User talk:A Quest For Knowledge: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:41, 23 October 2010 editK10wnsta (talk \| contribs)955 edits →Impressive...most impressive: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:27, 24 October 2010 edit undoTony Sidaway (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 329:		Line 329:

	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.<br />And for that you should be commended.<br />So I commend you...for doing the right thing, even when the right thing was not the easiest thing to do.<br />--] (]) 19:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)		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.<br />And for that you should be commended.<br />So I commend you...for doing the right thing, even when the right thing was not the easiest thing to do.<br />--] (]) 19:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
			==]==
			This is formal notification because you are one of the affected parties. --] 00:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:27, 24 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

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

Humorous ArbCom Proposals

Extended content
Proposed Findings of Fact A Quest for Knowledge is totally awesome No explanation needed. Support Obviously. Tinker Factual. Evers I'm not sure if it truly captures his awesomeness, but it will have to do for now. Chance Per Evers. Three Fingers Oppose Not needed. Taylor I disagree. AQFL is lame. Big Ed Very lame. Pfiester He's wasting time on joke proposals when he should be working on the real thing.Orval Overall Abstain 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 Makes perfect sense. Tinker Support, but would prefer a version that allows solo stuff, too. Evers The way forward.Cap Anson Oppose Too restrictive. It should include solo work. Three Fingers Lennon was the true genius. Should be limited to only Lennon references. Big Ed Nope, everyone knows they peaked during the Quarry Men years. Taylor Sorry, I'm a Stones fan. Pfiester This is the devil's music. Chance Abstain I like both kinds of music, country and western. Never heard of these 'Beatles' before.Orval Overall

Extended content

Proposed Findings of Fact

A Quest for Knowledge is totally awesome

No explanation needed.

Support

Obviously. Tinker
Factual. Evers
I'm not sure if it truly captures his awesomeness, but it will have to do for now. Chance
Per Evers. Three Fingers

Oppose

Not needed. Taylor
I disagree. AQFL is lame. Big Ed
Very lame. Pfiester
He's wasting time on joke proposals when he should be working on the real thing.Orval Overall

Abstain

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

Makes perfect sense. Tinker
Support, but would prefer a version that allows solo stuff, too. Evers
The way forward.Cap Anson

Oppose

Too restrictive. It should include solo work. Three Fingers
Lennon was the true genius. Should be limited to only Lennon references. Big Ed
Nope, everyone knows they peaked during the Quarry Men years. Taylor
Sorry, I'm a Stones fan. Pfiester
This is the devil's music. Chance

Abstain

I like both kinds of music, country and western. Never heard of these 'Beatles' before.Orval Overall

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)

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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)

Misplaced Pages: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:

A specially-tailored version of discretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.
Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area.
Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletion of them.
The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter);

The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
- Scjessey
- KimDabelsteinPetersen
The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator;
- Stephan Schulz
- Lar

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Usefull list

Hi I've just added The New Yorker to 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 Misplaced Pages'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. -- 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)

Misplaced Pages: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)