User talk:A Quest For Knowledge/Archive 6

It's gone to ArbCom again!
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The best Wikipedia tool you've never heard of
For almost a year (or so), I've been working on a Reliable Sources Search Engine. As a regular contributor to the Reliable sources search noticeboard, I think that I have a fairly decent understanding of WP:V and WP:RS. Further, I've been frustrated by the many number of unreliable sources that are brought to this board's attention. So, I've compiled a list of sources which, generally speaking, are routinely found to be reliable per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This search engine currently encompasses nearly 600 different Web sites.

Unfortunately, for some reason, Wikipedia software blocks custom search engines. This is a shame, because it would help us greatly in advancing the project. In any case, the link to the main search page is here: 'http://www.google .com/cse/home?cx=010426977372765398405:3xxsh-e1cp8&hl=en. '''Please note that I put a space in the URL between google and .com. Just remove it and then bookmark the page'''.


 * If you find any sources that are unreliable that are included in the search results, please bring it to my attention.
 * If you find any sources that are reliable that aren't included in the search results, please bring it to my attention.

Believe me, I do understand how absurd it might seem at first to create a Reliable Sources Search Engine but it actually works quite better than you might think. Please try it out! Bookmark the homepage. It works far better than even I expected. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your hard work re: Climategate. I have tried to do my best to explain things, and I think you and I probably see 99% eye to eye on WP:NPOV and its implications for article titles, but I realize that others have a very different interpretation. Thanks for always pretty much always keeping your cool... heaven knows its easy for someone to be discredited if they go for the bait so often offered up by editors whom I will decline to name. I don't really have a larger point, I just wanted to express my appreciation for your hard work. I am hoping that we will have another RfC on the name issue as soon as a decision regarding the incubator article is made. It would be nice to attract more involvement from the rest of the community. I definitely think long-term there should be some work done on WP:NPOV that establishes metrics for judging commonality and usage for non-neutral terms in article titles. Anyways, I guess I am famous for my long posts so I will quit here. Cordially, Moogwrench (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Moog. I appreciate it.  My reply will be short since I don't have anything to argue about. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV != neutral (layman's definition)
In so far as I understand policy, WP:NPOV says that editors should be neutral and articles should be biased in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Beer Production Threatened By Climate Change
The title speaks for itself. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Some Bullshit Happening Somewhere
The Onion isn't as funny as it used to be but this one's pretty good. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, my older kid sent me that one. Also try turning the sound off and reading the crawl at the bottom. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't even notice there was a crawl! Yes, there are some good ones. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

1rr violation
Climatic Research Unit hacking incident is on a 1rr probation. Your reverts here at 13:16, 18 March 2010 and here at 02:25, 18 March 2010 appear to be in violation of this. I'm not going to report you because angling for a block of ideological opponents is weak, but be aware that others are less interested in comity than I am. Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that you are mistaken. The edit you listed second (although chronologically it happened first) is not a revert as I understand Wikipedia's rules.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the first edit is only revert I've made in at least a week, probably longer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The second edit reverts this. Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The restoration of the dispute tag is without doubt a revert, though I think H has the wrong one. It repeats this for example, and probably many others William M. Connolley (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that you are mistaken. Not all edits are considered reverts.  As I understand it, "revert" means to reverse a previous edit.  The POV title dispute tag was replaced by another tag saying that the article's title was being discussed and then someone else said that this second tag only applied to talk pages and that's why it was removed.  It wasn't removed because someone disagreed with it.  It was removed because someone used a tag for the talk page instead of the article page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, sir, that is not true. The tag was removed by Viriditas on purpose here, and by WMC here. If you are certain you did not break 1rr, please ask me to report you and I will do so - but I assure you that you did. Hipocrite (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that means someone else reverted it. The edit I changed is this one..  Like I said, it was removed not because someone disagreed with it, but because they had (apparently) used a tag meant for the talk page.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

H: he isn't listening. You'll have to report him William M. Connolley (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Sir, you restored the tag that two others removed. That an entirely different tag was removed by another editor for another reason does not mean that your reversion of others edits was not a revert. Again, if you are certain you are correct (as opposed to just unwilling to be corrected,) then on request I will report your violation for outside attention. Hipocrite (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not certain. My edits are based on my understanding of policy.  Anyway, I can't revert the second edit even if I wanted to. but I can revert the first edit if you want.  Will that resolve the situation to your satisfaction?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't intend to report anyone for anything. I was merely bringing it to your attention. Hipocrite (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In an effort to show good faith and resolve the situation, I've self-reverted the first edit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming Skeptics Growing In Numbers
According to America's Finest News Source, since 2008, the number of people who don't believe in global warming has doubled to 16 percent. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Spelling flame
How lame. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

List of articles whose titles express a POV
There's a common misconception among Wikipedia editors that we can't use "Climategate" as an article title because it expresses a point of view. This belief betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of what WP:NPOV actually means. WP:NPOV is about editorial neutrality. If the world adopts a name for a topic that expresses a POV, it's against WP:NPOV to not use it. In fact, WP:NPOV specifically cites Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the  Ripper as examples of legitimate article titles. As I examined the issue, I found several other examples of legitimate article titles which express a POV. In an effort to keep track of them all in one place, I've created a list of articles whose titles express a POV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Corrupt Bargain
One of the objections to using "Climategate" as an article title is that reliable sources sometimes used the term in quotes. Well, the following reliable sources all use the term "Corrupt Bargain" in quotes.   A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

List of reliable sources which use the term "Climategate"
I've created the following page in my user space. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the time I created the page, I've added another 14 reliable sources which use the term "Climategate". Everyone is free to add additional reliable sources but everyone's on a 1RR except for me.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus, an additional 10 more reliable sources which use the term "Climategate". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are going to do this right, you need to count both the positives and the negatives. How many sources don't use the term? Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"So called Kristallnacht"
I was just watching a World War II documentary on the Military Channel. They used the phrase "so-called Kristallnacht". I guess that means we have to rename our Kristallnacht article, right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * German broken glass incident? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT noted. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think pointing out the stupidity of "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" in a joke on ones own talk page is the same thing as editing article content, then I suggest you file a complaint against me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What is similar between "Kristallnacht" and "Climategate"? How is adding the "gate" suffix helpful to an encyclopedia?  Should we just turn over the keys to Faux News and let them write articles?  You'd be happy with that? Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Try reading my opening comment. What's similar is the "so called" verbiage used by reliable sources.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Entomology at CRU talk
I almost changed this for you since somebody's sure to ridicule you over a simple mistake anyone could make, but decided to just alert you here. I think you meant "etymology." Best, Yopienso (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Spelling flames are lame anyway.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole talk page is so lame I wouldn't believe it if I weren't experiencing it. I think I'll quit trying to help the article represent reality because the controlling editors have no intention of permitting it to.  Have a  great day.  Yopienso (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. Everyone knows what's going on, but Wikipedia's rules prevent you from stating it, even if it's perfectly obvious.  Have a good day, too.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm concluding this quibble isn't as important to me, to Wikipedia, or to the public I think we're supposed to be serving as that talk page would indicate. Anybody who cares about the incident has a multitude of resources to consult.  My problem is that I have a real sticking point with deliberate misrepresentation.  The rules, btw, usually impress me with their wisdom;  it's the lawyerly application of them that perverts their intent. You said it so well:  "LOL."  :D  Best, Yopienso (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Your even-handed observations in RS/N talk earlier today were welcome, laudable and, I believe, determinative. While our opinions might differ, I think you did well by the Wiki process and I just wanted to tell you so. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(Some) Scientists are lame, or Peer-reviewed academic journal using VB-DOS
VB-DOS has a special place in my heart as it was one of my first programming languages. I was doing a Google search to see if I could find enough online reliable sources to support creating an article for it, and I happened to stumble across this. It appears to be a peer-reviewed academic journal; the paper is about aggression in mice. As software developer, here's the part I found interesting:

"The apparatus was controlled by custom software written in Microsoft Visual Basic for DOS Version 1.0© and run on a personal computer."

VB-DOS!? Are they serious? The paper was written in 2008. Wow. I remember once talking to Microsoft support and they denied ever making such a product and there was a bug in the IDE that was so severe, if you exceeded a certain limit of code, it would delete your source code. I found myself having to delete documentation to keep it from removing executable code. Oh well, I was able to create a nice gaming utility with it.

Anyway, this post is probably of no interest to anyone who reads my talk page, so if you got this far, have a good weekend. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

How to write biased articles - A tutorial
Given the following article, Inquiry: Climate data not manipulated, I've written two paragraphs. Both paragraphs follow WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS yet are completely in violation of WP:NPOV:

Version 1
The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has criticized the way Phil Jones and his colleagues handled freedom of information requests, explaining that scientists were stonewalling their critics. Phil Willis, the committee's chairman, said of the e-mails that "there's no denying that some of them were pretty appalling." Willis told reporters that "the culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change skeptics, we felt was reprehensible." One e-mail that attracted particular media attention was Jones' reference to a "trick" used to "hide the decline" of temperatures. The e-mails' publication ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit sparked a furor, with skeptics of manmade climate change calling the e-mails' publication "Climategate" and citing them as proof that the science behind global warming had been exaggerated or even made up altogether. The lawmakers said they decided to investigate due to "the serious implications for U.K. science." In a briefing to journalists ahead of the report's release, Willis said the controversy would ultimately force the University East Anglia and other research institutions to stop hoarding their data. The committee said that climate scientists had to be much more open in future by publishing all their data, including raw data and the software programs used to interpret them, to the Internet. "Governments across the world are spending trillions of pounds, or trillions of dollars, on mitigating climate change. The science has got to be irreproachable," Willis said.

Version 2
The first of several British investigations into the e-mails stolen from one of the world's leading climate research centers has vindicated the scientists involved. The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said they had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming. In their report released Wednesday, the committee said that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," explaining that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity." The committee found the idea that Jones was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that weakened the case for global warming was clearly wrong. "The winner in the end will be climate science itself," he said. The winner on Wednesday was Jones. The committee expressed sympathy with Jones, whom Willis said had been made a scapegoat and that the focus on Professor Jones and the CRU has been misplaced. "Governments across the world are spending trillions of pounds, or trillions of dollars, on mitigating climate change. The science has got to be irreproachable," Willis said.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

1RR
Climatic Research Unit email controversy is under 1RR parole. followed by break that. Please self-revert William M. Connolley (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The first edit is a revert. The second isn't unless someone else had used the term "short".  Please show me a diff where someone had made this same change and I'll self-revert.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverting includes removing stuff that other people added. Which you clearly did William M. Connolley (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand the rules, reverting means reversing an article to a previous state. If you can't show me a diff where this wording was already in the article, there is no 1RR violation.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I tried. General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement William M. Connolley (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring my comments...
...dont. Certainly not silently and suggesting I've written things I never wrote. If you feel the need, use strikeout and leave a signature. Actually, if you feel the need, assume there is none. If there is need, assume someone else will act and leave my comments alone. I stand by them and are ready to defend them, if needed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As you probably already know, Wikipedia takes WP:BLP violations very seriously which is why they should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. However, in retrospect, I should have said something on your talk page.  I apologize for this.  Next time, I'll be sure to notify you.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a BLP violation. It's a legitimate opinion on his writing style. But that's not the major issue. The major issue is that, no matter what, you must not falsify my comments. As I said, if you think you need to refactor them (which, in this case, you don't), do it in a way that makes this change transparent - not to me, by leaving a message on my talk page, but to a reader of the comments. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the offending phrase because I thought that would be less obtrusive. However, since you object, I removed the entire comment.  Do NOT restore this without first discussing this until we discuss it and my concern has been resolved.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To late, and not a legitimate request, anyways. You do not get to arbitrarily declare inconvenient parts of a discussion as BLPs and veto them. Only a complete  would think so. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Article talk pages are for improving the article, not to take pot-shots at living people you don't like. There is no excuse for your continued violations of WP:BLP.  Wikipedia takes these sort of things seriously.  Since you're an admin, I would hope that you would set a better example. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that you have persisted in calling people "criminals" despite any conviction (or even trial) for criminal activity, your sudden concern for BLP is interesting.Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. I never identified or hinted about any specific living person.  Stephen is.  BTW, this was already brought up at WP:BLPN and the consensus of uninvolved editors agreed with me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Where at BLP/N has it been discussed whether you can call persons (named or unnamed) criminals, based on no evidence - in fact quite the opposite? I'd note that the article you were talking about is rather specifically mentioning one name. I want to see that thread - i can't seem to find it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You can search the archives just as well as I can. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have asked if searches of the archives had brought up anything. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "The consensus of uninvolved editors agreed with me" -- if that's true, it certainly isn't reflected in the thread that you cite here. Perhaps you were thinking of another thread? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that's a fair statement. You and Nil are involved editors.  FormerIP dropped his opposition after I pointed out that the legal technicality was the statute of limitations and asked them to read my sources.  In any case, if it makes you feel better, I can honestly say that it was resolved in my favor by uninvolved editors.
 * BTW, I'm a little perplexed as to why you keep bringing this up if you honestly think this is hurting the reputation of a living person. If your concern was valid, then you've done more harm by bringing it up.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to see exactly the opposite consensus there. In fact the only 2 uninvolved editors there (FormerIP and Keepcalmandcarryon) both stated that the comment was out of line, and should be removed. None of them at any point "dropped opposition" - silence is not consent. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why was it resolved in my favor? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Was it? Not that i can see. The [resolved] tag contains a note, and i rather doubt that you can read that note as positive. Too bad that there isn't a time marker on that note - since i rather suspect it was "resolved" for age. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC) [the reason for my interest in that particular quote btw. was that it lies very close to your incorrect statement on Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy (not a BLP thingie btw). You apparently still can't see the difference between suspected and guilty. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)]
 * If it was resolved for age, that means that nobody was disputing it anymore. Certainly, nobody complained after the resolved tag was added.  Either way, it was resolved in my favor.
 * You apparently fail to understand that I mentioned no living person. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Climategate scandal
This too shall pass. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

M (programming language)
I wonder when we're going to run out of letters in the alphabet to name programming languages. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to our List of programming languages, it look like G, H, I, N, O, P, U, V, W and X are still available. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure none of the other ones aren't like MUMPS so they can just re-use the letter if they want? Nil Einne (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:3RR
...you're over, and for no good reason. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 3RR doesn't apply to WP:BLP violations. So actually, you're the one who's violated WP:3RR.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it's not a BLP violation, yes, you have. Shouting BLP is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. And no, I have not, and you either cannot read or cannot count. Which 4 reverts do you think I made in the last 24 hours to any page? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. I am surprised that as an admin, you seem to exhibit very little understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  You can't just insert contentious material about living persons.  The fact that you edit-warred to include WP:BLP violations is just plain shocking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's keep it as "out understanding of Wikipedia's policies do not coincide". I don't grant the BLP, and I don't grant the 3RR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You edit-warred to include contentious material about a living person. You do not have to grant anything.  If an editor removes WP:BLP violations, you are under no circumstance supposed to blindly revert the content.  Instead, you are to discuss the issue until a resolution can be found.  If no resolution can be agreed upon, the you take matters to the WP:BLPN.  There is no excuse for what you just did.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the way SS handled this as noted on his talk page, I do agree that even if unintentional, the way you handled this didn't help. Given the fuss about modifying comments on the RD which you're perhaps aware of, I can somewhat understand your decision to remove his entire comment at first although as you quickly found it, that's rarely a good idea if it's only one part that is problematic (in fact this was one of the reasons when the issue first came up on the RD those years ago I contested SB's claim that it was never acceptable to edit a comment). The best option is either politely inform the user and give them an opportunity to remove the problematic part of remove it (strike it out, hide it with <!-- or do what TS did) and then make it clear you've done it (perhaps in a comment proceeding) and perhaps even informing the original editor. Note that you should never change the wording to something you feel is more appropriate, remove the problematic part and let the editor reword it if they desire. The part about making it clear what you've done is perhaps the most important point, I've emphasised this many times and emphasise it again here. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * RD?
 * At first, I only removed the offending phrase. However, Stephan complained that I had altered the meaning of his post or something.  This doesn't make much sense to me, but to address this complaint from Stephan, I removed the entire comment.
 * I am not striking out BLP violations since this still allows people to read the libelous material.
 * The only mistake I made was in not notifying Stephan of my removal of the offending phrase. However, in my defense, I never imagined in a million years that an admin would be so ignorant of the rules that they would edit-war to include contentious material about a living person.  Stephan has clearly proven me wrong on this latter point. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not striking out BLP violations since this still allows people to read the libelous material.
 * The only mistake I made was in not notifying Stephan of my removal of the offending phrase. However, in my defense, I never imagined in a million years that an admin would be so ignorant of the rules that they would edit-war to include contentious material about a living person.  Stephan has clearly proven me wrong on this latter point. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The only mistake I made was in not notifying Stephan of my removal of the offending phrase. However, in my defense, I never imagined in a million years that an admin would be so ignorant of the rules that they would edit-war to include contentious material about a living person.  Stephan has clearly proven me wrong on this latter point. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I'm starting to a see a problem here. Again it appears there is some confusion of who did what similar to that whole grammatical kuffufle. ChrisO was the one who added 'ranting' in an attempt to reword SS's comment . I don't believe SS was aware of this, thinking you were the one who changed 'frothing in the mouth' to 'ranting'. This does indeed change what SS was saying, and it was part of the reason why I felt you hadn't handled this well. Also I thought you removed the entire comment first then only later tried to remove the disputed part but I now realise I'm mistaken, you only did that after your attempts to remove the disputed part failed.


 * In that case, I understand the way you proceeded with this. However I'm perhaps wasn't really clear enough in my earlier post about one thing. Notifying the person is highly advisable but just in many ways far more important is you make clear in the actual thread that the comment is modified. Personally I feel it is better to add a reply mentioning that you did it in that thread but many people appear to feel the TS style is better (although it can be confusing) so perhaps do that (and make sure you sign). Either way, this lets people who are reading the comment who most likely would not have read SS's page know that the comment was modified which is important since you've effectively changed what they said (under their signature), even if it is only a removal of something they said and doesn't really affect the actual comment or meaning. Note it doesn't matter whether you feel the person is likely to object.


 * P.S. By RD I mean't WP:RD, I've seen you there before and thought perhaps you were aware of the whole modifying signed comments fuss in 2008 or whatever, but perhaps not.


 * Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize that someone else had modified Stephan's comments.
 * Oh, Reference Desk. I created my account in early 2009 so I wouldn't haven't been aware of the  'modifying signed comments fuss in 2008'.  Before that, I was an IP user and unaware of the existence of the RD.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I will try to do better in modifying someone else's comments the next time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally it seems SS is aware of ChrisO's involvement (see ChrisO's talk page) so I guess it's only me and you who got confused Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally it seems SS is aware of ChrisO's involvement (see ChrisO's talk page) so I guess it's only me and you who got confused Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP vio
Your reversion here goes against talk page discussion, and violates BLP by misrepresenting the information shown in sources and reintroducing a biased and one-sided picture of views about accusations made against living people. Please undo your reversion as a matter of urgency. . . dave souza, talk 18:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's already been reverted, I believe. What is the specific WP:BLP violation?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Shown on the article talk page. You now appear to be edit warring to reintroduce material contrary to WP:BLP, please desist and get consensus on the talk page before editing the article. . dave souza, talk 09:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're the one who's edit-warring to include contentious material in violation of WP:BLP. Please reach consensus on the talk page first.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily RS/N
I have recently referenced your comments offered in the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any further contributions you might have in this matter. Thanks. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The obvious
I would have thought this was obvious, but apparently you have a thick skin: you are not welcome on my talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would hope that you would welcome improvements to the signal-to-noise ratio on your talk page, but no matter. Do you have the authority to forbid someone from posting on your talk page?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is considered polite not to if asked, it is no great loss to you if you can`t post there is it? mark nutley (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c, saying the same thing) How about you take it as a kind request and stop posting there unless it's absolutely necessary? Franamax (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

WND "Chartgate"
Thank you for your consideration of "chartgate" (just kidding). Actually, with the benefit of some hindsight and discussion with the originating editor who collapsed it initially, I'm quite content with the "collapsed" version and actually kind of prefer it (not that I could say the same for the original title). That being said, I can see an argument for leaving it full-size as well, but the primary consideration (the name) has been, I think, resolved. Thanks again. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think that the non-collapsed version is more helpful.  However, if consensus is against me, I will concede to consensus.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification
A request for enforcement has been raised against you at WP:GS/CC/RE. . dave souza, talk 09:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring on Climatic Research Unit email controversy. You claim that your edits were covered per the BLP exemption clause of the edit warring policy. I don't buy that. In fact, you were removing specific sourced details of the incident from the lead. Perhaps that is the correct balance for the article. But that is not a matter for WP:BLP, it is a matter of WP:NPOV, something that we don't revert war over unless there is a very good reason. As always, you can appeal this block by posting below this post. NW ( Talk ) 11:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reviewing administrator: Please see General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. NW ( Talk ) 11:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Only problem is that you were the one who added the BLP violation - in two reverts to an article that has had a 1RR in place and enforced for some time now, and you were well aware of it:, . In both of those reverts, you added the contentious material, claiming that climate scientists had "manipulated data, withheld scientific information, and tried to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published."  You added contentious, poorly sourced, outdated negative content while removing positive content showing that the scientists in question had been largely vindicated by a subsequent investigation.  How can you possibly defend your edits? Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In so far as I understand the rules, since no living persons were specified, there is no WP:BLP violation. However, if you think that sentence is a violation, the correct course of action would be to remove it as well, not replace one potential WP:BLP violation with another.  I'm extremely disturbed that editors are edit-warring to restore contentious WP:BLP material before discussing it on the article talk page.  This is not the way we're supposed to be doing things.  It's called BRD, not BRRRRD.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the problem. You are taking some kind of extreme, literal interpretation of a policy way past the point of common sense and clear understanding.  When you say that climate scientists manipulated data, withheld scientific information, and tried to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published, you are making negative claims about BLP's; These specific scientists are mentioned by name in the article. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I once asked about that at WP:BLP and I was told that it was OK if based on reliable sources and no specific person was identified. However, if you think this sentence is in violation of BLP, then isn't the correct course of action to remove this sentence and discuss the issue on the article talk page as I asked?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, the edit does NOT say climate scientists manipulated data, etc. It says that there were allegations by climate change skeptics that they manipulated data, etc.  Those are completely different sentences. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I note that Kenosis just restored the sentence that you mistakenly called a WP:BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite, what was the BLP violating material that you think I added? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll leave a formal evaluation to an uninvolved admin, but do you really claim this supports significant contributions to many areas of Wikipedia? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do make that claim. I've been a regular at WP:RSN for over a year now, created the article for Bernard Foing, worked on many other articles such as List of common misconceptions, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Naperville Independent Film Festival, etc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While I have certainly voiced my disapproval of the actions which led to the block, I don't think it's reasonable to drag other edits into the discussion. The question of whether the actions warrant a temporary ban can be answered without questioning the user's wider contribution to Wikipedia. StuartH (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To be fair, AQFK was the one who argued for his unblock due to contributions to many areas (although he/she didn't say anything about significant) Nil Einne (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I created my account and have been contributing to Wikipedia long before the Climategate scandal broke. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein: I apologize if I phrased my unblock request incorrectly. If I rephrase it, "Can the block only be a topic ban? I contribute to many areas of Wikipedia (such as the WP:RSN) and don't see why this dispute which is limited to just one topic space should affect my ability to contribute to Wikipedia in other areas", does that address your concern? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you adhere to it, a topic ban would be just as preventative as a block, though I do not believe the discussions and paperwork required to properly convert this block into a ban are worth the while given the very short duration of the block.  Sandstein   13:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, if it's a lengthy process to convert a ban to block, then I understand. However, I don't understand what exactly I did that was wrong.  In so far as I understand the rules, WP:BLP violations are supposed to be removed whether positive, negative or neutral.  Further, WP:Edit warring specifically states that removal of contentious WP:BLP material are excempt.  If those policies are wrong or poorly-worded, they need to be fixed.  A Quest For Knowledge ([[User talk:A

Quest For Knowledge#top|talk]]) 14:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You have not supported your assertion that this is a BLP issue. In fact, at least four administrators have explicitly rejected it. WP:BLP is not a get-out-of-1RR-free rule. Please keep this in mind when you return and are able contribute to the article further. StuartH (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Hans was the one who first claimed a WP:BLP issue. While the dispute was ongoing, I did the most responsible thing by removing all the contentious BLP material while we discussed the issue on the talk page.  Another alternative would be to blank the entire article.  I did the right thing.  The fact that 4 admins don't understand WP:BLP or take it seriously or whatever the rationale was, is a shame.  Using WP:Edit warring to override WP:BLP is clearly wrong.  Once all the dust settles, I doubt anyone will seriously argue that doing the safest thing possible isn't the correct way to handle BPL issues.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You call people "criminals" who have not even been found to have committed any wrongdoing, and then have the cheek to claim that other people do not understand BLP? You really need to look in the mirror some time. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This was already brought up at the WP:BLPN and it was resolved as not a WP:BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No. It was not. The note added to the BLPN thread says differently. You seem to interpret silence as consent, and that other editors have changed their minds, but that is an incorrect interpretation (especially at a board such as BLPN). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the note says "Not really." OK, maybe not the most ringing of endorsements but never the less, it was resolved in my favor.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets see: All uninvolved editors on BLPN disagreed with you. That is not resolved in your favour. Repeating an erroneous interpretation, does not make it correct. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm not going to play games with you. Misreprestenting the resolution just makes your argument look that much weaker. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In any case, temporarily removing contentious WP:BLP material was the correct course of action. Edit-warring to re-add the contentious material is simply not acceptable.  There is no excuse for what happened this morning.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We have very strong confirmation here from multiple administrators that this is not a BLP issue, and if you continue down the path of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT you may end up with more than a 24 hour block. Regardless, simultaneously adding back in content that others considered BLP violations during your edit war significantly weakens your argument that you were acting in the interests of WP:BLP. StuartH (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I did no such thing. I removed all contentious BLP material from the lede - this is exactly what I was supposed to do until the BLP dispute was resolved.  The fact that admins incorrectly choose to enforce WP:Edit warring over WP:BLP was a faulty decision. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Question to Blueboar about reliability

 * Can someone please post a note on Blueboar's talk page that I'm asking him the following question?

Blueboar: I know that you don't like making blanket statements about a source's reliability, and I fully agree that ultimately, reliability needs to be determined on a case by case basis. On the other hand, WP:V says that reliable sources are those with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. I would tend to think that a source - as a whole - can acquire a reputation. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to say, for example, that The New York Times has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Nor do I think that it's wrong to say that PrisonPlanet.com, for example, does not have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Your thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we can make the positive statement that we want sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, we can not make the converse negative statement, saying that we do not want sources that lack such a reputation. The reason for this is that the vast majority of sources don't have any reputation at all.
 * Yes there are sources that have a poor reputation... but I think you do need to substantiate that a specific source falls into that category... otherwise it is too easy for POV pushers to simply label a source that does not agree with their POV as being unreliable. And even then, sources that have a poor reputation can be considered reliable under specific conditions (such as an attributed statement as to the source's opinion, or when we quote the source).  In brief... no source is ever 100% reliable... and no source is ever 100% unreliable.  You always have to look at the specifics of how it is being used. Blueboar (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Damn, I thought I was finally going to get you to make a blanket statement. :) See, the thing is - from my perspective - I like to keep a list of sources which are (generally speaking) reliable sources.  It helps me to have a "go to" list when editing an article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSN talk page
Jake, I think that your chart is helpful, but you can't realistically expect other editors to not modify what's being said about them. Some editors, justifiably so, have very nuanced positions which are difficult to summarize sometimes.

That said, several editors have stated that they don't like giving blanket statements about a sources reliability. I don't know how helpful this will be, but do you have a specific example? If so, include the source, the claim and the context in which it is being used. I don't know how helpful this will be, but that's generally how we approach things on this noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSN - Political Candidate's Campaign Website
Yes, I think a political candidate's web site qualifies as WP:SPS. However, I certainly wouldn't cite it for any controversial material and you definitely need to use in-text attribution. OTOH, WP:SPS does have a qualification regarding "unduely self-serving". I've never quite understood what that meant and I don't think we've discussed this clause before (at least not recently). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To Dlabtot's point, do you have a specific example you can give us? Reliability is heavility depenendent on context.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Minor BLP violation at Greenville, Illinois
There might be minor BLP violation at Greenville, Illinois. It says GW dropped out of HS but there is no source. I did quick search and couldn't find one, and it doesn't seem to be mentioned at her official website. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

.NET Framework
Change "WinForms" to "Windows Forms" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Reboot
Is Gossip Cop reliable for the claim that Kesha is scheduled to perform on Saturday Night Live April 17th? The specific source is this. The article is Kesha. Note: the issue has been resolved by using other sources, however, I am curious to find out other editors' opinions of whether the source was reliable for this particular content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog 4
You should be able to use this source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Time Cube
Not sure I see your original research problem there. The cited source says "If you continue to scroll down the endless page, you’ll notice subtle little racist ideologies" - do you consider it a leap of OR to say that the site "includes some racist ideology", from that? --McGeddon (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, actually I do. I think we're making an interpretation based on what the primary source is saying.  Strictly speaking, I think that it's OR.  However, I don't feel extremely strongly about the issue.  If you think I'm wrong, feel free to remove it.  Or leave it up for a few days or so and see what other editors think.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

WND
It is certainly close to a Questionable source... but in my mind not over the line completely. A lot depends on the topic. This is why I have been saying that we need specifics. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means being editorially neutral
I happened to stumble upon the following post on the talk page of the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. Another editor made the same point I did regarding what WP:NPOV actually means: "neutrality in the WP sense, not an absence of opinion, but an unbiased representation of the range of opinion, appropriately weighted to consensus, editorially neutral" (italics not mine). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I broke the dam
South Park's take on global warming. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

neutral point of view- THANKS!
Hi "A Quest For Knowledg".

You said this:

"I think the information that you're looking for is in Intelligent_design#Integral_concepts. But you know what? I did notice that the lede doesn't really explain any of the central concepts of ID. It jumps right into the debunking without really explaining what ID is. The lede is supposed to summarize the article, not just the debunking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC) "

"The lede is supposed to summarize the entire article, not just the debunking, much of which is repetitive. Ledes don't need cites. On a side note, another thing I noticed previously is that the US federal court ruling is cited as if it has some sort standing within the scientific community. Nah, not enough free time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)"

I appreciate what your objectivity and quest for neutral point of view regarding the bias against ID. Thank you for making that comment.

The bias against ID is soooo disgusting and sickening.

BTW, I'm getting a BS in Comp Sci in 1 month. COMDER (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Your block and follow up from Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement
I get it. You take issue with it. I suggest you file an WP:RFC/U if you wish to continue complaining about it (the offer to waive two certifier rule is still out there). As for the other part of your comment, I am not sure what you mean by "addressing [your] comment about editorial neutrality". Could you please explain? NW ( Talk ) 23:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

*whew*
I found solace in your simple suggestion - mostly because I wasn't sure if I was crazy in thinking the same thing. Now if that's the case, at least I know I'm not crazy alone. --K10wnsta (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC) --K10wnsta (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're not crazy in thinking the same thing. The CC-related articles are out of control and the admins have proven themselves grossly ineffective in bringing the situation under control.  As Jimbo states, "I think [Scientology] approach is likely to end up happening in a number of other areas with longterm systemic problems. There are some topics where, over time, a set of participants on both sides of an issue begin to feel that the rules don't apply, that they don't need to try to be individually neutral, or that neutrality will come out of ongoing fighting, etc. If the ArbCom reviews such a situation carefully (and I will ask them to use a higher level of scrutiny than they would in any routine solution, and I will personally automatically review any such wide-ranging case) and orders all the sparring partners to take a year off... I will tend to accept it."  I'm not sure if Jimbo is referring to CC-articles, but if so, this is a path someone needs to pursue.   From what I gather, the case is here.  I'd rather another, more experienced editor look into this, but if none step up, I will file a similar case to ArbCom and seek to have every problem editor topic banned from Wikipedia.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * btw, I sent you an email a while ago but I dunno if it actually went out properly. If you didn't (or can't) get it, lemme know and I can try to summarize it here.


 * No, I don't believe I got it. Try resending it to A_Quest_For_Knowledge@yahoo.com.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Question
Do you know who this guy is? His is one of the most widely read blogs in the worlds. He is a very notable person, why is it you think his review can`t be used? mark nutley (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I don't know who he is but I checked out his About page and it didn't look too promising. As best as I can tell, it's a personal blog.  Popularity is not an indication of reliability.  If it was, gossip sites such as TMZ.com would be considered more reliable than a peer-reviewed academic journal such as Nature.  At best it might qualify as a WP:SPS if the author is an established expert whose work in a relevant field has been published by third-party reliable sources.  Has Kottke had any book reviews or climatology articles published by a third-party reliable source? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes :-) mark nutley (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Any chance of an answer mate? mark nutley (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I haven't had a chance to review that site. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)