User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please leave messages here - instead of on the front page. --Kim D. Petersen 09:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Playground: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Temporary
Created articles: Sami Solanki, Jan Esper
[edit] Apocalyse Cancelled deleted
The discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Apocalyse Cancelled has been closed, resulting in the referenced user page being deleted. —Doug Bell talk 10:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Global Warming Controversy
Looks like you & I are in agreement on this topic. Good edit HERE. --The Outhouse Mouse 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Email
Kim, please check whatever email account you have associated with Wikipedia. I sent a note about something that may be of interest to you. Raymond Arritt 04:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 09:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Clouds at Mars
Hi Kim, I saw your helpful edit at Mars Global Warming. I just wanted to point out that there are clouds at Mars but that they are relatively thin and infrequent. Hence any effects from cosmic rays would be negligible. So our implicit main argument (global warming at earth cannot be compared to our current understanding of Mars' climate) still stands. --Jespley 02:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information - guess i have to read up on that one :-) --Kim D. Petersen 02:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you!!
Kim, I had not found the Wegman report actually, the links that I was able to locate seemed to have gone bad. Thanks for your help. Mishlai 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
(original message moved to from user page to this talk page) Mishlai 17:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Commons POTY identity confirmation
I confirm I am the same user as 80.62.90.39 --Kim D. Petersen 15:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Global Warming edits violate WP policies
Please review WP:AWW and WP:OR. Please make sure that whenever you modify a controversial article that you avoid slanted words like "numerous" "few" and "consensus" without a direct citation. Thank you. --Tjsynkral 16:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- It does not fall under WP:AWW because the wordings are documented on the subpages - the subpages are created because the evidence/citations are long and complex. It cannot be described as WP:OR because the sources on the subpages are leading direct support for the sentences - its not WP:SYN for exactly the same reasons. You are adviced to read the archived discussions instead of trying to reopen something that has been discussed to an extreme length already. --Kim D. Petersen 21:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but subpages cannot be used as references. ~ UBeR 23:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- UBeR - of course they can - the only alternative is to have massive monolithic pages that each provide the same points and references all over again. If at any point a section of a page is becoming to massive - then you have to either cut down the section or start a subpage (and do a summary) if the subject is sufficiently important to the page. --Kim D. Petersen 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for showing your complete ignorance and disregard for Wikipedia policy. Let the record show you fail to comprehend the fundamental principles of how Wikipedia gathers information. ~ UBeR 02:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Applause - thanks for not providing basis for your statement - and engaging in less than civil discorse.
- Here is my take on a monolithic version:
- Now i could add more to the first statement - and i could continue with the second. But i think this shows my point. --Kim D. Petersen 03:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for showing your complete ignorance and disregard for Wikipedia policy. Let the record show you fail to comprehend the fundamental principles of how Wikipedia gathers information. ~ UBeR 02:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- UBeR - of course they can - the only alternative is to have massive monolithic pages that each provide the same points and references all over again. If at any point a section of a page is becoming to massive - then you have to either cut down the section or start a subpage (and do a summary) if the subject is sufficiently important to the page. --Kim D. Petersen 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but subpages cannot be used as references. ~ UBeR 23:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Question about subpages
You edit with these words: (certain => numerous (as the reference shows), insert "a few" (again as the reference shows). If you want these out - then you have to edit the subpages - otherwise you are asking to prove a negative.)
I have seen you reference subpages before. What subpages are you discussing and why do they have to be revised before this one can be?--Blue Tie 22:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Numerous is established on Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change, which is directly linked.
- A few is established on Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming, which is directly linked.
- The reason that all of this are on subpages is that the references would fill to much on the current page. It's been a long time since these two where forked off - exactly to meet this problem.
- Please refer to negative proof to see why it is not possible to prove this part - but only to disprove it. --Kim D. Petersen 23:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not negative proof. It has to be proof that a verifiable and reliable source has specifically stated "most scientists" and "few scientist." That is totally dissimilar from negative proof. ~ UBeR 23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry i disagree. That most scientists agree with the the consensus is either true, and the subpages are very much a demonstration of this - or can be demonstrated as being false, and even quite easily - find any number of academies/statements to balance the (currently) overwhelming number described on the Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change subpage to counter the academies statement. Or find any number of scientists to include on the Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming so that you can demonstrate that the statement of "few" is incorrect (btw. "relatively few" or "minority" is my preferred wording which are accurate and quantifiable wordings). --Kim D. Petersen 00:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your synthesis is not valid here at Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 00:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- UBeR its only a synthesis if you take out of context things and compile them. These pages are specific to the questions: Is there a consensus / a prevalent scientific opinion - and Is there a general opposition against the consensus / majority view. It is btw. not difficult to document each - you can just pick the references from the subpages and put them on the page as documentation. This is a question of either having a lean page or a monolithic page. --Kim D. Petersen 00:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's synthesis when you do not have a source saying "most scientist believe" and "few scientists believe." Your subjective opinion of what is few and what is a lot is not welcome here. If you don't have a source saying it, then you have no right to add it yourself. And by no source, I mean you cannot use Wikipedia as a source. My version ("While this conclusion has been endorsed by scientific societies and academies of science, there are scientists who disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming.") Is clearly neutral and is not synthesis. The same cannot be said about your contributions. ~ UBeR 00:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry UBeR - your sentence is misleading (and thus not neutral). --Kim D. Petersen 01:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's synthesis when you do not have a source saying "most scientist believe" and "few scientists believe." Your subjective opinion of what is few and what is a lot is not welcome here. If you don't have a source saying it, then you have no right to add it yourself. And by no source, I mean you cannot use Wikipedia as a source. My version ("While this conclusion has been endorsed by scientific societies and academies of science, there are scientists who disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming.") Is clearly neutral and is not synthesis. The same cannot be said about your contributions. ~ UBeR 00:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- UBeR its only a synthesis if you take out of context things and compile them. These pages are specific to the questions: Is there a consensus / a prevalent scientific opinion - and Is there a general opposition against the consensus / majority view. It is btw. not difficult to document each - you can just pick the references from the subpages and put them on the page as documentation. This is a question of either having a lean page or a monolithic page. --Kim D. Petersen 00:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your synthesis is not valid here at Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 00:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry i disagree. That most scientists agree with the the consensus is either true, and the subpages are very much a demonstration of this - or can be demonstrated as being false, and even quite easily - find any number of academies/statements to balance the (currently) overwhelming number described on the Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change subpage to counter the academies statement. Or find any number of scientists to include on the Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming so that you can demonstrate that the statement of "few" is incorrect (btw. "relatively few" or "minority" is my preferred wording which are accurate and quantifiable wordings). --Kim D. Petersen 00:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not negative proof. It has to be proof that a verifiable and reliable source has specifically stated "most scientists" and "few scientist." That is totally dissimilar from negative proof. ~ UBeR 23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for answering my question. Now I understand. But I disagree with you. I do not think that the subpage for the Scientific Opinion on Climate Change supports the use of weasel words on this page. And numerous is too non-specific. Even worse is the notion of "few". That the "subpage" describes only a "few" does not mean that "only a few" exist. That would be a logical fallacy. Neither of these two words are objectively supported but few is especially weak. Both are weasel words. --Blue Tie 00:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Blue Tie, i agree that the subpage only describes a subset of opposition - but there is a large jump from assuming that the true opposition is more than 2 orders of magnitude larger - and that still constitutes a minority. As i've said before - i personally prefer either "minority" or "relatively few" both of which are accurate and quantifiable. As for the academies - the documentation is very solid - but it would be silly to include each reference on the page, when the subpage is there. It both makes it easier to examine the basis for a reader - and make it easier for subsequent editors to dispute it. --Kim D. Petersen 00:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ~ UBeR 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- And how exactly do you calculate 2 contributions (yes - two blocks of edits [1] and [2]) as violating or even coming close to violating 3RR? --Kim D. Petersen 23:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC) (edited --Kim D. Petersen 23:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC))
- I calculate because I count the last 24 hours, not the last 10 minutes. ~ UBeR 23:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is not an answer because those two blocks are the only contributions i've made in 24 hours (or even 80 for that matter - and iirc even for the whole of March.). --Kim D. Petersen 23:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I count to the contrary. ~ UBeR 23:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- How? I need to know - because i do not want to violate 3RR. So please state your evidence - if this is a technicality that i've overlooked - then i need to know so that i do not violate it unwittingly. --Kim D. Petersen 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- The article is locked anyway. ~ UBeR 23:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry but that still does not explain anything. I do need an answer please. Otherwise it seems that you are trying to intimidate. I'm assuming that there is a technicality that i've overlooked. But from 3RR - a block of edit is considered one edit - and unrelated edits are not counted - so once more - please elaborate on this technicality. --Kim D. Petersen 23:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've elaborated here. ~ UBeR 00:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you - that will hopefully describe the technicalities. --Kim D. Petersen 00:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've elaborated here. ~ UBeR 00:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry but that still does not explain anything. I do need an answer please. Otherwise it seems that you are trying to intimidate. I'm assuming that there is a technicality that i've overlooked. But from 3RR - a block of edit is considered one edit - and unrelated edits are not counted - so once more - please elaborate on this technicality. --Kim D. Petersen 23:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- The article is locked anyway. ~ UBeR 23:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- How? I need to know - because i do not want to violate 3RR. So please state your evidence - if this is a technicality that i've overlooked - then i need to know so that i do not violate it unwittingly. --Kim D. Petersen 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I count to the contrary. ~ UBeR 23:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is not an answer because those two blocks are the only contributions i've made in 24 hours (or even 80 for that matter - and iirc even for the whole of March.). --Kim D. Petersen 23:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I calculate because I count the last 24 hours, not the last 10 minutes. ~ UBeR 23:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR report
If anything, I would've probably marked that incomplete, and asked Uber to provide specific "previous versions" reverted to. From looking at it, only number 4 and 5 are reverts, the rest just look like edits to me. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes because you have look at it from a larger context (i.e. further back). Just because someone doesn't mark "rv." in their edit summary, it doesn't mean they're not reverts. One, she reverted Blue Tie's edits that removed "most" and "few," clear weasel words. Second, she's reverting the attribution of the IPCC's claim (the appropriate way, per WP:V) to "scientific consensus," which is not verified by the source (WP:SYN, if you will). Third, she's removing attribution again, this time from the EIA. Sixth, she's reverting my edits I made that were correct to her version which is not supported by the ref (even after it was discussed on the talk page). ~ 00:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- UBeR i'm willing to acknowledge that each of the 2 blocks can be considered as reverts - thats acceptable. But the fact that i did each edit seperately is not acceptable as documentation - i could have done each block as one single monolithic edit, but that would have decreased the amount of explanation i could do in "edit summary". This is not trying to dodge a technicality - if you look at the edit timings you can see that i did them in succession. --Kim D. Petersen 00:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The rule states, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Most disturbing though is that you chose not to discuss anything on the talk page, but rather reverted six times. Do you see how reverting six times violates the rule that says you cannot revert more than three times? I don't know how I can make this any clearer. ~ UBeR 00:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- No UBeR i do not see this - the 3RR page specifically also states that: "Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule". And i believe that this is exactly what my edits are. --Kim D. Petersen 00:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- They aren't. ~ UBeR 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can you at least describe why they are not to be considered this way? If you are right - then i'll have to do monolithic edits in the future - and never try to explain each.... Because small edits may be considered reverts by your definition of the rule. How is anyone going to be able to do more than 3 edits to a page in case you are right? Each edit may be considered a revert after all. --Kim D. Petersen 01:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- They aren't. ~ UBeR 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the page is protected now anyway, so it rather is a moot point. Uber, generally the way I see it, is if you can't be bothered to go find the supposed "previous versions" that have been reverted to, I can't be bothered to do it either. Without any specific previous versions cited, most of them just look like regular edits. I would strongly encourage both of you to put this time into trying to resolve the dispute over the article, so that it won't need to stay protected for too long. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I will get you the previous versions after I'm done watching this program. ~ UBeR 00:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade the point may seem mute in the context of the page - but in the context of my edits its rather important. Since i'm stuck here with an (apparently) faulty interpretation of what you can or cannot do - and how to edit without being blocked.... Sorry to be insistant on this - but i really am troubled by this. --Kim D. Petersen 01:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC) comment - if i follow UBeR's view about the 6 reverts (i've done exactly 7 edits on the page in March) - it seems to me that when you edit something (even small things) then its a revert - this (to me) looks as if you can only do 3 total edits to a page or subsection without the risk of being slammed with a WP:3RR violation. --Kim D. Petersen 01:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, for clarity-you would not have been blocked anyway, you only reverted twice. Hope that clears it up? Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade - thank you. That was my own interpretation as well. (again sorry to have been insistant - but it does impact how i can or cannot edit :-)). --Kim D. Petersen 01:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, for clarity-you would not have been blocked anyway, you only reverted twice. Hope that clears it up? Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- No UBeR i do not see this - the 3RR page specifically also states that: "Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule". And i believe that this is exactly what my edits are. --Kim D. Petersen 00:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The rule states, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Most disturbing though is that you chose not to discuss anything on the talk page, but rather reverted six times. Do you see how reverting six times violates the rule that says you cannot revert more than three times? I don't know how I can make this any clearer. ~ UBeR 00:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- UBeR i'm willing to acknowledge that each of the 2 blocks can be considered as reverts - thats acceptable. But the fact that i did each edit seperately is not acceptable as documentation - i could have done each block as one single monolithic edit, but that would have decreased the amount of explanation i could do in "edit summary". This is not trying to dodge a technicality - if you look at the edit timings you can see that i did them in succession. --Kim D. Petersen 00:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Note that unlike you, Uber actually has broken 3RR on the GW page. His report of you was probably a smokescreen to disguise this William M. Connolley 08:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information. Unfortunatly it seems that the GW page dispute is going to be yet another tedious discussion over consensus. --Kim D. Petersen 08:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there is anything to discuss. There is a lot of trolling going on there which should not be encouraged. Both BT and Uber should have been blocked for 3RR; had they been the page probably wouldn't have needed protection William M. Connolley 09:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Probably correct. Btw. can i ask where the rule that you cannot refer to subpages for documentation is? I've been looking for such a rule - but cannot seem to find it. It seems to me (as you can see above) that in some cases this would require you to have monolithic pages, that restate the same things again and again. --Kim D. Petersen 09:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The wikilawyers are fond of making up and/or overinterpreting rules, when it suits their POV. I'm not aware of any such rule: who asserts its existence, and in what context? William M. Connolley 09:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Global warming#Page protection - Summary of current issues with this article 3rd comment (i presume it is UBeR - but its unsigned and i don't want to traverse the history to find the specifics) - this appears to be the whole crux of the dispute... --Kim D. Petersen 10:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe it. I've pulled it out to see who defends it though. It will probably just degenerate into another pointless round of lawyering William M. Connolley 10:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Global warming#Page protection - Summary of current issues with this article 3rd comment (i presume it is UBeR - but its unsigned and i don't want to traverse the history to find the specifics) - this appears to be the whole crux of the dispute... --Kim D. Petersen 10:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The wikilawyers are fond of making up and/or overinterpreting rules, when it suits their POV. I'm not aware of any such rule: who asserts its existence, and in what context? William M. Connolley 09:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Probably correct. Btw. can i ask where the rule that you cannot refer to subpages for documentation is? I've been looking for such a rule - but cannot seem to find it. It seems to me (as you can see above) that in some cases this would require you to have monolithic pages, that restate the same things again and again. --Kim D. Petersen 09:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there is anything to discuss. There is a lot of trolling going on there which should not be encouraged. Both BT and Uber should have been blocked for 3RR; had they been the page probably wouldn't have needed protection William M. Connolley 09:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
William is wrong on several points including the 3RR violation, so nevermind him. I cannot believe you choose to ignore such a fundamental policy. It is stated clear as day. Lawyering, in my opinion, is OK so long as those people who choose to ignore the policies can at least grasp the ideas Wikipedia has for creating its encyclopedia.
Lets have a read, shall we? "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader 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." Some might assert that this is simple "overinterpreting," but lets see what Mr. Wales himself has to say about it. "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." So what constitutes original research? "Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." Saying "most scientist believe" and "few scientists believe "without any source saying such, your are engaging in original research. (This statement applies directly to what I just said: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.") Simple as that.
Most importantly (and as such, I will bold it for you), Wikipedia states it in fairly simple English, so I hope you can understand the following message: "Just as underlying facts must be sourced, claims of consensus must be sourced in the presence of differences of opinion. Claims that 'most' or 'all' scientists, scholars, ministers (or rabbis or imams etc.) of a religious denomination, voters, etc. hold a view require sourcing, particularly on matters that are subject to dispute. In the absence of a reliable source of consensus or majority view, opinions should be identified as those of the sources." Do you two understand now?
So there's also been some argument about how I can put some bracket around some words and suddenly those words become true. For example, I could just write "John Adams was born in 1735," and leave it at that because that Wikipedia article SAYS he was born in 1735 SO IT MUST BE TRUE! Wrong. That is not how Wikipedia works, I'm afraid. Wikipedia is a tertiary source (if you don't believe me, check WP:OR). Fortunately for our readers (unfortunately for you two), Wikipedia does not allow tertiary sources: "All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources." Wikipedia calls this fundamental to writing an encyclopedia, so I don't quite understand how you two choose to so easily ignore it. This isn't about building a monolithic article, as you proclaim, but rather building a fair article. I hope you understand. ~ UBeR 17:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is yet more making up of rules (and evading 3RR, but thats elsewhere). The JA example is wrong. Uber seems to want to turn wiki into an endless repetition with no sub articles William M. Connolley 17:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FYI
Regarding this edit, this may add some context. Guettarda 04:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My appologies, Mr. Petersen
Assuming your username is also your given name, I wish to apologize for using the female gender when referring to you. It was foolish mistake, overlooking the fact Kim is often used for males as well as females. Mr. Arritt informed me that I was incorrectly referring to you as female, so I apologize for that and meant no insult. ~ UBeR 20:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Appology accepted. Are you also btw. going to appologize for your mistake about 3RR - and your comment here which is also incorrect? (follow the timelines please). --Kim D. Petersen 16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Todd Shelly
I'm almost certain it's the same "Tom Shelly", and I can't see any harm in disclosing that the guy is a university researcher. We need to save our reverts for the important stuff. ;-) Raymond Arritt 01:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth - i have the feeling its the same guy as well - but i don't believe that we can attribute it on a feeling. And no - i can't see any harm in the disclosure either. --Kim D. Petersen 01:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gray
hurricanes are very much part of the climate - and atmospheric science (one of) the basics of climate science. - arguably Gray is a meteorologist not a climatologist. But I agree the edit was POV William M. Connolley 16:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Had there been more space in the summary, i would have added that while the edit may be factually correct, it leans in a direction so that it provides a specific POV ;) --Kim D. Petersen 22:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
