Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:15, 1 April 2010

The Telegraph: Misplaced Pages, an anti-intellectual venture to its core?

As much as I love Misplaced Pages, it has some serious flaws. The following excerpt from an article published by The Telegraph is spot-on:

"Knowledge is democratic in the sense that no one has the right to claim the last word. Misplaced Pages is democratic in the different and corrosive sense that anyone can join in regardless of competence.

"Every editor’s contribution is of equal value. That is an affront to the notion of disinterested intellectual inquiry. What Misplaced Pages prizes is not greater approximations to truth but a greater degree of consensus.

"That ethos undermines Misplaced Pages in principle as a reference source. There are many Misplaced Pages articles that are scrupulous, balanced and fair treatments of their subjects. But these are liable to be overthrown at any time by an editor with an idée fixe and an empty life.

"The default position of Misplaced Pages is to leave editors to sort it out among themselves. The loudest voices and most obsessive contributors become the arbiters of truth."

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6930560.ece

Talkback

My stats

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

Talkback

WMC deleted this post, so I'm reposting here

I find it highly offensive (not to mention obviously ridiculous) that WMC is making these accusations against me. From what I can gather, WMC has a long history of misconduct going back at least five years Editors with a long history of misconduct shouldn't be allowed to harrass good faith editors whose record is clean. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin (in respect of Climate change probation definitions anyway), I think you need to be more careful in your protests... was a blatant personal attack and very hard to take seriously given WMC is a former bureaucrat with 41,000 edits across a very large number of articles versus your 5163. Made in isolation of bickering on Climate Change these days it would have got you a block. But there was ongoing bickering I have not got the time and energy to go back and work out who started what. I also hate blocks and I don't have the stomach to go through the climate hacking stuff where the two of you started but you certainly are not sitting on the high moral ground in this one, so don't push the claims please. And try to lower the heat without any patronising please. --BozMo talk 20:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe my comment was a personal attack since I was addressing his edits and not him personally. But I'll remove it if you want me to.

As for WMC being a former bureaucrat, my understanding is that he lost his adminship for misconduct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

He did lose his adminship for misuse of tools but your comment was about his contribution. He was elected to both adminship and as a crat on the basis of contribution. You said "WMC is a near-SPA account who's contributions beyond this topic area are minimal" which is far from the mark and cannot be derived from looking at his edits. So looks like it must be motivated as an attack. AFAICT outside Climate change articles he still has more than twice as many edits as you do in total, although the tools to check this are slow and I haven't run a full comparison. I don't care about deleting a past comment as much as I care about not having any more. --BozMo talk 22:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was never a 'crat though, admin was my highest pinnacle William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

BozMo: I don't agree, and I think my comment is a fair and accurate assessment of the situation. Quantity doesn't equal quality, of course, and WMC's edits in this topic space are often in severe violation of WP:NPOV. (Am I allowed to say that?) However, I respect your position as admin and I will try to better and honor your request. But I am unsure of what I am allowed to say and what I'm not allowed to say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

AQFK: you are ignorant of my contributions, clearly. And your allegations of NPOV violations are unsupported as well as wrong. As I believe you've said elsewhere: cease making these unsupported allegations, unless you're prepared to back them up with actual complaints on the noticeboard. In a way, it would be nice to talk about actual substance rather than finger-crooking on talk pages. Are you interested in substance? So far, you don't seem to be William M. Connolley (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I think I'm quite familiar with your contributions for the past three months and my assessment is spot-on. As for actual complaints, I would love to, but I don't know the appropriate venue. As far as I understand how Misplaced Pages operates, admins aren't allowed to settle disputes regarding content. The WP:NPOV violation was brought up at NPOV Noticeboard, and an uninvolved editor agreed that there's a WP:NPOV issue. But the NPOV Noticeboard was ignored. So where am I supposed to file such a complaint? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

AQFK, you have been on Misplaced Pages long enough to know that no one is going to pay much attention to an NPOV judgement by an anon IP but you have also mentioned it before, I suggest you drop it. In general the NPOV noticeboard is good for posting little known areas of Misplaced Pages on which the community may not be focused. A very large number of editors, Arbcom members and admins are aware of the issues around Global Warming and its presentation on Misplaced Pages and so the NPOV noticeboard is not going to help very much. What is and is not NPOV is also a kind of POV, but if you think there is an NPOV issue on a prominent page raise it on talk and see if there is a consensus there. On the prominent central parts of Misplaced Pages, NPOV is de facto established by discussion/negotation on the talk page between the various POVs. Or, if you think a neutral point of view, as you see it, can never be achieved on those pages, move elsewhere for your own sanity: personally I have retreated for example from articles on cosmetic mutiliation surgery such as Breast implants in the USA because I don't think Misplaced Pages can ever give a NPOV on those issues. --BozMo talk 15:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. It doesn't appear as if the community is able to deal with the problem effectively. I withdraw myself from the proceedings. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pentagon shooter was 9/11 conspiracy theorist

John Patrick Bedell, the guy who just tried to attack the Pentagon, was a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and apparently a Misplaced Pages editor. He created the article September 11 demolitions which was later merged/redirected with our World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories article which I have worked on extensively. His account has now been blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

More info from CBS News: John Patrick Bedell: Rants on Misplaced Pages and YouTube May Have Foreshadowed Breakdown A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hols?

Your holiday from GW doesn't seem to have lasted William M. Connolley (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You should have supported my request for a 6 month topic ban. Then you wouldn't have to deal with me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

List of POV disputes at Climategate article

• Work toward the removal of the POV tag.

• Nature of how e-mails were accessed. Hack, insider, etc

Current discussions:

Past discussions:

• Should timeline be expanded?

Current discussions:

Past discussions:

• Viewpoints from other scientists about scientific integrity

Current discussions:

Past discussions:

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment

You're a good editor overall but your persistent "I'm neutral and they're all biased" refrain gets a bit old. Everyone has their biases, including you and me. You might find people more accepting of your arguments if you backed off from that approach. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, duly noted. Was there a particular recent post that you found problematic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No particular examples from me, but I could if required assemble a huge amount of evidence that you believe Team Science to be pushing a point of view that is at variance with the actual state of the science, to which you apparently believe yourself to be privy. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't edit any articles on the science of climate change, so I wouldn't know. I do know, however, that on our Climategate article, the so-called pro-science editors are pushing the fringe theory that the controversy is about the hacking incident. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't care much for fringe theories but they are an ongoing problem here at Misplaced Pages. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm not intelligent

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of us who watch your talk page, to whom comments like this are presumably addressed, sometimes need a little more context than you provide here. You sound miffed by a statement that is neither about you nor directed at you, and you seem to infer that someone says you're dim. Could you provide the missing context? Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I was just blowing off steam. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Article title

We have an awful lot of very bright people wasting their brain power on a very stupid problem. Just saying. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not stupid. Cognitive bias is an important topic. The problem is that the article naming policy needs to be rewritten to handle it. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I realize that it's important to Misplaced Pages, but when tell my real-life friends that we spent 4 months arguing over the title and still can't come to a decision, they think we're crazy. In the grand scheme of things, when we look back on our lives, I doubt if any of us will say that we wish we had spent more time arguing on Misplaced Pages. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Four months is small potatoes; How long has the U.S. been arguing over health care? Granted, this isn't like the Martians discussing issues in Stranger in a Strange Land, but things take time. The point is to carefully weigh the facts and make a good decision. In case you haven't figured it out by now, Misplaced Pages is a microcosm of the real world. The major difference of course, is that the site attracts a fairly unrepresentative sample of people, and manages to drive away those who don't "fit" this narrow demographic. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't take 4 months. This is an article that should be written in 4 days. As time goes on, Misplaced Pages will become more conservative and I hope that we will eventually have content moderators or some system in force to setting these types of disputes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following you. You are obviously aware that due to recentism and current events, the article was constantly changing up until last month. Please also keep in mind there is no deadline. Four months seems reasonable given this scenario, and throw in the multiple accounts showing up on a daily basis to post "me toos" and you've got a situation. Concepts like content moderation and "conservatism" are generally ideas related to the old media. Try to start thinking differently; Remember, if you've got a car, you aren't going to need a buggy and a whip; And, if you've got a train or a plane, you won't need a road. In order for this place to work effectively, we need to change the way we think about it, and that's very hard to do. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's gone to ArbCom again!

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The best Misplaced Pages tool you've never heard of

For almost a year (or so), I've been working on a Reliable Sources Search Engine. As a regular contributor to the Reliable sources search noticeboard, I think that I have a fairly decent understanding of WP:V and WP:RS. Further, I've been frustrated by the many number of unreliable sources that are brought to this board's attention. So, I've compiled a list of sources which, generally speaking, are routinely found to be reliable per Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. This search engine currently encompasses nearly 600 different Web sites.

Unfortunately, for some reason, Misplaced Pages software blocks custom search engines. This is a shame, because it would help us greatly in advancing the project. In any case, the link to the main search page is here: 'http://www.google .com/cse/home?cx=010426977372765398405:3xxsh-e1cp8&hl=en. Please note that I put a space in the URL between google and .com. Just remove it and then bookmark the page.

• If you find any sources that are unreliable that are included in the search results, please bring it to my attention.
• If you find any sources that are reliable that aren't included in the search results, please bring it to my attention.

Believe me, I do understand how absurd it might seem at first to create a Reliable Sources Search Engine but it actually works quite better than you might think. Please try it out! Bookmark the homepage. It works far better than even I expected. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your hard work re: Climategate. I have tried to do my best to explain things, and I think you and I probably see 99% eye to eye on WP:NPOV and its implications for article titles, but I realize that others have a very different interpretation. Thanks for always pretty much always keeping your cool... heaven knows its easy for someone to be discredited if they go for the bait so often offered up by editors whom I will decline to name. I don't really have a larger point, I just wanted to express my appreciation for your hard work. I am hoping that we will have another RfC on the name issue as soon as a decision regarding the incubator article is made. It would be nice to attract more involvement from the rest of the community. I definitely think long-term there should be some work done on WP:NPOV that establishes metrics for judging commonality and usage for non-neutral terms in article titles. Anyways, I guess I am famous for my long posts so I will quit here. Cordially, Moogwrench (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Moog. I appreciate it. My reply will be short since I don't have anything to argue about. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV != neutral (layman's definition)

In so far as I understand policy, WP:NPOV says that editors should be neutral and articles should be biased in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Some Bullshit Happening Somewhere

The Onion isn't as funny as it used to be but this one's pretty good. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my older kid sent me that one. Also try turning the sound off and reading the crawl at the bottom. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even notice there was a crawl! Yes, there are some good ones. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Beer Production Threatened By Climate Change

The title speaks for itself. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

1rr violation

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident is on a 1rr probation. Your reverts here at 13:16, 18 March 2010 and here at 02:25, 18 March 2010 appear to be in violation of this. I'm not going to report you because angling for a block of ideological opponents is weak, but be aware that others are less interested in comity than I am. Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are mistaken. The edit you listed second (although chronologically it happened first) is not a revert as I understand Misplaced Pages's rules. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the first edit is only revert I've made in at least a week, probably longer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The second edit reverts this. Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The restoration of the dispute tag is without doubt a revert, though I think H has the wrong one. It repeats this for example, and probably many others William M. Connolley (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are mistaken. Not all edits are considered reverts. As I understand it, "revert" means to reverse a previous edit. The POV title dispute tag was replaced by another tag saying that the article's title was being discussed and then someone else said that this second tag only applied to talk pages and that's why it was removed. It wasn't removed because someone disagreed with it. It was removed because someone used a tag for the talk page instead of the article page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, sir, that is not true. The tag was removed by Viriditas on purpose here, and by WMC here. If you are certain you did not break 1rr, please ask me to report you and I will do so - but I assure you that you did. Hipocrite (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that means someone else reverted it. The edit I changed is this one.. Like I said, it was removed not because someone disagreed with it, but because they had (apparently) used a tag meant for the talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

H: he isn't listening. You'll have to report him William M. Connolley (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Sir, you restored the tag that two others removed. That an entirely different tag was removed by another editor for another reason does not mean that your reversion of others edits was not a revert. Again, if you are certain you are correct (as opposed to just unwilling to be corrected,) then on request I will report your violation for outside attention. Hipocrite (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not certain. My edits are based on my understanding of policy. Anyway, I can't revert the second edit even if I wanted to. but I can revert the first edit if you want. Will that resolve the situation to your satisfaction? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend to report anyone for anything. I was merely bringing it to your attention. Hipocrite (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In an effort to show good faith and resolve the situation, I've self-reverted the first edit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming Skeptics Growing In Numbers

According to America's Finest News Source, since 2008, the number of people who don't believe in global warming has doubled to 16 percent. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

List of reliable sources which use the term "Climategate"

I've created the following page in my user space. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the time I created the page, I've added another 14 reliable sources which use the term "Climategate". Everyone is free to add additional reliable sources but everyone's on a 1RR except for me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Plus, an additional 10 more reliable sources which use the term "Climategate". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to do this right, you need to count both the positives and the negatives. How many sources don't use the term? Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Spelling flame

How lame. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"So called Kristallnacht"

I was just watching a World War II documentary on the Military Channel. They used the phrase "so-called Kristallnacht". I guess that means we have to rename our Kristallnacht article, right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

German broken glass incident? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT noted. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think pointing out the stupidity of "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" in a joke on ones own talk page is the same thing as editing article content, then I suggest you file a complaint against me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What is similar between "Kristallnacht" and "Climategate"? How is adding the "gate" suffix helpful to an encyclopedia? Should we just turn over the keys to Faux News and let them write articles? You'd be happy with that? Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Try reading my opening comment. What's similar is the "so called" verbiage used by reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

List of articles whose titles express a POV

There's a common misconception among Misplaced Pages editors that we can't use "Climategate" as an article title because it expresses a point of view. This belief betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of what WP:NPOV actually means. WP:NPOV is about editorial neutrality. If the world adopts a name for a topic that expresses a POV, it's against WP:NPOV to not use it. In fact, WP:NPOV specifically cites Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper as examples of legitimate article titles. As I examined the issue, I found several other examples of legitimate article titles which express a POV. In an effort to keep track of them all in one place, I've created a list of articles whose titles express a POV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Corrupt Bargain

One of the objections to using "Climategate" as an article title is that reliable sources sometimes used the term in quotes. Well, the following reliable sources all use the term "Corrupt Bargain" in quotes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Entomology at CRU talk

I almost changed this for you since somebody's sure to ridicule you over a simple mistake anyone could make, but decided to just alert you here. I think you meant "etymology." Best, Yopienso (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Spelling flames are lame anyway. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole talk page is so lame I wouldn't believe it if I weren't experiencing it. I think I'll quit trying to help the article represent reality because the controlling editors have no intention of permitting it to. Have a great day. Yopienso (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Everyone knows what's going on, but Misplaced Pages's rules prevent you from stating it, even if it's perfectly obvious. Have a good day, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm concluding this quibble isn't as important to me, to Misplaced Pages, or to the public I think we're supposed to be serving as that talk page would indicate. Anybody who cares about the incident has a multitude of resources to consult. My problem is that I have a real sticking point with deliberate misrepresentation. The rules, btw, usually impress me with their wisdom; it's the lawyerly application of them that perverts their intent. You said it so well: "LOL." :D Best, Yopienso (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Your even-handed observations in RS/N talk earlier today were welcome, laudable and, I believe, determinative. While our opinions might differ, I think you did well by the Wiki process and I just wanted to tell you so. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(Some) Scientists are lame, or Peer-reviewed academic journal using VB-DOS

VB-DOS has a special place in my heart as it was one of my first programming languages. I was doing a Google search to see if I could find enough online reliable sources to support creating an article for it, and I happened to stumble across this. It appears to be a peer-reviewed academic journal; the paper is about aggression in mice. As software developer, here's the part I found interesting:

"The apparatus was controlled by custom software written in Microsoft Visual Basic for DOS Version 1.0© and run on a personal computer."

VB-DOS!? Are they serious? The paper was written in 2008. Wow. I remember once talking to Microsoft support and they denied ever making such a product and there was a bug in the IDE that was so severe, if you exceeded a certain limit of code, it would delete your source code. I found myself having to delete documentation to keep it from removing executable code. Oh well, I was able to create a nice gaming utility with it.

Anyway, this post is probably of no interest to anyone who reads my talk page, so if you got this far, have a good weekend. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

How to write biased articles - A tutorial

Given the following article, Inquiry: Climate data not manipulated, I've written two paragraphs. Both paragraphs follow WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS yet are completely in violation of WP:NPOV:

Version 1

The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has criticized the way Phil Jones and his colleagues handled freedom of information requests, explaining that scientists were stonewalling their critics. Phil Willis, the committee's chairman, said of the e-mails that "there's no denying that some of them were pretty appalling." Willis told reporters that "the culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change skeptics, we felt was reprehensible." One e-mail that attracted particular media attention was Jones' reference to a "trick" used to "hide the decline" of temperatures. The e-mails' publication ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit sparked a furor, with skeptics of manmade climate change calling the e-mails' publication "Climategate" and citing them as proof that the science behind global warming had been exaggerated or even made up altogether. The lawmakers said they decided to investigate due to "the serious implications for U.K. science." In a briefing to journalists ahead of the report's release, Willis said the controversy would ultimately force the University East Anglia and other research institutions to stop hoarding their data. The committee said that climate scientists had to be much more open in future by publishing all their data, including raw data and the software programs used to interpret them, to the Internet. "Governments across the world are spending trillions of pounds, or trillions of dollars, on mitigating climate change. The science has got to be irreproachable," Willis said.

Version 2

The first of several British investigations into the e-mails stolen from one of the world's leading climate research centers has vindicated the scientists involved. The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said they had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming. In their report released Wednesday, the committee said that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," explaining that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity." The committee found the idea that Jones was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that weakened the case for global warming was clearly wrong. "The winner in the end will be climate science itself," he said. The winner on Wednesday was Jones. The committee expressed sympathy with Jones, whom Willis said had been made a scapegoat and that the focus on Professor Jones and the CRU has been misplaced. "Governments across the world are spending trillions of pounds, or trillions of dollars, on mitigating climate change. The science has got to be irreproachable," Willis said.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

1RR

Climatic Research Unit email controversy is under 1RR parole. followed by break that. Please self-revert William M. Connolley (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The first edit is a revert. The second isn't unless someone else had used the term "short". Please show me a diff where someone had made this same change and I'll self-revert. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverting includes removing stuff that other people added. Which you clearly did William M. Connolley (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand the rules, reverting means reversing an article to a previous state. If you can't show me a diff where this wording was already in the article, there is no 1RR violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I tried. Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#A_Quest_For_Knowledge William M. Connolley (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)