 2/0 (cont.) 17:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I think i'll keep away from that section though. :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Having noticed the question on TS's page and your earlier discussion on Risker's page, my first thought would be to copy ScJessey's agreement more directly, putting more emphasis on BLP's in the topic area and, if you wish, removing the exception of making routine cleanup-style edits and reverting cases of obvious vandalism. Not sure if a restriction on all BLP's outside climate change is appropriate. Rather than setting time limits, you could ask for review at these times.
You've made the proposal on Risker's page, you should include a link to that to show that you've been trying to agree this since 3 October, and restate that you are willing to accept the restrictions you proposed today.
If that's too complicated, just give that last link and post it on the talk pages of the active arbs, emphasising that you've been seeking agreement since 3 October and are willing to go for indefinite restrictions subject to a request to Arbcom for review after 6 or 12 months, as they see fit. Tony may give better advice, my feeling is that acting quickly is worthwhile. . dave souza, talk 22:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if i get responses from this tomorrow - right now i'm off for bed. Thanks for commenting - i've posted the link to Risker, NYBrad and Carcaroth so far, to see if they have comments. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's the main thing, in the morning see if there are responses and perhaps clarify/extend your proposal as my last sentence above, making it clear that you're willing to accept their advice. Tony seems to agree,[32] pretty much. Good luck with this, dave souza, talk 23:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing restriction

In response to your draft proposal here, I propose that it moves forward as:

KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs) has proposed a permanent binding voluntary restriction that he makes: (i) no edits of whatever nature to Climate change articles, their talk pages and associated Wikipedia process page, broadly construed, for a period of six months and on expiry of the six-month period is limited to one revert within the topic, reverts of blatant vandalism excluded; and (ii) no edits of whatever kind to biographies of living people, broadly construed. This editor is instructed to abide by these restrictions.

Is this acceptable? I think incidentally you might want to consider initially monitoring and later participating in discussions at WP:BLPN so get a better feel for how BLP is handled in practice. This could pave the way for lifting the BLP restriction in the future.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable, but could we acknowledge that i've already done 2 months of voluntary topic ban (afaik as the only one)? As for the permanent BLP that is acceptable as well, though in the interest of preventing wiki-lawyering, can we specify that it is biographical articles? I think the permanent 1RR is a bit tough, but i'll accept it. Hopefully it will be acceptable to others, especially since it actually is stricter than the current PD decision. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Good. I'll remove "permanent", by the way as that is not the intention and would personally see no particular problem with easing these in a year or so's time. I do think that participation in BLPN will be a useful exercise for you.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Just posted the remedy. These restrictions overall are not, incidentally, stricter than the general ones: just differently focused.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

[33] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Friendly heads-up

I noted that you have adopted a voluntary restriction, similar to my own, in the climate change topic. I wanted to remind you (as I was) that since the restriction includes process pages, it covers the pages of the ongoing ArbCom case as well. I still have the case pages watchlisted in order to monitor what's going on, but I don't participate in any of the discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm? OK. I'll keep that in mind - seems strange though to eliminate people from the ongoing process - i've been disengaged from the rest of the CC area for the last 2 months, so i assumed that it was a continuation of that. But if those are the rules, then i'll abide by them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, but I wasn't prepared to take the risk of drawing sanctions or something. I have also been disengaged from the CC area for 2 months (since this). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Usually (for a given value of "usually") ArbCom processes (and similar) that directly involve a person are outside of topic-bans, unless specifically stated as such. An example of this is Thegoodlocust who is already under such a topic-ban. But its rather moot though, since the process is closing within a couple of days. Glad to hear that i wasn't the only one to completely disengage at that time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

←diff - I understand the temptation, but remember that your voluntary editing restriction is a binding agreement. If you are seen as violating your agreement, ArbCom will likely slap you with the full topic ban. That case talk page is a mess, and none of the editors posting there are covering themselves in glory. Besides, the pillow fight is more amusing when observed from a distance. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, i don't believe that my voluntary restriction applies to the ongoing ArbCom process, since i believe, it would be procedurally invalid, since you wouldn't be able to defend yourself against accusations, in a case where you yourself, are on the stand - but also - i've stated my 2 cents of "wisdom" and am not going to comment again. I take my voluntary restrictions rather seriously so i wouldn't comment anywhere else on this. If ArbCom feels differently, then i am going to change my impression of course... but i rather think they won't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Best (for you) to stay out. LG is going for the Abd wall-o-text prize; don't interrupt him William M. Connolley (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on that one anymore - i've said my bit. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• A specially-tailored version of discretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.
• Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area.
• Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletion of them.
• The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter);

• William M. Connolley
• Polargeo
• Thegoodlocust
• Marknutley
• ChrisO
• Minor4th
• ATren
• Hipocrite
• Cla68
• GregJackP
• A Quest For Knowledge
• Verbal
• ZuluPapa5
• JohnWBarber
• FellGleaming

• The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
  • Scjessey [34]
  • KimDabelsteinPetersen [35]
• The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator;
  • Stephan Schulz
  • Lar

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate change amendment: notification of three motions posted

Following a request for amendment to the Climate change case, three motions have been posted regarding the scope of topic bans, the appeal of topic bans, and a proposal to unblock two editors.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

RfA question

You might not have seen it, but I posted a question to your comments in the RfA for SPhilbrick. I was curious to know the location of the discussion you mention. thanks, ScottyBerg (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I quoted the text with link :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)