Misplaced Pages

User talk:A Quest For Knowledge: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:39, 27 September 2010 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 31d) to User talk:A Quest For Knowledge/Archive 8.← Previous edit Revision as of 18:56, 2 October 2010 edit undoScjessey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,021 edits →Injured bird outside my door: - sarcasm to lighten the moodNext edit →
Line 503: Line 503:
{{Outdent}}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 ]. They had me fill out a card which they will send back to let me know what happens with the bird. ] (]) 21:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC) {{Outdent}}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 ]. They had me fill out a card which they will send back to let me know what happens with the bird. ] (]) 21:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:Hopefully that will bring good karma. :) ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC) :Hopefully that will bring good karma. :) ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 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. -- ] (]) 18:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:56, 2 October 2010

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.

My stats

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

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.

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.

Re: IMDB discussion

Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. You have new messages at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notes to myself about Jennie Finch article

Extended content

According to Richard Deitsch, softball eliminated from the Olympic games by a single vote.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/richard_deitsch/10/26/the.rant/

"It's a slap in our faces, boom it's gone," Finch said.

"You don't know who to blame, you don't know what to blame but it's on our watch and its failure, it's a loss.

"We take it personally because it is our lives and the future of our sport. We do take the blame, each and every one of us. What more could we have done?"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/25/2314517.htm?site=olympics/2008/athletes

Dropped from the roster along with baseball by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 2005, softball may be stepping up to the plate for the final time in Beijing.

"We're going to do everything we can to prove that we belong in the Olympics and we plan to use Beijing as a platform to do this," said U.S. pitcher Jennie Finch.

"In the U.S. millions of girls have the option of getting a scholarship and playing in college.

"But in other countries the Olympics is the only place to pursue their dream. We want to continue that dream for the young girls in Croatia or China - that's what it's all about."

While softball's Olympic future is confused, on the field the outcome is less in doubt. The U.S. are poised to continue their domination on the diamond by capturing a fourth consecutive gold medal.

Since softball was introduced at the 1996 Atlanta Summer Games, only the U.S. has stood on top of the podium, posting an Olympic record of 24-4.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/2480105/Beijing-Softball-Off-pitch-battle-more-important-than-fight-for-medals.html

"It's a slap in our faces, boom it's gone," Finch said.

"You don't know who to blame, you don't know what to blame but it's on our watch and its failure, it's a loss.

"We take it personally because it is our lives and the future of our sport. We do take the blame, each and everyone of us - what more could we have done?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/2480242/Beijing-Softball-Jennie-Finch-fights-to-save-her-sport.html

Picking up where they left off in the Athens Games, the U.S. team started its bid for a fourth straight gold medal with an 11-0 rout of Venezuela on Tuesday that set an Olympic record for runs scored in a game.

Jennie Finch pitched four no-hit innings and Caitlin Lowe hit an inside-the-park homer as the U.S. won its 15th straight Olympic game and dispatched the Venezuelans in five innings due to the run-difference rule. Andrea Duran drove in three runs, and Natasha Watley contributed a two-run homer.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/olympics/2008109556_olysoftball13.html

They were so overwhelming at Athens in 2004 – winning nine consecutive games by a combined score of 51-1 – that their reward from the International Olympic Committee was getting the entire sport booted out of the lineup for the 2012 Games in London.

Now, they’re back for one last overwhelming whirl around the dance floor as a send-off before taking up the game of politics to get softball reinstated onto the Olympic roster.

“That is definitely in the back of our minds. It’s the ultimate goal, getting softball put back into the lineup for 2016,” said starting pitcher Jennie Finch, who threw four no-hit innings as the Americans opened the tournament with an 11-0 win over Venezuela.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/5938064.html

Already voted out of the 2012 London Games along with baseball, women's softball is trying to get itself reinstated for 2016, with a critical International Olympic Committee vote coming in February. At a time when her own athletic future is unclear -- she says she wants to have more kids, for one thing -- she remains a crusader for softball's reinstatement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/12/AR2008081200956_2.html

The face of an entire sport, the pretty one on all the magazine covers, was a mess. Jennie Finch stood on the medal stand, silver around her neck — yes, a silver for softball. She was shocked, down, wiping away tears. Before today, the U.S. had won all three Olympic golds in softball. The U.S. owned softball, winning 22 straight games in the Olympics. Now, on top of losing, softball may be gone for good: the International Olympic Committee purged it from the 2012 Olympic program three years ago.

What was rushing though her mind? "So many things," Finch says, leaning against a fence outside the Fengtai Softball Stadium, teammates and their families consoling each other behind her. Some of her comrades had already talked about no regrets, giving their all, 110%, a cadre of painful clichés. But about two hours after the game, the most famous softball player in history was ready to share the true pain.

"You know, I feel like we let USA softball down," she says. "Many women have worn this uniform, and accepted nothing but gold. So many thoughts. What more could I have done? And then, can this be the last time that softball players stand on the podium at the Olympic games? The unknown of our sport, all those young girls watching us, and all the many people who've supported me. I haven't seen my son in a month and a half, I can't wait to see his little face when I get home . . . so many things."

"It deserves to be an Olympic sport," she said. "I don't know if these games are going to matter, but it will help to spread the word prove to the IOC we belong here."

After the game, Finch, 27, makes one more pitch. "Over 140 countries play this game," she says. "You know, you don't have to be six-four You don't have to be 200 pounds. We have all different shapes and sizes. The sport tests so many athletic abilities, from hand-eye coordination, to speed, to agility, to quickness. We're finally at the pinnacle, we've finally been established. Please don't take this away."

Even before the game, Finch's mind was muddled. "We've fought it, we've fought it, we've fought it for so long," she says of softball's inevitable Olympic extinction. "But on the drive up, knowing this could be it, you can't fight it anymore." She never got a chance to fight for the gold. Candrea started lefty Cat Osterman to match up against Japan, which had seven southpaws in the starting lineup. Was Finch disappointed? "I would be lying if I said no," says Finch, before quickly adding that she supports Candrea. She won't go Solo on us. "As a pitcher, I think we all want the ball in our hands."

She didn't throw, but the loss still stings. Plus, Finch is feeling guilty about U.S. softball's demise. Really? Finch, who has spent more time promoting her sport than anyone on the planet? She blames herself for some of this mess? "I do," she says. "I hold that responsibility. Being an Olympic softball player, what more can I do? Lisa Fernandez, Dot Richardson, the many greats, they've done so much, and now it's our turn. And what did we do with the torch? So yeah, you do feel let down. Those many girls, they don't look to the International Olympic Committee. They look to us."

And they won't find her at the Olympics anymore.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1834867,00.html#ixzz0wXH3bR7P

Losing for the first time since 2000, the U.S. softball team was denied a chance for a fourth straight gold medal Thursday, beaten 3-1 by Japan in the sport's last appearance in the Olympics for at least eight years -- and maybe for good.

Andrea Duran, Jennie Finch and Caitlin Lowe receive their silver medals after a 3-1 loss to Japan during the women's gold-medal softball game.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121932673343060299.html?mod=rss_Beijing_Olympics

BEIJING, China --

The U.S. women’s softball team struggled to find a silver lining to the silver medal earned Thursday night in Beijing, especially since this was the last year of Olympic softball. One theory as to why the sport was voted out of the 2012 Olympics — that team U.S.A. has been too dominant, almost never losing.

Ironic now, as Japan ended up celebrating the 2008 gold.

“How are you feeling this morning?” Access Hollywood’s Shaun Robinson asked the team on Friday. “I know it was a devastating loss for you ladies.”

“Wearing this uniform, you’re used to winning,” star pitcher Jennie Finch responded. “That’s why — that’s why we did it. But you know in the end, yes, we have a silver medal and a lot of people would dream about that.”

http://www.accesshollywood.com/u-s-womens-softball-finds-unity-in-loss-to-japan_article_10971

In 2008 in the lead up to the Olympics, the U.S. embarked on the Bound 4 Beijing Tour -- 46 stops over several months aimed at bringing the teammates closer together and fine-tuning their play. They zig-zagged across the country and Jennie took Ace on the road with her for most of it. She was, as ever, supported by her family throughout the tour. Her parents and Casey’s, as well as aunts and cousins and in-laws came along for different stretches to help out with Ace. It was a bittersweet time for teammates who had played together so long, knowing that a decision was pending with the International Olympic Committee about whether or not the sport they loved would continue as part of the Olympics. This could be their last Olympics together. Jennie and her teammates took every opportunity to lobby the public and powers-that-be for support. The trip to Beijing was a mix of familiar and new, and Ace and Casey stayed up late every night to watch from home. The faces that were so familiar to Ace – BooBoo (Crystal Bustos) and others – were on TV! But the long road ultimately ended up with a heartbreaking loss, first in the Olympics to Japan in the final game, and then with the vote to eliminate softball from future Olympics.

http://www.jenniefinch.com/static_pages/bio/3

Opinion

Those aren't blogs, they are opinions by notable figures. Please consult the wp:NPOV policy and stop disrupting the editing process by misrepresenting what is and isn't a BLP violation. Every book represents the author's opinion. The only argument you might have is the notability of the criticisms, but since they are numerous they should at least be linked to even if they aren't detailed. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to see a clear BLP violation you should check William Dembski where editors strongly opposed to his viewpoints are removing information on his career cited to Time magazine. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you can't use blogs as sources of information for contentious material in a BLP. This has been discussed at the WP:BLPN. You've only just come off your last block today and apparently, you've decided to immediately resume your disruptive behavior. If you persist in this behavior, I will seek to have your block re-instated. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Note to my talk page lurkers, the above editor has been blocked for edit-warring on an unrelated article and may also be a sockpuppet of a banned user. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Freakshownerd has been blocked indefinitely as a confirmed sockpuppet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bernard Foing

The article Bernard Foing you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Bernard Foing for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Jezhotwells: Thank you for taking the time to review my article. As time permits, I will attempt to address the issues you've outlined. I don't think, however, I will be able to address the breadth of its coverage. There just doesn't seem to be enough information about this guy to do a real biography. I just tried to make do with what I had to work with. I'm not sure if you put my talk page on your watchlist so please respond if only to acknowledge you read my reply. Thanks A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey

I'm not sure how familiar you are with him, but do you think it might be worth proposing a sanction for Scjessey for baiting, personal attacks and the like? I've got some diffs from the past 24 hours and some others going back a ways, but by itself it isn't enough, and I don't really have the time to look up a lot of them. If you have a few from between a day ago and a week ago, I think we may have something here. Even the PD talk page has some examples. I think we might have a real good opportunity to help ArbCom consider another editor here. Please tell me what you think and whether you can help. I'm asking a few editors, and if you could reply on my talk page, I'd appreciate it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Related

I just wanted to say something to you about the diffs you presented here. Although I don't think the diffs support your "incivility, failure to assume good faith and promotion of battleground atmosphere" charge, I will say it is refreshing to have somebody present evidence unsullied by "color commentary". You rightly let the diffs speak for themselves, even if different people are likely to hear them say different things. Kudos to you for that. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Loose Change (film)/GA1

I had some extra time earlier and I decided to help out with the GAN backlog. One of them, Loose Change (film), appears to be closer to your expertise, given your contribution history. I wonder, if you can find the time to add a second opinion or point out any glaring issues. Or, just add comments to the review. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas: Yes, I saw yesterday that you were going to tackle this one. Honestly, I'm not sure how much benefit I will be since my interest is more to keep the 9/11 conspiracy theorists from going overboard in promoting their theories, but I'll have a look. The article has been the subject of several edit wars and I fear that making changes (even good ones) will trigger new edit wars. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You could always propose changes on the review page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Viriditas: Which section of the review page? Should I create a new section at the bottom of the page? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You could, or you could just add comments to the sections. Totally up to you, and it doesn't really matter. One thing that I am concerned about is the use of sources. If you see any that are unreliable, please make mention of it. Viriditas (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and reviewing the sources. I'm not sure if adding maintenance tags is the best approach during a GA review, as that gives the impression that the article should have been quick failed. Instead, could you just remove the offensive material and place it on talk with a brief note? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be away from my computer for most of the day. If you want, feel free to do it yourself as I probably won't get a chance to look at the article until tonight or tomorrow. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I moved the content to the talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I know it is difficult, but edit warring during a GA review is not helpful, no matter who started it. Instead of automatically reaching for the undo button, try to be patient and use the talk page to engage editors more often. You were bold and RoyBoy reverted per WP:BRD. You're supposed to take it to discussion and work towards agreement. Anyway, thanks for lending a helping hand. One thing that would help is if you could, in a very small paragraph, say what you like and dislike about the article, and express what would, in your opinion, "break the deal" in terms of bringing it to GA. I'm asking you this, because I think your opinion is important on this topic, but I would appreciate a little more patience on your end, and an effort towards harmonious editing with RoyBoy. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Keeping my sarcasm to myself

Thank you for your extremely well-thought out and detailed explanation as to why this is wrong. Faced with such overwhelming arguments, I hope the editor will quickly see the error of their ways and apologize profusely. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking says answer to Life, the Universe and Everything isn't 42

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your bogus warning.

The verifiable regret that Virginia Heffernan expressed needs mentioning if her recommendation is to be included at all. Anything else is a clear WP:BLP violation. Do not post tendetious and brain-dead noticed on my talkpage again. In fact, never post to my talk page ever again. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's extremely sad that instead of acknowledging your mistake, you make false accusations against your fellow editors. In any case, if you continue to add contentious WP:BLP material without even bothering to cite your sources, I will have you blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
You're the one making the mistake by trying to remove the verifiable statement of regret that Heffernan made about her recommendation. If you continue to defame Heffernan in this way, I will have you blocked. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Posting nonsense just digs you deeper in the hole. I am filing an RfE against you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Good luck. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you please add some diffs to support your contention that I'm trying to defame Virginia Heffernan? Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW, this is completely off topic, but Virginia Heffernan is a cutie! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

. I don't know whether you knew that this was how it was connected. The Twitter post was made on July 31 at 2:18 am. I'm on break from Misplaced Pages for the next eight days, so may not be around much. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist: I've been on Misplaced Pages for a year and a half and I believe that this is the first time anyone's accused me of vandalism. Please see Jumping the shark. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Banned from my talkpage

You are banned from my talkpage. Never post there again. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Pound of flesh

If you are not after a pound of flesh, then stop behaving as if you are. Your lobbing for sanctions on ChrisO is unlikely to shed any light on the matter; it is only intensifying the dispute. I've noted this at User talk:Dougweller. Jehochman 13:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I will not stop lobbying for sanctions against editors who are repeatedly being disruptive. I've made no secret that I believe that editors who are more interested in advocacy than writing legitimate encyclopedic content should be shown the door. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Your opinions are clear, there's no need to keep repeating them on the discussion page, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop. However, because I had to fix a problem caused by an erroneous request, NYB's comments on this at the decision page have been temporarily removed. When they are back you're welcome to comment on them - but try to make sure your full opinion is given in that comment. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't appreciate MastCell's comment that I am out for a "pound of flesh" when it's clear that I simply want to end the disruption. Rather than complain to me, perhaps you should talk to MastCell about his (perhaps unintentionally) inflammatory comment? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree. MastCell's comment is highly inappropriate. It's not exactly behavior that should be modeled. ++Lar: t/c 16:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your participation in the CC case

Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. You have new messages at Kirill Lokshin's talk page.
Message added 23:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question about your revert

Hi, so I'm pretty new to wikipedia as you may know, in spite of what marknutley may think about me. I left a comment for discussion regarding the use of leading re: Nature in the Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation and haven't seem to have gotten a response in the talk page there (in spite of it sitting there for a week). You say 'cited source does not say "leading"'. Well of course not, since it's the editorial itself and there's been no other reliable source mention of the editorial as far as I know. But the wikipedia article on Nature states it is the most cited journal (including a citation), which is by definition the leading journal. So, is it WP:Syn to add synonyms for adjectives that are available in hyperlinked wiki articles? "Leading" and "most cited" convey the same message, but the former is more understandable to a broad audience. I'm willing to give it a rest if someone will answer my questions rather than simply reverting me.....Sailsbystars (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, for a newbie, you seemed to have grasped Misplaced Pages policies quite quickly. But I don't know enough about Ratel to say that you are a sock puppet of his. But I will assume good faith and answer your question: Yes, it seems like WP:SYN for you to connect these two sources, but the reason I cited was that your edit failed verification. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I will drop the issue, I found a reliable secondary source (and cited it) and it did not use the word leading. At some point the article should probably be rewritten to rely on more secondary sources rather than primary sources. I'm copying this comment to the article talk page. Sailsbystars (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The silly things people argue about on Misplaced Pages

The discussion on whether to include an image is orders of magnitude longer than the actual article, Gokkun, which currently clocks in at 3 sentences and probably should be nominated for deletion. It's now at ANI so I assume the discussion will get even longer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit! The article is 6 years old! That's a new sentence every two years! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Every one in a while, my work here is appreciated

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I admit that I was wrong

Out of all the candidates at the most recent ArbCom election, Jehochman was the only one I voted for. Because of Jehochman's work on the 9/11 conspiracy theories articles, he was one of the few admins whom I had gained to trust. I am very disappointed and disillusioned to learn that I was wrong. Jehochman's comments and actions as an admin in the climate change namespace are extremely suspect and reveal a disregard of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I am very sorry for having supported Jehochman. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate change alarmism Edit-war Timeline

  • 13:48, September 7, 2010: PCHS-NJROTC adds "/and/or ".
  • 13:49, September 7, 2010 Torchiest adds "or both".
  • 23:01, September 7, 2010: Guettarda adds "citation needed" tag.
  • 23:15, September 7, 2010: Cla68 adds source (Deseret News).
  • 23:35, September 7, 2010: Cla68 adds second source (Irish Independent).
  • 00:14, September 8, 2010: Guerttarda adds "{notinsource}" tags to both of Cla68's sources.
  • 09:17, September 8, 2010: WMC removes "global cooling", both sources and "{notinsource}" tags.
  • 14:51, September 8, 2010: GregJackP restores "global cooling" and adds two new sources, WMC's paper and Time magazine.
  • 15:22, September 8, 2010: WMC reverts GregJackP with explanation "rv: great ref, shame you're abusing it. i should know, since i wrote it".
  • 16:31, September 8, 2010: GregJackP adds new content to Views of scientists section.
  • 16:43, September 8, 2010: WMC reverts GregJackP with explanation "rv. err no, just like it says on talk".
  • 6:45, September 8, 2010: Wikispan reverts GregJackPs addition to Views of scientists section with explantion "Enough concern on talk for this to be pulled".
  • 18:24, September 8, 2010: Cla68 restores "global cooling" and Irish Independent and adds two new sources, The Hindu and Jerusalem Post.
  • 18:36, September 8, 2010: Cla68 adds new source, Sunday Times.
  • 18:53, September 8, 2010: Cla68 adds fifth source, National Post.
  • 18:56, September 8, 2010: Cla68 adds "or those commenting on the global cooling scare of the 1970s." to end of paragraph.
  • 20:01, September 8, 2010: Cla68 adds content from lede to body of article, citing the same 5 sources.
  • 20:52, September 8, 2010: Cla68 restores WMC's paper as source.
  • 22:14, September 8, 2010: Count Iblis rewords lede with edit summary "Perhaps this is better way to include "global cooling" in the lead".
  • 23:18, September 8, 2010: Cla68 rewords lede with edit summary "fix the wording since it isn't only skeptics making the comparison".
  • 23:19, September 8, 2010: Cla68 adds "currently" to lede.
  • 23:40, September 8, 2010: Cla68 adds "global warming. For example, Stephen Schneider has been called an alarmist in relation to both global cooling and" to Alarmism as a pejorative section.
  • 23:59, September 8, 2010: Tillman edit with summary "CE for clarity, ref format for links)"
  • 00:12, September 9, 2010: Wikitipius adds "and global cooling" to lede.
  • 00:17, September 9, 2010: Wikitipius adds new source (Science Mag) for above edit.
  • 01:05, September 9, 2010: Tillman adds "according to Kerry Emanuel."
  • 02:38, September 9, 2010: WMC reverts several changes (including Tillman's) with edit summary "misc socks back to CI".
  • 08:06, September 9, 2010: Prolog protects article for "Excessive sock puppetry".

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

New Proposed Finding of Fact: Scjessey has been uncivil, failed to assume good faith, promoted a battleground atmosphere and made personal attacks

Scjessey (talk · contribs) has been uncivil, failed to assume good faith, promoted a battleground atmosphere and made personal attacks both before

and during this case.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, taking longer than I thought. I'll have to get to it a little later. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I wasn't going to post it until tomorrow anyway. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Noted.  Roger Davies 09:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Roger Davies has already put up a proposed finding for Scjessey on the PD page. I don't think our help is needed with it any more, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. We don't have a remedy, so it'll obviously be worth monitoring further. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I take my hat off to you

for your indefatigable energy, and I'm sorry we are quite on the same page on this issue, but I think, unless my memory is even worse than I think, that an investigation will turn up thin gruel. Additional apologies for not coming up with a witty hat reference, but it was the only thing I could come up with. (If you find three examples of abuse, you can call it Tony's hat trick—OK I'll quit now.)--SPhilbrickT 14:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping someone else would wear my hat and find the diffs. Maybe I should have offered free hats? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW, don't use such big words. I hate having to look up things in the dictionary. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

New Proposed Finding of Fact: Tony Sidaway has repeatedly hatted discussions preventing editors from engaging in good faith discussions

  • Shamelessly closes down discussion because consensus was changing: "headed in the opposite direction from consensus". Jeez, we can't have that now can we? Closes down discussion.
  • Closes down discussion, ironically telling editors to seek consensus. Riddle me this: How the are editors supposed to change consensus if they can't discuss it?
  • Closes down yet another discussion.
  • Editor finally stands up Tony Sidaway's bullying: "stop this Tony. you don't close things as "unproductive" just because you disagree with them".
  • Closes down yet another discussion. Attempts to divert discussion to subpage where most people won't see or have on their watch list.
  • Closes down yet another discussion. SPhillbrick tries to make a valid point on how to diffuse the editing atmosphere by using less offensive terms. Tony, who gives you the right to decide which points are valid and which aren't? SPhillbrick was making an honest attempt to improve the editing atmosphere.
  • Closes down yet another discussion.
  • Closes down yet another discussion. Says it was discussed last year.
  • I finally have the courage to stand-up to Tony: "We're supposed to *discuss* things here, Tony."
A few more I'm not currently planning to submit as evidence. Except for one, I did not participate in any of these discussions and have no knowledge of their context.
  • Closes down discussion at Baraminology.
  • Closes down discussion at Keith Olbermann.
  • Closes down discussion at Global warming.
  • Closes down discussion at Global warming.
  • Closes down discussion at Global warming.
  • Closes down discussion at Global warming. I think that's 3 in one day.
  • Closes down discussion at Requests for enforcement.
  • Closes down discussion at Global warming.
  • Closes down discussion at Global warming.
  • Closes down discussion at Global warming. I think that's 3 in one day.
  • Closes down discussion at Global warming.
  • Closes down discussion at Global warming.
  • Closes down discussion at AN\I between me and WMC about that latter's claim that BBC News isn't a reliable source. Also, this is the thread where WMC implies I am lying about being a published author.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The words "headed in the opposite direction from consensus" means that consensus was unlikely to form. It doesn't refer to a pre-existing consensus that was in the process of changing. I agree that the wording was unfortunate. --TS 17:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
OK. I stuck through my comment. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Right. The question is then only whether the discussions I hatted could reasonably be thought likely to result in improvement of the article. If a proposed finding is raised on the arbitration page by an arbitrator, I may revisit some of those diffs and examine the circumstances. It's perfectly possible that I made bad calls, and if there are enough instances to add up to a pattern then that's a problem. --TS 17:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
When someone is trying to make a good faith effort to discuss an issue, it's one thing to tell them that they're wrong. It's quite another to say that their opinion is so wrong, isn't even worth discussing. That's basically what you're saying when you collapse these discussions. Maybe you don't realize it, but you're telling them that their opinions don't matter. I find that very offensive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Albums#Holiday albums. -- ipodnano05 * 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 was wrong. Ask a clerk. And don't be hypocritical 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. 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. 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)

Misplaced Pages: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. 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 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.
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 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 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 21:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Request handled by: MBisanz

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 ...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)
. 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  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)