Jump to content

User talk:A Quest For Knowledge/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Barnstar of Integrity

The Barnstar of Integrity
For your tireless support on the sourcing of Climate change alarmism and the subsequent ANI. GregJackP Boomer! 18:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Holiday albums at WP:ALBUMS

Could you please participate in the discussion pertaining to how holiday albums should be formatted? The discussion is held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Holiday albums. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Help request

I'm am currently working on preparing FoF in my user space per Shell's request regarding the editors of interest:User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge/Climate_change_Proposed_decision. If anyone has any free time, I'd appreciate it if someone would review it and check for errors. Feel free to post comments/suggestions/etc. on the talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones Content Disputes

I've examined every edit-war at the Phil Jones article since November 30, 2009. It took me half of the day and I'm sure that there are mistakes (corrections are encouraged!), but by my count, there have been at least 13 edit-wars involving approximately 60 different editors. Details are available at: Phil Jones Content Disputes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The move

I'd no idea that such a simple and obvious move would be classed as "clerking" or be seen as controversial. Please feel free to think about your edit and undo it if you agree with me that it's sensible to keep discussions on the same topic in the same place instead of scattering it all over the place. --TS 17:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If a clerk asks me to undo my edit, I will. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ask a clerk

You too are involved, so [1] was wrong. Ask a clerk. And don't be hypocritical [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to everyone to read WMC's paper

I agree with William M. Connolley that his paper is quite readable. I think it would be a great idea for everyone to take the time to read it, and ask themselves the following three questions:

  1. Is the paper about, or relevant to, climage change alarmism in the 1970s?
  2. Is it a reliable source to support the statement that global cooling was not the scientific consensus?
  3. If the answer to number 2 is no, is this an egregious example of misconduct that warrants inclusion in ArbCom's FoF, or is it a minor content dispute that got blown out of proportion?

WMC's paper is available here. It's only 13 pages long and won't take a long time to read. I hope that cooler heads will prevail. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits at the article on the Climategate scandal

Your most recent edit to the article deleted content with the edit summary "source failed verification", however a very quick search shows that the editor who added it was quoting Ben Webster, Environment Editor of The Sunday Times.[3] Since you are familiar with the article, you should notice that the source for that statement appears twice in the article, currently as footnote 78 and 79. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that you probably need to do more research than that. I could be wrong but the phrase "no case to answer" was not the position of the committee as a whole, but rather a single person. Please feel free to let me know what your research turns up. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm quite familiar with the topic and the sources that are used. You, however, do not appear to know what you are editing. When we summarize conclusions from a primary source like a report, we find a reputable secondary source and quote it, and cite from non-controversial passages directly from the report if needed. It appears that you are cherry picking sources that support your personal POV and giving undue weight to fringe opinions, rather than finding a balance with reliable sources. I'm afraid that I must voice my concerns with your editing behavior, which appears, based on your bizarre response here and on the talk page, to be past the point of tendentious and disruptive. You have, in my opinion, gone to extreme lengths and made significant efforts to portray yourself as neutral and balanced on this topic, when in fact, the opposite appears to be the case. The truism is that when one is neutral and balanced in their approach, there is no need to give a false pretense of being neutral and balanced. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I believe that you might be mistaken. The cited source is here. The opening paragraph clearly states, "MPs today strongly criticised the University of East Anglia for not tackling a 'culture of withholding information' among the climate change scientists whose private emails caused a furore after being leaked online in November.The parliamentary science and technology select committee was scathing about the "standard practice' among the climate science community of not routinely releasing all its raw data and computer codes – something the committee's chair, Phil Willis MP, described as "reprehensible". He added: "That practice needs to change and it needs to change quickly.". If you disagree with reliable sources, that is your right. I suggest that a personal blog or Internet forum is a more appropriate venue to voice such opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not mistaken. The source that was placed in the article at the end of the statement was not the correct one. I haven't looked at the article history to see who placed what where, but the correct source already appears twice in the article.[4] Since you consider yourself familiar with the article, you must have known this. When we find a source that doesn't reflect the source in an article that contains the correct source, already used several times, we correct the mistake, we don't delete it claiming that it "fails verification". There's a certain amount of good judgment, critical thinking, and intellectual honesty required as an editor. If you don't have it, I'm sure I can teach you. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Stephan Schulz FOF

Would you be willing to adjust the header levels within the section? It messes with the page's TOC, makes it look like these are all separate top-level topics, not subtopics. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda: I'm sorry, but I've been pretty busy with other things yesterday, and I haven't had a chance to look at this. I find the whole format of the page uneasy to follow. Feel free to make the change yourself or ask a clerk to do it. As you can see, I've been falsely accused of BLP violations which was then downgraded to the very vague BLP "inappropriateness"- whatever that means. Right now, that's taking more priority than formatting issues. I'll be in meetings all day today and won't be able to respond until tonight or tomorrow. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Saturday

FYI - I will be helping my brother move Saturday during the day and then will attend the Naperville Independent Film Festival at night. I probably won't have much time to edit tomorrow. I hope to post my official statement to the proposed FoF about me on Sunday. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I raided your evidence page

... to propose an Fof for Viriditas (I didn't think you'd mind). I didn't use the ones I couldn't immediately understand, but feel free to add some ideas. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Joanne Nova

FWIW, WMC is also edit-warring at Joanne Nova.[5][6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC) (from WP:GS/CC/RE)

1) "Is edit warring" does not mean "made two reverts three days ago". 2) You think that someone's own website should be enough to denote someone as a scientist? An undergraduate degree with honors and no apparent other publications isn't really enough to call someone one. 3) How is this related to climate change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWarfare (talk • contribs)
NuclearWarfare, read the article. Nova is a climate change sceptic. That's why WMC is interested in it. It is related. Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It's true that I declined to edit-war in return. This makes WMC the only editor to edit-war about this. Double-check the cited source. I believe that it was a secondary source. I forget how Joanne Nova is related to CC. Please keep in mind that I have no dog in this fight. CC isn't even a topic that interests me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I was unclear. "How is this related to Cla68's post?" is what I had in mind.

And err, accept my apologies for the tone of the last post (point 2). I accidentally read the other website linked in the lead, Nova's personal webpage, and wondered why you would possibly use that to source such a claim. Still, why did you revert instead of discussing at Talk:Joanne_Nova#Scientist, which WMC and Marknutley had already done two weeks prior? NW (Talk) 00:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed before, although I forget which venue. I did bring the issue up and Mark Nutley was able to provide a reliable source which specifically described her as a geneticist. At that point, I was satisfied. I'm not sure what this content issue has to do with your and WMC's edit-warring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I have indef blocked you for edit warring with an uninvolved admin who is also an arbcom clerk on a sanctions page that you are involved in. I will unblock you when you agree to stop edit warring in such situations. MBisanz talk 02:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I didn't think of Nuclear Warefare's edit as an admin action, but an editor's action. If I did, I would never have reverted him in the first place.
In any case, I don't think that I edit-warred. I considered my edit to be the second of a WP:BRD cycle and immediately proceeded to discuss the issue on NW's talkpage.[7][8][9]
How is a single edit considered-edit warring?
In any case, this block was completely unnecessary. As I said, I considered my edit to be the second of a BRD cycle; I never would have performed the edit a second time. Further, it's quite obvious from the diffs above that I had ample opportunity to perform the edit a second time, but choose to discuss the issue instead. Blocks are supposed to be preventative. There was nothing to prevent. Unless I'm missing something, can someone please overturn the block because:
  • As far as I know, a single edit is not edit-warring.
  • It was unnecessary because I never would have performed the edit a second time.
BTW, if I had done something wrong, why didn't anyone simply give me a warning or ask me to self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
MBisanz, for what it's worth, I also didn't agree with NW's removal of AQFK's comments on that page. I understand that NW is learning the hard way about the difference between involved and uninvolved admins, but I think some of the decisions he has made lately with regard to the CC articles could have been better and AQFK shouldn't have to be the one to bear all the blame for that. Cla68 (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The issue is that it is on the sanctions page, in a topic where you are involved. You shouldn't be reverting people on that page period, or it is disruptive editing/edit warring. Clas68, that's fine, if NW is alleged involved, there are ways to deal with that which do not involve reverting on the sanctions page by the person making the allegation. MBisanz talk 13:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
MBisanz: The reason you cited for my block was that I was that I was edit-warring. I had only performed one edit and was in the discuss phase of the BRD cycle. There was no reason to block me. If I was blocked for reverted an admin action, that makes more sense. But you could have simply informed me of my mistake. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
So you agree that if I unblock you, you will not revert administrator actions on project pages or else you will be indef blocked without opportunity for unblock? MBisanz talk 14:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll agree not to revert admin actions on project pages. Like I said, I didn't even think of it that way. Had somebody just asked me to self-revert, I would have. But the "indef blocked without opportunity for unblock" seems unduly harsh for an honest mistake. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per note above. MBisanz talk 21:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Request handled by: MBisanz talk

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Friendly tip from someone who has had their fair share of blocks: If you just say "I will not do something like this again." that will go over much better than arguing that the block was invalid in the unblock request, even if the block was invalid. Arguing against the validity of a block is best made after being unblocked at, for example, WP:ANI or WP:AN. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I already did say that I will not do something like this again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I know, you just didn't do it in your unblock request. Welcome back to the land of the unblocked! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Help - it still says I'm blocked

Resolved

I was about to post something to one of the talk pages, but it says I'm still blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There was an uncleared auto-block. I think I got it. Try again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Injured bird outside my door

I'd rather post this on the science reference desk, but can't, so I'll ask here. I woke up this morning and found an injured (or sick?) bird outside my door. My two dogs tried to attack it but I stopped them. It tried to flap its wings and hobbled into a corner. This was about an hour ago and its still there. What should I do? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

One of life's great quandaries. I dunno...see if it will take a food offering (you could even force feed it if you're not adverse to handling it [use gloves]...dig up some worms which are always good) and give it some secure shelter while looking for any evidence of improvement. Doesn't sound good though and euthanasia is probably for the best. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
[10]. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
An animal welfare group may be able to help you, depending upon your location. Once I saw an injured pigeon in New York City and called the ASPCA. They acted as if I was crazy. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree with JakeInJoisey. If the poor thing is seriously injured, the best you can do is to end its suffering. This is tough to do -- we live near a rural area and I've had to deal with such situations. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Why assume the worst? Also, as I said, it depends on location. If AQFK is in Britain, where the attitude toward wildlife is more enlightened, there may be people able and willing to be of assistance. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
In the U.S., I would call the state Fish and Wildlife service. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Luckily, I was able to get a hold of a friend who's been a volunteer at an animal shelter. We wrapped in a blanket and took it to the Willowbrook Wildlife Center. They had me fill out a card which they will send back to let me know what happens with the bird. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully that will bring good karma. :) MastCell Talk 16:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I know I'm late to this convo, but my answer would've been to topic ban it. That seems to be the answer to everything these days. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate change

Please remove your reposted statement immediately from the PD talk page. If you need to refer to it, simply provide a diff to the earlier version.  Roger Davies talk 06:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. But why can't I repost it? It doesn't appear as if any of the ArbCom members read it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Because if every party reposts lengthy rebuttals of FoFs; and then others respond to their rebuttal; and then still more riposte to the response to the rebuttal; in no time at all we'll be back to the unholy bloat and bickering that has plagued this case throughout.  Roger Davies talk 06:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, can I post a question asking what behavior needs to be corrected? So far, no one has been able to answer this question. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
You're still adamant that there was nothing wrong with your "criminals" remark for a start.  Roger Davies talk 06:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have one more question. Is it OK to bring my statement to the attention of the other ArbCom members? Again, they don't appear to have read it, and no one's been able to explain what behavior needs to be corrected. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you can if you like but given the extraordinary amount of talk page stuff arbitrators have been receiving during this case, it might prove counterproductive.  Roger Davies talk 06:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Roger, what I said was that I did not violate BLP, which I still believe is correct. However, if you want to say that my comment was disruptive, I would agree. It obviously stirred up a lot of tension, which is why I regret the remark and have NEVER repeated it. Sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Given the fact that I have NEVER repeated this remark, what outstanding behavior needs to be corrected? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
You've argued tooth and nail over a lengthy period to justify it; despite the fact that the word never appeared in any source and despite the fact that BLP does apply to sub-sets of people. As for the bigger picture, as you freely admit, your remark was disruptive and stirred up a lot of tension (which is what battleground editing is about). Both ArbCom and, from various comments made by various uninvolved editors, the community at large are heartily fed up with the factional fighting at Climate change, which is spilling out into other areas and causing widespread unhappiness. I repeat, by your own admission, you are part of that. The current strategy is to take people who participated in the battleground out of the equation, you are one of these people, and the remedy is therefore entirely preventative.  Roger Davies talk 06:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I haven't fought tooth and nail over it, I've simply explained the difference between an identifiable living person and an organization of thousands of differnt people. If you honestly think that I violated BLP, then I would like to take this issue to the entire community abd bring it to BLP:NB, and if consensus is that BLP applies to situations where no identifiable living person is indicated, then I will never repeat the offense. Does that seem fair to you? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
You're evading the issue here. You have made over 1400 posts to the Climate Research Unit email controversy talk page: to my mind, this is clear and compelling evidence of someone who is profoundly invested in the subject. You still do not accept that the remark was inappropriate, instead insisting that it was intended to refer to all 2,400 employees of the University of East Anglia. (Though I'm not at all sure why you think it's appropriate to brand an entire organisation as "criminal" on one of the world's most visited websites.)  Roger Davies talk 07:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I am not evading the issue. By your own admission, I've made over over 1400 posts to the Climate Research Unit email controversy talk page and you're focusing on a single, isolated comment which was never repeated. Can you please answer the following simple question: What behavior are you attempting to correct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
First, the primary purpose of this remedy is to repair the topic. Second, a period of disengagement would probably do you a world of good and, after the dust has settled, help you see things with frssh eyes. Many editors, after many months of battling become horribly involved, and this is a huge part of the overall problem here.  Roger Davies talk 07:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how long ago the above discussion took place, but I've got a few minutes between moving heavy furniture and some other stuff, so I'll add my two cents (I'd prefer to do it on the case talk page). I think this is a relatively calm, clear analysis about the aggravating and mitigating factors in AQFK's "criminals" comment (I'd thought about this before, and it only takes minutes to type): (1) Mitigating factor: According to press reports, no prosecution could take place because of a "statute of limitations"-like element in British law; (2) Aggravating factor: It was not established that a crime took place (although this would have been prosecuted in a court where, I think, less-serious crimes are prosecuted); if we don't know that a crime took place, however strongly we suspect it, we don't know for sure that there was one or more criminals; (3) Mitigating factor: At least one of Phil Jones' now-public emails looks (very, very strongly) like he was planning on violating the law, and we know people who filed FOI requests were not given certain information -- we're entitled to be highly suspicious; (4) Mitigating: AQFK didn't name any particular names; (5) Aggravating: We know his comment seemed to refer to the scientists who wrote the e-mails; (6) Aggravating: I think AQFK would have known by that point that William M. Connolley was associated with Michael E. Mann (one of the scientists who wrote and received the emails) on the Real Climate group blog, so indicating that the small group of CRU-related scientists included "criminals" would increase the battlefield atmosphere, apart from regular WP:BLP concerns -- it's very hard not to take offense at implications that your associate might be a criminal. (7) Mitigating: AQFK is entitled to be outraged at the UK's damn crazy six-month provision in its FOI law. There's no two ways around it: That law is a ass. And it's pretty damn clear that if some criminal somewhere did violate that law, the six month window makes it much, much easier for that hypothetical criminal to get away with it under the damn-foolish technicality. Now, note that this was one of the things that AQFK was trying to express in his posting, although (aggravating factor) the way he wrote it, he said more. How certain can the rest of us be that AQFK wasn't simply being sloppy in trying to make a point about the craziness of the UK's FOI law?
All of the aggravating factors above don't amount to a BLP-violating statement as bad as someone simply calling Jones or Mann a "criminal" who got off, but the threshold of course should be lower than that, and there is definitely a battleground-inflaming element to AQFK's statement, but it isn't directly naming anyone and I think that's got to make it a much lesser BLP offense. When you apply the mitigating factors above, and add to it the fact that this situation is a bit complicated by #7 above. We type fast, some of us, and hit the "save page" button too quickly sometimes, so these discussions and even edit summaries are a bit like casual conversations. In casual conversations we can stray into BLP violations without meaning to do so. Apologies and promises not to do it again are usually the best resolutions, aren't they? Unless there are factors I'm unaware of (and I don't have time to look into the circumstances or previous discussions about this), doesn't it seem reasonable for AQFK to admit that he put a toe over the line, and isn't it reasonable not to consider this a very serious violation, only worthy of a sanction if it's part of a much larger series of battleground-inflaming edits? Is a sanction here the best way to stop the behavior from happening in the future? It's very possible I'm missing something about the context of the edit, but I hope this is helpful. I've said it before: I don't see how the evidence against AQFK amounts to him being one of the worst editors in the CC area. Sanctioning him doesn't look like the calm, cool thing to do. Now I've got to load the car for my third trip to the dump this week. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)



Any bored admins? Resolved

Resolved

If any admins are looking for something to do, please delete the following articles in my user space:

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Gone. Vsmith (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a few questions.
  • Does this topic ban apply to user space?
  • I'm a regular contributor to WP:RSN. I assume that I am not allowed to comment on discussions related to climate change, correct? What happens if I unknowingly participate in a discussion related to CC? For example, what if an editor asks if BBC News is a reliable source but neglects to mention the article to which their asking? This happens all the time at WP:RSN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


Questions like this are best asked at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard as others will want the answers, and I see that at least one of them is being discussed (user page discussions seems ok). Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Usefull list

Hi I've just added The New Yorker to [13] This was maybe wrong? Sorry iff I got you in trouble doing it. See User_talk:Nsaa#In_the_wake_of_the_arbcom_case. Nsaa (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom's Hammer

AQFK, I briefly interacted with you and know that you were no POV pusher and genuinely trying to help put a stop to the abuses in the climate change pages. I have no doubt that this judgement is very wrong. It is very disappointing to see your name in this long list of editors topic banned. We could ask why am I not topic banned? The answer, of course, is that I simply wasn't there. I had returned to normal life, driven away by Wikipedia's built-in madness. But as someone who was bullied by a number the other now banned editors, thank you for standing up for neutrality. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

AQFK, you may not have seen this, but I think you should know it's there. [14] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Impressive...most impressive

Having just revisited the arbitration case pages to see how everything played out in the global warming arena, I was a bit surprised at the outcome. Although by no means a solution to any of the problems there, it appears to have exceeded my expectations in its mandate.

Anyhow, I thought it pertinent to drop you a line to thank you for your involvement. Regardless of how the chaos of it galvanized you, yours was a voice sorely needed in attempting to resuscitate objectivity on matters where objectivity had long been dead. I also wanted to express my recognition and appreciation of the fact that, even after helping to right the 9/11 conspiracy boat, you proceeded to jump onto a ship whose decks were ablaze and whose masts had long since gone up in smoke, and despite learning the hull had been hopelessly sundered and the vessel was fast taking on water, you stayed and fought the good fight.
And for that you should be commended.
So I commend you...for doing the right thing, even when the right thing was not the easiest thing to do.
--K10wnsta (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FClimate_change

This is formal notification because you are one of the affected parties. --TS 00:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate change amendment: notification of three motions posted

Following a request for amendment to the Climate change case, three motions have been posted regarding the scope of topic bans, the appeal of topic bans, and a proposal to unblock two editors.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Climate change case amendment

By motion, the Arbitration Committee has ammended remedies 3.1 and 3.2.1 of the Climate change case to read as follows:

  • 3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.
  • 3.2.1) Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done, unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances, no more frequently than every three months thereafter.

— Coren (talk), for the Committee, 21:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the joys of being involved in the Climate Change ArbCom case: Endless requests for clarification. Here's another.

Sorry to bother you. Here's the request for clarification. Your ability to discuss the case would be affected. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I'm taking a break from Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Thanks for this comment. I think you are absolutely right in the way you refer to RS to see what term is appropriate. Unfortunately, I've made this point before and it doesn't seem to convince some of the editors circling Park51, who seem perversely set on masking the idea that Park51 is Muslim..... NickCT (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice try

You've been edit-warring on this article[15][16][17][18] and you have the gall to request page protection?[19] Fortunately, the admins called you out for it.[20] May I again suggest that you stop edit-warring and do one of two things: 1) Achieve consensus or 2) Nominate the article for deletion as I and the admin suggested. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay who is ready ready to learn some rules today?

Add them together = 38 hours and i have made four edits. 3 of them one one page within 24 hours, not 4, 3. No violation of WP:3RR. Now lets look at the definition of Wikipedia:EDITWAR. "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. The 3RR rule says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." Now i ask that you stop incorretly, frivolously warning me when there is no WP:3RR or WP:EDITWAR violation. Now politely, leave me alone. I am willing to discuss this further on the talk page of the article, but please cut out warning me incorrectly, i know the rules off 3RR. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what you don't seem to grasp is that you do not have the automatic right to do 3 reverts in a single 24 hour period. WP:3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. You've made the same revert at least 4 times. That is edit-warring. Go ask an admin if you don't believe me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring again?

It looks like you're edit-warring again on the Michael article.[21][22][23] You should be aware that Twitter counts as a reliable source per the WP:SPS exemption. In fact, we have an entire shortcut devoted to it. See WP:TWITTER. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That was three days ago, not "again". WP:TWITTER is not a reliable source, you must read again SPS and this. TbhotchTalk C. 20:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
SPS: "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely """not""" acceptable as sources. TbhotchTalk C. 20:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
First, I'm a regular contributor to the Reliable sources noticeboard so I am very familiar with this guideline. If you want to go open a discussion there, go ahead. They'll tell you the same thing I am.
Second, if you had done a minimal amount of research, you could have easily found dozens of secondary, reliable sources[24] to source this content, but you didn't.
Third, the way to resolve content disputes is through compelling arguments on the talk page, not edit-wars. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In general Twitter does not count as a reliable source. In the circumstances where a Twitter account can be verified to belong to the named owner, and the owner is making a comment about themselves or their own expert field, then a Twitter statement may be used; however, in such a situation it would be likely another source will have observed and commented on the statement, and the other source would be preferred. In general Twitter is best avoided as use of that site is problematic, and we could be citing statements made by people pretending to be a celebrity. SilkTork *YES! 17:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I already knew that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Consumer Reports Says AT&T 'Worst-Rated' U.S. Carrier[25]

No shit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have just one day without WikiDrama?

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For the above ;) NW (Talk) 19:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

note - assange

Hi, you have two reverts and not a single post to the talkpage at all, please consider discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I missed the discussion. Where on the talk page is this being discussed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
If you actually look there you will easily find it. Off2riorob (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh?

  • No valid reason for removal of properly cited material.[26]
  • Scott MacDonald: If there wasn't consensus for your changes, why are you edit-warring over this article?[27]

Please check you facts before making false allegations in edit summaries. a) My valid reasons were given on the talk page. b) There is a talk page consensus for excluding the material. As for edit warring, that's exactly what you are doing. At least get your facts right. Stop it.--Scott Mac 01:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I note, you are not even bothering to join the talk page discussion, before edit warning.--Scott Mac 01:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I read over the edit summaries and the talk page discussions, and I did not see any valid reason for excluding this content. If I am wrong, please post the diff of what I missed. In any case, I am going to sleep now and won't be able to discuss this until tomorrow. Have a good night. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Appologies for reformatting

I was just trying to keep the discussion in a single place. aprock (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Judge declares mistrial after juror consults Wikipedia article

[28] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an increasing problem, involving consultation by jurors not just of Wikipedia but of other online resources. (A judge before whom I practice recently addressed a similar situation in which a juror admitted that she had Googled the judge and read the Wikipedia article about her, though the judge found that in that instance the incident was harmless.) The standard jury instructions in several states now contain a specific admonition that jurors are not to do online research about the case (similar to the rule that already existed that jurors are not, for example, to go on their own to visit the scene of the crime). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Mythical Polish Cavalry Charge

This is a note to myself.[29] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Injured bird outside my door Part II

For those you remember this thread (archived), [30] I finally received an update from the Willowbrook Wildlife Center. The bird had a broken leg but it's been nursed back to health and returned to the wild. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Adding sig so this will be archived. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My stats

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=A+Quest+For+Knowledge&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia

Adding sig so this will be archived. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. You have new messages at Nsaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Adding sig so this will be archived. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Smile

Hello A Quest For Knowledge, Viriditas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Adding sig so this will be archived. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: IMDB discussion

Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Adding sig so this will be archived. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Humorous ArbCom Proposals

Extended content

Proposed Findings of Fact

A Quest for Knowledge is totally awesome

No explanation needed.

Support
  1. Obviously. Tinker
  2. Factual. Evers
  3. I'm not sure if it truly captures his awesomeness, but it will have to do for now. Chance
  4. Per Evers. Three Fingers
Oppose
  1. Not needed. Taylor
  2. I disagree. AQFL is lame. Big Ed
  3. Very lame. Pfiester
  4. He's wasting time on joke proposals when he should be working on the real thing.Orval Overall
Abstain
  1. Cap Anson

Proposed Remedies

All reverts must be explained on the talk page with a Beatles reference

Because the editing atmosphere in the climate change topic space has deteriorated so much, editors seem to argue over every little thing. In order to help the situation, Any Time at All an editor want to perform a revert, they are required post an explanation on the talk page with an appropriate Beatles reference. It Won't Be Long until editors Give Peace a Chance and learn to let it be.

Support
  1. Makes perfect sense. Tinker
  2. Support, but would prefer a version that allows solo stuff, too. Evers
  3. The way forward.Cap Anson
Oppose
  1. Too restrictive. It should include solo work. Three Fingers
  2. Lennon was the true genius. Should be limited to only Lennon references. Big Ed
  3. Nope, everyone knows they peaked during the Quarry Men years. Taylor
  4. Sorry, I'm a Stones fan. Pfiester
  5. This is the devil's music. Chance
Abstain
  1. I like both kinds of music, country and western. Never heard of these 'Beatles' before.Orval Overall
Adding sig so this will be archived. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ending the Michael Jackson edit War

Unfortunately the current edit war over the album type is rather sad but it is most certainly intolerable. Please visit Talk:Michael (album)#End the Edit War - Studio vs Compilation and part-take in the attempt to find a final resolution. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to warning

Hello, I am afraid I am the same person. I do not understand the inappropriateness.

The people who have tagged my articles for AFD are people who are unaware of the relevance and significance of let's say RedSpotGames, it is only fair that people who do find it encyclopedia worthy should come and voice their concerns, after all wikipedia is for all of us.--Cube b3 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's inappropriate because you're gaming the system with people who are likely to agree with you. Votes should be fair. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I am just directing attention, even I don't watch the AFD discussions so how would the people know?--Cube b3 (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Note to myself about RedSpotGames

Need to check which ones qualify as reliable sources.[31] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Need to cross-reference above search results with this list.[32] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Senile Team

The article has been re-referenced, with noteable secondary references from sources such as Kotaku almost all primary references have been deleted. :)--Cube b3 (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look at it. BTW, if this is a topic that you're really interested in, it might be a good idea to create a Google News Alert for RedSpotGames, Sturmwind, etc.. Not all the hits will qualify as reliable sources, but some might, and this will give you more sources for these articles. Here's a example alert for "RedSpotGames" OR "RedSpot Games" OR "Red Spot Games".[33] Good luck! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Need help welcoming newbies

Our List of common misconceptions has been mentioned on XKCD,[34] a high-traffic web site. The number of edits to this article have increased by many orders of magnitude. If you have the time (and patience!) to welcome the newbies and explain our policies and guidelines to them, your assistance is appreciated. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Animal conspiracy theories involving Israel

This is just a note to myself to check out the article when I have time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Music misbehaviour

It's a combination of factors. A tendency towards younger editors is part of it. It also seems to have a higher concentration of people who speak English as a second language, and they can have trouble understanding what the guidelines and policies mean. There also seems to be fan-driven behaviour: people that somehow think that making their favorite artist look like they have charted better or sold more than they actually have somehow helps the artist, or that all songs by their favorite artist are somehow more important than songs by another artist.—Kww(talk) 00:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the age of the editors being a factor makes sense to me. I don't see this sort of stuff going on with The Beatles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Almost all Beatles' singles have articles, and I do not remember when someone wanted to delete a song by the Beatles. TbhotchTalk and C. 01:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The 10 Biggest Hoaxes in Wikipedia's First 10 Years

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of common misconceptions for deletion

The article List of common misconceptions is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh...You do realize that the argument you made for the deletion will only result in splitting the article into 20 different articles, right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions

I've reverted your outright removal. Do not remove improvements to the article, especially during AfD, without actual discussion first. That's double loading - "nobody's improving the article" while deleting guideline-suggested improvements. The article must be allowed to be improved during AfD. The lack of clear inclusion criteria were a reason for the AfD, and are encouraged by WP:LIST#Lead_section_or_paragraph. The inclusion criteria were unclear, and have been made explicit, per that guideline. Exactly what they are is open to discussion and amendment, but they are needed. Comments which addressed my proposed criteria were positive, and no comments addressing my suggested criteria were against them. Note that the most-interested delete voter actually did not address my criteria positively or negatively, but continued to complain that there were no clear criteria - hence my finally boldly adding them, per the guideline. --Lexein (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

First, the criteria you added does not match how the article was written, so it's not an improvement at all. Now the opening paragraph doesn't match the rest of the article. Second, if you want to change the inclusion criteria that we've been using for the past year or so, you should seek consensus on the article talk page first. Third, you're certainly free to make WP:BOLD changes, but after being reverted, you discuss your changes on the article talk page per WP:BRD. Can you please self-revert and proceed to discuss your changes on the article talk page? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
First, no, the criteria do not match how the list was written. The way the list was written was the reason for three separate, different AfDs. These are explicit inclusion criteria, designed to address this AfD's and prior AfD's concerns about unclear inclusion criteria. Every list which has gone through this has had tighter inclusion criteria introduced. I made nothing worse - the original opening paragraph is still included as the opening sentence. The stated criteria merely reinforce and slightly expand upon it. Your discomfiture is understandable - I felt the same way when lists I contributed to suddenly faced AfD (technically LfD) and the requirement for tighter inclusion criteria. I hope you understand that pruning non-article-based items (or writing articles about their main topics) does, really, improve Wikipedia.
The fact that the opening paragraph doesn't "match" the rest of the list is good - the head should lead the tail. The rest of the list should gradually be conformed to match the lead paragraph. The list will be improved by this. Look at lists which have survived AfD and been improved in the process, for example List of indie rock musicians. It was a mess, then it got tightened up. There was some initial pain, but that's all over, and now it's far better for it. Admittedly, it's not as complex as this, but my point stands.
Second, it's not me that wants to change the inclusion criteria, they are necessitated by repeated AfDs. Discussion has occurred at the AfD page, not here, because quite understandably, that's where all the action is. My suggested criteria have not been opposed, and have been referred to positively. Okay, not by a lot, but still, nobody's smacked them down, not even the deletionists. If the existing inclusion criteria were clear (as they are not in the lead sentence), and were article- and source- based, then the AfDs would not have gotten as far as they did. Also note that I've really only added one criteria - the need for the common misconception's main topic to have an article which establishes that topic's notability. Example: Glass#Behavior of antique glass mentions the fallacy that it's a slow liquid. So, at List of common misconceptions#Chemistry we have, first item, that common misconception. Not hard at all. WP:RS, WP:N, are mainstays of article credibility at Wikipedia.
The criteria
  1. that the common misconception's including topic have an article is just Wikipedia-wide best practice.
  2. that an item be reliably sourced is already widely agreed-upon.
  3. that the common misconception be mentioned in its topic article with its sources is merely a cut-n-paste operation at worst.
  4. that the common misconception be current merely makes explicit the implied "current" in the title.
Third, I unreverted because of the urgency demanded by the AfD, and the requirement that improvements be made. This is very usual - AfD opens, article gets improved, AfD closes. I make no claim that my suggested inclusion criteria are final or perfect, but please consider them in the light of the Glass example applied to all other common misconceptions listed.
So no, I do not see the need to self-revert, because it is both usual and necessary to make improvements to the article in order to answer the AfD outright, and to base those changes on discussion at AfD, not at the article's talk page during exigent circumstances (during AfD, there actually is a deadline), and because the addition of explicit inclusion criteria are supported by WP:LIST#Lead_section_or_paragraph. Further, this AfD discussion was heading down "there have been no improvements to the article", while not discussing the concrete proposed improvements suggested by myself and others. It was time to add the clear, imperative inclusion criteria. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.
--Lexein (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning. My concern - apart from process - is the amount of work being generated. Who's going to do it? We can't even get anyone to reformat the article in a Misconception-Fact format. I don't agree that it's merely a copy-n-paste operation. We're talking dozens of articles. What happens if there's a content dispute? Look at how contentious (although civil) the AfD debate is. What happens if we have to go through the same debate at each of the topic articles? Obviously, I hope I'm wrong but you may be opening pandora's box.
I'm not sure if here's any urgency. Those favoring deletion have yet to articulate a single valid reason for deletion. Hopefully, the closing admin will realize this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for shortcutting the BRD, but it's AfD, and I guess I feel pretty strongly about advancing changes, and I don't think it should have been reverted out under these circumstances. As for the work entailed, I'll be doing some of it - I'm not a "you do it" editor. As for the potential amount of work, let me refer to the glass example again, in the sense that it completely satisfies all the proposed criteria, and its entry requires no additional work, except (perhaps) a wikilink to Glass#Behavior of antique glass instead of just to Glass. I see your point about some additional work, but we're not writing dozens of articles, just adding (or adapting) a sentence or two, and copy-pasting the refs. It can be gradual. I think many entries already meet the proposed criteria. It would help me if I knew whether you were more in disagreement with the criteria themselves, or the need for them, or the timing, or the (IMO moderate, gradual) extra work. In my opinion, declaring the criteria is as important as getting the most-interested list editors on board. It took many months for List of indie rock musicians to catch up to the goals, so we know it's not a sprint, it's a marathon, with lots of breaks for coffee and cherry pie. Of course, if the consensus among the most-interested and active list editors goes against the proposed new criteria, oh well, them's the breaks. --Lexein (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
My primary concern is the amount of work involved. Nobody is actively working on the article. The last real work on the article was done about a year and half ago when I went in and added sources for all the unsourced items and the items that couldn't be sourced were deleted. Since then, not much has been done beyond drive-by edits, minor maintainance and the occasional addition of an item here and there. For sometime, we've discussed reformatting the article in a Misconception-Fact format, but no one's stepped up to the plate to do the work.
To be honest, I'd love to improve the article to WP:GA or even WP:FA status. Maybe the AfD will attract new blood to the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A_Quest_For_Knowledge/Archive_9&oldid=1182051995"