Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jytdog (talk | contribs) at 17:43, 8 February 2016 (→What I mean by "dial it down": ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following: Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

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.

• The Misplaced Pages Adventure Start Page
• The Misplaced Pages Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Misplaced Pages Help pages

--

WP:AE

I have opened a section on AE concerning edits and talk page sections you were involved in. AlbinoFerret 18:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Shot in my 2 cents. Will be offline for most of the next couple of days, since i'm travelling to Bruxelles for CEN and ISO meetings. --Kim D. Petersen 20:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Editorials

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

That kind of dispute needs to be dealt with on the basis of WP:DUE, not on the basis of historiography. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement that most of this is based in weight, and a weight argument is worth having. But there is also a very strong double standard being displayed. As we can see from this very similar case. In effects in the PHE/Lancet editorial case, critique is acceptable because ..., while in the WHO/Addiction paper case it is unacceptable because .... --Kim D. Petersen 08:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

We all know that to you, an "editorial" is an "editorial" That you can't, or don't, see the difference between the Addiction editorial and the Lancet editorial, doesn't make Doc James a hypocrite - what is "very strong" here is something else. That you cannot even fill in the blanks there shows that you are not even listening. It is one thing not to agree, but quite another to not even be able to state the other side's case. Jytdog (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You may want to check again. The Addiction paper is a peer-reviewed response to the WHO report, written by experts on the topic. Not an editorial. And i don't think that i ever mentioned, or pointed anything out with regards to Doc James? Do read again - i think you've misunderstood quite a few things. --Kim D. Petersen 09:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, thanks for correcting me. But it is even worse than what i thought. It is just a plain old "research article" per MEDLINE and pubmed (per PMID 25196419). That doesn't even come close to being the same weight as the statement by the Lancet. You are comparing apples and oranges. I thought you were at least comparing oranges to orange trees. Jytdog (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

An editorial is not a scientific/medical venue, the writers are not experts, and its not peer-reviewed. Editorials are opinion, not science, we do not source science from editorials .... ever. So you are putting quite a bit too much weight into it.

These two are very similar because both are critiques of scientific reports, and in the one case it gets accepted, in the other it doesn't.... The least we should have is consistency, and not double standards --Kim D. Petersen 09:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

To expand: The understanding from the first case, is that we (Misplaced Pages) do not involve ourselves in the scientific discussion/controversy on the primary level - but relied entirely on the secondary literature for what is and isn't the view on a topic. The Lancet case shows that this understanding apparently is false, and that the arguments in the first case thus weren't true or at the very least dodgy. --Kim D. Petersen 09:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Even worse Kim. In the Addiction case its the scientists who were referenced in Grana pointing out the problems with how their work was used. In Lancet we have a unnamed writer(s) criticizing something they possibly have very little knowledge of. Lancet has even less weight. AlbinoFerret 14:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

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

What I mean by "dial it down"

I'll just start noting these here, to help you see what I mean.

• This kind of caustic comment is not helping things. Please don't make comments on the motivations of other editors. If you disagree, please just state that, plainly, and explain why. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• here, you don't have to ascribe motivation to the other editor. You can just say what you think about the content and why, without commenting on the contributor. Jytdog (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)