User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Archive 2008

Agenda

Copying over an idiot. Keep up the good work, Kim. Plenty of digg users are half reading the article and jumping all over you, but I actually appreciate editors that follow the rules.

Looking at the History, the Edits, the Digg article and having a small background on the subject, I believe you were well justified in changing the article, and this is a lot of fuss that could have been avoided by additional citations to external resources. I appreciate educated editors protecting and defending this public knowledge wealth, do not let this recent happening stop you from editing further.

If there is merit to Lawrence Solomon's article, and Peiser him self is disputing the interpretation of his own words, should not some attempt be made to confirm this and at least note it?

Semi-prot

I semi-protected your user page to cut down on the incisive and well-thought-out commentary that has been added by some of your devoted fans. If you'd rather the page not be protected let me know, or ask another admin to lift it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming

I'm sorry you do not find it relevant that the article does not address the qualifications of those who will be chosen and empowered by the govt to decide how much reduction of CO2 is required, how much is too much, or the possible results of any reduction. Nor does the article address the typical 'pollution vouchers' which are now marketed worldwide, which will most certainly be the source of CO2 emissions. I am most sorry that you do not find it relevant that the article endorses changing the worldwide climate ... by man. Since there are multiple articles regarding these issues which have not been included, I conclude the article meets a particular POV. Sorry for intruding on the orthodox view. DasV (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

AAPG

I don't know about the paper you're referring to - it may well be unreviewed. But you are absolutely wrong to suggest that the bulletin as a whole "has no peer review system". Likewise, it is not "an oil industry publication". It is the publication of the society of scientists, many of whom are academics, who research topics such as sandstone petrology and paleoenvironments. All of this is of interest to the petroleum industry, to be sure, but the papers themselves are scientific contributions that in many cases have no oil industry sponsorship. So - I have no problem with you saying whatever you want to say about Peischer's work, which is clearly slip-shod and unscholarly. But don't make the same mistake yourself.Ungavan (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Ungavan

Reversions

Would you please read/reread Help:Reverting, particularly section 1.2. For example:

• Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
• Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Your wholesale reversions of my edits, such as at James Hansen, clearly violate Wikipedia policy. Pete Tillman (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, can you read plain English? "Do not revert good faith edits... Mere disagreement is not such proof."

You're getting a bad reputation for this sort of thing. Please desist, and observe Wikipedia policy. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Pete - please take a long hard look at WP:BLP - your quote without a context is not adhering to a neutral point of view. It is a cherry picked quote, which when examining both the discussion articles about it, and the original source, is incomplete and doesn't represent Hansen's views. (i'm referring to Carbon Capture and Storage).

And i can assure you that i try my very hardest to stay within WP rules and guidelines - but since i mostly edit on a controversial subject, a perusal of my talk page will give a scewed view. I'm not assuming any bad faith - and i request that you do not either. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on James Hansen. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Had you pointed that out - i would have self-reverted, and i'm deeply sorry. But may I suggest that you yourself take a look at WP:3RR - since you violated it before i did? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In effect you are gaming the system. In fact you are now standing at 5RR . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] - i suggest that you rerevert back to the last version before 3RR violations --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(copy)I also strongly suggest that you read WP:3RR thoroughly, since BLP violations is excerpt from the rule:

There are other instances where multiple reverts may not constitute a breach of this policy:

• reverts performed by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, WP:BLP violations, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere;

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[transferring this back to your page, as I think a record of your behavior is likely to benefit others]

Kim, with all due respect, you are making it very hard for me to assume good faith for your actions. You have now reverted my contribution NINE times. Not once have you made an edit. Would you agree that this is excessive? Pete Tillman (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In the face of WP:BLP violations - No.

The rule for BLP NPOV is very simple - we must err on the side of caution. Which is what i've done. The good faith part goes both ways, and frankly i have at no time during this dispute considered your part as being with bad faith. I'm simply not that interested in that particular quote - so if you want it on the article, then you must ensure that it is written in a way so that it is not inflammatory and provides even an implicit POV. Try to address this instead of assuming bad faith. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, the "BLP violations" exist (sfaict) solely in your own fevered imagination. So far, neutral third parties agree. Why don't you try doing something constructive? Pete Tillman (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Am i going to have to ignore this, and just assume that "fevered imagination" is somehow civil and assuming good faith? Or is it what i think it is... a personal attack? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Are the following direct quotes from KDP civil? "Gaming the system"? "libelous material"? "dragged me with you"? Perhaps you should look in the mirror (or your own posts) before hurling accusations. Cool it, please. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Tillman, the "libelous" is a direct verbatim quote is from WP:BLP - and to some extent i believe that the quote is bordering this (by indirectly giving a false impression). But i will assume (and do) that your original break of 3RR was an error, and that you had no intention of gaming the system - by luring me to revert and break 3RR myself - as i said in the above - if you had pointed this out nicely, we could've resolved this in peace, you instead chose to ignore that you yourself had broken 3RR prior to me, and even put a warning message on my talk-page. That remarkably enough made me somewhat pissed. This is the reason that i called for both of us to be blocked for 3RR violations. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim: Here's a real apology, for venting over at Ron Cram's page. That was uncalled for, and I apologize.

Here's a real question, too: what do you hope to accomplish, over at Hansen's page? This started as almost a moment of trivia, for me -- I happened to see mention of his death-train quote, boggled, googled, and, on impulse, posted the item at his Wikipage. It's a 3-line item, and of no great cosmic importance, I'd certainly agree -- though elected officials and political appointees have lost their jobs over similar gaffes. You may recall Earl Butz's "loose shoes" bit of barnyard humor cost him his job, and a similar gaffe cost wossisname, the Republican Speaker, his, more recently. Note that I'm certainly not suggesting Hansen should be fired over this, and in fact I find it more amusing than shocking, but really, the man needs a minder! And is fortunate to be civil service (I think).

Anyway, I don't think Hansen needs you to protect him from his gaffes, so this is just honest curiosity -- as I've been forced to spend way, way more time on this than it's worth. Or knuckle under, of course. Which I'm not going to do, this time. Hope this clears the air a bit. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fishing

Good work not taking his bait.[6] I wish I could consistently practice such self-restraint instead of getting sucked into those endless circular arguments. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The wish on consistently resisting fishing like this is something i share with you - and i have to say that i think you are a lot better at it. (ie. resisting not wishing ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On the global warming list

Sure, I agree there's tons of trolls vandalizing articles on global warming. Fortunately, I'm not one of them. See the global warming userbox at User:Zenwhat/Userboxes#Politics and User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Weasel_words_on_Global_warming.

The term "former scientists" seems like patent nonsense. Most people on the talkpage seemed to agree. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That article does however seem particularly bad. It seems to be the Alamo of the global warming deniers. It isn't linked to on any of the main articles on global warming. I suggested to William that he added a "criticism" section, backed with citations ridiculing these nutcases. In the meantime, I'm going to remove the articles from being linked from a bunch of articles (like Volcano) where they don't belong and I'm going to link them to the main pages on the issue, so it becomes more visible. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi...about my edit at the "swindle" page...

Kim, I should have read first before editing, thanks very much for "catching" me and perhaps thereby avoiding a controversy. I don't know if you caught my edit summary, but it pained me to make that change. I would still maintain that as much as I detest the film and it's producer, I still think we need to "get it right", and I hope you understand my motivations. I do not see that the editorial community on Wikipedia has agreed on how to represent "consensus" yet, and my New Years Resolution is to work hard to be scrupulously encyclopedic even if that means "writing for the enemy" once in awhile.

Thanks again, and sorry to consume your time...riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have reverted it none the less - we have no obligation on Wikipedia to represent fringe or minority opinions views equally. So there is no reason to be in pain. The scientific opinion is clear, so to argue that it isn't is undue weight. (i'm a bit tired so if this makes no sense then just forget it ;-). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. Thanks (very much) again... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Frederick Seitz

hello, i'm kinda curious about why you reverted all of my edits when you were only disputing whether or not he was dead. please advise. --emerson7 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Collateral damage ;-) - i was at the time convinced that Seitz was still alive, and therefore reverted back to a version before the past-tense changes (which was 4-5 versions before yours). As you saw i realized my error and reverted back to your version. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of IPCC AR4

Howdy Kim, I understand your reason for reverting my addition to Criticism of IPCC AR4, but after looking into things more, mostly disagree with the action. National Center for Policy Analysis and J. Scott Armstrong are both notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entries, and the reference I included is on a topic in the field of his expertise (forecasting), so I would maintain that work that they produce would not be so fringe as to fall under WP:UNDUE. Could you flesh out your reasoning a bit more for my understanding? Thanks! —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 18:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Mrand, Notability doesn't inherit.

What that means is that what notable people say is not automatically notable. Notable is always determined on context - not on subject. The critique from Armstrong is in this context not notable enough. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Very sorry to be a bother, but I still don't understand. Note that I don't care one way or the other if the entry contains the bullet and/or reference - I have no vested interest. I truly am just trying to get a better understanding. I agree with the idea that notability doesn't inherit, but you didn't really explain why it isn't notable enough in this context. That's what I'm trying to understand... the 'why', because to me it seems like he is commenting on his area of expertise. Thank you! —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 03:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Literacy map

Sure, I could get around to doing that.Sbw01f (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Where might I find the data? I did a quick google search and came up with nothing. Sbw01f (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Its actually linked in the article (even directly to the spread-sheets), if you want, i can send you the redacted data (without all the other (for this particular part) irrelevant data. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what you want mapped, correct? (page 280) [7] Sbw01f (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No thats the 2006 report - the data for the 2007/2008 report can be found in spreadsheet format here (zipped archive of all tables), i used the summarized literacy column in Table 1. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

ah sorry, got it this time. When you said UNEP I thought you were referring to a different organization/branch. Sbw01f (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My bad. UNDP of course ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:World_literacy_map_UNHD_2007_2008.png

Made it in kind of a hurry so if you find any errors let me know. Sbw01f (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Indention

Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Restepc (talk • contribs) 00:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your revert

Kim, your latest revert at talk:GW didn't just remove the bafflegab (which of course needed to be removed) but also removed your exchange about the hockey stick. Did you mean to do that? I think the short exchange about the HS should remain. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was my meaning. I got baited - and recognized my mistake ;-) We should include it in the FAQ (instead of revive the comment) - since it seems that this BS info about the HS is from the CEI's book "The politically incorrect guide to Global warming". I remembered the 2 locations in the AR4, because i was discussing it in another forum. (and looked it up). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Obedium

I have started the thread at ANI, hopefully she will not be around too long. Its daily and punctual! Brusegadi (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Persistent bugger ain't he/she? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Referee the talk page?

Do you really have authority to referee the Global warming talk page as you did there [8]? I put forward a suggestion that I thought could improve the article, may you disagree or not, and you have no right to delete in the very next instant without even allowing comments or discussion on the talk page. This was from a study done at Michigan State University. Please do not put yourself in a position where you could be found to have vandalized a WP page, and please remember the basic policies that are WP:AGF and WP:TALK. I find your behavior uncivil and antagonistic. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you recall - the general consensus on the GW article agreed to delete posts that didn't work to improve the article.

And can you please tell me exactly where in the general GW article that you think that this particular information has its place? I'm all ears - since i really really can't see where it would fit. (without undue weight (ie. its a minor cause)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a line between automatically deleting posts that obviously dont relate to the article (ex : Easter dinner at my aunt's house) and deleting posts that an editor thinks relate to the article but which you feel might not help improve it. Debating this is what the talk page is for. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Debating is what the article talk pages is for - but not every kind of debate. Is there any chance in hell that this (even if directly related to global warming) would significant enough merit on itself to be mentioned on the main global warming article? I think not. And the discussion there seems very much to agree with me.

I don't know why you thought it relevant for that page - but i have to say that i believe that you just fell over the information, and thought you wanted to share it. (fair enough - i can dig that) - but a few more thoughts (imho) should've gone into it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And still there was a discussion, which shows that you should not have deleted right away. Sharing your thoughts therein the way you do now here would have been a quite better approach imo. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

At the time when i removed it - there was no discussion. A posting about the correlation between Pirates and global warming would generate discussion. The point is: it has to be relevant to, and contribute to the improval of the article.

Now you've dodge'd the question 3 times - will you answer the 4th?

Is there any chance in hell that this (even if directly related to global warming) would significant enough merit on itself to be mentioned on the main global warming article?

That is the relevant question. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

At the time you removed it, it had been on the talk page for something like... 30 seconds? I can guess there was no discussion indeed.

And I did not realize you really wanted me to answer this self-explanatory question. If I felt it had no merit whatsoever, I would not have posted it. My purpose was precisely to submit the information to appraisal so that its worthiness to the article could be discussed. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

This is just a friendly note to remind you that you have reverted the Greenhouse gas article three times[9][10][11] today, so that you don't inadvertantly violate WP:3RR. Regards, NCdave (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't tag the regulars - i'm well aware of how many reverts i've made. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And just in case you wonder - my revert count is 2 not 3. RVV == Revert vandalism which is not counted. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like vandalism to me, Kim. It wasn't graffiti, and it wasn't "the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit." I didn't agree with the edit, but it appears to have been made in good faith. That means it does count as a revet, and you did violate WP:3RR by making four reverts[12][13][14][15] today, the last of them immediately after being warned that you had already made three.

However, I will take you at your word that you believed the first one was vandalism, so I will consider it a good-faith error, and you'll notice that I've not reported you on the noticeboard for 3RR violation. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if, from now on, you would discuss on the article Talk page the improvements that I (try to) make to the article, rather than just instantly reverting all of them.

Will you do that, please? Can't you find anything to like in my work, or at least that you can live with in a spirit of compromise? It really is disheartening to be immediately reverted whenever I try to make an improvement to the article, as you did in all three of your other reverts.

Remember, 3RR is not a license to revert three times in any 24hr period. Immediately and repeatedly stomping on the good-faith efforts of other editors is edit-warring, and is just as prohibited as 3RR. NCdave (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is less chance of being reverted if you actually tried finding a consensus on talk before restoring reverted material. This is actually an important part of the bold,revert,discuss editing method. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This could be progress. The key to bold,revert,discuss is a willingness of the participants to seek compromise: "Discuss the changes you would like to make with this person, and reach a compromise.". I am willing. Are you? Restepc and Raymond & I are batting around various wordings on the Talk page. Will you please join us? NCdave (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've discussed it all the time.... In fact i've only reverted when the edit wasn't discussed or agreed upon. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the article talk page discussion, and helping us arrive at a compromise wording that we can all live with. NCdave (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oreskes

Kim,

Have you been removing my edits? I have made changes to the Oreskes page to remove errors that unfairly cast Benny Peiser in a bad light. The portrayal of him and his critique did not do justice to either.

Before making the changes, I contacted Peiser. He confirmed that my edits of his role in the affair were accurate. Only after this confirmation did I post the corrections to the Oreskes page.

Larry 16:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can document in reliable sources that your claim is correct, your assertion of correspondence with Peiser is irrelevant (and original research). From the top of WP:V:[quote]The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.[/quote]

Please familiarize yourself with the rules of Wikipedia, specifically the 5 pillars. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please verify the following statement: However, Peiser’s letters to Science[4] on the subject were rejected by the editors, who stood by the integrity of the original paper.

Please also explain what objection you have to my comment, that the editors rejected Peiser's letters without explanation. It seems to me I am making an uncontroversial statement of fact that is unlikely to be disputed by anyone while you are making an assumption based on no verifiable evidence. Larry 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Peiser is on record as saying that:
   

   some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included.

   Yet your edit restates the 34 as if correct.

2. You are putting undue weight to Peiser's argument - which is rather strange, since Peisers critique is A) unpublished B) accepted as wrong by Peiser himself.
3. Oreskes doesn't specify how may abstracts were in the explicit category - thus your edit stating that Peiser showed only 2% explicit "has no basis whatever for her findings" is original research - and worse of all explicit POV.

   Not to mention that the 2% is dependent upon Peiser being correct in reading the abstracts - which is very much doubtful - since he got the 34 wrong.

4. "rejected by the editors without explanation" is incorrect. The editors explicitly explained this by saying

   After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter. We appreciate your taking the time to revise it.

And thats just some problems with your edit.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please answer my question. Where have you verified that "the editors stood by the integrity of the original paper." Larry 02:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Climate change denial

An editor has nominated Climate change denial, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Network of African Science Academies

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Network of African Science Academies, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.aasciences.org/index.php/About-NASAC/About-NASAC.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Biodiesel

[16] Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered as a bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Unintentional deletion caused by an edit-conflict. I responded on your talk page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, wanted both of you to note the comment.. striking the above--Hu12 (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Biodiesel

(Removed 3RR warning again)--Apis O-tang (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not tag the regulars - especially not when its as WP:POINT. That is not assuming good faith.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for that. In hindsight I realise it would be interpreted like that, it actually wasn't my intention though. I wanted to point out that you had made three reverts also so that further reverting would break that rule. But I guess that was unnecessary.--Apis O-tang (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Plate tectonics and el nino

Actually there is evidence of a relation between plate tectonics and El Niño. For example before the Pacific and Atlantic were joined, then the warm water carried across the Pacific in equatorially trapped Kelvin waves could just go right on through to the Atlantic instead of smashing against the coast of S. America. But I doubt that's what our friend has in mind... Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps a note in the El Niño article? But as you said, i also doubt that our friend had that in mind Alfred (loathe) Wegner indeed ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice - i learned something new, again today. I hadn't read about Kelvin waves so far. The reason i actually debate this in other fora is that for each new argument, i have to read up on things - and that makes for a nice learning curve.. Its always easier to read up on tough stuff if your interest is already there ;) I already knew that the Panamanian Isthmus had a large impact on climate past and present though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008 Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Naomi Oreskes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ThePointblank (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page at Naomi Oreskes instead. Reverting items that are in conflict with WP:BLP and WP:SPS is not a bad thing. And please try not to template the regulars. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is good news - good news. Thanks Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grazen (talk • contribs) 13:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, KimDabelsteinPetersen. Thanks for your message on my talk page. I've replied there. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Climate change denial

I'm not necessarily opposed to this [17], but my question now is why dont you cut the other threads? Close to none are very relevant (which points to a problem with the article more than with the talk page imo). --Childhood's End (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In general i have more leniency towards newbies, who do not know better, especially on low throughput talkpages. Its only when people "bite" to the trolling/non-relevant comments, that it ends up being problematic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll assume then that it was just a lapse that you let go Raul's lecture on free speach... --Childhood's End (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting newspaper article

See here  :) Count Iblis (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had seen it, and actually also responded to it [18]. Hopefully in a calm and rational manner. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Edits to Article Talk Pages

Do not remove other people's comments under WP:TALK. Only do so when you have the original comment writer's permission, or the comment is about something other than the topic at hand. If you keep this up, I will have to have you banned for a short while as article talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion, even if you mean well. ThePointblank (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. I suggest that you reread WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. If the comment in question has no chance of improving the article, and at the same time is uncivil and calling for conspiracy and a cabal - then its very much something to delete. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To respond to your comment, what you deleted was in no way shape or form not relevant to the article, and was very much indeed about improving the article as it dealt with how editors are behaving when editing the article. Furthermore, as per the Arbitration Committee's findings, there is NO policy on removing personal attacks and incivility, as such a policy can be very easily misused to unjustly censor someone just because someone disagreed with what someone said. ThePointblank (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no simple policy. And the arbitration committee does not say that its not allowed - they say that "there may not be consensus for it". Get a consensus to change WP:NPA or WP:TALK if you really feel that this particular section of WP:TALK should be removed. As the arbitration committee recommends.

I suggest once more that you actually try to read the comment. And notice the nice claims about all the other editors. Biased, Zealots, Orthodoxy, claiming a cabal, may be civil in your book - but it certainly isn't in mine (and is my guess - in most peoples). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to let him babble on. Then the evidence will be there for all to see when it comes time to issue blocks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What I was aiming at, but thanks. Furthermore, there is no need for me to remind User:Grazen, as someone else has done so, and I am not normally involved in guiding newcomers. ThePointblank (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

E=mc² Barnstar

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		On account of your efforts to improve and maintain articles on the climate, and for your rational, cool-minded explanation of Wikipedia editing policies, I give you this barnstar of science on behalf of the community. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm curious btw. was this in regards to my comments to the NP article? Or just in general? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Who's Wicked?

I'm impressed you can stand arguing with them. Solomons column is ludicrous, although I guess it's supposed to get many readers, not be factualy correct. Sensational stuff is more fun to read so why bother with the truth (as they probably would have put it).

Hopefully I'm not the only one who see the irony in first publishing someones real name, from Wikipedia, in Canadian national media, calling him (or should we say her ;)?) a Wikipedian Zealot, and then claiming you have to hide your name on wicked pedia! [19]

I hope he eventually realize what that says about him, although I suspect I will be disappointed. --Apis (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think these articles will be essentially uneditable while the impeccably neutral intellectual giants brought in by the NP screed are having their way with them. Instead of actively reverting, it may be best to wait until the furor dies down. So the articles are lousy for a few days... it's not like they'd be the only bad articles here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

From the sudden torrent of new users I'd say you are right, looks like I just made things worse. :( Apis (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should be glad my username ain't Tabletop at least. Apis (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh - it's pretty plain to anyone with half a brain cell (and the time to trawl through all the "work" you've done) that you're biased and unfair. I know you're going to delete this comment but it'd be nice if someone in Wikipedia management paid a bit of attention to the draconian tactics of 'editors' like yourself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.171.254.66 (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, to bust your prejudiced opinion, but i'm not in the habit of deleting comments that are reasonably civil. I'm sorry to hear that you think i'm biased and unfair, personally of course i have a rather different view :). You are welcome to take any issues that you have with my editing to an RfC though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-prot

I semi-protected your user page to cut down on the incisive and well-thought-out commentary that has been added by some of your devoted fans. If you'd like semi-protection of your talk page let me know. Conversely if you'd prefer your user page not be protected let me know that too, or ask another admin to lift it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the user-page protect is appreciated. If people are reasonably civil, then they should have the opportunity to express their opinion, so lets leave the talk-page free, unless vandalism gets out of hand ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! You're in the News

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=440268&p=2 68.181.222.190 (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

http://digg.com/environment/Wikipedia_s_zealots_2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.160.3 (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nigel Evans MP

If you'd bothered to check out the citation I put in, you'd find he's in the British Parliament, and on the committee that oversees British Broadcasting, and so his on-the-record opinion about what was a widely criticised program is relevant at shedding light on both (a) his views, and (b) the political forces which supported the airing of such a program. Now please undo your hasty reversion, if you don't mind.Goatchurch (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

He is a member of that panel - but he is not leading enough to be mentioned on the panels page. (i checked - only the leader is mentioned) So in effect he is a rather anonymous british parliamentary member. Why his opinion should be interesting is still something that i'd like to know. Is he an expert on the subject? As far as i know OfCom oversees the broadcasting - and the panel oversees the BBC. But i could be wrong.

You still have to establish that its notable. I'd prefer if you do it on the articles talk page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) Nigel Evans is listed here on the "Members" of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. Only the chair is listed on the front page of any Select Committee.

(2) The Department of Culture, Media and Sport -- which this Parliamentary Select Committee scrutinizes -- oversees all of broadcasting and media in Britain including Ofcom, newspapers, the lot, not just the BBC.

(3) In his own words,[20] at the place I cited, he said:

I'm a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. I got in touch with Andy after The Great Climate Change Swindle was shown, one of the best and most controversial programmes I've ever seen on television, particularly for those who don't like being spoonfed by Al Gore. So, I just want to piece it down as to how much you think this new subsidy would cost and what would your reaction be if that was to be top-sliced, or the suggestion that it should be top-sliced from the BBC budget?

which suggests he is not such a non-entity as to be denied the possibility of phoning up the chief executive of Channel 4, as well as the appearance that he has a say in whether BBC license money could be diverted to this Channel, which is showing more of the sort of "controversial" programs he approves of.

(4) You may relocate this discussion to the article-discussion page if you wish, but my impression was that Nigel Evans's praise for the program in a public forum to the face of the chief executive is of no interest is probably a minority view. Now please put it back or tell me you're not going to delete it on sight when I do.Goatchurch (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that he wasn't a member - just that he wasn't a ranking member. Is he speaking in for the committee? Nope. Is it an important position? Nope. Did i say he was a non-entity? Nope.

He is an MP speaking his personal opinion.

Now the question remains: Why is this MP's opinion relevant? Has any other MP said their opinion? etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

This page will soon be unprotected. Please consider carefully the policies WP:SYN, WP:V, and WP:BLP when editing. Particularly, when reporting a source we must include what the source says, not what it may imply, what we'd like it to say, or what the combined effect of several sources is. If User:Mofb mentions legal action further, please report him to WP:ANI for a breach of WP:NLT. I can't force you not to edit this article, but I very strongly recommend you don't, because it's been causing needless headaches. (And I will be saying the same to User:Mofb.) Stifle (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. User:Mofb has already been blocked for legal threats. So you can ignore that part of the message. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This [21] was a bit rude, don't you think? Try taking a look at the editing history of Monckton, and you'd notice that i haven't in fact inserted or edited anything on that page for a loong time. I've been involved in the discussions on talk though. And i can assure you that i'm not one to break either of those rules and guidelines. Monckton was in fact completely wrong about my involvement on that article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you were offended as I did not mean any offence. Stifle (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, you might wish to see WP:AN/I#Request for community review. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bouncing back

I almost forgot this...

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For a graceful recovery from some disgraceful excuse for "reporting," you deserve the Resilient Barnstar. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but i don't think the series on Wikipedia is over yet. Seems to me that its the new deniers series for Solomon --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt a modern-day All the President's Men is in the works, its subject not the foibles of the Nixon Adminsitration but rather "zOMG teh cabal reverted my wiki editz!!!11!" Really, I know it's become cliché to mock the laziness and superficiality of the current representatives of the Fourth Estate, but this has to be a new low for "investigative reporting":

1. Make controversial and inappropriate edits to Wikipedia.
2. Have said edits reverted.
3. Write scathing exposé which applies thin veneer of concern for "academic freedom" over obviously wounded ego and personal animus.

Hell, they must be teaching this algorithm in journalism school... MastCell ^Talk 06:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call by Raymond; I endorse it too. Thanks for your contributions William M. Connolley (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Awards

My impression is that it is easy to label Academy Award wins and nominations as a big deal. Considering the different kinds of wins and nominations there could be, the phrase is kind of nebulous. If I had the manpower and resources, I'd improve all these articles, not just in regard to that phrase, but with better structure and more detail. An editor's job is never done. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; that's why I tip-toed a little more around the more controversial films like An Inconvenient Truth and Sicko. In retrospect, I should've linked to WP:MOSFILM#Lead section and elaborated that the wording was badly placed to imply credibility without specification. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming Controversy, Violation of WP:3RR

Just a friendly reminder that you have committed three reversions within a few minutes to this article. Since you seem to feel some source supports your viewpoint, why not cite the particular source and discuss it on the talk page before performing block reverts? FellGleaming (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't tag the regulars. You've just come back from been banned for editwarring - perhaps you should calm down and take a break? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a template, it was an individual message. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you totally eliminate Lindzen's Boston Globe quote? If the people don't see that he was only given a tiny amount of money they would think he might be an oil shill based on the $2500/day characterization. You say it was editorializing, but you erased all the reference to his clarifying that he only received $10k and eliminated the entire reference including the link! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.192.98 (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it was editorializing. You presented a point of view, instead of relating what the article said. The rewritten paragraph is a lot better. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You BLANKED ALL OF THE INFO instead of editing...period. Only after I called you on it by reverting, did you pose yourself as editing instead of blanking. To say you didn't initially blank the quote and link and all reference to the point that he got a small sum of money from oil interests is a lie.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill0756 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i reverted according to WP:BLP. Your second edit had merit, the first one didn't. It had nothing at all to do with you "calling me" on it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

I am not sure where in the policies or guidelines or suggestions you found the instruction that we should "assume William M. Connolley is right". I am willing to assume good faith behind his actions - that he truly believes that G33 is a person whos history suggests he may have been the one who made the anonymous edit to the article. However, even assuming the WMC believes with all his heart, there is no reason that WMC should be making such an accusation in an edit summary or on talk pages if he doesnt have enough evidence to take the item to WP:SSP or WP:RCU.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"OR" about global warming

HI. Don't understant this rv : [22], there was no original work, the sources were provided, at least for russia. The german 2005 study i quoted (did you read it before reverting my edit??) clearly says much of siberia could become arable. So i've readded the information, with two extra sources who clearly speak of farmable domain extension. --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The original research lies in the speculative part. You are speculating that there will become more arable land. And in your new edit, you are not reflecting the actual source. In fact the references make no such large assumption in arable land, (they mostly assume that there will be a longer growing season), and assume a loss in agricultural yield because changes in precipitation will offset gains. Most of Russia is permafrost over areas that isn't arable even if thawed (its old swamp-land).

To be very specific - you have a personal hypothesis (WP:OR) here, and you are attempting to make sources match that personal hypothesis - thats WP:SYN. That is allowed in an essay for school, but not on Wikipedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again did you read completely the references before making that accusation? The source from Russian Analytical Digest says verbatim : "Some believe that climate change will have positive effects on Russian agriculture. The extent of farmable

land will increase 150 percent. The frost-free growing season will expand by 10-20 days a year. The quality of the soil in the Black Earth region will improve. The extent of land for growing warm-climate crops will increase. However, the extent of droughts will increase across Russia.". There there may reserves to make (positive and negative effects, nobody knows the balance), but the extension of cropland is not my personnal hypothesys as you accuse. --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I did read the references. The way you are writing the section does not reflect the sources - but instead imply significantly more than that. By stating that there is only 8% and then saying that arable land will increase - you are projecting a picture of significantly more. And by not reflecting that agricultural yields will (by the same source) probably fall despite increase in area, you are providing a different picture than the actual source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Then why don't you decide to be productive and complete the information with the other parameters to provide a more complete picture, instead of throwing everything away ? --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The onus for inclusion lies on the contributer. If you want a description of this, then its up to you to reflect the literature (ie. not just one source) in a neutral and appropriately weighted manner. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There is some dishonesty here, because before i first editing the article was simply saying "Climate change is likely to increase the amount of arable land near the poles by reduction of the amount of frozen lands.", a completely unsources statement, greatly exagerated (the areas in question are nowhere near the north pole, much less near the south pole) that was there for months and remained untouched. I wanted to add precisions and sources to that and I'm the one accused of OR. --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No dishonesty - but rather that i was reacting to the diff, rather than on the article itself. Most of the tertiary climate change articles (agricultural, carbon credits, corporate, ...) are a mess of OR, SYN and POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And your current writeup is much much better. If you'd inserted this in the first place, i wouldn't have reacted at all ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Painful endeavors

Re this[23]: you may as well beat yourself over the head with a plank of wood. At least you'll eventually stop. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but its worth another go ;) Even if the odds are very long. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone - global warming

Pleas see the Talk page. Fireproeng (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WP - EL

What is this please? I couldn't find it in the Wiki policy list.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL ← --Hu12 (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain reversion

I have reverted your revert at Talk:Linux/Referring_to_this_article but do not wish to enter into an edit war. Please explain, at the section I have added on that page, why you think the statement is untrue. Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Because GNU never had anything to do with the Linux project. The Linux projects used GNU utilities, since they were free, and could be used without getting into copyright problems. The GPL was the protection from this. If you take the argument that because GNU tools where used, then it must be a GNU project, then you are arguing against the GPL. Which specifically states that you can use it "as you please" as long as you retain the GPL and make the source available. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't get baited

Paul Beardsell's new trick appears to be posting deliberately contrarian summaries of other people's arguments. I've decided to stop replying to these; the threads themselves contain accurate arguments, and his last refuge is to claim that they say the opposite of what they do. I'd advise letting him have the last word on those threads, or we'll be at this forever. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Carbon Footprint External Links

Hi,

Just wondering why you have removed the link for www.click4carbon.com .

I do not believe that adding the external link is considered spamming. Click 4 Carbon is relevant to the subject in question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint).

Click 4 Carbon contains a wealth of information, regular news and blog updates, facts pages that are all Carbon Footprint related. Having checked the wikpedia policies.

1) There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article.

2) Wikipedia articles may include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic.

I look forward to hearing from you.

JockRusky (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You should read WP:EL and WP:LINKFARM. Wikipedia is not an inventory for useful links. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As a sidenote - there are lots of these sites, and they all get removed for the same reason. Check the history of the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Flat earth?

Please read this. Comment invited. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I ask you to comply with Chris's admonishment at Talk:Linux_distribution#revert_warS. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't get baited II - The Revenge

Seriously. The easiest way to ensure that contentious editors get away with contentious editing indefinitely is to make it look like their accusers are acting on the basis of a personal feud. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i'm sorry. But this was my last comment to him, within this discussion. I've gotten fed up with it. I probably shouldn't have said it but done is done. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thank You --68.223.235.168 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming political cartoon

I took the liberty of removing a political cartoon posted by you and a comment by another editor about it. I don't think this line of discussion was helping. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Since i haven't added any polical cartoons, i'm pretty stunned about your comment. Case of mistaken identity? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a case of me being dumb and hitting the wrong talk link. Sorry. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

carbon dioxide

Forgive me for reverting[24] your recent edit[25] to carbon dioxide. When I read Appendix B of the cited reference ( http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/fire/co2/co2report.html ), it mentions "drowsy" only twice, both times at 10% to 15%. So ... Is the "1%" currently in the carbon dioxide article a typo, and so needs to be changed to "10%"? Or were you referring to some *other* reference that claims there is an effect at 1%? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Interlibrary loans and Talk:Fred_Singer

Your comments:

• "if you are too lazy to request an interlibrary loan yourself"
• "check with Raul, if you are too lazy" (edit summary)

could be construed (or misconstrued) as inappropriate given your tensions with this editor. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the support. I have added this item to WP:BLPN per the instructions found in Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material, rather than attempting to handle the problem myself. I note that this same reference is being used to include content in the body of the article as well, and so will apply to that content as well.

Clearly it will be impossible for me to prove a negative, i.e. that no such verification exists, nor should I even have to attempt to do so since, per per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

Since there already has been such a verification of the off-line source. The burden lies on you to do a cross-verification if you need it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It is also clear by simple googling that this particular reference is becoming detrimental to the reputation of Wikipedia itself as I can find numerous sources that refer to this exact page and this exact topic. --GoRight (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many ways that things can be "misconstrued". The fact is that the editor in question was wrong, and that he apparently hadn't bothered to read the Talk page, where both Rauls' posession of a PDF, and the existence of the source, had already been discussed. Instead he edit-warred - and tried to reverse the burden of evidence. He also (apparently) misunderstood WP:V. Construe that as you want. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For the lazy person, who can't be bothered to check the talk-page. I was referencing this: Talk:Fred_Singer#Moons_of_Mar. If Raul is still in the possession of the PDF, GoRight can get it there - or he can do an inter-library loan, like Raul did. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The 1960 volume of Astronautics (ISSN 0096-669X), published by the now-defunct American Rocket Society, is no longer held by many libraries. It's not clear that all editors have ready access to interlibrary loans or even know of them. It's also unclear what the fees might be to editors not affiliated with major research institution that subsidize journal article requests. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And as you should know. There is no requirements in WP:V, or in any other guidelines on Wikipedia, that sources must be available online - or in the library of choice of an editor. Its already been verified - has anyone bothered to check with Raul for it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I got the pdf, and posted a link to it on the talk page (I deleted the linked-to file after about two weeks because it is copyrighted material). I still have the pdf on my home computer. I'm spending the summer in Louisiana with only my laptop, so I'm not sure if I have a copy of the file (I have copies of all the emails I've ever sent or recieved, so there's a 50/50 chance it's in there if I dig for it) Stephan, to whom I sent the file, recently offered to post it for Goright's benefit. So he definitely has a copy. Raul654 (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If either of you could make it available for download someplace it would be greatly appreciated, but I don't expect anyone to go to extraordinary efforts here ... if it is not readily found then forget it.

I have decided to drop further attempts at removing this material, although I still find the duplicate reference found in the further reading section to be gratuitous at the very least. And while the current description does not technically state that Singer believes in Martians, I also feel that it is worded in a manner that may leave the reader with that general impression. --GoRight (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Singer and Martians

Among others, you apparently, based on this revert [26].

Also, I would remind you that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive. --GoRight (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember to sign GoRight.

No i do not. There is a difference between addressing a possibility, and believing it true. And there is also a large difference between past tense and present tense. Had there been an honest q/a it would have been "did you at one time entertain the possibility that there ...". When Wikilawyering - you should read everything, not just cherry-pick... I believe you will find D9 interesting as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I seek a truce or cease fire of some sort

We have been going back and forth for days and the incidents seem to be increasing. I am sure that this is frustrating for both of us so I seek some sort of understanding to address the situation. In the short term, say a week or so, I think it would be best for all if we avoided making reverts of each others material ... at least for these minor points that we have been bickering about such as on Singer and Gray.

Beyond that I would agree to something along the lines of when either of us has a problem with the other's edits that we first make at least one round of discussion on our user talk pages BEFORE taking any action such as reverting. After that I would agree to a self-imposed limit of a single revert per individual change of the other's edits if you would be so inclined. This would reduce the edit warring and generally allow other user's opinions to play a larger roll in the final outcomes.

This is just a suggestion. I am open to other options as well if you have any suggestions. But retaliatory revert wars from either side will be disruptive as I assume you will agree.

What say you? --GoRight (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Template Abuse

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to [[:User talk:GoRight]] has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. My edit attempted to reach consensus by addressing both your concern and that of the other editor, as well as improving the technical accuracy of the article. My wording appears to be a win-win all around on those points. As for your lame attempt to mount some sort of smear campaign against me, your actions are duly noted. I would ask you to be WP:CIV in the future as tendentious editing charges are not to be taken lightly, which you know, which makes the charge a WP:CIV violation in my estimation. You need to WP:AGF as well. --GoRight (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep - its a smear campaign. (if the sarcasm isn't obvious - it should be). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

GWC

Hello my good sir, is this what you meant? Brusegadi (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

't seems not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to take care of this. I will try to resort everything in the process and see if I can bake something everyone can eat. Brusegadi (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but sadly the dough has already collapsed.... But i thank you for you kind offer of assistance, which while much appreciated, was tragically stifled by my premature meddling. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as its not extremely poisonous its fine. Take care and I'll see you at the articles' talk pages. Brusegadi (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comments on user:GoRight

Your input at Wikipedia:Requests for Comments/GoRight would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Argh. Really bad timing. I'm only sporadically online atm, as i'm on vacation... I'll see if i can find time to formulate a testimony --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Solomon mentioned you again

You are getting rather popular thanks to this writer, but I'm not sure its the type of popularity you were hoping for - NRO article. Remember (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The first response you've linked to on your user page [27] is missing links. Would it be possible to repost it with links here on Wikipedia while logged in? -- Jeandré, 2008-07-14t10:13z

Hmmm - i'm not exactly certain about what you want reposted. I responded several times on the discussion, and without the context of the other replies - i think that it may give a scewed picture? Please elaborate... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth edit

Hey man. I wasn't testing. It's not a real documentary, it's just scare tactics and propaganda. 79.80.144.23 (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hansen Death Train consensus

As you should recall, no consensus was ever reached at Hansen -- but your external appeals were rejected.

It's a notable quote, and should stand. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually consensus was reached. It encompassed that quotes shouldn't be used, and that instead it should be integrated into an WP:NPOV description of Hansen's position instead, which could contain pointers/a description of his at times over-the-top rhetoric.

Apparently you haven't pulled out enough time from your calendar to come up with such a section - but that doesn't mean that consensus wasn't reached. Perhaps the time is now?

Its generally not a good thing to use a sockpuppet edit to start or continue an edit-war, especially on something that you do know is contentious, and has previously been edit-warred on. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobel icon

There is a discussion about whether to include this icon at Template talk:Nobel icon. Would appreciate your input. Zaian (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Some open questions

I would like to drive the discussion we were having on my talk page to some sort of closure or understanding. Could you please respond to the open questions found here, [28]. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reorganized by talk page to archive some material. This discussion can be continued here: [29]. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I can get you to address these points in manageable subsets. Regarding the questions referenced above:

(1) "Well the first article was a journalist describing King's testimony to the House of Commons" - I don't think this is correct. As I have pointed out and so did Channel 4, both of these quotes are from Tony Blair's Climate Group launch on 27 April 2004. The House of Commons testimony that you provide above was given on 30 March 2004. THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE EVENTS. Do you agree or disagree?

(2) The first article, [30], is dated May 2, 2004 and contains the following "Professor Sir David King, said last week." Note that this is consistent with the Climate Group launch on 27 April 2004 and is clearly inconsistent with the House of Commons on testimony on 30 March 2004. Do you agree or disagree? --GoRight (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(3) "the second one specifically states that British journalists wrote that King had said" - You must be thinking of a different article than this one, [31], because I cannot find any such statement contained therein. Do you agree or disagree?

I am making one final attempt by posting this last question here because it is becoming evident that you have no defense for the two statements quoted above. Until now I have not known you to make statements which are, shall we say, so starkly at odds with the basic verifiable facts. This would lead me to believe that there is some rational explanation for the apparent discrepancy or oversight on your part. I would invite you to either defend these statements or offer some plausible explanation for how you came to make them when they appear to be incorrect because the natural conclusion that one reaches in the absence of any such defense or explanation will be obvious to all. --GoRight (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Semen images

If you have time to participate and offer your honest opinions regarding the images in the semen article, we would appreciate it. Although one editor seems to have the view that having no image would be beneficial for the article, I don't think that he consciously has censorhsip in mind. Another editor things that four images of semen may be more than necessary -- he may be right about that. Atom (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Attacks in the article Robert M. Carter

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Robert M. Carter. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you that i haven't attacked anyone. The section you refer to is a reliable secondary source, about RM Carter. WP:BLP is the most important policy we have on biographies - but it does not eliminate critique, when its written in a reliable source and is presented with due weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR

- - You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Lucian Sunday (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not template the regulars. Especially since its rather obvious that i know the policy - And unlike you i am nowhere close to 3RR. Perhaps you should consider why you get reverted? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary sir. You have done two blanket reverts on that article in the last 24 hours whereas I have done one. You have removed work that is supported by 3 citations with information that is tagged {fact}}. As you are aware of WP:DTTR, I would ask the that you remove the template that you placed on my talkpage. Lucian Sunday (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep i've done two reverts - but you have done three [32]two, [33][34]. (please read the policy carefully - so that you understand it). And that was the reason for my warning - which wasn't made spuriously.... I checked first to see if you had gotten such a warning before, both directly on your talk page, and in the history of that talk-page. Since you hadn't received such a warning before - i provided one, so that you wouldn't inadvertently break the 3RR-rule.

Instead of keeping up inserting that particular sentence into the article, you should consider the reasons for its removal. WP is not an indiscriminate repository for information that editors might find interesting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC) --corrected, i confused the dates on the first revert --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The First edit was amended in response to comments on the talk page. I raised the issue Here long before I made the edit. You had ample time to do your wikilawyering before. Why did you not comment then?Lucian Sunday (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your response was not relevant. If you try to reread WMC's comment, you'd notice that it wasn't the "first" word that he objected to. - and your edit comment was directly misleading. You are not expanding a citation needed request. You are exchanging it with something that is completely irrelevant. And in fact (as you will find on the talk page of the article) your insertion is about something which is completely unrelated to the subject of the article.....

The editing cycle is bold, revert, discuss - and discussion is not: insert a comment on the talk-page, and then immediately revert back. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on this page is your inappropriate 3RR templating and in particular your tactic of bold, revert, 3RR template revert, discuss & throw ad hominems into the mix. I think discussion of the topic iteslf should be on the relevant talk page. Lucian Sunday (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing inappropriate about notifying editors of the 3RR rule. I'm really interested in what ad-hominems i have used? You are correct that the discussion belongs on the Article talk page though. Where i have commented. The onus for providing rationale for inclusion lies on the contributer - not on the other editors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Note, however, that templating at all — to regulars or newcomers — may be taken as rude by being impersonal. I note your interest in what ad-hominems you have used; Have you an interest in manners? Lucian Sunday (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you misunderstood the reasons for that template on your talk-page. Most of us have been in such a situation, and the reactions are varied. Sometimes i write a personal comment - and sometimes not, i haven't noticed any particular difference in reactions.

And yes - i do have an interest in manners, thank you very much. Otherwise i wouldn't have asked.... Now could you please point me at the Ad-hominems that i should have (inadvertently) made? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I've signed on as mediator for the MedCab case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-08 State of Fear. If you are agreeable with that, would you be willing to begin with an opening statement on the case talk page? Sunray (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kim: What are your plans for participating in the MedCab case? Two others have provided opening statements. Would you please advise me as soon as possible of your intentions in this regard? Sunray (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put in my opening comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Global warming

I'm glad you left out the reference to the 2004 "fourth" IPCC report when you made the last edit(s). That prior statement in the article was erroneous, which is in part why I'd removed it when copyediting the lead. The fourth report was the 2007 report, updated to include data through 2005. All told, it's no wonder it was getting some people confused. So, thank you. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rev. on GW Conp. theory

Re your revert to Global Warming Conspiracy Theory I don't think it is explained in the article lead. The article makes it look like anyone who doesn't accept the AGW orthodoxy is automatically a crank conspiracy theorist, whereas in fact many people have legitimate scientific reasons to doubt it. The only 'linked later' I could find was a passing link to global warming skeptics which redirects to the article I linked. Ok, so it links the same place, but it's not nearly prominent enough in these circumstances. The conspiracy theory and the controversy are two different topics but a casual reader might not realise that they are on separate articles, since there is minimal reference from the one to the other. The article lead,

Global warming conspiracy[1] and global warming conspiracy theory[2] are terms used to refer to the claim that the theory of global warming is a fraud, perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons.[3] The term conspiracy theory can be used in a pejorative manner, and proponents of the claim often refer to a "global warming hoax"[4] or "global warming fraud"[5] instead.

does not refer at all to the claim that the theory of global warming is simply incorrect, without any suggestion of conspiracy, deliberate misdirection, or fraud. I believe AGW is wrong - but I also believe that it's an honest mistake, mainly by some climate scientists who don't really understand statistics but try to use it anyway. PT (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead specifically notes that its about: "the claim that the theory of global warming is a fraud" (emphasis mine). That is quite specific. Fraud is not that it could "just be wrong" - fraud describes deliberate deception. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it should mention that there is also a contention of a non-fraudulent error. Please note again: this article makes it look like the only anti-AGW position is the conp. theory. My addition to the top merely made it clear that there was a separate, non-conp. position. PT (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it should not mention that - because that is not what the article's subject is. And No. The article specifically limits its scope to the claims of fraud. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're limiting scope, you should generally make some indication that there's other scope that you've 'delimited' as it were. The article as it is implies that all AGW-skeptics are conspiracy cranks, which is untrue. After all, a page about Cyanide has a disamb link at the top because people might want Cyanide_(studio) (to take a completely random example). Now that's not within the scope of the article, and it's precisely for that reason that a disamb is needed. PT (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As for your reversion on Global Warming Controversy, the third of the three refs is quite definitely anti, yet the article makes it look like it's for ("The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[20][21][22]") Perhaps, though, the original linker only read the first sentence of the referred paper? Also, the Climate Audit blog is by Steve McIntyre who is rather notable in this field: Wikipedia itself mentions how he demolished MBH98. Now he does it again, to Mann08, and it's not notable? Who are you kidding? Anyway, both McI's blog and Id's are internally verifiable because they are math. PT (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the existence of a scientific consensus on climate change is not in dispute. Inclusion in Wikipedia is based on parity of sources, or the weight of the arguments in the literature - and in this case there is no question on the weight. Now this may not appeal to your personal point of view, but those rules are the basis for Wikipedia's neutral point of view.

And I'm sorry but it IS in dispute - hell, I'm disputing it right now! Then there's Christopher Booker, McI and McK, Wegman, not to mention Jeff Id... Just because the IPCC has put the assocs to fright doesn't mean that scientists themselves aren't disputing it! PT (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That you dispute it - is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. What we concern ourselves with is what the parity of reliable sources say. And here there is no question. (btw. McI is not a sceptic - sorry (i do read CA once in a while)). And please leave your personal POV behind, it has no merit here (just as mine hasn't). We rely on secondary sources, and the parity of these to determine wikipedia's take. You may be right - but unless a significant amount of reliable sources of equal importance (weight) say what you believe - then its out. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As for your addition of "However, this majority is not overwhelming and is certainly no unanimity", that one is completely unsourced - and the Lindzen reference just following does not support it. (in all cases then it should have been attributed to Lindzen). Your addition might appeal to your personal views - but Wikipedia does not allow self published sources, unless they are written by an acknowledge expert on the topic, who has already published on it. Your general reference to McI's climate audit is not sufficient to raise the blog to the level of inclusion. Its btw. also wrong. Red Noise is not random, and both the Wegman report and McI would disagree with your text. (ie. you do not get hockey-sticks out of random data with the PC method). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I should have said 'red noise'. I know that - I guess I lapsed into colloquialisms. So maybe you could have changed 'random noise' to 'red noise' or whatever, and edited constructively. The main point with the Lindzen reference is that it's anti-AGW yet the way it is referenced makes it look like it's 'another source that's pro-AGW'. That's not acceptable whatever your views on AGW. The main point with McI is that he has already published on the topic, in the Journal of Geophysical Letters. Just take a look at Climate Audit and say that the blog's not notable - if it's notable enough to have its own article, why's it not notable enough for its claims to be mentioned on the very subject it deals with? Now, the reason why it's not got into reliable sources yet is that Mann08 only came out in September. Now don't wikipedia articles often mention the 'reaction' to various events? And doesn't that often start off on SPSes? PT (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No Wikipedia does not use WP:SPS's outside of the very limited exceptions to it - and it most certainly doesn't use them as primary sources. That is specifically disallowed.

As for the Lindzen reference - it is not "anti-AGW" as you claim. Its anti alot of things - but Lindzen does acknowledge that AGW is and will happen. He just doesn't think it will be catastrophic (and other buzz-words), and he has(had?) his own hypothesis as to why (Infrared-Iris hypothesis). I wouldn't have objected to you removing the reference from the article - but inventing things not referenced in any way or form (original research) is not acceptable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

I find Abd very difficult to work with as well. Part of the problem is that if one exercises self-restraint in not continuing to take up his endless argumentation he interprets silence as consent. In any event it's best simply to disengage once he begins with stuff like this and this; it makes him look much worse than you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hah! My most recent conclusion is that you were right, Boris, a certain sign I'm losing my marbles. Or does it mean I found them? I forget. I'm careful about policy, which includes WP:IAR; as to how I look, see WP:DGAF --Abd (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Strange Links...

The reference I put there was intentional and harmless. Now, while the main topic of the book is biology, there is also information regarding ecology and environmentalism in it, making it revalant to the article.

I hope this clears things up. Thanks!  Marlith (Talk)  20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

While it might not be the most authoritative source regarding the pricing of fossil fuels. The facts and figures contained within are still revalent to the article, and being a reliable source, it remains useful for verification.  Marlith (Talk)  20:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

revs on climate sensitivity page

Hello KimDabelsteinPetersen

It appears you reverted my change on the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

relative to the matter of Sample calculation using industrial-age data

I had taken the sentence

(All numbers are approximate and somewhat uncertain.)

and replaced "somewhat" by "quite" and added "This uncertainty limits present ability to meaningfully estimate climate sensitivity by such a calculation."

I would say that the total forcing over the industrial period of 1.6 W m-2 (range, 0.6 - 2.4, 2 sigma) given in AR4, SPF fig 2; see also page 131) is quite uncertain, not somewhat uncertain. I refer you also to gregory et al's paper in j climate 2002. So what is your gripe about my change? Would you be happier if I stated the uncertainty range and gave a citation?

Steve1941 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but i wasn't the one doing the revert. It was done by User:jdannan here. The only concern i have about your edit, was whether the paper its notable enough on the subject, to merit the mention. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - i see. You were the anon as well. The trouble i had with that text was the apparent original research, in the change. And that it seems to emphasise the uncertainty beyond whats necessary. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well suppose I provided the references along the lines of what I wrote above? Would that be acceptable to you? Steve1941 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Historical Climate Change

Hi, a new user (User:Sirosser) has created a new page User:Sirosser/Historical Climate Change. The user had put it in mainspace, but I moved it to his user space for work/comments. Thought I'd bring it to the attention of an expert :) so you can perhaps visit with him and discuss it. Vsmith (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken Revert

Hi,

You recently reverted my edit on the page Robert M. Carter with a vandalism notice to my talk page. Please see the |Talk page for reasoning; it was not intended vandalism but a legitimate edit to excise excessive text in the external link page, which was out of line with other articles of similar scope. If it wasn't just an auto revert and you have time I'd appreciate your reasoning as to why the material should stay.Phil153 (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Environmental policy of the United States

Would you please explain to me your reason for reverting my addition of references and deletion of an empty section in this edit? The reason that I deleted the "refused to personally attend the conference" bit is because I think he did end up attending the conference. Thanks! johnpseudo 18:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - but that seems to have been an erroneous revert. I must have reverted you by mistake, instead of Kheshian (who was a sockpuppet). Bad mistake caused by too little morning coffee ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Population Control

Hi there, give me a minute, I am in the process of updating the section with more sources.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i have rewritten my original contribution and added a further source. I hope there are no more issue re copyright. There are two big block quotes, which are referenced, so I think that should not pose an issue. If any sections in the article are too close to the original let me know, I rewrite.--SasiSasi (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the comments. I am new to this. Roger Dewhurst (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries. We've all been newbies ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Hi Kim, I would like to thank you again for the time you have taken with our discussion up to this point. I would like to point out that you may like to read the above link yourself, in order to clarify your interpretation. As it stands I have done nothing to violate this, most especially since the only slightly disparaging remark I may have made was on my own talk page. However you yourself have certainly used "someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream", so perhaps we are both guilty. Regardless, I hope that we can continue our somewhat lively discussion and in the end make a significant contribution towards improving the veracity of our current article at hand. Cheers. :) --Coldbourne (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The comment in question was this one:

Whew, I had to dry my eyes. See I was laughing my butt off that I would get the WP:SOAP finger from someone who has spent years vehemently advocating a certain view point. Thanks for the laugh, but here is another one for you.

In case you have doubts as to why it was a personal attack - then please ask. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I will say uncle. That was in bad taste and apologize, but I was confounded that I would be labeled as on a soapbox. When I read the article for the first time the other day it seemed immediately clear to me that the actual controversy of the controversy article was ... incontrovertible for lack of a better word. I hold the view that if one wants to know the facts about Global Warming, then they will seek out said article. If they are looking for actual dissent, disagreement and alternate theories then they should have them provided and well represented on this current page. It is something we owe to the readers; otherwise what good are we as an Encyclopedia? I understand the passion that this particular topic causes, and I am certainly not out to make large changes. Simply to trying to improve the content and references. Cheers. :) --Coldbourne (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Arctic shrinkage

You made some mistake with deleting the latest news about arctic shrinkage as I referred to U.S. National Snow And Ice Data Centre. The maximum you should have deleted is: This predicts very low ice extent for the whole winter. But by now the referring is O.K. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo82 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - but it is still original research... How do you know that 2007 was a record low in December? You are making an interpretation based upon a graph with limited information. Find a reliable source that says this, and we are talking... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And just to add - its not a notable event (unless several RS's mention this). Wikipedia is not news - but an encyclopedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guessed that the wellknown 2007 minimum-record ice extent is for the whole year, but i cannot suppose it. Right now, i have found a chart about NASA ice extent measure from 1979 till these days. But its difficult to explain something from it, because of the too little resolution. --Theo82 (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, that we're not here to give our own interpretation of things, thats original research, what we do is reflect what reliable sources are telling us. If no reliable sources are saying this, then it shouldn't be here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Greenhouse Effect

I'm not new to Wikipedia, but I thank you for your welcome nonetheless (your message). Since, in my view, my edit changed a paragraph expressing a non-neutral point of view to a more accurate paragraph expressing a neutral point of view, I am perplexed by your comment to me. (You wrote "Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV)". Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.") I am familiar with the NPOV, and I believe my edit to the Greenhouse Effect article complies with the NPOV. You did not say "I believe your contribution does not conform ...", but stated as if it were a fact "one of your contributions does not conform ...." Please specify how you believe my edit does not conform.

The paragraph I edited read (I am removing footnote references here): "Anthropogenic global warming (AGW), a recent warming of the Earth's lower atmosphere as evidenced by the global mean temperature anomaly trend, is believed to be the result of an 'enhanced greenhouse effect' mainly due to human-produced increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and changes in the use of land." This implies that the following are facts, whereas each is a disputed proposition: (1) Earth's lower atmosphere has recently warmed; (2) that warming is anthropogenic (it results from human activities); and (3) the foregoing are "believed" (implying that different views are not).

As edited, the paragraph reads (again, with footnotes removed): "Some believe there has been a recent warming of the Earth's lower atmosphere, evidenced by the global mean temperature anomaly trend. Some believe such warming has resulted, at least in part, from an 'enhanced greenhouse effect'. Some believe this enhanced greenhouse effect has resulted, at least in part (or, in the view of some, mainly) from human-produced increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and changes in the use of land. Because of the human influence on temperatures in this theory, it is sometimes referred to as anthropogenic global warming, or 'AGW'.

In my view, my language is more accurate than the earlier version, and more neutral. Would you still consider my edit to be non-neutral if it read "Some scientists believe ..." or "Many scientists believe ..." or "All reputable scientists believe ...."? As support for your edit back to the earlier version, you cross-referenced another Wikipedia article, which purports to describe a consensus. But that consensus does not exist, so that article is flawed. Would I need to correct that article before you would agree that my edit above is neutral and accurate?

Thanks for your input. Jbh2wiki (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with your edit, is basically one of confusing WP:NPOV. You are confusing it with "equal time" or "always present two sides equally". Please read NPOV again. Wikipedia represents things according to their weight in the literature - which in this case is the scientific literature. Your view (or mine) is completely and utterly irrelevant on this issue.

If you think that you can establish that the information presented on Scientific opinion on climate change is wrong - then you should present your case there. But a good advice here is to consider the reliability your sources and their relative weight compared to the information presented. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Linux related edits.

Please read this carefully.

First I am not willing to engage in any kind of edit war.

Second. It is well know that you are very fond of the use of the word Linux but please try to remain objective. Not every component of a system is GNU and likewise not every software package in the system is part of Linux. Try to make a constructive contribution. Offer objective alternatives by referring to the objects under description by their right name. Thanks for your attention. ...And by the way Happy New Year 2009!
--Grandscribe (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)