User talk:A Quest For Knowledge/Archive 5

Personal attacks
You've been warned before about your sniping and personal attacks. This is unacceptable. Please refactor your comment. And you need to stop engaging in these types of attacks. Guettarda (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As an experienced user, perhaps you would be willing to offer me some help on how to deal with issue at hand? I've dealt with WP:NPOV issues before, but this is an area in which I am not familiar with.  What are the correct courses of action to take?  Any advice would be greatly appreciated.  14:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Guettarda has long been an ally of Connolley et all - he isn't neutral enough in this matter to be giving you any advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.196.4 (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Solicitr (moved from user page to talk page)

 * "We've been able to deal with the first group though various forms of blocking."

You don't find that a bit problematical? Solicitr (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Republicans forget Bush's climategate
Here's an interesting perspective in a letter to the editor about the "real climategate". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleting talk page comments
Your deletion of comments made by User:ChrisO is disputed. Please take up the issue with the user on their talk page or on the appropriate noticeboard. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. Is there a reason you deleted this material for the second time, without taking up the issue on the user's talk page or on the appropriate noticeboard like I suggested? Viriditas (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You were lucky not to have been blocked there. You may not be so lucky next time. I strongly advise that you follow the course of action that Viriditas suggested above if you disagree with a talk page comment in future. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lucky? We are not allowed to make unsourced, personal attacks against living people.  Not to mention that your comment had nothing to do with improving the article.  Anyway, let's move on, shall we?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a blocking issue. I archived the discussion because there was clearly no need to involve sysops. --TS 16:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia‏
Our Climategate article has caught the attention of at least one journalist. Unfortunately, he gets much of it wrong. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/ A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For about the third time, James Delingpole is a writer and pundit. He is paid to have controversial opinions and get the facts wrong.  He is not a journalist. --TS 23:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "For about the third time". Did I say otherwise?  Oh, I get your point now.  He identifies as a journalist.  In any case, my point is the article has reached the attention of the mainstream media.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To be more precise, it's reached the attention of a few professional global warming conapiracy theorists who write opinion columns in newspapers. --TS 23:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and good luck
Thanks for showing me I was not completely crazy. I wish you all the best as an editor - this can be a tough schoolyard. Dhatfield (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas to everyone on my talk page! Happy Hanukkah and happy Festivus, too! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatgate talkpage - removal of the press template
Hi could you please look into the constant removal of the pressmulti template at the Climategate talkpage and weight in by restoring it after ChrisO again has reverted it? Nsaa (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You should self-revert
With all due respect, linking to a page going through an AfD is incredibly disruptive - especially given that it is likely to be deleted. I'm totally assuming this is a bad faith edit on your part in this case, because my edit summary explained the issue succinctly enough. -- Scjessey (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate: I’m starting to change my mind about Robert Graham
Up until now, I’ve agreed with the position that Robert Graham’s quote about the hacker being an insider should be excluded from the article. However, I just read the entire article from top to bottom and given all the other people who are quoted in the article, Graham’s opinion is about as notable as anyone else’s on the topic. You have to read the article from top to bottom to understand what I mean. At this point, I’m starting to think that given the context of the entire article as a whole, a sentence or two from Graham would not violate WP:UNDUE.

For those that don’t know the background regarding this issue, we have at least three reliable sources: ComputerWorld, Reuters and PC World which which quote an established expert, Robert Graham, speaking within his area of expertise (network security) that it was probably an insider. Robert Graham is a notable expert who's opinion has been cited by numerous reliable sources for his expertise on network security including BBC News, CNET, MSNBC, eWeek, InfoWorld, USA Today and many others. Robert Graham is a published author whose work in the relevant field (network security) has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Elsevier is a respected publishing house. According to our article on Elsevier, they publish many peer-reviewed, academic journals including The Lancet and Cell.

At this time, I don’t have any specific proposal to include this in the article which is why I’m only posting this on my talk page. But I think I'm starting to change my mind about this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's finally gone to ArbCom
Somebody filed a request to ArbCom. My statement can be read here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Biased Articles Suggested
Following your practice of neutrality, you should offer a few other suggestions of articles that are not only apologising for the scientists. I would recommend the program from the finnish TV: The Finnish TV, YLE, The Finnish Broadcasting Co., TV1, aired a few weeks ago an excellent program covering the climategate scandal. This should remind us what journalism should be, something that is forgotten a long time ago. It is even more surprising coming from a government owned TV channel. Below is the program with English subtitles:

part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unKZhr3JMhA part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clpmt5_8MBg part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDHbOu7Sq8

English transcription: http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/viime_viikon_mot/transcript_english —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 17:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate vote
I know it's a lot to ask, but could you please remove your comment from the title vote? I'm trying to limit discussion and keep the vote on track. The editors disagree on so many points, and I want to see if we can get consensus by limiting the debate to one topic at a time. Nightmote (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change discretionary sanctions proposal
Discussion regarding a climate change discretionary sanctions proposal can be found here. Here was my response:
 * I want to point out that the main problem at the Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy article is NOT the typical case of AGW skeptics attempting to push their POV. Sure, that's a problem, but there's another problem at this particular article.  There are editors there who are refusing to admit that there's a controversy in an article about the controversy.  Those of you who are familiar with my work on the 9/11 conspiracy theories and Lunar landing hoax articles know that I am no fringe theorist and have absolutely no desire in promoting minority or fringe viewpoints against scientific consensus.  But in an article about a controversy, you have to at least explain what the controversy is about.  We have editors who are so overzealous that they are refusing to even mention what the controversy is about.  So we have POV-pushing coming from two different directions.  What's more, some of the criticism is coming not from AGW skeptics, but from AGW proponents such as George Monbiot and colleague Michael Mann.  I strongly urge the admins on this board to take into consideration that there's more going on at Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy article than the typical AGW skeptic nonsense when implementing this proposal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Another ArbCom case
Here: My response is here:
 * I, too, am concerned with enacting this proposal. The discussion on the admin page seemed to focus exclusively on sock puppets and POV-pushing from AGW skeptics.  I do not see how this proposal will address POV-pushing from AGW proponents in articles about the controversy.  I posted my concern here, but was pretty much ignored.  I reposted my concerns again and instead of a thoughtful discussion, the proposal was almost immediately enacted.  How was this proposal enacted without first achieving consensus and without any real discussion about one of the biggest problems we're facing here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I created a sock puppet for use with my iPhone
I created a sock puppet, User:AQFK, because "A_Quest_For_Knowledge" is too long/painful to type in my iPhone. I probably won't make very many edits with this account. It will mostly be used to follow my watchlist when I'm on the go or don't have access to  a real computer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Jones Email edit
IMO adding a new email to the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article is a very major change, one that would probably be better discussed on the talk page first. Maybe instead of adding it you should start a discussion on the talk page. My apologies if there has been one, and I have missed it. Prodego talk  01:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Please note that I am a previously uninvolved editor who stumbled upon this article by chance. I have no dog in this dispute between the two warring factions.
 * 2) As I have stated several times now, the discretionary proposal does NOT appear to address the POW-pushing from the AGW crowd. I've brought this issue up several times and every time, my concerns have been ignored repeatedly.   Perhaps, we should have paid more attention to my concerns?
 * 3) Since my concerns have been repeatedly ignored, I decided to be WP:BOLD and make edits which are neutral and well-supported by third-party reliable sources. My edits are only controversial to those who have a stake in the Great Wikipedia Climate Change Wars.  I don't.  I simply want to follow WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The sanctions are not targeted at a particular group, so it is hard to see how it would affect one group of POV pushers from another. While you may certainly believe your edits are NPOV, on an article subject to the controversy this one is, discussion and forming consensus is very important, and being bold is not so important. Major changes to a controversial article are likely to be controversial, and I would strongly urge you to discuss them, because if you are unwilling to work with other editors, your presence at the article will not be positive, and you will not be welcome there. Prodego  talk  02:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I have brought this up repeatedly, my objections have been ignored. I don't know what can be expected to be accomplished when the sanctions did not address the major problem with this article.  Did we hope that it would go away?  All my edits have been made in good faith and in accordance with WP:NPOV.  If anyone disagrees, can we please discuss the elephant in the room?  Namely, the POV-pushing from AGW proponents.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Breaking my Wiki-addiction
It's been 3 days since I've edited Wikipedia and my life is much better for it. I've gotten so much sh*t done around the house, it isn't funny. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Common misconceptions again
Hi Quest,

I know you and I have disagreed on this article in the past, but it looks like you have reverted several of my edits at once (all of which had clear edit summaries) without any thought at all, or at least without any consideration of the relevant policies, and without specific explanations. There is no requirement for an editor to supply sources to prove something is not a misconception - as you know, the burden of evidence is on the editor who adds or restores material, per WP:V.

Why did you restore sources which are clearly not reliable (dtl.org, calvarybiblechurch.org, christiananswers.net) without any explanation? (I removed these 3 non-reliable sources for the Nativity misconceptions as they are unnecessary - there were also reliable sources cited.)

Why did you restore unsourced and challenged material (the forbidden fruit example, and Adam and Eve's children) without supplying any sources at all? The material which you restored without explanation is obvious original research. Again, according to policy, the burden of evidence is on you.

Why did you restore the JFK "Ich bin ein Berliner" example and the unreliable source used to justify it? Or did you look at the source (a blog with no visible policy on fact-checking or editorial control) and somehow conclude that it is reliable? If so, why did you not explain this?

Why did you restore 2 music examples which have been on the talk page for weeks, but which you have failed to discuss in any detail?

Your past disagreements with me seem to be getting in the way of following basic policies. Please consider these examples and give some thought to the motives behind your reverts. --hippo43 (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:V, unsourced material may be removed.  I believe you removed material that was sourced.  In at least one case, you removed material admitting that you never even bothered reading the source.   Please make a good faith effort to actually read the sources.  If you cannot, I suggest you let others edit this article.  Also, please keep in mind that per WP:PRESERVE, you're supposed to make a good faith effort to find sources yourself.  I know that in the past, you deleted dozens of items that were easily sourced if you had only bothered to Google it yourself.  Please be careful not to edit war.  I would hate to see you get banned again.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So, again, no answers to the questions above. I'm sure you're aware that WP:PRESERVE says "Try to preserve useful content" (my emphasis). If you think I removed material that was reliably and accurately sourced, please point it out. If you think I admitted to not bothering to read a source, please point it out. --hippo43 (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Quest, please help – the drama never seems to end. Thank you very much in advance. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't call him Bill
He doesn't like it. If we're going to demand that he act civilly, we should do the same, and I think it's clear that being called Bill or Will is something he considers offensive. Please respect that. ATren (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I didn't know that. I'll refactor my comments. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. It's been a hot topic on the GW probation page, but if you hadn't read that page recently you might not have known that. Thanks for refactoring. ATren (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning re: accusations of criminality
I don't usually give warnings for spirited discussion but this was beyond the pale. Calling people "criminals" absent an actual conviction is a blatant and obvious violation of Wikipedia's policies on the treatment of living persons. Please don't do it again. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The mainstream viewpoint - which by definition is backed by numerous reliable sources - is that the UAE violated the Freedom of Information Act. Repeating what reliable sources say about a topic is not a BLP violation.  Your accusation is frivolous and without merit.  I ask that you withdraw it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see where you're coming from on this, though I disagree. As we seem to have a good faith difference of opinion I will take this to the BLP noticeboard for clarification. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification of article probation
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, was there an edit that was in violation of the probation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Climategate
A Quest for Knowledge, a few years ago I made the same mistake of believing you could hold a rational discussion about edit changes on global warming (at a time I believed in global warming). I was sadly deluded, because the truth is that there are certain political activists who have worked out that if they have sufficient numbers of acitivists and coordinate their activities behind the scenes, they can make Wikipedia say whatever they want and neither you nor I can stop that. In effect they have turned Wikipedia into a mouthpiece for their organisations.

Whilst in the greater scheme of things in the real world it matters very little what Wikipedia says, because people only need to read a few newspapers to realise Wikipedia isn't reporting accurately on the subject, from the point of view of other editors - the fact Wikipedia is know to portray Global Warming falsely does cast a slur on every other article completely undermines the hard work done by other honest editors - and that does annoy me!

My own view it that I would not wish my signon to appear on any global warming articles, because that would in some way suggest I endorse the articles, and these articles are so far from NPOV, that I would rather have nothing to do with them.

So, for me it is the spectator fun of watching a sandcastle** of lies being slowly eroded by the truth. Given the sloppiness of the "scientific" process we've seen, there's no doubt that many more revelations will occur. We know there are plenty of dubious practices in the adjustment to temperature records, and irrespective of what the climate does in the future, the decline in global temperatures and the decline in the reputation of climate "scientists" will be historically important either as the reason no action took place for the next few years, or as the point at which the "scam" was shown to be false.

What I'm trying to say, is that trying to be calm and rational in the middle of a bun fight is a bit pointless. Either join in one or other side and at least have a bit of fun - or get out the room and watch their antics like you would monkeys at the zoo! Isonomia (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sandcastles ... the rule is that you build the sandcastle and then watch as the tide rises and slowly overcomes the defences. Obviously, an even more fun variant is to actively try to reinforce the defences, but you do so knowing the tide will win. Which I suppose makes the global warmers just kids having fun trying to maintain their sandcastles against the tide of natural temperature variation! (PS. It's snowing here - and now the sun is out on a prestine white landscape, so I feeling just a but forgiving!)Isonomia (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

AQFK, I just wanted to say that I think you are doing a good job on the ClimateGate article (the Talk part). Keep up the good work!! Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wronger than wrong
I happened to stumble upon our article on Wronger than wrong which is a phrase that Isaac Asimov used to describe how science advances over time. Our article doesn't do that great of a job explaining what Asimov meant, but Asimov's essay makes for a great read. Since I enjoyed it, I wanted to mention it to my fellow Wikipedia editors who are also interested in science. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You want to know why
I saw your post was inserted after the section was collapsed, i doubt it`ll get looked at now. Prodego was right, the whole thing had become a mess sadly. I wish people had heeded my advice on taking extraneous arguments to their own talk pages. This happens every time a case is brought against WMC, it is almost like a tactic, his supporters clutter it up, his detractors then shout back and bingo uncontrollable mess --mark nutley (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Improvements at Global Warming
I see you have views on improving the GW articles. I'm concerned that there is one way to keep these articles the same and many ways to make improvements, so that division of effort, every editor concentrating on something slightly different, hampers progress.

Some active editors are prepared to publicly express their support or opposition to movement in specific directions, at a chart on my TalkPage here. If you would like to encourage this effort then please consider adding your name to the parts you think most important. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance
I can't help but contrast your views expressed here with your actions here. Please try to adhere to the same standards that you expect of others. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. The UAE employees dozens/hundreds/thousands(?) of employees whereas the BBC cites a single expert in its report.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it may well have been a janitor or secretary at CRU who was responsible, not the scientist consistently named in the news reports. (A small thing that has been bothering me for a while: please note CRU is in Norwich, not Dubai.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, the UEA has multiple scientists, and that graduate students sometimes provide assistance in their professors' work. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Boris here, there is no need to call anyone a criminal. Well, maybe you could call him or him criminals, but it does not belong in these discussions. ATren (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Antandrus' observations on Wikipedia behavior
Here's an interesting user essay on the behavior of Wikipedia's editors. Based on my experience here so far, 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, 19, 21, 26, 52 and 69 are spot on. And I guess 18 is supposed to apply to me for making this post. But I'm seriously thinking of seeking a technical solution to the problem when I can find some free time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-WMF wikis
In re this thread, really, do we have a structured list anywhere in project space on the lines of "What to do if your article gets deleted here" or "Other wikis that may be more receptive to your article"? It might get difficult to maintain such a guide ("If you're a total nut-job, wou might try Conservapedia"-type changes for instance) - but there sure are a lot of fairly decent wikis for specialized subject matter. I'm going to point ukexpat here too. It might turn out to be pretty easy to slap a structured list together if a few knowledgeable people participate (if it doesn't already exist). Franamax (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well there is WP:Alternative outlets - not the catchiest title, but has a list of sorts... – ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, there's some good info there. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

1rr
Trivial violations of 1rr will not be prosecuted, I suspect. While your willingness for me to butcher your links and periods are appreciated, it's probably excessive :) Hipocrite (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I figured as much. Anyway, part of me wouldn't mind a topic ban just for my own sanity's sake.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Civility?
As a paid-up memory of the civility police, I'd expect you to know that describing other editors words as complete bullshit is just the teensiest bit impolite William M. Connolley (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you honestly believe that I have violated WP:NPA, then I suggest you bring a formal complaint against me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that page even read?
I noticed you lodged a complaint here, but I think the appropriate spot would be eitherhere or through notifying one of the admins. FYI, I didn't look at the complaint in any detail and so I have no opinion as to the merit of it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I had considered it a closed archive of the discussion establishing the probation (and, well, some other stuff) until those two threads showed up. I think we have generally been pretty loose about posts to the RE page as long as the information provided is sufficient to the action requested and the filing is not just another way to continue a dispute. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Did I post at the wrong page? Sorry about that.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

An entire culture has died
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Logging off now hopefully
I'm trying to log off now and get some sleep. I will not be able to respond to any of the current disagreements for hopefully another 8 hours. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Taking a WikiBreak
I'm taking a self-imposed WikiBreak for the next 24 hours 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 A_Quest_For_Knowledge@yahoo.com. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.
A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My comment
McInytre is quoted attacking the panel's makeup in the source I quoted. No BLP vio. Leave my comments alone. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And I've reverted your bullshit BLP comment on my talkpage as well. Read the source before jumping to conclusions in future. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't say anything about that person trashing anyone or anything. That's just your take on the situation.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are unhappy with my comments, ask an administrator to deal with it. Do not delete/edit any of my comments ever again. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP violations are supposed to be removed immediately without discussion. Reporting disruptive behavior is secondary to WP:BLP concerns. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no BLP vio. That is your interpretation. And clearly you aren't qualified to make a reasonable determination anyway. Also, for the record, never post on my talk page again. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I too have been furious at someone for deleting a comment made in good faith. But after a day to cool off and talk about it (during which the other editor restored my comment) - I realized the removal had been in good faith.  I'm not saying don't get mad, because hey this is the internet and that's what people do, but maybe you shouldn't remove a way to talk it out without putting it on the article talk page?  And I'm not saying AQFK's removal was or was not in good faith, but I could see it that way from one perspective.  Ignignot (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please focus more attentively on productive discussion at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement
The discussions at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement are not meant to be general fora for discussion of other issues. Narrowly targeted productive comment at any thread is welcome, but please confine your comments to the substance of the request and closely related issues. For instance, if a request is made detailing edit warring by one party, it could be appropriate to provide context in the form of links to talkpage discussion or diffs of other parties engaged in the same edit war. It would not be appropriate, however, to bring unrelated issues to an already open request, discuss content issues, or engage in incivility or personal attacks. If someone else makes that you feel merits a reply but your reply would not itself be closely related to the original request, please raise make your reply at usertalk, open a new enforcement request, or start a thread at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Thank you for your cooperation. A few diffs of posts that venture partially or wholly off topic, or would be better suited to other venues:. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'll try to keep this in mind. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that will be a big help. And sorry about the form letter, but that page has really ridden off the rails. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No apology is necessary, I completely understand. Have a good night. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A rough first stab at creating a script to block disputed articles
Following up on a discussion here, I've taken a rough first stab at creating a script to block disputed articles. The idea is to prevent someone from being sucked into somebody else's dispute. At present the script doesn't block articles (it just displays an alert message box) but it allows me to test the algorithm which is exceedingly simple. I created a sandbox with just about every article level dispute template I could find here as test data. I noticed that every template used the same set of 10 or so images. So rather than parse through the article text to find the template, I search the images to see if there's a match. It's kind of a kludge but it appears to work. Comments and feedback are welcome. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A couple improvements since yesterday. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
I just collapsed part of the discussion there as it looked like you and Scjessey were diverging from the topic at hand. Please feel free to continue the discussion productively or create a userspace draft or article if indicated by the sources, but I think disengaging from that particular subthread would be ideal. I have made the same request of Scjessey. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit documents
I've taken the liberty of removing a brief unproductive exchange between you and another editor concerning a third editor from this talk page. I know it's difficult to keep a cool head in this discussion, believe me, so I can understand the occasional lapse. I hope you'll understand that this kind of sniping doesn't help the encyclopedia in any way and doesn't belong here. --TS 15:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? Perhaps you can explain how WP:SPA such as WMC are helping to improve the project? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now now. Don't try to deflect criticism onto others.  I'm asking you to moderate your interactions with other good faith editors. --TS 17:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you disagree that WMC is a WP:SPA? Examine the evidence yourself..  Do you deny that WMC has exhibited a pattern of tendentious editing contrary to the spirit of the project?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if I agreed with your comment, its relevance to your uncivil conduct on the talk page would be nil. Please address your own conduct. --TS 17:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Asking whether there's a legitimate reason to delete valid article content is hardly uncivil. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As you're well aware, the comment I removed was this. I have left in place your civil and proper request for information about Connolley's reasons . To repeat: I know it's difficult to keep a cool head in this discussion, believe me, so I can understand the occasional lapse.  --TS 18:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiSanityEnforcer
I've made some nice progress on my WikiSanityEnforcer. Inspired by the WikiBreak Enforcer, WikiSanityEnforcer will block any article with any kind of content dispute (such as NPOV, OR, etc.). I've made it customizable so that if there are certain articles you still want to view, you can add them to a list of exceptions. You can also set a variable that allows you to cancel the block so you can still view the disputed article. To use this script, simply copy the code below into your monobook.js (or vector.js) and save the page.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested ...
in this RSN discussion, as you commented in the past on one of the sources. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You're Eligible
It has come to my attention that you are eligible for charter membership in this exclusive enclave. Regards. JPatterson (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Your 2c
I've removed. To improve the cliamte change articles we need people who actually understand the subject, not endless discussion on the talk pages. A quick review of your contributions didn't turn up anything very valuable in articlespace over AGW; the first I could find was which strongly suggests that you don't understand the subject William M. Connolley (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I figured you were going to delete my comment. You are correct.  I claim no expertise (or even interest!) in AGW.  However, I can read a news article.  In any case, the editors with the most subject knowledge also tend to be the worst offenders of tendentious editing.  It's a shame that we have people who are more concerned about pushing their POV than the good of the project.  And you are wrong that my contributions aren't valuable.  It was me who pushed for the material on the contents of the e-mails.  Prior to my involvement, the article didn't even mention the contents of the e-mails..  It's now in a sub-article, but at least I did that much.   A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

CC article but not CC related
Do you know what happened here? Using the WikEd diff viewer, it appears that a large number of single spaces were converted into double spaces, with no pattern that immediately jumps out at me. Not a problem, just curious. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not sure what happened. I've noticed weird spacing issues  myself.  I'm not using anything unusual to edit Wikipedia; I use the  latest versions of FireFox and IE on a 64-bit Win7 box. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment
I've tagged one of your comments at WP:GS/CC as inappropriate. While you may have meant well, this dispute is very heated. Sarcasm is probably not that helpful. Please consider removing the remark or refactoring it. If you do, you may remove the tag. Thank you. Jehochman Brrr 04:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the comment as you requested, however I do not understand how it was inappropriate. The editor in question has a long history of being disruptive and tendentious on this article.  A 24 hour ban does seem like a slap on the wrist.  Why are problem editors given a free rein to continue their abuse of Wikipedia?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You've made the mistake....
in assuming the standards that apply to some groups apply to other groups. :) TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WMC deleted this post, so I'm reposting here
I find it highly offensive (not to mention obviously ridiculous) that WMC is making these accusations against me. From what I can gather, WMC has a long history of misconduct going back at least five years Editors with a long history of misconduct shouldn't be allowed to harrass good faith editors whose record is clean. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As an uninvolved admin (in respect of Climate change probation definitions anyway), I think you need to be more careful in your protests... was a blatant personal attack and very hard to take seriously given WMC is a former bureaucrat with 41,000 edits across a very large number of articles versus your 5163. Made in isolation of bickering on Climate Change these days it would have got you a block. But there was ongoing bickering I have not got the time and energy to go back and work out who started what. I also hate blocks and I don't have the stomach to go through the climate hacking stuff where the two of you started but you certainly are not sitting on the high moral ground in this one, so don't push the claims please. And try to lower the heat without any patronising please. --BozMo talk 20:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe my comment was a personal attack since I was addressing his edits and not him personally. But I'll remove it if you want me to.
 * As for WMC being a former bureaucrat, my understanding is that he lost his adminship for misconduct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He did lose his adminship for misuse of tools but your comment was about his contribution. He was elected to both adminship and as a crat on the basis of contribution. You said "WMC is a near-SPA account who's contributions beyond this topic area are minimal" which is far from the mark and cannot be derived from looking at his edits. So looks like it must be motivated as an attack. AFAICT outside Climate change articles he still has more than twice as many edits as you do in total, although the tools to check this are slow and I haven't run a full comparison. I don't care about deleting a past comment as much as I care about not having any more. --BozMo talk 22:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I was never a 'crat though, admin was my highest pinnacle William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I was never a 'crat though, admin was my highest pinnacle William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * BozMo: I don't agree, and I think my comment is a fair and accurate assessment of the situation. Quantity doesn't equal quality, of course, and WMC's edits in this topic space are often in severe violation of WP:NPOV.  (Am I allowed to say that?)  However, I respect your position as admin and I will try to better and honor your request.  But I am unsure of what I am allowed to say and what I'm not allowed to say.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * AQFK: you are ignorant of my contributions, clearly. And your allegations of NPOV violations are unsupported as well as wrong. As I believe you've said elsewhere: cease making these unsupported allegations, unless you're prepared to back them up with actual complaints on the noticeboard. In a way, it would be nice to talk about actual substance rather than finger-crooking on talk pages. Are you interested in substance? So far, you don't seem to be William M. Connolley (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I think I'm quite familiar with your contributions for the past three months and my assessment is spot-on. As for actual complaints, I would love to, but I don't know the appropriate venue.  As far as I understand how Wikipedia operates, admins aren't allowed to settle disputes regarding content.  The WP:NPOV violation was brought up at NPOV Noticeboard,  and an uninvolved editor agreed that there's a WP:NPOV issue.  But the NPOV  Noticeboard was ignored.  So where am I supposed to file such a complaint?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * AQFK, you have been on Wikipedia long enough to know that no one is going to pay much attention to an NPOV judgement by an anon IP but you have also mentioned it before, I suggest you drop it. In general the NPOV noticeboard is good for posting little known areas of Wikipedia on which the community may not be focused. A very large number of editors, Arbcom members and admins are aware of the issues around Global Warming and its presentation on Wikipedia and so the NPOV noticeboard is not going to help very much. What is and is not NPOV is also a kind of POV, but if you think there is an NPOV issue on a prominent page raise it on talk and see if there is a consensus there. On the prominent central parts of Wikipedia, NPOV is de facto established by discussion/negotation on the talk page between the various POVs. Or, if you think a neutral point of view, as you see it, can never be achieved on those pages, move elsewhere for your own sanity: personally I have retreated for example from articles on cosmetic mutiliation surgery such as Breast implants in the USA because I don't think Wikipedia can ever give a NPOV on those issues. --BozMo talk 15:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine. It doesn't appear as if the community is able to deal with the  problem effectively.  I withdraw myself from the proceedings.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pentagon shooter was 9/11 conspiracy theorist
John Patrick Bedell, the guy who just tried to attack the Pentagon, was a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and apparently a Wikipedia editor.  He created the article September 11 demolitions which was later merged/redirected with our World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories article which I have worked on extensively. His account has now been blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * More info from CBS News: John Patrick Bedell: Rants on Wikipedia and YouTube May Have Foreshadowed Breakdown A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hols?
Your holiday from GW doesn't seem to have lasted William M. Connolley (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You should have supported my request for a 6 month topic ban. Then you wouldn't have to deal with me.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

List of POV disputes at Climategate article

 * Work toward the removal of the POV tag.
 * Nature of how e-mails were accessed. Hack, insider, etc
 * Current discussions:
 * Past discussions:
 * Should timeline be expanded?
 * Current discussions:
 * Past discussions:
 * Viewpoints from other scientists about scientific integrity
 * Current discussions:
 * Past discussions:

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment
You're a good editor overall but your persistent "I'm neutral and they're all biased" refrain gets a bit old. Everyone has their biases, including you and me. You might find people more accepting of your arguments if you backed off from that approach. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, duly noted. Was there a particular recent post that you found problematic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No particular examples from me, but I could if required assemble a huge amount of evidence that you believe Team Science to be pushing a point of view that is at variance with the actual state of the science, to which you apparently believe yourself to be privy. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't edit any articles on the science of climate change, so I wouldn't know. I do know, however, that on our Climategate article, the so-called pro-science editors are pushing the fringe theory that the controversy is about the hacking incident.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally don't care much for fringe theories but they are an ongoing problem here at Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm not intelligent
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of us who watch your talk page, to whom comments like this are presumably addressed, sometimes need a little more context than you provide here. You sound miffed by a statement that is neither about you nor directed at you, and you seem to infer that someone says you're dim. Could you provide the missing context? Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I was just blowing off steam. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Article title
We have an awful lot of very bright people wasting their brain power on a very stupid problem. Just saying. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not stupid. Cognitive bias is an important topic.  The problem is that the article naming policy needs to be rewritten to handle it. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize that it's important to Wikipedia, but when tell my real-life friends that we spent 4 months arguing over the title and still can't come to a decision, they think we're crazy. In the grand scheme of things, when we look back on our lives, I doubt if any of us will say that we wish we had spent more time arguing on Wikipedia.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Four months is small potatoes; How long has the U.S. been arguing over health care? Granted, this isn't like the Martians discussing issues in Stranger in a Strange Land, but things take time.  The point is to carefully weigh the facts and make a good decision.  In case you haven't figured it out by now, Wikipedia is a microcosm of the real world.  The major difference of course, is that the site attracts a fairly unrepresentative sample of people, and manages to drive away those who don't "fit" this narrow demographic. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't take 4 months. This is an article that should be written in 4 days.  As time goes on, Wikipedia will become more conservative and I hope that we will eventually have content moderators or some system in force to setting these types of disputes.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not following you. You are obviously aware that due to recentism and current events, the article was constantly changing up until last month.  Please also keep in mind there is no deadline.  Four months seems reasonable given this scenario, and throw in the multiple accounts showing up on a daily basis to post "me toos" and you've got a situation.  Concepts like content moderation and "conservatism" are generally ideas related to the old media.  Try to start thinking differently;  Remember, if you've got a car, you aren't going to need a buggy and a whip; And, if you've got a train or a plane, you won't need a road.  In order for this place to work effectively, we need to change the way we think about it, and that's very hard to do. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)