User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen

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

Danish and Danes

Hello again, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the respectful way in which you showed me I was being a jackass. I do now realize that I shouldn't edit as if things are still the way they were 100 years ago in France. Feel free to change any edits that I have made that you feel where inappropriate, I only intended to work on that topic for that afternoon, and I am not territorial about edits I have made.

On a mildly-related note, while we were talking about page titles I realized that Danes and Danish people had a split history due to a cut-and-paste page move. This has now been fixed, but I am not sure which of the titles is more appropriate. If "Dane" is more appropriate, I would think it would be at Dane (people). Since you claim denne bruger har dansk som modersmål, I thought you might have an informed opinion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(",)

• Thank you for you contributions to Talk:Regional effects of global warming. Please see wp:Tea.
• Thank you regarding Talk:Global warming (see related Talk:Climate change) too. 99.119.131.192 (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If still of interest

It appears Talk:Regional effects of global warming is awaiting your continued involvement. 99.181.147.154 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I move it?

Kim so far you and I are the only ones to comment under "specific ideas" section on List of sci opposing blah blah blah. May I have your permission to move that subthread to a thread all of its own? (or if you beat me to it and want to please do) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

you can probably revert your revert and not have it count against you

Kim, You can revert your revert at [1] and not have it count against you. Note that the "essay" is an excerpt from a "lecture", not very typical of peer review. I think her essay was so popular that she did eventually find a sociology journal to publish a more complete paper. But the 0.1% you restored and other specifics of the statement would remain OR and a mischaracterization. You should get your revert back, it may be needed later.--Africangenesis (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You really should drop your WP:BATTLE attitude. I reverted because i think you are wrong - not because of tactical reasons. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you care enough to read the supporting citation, to check the history? You will be right more often if you check these things. If you are going edit scientific articles, it helps to have some scientific literacy, to be able to read the literature. You apparently aren't willing to perform the due diligence even after your revert has been called into question, that should should have done before your reverted. Now that you know you were wrong, are you failing to reverse your revert, because you think I am wrong, or for tactical reasons?--Africangenesis (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You are using the wrong venue - Use the talk page at the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)