User talk:A Quest For Knowledge/Archive 4

Welcome!
welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions or place   on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
 * To follow up on your questions on the help desk, you can read more about the different types of protection (move protection and edit protection) and the different levels (semi-protection and full protection) on this page...if you've got any questions then I'll happily help you out - just drop me a line on my talk page. GbT/c 20:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment
Thank you, it was very kind of you to say so. Jayjg (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your advice. I will follow your suggestion. Will in China (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions
Hi. Just to let you know, I very much appreciate your work in trying to source and improve List of common misconceptions. Although there is obviously a lot of disagreement about exactly how to proceed through the improvements, I think that a lot of progress is being made already. In light of the debates there, I'll try to make sure to do a good google search to see if I can turn up supporting references before removing lines in the future. Hopefully if we keep up the work the article will end up being much better for it. Cheers- Locke9k (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Locke9k. I think we've made some excellent progress in the last week or so.  I updated the talk page to indicate the remaining items that I plan on working on.   Assuming I do one a day, I should be done in about 10 days.  After that, I will have no objection to any unsourced items being removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Need support to add new material to WTC7
As the new NIST report of Nov.08 now includes an interesting free-fall theory, I thought it is worth adding it to the official WTC7 page. However, as its a major change, I'm now looking for users supporting me to create an acceptable version of the article, which is Wiki conform and contains the main facts. I've created a first version in the WTC talk page Talk:World_Trade_Center in the hope to get some feedback. --Johninwiki (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters
Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Template:911ct, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  07:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Source Noticeboard & Ning
Hi Quest,

There has been some dispute over the Controversies section of the Ning article. This dispute can be found in the talk page.

I see you are a regular contributor to the RS Noticeboard. It would be great if you'd review this dispute and help resolve it by weighing in whether Charting Stocks is a reliable source here. While there are multiple issues beyond WP:RS, this seems to be the biggest point of contention at the moment. Thanks! Kangaru99 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Information from Chronicle
Hi Quest — A lot of information has been removed from the article, although it is supported by reliable sources, and although these sources found it to be relevant. If we leave this piece of information from the Chronicle in the article, the recently removed information from the New York Times and other sources should be restored to the article immediately. How do you think about this issue? — Regards. Cs32en 23:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This article gets changed a few thousand times a day (OK, that's maybe an exageration but it sure seems like it) and I can't keep up with all the changes.  Which edits are you referring to?  Some diffs would help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to three edits earlier today. I have listed them in the section Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories Cs32en  01:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, and ...
Sir quest: Would you be so kind as to convey your thoughts (on the cd lead) with a little more whatever, for aims of consensus? There is no editing war and I can't guess others' perceptions of the two language options. I don't perceive an inclination to search for whatever benefit my change might have intended or might have achieved. I acknowledge last week I was not the best listener. Starting fresh. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

My primary concern is with the word "claim...abc"; I am hoping some editors have read some of the primary sources. I have read NIST, FEMA, Jones and Griffin very carefully. Yes, lets avoid original research. Yes, secondary sources generally get more sway than primary sources. still, WP:RS notes primary sources are often wrong WP:RS calls for editors to use reason and common sense. Just one part (claim ...abc) is my primary concern in the first line. When newspapers have used that work, I interpret as "news lingo" that just tries to create a simple story line by putting each party into a box. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

So, again RS says editors must use reason and judgment. A simple (no interpretation) reading of Jones is that his work is NOT about merely claims in such a simple sense. Same for Griffin. I am not saying they are right; I am saying what they do is obvious to any college student. What they do is first is collect hundreds of pages of evidence (yes, allegedly controversial if you want) that argue that government claims are not credible. Even if it is wrong or fringe, it is "wrong or fringe" that is not "merely a claim", not merely a conclusion. It has the format of scholarly analysis, not just something claimed based on assumptions. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Using the judgment and reason called for in RS, I am saying that a face reading of what they do should be permissible enough to adjust this the one word. I base this not just on WP:RS suggesting that editors must use reason and discretion, but also on the fact that dozens of newspapers in recent years have been wrong when support official government opinions. They admitted as much, and there are dozens of sources to show that, and I noted this in the discussion page of RS. Hundreds, actually thousands, of newspapers got stories wrong when supporting official government claims. Examples of the stories include: WMD, Torture, Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The word better than "claim" would be "suggest". --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What they do is more specific and less controversial than what the existing language entails. Claim makes it possible that they might just be pulling it out of a hat. I don't mean they are right. Again, I mean what they do, right or wrong, is not theoretical speculation from the top of their head, nor is there any evidence it is a propaganda campaign or merely opinion campaign (again, even if they are wrong). --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What does Jones do? Yes, secondary sources are generally favorable to secondary sources, but any college student will see that he does things like: assesses evidence of competing hypothesis; suggests that CD is scientifically supported by evidence; and calls for further investigation. That is more nuanced than just "claim". --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What Griffin primarily does is find flaws, a technically negative endeavor; he does not primarily do/make (technically positive) claims, although he does a little. Only very secondarily does he make suggest that CD is more likely than fire, etc. Some truth reserachrs don't make any "absolute" claims whatsoever, they only say what is more or less likely based on the evidence. Maybe you have seen media footage. Media interviewers, seemingly addicted to controversy, love to focus instead on the conclusions, which are false picture of the analyses do in totality. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

For these reasons I perceive the word "claim" as being not just accurate, but also having hgte effect of propaganda. Without that change, I think the wikipedia article will seem like a replay of news falsities in recent years like WMD, Torture, Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch.--Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

New kid on the block
I’m thinking that Reader2010 is probably a single-purpose sock, possibly of a banned editor. What do you think? — NRen2k5 (TALK), 18:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You've been mentioned
At Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Jone, Griffith ,,?
Before we equate truth researchers and holocaust deniers, have you read Griffin's latest book and Jones' simple article 14 points of agreement? Ok, well, you don't equate them, but you mention them together in justifying a certain pejorative way (see WP:WordsToAvoid) of charactering people who do study and research 911 and question the validity of certain government reports. The article called 14 Points is short easy reading, starting this way In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't read them. I've seen Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries but that's about it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the question live still?
I see at AE911 you raised pressing questions of notability. I also recognize that a table of sources was later posted, but in a different section below the original discussion. Since the discussion and data points appear in different sections also separated by time, I wonder to what degree that table of sources answered your concerns about notability. Link --Ihaveabutt (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I honestly haven't had much free time lately so I really haven't looked at it much. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Little Walter
I saw the movie in the theater, and as far as I can tell, that isn't true. There are a lot of things in the movie that are changed from real life. Len Chess didn't die a block away from Chess Records, he died a couple of years later. Little Walter didn't die as a result of the fight, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I listened to the DVD commentary and watched the extras and according to the movie's director, the scene is based on a "legend". It didn't seem like they did much research (or perhaps they couldn't find much) to determine whether it was true or not. Yes, after doing a little more research, it appears they weren't too concerned about factual accuracy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been a fan of blues music since 1971 (but not much about Little Walter), and I don't remember hearing it before. Also, in the movie Muddy and Willie Dixon went to success in Europe after Chess Records had been sold and Len Chess died.  I think that actually happened a couple of years before the company was sold.  But it makes a better movie the way it was presented.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive at AE911
Quest Your comments, if they continue to cherry pick, are disruptive. Your comments still ignore the original question's data, that the media view certain professions as an asset, not a weakness (KMPH Fox 26). You haven't answered the question of whether one source should be censored from our knowledge (the media link) in order to support the quote you defended (an organization's website). Furthermore, we need to be able to expect that editors here can be trusted to know that what architects do is not in western society invoked as a professional weakness in this context. Can the organization's site be reliable and "nutcases" (your word) at the same time? Again, the problem is WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is WP:NOT is not a poster board to cherry pick data selectively favored. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To which edit are you referring? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the purpose of that AETruth section (POV: Gage, etc) is to attempt some greater consensus or forestall editing war on VErbal's (I think his) quote regarding "experience and training". I am finding it harder to trust you are not trying to be disruptive, if - as you say at this point - you have little or no view on the matter of the quote's inclusion. Since you have made several comments in the section, I hope you will consider showing that you do appreciate the purpose of the section pertains to the question of the forementioned quote. Using the term "nutcase" to characterize the group about which we are writing in no clear way points to what your concrete suggestion is for the article, unless one infers what you were suggesting in light of your other comments (that the quote might be found in an archive). --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition, your view and your opinion of the group about which we are writing, with all due respect, is very hard to take seriously when your comments use terms like "nutcase" to characterize the group being written about. I don't blame, nor am I surprised by, ordinary citizens on the street that may quickly embrace such vague assumptions (if they rely on emotionalistic editorial writers in US and UK media).  But a WP editor ought to consider that such invective is often smear attack language, this way: it is so vague it can be neither confirmed nor disconfirmed, and yet simultaneously it has almost no meaning.  Such inflammatory rhetoric does not engender credibility in the WP editor that uses it.  On the contrary, extremely vague (almost childish) words like "nutcase" are an easy tool of those who might wish to inflame attitudes by appealing to emotions rather than evidence and reason.  Or, should I imagine you were just being ironic, and were just uncommittedly echoing the attack language of specific emotion-based writers in the US and UK?  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone stole my idea
I was thinking of doing this myself, but someone beat me to the punch! Bentham Open has agreed to publish a nonsensical article written by a computer program, claiming that the manuscript was peer reviewed and requesting that the "authors" pay $800 in "open access fees." The editor of the journal is resigning: "I will definitely resign. Normally I see everything that comes through. I don't know why I did not see this...The peer review didn't work". So much for it's reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute
Hey, I'm wondering if you could weigh in on this dispute between me and another editor:

It started here:
 * Talk:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society

And spilled over here: — NRen2k5 (TALK), 23:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Editor_assistance/Requests
 * 2) Wikiquette_alerts
 * 3) Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents

wtf???
why do you revert and put back an unsupported statement. source doesn't back it up. it was first noted by a.r., and then i deleted it. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can provide the diff where Arthur Rubin noticed it, I'll take another look at it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * he added a not-in-source template -- didn't you see it? if you didn't bother looking at the context of edits and article edit history, that speaks about you and your 'ad-hominem' approach to judging my edits. i'm not gonna bother providing a diff to you. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you!". LOL.  Oh well, I offered to take another look at it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * how generous of you. you generously revert my edit, and than you generously offer me to show you what you didn't bother to look at in the first place when reverting my edit even though its two clicks away. what will i do with all that generosity. i may start giving it back! 79.101.174.192 (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that I didn't look at it. I simply gave you the opportunity to make your case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

9/11
Thanks for erasing inappropriate comments from the talk page of the 9/11 article. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions (2)
Please explain your reversal. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the talk page. The article was up for deletion twice.  The article was saved from deletion the last time on the grounds that WP:RS would be added to the article.  Me and several other editors worked towards added sources but there are still several items that have no sources at all (let alone WP:RS).  There's an ongoing debate whether these unsourced items should be removed from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is what's required to save the article from deletion, then I'm sorry for the (unintentional) interference. It was also pretty weird for me to see no music section before I went ahead and created it. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the quote
you should place the source in the article. 93.86.91.184 (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi! Nice to meet you, I would be interested about where you work, and how long you have been affiliated to CIA. Thanks,--91.138.29.74 (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC) =)

Truther Spam????
Quest,

I replied to VegitaU on his talk page on why I undid his edit.

If you read it you would have known that he undid some edits which cited Goldberg, not David Ray Griffin.

You would have also known that DRG's books are cited in the main 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article which is linked to in the Flight 77 conspiracy section. Therefore, DRG is a reliable source when it comes to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Reply here or on my talk page. 97.104.226.129 (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com is a blog, not a reliable source
Examiner.com is a blog. Generally speaking, it is not a reliable source. Examiner.com can only be used as a self-published source if the author is an established expert on the topic whose work in the relevent field has been published by a reliable third-party publication. Even then, caution should be exercised.

For more information, please see the following discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard:


 * Examiner.com = paid blogging no editorial oversight (archived)


 * Request to reopen discussion on Examiner.com (archived)


 * Examiner.com (archived)

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Warning: Do not edit war or you will be banned
Quest,

For the last time, as you've been told by multiple editors, USE THE TALK PAGE BEFORE YOU REVERT.

If you fail to use the talk page, I'll have to report you for edit warring.

ArXivist (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, report me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edit warring is getting out of hand with increasingly POV reverts. Most recently you deleted a tag without discussion. I prefer to warn you to improve your behaviour in preference to reporting you so please try to work with editors in future. Wayne (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The deletion of the tag was an accident. It's back in the article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Last warning for edit-warring. If I see you at it again, you will be blocked.  Enigma msg  07:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recent editing activity.
A Quest For Knowledge, please refrain from reordering the section "Main theories" in 9/11 conspiracy theories without providing reliable sources that actually indicate the significance of theories that you might prefer. Continuing making such unsourced changes to an article might be considered edit warring. Cs32en 04:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul
Hello A Quest For Knowledge. I've put forward another proposal in an attempt to resolve the content dispute at Ron Paul. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Fringe
Thanks for the links... unfortunately they don't help... they talk about conpiracy theories with out using the term Fring theory. Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Quest Acting in Bad Faith?
Hi QfK. I notice you undid my edit without providing WP justification in your edit summary. So, I checked the discussion page. No explanation there either. You appear to have made no effort to address the concerns I've raised clearly in my edit summaries and the discussion page. Would you mind explaining to me how that shouldn't be taken as bad faith editing? If you're willing to answer here, I'll hold off from reporting it as bad faith editing. Thanks. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi QfK. Your (8/27) post at AE "Bazant Language" made about four or five claims of fact for which you provide no evidence. Also, several are easily shown to be false with evidence already in the main article (see my response on discussion page). Please consider backing up claims with evidence, and please avoid claims that are easily shown to be false with a quick review of current literature and the main article. Otherwise, they detract from discussion board. Thanks! Doctorhoneydew (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for promoting conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Publisher info
Re this, I think the answer is at WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia template filling
I've found this tool helpful: Wikipedia template filling. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've created my first Wikipedia article
I created an article on Bernard Foing, the Principle Project Scientist for SMART-1, the European Space Agency's first mission to the Moon. I could use a subject matter expert to do a sanity check that what I've written is correct. I've done the best that I can in finding reliable sources to cite. But, to be honest, I'm not a professional biographer. In fact, I never heard of this guy until a couple days ago. Though the article is only a couple days old, it's already #10 on Google search results for "Bernard Foing". There are no content disputes or anything going on. I'm pretty much the only editor working on the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent editing activity.
A Quest For Knowledge,

Recently, you have introduced a reference to an opinion piece written by a person who is both involved in the controversy and who is a representative of a political pressure group into the article 9/11 conspiracy theories. You have objected to attributing the information to the source properly, and have reintroduced the reference several times. I will now restore this part of the article to the state before your first edit, with a view to resolving this issue on the talk page. Reintroducing the reference without proper attribution may be considered a violation of the Three-revert-rule. Cs32en 21:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The San Francisco Chronicle is one of the largest newspapers in the United States with circulation measured in the hundreds of thousands with an established editorial process. It is clearly a reliable source.  Your claim that this is a "bogus source" is beyond ridiculous. Further, since when do reliable sources require inline attribution?  Attribution using the reference tags is appropriate.  As I said before, if you disagree, please take up the issue at the WP:RSN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no issue with the San Francisco Chronicle. Many respectable newspapers give a forum to people presenting various ideas and viewpoints, and they do not vouch for the accuracy of every piece of information that can be found in such articles. As it is not the SFC, but Stillwell, who (implicitly) claims that this information is accurate, and as Stillwell is an involved person in the dispute, we need to attribute the information to the source in-line. Cs32en  22:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

'9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ridiculous' - Al Qaeda
An Al Qaeda representative says that claims the U.S. government was behind the attacks on Sept. 11th are demeaning to Al Qaeda. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Did this so-called representative state in that interview that he did research on the possible use of (nano-)thermite? Cs32en  09:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an Onion News thing, it's completely fake and it's supposed to be funny. Sorry if you knew this already, the comments above sounded serious. A little insignificant (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Parodies are always best if you refrain from laughing out loud. Cs32en  20:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Then you should check out Uncomfortable Questions: Was the Death Star Attack an Inside Job?. According to the official government version, a band of terrorists led by Luke Skywalker destroyed the Death Star. But how can a handful of rebel fighters able to penetrate the defenses of a battle station that had the capability of destroying an entire planet and the defenses to ward off several fleets of battle ships? Why did Grand Moff Tarkin refuse to deploy the station’s large fleet of TIE Fighters until it was too late? Was he acting on orders from somebody to not shoot down the rebel attack force? If so, who, and why? How could any pilot shoot a missile into a 2 meter-wide exhaust port, let alone a pilot with no formal training, whose only claim to fame was his ability to  bullseye womprats on Tatooine? This shot, according to one pilot, would be "impossible, even for a computer." Why have these discrepancies never been investigated, let alone explained? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This sounds ominous, not to mention mentally exhausting. Let's hire the most expensive investigation team we can find and have them spin a plausible solution. Remember: don't trust anybody. A little insignificant talk to me! (please!) 17:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If these things can happen in outer space, it's proof enough that they can happen in the US, too. Cs32en  17:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * More evidence is here. Cs32en  23:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your recent editing activity.
You appear to be edit-warring at the article 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please refrain from inserting content that is not supported by appropriate sources. Please take note of the three-revert rule. Cs32en 08:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * David Aaronovitch is a British journalist who authors regular columns for The Guardian and The Times. Aaronovitch won the What The Papers Say award for a writer about broadcasting, the Orwell prize for journalism and the What The Papers Say Columnist of the Year award.BBC News  His articles on conspiracy theories have been published by WP:RS including 9/11 conspiracy theories: The truth is out there...just not on the internet.  He's been featured in National Geographic's 9/11: Science and Conspiracy documentary.


 * Matt Taibbi is a journalist whose articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories have been published by Rolling Stone magazine including 9/11 Truth: Bald Regurgitation of Another Bombing Conspiracy and THE LOW POST: The Hopeless Stupidity of 9/11 Conspiracies. He was also featured in National Geographic's 9/11: Science and Conspiracy documentary.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're still edit-warring, and just because someone has been published, does not mean what they have to say needs to be stuck into articles to support your POV.  Enigma msg  16:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted them because they were violations of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that we present the majority viewpoint as presented by reliable sources. There are few, if any, reliable sources that claim that 9/11 was an inside job secretly orchestrated by the US government.  Nor is there any serious academic debate as to whether or not Islamic extremists carried out the 9/11 attacks.  The article needs to accurately reflect this.


 * AFAIK, our article on Intelligent design is our only featured article that we have on a fringe theory. If I may paraphrase from the FAQ on its talk page:


 * "If critics of 9/11 conspiracy theories have presented damning evidence, written scathing reviews or made a more compelling case than the 9/11 conspiracy theory proponents, that's not our concern. Our only concern is to accurately and thoroughly present both sides of the topic in proportion to the majority viewpoint."


 * The Intelligent design article has many watchful eyes on it. When fringe theory proponents try deleting out the majority viewpoint from the Intelligent design article, it's immediately reverted without controversy.  Unfortunately, we don't have that many watchful eyes on the 9/11 conspiracy theories articles.  There's only a handful of us.


 * Wikipedia has some excellent policies and guidelines regarding WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. ArbCom has already ruled in the matter. Unfortunately, they're of no use if we don't follow them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

enforcement request
You need to complete your report and fill in the missing sections.--Tznkai (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, this is the first time I've filed a request. What sections am I missing?  I thought I filled them out.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll want to compare with the other reports.--Tznkai (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the result.--Tznkai (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've created my second article
I've created my second article. The topic is the Naperville Independent Film Festival. The Naperville Independent Film Festival is an annual film festival held in Naperville, Illinois which features the work of independent filmmakers. In 2009, film critic Roger Ebert presented the award for best student film to Brooke Hanson for her movie "Borderless". Please join me in creating the article. The talk page mentions several reliable sources which can be used in creating the article. I plan on expending it further. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

New World Order (conspiracy theory)
Hello AQFK. I would appreciate if you could had some comments to the neutrality-in-question debate over the the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article on its talk page. Thanking you in advance. --Loremaster (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly with the comment you just made. Please elaborate further. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory FAQ
Hi there! I've created a FAQ for the Moon landing conspiracy theories article talk page, and seeing how you're a veteran editor of the topic, it would be great if you could take a look at it. Thanks! Mildly MadTC 15:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My third article for Wikipedia: McDonald's rap
I saw this this video on YouTube last week and could not stop laughing. Since I look up just about everything on Wikipedia, I checked to see what our article had to say about it. To my surprise, we didn't even have an article on it. I looked it up and discovered that Rolling Stone magazine had named it one of the 25 funniest viral videos of all time. I also found several other reliable sources about the video. So, I created my third article for Wikipedia: McDonald's rap. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Groups at ClimateGate
I chuckled when I read your characterization of the ClimateGate editors as falling into three groups. I’m trying to be part of the third group, but I fear it is the smallest group. I know we sparred a bit at the myths article, but I think we were both trying to make it a good article. That’s my goal at ClimateGate, although it’s a challenge. SPhilbrick T  13:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, believe me I've noticed that you're also trying to following WP:NPOV and WP:RS. But yes, we appear to be in the minority.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:CABAL is right. Drolz (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * They are, alas, good Wikilawyers.Flegelpuss (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly I feel like I have won pretty much every argument over policy, but I don't have an answer to their mastery of reverting and then threatening to block me.  Drolz 09  08:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Drolz09, you're correct. We've won every argument so far, but still the 'minimizers' refuse to back down.  Just last night, I got one of the minimizers editors to admit they didn't have enough WP:RS to warrant mention of the death threats so prominently in the lede, and today I got one of the minimizers to admit that only published works are WP:RS, not people.  But I'm at a loss to figure out how we can bring neutrality to the article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't get anything of the sort, you've "won" nothing, and the article is neutral as it is. I find it ironic that you're describing people as "minimizers" when it's you who wants to remove content from the article on frankly tendentious grounds. Your attitude in the article talk page is the classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT paradigm, where you refuse to listen or to accept what people are telling you. You've been advised by editors far more experienced than you that your view of Wikipedia policy is incorrect. I suggest that you start listening; you might learn something. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am listening. You don't even have an argument anymore that I can even respond to.  Again, please provide a legitimate rationale that warrants such high prominence of the death threats in the lede that doesn't violate WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V.  I'm listening.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I just add how ridiculous I find these constant accusations of 'wikilawyering'? It seems like any time someone spams the talk page with WP:X and WP:Y, etc., and it turns out the policies in question do not in any way support their position, anyone who points this out is now 'wikilawyering,' and can be safely ignored. I mean, really. I also think it's worth noting that I rather doubt there's a great deal of overlap between your and my personal POVs on this issue, but that we're in considerable agreement over the state of the article as it stands. Conversely, I think there is total agreement in personal POV between TS, ChrisO, Guettarda, Viriditas, etc.  Drolz 09  01:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of McDonald's rap
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is McDonald's rap. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/McDonald's rap. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bastards! Seriously, this was my response:
 * Keep. Rolling Stone magazine is a reliable source and a major magazine regarding popular culture and establishes the notability of this topic. Further, the incident with the teenagers in Utah acheived national prominence by numerous reliable sources including AOL News, MSNBC, Deseret News, CNBC, Associated Press, CNS News, Chicago Sun-Times, CBS News, The Boston Globe and many other reliable sources Given the overwhelming number of reliable sources which have covered this topic, our article clearly meets notability standards.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
We seem to be more or less back on an even keel. I had meant to come here a day or two ago about your increasingly frequent allegations of cabalism and of evading neutral point of view. The basics of what I had to say is that such issues should be addressed through dispute resolution, a system expressly designed to stop discussion pages becoming a cluttered mass of accusations and counter-accusations.

I have my own (different) reservations about one or two regular editors, as you know, but I have tried to follow dispute resolution in those cases (and that is what I'm doing now).

Anyway, this just a word of appreciation for your civil and levelheaded comments today, and a hope that we can address interpersonal issues and conduct problems appropriately and without messing up talk pages and spoiling the atmosphere of collegial discussion we aspire to as an encyclopedia. --TS 18:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but nothing I said yesterday was against anything I said before. As I said on the Talk page, ironically, this is not even a topic I care too much about.  I'm only there because I get annoyed by people who abuse Wikipedia to promote an agenda.  And I'm going to keep arguing for a neutral article no matter now much each side of the debate objects. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just read your very shocking attacks on your fellow editors here. This is not acceptable conduct on a talk page. You have accused people who are long term Wikipedians, and acting in good faith, who happen disagree with your stated opinions, of "[abusing] Wikipedia to promote an agenda."  This isn't acceptable.  Please stop doing that on the talk page. Please join with me in pursuing dispute resolution. --TS 23:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not the only one who has noticed the same thing. I've never had to deal with a WP:CABAL before.  In my post "To the neutral editors", I asked for advice, but I'm not really sure how to go about resolving the problem.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Criteria on the Climatic Research Unit files hacking
Thanks for your comment. I hope I am one of the editors that you can classify as neutral. I came to the article after ChrisO put an alert on the fringe theories noticeboard. He has been putting in a lot of work, I think on balance useful, to keep at bay those who would have turned it into a mirror of the climate sceptics' blogs. You're right to warn that it could go the other way. My preferred solution is always to go with what the sources say. I'm sure we agree that criteria are needed for what opinions should go in, and it's more important to agree objective criteria and stick to them than exactly what they are. I quibbled, but only because I am keen to ensure that we don't set precedents for other articles. We can discuss on the talk page anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think your edits have been great. I appreciate your help on this matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A miracle just happened
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a well written piece, but do you think an anon IP is going to make any difference?  Drolz 09  01:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * God, I hope so. If we have to, we'll keep raising the issue to WP:NPOV, administrator's incidents board, RfC and every other venue until we get a neutral article.
 * The ironic thing is that the uninvolved editor goes far beyond even what I was proposing. They should have worked with us, instead of fighting us every step of the way.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not everybody wants to accomplish the same thing. Honestly though, I expect that they really are acting in good faith; they just can't see how awry things have gone.  Drolz 09  01:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of talk pages
Talk pages are for discussing the article, not the conduct of other editors. If you have a problem with the conduct of another editor, first bring it to his attention on his user talk page. In fact anything not related to producing a better encyclopedia should be left at the door, but any unavoidable problems should be resolved by discussing interpersonal issues, with civility, with the person involved.

In other words, hijacking a talk page to complain about the conduct of other editors is not a good move. Follow dispute resolution. --TS 14:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm not the one who closed down a legitimate thread about improving the WP:NPOV of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Frequently asked questions
Certainly you agree that the article is not titled "Climategate" or "something something something scandal." People frequently ask why this is so. The answer they are always given is that those are words to avoid. If you believe there is consensus that the article should be renamed, demonstrate it, but I suspect that you'll find a large number of people responding with "words to avoid." As such, removing the frequently given answer to the frequently asked question isn't really helpful in your cause of getting the article renamed - rather, it's helpful in cluttering up the talk page with the same thing many times. The FAQ is not a set-in-stone list of things that must be true, but rather the answers to questions that get asked over and over and answered the same way, over and over. Hipocrite (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I used to make the same argument myself. However, given the following analysis from an uninvolved editor, I'm not so sure anymore.  In any case, we shouldn't put items in the FAQ without achieving consensus first.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus has been found - it's called Wikipedia policy. There is zero chance that the article will be renamed to something which so fundamentally violates WP:NPOV. The anonymous editor's "analysis" is drivel, frankly - blatantly POV, full of speculation and completely lacking in any understanding of what NPOV or reliable sourcing requires. It's concerning that you appear to find some merit in the "analysis"; with all due respect, you really need to improve your understanding of NPOV and reliable sourcing. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Who's Wikilawyering now? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually have a fair amount of sympathy to your POV in a number of areas but have decided to limit my involvement in the article. But I agree with ChrisO that I don't think mentioning that anon's post is helpful. Whatever the problems with the current version, his/her POV comes out blatantly in the version proposed, e.g. "improprieties in handling worldwide temperature data related to Global Warming research" (this has been an issue people having been raising that is not really directly related to the controversy and hasn't really came from the documents released) & "When the controversy began, it was downplayed by those involved. It was largely ignored by major media, but mounting pressure from people on the Internet eventually caused it to become well-known" (eh? the only reason I know of this is because of the major media & there has been a resonable amount of coverage). I also agree that the comparisons to Watergate is way overdone. There are few similarities at the current time, something significant may eventually come from this, but there's no evidence it's anything like Watergate. Coming from NZ, I have less sensitivity to this -gate stuff in general since it's so blatantly used by the NZ media, take a look at List of scandals with "-gate" suffix for example and while some of these involved some questionable stuff e.g. Paintergate others are really just bullshit e.g. Corngate but I doubt anyone in NZ would recognise it by any other name. However I can understand why people don't like it so accept that. Personally I still feel a rename to something else would be best, but it doesn't seem likely we're going to achieve consensus for that so I think we're stuck with out current name for now and suggest there's no point debating it further for a few months barring some major change. Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources!
I love your piece on climategate talk pages. For years, I've been trying to get pieces from people like the BBC onto climate articles, only to be met by the statement: "they are not a reliable source".

As you rightly point out there is no truth as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is there to report the summary of reliable sources, not just (climategate) scientists work. Unfortunately, the myth has grown up amongst climate article editors that they can claim whatever source they like to be reliable (and there appears to be almost the exactly same approach used to "redefine what peer review means" to keep out some material from IPCC reports.) So, you will have a fight on your hands - but one which has been needed to be had for ages. Isonomia (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, let me give you (and everyone who's reading my talk page) a few tips:
 * Stick to mainstream news sources (Washington Post, New York Times, BBC News, etc.).
 * Avoid blogs and opinion pieces like the plague.
 * You can try using my reliable sources search engine.  The URL is http: //www.google.com/cse/home?cx=010426977372765398405:3xxsh-e1cp8&hl=en.  For some reason, it's not letting me post the URL so I inserted a blank space between http: and www.  Just remove the blank space and copy and paste it into your browser's address bar.  Bookmark the site so you don't lose it.
 * If there's any doubt as to whether a source is reliable, just take the issue to WP:RSN. There are plenty of editors there who would be happy to help you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder a little about opinion pieces as reliable sources. Obviously they are not RS for facts, but aren't they an RS for what a certain person says? Provided that person is WP:N, it seems to me that a blog (obviously not any blog/blogger) or op-ed, etc. would be a valid RS for their statements. Thoughts?  Drolz 09  05:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Cabal
Hi I noticed your neutral personality over at the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident talk page. I have been working on the "Climate cabal" section over at WP:LOC. However this section keeps being deleted by certain users due to supposed attacks. Maybe someone as skilled as yourself and find a NPOV on this section or pass this invitation on to someone els. -- The Pimp Hand    ' 21:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC) ''' 21:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Pimp Hand. Your contributions to that humor page might not be reverted if they were amusing enough. --TS 00:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I can barely keep up with the discussions at our Climategate article. Apparently, the war that's broken out between the two sides has afflicted multiple articles.  It's too much for me to keep up with so I've decided to only focus on one article.
 * However, if you can give me some advice on how to deal with this WP:CABAL, please let me know. I've dealt with POV-pushers before, but never a WP:CABAL so this is all new to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * However, if you can give me some advice on how to deal with this WP:CABAL, please let me know. I've dealt with POV-pushers before, but never a WP:CABAL so this is all new to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Drolz09 response to Viriditas

 * Drolz, I have directly addressed these points with evidence. If you persist in disrupting discussions that have nothing to do with you with nonsense, then there will be repercussions.  Expressing concerns is not a personal attack.  You need to actually read the policies and guidelines and stop misinterpreting them.  This point has been brought to your attention by a dozen different editors.  Concerns are always supposed to be made on the talk page of the user involved, not on the article talk page.  Your continued appeal to conspiracies and cabals is getting tiresome.  When you find everyone against you except for SPA accounts, there's a problem. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits to Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/FAQ
Hello. You recently changed the Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/FAQ to say that "an uninvolved editor has said that article title is not appropriate." This is entirely false, and I've removed it. Here's why: First of all, it is your opinion, which is not appropriate for a FAQ. Second of all, the two editors who have objected to the title, User:Nightmote and User:Isonomia are neither uninvolved or unbiased: 1) They have both participated in the Climatic Research Unit talk page discussion 2) They have voted on the requested move 3) They have spoken out extensively on the subject 4) And they have been open about their POV which favors only one side. There is nothing "uninvolved" about their positions; They are 100% involved. I am growing increasingly concerned about your edits as the days progress. I realize that you have only been on Wikipedia for about a year, but the last week has strained my good faith in regards to your behavior. I seriously suggest you either take a break from these pages or request a mentor, as you have shown and continue to show disrespect and incivility towards your fellow editors on the talk page and a misunderstanding of basic policies and guidelines. I suggest that you would greatly benefit from a mentor, preferably an administrator, who can help guide you and keep you on the straight and narrow. Although he should already be an administrator (and chooses not to be at this time) may I recommend contacting User:Cla68 and asking him to mentor you? He seems to favor your position on this matter (that's my opinion, his might differ) and I think you would benefit from his experience and knowledge. I will contact him and let him know about this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Viriditas: (sigh)
 * How is "an uninvolved editor has said that the article title is not appropriate" a statement of opinion?
 * Presumably he means the anon ip who wrote the nice, well reasoned post that upset a lot of you. Also, those two are hardly "involved."
 * People (other than you obviously) can have POVs and still argue for an NPOV article. Having a POV that you don't like is not a disqualifier.
 * This:
 * "I am growing increasingly concerned about your edits as the days progress. I realize that you have only been on Wikipedia for about a year, but the last week has strained my good faith in regards to your behavior.  I seriously suggest you either take a break from these pages or request a mentor, as you have shown and continue to show disrespect and incivility towards your fellow editors on the talk page and a misunderstanding of basic policies and guidelines."
 * is a series of personal attacks couched in passive aggressive pedantic nonsense.  Drolz 09  05:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why should the views of a non-notable anonymous poster be of any significance? For all we know that IP was Scibaby or one of the other editors here editing while logged out. The anon IP's comments were not "well-reasoned" at all. The lines which AQFK cited were mere speculation with no sourcing whatsoever and the views expressed were blatantly POV. An FAQ is not the place for personal opinions, particularly those of anonymous POV-pushers. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR and disruption warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Your disruption of items relating to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident is becoming increasingly intolerable. I strongly advise you to cease, or you are likely to find action being taken against you. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Admittedly, I had some technical issues with the edits I was trying to make, which is why I self-reverted. But to the best of my knowledge, I only made 2 changes to the FAQ, or at least that what I attempted to do.  If I made more that 2 changes to the FAQ in the last 24 hours, please feel free to revert. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You actually made 3 changes to the FAQ but then self-reverted your last one so only effectively made 2 changes. But since the self-revert was for technicaly reasons, it's probably wise to remember it may not have been a good idea to make that one in the first place even if you hadn't broken 3RR (some may say that of the first two but I'm not going to comment on that) Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I shouldn't have even made the second edit. But the first edit was legit and correct.
 * BTW, as far as reporting editors goes, that's a catch-22 situation, isn't it? The more editors that are reported (even if legit), the more attention it draws to the article, and the greater the risk that more and more uninvolved editors will get involved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, actually getting more people involved in editing is a good thing. --TS 23:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. However, every time a dispute has been raised to WP:RSN, WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN, the editors there always agreed with the neutral editors.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The silence above is deafening. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Cabals
Do not call people cabals. It is incivil. Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I had intended to come here to make the same point. At present we've got a problem that, in a strange parallel with Godwin's Law, many of our discussions end with one or other of a small subset of those on the talk page accusing those who disagree with them of being in a "cabal".


 * This is very destructive to discussion on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎, and in any case since it alleges a conduct issue it should be taken to dispute resolution. I've asked you before to take up dispute resolution and also reminded you that it isn't optional.  If you won't do so, the best we can hope for is to nip your attacks in the bud wherever you start them. --TS 14:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've dealt with WP:NPOV issues before, but this is an area in which I am not familiar. I will take your advice and read dispute resolution. I assume that the final step would be taking this to ArbCom. Do you honestly think that they will allow the article to stay in its current state? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Arbcom doesn't make content decisions, but it does have a lot of experience handling conduct issues, on which it is authoritative.


 * Dispute resolution, if followed in good faith by all parties, should obviate the need for the final step.  The most important thing is for us to all regain one another's trust.  So thank you for agreeing to follow dispute resolution. --TS 14:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears as if it's already (sort of) at ArbCom albeit on a tangent issue.. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)