| Revision as of 18:52, 15 March 2015 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Request for arbitration: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:07, 16 March 2015 edit undoQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Query: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
| I have of the issues you are involved in on ] pages. ] (]) 18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | I have of the issues you are involved in on ] pages. ] (]) 18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == Query == | |||
| : This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ]. | |||
| : This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ] '''again'''. | |||
| : This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ] '''again'''. | |||
| : This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against ] and ] '''again'''. | |||
| :], aren't you deleting a lot of sources against ]? Where is your comment on the talk page to support deleting so many sources according to ]? IMO no reasonable argument has been made to delete so many reliable sources including deleting reviews such as (PMID 24732159) and (PMID 24732160) and (PMID 25572196) after over '''two weeks'''. Please review the current discussion on the . What could possibly be a logical reason to '''delete''' so many sources? Please try to help editors at the talk page understand your reverts back to an older version. Please see ]. Thanks. ] (]) 17:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:07, 16 March 2015
 | Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:
|
 Archives |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Editing Principles - some things that i considered for the ArbCom case, but on seeing how it developed into person-problems rather than content and editing issues, didn't put in after all.
LoS: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/LoS
Playground: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Temporary User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Sandbox
Inhofe list: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Inhofe
William list: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/William
Created articles: Sami Solanki, Jan Esper
Linux Weight: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/LinuxWeight
CCD: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/CCD
Fossil treelines, et al
This is really a "thank you" for challenging my thinking, and catching a dumb error, over at the HS page. What a pleasure, particularly compared to interacting with the Wikilawyer at the Other Page... Once again, welcome back, and stay sharp! Cheers -- Pete Tillman
about wind power cost per one installization.
can u mail me, how much cost of a windpower plantation of an single. how much energy output. how much duration of time to install. all total cost of an one install.
Welcome to The Misplaced Pages Adventure!
- Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
--
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
About The Misplaced Pages Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge
Competency
I am starting to wonder at the competency of an unnamed editor. AlbinoFerret 23:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- I unfortunately have to agree... --Kim D. Petersen 23:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Ref pages
A friendly advice for when we eventually start up the madness again: specify pages or similar details when citing books, whether they're ol' fahsioned paper or e-books. Especially when you're making direct quotes.
Peter 21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Request for arbitration
I have requested ArbCom resolution of the issues you are involved in on electronic cigarette pages. QuackGuru (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Query
- Revision as of 06:27, 25 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS.
- Revision as of 10:00, 25 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
- Revision as of 22:47, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
- Revision as of 23:46, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
- User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, aren't you deleting a lot of sources against WP:MEDRS? Where is your comment on the talk page to support deleting so many sources according to WP:PAG? IMO no reasonable argument has been made to delete so many reliable sources including deleting reviews such as (PMID 24732159) and (PMID 24732160) and (PMID 25572196) after over two weeks. Please review the current discussion on the talk page. What could possibly be a logical reason to delete so many sources? Please try to help editors at the talk page understand your reverts back to an older version. Please see Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Removal of mammoth edit. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)