| Revision as of 13:59, 22 October 2014 editKimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,610 edits →Edit warring: Pot, Kettle, Black!← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:07, 23 October 2014 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,661 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Archive 2014) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| <noinclude></noinclude>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. | <noinclude></noinclude>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. | ||
| ==Courtesy notice== | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
| Please be particularly aware, ] states: | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> | |||
| See also ]. --] (]) 14:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :What nonsense ]. You are the one who is editwarring, you appear to presume that ] doesn't apply to you. I find your rather blatant disregard of our ] and ] policies on the list to be rather disturbing. --] 14:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's an essay that supports the policy, not nonsense. It describes your behavior and makes recommendations. | |||
| ::I'm glad you've now joined the discussion. | |||
| ::There are no BLP violations concerning the well-sourced information I've been discussing. | |||
| ::The only NPOV violations seem to be to prevent well-sourced information from being included in the article. --] (]) 15:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nope, it is not an ''"essay that supports the policy"'' because there is no discussion about policy, nor is there any direct relation to it. You are simply drawing your own personal conclusions about what the people on the list are. That is a direct breach of both ] and combined with your constant usage of "denialist" on the talkpage a breach of ]. As for your "well-sourced" - since there are no sources, it most certainly can't be "well-" anything. | |||
| :::Btw. you may want to notice that our policies on adding material makes it ''your'' responsibility to get consensus, not mine. --] 15:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, but I disagree. Most importantly, the sources and policies disagree. See ] to start. --] (]) 15:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Do your sources paint the whole set of the list in your light? Nope they do not. They talk about a subset. Painting the whole set in a particular light because of the subset is not allowed per ]. (as well as ]). A climate contrarian is not by necessity a climate denier, it is as simple as that. --] 15:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No one is "Painting the whole set in a particular light", nor do we restrict article content in such a manner even if it did apply. | |||
| ::::::I think we're talking past each other. How about we take a break for a bit? --] (]) 15:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::When you call the people on the list "deniers", then you are painting all of the scientists with the label "denier" - since only a subset of the list can be categorized as "deniers". You are breaching ]. --] 15:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well, at least I'm going to take a break from it. Have a nice rest of your day. --] (]) 15:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I hope you're interested in continuing the discussion. | |||
| Re "deniers" So, this isn't about content, but just objections to comments on the talk page? --] (]) 16:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello? --] (]) 15:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hello what? But if you want an answer to your above: Nope. It is not only about "objections to comments", as the discussion at the article talk page also notes. But a large part of the problem with your edits have their root in your personal view that the people on the list are "deniers". --] 16:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::" But a large part of the problem with your edits have their root in your personal view that the people on the list are "deniers"." That's not my personal view. It is a gross misrepresentation of what I've written though, that ignores everything I've written to the contrary. --] (]) 16:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you do not have that view, then why do you call them "deniers" and insist on linking them to views such as creationism and other such nonsense? Your comment here also indicates that problem. There certainly ''are'' denialists within the set (ie. subset), but the whole set isn't one of denial. --] 09:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You ask two questions. On deniers: I simplify my language, summarize my previous points, and so just talk about deniers in general. Sorry that this causes editors such personal grief. | |||
| :::::As for the rest, I follow the sources. I don't have personal problems with the comparisons that reliable sources make to creationism and "other such nonsense". --] (]) 15:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Except that you don't follow the sources. You cherry-pick sources to fit your views, that much is pretty obvious. You may not even be aware that you are doing this, since you probably had a preconceived view that you can find the ]. If you look at the ] of sources, they do not support it. --] 17:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think we've gone far enough entertaining your assumptions on what my views might be. If that's all you got, you have nothing. --] (]) 15:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Are you able to put aside these assumptions or not? --] (]) 15:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I do not consider the source when i evaluate the merits of proposals, never have and never will. Even stopped clocks are right two times a day. (see also ]) --] 16:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Thank you. --] (]) 15:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == "POV" vs. article content not supported by source == | == "POV" vs. article content not supported by source == | ||
Revision as of 01:07, 23 October 2014
 | 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.
"POV" vs. article content not supported by source
Kim, in a few cases you are calling things "POV" problems but what they're really turning out to be are WP:V problems -- the article content isn't supported by the source. You will get better traction with your concerns if you stop talking about them as POV problems and start pointing them out as WP:V problems. Zad68 19:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- When i am talking about POV issues, i'm not talking about WP:V problems. I am talking about a slant based upon a one-sided or cherry-picked read of sources. Basically what WP:NPOV is about and WP:WEIGHT is specific concerns itself about. I'm not a newbie editor, i've been editing the climate change articles, where such issues are often raised for the last several years.
- How do you think an error such as "e-cigs are as dangerous cigs" can sneak itself in? It does so because the editor in question wasn't considering what it was that was said, and no alarm-bells chimed when editing the sentence... it lends itself to either of two conclusions: 1) unfamiliarity with the topic area 2) a personal view that matches the text. Both of which do not bode well for the huge amounts of edits done.
- I'm not going to edit-war, and will keep myself to a strict 1RR, which is why i haven't corrected anything in the article. --Kim D. Petersen 19:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know if you're a newbie and am not asserting you are. I am saying that in certain cases you are using "NPOV" in a way that isn't in line with the actual problem, and that is getting in the way of seeing those problems resolved. Your statement that "the editor in question wasn't considering what it was that was said" is describing a WP:V problem, not an WP:NPOV problem. WP:NPOV is a technical term of art on Misplaced Pages. I am trying to be helpful but if I'm not coming across as helpful I will leave it to others to try to help.
Zad6819:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)- I was using POV in this case, because the sentence displayed a point of view that is not even supported by a one-sided reading of the literature. Yep it was also unverifiable, which is also the case with some of the statements in the lede - but that doesn't mean that the edits do not display a certain POV. --Kim D. Petersen 19:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC) -- ie. POV and V are not mutually exclusive. --Kim D. Petersen 19:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Re, "POV and V are not mutually exclusive." -- Per the definitions of the concepts, I disagree, but it probably would not be a productive to get into a big debate about it. My advice is: If it's a WP:V problem, prefer to call it that, people prefer to deal with WP:V problems over WP:NPOV problems.
Zad6819:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)- You can write lots of things that are verifiable, but which are significantly POV. For instance "anthropogenic global warming is negligible" is verifiable but at the same time a tiny minority to fringe view, and thus shouldn't per WP:WEIGHT even be considered in an article on mainstream climate change. (see WP:BALASPS which addresses this)
- But to continue at the e-cig article, the editor removed the sentence "Electronic cigarettes should have fewer toxic effects than traditional cigarettes" which is verifiable, and supported by the weight of literature, and exchanged it with the unverifiable "Electronic cigarettes are generally perceived erroneously as less hazardous than traditional cigarettes, when their health risk is similar", to correct for this the editor didn't return the old sentence, but instead chose to write about something entirely different with an implied slant of "e-cigs are as dangerous as e-cigs" .... that is either POV or incompentence. --Kim D. Petersen 19:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Re, "POV and V are not mutually exclusive." -- Per the definitions of the concepts, I disagree, but it probably would not be a productive to get into a big debate about it. My advice is: If it's a WP:V problem, prefer to call it that, people prefer to deal with WP:V problems over WP:NPOV problems.
- I was using POV in this case, because the sentence displayed a point of view that is not even supported by a one-sided reading of the literature. Yep it was also unverifiable, which is also the case with some of the statements in the lede - but that doesn't mean that the edits do not display a certain POV. --Kim D. Petersen 19:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC) -- ie. POV and V are not mutually exclusive. --Kim D. Petersen 19:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know if you're a newbie and am not asserting you are. I am saying that in certain cases you are using "NPOV" in a way that isn't in line with the actual problem, and that is getting in the way of seeing those problems resolved. Your statement that "the editor in question wasn't considering what it was that was said" is describing a WP:V problem, not an WP:NPOV problem. WP:NPOV is a technical term of art on Misplaced Pages. I am trying to be helpful but if I'm not coming across as helpful I will leave it to others to try to help.
Danke - Thank you!
Ich will Dir auf diesem Weg dafür danken, dass Du mit so viel Herzblut und Engagement bei dem Artikel "E-Zigarette" mitarbeitest! Ohne solche Nutzer wie Dich, wäre die Misplaced Pages nur ein Schatten ihrer Selbst!--Merlin 1971 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Vielen Dank :) --Kim D. Petersen 06:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring
You have been informed above so no need to inform again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Pot, kettle, black. --Kim D. Petersen 13:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)