User talk:A Quest For Knowledge/Archive 7

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


Code that annoys me

If booleanVariable = True Then
    modeExpression.AndOr = "AND"
End If
If booleanVariable = False Then
   modeExpression.AndOr = "OR"
End If

Ugh. Is it too hard to write: 

If booleanVariable = True Then
    modeExpression.AndOr = "AND"
Else
    modeExpression.AndOr = "OR"
End If

Or even: 

If booleanVariable Then
    modeExpression.AndOr = "AND"
Else
    modeExpression.AndOr = "OR"
End If

?

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Music examples

Hi, please weigh in – the farce is back and now hippo brought some friends with him. I really appreciate your input. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Judging from the diff between now and the last time I looked at the article, it doesn't appear to have changed all that much. Some of the changes, such as the duct tape one, I never really understood to begin with. OTOH, the item about High levels of testosterone appear to be valid; not sure what the complaint was about that one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your disruptive editing at List of common misconceptions #Testosterone

Quest, you know there is no consensus, for now at least, to include this. Re-adding it, without discussion, is disruptive editing. If you want to rewrite it, add more sources or whatever, propose it at the discussion page and see if consensus can be reached. I don't want to have to make a bigger issue of your actions. --hippo43 (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, was disruptive for you to remove well-sourced content. I've attempted - in good faith - to address your complaints (no matter how groundless) by adding more sources. Right now, the item is supported by Nature, The New York Times, Scientific American and Discovery Magazine. If anything, you should be thanking me for resolving your complaints (which are groundless to begin with). If you continue to remove well-sourced content for no reason, I will report you to AN/I. This is your last warning. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Reasons were explained in my edit summary, and in the long discussion over this, and are consistent with WP:BRD. Please stop edit-warring against consensus. this is your last warning. --hippo43 (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe that I've already addressed your concerns by adding cites to Nature, The New York Times, Scientific American and Discovery Magazine. Your edit summary did not explain what you find objectional to these new sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
What I found objectionable is restoring material that is under discussion when there was previous consensus to exclude it, and no new consensus to include your proposed new version. Nothing to do with the quality of the sources. --hippo43 (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong to say that there is a concensus to exclude it. In any case, I attempted in good faith to resolve your complaints by adding even stronger sourcing. You still complain about it, but you have given no reason why. Also, keep in mind that writing a Wikipedia article is an interative process. If someone introduces new content, and you think that you can improve it, then you should click on the little edit button and make your changes.
It's important to remember that the key to writing good Wikipedia articles is to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise. You do none of these things. You just revert. When was the last time you actually added content or improved the wording of this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I did give the reason why - you edited against consensus during an active discussion. Your new edit did not resolve the objections to it being in the article, as explained on the talk page. Even if it had, it would have been presumptuous of you to restore it while there was still no consensus that it should go back in.
I did click on the edit button and improve the article - by removing the poor content you added. You're correct that editing is a collaborative process - go to the talk page, per WP:BRD, discuss your proposal and see if you can get editors to accept them. Do not continue trying to force it back into the article against consensus.
I improve the wording of the article every time I edit it, by copy-editing, removing poor entries and cleaning up grammar etc. Adding material to it is not a priority for me, so I don't seek out new entries - if I found a good one that met the criteria for inckusion, I'd add it. Please, instead of arguing endlessly over the minutiae of how to go about fixing this, and that you were right all along, and everyone else wrong, go back to the talk page and discuss the actual content. --hippo43 (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Right, you don't add to the project, you just delete. In any case, what are the objections? Please be specific. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I add to the project where appropriate. Sometimes I add material, sometimes I add concision, sometimes I add accuracy or clarity. You seem to be mistakenly equating adding material with adding quality. You also seem unable to read or understand the objections raised at the article talk page. Is there maybe a basic English class available in your area? --hippo43 (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
"I add to the project where appropriate. Sometimes I add material, sometimes I add concision, sometimes I add accuracy or clarity." Where? Show me some diffs of you adding content to the List of Common Misconceptions.
"You also seem unable to read or understand the objections raised at the article talk page." I believe that I have addressed your objections. You said you wanted more secondary sources, I added them. You said you wanted more studies, I added them. You said you didn't like the word; I reworded it. If there's anything left remaining, please explain. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
"Show me some diffs of you adding content to the List of Common Misconceptions." Why?
The article talk page is the place to discuss content. --hippo43 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
"Why?" I assume from your non-response is that you can't provide any diffs to back up the assertion that you add content to the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
"The article talk page is the place to discuss content." But you don't discuss; you only object. See the difference? Again, Wikipedia is about cooperation, collaborationist, and compromise. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
What assertion? Did you read what I wrote? Why would I want to prove something to you in any case? Can you guess how much your approval of my editing approach means to me?
As well as recent discussions, take a look thru the discussion archives to see my contributions to the discussion. I don;t know what to make of "you don't discuss; you only object" - I've discussed by explaining my objections. I've no idea what you expect. --hippo43 (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Singer

Sorry about that! Actually I'm about to go offline, so if you'd like to carry on, please do. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of NORAD exercises material

I have responded to this deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=364039568&oldid=364038862 on the 9/11 conspiracy theories talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Rice_pre_attack_warnings. Your given reason for deletion: "Per WP:OR, WP:SYN, not to mention WP:NPOV. Seek talk page consensus before adding problematic material." However, there is no WP:OR, no WP:SYN and it is NPOV. Please refer to the reference http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm and please undo your deletion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on the article talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Architects and Engineers petition

You recently made this deletion at the 9/11 conspiracy theories article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=366876264&oldid=366854033. I don't believe "How did this get in" is an acceptable reason for deletion. Please refer to the article's talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#2nd_attempt_at_RFC_regarding_mentioning_A_.26_E_for_9.2F11_Truth_petition Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I accidentally submitted the page before I finished typing. In any case, this was already discussed on the article talk page and failed to reach consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring: warning

You seem to be indulging in edit warring at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Please don't William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the cited objections weren't even plausible. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment about something Larry Sanger said[1]

"Most people, period, do not know just how much porn and child-unfriendly material there is on Wikipedia." That just means that there's not enough porn on Wikipedia! :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

-Never really thought about it but that article is 100% correct. Kind of a sad state of affairs no? - Asphyxiate.always (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dalek Pornography

Apprently, we have articles about Dalek pornography. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hippo43

Without taking any strong position on the dispute you are having at Talk:List of common misconceptions, I think your report at AN/I was prejudicial and unhelpful. In my opinion both of you should avoid that article for a while and let others improve it instead. In any case, please be mindful that making a report at AN/I (especially when couched in non-neutral terms) exposes the complainer as well as the complainee to scrutiny. Please see if you can take my advice, or at least think about it. --John (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I didn't do anything wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not particularly suggesting that you did. Maybe just a gentle reminder though that calling for somebody to be blocked when you are having a content dispute with them might look a bit WP:COIish to some. I do see hippo43 as a good user and I wish you two could somehow avoid each other for a while to avoid the friction that seems to result. As I say, avoiding the article you have been in dispute over might be a good way forward. What do you think? --John (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
No editor should have to stop working on an article because another editor is being disruptive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
In an ideal world that might be true. In the real world, these things generally take (at least) two to tango. I see nothing good coming out of you both continuing to argue at such length there. Sometimes it is really better to just walk away. Obviously it is up to you of course. How would you characterize hippo's "disruption", other than the edit warring for which he was blocked? --John (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
See, I find your characterizing this as "You announced your attention to resume your disruption" as being in itself fairly disruptive. When you find you are unable to extend AGF to others, it is time to walk away from the area of dispute and let others take the strain. In my opinion. --John (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
In so far as I understand the rules, I brought up the complaint at ANI which I believe in the proper venue for such complaints. There was no lack of AGF since he specifically said he was going to remove it from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he said "If there is no consensus achieved within the next couple of days to keep this, I will remove the offending item. " which you have characterized as "You announced your attention to resume your disruption". As an outsider to this it certainly looks like AGF has broken down. I'll happily say to both of you that nothing good will come of this type of interaction. Leave each other alone, edit some other articles for a while, and see what others think. Please. --John (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem is with Hippo's conduct. He's edit-warred on multiple articles multiple times and has received multiple blocks. He still refuses to admit that he's done anything wrong. Do you have any reason to believe that his conduct will be different just because he's on a different article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your note

I am not sure where you see any "emotional overtone". Can you explain? And if it has to do with RSN, note that I added "myself included", which perhaps you missed. Crum375 (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that "myself included" is an improvement, but to say that my work and the work of countless other editors at WP:RSN is "immaterial" to a discussion about the reliability of sources is highly offensive. I've spent countless hours trying to research sources and fairly and honestly resolve disputes between editors on topics I don't even care about. I think that I am going to block myself so I don't say anything that I will later regret, but I am very offended by your comments and hope that you will refactor them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Taking a WikiBreak

I'm taking a self-imposed WikiBreak using the WP:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer. If for some reason, anyone needs to get a hold of me during my WikiBreak, I can be reached at [email protected]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I've opened a thread at ANI regarding your action at Bad Medicine (song). See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge_and_Bad_Medicine_.28song.29 --hippo43 (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Going to bed now

I have no problems with uninvolved editors/admins who attempt to fairly examine the repeated disputes created by one single editor named USER:hippo43. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on CRU controversy

You know perfectly well that the third report hasn't been published, and reference 48 says it is scheduled in July. This was also explained on the talk page, and still, you persist on adding maintenance tags. I'm convinced now that you should be banned from the article. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

All I am asking for is that a citation be provided. If this is easy, then just add the cite. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The citation is already in the article, and per WP:LEAD, doesn't need to be there. What is the problem and why are you disrupting the article again? Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
If the citation is already in the article, then just copy and paste into the lede. End of story. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The citation was provided to you on the talk page, indicated to you in the article, and it was explained to you several times where to find it and why it doesn't need to be in the lead. What part of this isn't making sense? Feel free to ask questions and I'll explain. I realize that some editors have trouble editing, so I am willing to extend my helping hand to you if you aren't getting it. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Um...the part that doesn't make sense is where you refuse to add to the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the problem. Several editors (including myself) have explained in the talk page thread why the statement in the lead does not need a citation per WP:LEADCITE, and they have explained where you can find the citation in the article. What part of this isn't making sense? Viriditas (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess it's the problem where editors indicate that a cite is already provided, but won't tell us what the cite is. Seriously, what is the problem here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the problem appears to be with your reading and perceptual abilities. The cite was provided in the very first post to the talk page thread, and it was indicated to you that the cite appears in ref 48. What part of this isn't making sense? If you have special needs as an editor, say so, and I will make an attempt to help you in another way. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Just provide a cite, and your problems will melt away. Do you have a cite for this material? I've asked several time but to no avail. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The cite was provided several times, and there aren't any problems except for your inability to read the citation. What's the real problem here? Are you intentionally disrupting the article and talk page, or do you not understand what you read? Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, maybe I missed an edit. Human beings are capable of mistakes. We are only human. Can you provide the link to the diff that I missed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Done Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
If that link supports the claim, why not just add it to the lede? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean "if"? You were given the answer to your question several times above and by many editors on the talk page. Is there a reason none of this is making sense to you? I would recommend that you file a report on the RS noticeboard, as it appears you either don't understand what editors are telling you over and over again, or you are deliberately wasting their time. Viriditas (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Stop wasting my time. If you have a link that supports the statement, then just add it to the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
To recap, the link was provided in the first post of the thread by TS and DS responded that he added it to the article, in ref 48. Hope that helps you. Viriditas (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
To recap, if you have a link that supports the statement, then why won't you add the cite? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
As you have been informed already, the link was added by TS to the talk page and DS added it to the article. If this still doesn't make sense to you, feel free to bring it up in another forum, such as the RS noticeboard. As this has already been addressed on the talk page by multiple editors, you are welcome to review their comments on the matter. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, it would take up much less of your time to add the wanted citation that you apparently have access to than to repeatedly harass an editor on his talkpage. When the topic of debate is this inconsequential this comes across as petty, at best.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Heyitspeter, a discussion involving questions asked and answers given is not "harassment" and this particular discussion is centralized on the article talk page, so there really isn't a need for it. The wanted citation was provided by TS and DS added it to the article. For some reason, AQFK refuses to acknowledge these facts. So, your concerns have been addressed, multiple times. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Instead of just removing the tag, why don't do this? At the talk page I've made a rationale for why it's wise for us to add ref[2]. Nsaa (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

BP spills coffee

This is what happens when BP spills coffee.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Carelessness

This edit [4] re-inserts the POV-pushing from MN. I appreciate that you're trying to stir up trouble here, but given that you've done this, would you be so kind as to remove the POV notice from the section taht MN put in revenge? It would appear to be pointless - unless you really are acknowledging that your edit is POV William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

MN might very well be POV-pushing but even a broken clock is right twice a day. The fact is that this is an article about a controversy. In such articles, it's appropriate to explain what the controversy is about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Errm, is that a PA? I would hope that wiki editors aspire to be something better than a broken clock. You missed the point though: the POV notice was pointless. I've removed it; if you really wanted it in there, please discuss on talk William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't believe that was a PA but you're always free to file another frivolous RFE against me. I'm not the one who added the POV notice so I'm not sure why you need my permission to remove it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hide the Decline

Hide the Decline is a music video parody of "Draggin' the Line" by Tommy James. It was posted on YouTube on November 24, 2009 by user M4GW, an acronym of the website www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com. It was created in response to the Climategate scandal where scientists in the Climatic Research Unit were accused of conspiring to "hide the decline" in global warming temperatures. The music video became an instant YouTube sensation. (Original article is here.)

News articles

Opinion articles

Reliability unknown

Primary sources

Press releases

Minnesotans for Global Warming

Other

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have created a userpage for this, it`ll be easier to work on then here on your talk page :) [32] mark nutley (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, are these enough sources to survive an AfD? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
God knows, it`ll be down to neutral editors, an afd in the CC articles is always split along partisan lines sadly. Look at The Gore Effect afd for instance. Go take a look at what i have done, some of the sources above were not usable, others were repeats of the same thing so not all have been used. mark nutley (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Already got limbaugh in, am going to move it to mainspace soon, want to look it over first? mark nutley (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Do remember to put it past a respected editor for reference vetting. Because otherwise you are going to get a lot of flak for your usage of references. [here is a hint: Sourcing factual information to a press-release by an advocacy group ..... probably not a good idea]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
You`ve lost me kim, what factual information is sourced to an adcovacy group? mark nutley (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Kim's referring to the press release published at Forbes.[33] It's a primary source and shouldn't be used for factual information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly - it was even the very first reference in the article. So it kinda yelled at ya :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Mark, there was a reason why I arranged the list above into 3 main groups, news articles, opinion articles and primary sources and in that particular order. News articles are preferred. Primary sources should be used sparingly and with caution. I think that some form of what the lede says is fine, but we need to change the sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Pete Quaife, a Bassist for the Kinks, Dies at 66

A toast to Pete Quaife for his work with the Kinks. Rock heroes never really die.[34] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending chanages - What are we supposed to do?

[35] This obviously a good faith effort to improve the article, but it's technically a BLP violation since there's no source and no way to verify it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it`s not a blp violation, but without a source it should be rejected automaticly mark nutley (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Just revert it, which will clear it from the unreviewed pages log. You can leave an edit summary if you want. NW (Talk) 10:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirm

Marknutley is asking for someone to confirm that [36] is a reliable source for the opinions of Dr. William M. Connolley in the article Hide the Decline‎. I can't do that, because I don't think it is. Perhaps you could help him out. Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I haven't decided yet about that source. It's obviously reliable for the opinions of WMC, but I don't know if it's appropriate. There's WP:CIRCULAR and WP:COI issues that need to be worked out, not to mention the fact that a Wikipedia editor specifically created the blog post as a response to the article. I honestly don't know if that's a good source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Discussion is closed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have the diffs of WMC calling fellow editors "idiots" and "yahoos"?

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
"Yahoos" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
"idiots" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith

Imputations of bad faith are not appreciated. I suggest that you keep out of my business in future. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I did assume good faith, ChrisO. That's why I politely asked you a question, rather than accuse you of something. There's a big difference between a question and a statement. In any case, I'm still confused about your actions. You solicited Tony who's clearly an involved admin. I have some other things on my plate right now, but I'll take a closer look at your actions when I have more free time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Tony is not an admin and he has already replied about the propriety of my contacting him.[37] Please find more useful things to do with your spare time. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm confused. In this edit,[38] you state that "it's simply a request for second opinions from admins with prior experience of dealing with sockpuppets and of dealing with this particular user". Now you're saying that you contacted editors who aren't admins. Which is it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
You do have reading comprehension problems, don't you? Read my immediately preceding post: "I specifically confined myself to notifying the admins who participated and one non-admin (Tony Sidaway) who proposed the ban in the first place." -- ChrisO (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's called canvassing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could keep your story straight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
AQFK, you've been shot down four times straight now by admins on your enforcement request (if you include me, I haven't been all that active lately but staging a revival). Quite simply, when you spot a pattern that reminds you of a returning editor still under sanction, it is the right thing to do to contact the other editors who are familiar with the patterns of the original editor in question. They are the people who will be best able to either say "yep, looks like a match" or "nope, I don't see it". And for that purpose, TS has been around a long time and seen it all, used to be an admin, and even though I don't know him at all would be a candidate for me myself to run concerns past, so he counts too. The objective is to get things right, that's why you ask other people who have their own notes and history, to get it right. I'd personally suggest you retract your enforcement request - but that's just me. Franamax (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
But he didn't just contact the other editors who are familiar with the patterns of the original editor in question. Instead, he selected ones who were more likely to agree with him. Anyone who defended GoRight or was more moderate was not contacted at all. This is a textbook example of canvasing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW, the first three admins didn't shoot me down because ChrisO wasn't canvasing, but because they think I filed the request in the wrong spot. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

I understand where you're coming from, but we always have to remember WP:TRUTH. Our responsibility is to accurately record what reliable sources report. Sometimes those sources will be wrong, usually, we hope, from human error, but perhaps in some cases because of willful misrepresentation. Ours is not to judge that; WP would be far more chaotic if we were allowed to second-guess the RS's.

WP has its raison d'etre and its guidelines and it is our privilege to participate in conformance with them. It is not our right to challenge them. If we disagree with WP's foundations we should disassociate ourselves from it. Admittedly, I often disagree with the constructs some editors build on the solid foundations, but that's what editing and talk pages are all about!

Perhaps I've read too much Orwell and Rand and Ibsen to blindly agree with the majority. Yet we must accept it's impossible for us to know the truth about complex issues such as this one: I'm equally distrustful of the climate alarmists and climate deniers. I never expect to really know the truth on this matter--Who's right? Who's wrong? Who's lying? Who's honestly mistaken?--and don't expect to live long enough to see how it pans out. I just keep looking and thinking...and when at WP, remembering where I am and contributing accordingly. --Yopienso (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Altering others talk page comments

Please don't change others signed comments as you did here. Vsmith (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to the policy or guideline about talk page comments? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:TPO Vsmith (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm...I must be missing something because it says "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments.....Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks". WMC accused a fellow editor of being a sock although there has been no confirmation of this claim. Are you saying that I should just undue WMC's post rather than try to correct it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
(EC) And you weren't aware of that guideline before? WMC said "probable sock", MN removed the "probable" for some inexplicable reason, and you altered the signed comment again by adding "...for violation of username policy)" without making any note that you had changed the wording of a signed comment. Seems the proper approach would have been to add a clarifying comment after WMC's comment asking him to refactor. The guideline states "Never edit someone's comment to change its meaning,...". If a personal attack was made, then either strike it out or replace the offending phrase with (PA removed) or some such, but we simply don't change the wording without some indication that it was changed. Vsmith (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
And you had undone or reverted his edit previously. Vsmith (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
No, IIRC, I was not aware of this guideline before. There are lots of policies and guidelines and it's difficult to keep track all of them especially when all I want to do is help create an encyclopedia. Per your advice, I will check WMC's edit and if it still contains a personal attack, I will simply remove it rather than try to fix it. In the meantime, I suggest that you let WMC know that it's not appropriate to make personal attacks against his fellow editors. Will you do that for me? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The user in question has been blocked indef ... so no. Should the user return with a block appeal ... let's just wait and see. Vsmith (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why he was blocked considering the sockpuppet investigation came up empty, but I'm looking into it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Rain Man, BLPs and polite arguments

An argument has broken out between two editors and has spilled into at least one noticeboard and another's talk page. But what I find amazing is how politely they're arguing back and forth. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday .NET Framework!

Wow, has it really been 10 years?[39] I'm getting old... A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see this as cause for celebration. :P MastCell Talk 16:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you kidding? I fell in love. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess I've always been a Java partisan, and I've always been biased against C#. Of course, I'm not a professional and I don't have to write Microsoft-friendly software - if I did, I'd probably be much more fired up about .NET. MastCell Talk 21:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you seen the Microsoft .NET vs Java - trailer[40]? Hilarious! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Explain

In this edit summary, you write "We *do* write articles based on secondary reliable sources." What is the secondary source used in the edit you reverted back in, specifically? Please make sure that the quotes you are attributing to that secondary source were actually written by that secondary source. Do you intend to discuss your revert on the talk page? Hipocrite (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see what you're saying. But you've already made changes. Can you self-revert so I can self-revert? Then you can remake your changes? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't think that will work at this point. Just so I can evaluate - how often do you revert edits of people who you think are part of whatever group you think I'm part of without fully researching their statements - just assuming that I was lying or mistaken, as you did in this case? At what point do you think it would be appropriate for me to seek to have you prevented from restoring disputed sources to articles? Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Look, since this morning, I'm going through a bit of an RL crisis. One of my dogs shit all over my carpeting in my living room and in my bedroom. Have a good day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Could be a sign of a medical issue or maybe he has an upset stomach. Also, check the pet food recalls on Google News daily. Some pet food was recently recalled due to Salmonella contamination. If in doubt, change his food. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I feed mine Purina Pro Plan. Looks like the recall doesn't affect any of Purina's products.[41] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Death Star explosion was a controlled demolition

CollegeHumor Originals: Stormtroopers' 9/11 A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Jennie Finch, oh how I love your article, let me count the ways...

I have to admit that it's been such an unusual treat to be able to edit an article without other editor's instant reverts or incessant WikiLawyering. I was able to make 26(-ish) improvements to the Jennie Finch article today without a single complaint. Nobody accused me of being a POV pusher. Nobody accused me of assuming bad faith. Nobody made personal attacks against me. Too bad our other articles require a endless WP:BRD cycle for every little change, no matter how innocuous. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Pifeedback

Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

NPOV

NPOV does not mean that Fox News sources get free reign on climate science-related articles. It means they are automatically excluded due to their fringe position and proven bias on the subject. There are plenty of reliable, academic sources that dispute the very notion of a FN-related source even being described as "news". Viriditas (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you might have me confused with someone else. I don't edit any of the CC science articles. My primary focus in this topic area has been the Climategate article which is current events type article and is only tangently related to science. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
What part isn't related to science? Please point to one significant aspect of the article unrelated to science. Viriditas (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Most of the article, actually. Deleting e-mails/violating FOIA has nothing to do with actual science. Expressing joy over the death of a skeptic has nothing to do with actual science. Quality of the computer code is not science. Etc. Off the top of my head, the only thing that dirctly addresses actual science is "hide the decline" remark about the tree ring diversion problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. So you're arguing that these aspects have no impact on the validity of the science or the practice of science? Your views seem to be a small minority among those opposing the majority scientific view on climate science. If you can help to give prominence to reliable sources stating that these aspects have no effect on the science of global warming, that will be helpful. . dave souza, talk 18:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • "Hmmm. So you're arguing that these aspects have no impact on the validity of the science or the practice of science?"
Basically, yes. Off the top of my head, there's only one section in that article that's about actual science, and that's the tree ring divergence problem.
  • "Your views seem to be a small minority among those opposing the majority scientific view on climate science."
It's comments like this that are unhelpful. First, you should not assume that I oppose the majority scientific view on climate science. In fact, I have no idea where that's even coming from. Second, every editor's POV should be irrelevant. What matters is the POV of reliable sources. If we are correctly following WP:NPOV, a skeptic editor and pro-AGW (for lack of better terms) should come up with roughly the same article.
  • "If you can help to give prominence to reliable sources stating that these aspects have no effect on the science of global warming, that will be helpful."
You can Google as well as I can. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
AQFK, what's your take on this encyclopedia article. Do you think there is anything wrong with it? Does it offer anything that Wikipedia should take under consideration? Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Viriditas: Wikipedia and Conservapedia have very different rules. That article might be fine according to Conservapedia's rules, I'm not sure. Since they don't have our policies on WP:NPOV and WP:V, I doubt there is much there worthy of consideration here. Taking a quick glance at their references, most of them appear to be primary sources (according to Wikipedia's rules) although I did see a couple references to CBS News. Articles on Wikipedia should be based primarily on reliable, secondary sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
@ AQFK, please accept a correction to "even among those opposing the majority scientific view on climate science", no implication as to your views. I'm no mind reader. Our article does show a lack of impact, as I recall it's been contested, but rather short of time just now to sort it. By the way, I'm a sceptic editor. Another day. . dave souza, talk 22:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

iPhone 4 Shopper (NSFW)

[42] I should be getting mine tomorrow! :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"On FedEx vehicle for delivery".  :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah! :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Just don't hold the phone around the sides - you know, the part where your hands go... :P MastCell Talk 00:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
So far, I've made one phone call, and the reception is fine. If you buy a case, it's a non-issue. Now, what I am wondering about is that the screen is noticeably darker. I checked the brightness settings and they look identical. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Probably trying to save battery for the multitasking, camera flash, etc... MastCell Talk 04:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Congrats. I just got my HTC Desire ... being a rabid GNU Unix/Linux freak :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You can try to run Android on an iPhone. If you want to render it totally useless. MastCell Talk 16:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I have tried an iPhone - i prefer an Android. [not to mention that i have to develop on an Android :)] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
iPhone5 prototype‏ A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
All to be revealed shortly, hat tip DF which is quite good at keeping up with such things. Apparently a non-issue as you use a case, but you might find it of interest. . dave souza, talk 21:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't bought the case yet. I'm waiting to see if I get a free one. ;) I'm going to guess that most people complaining don't even have an iPhone 4. Let's be honest, if having reliable connections is your top priority, then you wouldn't have bought an iPhone in the first place. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I haven't noticed any connection issues yet with my iPhone 4. In fact, one of my friends who also has an iPhone 4, called me tonight and we talked for a good half hour without a single problem. In fact, we both intentionally covered up the bottom, left-hand side of the iPhone4 and still didn't have a problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Shame

It's a shame that instead of trying to reel in ATren and ZP5, you are encouraging them. On the heels of my attempt to reign in my "side" on RSN, it might be nice if you showed you could do the same. Or not. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't have a chance to fully examine the evidence at hand. But from what I could tell, I saw two cheap shots: 1) Taking a joke that ZP5 had made as if it was a serious comment and 2) the accusation/implication that ZP5 was engaging in paid editing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I know that you are trying to make a pont...

.. but referring to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy as Climategate is at times more confusing than it should be. Since this is the Climategate article, and this is the corresponding talk-page, when you are saying that the CG page has been protected/semi-protected - then you are in fact stating something that is wrong. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

McCartney, in Interview, Compares Global Warming Skeptics to Holocaust Deniers

[43] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have been foxed by this, better go to the source as it wos the Sun wot dunnit. Not generally a rs, why don't you let it be? . . dave souza, talk 18:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
He's mother nature's son. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I like how The Media eagerly rush Paul's thoughts on climate change into print, and then turn around and say: "Who cares what he thinks? He's just a musician!" Seems a bit schizophrenic. MastCell Talk 21:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems pretty helter skelter to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Nah, they're just fixing a hole in their coverage. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

AQFK, thought you might like these: "The sceptics come from the worlds of politics, economics, television and, crucially, science. David Bellamy (opposite), a professor of botany who was formerly the televisual face of eco-evangelism, has been compared with a Holocaust denier because he doesn't believe carbon emissions cause climate change."[44] "CBS 'Global Warming Special' Host Likened Warming Skeptics to Holocaust Deniers" [45], Best --Duchamps_comb MFA 21:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The iPhone Antenna Song

Featured at today's Apple's iPhone press conference.[46] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Antennagate scandal

[47] This is clearly a manufactured scandal that was orchestrated by technology deniers and perpetuated by lazy journalists. Or something like that.  :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

RDF be with you ;) dave souza, talk 05:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Watson

My first reaction - change it to "July 16 incident" as it will not be "today" much longer.--SPhilbrickT 01:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Second reaction - looks like you used EDT for times - would be better to use UST- not a big deal.--SPhilbrickT 01:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
First issue fixed. Second one, I'm not sure how to handle. I'm trying to keep this simple (at first) and am just copying and pasting the time from the edit history. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Now that you've finished that one, do you feel like doing one to illustrate the edit war on Lawrence Solomon around July 9th?  :) I can't remember now who asked Rlevse, but that edit war was mentioned and he said evidence could be late-included since it was after the evidence deadline of July 7. Minor4th • talk 21:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Solomon

My talk page is getting confusing, so I'm going to post here for a bit
I finally figured out how to fix the time sorting (I think, will implement shortly.)
I don't know the problem you mentioned about wrong names- please give me an example.
Yes I can distinguish article and talk page - I spot checked a few and they were all talk, so I didn't realize there are some of both.--SPhilbrickT 02:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it starts, but towards the end it says that I protected the page. I'm not an admin; 2/0 protected the page. The only thing off the top of my head that I did differently this time is that I used some NoWiki tags. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, will check that out - I'm happy that the time sorting works - there's probalby a mindlessly sime way to do it, but I found something that works.--SPhilbrickT 02:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, looks like it could be your error - in [[48]], the last line - "10:00, July 10, 2010 User:A Quest For Knowledge protects article with..."--SPhilbrickT 02:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe that was just a copy and paste error on my part. I fixed it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Got it. I'm adding the article/talk distinction now, then going to hang it up for the night --SPhilbrickT 02:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Done for now--SPhilbrickT 02:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Yikes, my bad for poor communication - I'm thinking I'm done, and you may be waiting for me to add it as evidence. I won't add it without seeing the dispensation - not that I disbelieve Minor4th, but I don't know the editor, and when it comes to something this formal, I'm a trust but verify kind of editor. If you can point me to the dispensation, I'd be happy to add it as evidence, alternatively, if you have seen it, you could add it. Breaking for lunch in minutes - let me know what you want me to do, and I'll do it right after lunch.--SPhilbrickT 16:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should just hold off. ArbCom is supposed to post their proposed decision tonight (I think), and I'd hate to introduce new evidence and risk delaying this. The sooner I can resume my life, the better. Let's just shelve it for now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, can do (nothing). Back to clearing brush and AFD.--SPhilbrickT 17:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Not that it matters now, but Rlevse's Solomon exemption was stated on the evidencr talk page in the section about the Watson extension. Just didnt want you to think that I was being deceptive or gaming the process -- not that you thought that, but you know what I mean. Minor4th 13:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A_Quest_For_Knowledge/Archive_7&oldid=1151028588"