User talk:A Quest For Knowledge/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions with User:A Quest For Knowledge. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

...just removing your erroneous comment on WP:GS/CC/RE? You have my permission to remove my comments with it. The reason that i commented on your "correction" should be obvious, since you got it wrong. If you want to exchange it with a comment about WMC and how idiotic he is - then go ahead, we wont agree - but on the other we should be able to. :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that ArbCom has asked that editors step back from the CC topic area for a brief period while they work on their proposed decision.[1] I will honor their request and work in other areas. If anyone's bored and looking for something to do, I'm working on adding sources to our Jennie Finch article. I'm happy to say that it's about 75% done but wouldn't mind if other editors helped out. I've also submitted my article on Bernard Foing to be reviewed for WP:GA status. This is the first time I've submitted an article for GA review, so if anyone's familiar with WP:GA process, I'd appreciate any feedback on what the reviewer is likely to say. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Good luck! From my limited experience, the reviewer is likely to be very helpful and suggest how you can improve it. One thing you'll get nobbled about is Wikipedia:Alternative text for images which you don't seem to have, an interesting exercise in description. It might amuse you to know that an alternative area I turned to was a bit of tidying up on Juno, not the spacecraft Juno but more of an obituary as she's laid up these days. All good fun. . dave souza, talk 15:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added an Alt description to the picture. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I recently started an article and would welcome help from anyone willing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a nice little essay called WP:Revert only when necessary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just want to let you know I wasn't intending to pick on you. I myself find it difficult to let outrageous statements pass, but it seems to be in the best interests of everyone and everything at present. They aren't listening, they don't want to listen, they are entrenched. Trying to convince them only makes them dig in deeper. They're in siege mode, and rightfully so, under an onslaught of evidence they don't want to consider. They are intelligent and, aside from blind spots, informed, so eventually they should wake up and smell the coffee. The article isn't changing right now whether we are silent or adamant, so we may as well try to foster some good feelings that could lead to cooperation later.

Not to say you're the hostile blackguard they may think! You and GregJack have been quite civil and factual. I've noticed, though, you've tended to pursue editors on their talk pages and by taking them to task with arbitration and so forth. They may reasonably feel you want to "beat" them. Cheers! --Yopienso (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you asked nicely, Almost all the media and political discussion about the hacked climate emails has been based on soundbites publicised by professional sceptics and their blogs. In many cases, these have been taken out of ­context and twisted to mean something they were never intended to. The FOIA situation is less black-and-white, though of course unproven except to the extent that the UEA failed to deal properly with requests and is improving procedures in discussion with the ICO as required by the legislation. I've been avoiding the subject area too! (albeit dipping my toes into discussions at times, mea culpa) Trust your phone's treating you well, DF has continued with informative and entertaining posts on the topic, well I thought them amusing. The first paragraph of this blog is somewhat relevant to our WP woes, if inadmissable as evidence. So it goes, dave souza, talk 20:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Article tags. Sincerely, NW (Talk) 22:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Check out this amazing excerpt from an interview with Judith Curry:

"The level of vitriol in the climate blogs reflects the last gasp of those who thought they could influence national and international energy policy through the power politics of climate science expertise. The politics of expertise is about how scientific information is used in the policy making process, including how diverging viewpoints are interpreted and how science is weighed relative to values and politics in the policy debate. The problem comes in when the “power” politics of expertise are played. Signals of the “power” play include: hiding uncertainties and never admitting a mistake; developing a consensus with a high level of confidence; demanding that the consensus receive extreme deference relative to other view points; insisting that that science demands a particular policy; discrediting scientists holding other view points by dismissing them as cranks, trivializing their credentials and say that they are not qualified to hold an opinion; and attacking the motives of anyone that challenges the consensus. Sound familiar?" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing the CC restriction, as explained here. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've already agreed to not edit CC articles 2-3 weeks ago.[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You could put your name on the list pointing to that commitment, perhaps? LHvU did something sort of like that. Just musing. ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, thanks. I honestly don't see this proposal going anywhere. I see it as a waste of time. There are several dozen editors who need to sign it and I doubt that we will get everyone to agree to it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is that. ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding your huge table to the RfC. A link to the data in your user space is appropriate, which is why I have refactored. You don't seem to respect discussion participants, as your table is disrupting the layout and presentation of the discussion. The reader comes first. Viriditas (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I had it collapsed so it only takes up a single line. Do NOT edit my comments again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Link it to your user space. You're causing a huge green bar to show up in the discussion. This is really distracting and disrupts the discussion. Link to your user space like everyone else, please. Viriditas (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It's a single line, and I think this evidence is important because if we're going to change the name of the article, we have to be very careful about our sourcing. If I had posted this evidence without collapsing it, you might have a point. But I didn't and you don't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is linked appropriately to your user space. It does not belong in the RfC as it distracts the reader and disrupts the discussion. I would not have removed it if that were not the case. If you feel a compromise is in order, you are welcome to create a separate "evidence" section that does not interfere with the discussion section. I would not have a problem with that. Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, it's my comment. It doesn't distract from the discussion at all. On the contrary, it adds a lot to it because editors can easily see the evidence I'm presenting. I don't go around editing your comments, don't go around editing my comments. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I just said that it distracted from the discussion, and I couldn't follow the thread because of it. Is there a reason there's a collapsed list in an RfC instead of a linked list to your user space where it already resides? Viriditas (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@Viriditas - This is skirting dangerously close to harassment. The material included is quite relevant to the discussion, and is included as a collapsed table. That convention is used ubiquitously in talk pages. Editing the comments of others is seriously frowned upon, and requires far more justification than you've supplied.--SPhilbrickT 13:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring a collapsed list and replacing it with a direct link for readability is not "harassment" in any way, shape or form. Viriditas (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing the comments of others once in an honest belief that they made a mistake, and would thank you for the correction is arguably acceptable, but even in this case, there was no rush, and would have been better handled by a suggestion on the talk page. Reverting after OP has affirmatively declared it wasn't a mistake crossed the border into edit-warring. Follow dispute resolution procedures rather than continuing to revert - but I suspect you will find that the community doesn't agree with your position.--SPhilbrickT 14:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the RfC doesn't belong to anyone. If someone is disrupting the discussion with layout that distracts from the discussion, there is nothing wrong with trying to remedy the situation. This user won't listen to anyone, and just doesn't care. I think that says a lot. Viriditas (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't presented any evidence that this commonly used approach was distracting. Do you really need a list of the thousands of places it has been used without complaint? Ironically, collapsing is exactly what is done when some complain that uncollapsed material is distracting. I've seen collapsed sections used at the help desk, at feedback forums, and at the Arbcom evidence page. I honestly don't recall an incidence of complaint. The burden is on you to explain why this is different than all other uses. And even if you can gather such evidence, the proper sequence is to obtain consensus before reverting again. You tried Bold, it got Reverted. Next is Discuss, not imposing your challenged revert yet again.--SPhilbrickT 14:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are hardly a neutral participant here. But sure, show me where a collapsed list duplicated from a user page has been injected into an RfC discussion on an article talk page. This isn't a noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying very hard to be neutral, but I haven't made any claim of neutrality so not sure what prompted that comment. As to your request, no thanks. The burden is on you to explain why it isn't warranted. Point me to a policy proscription on the inclusion of collapsed material in an RFC and I'll happily support you. However, this is a monumental time suck - surely you have better things to do? Your arguments about the title are cogent and useful. Your inexplicable desire to remove a single line of relevant material is puzzling to me. Only you can decide the best use of your time, but IMO, your time spent on explaining why ClimateGate is the wrong title is a better use of your time than edit warring over the precise way relevant material should be referenced.--SPhilbrickT 15:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I finally see the point about harassment. You're right, it could be perceived that way. AQFK, if you're reading this, I apologize. I should have asked you first. Sorry. Viriditas (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please self-revert and I'll withdraw my RfE? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm restoring right now... Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Restored minus the extra bullet point, which I'm assuming was an error. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have hat hab`d this guys per the deal here, is that ok? mark nutley (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. I was about to close it myself, but it I see that you beat me to it. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If anyone's bored while waiting for ArbCom to announce their proposed decision, here's my current obsession.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I-V-VIm-IV. Impressive, although they left out "Hallelujah", which explicitly calls out the 4-chord song in its lyrics ("It goes like this: the fourth, the fifth, the minor fall, and the major lift...") Anyhow, if you like musical comedy acts from Oceania, you should watch Flight of the Conchords. Although it's a bit dry even for my taste. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what's amazing is how many different melodies people can come up using the same chord progression. In fact, I've used it myself. Love the Cohen song ever since I saw the Watchmen. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just a permutation of I-vi-IV-V. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoyed that! Might have guessed from my username that I am a fan of musical comedy (and music in general). Thanks for that. Minor4th 03:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Doo Wop is also the name of an architectural style, quite common on certain parts of the Jersey Shore ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Has been answered. Regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 13:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Some more editing suggestions await you at the Help Desk. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm heading out for the afternoon but I'll take a look at it later. Thank you very much for your help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a note to myself. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

These are notes to myself of things to do after after ArbCom announces their PD and/or tag restriction is lifted.

• Richard Lindzen - Replace "[Please help Wikipedia to complete this article]" with {{Expand section}} tags. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Andrew Montford - Change "to the tune of" to "in the amount of". Done. Seek consensus to remove {{Copyedit}} tag. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• James Delingpole - Add cite to this article for the sentence beginning "Delingpole has also objected to what he perceives..." Done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Judith Curry - Add WikiLinks to Georgia Institute of Technology, United States National Research Council, Northern Illinois University and University of Chicago. Add Category:Northern Illinois University alumni. Also, add Curry to List of Northern Illinois University people. Change "While she supports the scientific opinion on climate change, Curry has said she is troubled by" to "While not she is not skeptical about the anthropogenic cause of global warming, Curry breaks with her peers in that she is willing to engage climate change skeptics such as Stephen McIntyre. Curry has said she is troubled by..." Done by Minor4th. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Minor4th 22:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Anthony Watts (blogger) - Article should be named Anthony Watts (meteorologist). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• George Monbiot - "UK" in lede should be spelled out. Early life section should have Monbiot's first name. Done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A wonderful comment from Kingturtle.[21] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As you might know, The Signpost has been reporting on the Climate change case for the past several weeks. One of the drafting arbitrators is clearly unhappy with my reporting, and a couple of other users share a similar view. However, some users disagree (and on at least one occasion, one case participant disagreed with the objection raised (see this). Each user is obviously going to have their own opinion, but irrespective of the outcome, I think actual participants in the case (who are involved in the dispute or may be affected) should add their input. Therefore, I think your attention and participation is invited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Control Panel Shoots First A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Spectator ran an article[22] referencing this article[23] by New Scientist but it's only available to subscribers. Does anyone have access to it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You might ask GregJackP -- I know he has access to most journals that are subscription only. Minor4th 07:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one wondering who's going to take longer to make a decision, ArbCom or the Blagojevich jury? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably not! But no longer. The jury won that race. ++Lar: t/c 07:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Though I haven't forgotten, I have been incredibly busy; my non-Wikipedia life is not in the most orderly of states, to say the least. I will get to it as soon as I am able though, unless another reviewer decides to perform the review. Thank you for your patience! Adavis444 (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, no problem. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just thought you should be aware of my edit restoring your remark but replacing it with strikes, per User:Lar/Eeyore Policy. ++Lar: t/c 12:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be more careful not to post on your talk page again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, my apologies for confusion... I think you misunderstood. You're exceedingly welcome to post there, just don't post stuff you aren't happy with having stay around (you can strike it if you like but I keep everything, and it all eventually gets archived). I welcome all who wish to share their views if they are not otherwise constrained from posting. (with one exception I need to go fix, and will, soon). ++Lar: t/c 07:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not misunderstand anything. I decided to delete my post. End of story (or at least it should have been). Unfortunately, you decided to overrule my decision regarding my own post which I consider to be somewhat impolite but allowable under current policy. Your talk page has been removed from my watchlist. Anyway, there are bigger things afoot than this mini-issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's too bad, as your input will be missed but I understand... I'm not going to change my long standing policy though, I long ago decided that rather than the arbitrary and capricious removal by the talk page owner of comments they don't like that characterizes so many pages, I was going to run mine totally the other way, everything stays. Strikeouts or "I changed my mind and don't mean what I said" are fine, but not outright removal. It's not a style that everyone cares for. But it seems to work. No hard feelings I hope. ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you want comments here - at my talk page or below your proposed wording?--SPhilbrickT 15:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, but the article talk page seems to make the most sense.[24] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of copying and pasting the discussion on your talk page to my statement's talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I give you three options, and you pick a fourth. (j/k). If I were thinking more clearly, I would have realized that was the best option. I'll continue there.--SPhilbrickT 15:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Per my stupid probation can you please ok the refs here please mark nutley (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look at the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still reviewing it but so far, it looks OK. The one problem that I've found so far is that when I got to the sentence that reads, "Nova has had a five part debate on AGW with Dr Andrew Glikson, first on Quadrant Online, and continuing on her own blog", I noticed that it's cited to a third-party blog. Blogs shouldn't be used for claims about third-parties. I would remove this sentence or figure out another way to say this and only cite Nova's blog. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm done. Other than the issue above, I don't see any obvious sourcing issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. Are you sure she's a geneticist? Nova describes herself as a "science communicator".[25] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That`s what she does now, she did her degree in genetics mark nutley (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...she has her degree in Microbiology and Molecular Biology. I'm not sure that automatically qualifies her as a geneticist. OTOH, she did her honors research into DNA markers for use in Muscular Dystrophy trials. Perhaps some of my talk page lurkers would be willing to comment on this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Added a ref saying she is a geneticist mark nutley (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, looks good. There's still the issue of the debates with Glikson. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Has she published anything in the scholarly/peer-reviewed literature on genetics? Has she held any positions or faculty appointments as a geneticist? If the answer to either question is "yes", then I think it's a no-brainer to describe her as a geneticist. On the other hand, if she has an undergraduate/bachelor's degree in genetics (possibly with some undergrad-level research experience) but no professional work in the field, then I think it's a real reach to describe her as a "geneticist". MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I`d have thought a debate on Quadrant Magazine would pass WP:NEWSBLOG? Mastcell, i have not looked on google scholar but it is cited to The Age a RS. But that can always be dropped i suppose mark nutley (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...I may not be the best person to ask about this since I tend to take a conservative approach on matters of sourcing. WP:NEWSBLOG says, "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs; these are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." My typical response when faced with a blog hosted by a news source is to ask whether the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Unless a news organization specifically makes a statement to this effect, I tend to argue that the source does not meet WP:RS. But perhaps this question should be taken to WP:RSN? BTW, you can omit the statement now and add it back later once this question has been resolved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate, i have asked another editor who is pretty hot on BLP`s to look at it, if he says ok i`ll go with that if he agrees with you i`ll remove it mark nutley (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a note to myself for future reference. To delete a page from my user space, add {{db-u1}} to the top of the page.[26] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Or ask an admin. I take requests. :P MastCell ^Talk 22:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Per my post dated July 19, 2010,[27] I have voluntarily agreed to step back from the CC topic area for a brief period while ArbCom worked on their proposed decision. I note that my agreement to honor ArbCom's request[28] came well before other editor's similar voluntary restriction[29] (which is dated beginning August 5, 2010). Now that I have fulfilled ArbCom's request, I am resuming my work to improve the CC articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The way Carcharoth shuffled things around leaves your remark sounding rather odd. Since my comment appears on one page and yours is now on a completely different one, your comment now begins with a naked "Agreed." and nothing before it. Whether you want to take it up with him or just let it go is up to you, but I just want to say that if the solution involves moving my comment so that it's before yours (as it originally was) that's OK by me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You mention a reliable sources search engine in connection with the discussion of whether there are sources for describing Anthony Watts as a climate change "denier". Is that available for others to use? Is it a specification or setting I can make on google? I've often wished I had such an option. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I sent you the URL. Check your e-mail. Unfortunately, Google Custom Search engines are blocked by Wikipedia. I've had an open request at WP:WHITELIST for the past month now[30] and am still trying get to an admin to approve it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up about the POV tag on Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Perhaps it's naive of me to try it, but I'm seeing what sort of progress can be made (if any) following the pause in tendentious editing. Your enumeration of supposed problems actually may be a start. Since it's nearly a year after the hacking incident and subsequent flood of mal fide "spin", it should be possible to switch over to secondary sources (this appears to have already started) and clear the matter up. Bkalafut (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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.[31] 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[32] and may also be a sockpuppet of a banned user.[33] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Freakshownerd has been blocked indefinitely as a confirmed sockpuppet.[34] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

[35] 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)

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

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.[37] 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.[38][39] 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)

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)

[40] 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![41] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[42]. 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 Wikipedia for the next eight days, so may not be around much. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist: I've been on Wikipedia for a year and a half and I believe that this is the first time anyone's accused me of vandalism.[43] Please see Jumping the shark. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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 ^Talk 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)

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.

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 Wikipedia 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 discussion on whether to include an image[44] 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[45] 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![46] That's a new sentence every two years! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

[47][48] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

[49] 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)

• [50] 13:48, September 7, 2010: PCHS-NJROTC adds "/and/or [[global cooling]".
• [51] 13:49, September 7, 2010 Torchiest adds "or both".
• [52] 23:01, September 7, 2010: Guettarda adds "citation needed" tag.
• [53] 23:15, September 7, 2010: Cla68 adds source (Deseret News).
• [54] 23:35, September 7, 2010: Cla68 adds second source (Irish Independent).
• [55] 00:14, September 8, 2010: Guerttarda adds "{notinsource}" tags to both of Cla68's sources.
• [56] 09:17, September 8, 2010: WMC removes "global cooling", both sources and "{notinsource}" tags.
• [57] 14:51, September 8, 2010: GregJackP restores "global cooling" and adds two new sources, WMC's paper and Time magazine.
• [58] 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".
• [59] 16:31, September 8, 2010: GregJackP adds new content to Views of scientists section.
• [60] 16:43, September 8, 2010: WMC reverts GregJackP with explanation "rv. err no, just like it says on talk".
• [61] 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".
• [62] 18:24, September 8, 2010: Cla68 restores "global cooling" and Irish Independent and adds two new sources, The Hindu and Jerusalem Post.
• [63] 18:36, September 8, 2010: Cla68 adds new source, Sunday Times.
• [64] 18:53, September 8, 2010: Cla68 adds fifth source, National Post.
• [65] 18:56, September 8, 2010: Cla68 adds "or those commenting on the global cooling scare of the 1970s." to end of paragraph.
• [66] 20:01, September 8, 2010: Cla68 adds content from lede to body of article, citing the same 5 sources.
• [67] 20:52, September 8, 2010: Cla68 restores WMC's paper as source.
• [68] 22:14, September 8, 2010: Count Iblis rewords lede with edit summary "Perhaps this is better way to include "global cooling" in the lead".
• [69] 23:18, September 8, 2010: Cla68 rewords lede with edit summary "fix the wording since it isn't only skeptics making the comparison".
• [70] 23:19, September 8, 2010: Cla68 adds "currently" to lede.
• [71] 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.
• [72] 23:59, September 8, 2010: Tillman edit with summary "CE for clarity, ref format for links)"
• [73] 00:12, September 9, 2010: Wikitipius adds "and global cooling" to lede.
• [74] 00:17, September 9, 2010: Wikitipius adds new source (Science Mag) for above edit.
• [75] 01:05, September 9, 2010: Tillman adds "according to Kerry Emanuel."
• [76] 02:38, September 9, 2010: WMC reverts several changes (including Tillman's) with edit summary "misc socks back to CI".
• [77] 08:06, September 9, 2010: Prolog protects article for "Excessive sock puppetry".

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

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

• "I'm not going to waste my time arguing the science with someone who evidently gets facts from those who deny it"
• "I'm not interested in being friendly with agenda-driven SPAs either."
• "That's just garbage...people who eschew Wikipedia policies and guidelines to further their agenda."
• "If only there was a script that could automatically topic ban anyone who suggested it again"
• "I really don't care what you think, since your editing behavior indicates that you're only interested in furthering your agenda.
• "you have gone way beyond the level at which this kind of agenda-driven behavior"
• "It does absolutely nothing except rally the science-denying troops."
• "perpetual rants of POV pushers determined to use Wikipedia to further their anti-science agenda"
• "The tactics that science deniers are now employing to try to bend this article to their point of view are scandalous."

and during this case.

• "Grappling with assholes just covers you in their shit."
• "I called you a liar because you were lying."
• "do I need to get out my can of RAID again?"
• "And I think you're dumb for trying to exploit what was nothing more than a dumb simile about dumb people believing in a dumb mythical construct."

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 ^talk 09:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger Davies has already put up a proposed finding for Scjessey on the PD page. [78] 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)

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.[79] :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• [80] 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.
• [81] 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?
• [82] Closes down yet another discussion.
• [83] Editor finally stands up Tony Sidaway's bullying: "stop this Tony. you don't close things as "unproductive" just because you disagree with them".
• [84] Closes down yet another discussion. Attempts to divert discussion to subpage where most people won't see or have on their watch list.
• [85] 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.
• [86] Closes down yet another discussion.
• [87] Closes down yet another discussion. Says it was discussed last year.
• [88] I finally have the courage to stand-up to Tony: "We're supposed to *discuss* things here, Tony."

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)