So you're gone in a huff? There isn't any justice to this place...all we can do is try our best to be reasonable with each other...that seems especially difficult considering many admins see just a username and not the editor behind that name...--MONGO16:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm boycotting Wikipedia. I'll return when Tom's editing restriction is lifted or reduced.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)18:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That won't be happening. The one admin resigned his tools and apparently retired...and unless Tom appeals directly to the arbcom enforcement board (which I know he won't do) he is topic banned de facto for life. You have to do what is best for you, but the pedia isn't benefitted by your departure.--MONGO19:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also sad to see this response. An indefinite ban is not the same thing as a permanent ban: it simply means the timescale is unspecified. It could be lifted in a week or in four months. Tom is a decent, well respected editor, but he crossed a line. He will return to 9/11 articles, as I hope you will, despite our disagreements.Geometry guy01:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, he won't. The ban is essentially permanent because Tom isn't going to cause a debacle by appealing, which would have to be to the committee as a whole since the blocking admin resigned. Heck, he may have even left by the time it is considered. Because of a poor-intentioned block accompanied by the perfect storm of an admin resignation, Tom is not going to be back for a long, long time, which is a shame since he is one of the most productive and level-headed editors on that topic.ToaNidhiki0501:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the threads is thatMkativerata's resignation was precipitated by a separate issue, and despite being challenged about his impartiality here, his decision has been upheld by other independent observers (and I concur with their decision). Lesser editors than Tom might create a debacle by appealing prematurely or unreasonably, but Tom is perfectly capable of requesting, in his own time, and his own way, that the topic ban be lifted, without causing drama. To suggest otherwise is to underestimate him.Geometry guy02:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you wrote above is accurate in any manner. Mkativerata left over this issue primarily...not because someone was mad at being called a clown. Furthermore, I know for a fact that Tom is never going to ask for clemency on this matter...it would be "underestimating him" to assume that he would bother to do so.--MONGO04:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought up the ongoing issue stemming from Tom's caseat WQA.--The Devil's Advocate (talk)22:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh...look two sections above that request...how many arbitration cases do we need to open...or can it all be fixed under one case?--MONGO23:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. There's nothing to take to Arbitration. They're never going to undue/modify a ban made at AE. I'm hoping common sense prevails.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)23:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's a silver lining here.[1]A Quest For Knowledge (talk)23:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something of this sort was inevitably going to happen: indeed in the absence of any initiative from other editors in the next few weeks, I'd quite likely put in a request myself to have the topic ban status reconsidered.Geometry guy00:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are getting way too emotionally involved in this battle over 9/11 conspiracy theories. I just read through the talk page of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, and I'm surprised that there hasn't been more AE or other administrative intervention requested. You all really need to step back on this, or I think it's going to go back to ArbCom again, just based on the tone of the comments you all make with each other and at the admin who banned Tom.Cla68 (talk)01:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"You all"? You'd be hard-pressed to find examples of me being uncivil.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)01:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't see any incivil comments by you. I'm just posting this on your page because everyone involved appears to be watching it. Even though I don't see that you have crossed the incivility line, you do seem to have really personalized the dispute over the theories. Speaking from personal experience in a different topic area. It's better to take a break from it than to let it get to you like it appears to be getting to you all.Cla68 (talk)01:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit the 911 CT page anymore...didn't you just get blocked recently? What was that all about? You need to do what I do...get the blocking admin desysopped...that will teach em.--MONGO01:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the blocking admin's talk page, you will see that me and him have taken a different approach to our disagreement on that issue. Anyway, just giving you all some unsolicited advice. It can't be much fun to constantly be fighting with each other as it looks on the talk pages of those articles.Cla68 (talk)01:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is most appreciated...no advice is better than the kind that is unsolicited.--MONGO01:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and on the subject of my recent block, I will be drafting an essay on the abuse oflogical fallacies in Wikipedia that I hope will be made into a guideline. Once I draft it, I welcome all of your input. Please put my user talk page on your watchlist and I will post a notice there when it's ready for review. Thank you.Cla68 (talk)01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AQFK...what about an arbcom case which makes sure only the committee itself enforces prior rulings. Me thinks this might reduce the number of rash decisions that impact more than just the person penalized. I know there was a reason why the admin corp has been handling arbcom enforcement...something with conflict of interest issues, but that seems silly since arbcom hands down the decisions. Notice also how Tim dealt responded to questioning compared to the resigning admin and WGFinley...and yet the website is constantly lecturing everyone on compromise...I suppose the other admins should look at Tim's example...and I thanked him for his civil and compromising tone...thats the way to be an admin.--MONGO02:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also...AQFK...do you also feel like you're beingfollowed?...TDA showed up in this unrelated thread...andhere...are you seeing simiilar patterns?--MONGO02:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you are mentioning my comments at that RfC concerning the ScottyBerg case. Did you have any objection to what I said in that RfC regarding WR? You can't just say "OMG! This guy is commenting in some places where I also comment!" and reasonably label it harassment. People watchlist user talk pages, follow contributions, and all other sorts of things. What matters is not how you get there, but what you do once you arrive.--The Devil's Advocate (talk)02:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odd you might have some inclination about my thoughts regarding that website.--MONGO02:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is that odd? I don't think it's a secret.--The Devil's Advocate (talk)05:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "At WP:Verifiability". Thank you. -- NewbyG ( talk)23:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleList of April Fool's Day jokes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of April Fool's Day jokes (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.Ten Pound Hammer •^{(What did I screw up now?)}00:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject line says it all.--SPhilbrick(Talk)15:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :)A Quest For Knowledge (talk)18:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...your vacation is over...now get to work.MONGO18:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back... I appreciate how you were willing to stand up for a wronged individual. Let's all hope nothing like that happens again that would require such action...ToaNidhiki0518:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noted and respected/admired your principled stand. Welcome back from me too.Geometry guy23:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now I have to work on getting the resigning admin to come back...A Quest For Knowledge (talk)16:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent idea. Any progress so far?Geometry guy01:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear A Quest For Knowledge: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at theMediation Cabal, which is aWikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found atWikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on thecase talk page, theMedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at theirtalk page.MedcabBot (talk)03:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your reason for the revert more clearly on thearticle talk page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk)15:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain at the article talk page what you thought may not have been supported by the sources?--The Devil's Advocate (talk)01:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned your namehere in relation to your participation in a recent edit war at the 9/11 article. --John (talk)17:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Advocate and Ghostofnemo have beentenditiously editing these articles for a long time, yet you filed a RfA againstMongo of all people? That doesn't make any sense. Why would you do that?A Quest For Knowledge (talk)15:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean "tendentiously editing" as "tenditiously" is not a word (the same applies to your use of "tenditious" elsewhere).Geometry guy01:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs some work. It presents a lot of claims by conspiracy proponents as is and gives them undue weight to a fringe position among historical academics. On the talk page we're also discussing what cancount as a reliable source. At least I recommend adding the page to your watchlist. --Harizotoh9 (talk)01:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of feel overwhelmed there. I seem to be the only one critical of JFK conspiracy claims, and they're giving them far too much undue weight in the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk)21:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm already busy with a number of different content disputes. Try posting something at theFringe theory noticeboard.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)21:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only skimmed it, but the article only seems to explain the fringe viewpoints. I don't see where mainstream viewpoints are explained. Take a look atMoon landing conspiracy theories. For each fringe claim, the mainstream viewpoint is also explained. I'm not crazy about the formatting (bullet points and italics) but Moon landing conspiracy theories does a decent job explaining the topic. I used it as a model for when I rewrote much of9/11 conspiracy theories.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)22:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What did you think was wrong there that required reinforcements? The title is just fine the way it is.VєсrumЬа ►TALK13:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a historian nor do I have a degree in history. I could be mistaken (and if I am, I apologize), but I don't believe any of us participating in the discussion is. As far as I know, we're all layman trying to figure this out.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)15:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia isverifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is notoriginal research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anythingchallenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of aninline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question.

This verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular tomaterial about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.

"Verifiability" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Neutral point of view" and "No original research". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

For questions about whether a particular source is reliable, see theReliable sources noticeboard.

That we require verifiability, rather than truth, as the threshold for inclusion does not mean that Wikipedia has no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance onrules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect the facts.

Wikipedia's articles are intended as an overview of the relevant literature within the field in question, a summary of current published debate. TheNeutral point of view policy, another core content policy, holds that all majority and significant-minority published views be represented in articles. But sources are not infallible. They may make simple errors, or be outdated or superseded. Editorial judgment is required to decide how to use the best sources in the best way.

When there is agreement among editors that an otherwise reliable source has made an unambiguous error, simply ignore that material, and when in doubt discuss on the article talk page, or on thereliable sources noticeboard. The concept of "verifiability, not truth" doesnot mean that anything published by a reliable source, no matter how mistaken, must be included in Wikipedia.

Since the article is under deletion review, can I request that it be userfied again? I don't want to lose all of my work. THANKS ^_^GMHayes (talk)22:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, you won't lose your work. I had one of my articles deleted a couple years ago and an admin was able to userfy it. Anyway, the result of the AfD might be keep or no concensus (which results in keeping the article). But if it is deleted, you'll need an admin to userfy it - I'm not an admin. But like I said, there's no reason to worry. An admin will still be able to userfy it even after deletion.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)22:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for your help!GMHayes (talk)23:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. You have new messages atVolunteer Marek's talk page.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks so much for the insight AQFK. I sincerely appreciate it.

From what I read in the policy guidelines extreme sarcasm, name-calling and "outing" (albeit an "attempting outing" in this case) is forbidden. For some reason Bromiliad39 has really disparaged and slandered April Masini (to say nothing of apparently even posted her home address) as well as disparaged SW Florida's local media outlets and GMHayes. Is this type of behavior common and acceptable by the admins?Jennyspencer (talk)17:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I just looked over Bromiliad39's comments at the AfD and the article talk page and I'm not seeing any personal attacks. The COI accusations are inappropriate at the AfD, and I would just ignore those comments. COI has absolutely no bearing on whether a topic is notable.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)17:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AQFK, is there a way I can insert newspaper and magazine references onto the page? I also would like to upload pdf files, though I have no clue how to do this :-( Unfortunately the page says no changes can be made to it until the issue has been resolved, and unless sources get added it is clear the page will be deleted. Is there anyone I can contact to give me permission to add the references? Thank you in advance for any guidance you can offer.Jennyspencer (talk)18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood. It doesn't say that no changes can be made. It says "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed.". So go ahead and edit the article. You just can't remove the AfD notice. I'm not sure what kind of PDFs you're talking about. If your references are online, you can just use the URL as the reference. If your references are paper-based, then you specify the publisher, date, author, etc. like you were writing a term paper for school. Either way, here's a web page that makes it easier to fill out citation templates.[2] It's what I use.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)20:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to do this to you AQFK, but I posted a couple of revised lines in my Sandbox that have the pdf files attached. The good news is I figured out how to upload pdf's, the bad news is I can't get the images to "hide" while keeping the links. That said, do you have a free moment to take a look at the references and offer an opinion?Jennyspencer (talk)21:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that these PDFs are image scans of printed sources? People don't upload PDFs like that for citations. Instead, they fill out a citation template only. I've taken the liberty of filling it out for you for the Governor Cayetano Honors Al and April Masini source:

<ref> {{cite news | title = Governor Cayetano Honors Al and April Masini | date = 1998-06-02 | publisher = State of Hawaii Office of teh Governor | work = Press Release | accessdate = 2012-03-25 | quote = "Governor Ben Cayetano is proclaiming June 4th Al and April Masini Day at a mahalo reception for the volunteers of the Miss Universe Pageant at Washington Place on Thursday, June 4 1998 from 5:30p.m. to 7:30p.m. Al and Appril Masini proved their immense love for Hawaii and the people of the state by devoting close to a year of their time and energy to make the 1998 Miss Universe Pageant widly successful," said Governor Cayetano."}}</ref>

As for my opinion, they appear to be secondary sources so they help establish notability. But the other PDF is too blurry for me to read so I can't say for certain.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)22:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of adding a sentence about the Governor of Hawaii proclaiming June 4th, 1998 "Al and April Masini Day".[3] That is how to do it.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)22:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I posted a comment to the AfD to let the closing admin know that a new source has been found and added to the article.[4]A Quest For Knowledge (talk)22:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are incredibly kind AQFK. I cannot tell you how grateful I am for your help. THANK YOU! The other two are pdf files of magazines. Imi Loa Magazine is put out by the a branch of the Governor's Office and chronicles (in several pages) much of the work done by April Masini building Hawaii's television and film industry, including an interview with Baywatch's producer discussing how she convinced him to move the show. I don't think there is anyway to extract the related quotes... there are too many important ones. I don't understand why it's blurry on your end... It was fine when I uploaded it. What do you suggest?Jennyspencer (talk)—Precedingundated comment added22:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You don't need to upload PDFs. All you have to do is read the magazine article and summarize (as best you can) what the magazine article is saying in your own words. Add that to theApril Masini article and add inline citation by filling out the citation template. You can fill it out manually yourself or use thistool. I'm heading out for the night. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me but you'll have to wait until tomorrow for an answer. If you don't want to wait, feel free to ask questions at ourWP:Help desk. Good luck!A Quest For Knowledge (talk)22:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU so very much AQFK!— Precedingunsigned comment added byJennyspencer (talk •contribs)23:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AQFK! It's the pest back to bother you again.... I've revised the April Masini page, changing it's focus from author to political activist for television and film. I've also listed a ton more references. I believe there is now an excerpt posted, from a source, to support every statement made on the page. I don't know if I'm allowed to do that or not, but I did? It was pretty obvious that people weren't reading the articles, so I thought maybe they'll read the excerpts. However, based upon what's transpired I'm not optimistic it will matter either way. Two questions: (1) Is there anything more that you think I should do? and (2) How long do you think it will be before they delete the page? (I have to assume that's what is going to happen.) It would be ironic it was on April 1st -- then you could add April Masini to your list of April's Fools Jokes! ;-) You've been a terrific help AQFK and I want to thank you again.Jennyspencer (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byJennyspencer (talk •contribs)01:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenny, I think you did some great work, but you don't need 11 cites for the fact that she writes for Match.com. But since they're already in there, you might as well leave them be.WP:CLOSEAFD says an AfD can be closed after 7 days, but it might take more time to read through the discussion and the article. If you haven't already, I would add a comment in the AfD discussion to the closing admin that since the AfD began, you added more references.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)15:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do... Thank you again AQFK!!!Jennyspencer (talk)16:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if I could ask you another question AQFK? I received a message saying that, "We can't use those Match.com links, they don't count as reliable references. I have a bad feeling that this article probably won't be kept. Again, the match.com and primary sources don't count. I'm sorry! :( Sarah (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2012" Do you think I should remove all of the links to the Match.com articles? Also, it seems like my revisions are being counted as those from a "primary source" and thus don't count. Am I understanding this properly? I am sorry, I realize that I am high maintenance due to being so new to wikipedia and I'm sorry to keep bugging you.Jennyspencer (talk)18:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at SarahStierch's page. Don't worry, we're all newbies when we start. :)A Quest For Knowledge (talk)18:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your continued assistance and guidance in navigating the treacherous waters of wikipedia AQFK.Jennyspencer (talk)18:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AQFK, I just wanted to stop by and thank you again. If not for your kind support and assistance I would have given up.... You have no idea how much it meant to have someone (ie: you) keep an open mind and lend a hand (so to speak) when no one else would. Your factual rebuttals allowed the article to be userified again, instead of being deleted. I am very grateful. THANK YOU!Jennyspencer (talk)23:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I could help. You can continue working on the article while it's in user space:April Masini. If you want to establishnotability, try to find newspaper/magazine articles like this one.[5] Note that she's the subject of the article, rather than just used for a sound bite.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)15:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I just thought such a statement was a bit of a mischaracterisation: I, for one, have had AN watchlisted for longer than AN/I. And yes, if outside input is desired, initiating discussion at a new forum may be in order. I personally disdain RfCs; I find them to generate more heat than light, but that's just me. ~~Lothar von Richthofen (talk)00:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a short message at the Village Pump.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)00:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I think some people are having in that AN discussion is that they seem to be having a hard time discerning the difference between the "dispute" and the "abuse". They may look at the dispute and determine that he used his admin tools correctly, based on their agreement with him in the "content dispute". I think that you and I may be the only two who can clearly make out the difference, based on the comments at AN so far. These are clear violations of trust that I feel should not be tolerated from anyone with admin tools. I don;t know how else to explain to people to put aside their bias on the dispute and only look at the two clear violations of our rules for admins. Funny, I probably would have taken his side in the dispute had I been aware of it, but I will stay out of it, until this issue is resolved. Good luck. I wouldn't waste too much time on this though. I'm sure you have, as well as I do, better things to do with your time. Still it would be a shame to see this go unpunished. Cheers.--JOJ^Hutton02:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've articulated the problem well. Should this end up at ArbCom, they won't side with Drmies‎.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)02:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I'm not really all that invested emotionally in how this particular thread ends, but would give my opinion if an ArbCom was begun. I just hate to see these types of violations go without even a warning. They only breed mistrust and lead to more problems in the future. Shame. If anything, at least the involved admin will think twice before making these mistakes again in the future.--JOJ^Hutton02:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hopefully, they learned their lesson. I'll keep that article on my watchlist. If they misuse their admin tools again, it's not just an isolated incident of misconduct, but a pattern.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)01:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the past I've used theexternal editor. It worked well after I got it set up.Tom Harrison^Talk19:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution –Survey Invite Hello A Quest For Knowledge. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please clickHERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associatedresearch page.StevenZhangDR goes to Wikimania!11:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your help is, in fact, greatly appreciated.Jayjg^(talk)02:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleJill Kenton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kenton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Hi! I don't know if you've noticed, but here was a slight typo in the link you postedhere.This is Anthonyhcole's actual block log. Regards,Jafeluv (talk)07:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. It's now fixed.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)14:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Version of article at end of GAR
• Diff between current version and GAR
• August 2011 Peer review
• August 2011 FA review

A Quest For Knowledge (talk)20:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this now on hold? How about shooting it to Peer Review?--MONGO03:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not on hold. There's alist on the article talk page of items that need to be addressed. Previously, I asked on the article talk page who else was interested in reachingWP:GA status. Several editors responded positively, but the list mostly remains unaddressed. It seems like most of the work is falling on me - which is fine - but even I get bored/distracted by other things, and right now, I'm working on creating lists of self-published sources. I plan to return to the 9/11 article, but if things are moving too slow, it would be nice if someone besides me did some of the work.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)03:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I attract all the wrong kinds of people...but I'll be there to help with MOS and related issues...I have a project page being reviewed now and will check on the 9/11 list this weekend. The truth is, one editor is usually the lead on any GA or FA push as you were the last time...it's not fair to you, nor do Iexpect you to lead...but I think many of the issues that undermined the GA have been neutralized either by improvements or additions...not all of which were, in my opinion, helpful to maintaining focus, but what can we say.--MONGO03:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to work on MOS issues...I'll be going back and forth after consulting MOS and doing some adjustments...I will say that I would retitle the events section and rename it "attacks" and combine the two since right now almost the same info is in two adjacent sections...I'd put each flight, the times and the numbers of passengers, etc...MONGO15:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Events is fine. The reason why is that it's already in a section named Attacks.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)15:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sections should be combined...right now we're giving part of the plane/casualty/timeframes in one section and part in the adjacent section...combining the info in one place may be info overload, but better to have it all centralized for flow...IMHO...MONGO15:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,Its good think that you have posted on several boards about this issue but usually talk pages are overlooked so I don't think you will get much responses.Maybe you should post onWikipedia:Village_pump--Shrike (talk)06:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a personal attack.Don't do that. I shall regard further accusations of "falsely claiming" or similar phrases asharassment.Cusop Dingle (talk)18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said your claims were false. That's a remark about your argument, not you as person.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)18:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. "There you go again" is not a statement about my claims but about me. "You falsely claimed" is a statement about me. "You refuse to acknowledge your mistakes" is a statement about me. If you repeat such statements I shall regard it asharassment.Cusop Dingle (talk)18:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to stop pointing out your claims are false, then just stop making false claims.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)18:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems hard to believe, but perhaps you really do not understand what I'm telling you here. Let me spell it out. Statements you make involving an active verb such as "go", "claim" and prefixed by a subject such as "you" are statements about a person -- in this case me. Those statements are attacks on my conduct as a person, and hence personal attacks. Don't do that. Clear? If you refer to my conduct again in this fashion, you will be harassing me. Clear?Cusop Dingle (talk)19:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you continue to make false claims, I will continue to point them out. Now, please leave me alone.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)19:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

H i the user above has reported your comments toWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:A Quest For Knowledge and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - RegardsYoureallycan16:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A frivolous report if I ever saw one. Never mind that AN/I isn'tdispute resolution. However, in the spirit of compromise, I struck thru the offending phrase.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)16:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge/September_11_attacks_-_BooksA Quest For Knowledge (talk)

Tate Publishing & Enterprises andTrafford Publishing need cites.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)03:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AndPublish America.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)00:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#How_do_lists_get_promoted.3F is plugging that concept. Also, a new discussion onWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_reliability. Would you like to join that project, now that you have done so much to improve that list? Membership is free, and will encourage others to pitch in. Thanks.History2007 (talk)20:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already, I'd post an invite on the talk pages ofWP:V,WP:RS andWP:RSN.

BTW, I posted notices about the lists atWP:FRINGE andWP:FRINGE/N.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)20:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to improvesourcing in our articles, me and a couple other editors have created two lists of self-publishing companies:

• List of self-publishing companies in article space fornotable self-publishing houses
• WP:List of self-publishing companies in Wikipedia space fornotable and non-notable self-publishing houses

It's our hope that by maintaining such lists, it will be easier for editors to identify self-published books, and thus improve sourcing of our articles.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)01:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is very helpful.Cla68 (talk)02:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I mentioned theList of self-publishing companies to a friend who has self published several books, and he says that many of them are unprofessional vanity publishers. I'll try to get more info., as this will potentially help would-be authors (and there are many of those!)LittleBen (talk)22:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi would you please do me the favor of referring to me by my new username and editing your recent comment to that position? As a suggestion - you could change your comment to - I have had many disagreements with this user , or I have had many disagreements with Youreallycan -Youreallycan19:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll do that now. Sorry, no offense was intended.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)19:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much -Youreallycan19:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your work withWP:List of self-publishing companies. Nuff saidSÆdontalk00:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :)A Quest For Knowledge (talk)19:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to correct your comment[6] since that wasn't part of Group 4 draft 10. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk)18:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've double checked it and unless the formatting of that page is screwed up, it is a part of Group 4 draft 10. What draft do you think it's part of?A Quest For Knowledge (talk)12:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the formatting misled you. I've responded on that talk page and injected a clarifying comment in brackets after Group 4 draft 10. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk)14:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it has been clarified that it is not part of Group 4 draft 10, could you modify your original message with strike outs in the appropriate places? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk)16:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!JoeSperrazza (talk)13:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) I surprised that doesn't happen more often.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

hi = if you think something is uncivil then please primarily discuss it with the user on his talkpage , perhaps ask him to strike it - it discussion fails to resolve the issue perhaps ask as admin to look at the issue and to help resolve the dispute = please don't simply remove another users comment -Youreallycan23:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shows incredibly poor judgement part to restore such an offensive, if not borderline, anti-Semetic comment like that. There is nothing wrong with being a Jew.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)23:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A Quest For Knowledge, Can you please move your comment atWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-warring_at_ANI_considered_harmful under sectionWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Viriditas_and_User:Anupam, as the edit warring is happening in this section by User:Anupam, who is reported there.-Abhishikt (talk)03:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Thank you for the correction. Let me know if I still manage to screw it up.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)04:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you placedthis in the wrong section? —SpacemanSpiff03:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Thank you for the correction. To anyone reading my talk page, if I still managed to screw it up, please feel free to move or delete my comment. I'm heading to bed soon and won't be able to correct any mistake until morning.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)04:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to edit into the archived section, but I did want to answer your question. In fact you'll note that I answered it earlier in the conversation, up above the point Jauerback first posted. I believe it was in response to Ooobunnies (pardon if the usernames mispelled). Looking at the totality of the situation, the IP should have been blocked for 3RR inserting of BLP violating material. Then I believe the word I used for what should have been done to JoelWhy is "Wrist slap + education" on how to properly deal with those situations so it doesn't degenerate so far so fast.--Cube lurker (talk)14:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize the discussion was closed; that's why I self-reverted. Thanks for the reply. On a side note, I think an interesting exercise would be to ask some of the regular patrollers ofWP:AN3 (like EdJohnston, for example) what they would have done. Someone with more experience might know how to better handle these types of situations.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)14:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You posted right after the close, I didn't have an issue with that, but I also knew if I replied there someone would come along and revert us, (And probably gleefully tell me I fucked up based on the exchange I had earlier in the thread). On the other, might be interesting, but might be swayed by other dynamics. You might get different answers to a blind hypothetical, and an answer knowing they were critiquing another admins actions. I don't know the personalities there, but I've seen that at play other places before.--Cube lurker (talk)15:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're probably right about the other dynamics.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)19:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about removing that from your answer, I figured you probably wouldn't have added that on the actual RSN page, but I didn't wanna overstep and make assumptions. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête}20:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have minded if you had, but there are probably editors that would have.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)20:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. You have new messages atWikipedia:Help desk.
Message addedRyan Vesey Review me!16:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NP, thanks for the email, when I first read the question, I thought it lacked even enough detail for a general answer (and what good is a general answer anyway? I would prefer the straightforward "here's the edit, here's the source, what's your thoughts?" kind of question), but I checked it out after I got your email and the website was back up, it was actually easier than I thought to rule it out. Thanks for the heads-up though, I don't mind at all. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête}00:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you almost asked,

• Single tilde generates ~
• Double tilde generates ~~
• Triple tilde generatesLeadSongDogcome howl!
• Quadruple tilde generatesLeadSongDogcome howl!20:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I must have accidentally typed 3 tilda's. Thanks for the tip.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)20:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your name at the WP:RS talk page, so I was wondering if you mind commenting atTalk:The Light of the Sun. Its about whether Twitter can be used as a reliable source to verify album sales.Dan56 (talk)18:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved bymotion that:

The restriction imposed onA Quest For Knowledge (talk ·contribs) by Remedy 18 of theClimate change case ("A Quest For Knowledge topic-banned") is hereby lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee,

--Lord Roem (talk)15:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! Finally some good news on this website!MONGO16:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!A Quest For Knowledge (talk)17:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, and good luck.MastCell ^Talk18:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, I'm glad to see this restriction lifted. . .dave souza,talk21:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate everyone's support.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)22:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your science ref desk question here as not to spam that page. Rainbow symphony offers eclipse viewing glasses suitable for viewing the transit, minimum 25 unit order though.SkyMachine⁽⁺⁺⁾21:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance I can get you to weigh in, with whatever you think, on theWikipedia:RSN#Abkhazian_Network_News_Agency_showing_video_interviews_with_Houla_massacre_survivors_.28plus_Syria_News.29 section, please and thank-you? -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête}01:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday was the transit of Venus, an event that won't happen again in over a hundred years, and Google didn't even have a doodle to commemorate the event.

Today is the anniversary of D-Day (Allied invasion of Europe in WWII) and today's Google doodle is about drive-in theaters.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)14:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully when they begin mining asteroids they'll have a google doodle about that.SkyMachine⁽⁺⁺⁾00:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think an RFC is a bad idea, because it is stupid. But I would note that the last few RFCs on Wikinews haven't received formal closure, because the result was blindingly obvious—I'm not sure that anyone can offer any original facts or arguments regarding wikinews, but then again, I was brought up to let people revisit topics tiresomely (because ARBCOM and Admins wouldn't do their job in content disputes).Fifelfoo (talk)02:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I doubt the result of an RfC is going to turn out any differently than the result at RSN, but let's make sure the RfC is formally closed this time around.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)02:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. You have new messages atIRWolfie-'s talk page.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ThePaul McCartney article has now beenthoroughly copyedited top-to-bottom by numerous editors includingUser:Lfstevens, a member of theWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. If you can find the time in your busy schedule, please consider stopping by and taking a look, and hopefully,!voting. ~GabeMc^{(talk|contribs)}04:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits on the Six Day War article in regards to semantics, awkwardness, punctuation, grammar, etc. While certain editors duke it out in regards to content, it is always valuable to have editors fix the grammar, which can ruin a perfectly good article.

Just in the future, try to make your edits in only one edit. This way, it's much easier to see all of your edits compared to the previous person's edit. In case you don't know, an easy way to do this is to make your edit, click "show preview," see the preview of your edits, and then decide whether it's sufficient and save changes or to go back to the edit box at the bottom of the page and make more changes, and repeat the process.

It's just easier to be able to see the diffs. It worked out fine with you, since it's not a big deal for grammar, but if you could just keep this in mind for the future, that'd be really great.

And once again, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia and helping out on the article. It's much appreciated. --Activism123423:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to make my edits one at a time as I read through the article. If you want to see my edits as one diff, you can go intoSix-Day War: Revision history, select the radio button immediately before my first edit and then select radio button of my last edit. So, for example, here's all my changes so far in one diff.[8] Does that work for you?

So far, it's pretty decent article. I got a little confused in the "Background and summary of events leading to war" section regarding Egypt massing its troops in Sinai. It starts off saying that a large part of Nasser's army was already in Sinai and that they continued a troop build up. But later, it states that Nasser began to concentrate his troops in the Sinai Peninsula.

Anyway, I'm probably done for the night editing the article.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)23:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow thanks for pointing out that tool aboutthe radio button! That's so useful! I retract my previous statement now. And I haven't been involved that much in editing the page too much or creating that passage, but I do know there is a major fight going on about the passage and certain wording. --Activism123400:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I think there's some context that you are not particularly familiar with that I just laid out in my most recent comment in that thread.T. Canens (talk)06:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure, I'm not familiar with the editors or the topic space.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)15:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This notification is to inform you of a straw poll being conducted at the talk page ofShooting of Trayvon Martin, your comments would be welcome and appreciated on the allegations of witness #9.[9]Note: If you choose to comment, please mention you were contacted via this notification. Thanks!--Isaidnoway(talk)08:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to post the following:

• Strong support Just to be contrarian.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)21:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't think everyone would appreciate my sense of humor. :)A Quest For Knowledge (talk)21:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Quest For Knowledge (talk)22:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing,Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012, has been proposed for amerge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by goinghere, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.Schmidt,^{MICHAEL Q.}17:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Having previously been involved ina discussion about Ancestry.com on RSN, could you join a discussionhere to offer your opinion? A user is saying that some of the material on that site is not from users, but paid employees, andWP:BLPPRIMARY is also an issue. Thanks.Nightscream (talk)09:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dircting people to the relevant discussions is usual practice, what's your problem?Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556^{> haneʼ}16:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's rude to close down a discussion someone else is engaging in.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)16:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were done. I'm not the only one who thinks this isn't relevant to the article; and in that case, it isn't rude; after all, talkpages are not forums.Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556^{> haneʼ}16:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't go around telling you where to post your comments. Please show me the same respect.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)16:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with respect.Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556^{> haneʼ}16:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was always under the impression that minor edits were edits that did not effect the page too much. Seeing as I believe that current contention around the difference between "Unification" and "Re-Unification" was quite minor, I thought it would come under that category; am I mistaken?Alssa1 (talk)20:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends on how you define 'minor'. For contentious articles, even seemingly small changes can be controversial. If you think that someone else is likely to disagree with your edit, then don't mark it as minor. I don't edit in this topic space (so correct me if I am wrong) but apparently "unification" versus "re-unificatinon" appears to be point of contention.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)21:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that your comment on Ed's page was that he violated his topic ban? If so, what should be done next?

Thanks. --Activism123400:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears to be a clear violation of their topic-ban. What do do next? Two admins have been notified. I'd let them handle it once they've had a chance to examine the edit.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)00:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Sounds good. --Activism123400:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blade blocked Talknic for 72 hours. Does this (and any similar ruling) mean that an editor (myself or someone else) can revert his edit, and not violate 1RR? Thanks. --Activism123401:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Template_revisionNobody Ent21:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thenyou didn't read the source when you made that edit.--MONGO05:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the bit for several reasons, all of which appear to be valid. Having just re-read the source, I don't see any errors in my rationale. Can you be more specific?AQFK (talk)07:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I took another look at it, and I think that the wording was confusing (or at least confusing to me). The phrase appeared (to me at least) to suggest that Pakistan had fore-knowledge of the attacks. I'v re-added the material back into the article (albeit in the body).A Quest For Knowledge (talk)14:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that important and it's not the only confession by KSM et al. though the squeamish might not like the confessions made at GITMO, even though, like good lawyers, interrogators rarely ask questions they don't already know the answers to.--MONGO19:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have a look here:User_talk:Zachariel#Notification_of_Arbitration_Enforcement? I think these mirrored articles should be deleted.MakeSense64 (talk)08:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a notice, you have been mentioned atthe edit warring noticeboard in relation to an edit war as part of the evidence listed for an edit war violation by Programs22.ToaNidhiki0502:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the late reply. Its not that they aren't notable (if they weren't then they wouldn't be given mention onList_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(U.S._season_1)). I just felt that it was still too early to make an article about them in Wikipedia since they haven't released anything beyond The X-Factor. But I guess I shouldn't have nominated the article for deletion. I think that aRedirect for Discussion was a better alternative.Bleubeatle (talk)00:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. You have new messages atTalk:Tom Cruise.
Message added 02:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VQuakr (talk)02:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition ofThe Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active indispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you areactive in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name tothis page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close theGeopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, in edit summaries on talk pages, I don't mind seeing my username in normal case when someone has a noncombative question when we're trying to understand each others perspective. Seeing my name in (A)sequential edit summaries; (B) in all-caps; and (C) when in my opinion you are the only one arguing ..... it just feels overly combative and is not serving any purpose. I can't point to any policy that backs me up except expectations of common courtesy.... would you please not (unintentionally) shout my name in edit summaries quite so much?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)12:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are mistaken. As far as I can remember, I've never used your name in all caps.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)13:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I was wrong on all caps, but still felt needlessly (unintentionally) prodded..... so please desist using my name in edit summaries, and just indent your remarks as the talk guidelines recommend, and I'll know you are talking to meNewsAndEventsGuy (talk)14:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, sorry to bud in :) I'm quite probably guilty of doing this once in a while[11] ... the reason is not to shout, or to prod, but because a short of a long name is usually capitalized (ie. i'd expect KDP for me, not kdp etc). I'll try not to do so again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk)17:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being an acronym, I'd put "NAEG" in all caps too. No worries.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)20:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this message is to inform you that there is currently apublic poll here, to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated eitherhere,here,here, orhere, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. ~GabeMc^{(talk|contribs)}02:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Professionalism and civility and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,Alanscottwalker (talk)14:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't plan on participating. The whole reason I went to Jimbo was because I knew that the admins weren't going to do anything. ArbCom already had a case about this very same issue, and they blew. I expect them to fail again, although I'd love to be proven wrong.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)21:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps the most limp-wristed arbcom committee yet. It is more apparent to me than ever that one need not be even slightly repentant for calling half the editors on this website every foul name in the book, so long as you've got enough lackies around to twist knots in the facts. This committee obviously wants to pass the buck, and it will get passed since I can see no chance of reform if there is no motivation to do so. It must beus that suffers from some grand delusion I suppose...MONGO13:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They already had a chance to address the problem and failed to do so, so it doesn't surprise me one bit. I do find it ridiculously absurd that some editors are trying to justify MF's misconduct with someone else's misconduct. In what crazy world do two wrongs make a right? Can you imagine this discussion:

"Yes, officer, I burned my neighbor's garage and killed their dog, but they stole my car last week and poisened my cat."

"Well, OK, as long as both sides are guilty, there's no point it doing anything about it. Carry on."

A Quest For Knowledge (talk)00:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point is, the grand illusion that he's being baited/targeted/persecuted is just that...a grand illusion. How many reports to AN/I, attempts at arbitration and whatnot have been tried and have been stonewalled or led to no resolution...yet he complains that he is the victim and has no support. He has no idea what online harassment is...he didn't even start editing here till after I had already fought a dozen encyclopedia dramatica, GNAA and other trolls off the website. We've had many female editors quit after cyberstalkers hounded them in real life...I even had to contact the FBI on one in particular.--MONGO02:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot you guys "bond" privately and with compliance with WP:Civility?

Call me old fashioned.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz20:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your block log indicates you have no idea what civility means as it is most impressive...not just 24 hours, but weeks at a time...and nothing is learned, perhaps you need a new idol? Please explain how my posting above was incivil and I shall modify it to suit your definition. Perhaps calling people arsehole, or asshole, cunts, and well, you name it, is your idea of civility? That is something you defend and you expect me to think you understand our policies or even care? Perhaps his sometimes what I would say is borderline demeaning ethnocentric anti-American comments are supposedly to be tolerated on an international website? I hadn't mentioned that issue yet had I...want some diffs...it gets uglier I assure you. You'll find yourself in the wilderness if I post my evidence...alone, looking pretty silly and definitely like the troll you accuse others of being with no evidence. Yet here you are lecturing anyone on civility...how very comical, or was it hypocritical as you called others?--MONGO23:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo, you arefrothing writing exciting statements, again,returning to your folly as---what is the phrase?---I digress. Are "lackies" & "limp wristed" civil?Kiefer.Wolfowitz01:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 01:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dog vomit? Maybe it's time for everyone to give it a rest.SlightSmile01:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True enough.Kiefer.Wolfowitz01:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"like a dog to his vomit"...nice edit summary...I suppose I deserve your wrath since I think your civility mentor needs a wikibreak?MONGO11:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sawthis edit during my topic ban and could not object then, but the edit summary is mistaken. The edit was supported by three other editors inthis discussion. Would you please restore that wording? Geopolitics is just not the correct terminology to use in this context and the "political arena" wording was actually suggested by another editor and received approval from three others.--The Devil's Advocate (talk)04:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was the consensus of two different discussions. The fact that you could not participate in the last one is irrelevent. If you want it changed, I suggest that you did what I did: achieve consensus on the talk page. IIRC, one of the reasons for your sanctions wasWP:TE. Picking up where you left off is likely to get you sanctioned once again.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)13:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did this "discussion" take place where you claim to have achieved "consensus" for that revert? All I see around that time is some discussion about GA status that makes no mention of this wording.--The Devil's Advocate (talk)14:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what difference does it make? You've twice had topic bans from 9/11 articles and each time the bans expire, you resume POV pushing in the arena.MONGO15:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DA: Why don't you propose your change on the talk page, explain why, and if there's consensus for your change, we can go ahead and do it. I really don't understand why you're posting this to my talkpage.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)15:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting it to your talk page because I figured that, rather than dragging people through yet another absurd discussion about such a small and harmless change that improves the wording, seeing if you would undo the change yourself was more suitable. Now are you going to point me to this discussion where you said you got consensus for restoring the term "geopolitics" to the section?--The Devil's Advocate (talk)15:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - so rather than draggingeveryone through "yet another absurd discussion" (your own words), you decided to dragme into one of these absurd discussions? Again, I suggest the following:

• Propose your change on thearticle talk page (not my talk page; I don'tWP:OWN this article; your suggested change should be judged on its own merits).
• Explain why your changeimproves the article
• Obtain consensus for your suggested change.

This seems simple enough. Please don't post to my talk page again.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk)02:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you commented on this issue the previous time it came up, your input might be valuablehere.— Precedingunsigned comment added by80.237.226.76 (talk)22:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Windows 8". Thank you!--Amadscientist (talk)19:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't even know there was a dispute. It seems like a fairly slow-moving, if even, boring discussion. I guess I'll comment if it helps things.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)19:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well..what can I say...but thanks. Anyway, tomorrow is another day and I hope to see you and others that still have some sanity around.--MONGO02:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What’s the Difference Between Windows 8, Windows 8 Pro and Windows RT?
• Install Windows 8 on SSD and Program & Users on HDD.
• How to add Windows Media Center to Windows 8 free of charge
• LG introduces 23-inch touch monitor for Windows 8
• Getting started with Xbox Music on Windows 8

A Quest For Knowledge (talk)13:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for closing the Star Wars Episode VII AfD.[12] That said, I'm a bit confused about your closing rationale. You said thatWP:NOTCRYSTAL carried the most weight with your decision. Can you be a little more specific? Which part of WP:NOTCRYSTAL did it violate and how did it violate it? Thanks.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)13:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

The arguements concerning CRYSTAL in the discussion were mostly "not enough information yet", and also by extension of CRYSTAL, it violatesWP:NFF (which stands on CRYSTAL as its foundation, though it refers to an alternate shortcut: WP:FUTURE), because principle photography has not been started yet.

This is noted not only in the main part of CRYSTAL, about future events, but also specifically noted in point #5 at WP:NOT#CRYSTAL.

I hope this helps clarify. That said, if you have further questions (requests for clarification), I am happy to clarify a close. -jc3715:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you notified me concerning the DRV on my talkpage. I have made a response there concerning my thoughts about the closure and don't know if you're interested in reading it. At any rate, thanks for the heads up.Sjakkalle(Check!)07:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're thinking about that last post, because it had me scatching my head big time. I'm not exactly sure what you've been trying to get at, but to me it seems like you trying to say that the sources we use to establish notability do not have to be reliable, as required byWP:V. The policy says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Significant coverage in non-reliable sources cannot be used to establish notability.

That might not be what you intended, and I suspect it wasn't, but I just wanted to ask you to clear that up in your answer.Dominus Vobisdu (talk)20:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my post because I wasn't sure if I was really asking the question they were trying to answer. I'll take another stab at answering when I get a chance (hopefully, tonight).A Quest For Knowledge (talk)20:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert those minor changes?--The Devil's Advocate (talk)15:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute to the poll onTalk:Windows RT.Tuntable (talk)23:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request.My76Strat (talk)10:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, A Quest For Knowledge. I noticed you removed a tag that I put on the articleList of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. I placed the template because the links do not seem to meet the criteria atWP:ELYES and in fact some of them lead to promotional product pages (seeWP:ELNO). If you disagree please let me know! --Noiratsi (talk)21:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, at first I thought the tag was placed there by a bot. I'm not sure if I would have reverted if I knew it was a person. But yes, I do disagree. I've seen such lists before where the company website was listed as link. I can't remember any of them off the top of my head, but a search revealsList of software for molecular mechanics modeling that does this. There are others, too. GrantedList of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8 isn't in a table format yet, but that's something that can be done later.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)22:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleList of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.Noiratsi (talk)07:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No good deed goes unpunished, eh?A Quest For Knowledge (talk)12:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. You have new messages atNoiratsi's talk page.
Message added11:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Noiratsi (talk)11:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. You have new messages atNoiratsi's talk page.
Message added15:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Agreed. Apologies.Noiratsi (talk)15:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I agree we got off on the wrong foot. Let's work together to improve the article. :)A Quest For Knowledge (talk)16:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed it down because all that will do will stir up drama, and Malleus won't be banned at the end of it. Please don't do something that poorly thought out again. --Rschen775408:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? How dare you say something that so bizarrely off base? And you have the nerve of accusing someone else of poor judgement? I suggest that you self revert and apologize. If not, I'll file an ArbCom case in the morning.AQFK (talk)08:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm just looking at history. It's a predictable pattern: someone proposes a ban, Malleus' supporters whine and cry, Malleus' enemies whine and cry, and at the end there's no consensus for anything. I don't endorse the way Malleus chooses to interact with people sometimes, but a dramafest at ANI is not the way to resolve the problem. Go ahead and file an ArbCom case if you want; I'm no stranger to the process and am not intimidated, and will stand behind my close. --Rschen775408:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, your actions contributed to the pattern, and justify your contribution to the problem by saying it was going to happen anyway? Have you ever considered that instead being part of the problem, you could be part of the solution? And if you think ArbCom is the way to solve the problem, why didn't you file the case when you closed down the thread? Seriously, did you think any of this through?A Quest For Knowledge (talk)09:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.... what? Is this supposed to be some sort of correction to the idiotic statement made by myself on my userpage? I don't think ArbCom would be appropriate at this time. But if you want to persist in your mistaken belief that this particular incident is grounds for a siteban (which it isn't), then ArbCom would be the proper venue, as the community has repeatedly shown unwillingness to ban Malleus. --Rschen775409:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you?MalleusFatuorum09:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AQFK, "haveyou ever considered that instead being part of the problem,you could be part of the solution" by minding your own business and not attempting to push your views on civility on the rest of us? And yes, "your actions contributed to the pattern". I'll go back to minding my own business now. Thank you for reading.J3Mrs (talk)09:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per Rschen7754's suggestion, I've filed a request for an ArbCom case.[13]A Quest For Knowledge (talk)11:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look AQFK, as much as I think MF is uncivil, and I have very strong feelings about civility, your RFAR probably set back your goals by years - assuming your goal was a site ban. The wise among us pick not only our battles, but when to fight those battles. This specific set of incidents was not the right battle, nor the right time. You have done a major disservice to your goals. (✉→BWilkins←✎)19:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any goals to get MF site-banned. I just want him to treat other editors with respect and in a professional manner. If MF apologized and promised to self-censor, I'd happily withdraw the request. But I haven't seen any acknowledgement of wrong-doing or any attempt to do better. Those are usually my 2 criteria when deciding these sort of things.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)19:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mMorbidthoughts. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person,Bobbi Starr, but that you didn’t support your changes with acitation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerninghow we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thank you.Those vendor and porn gossip blog sources that you re-added are garbage.Morbidthoughts (talk)08:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try to find better sources? What did your search reveal?AQFK (talk)08:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theburden is on you to re-add with better sources.Morbidthoughts (talk)08:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what did your search reveal?A Quest For Knowledge (talk)09:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should have prefaced the last statement with a "No, you do the search".Morbidthoughts (talk)09:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to be clear, you're admitting that you didn't even bother?A Quest For Knowledge (talk)09:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. No attempt.Morbidthoughts (talk)09:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you're not aware ofWP:PRESERVE?A Quest For Knowledge (talk)11:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of it, and itWP:WONTWORK.Morbidthoughts (talk)15:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of it was libel, nonsense, hoaxes, vandalism or a copyright violation? She's a fetish porn star. Nothing seemed contentious.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)19:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strict application ofWP:VERIFY andWP:UNDUE for a BLP. I considered things like enjoying kicking people in the nads and being buried alive in a fishtank contentious (promotional trivia that could be a hoax) and the standards are not relaxed for a fetish porn star. Did you ignore those core policies when you reinstated the edits to make aWP:POINT?Morbidthoughts (talk)20:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a misguided application ofWP:VERIFY andWP:UNDUE. Are you even familiar with her? The ball kicking is almost certainly accurate. Not sure about the fishtank though. But the point is that you should perform due diligence first. And I thought your deletion was pointy. My restore at least followed policy.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)20:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very familiar with the subject of the article. The claim of ballbusting is accurate but the claim that she enjoys it is conjecture supported by the vendor source of the marketed act. I disagree that your restoration followed policy since it re-added assertions supported by poor sources. Did you even look at the cited sources?Morbidthoughts (talk)21:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't look at the sources, but I'll accepton good faith your assertion that they were poor. I wouldn't have a problem with the deletion if you said, "I tried to find sources but I can't, so I'm removing the content" or "I think this information is wrong and it's poorly sourced, so I'm removing the content". We don't remove valid but unsourced material simply for the sake of it being unsourced. Another approach would be to remove the source but add a {fact} tag to it. Wait for some period of time and then delete the content.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)21:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The case is not going to be accepted. MF has either retired or is taking a break[14]. The calls for sanctions against you for filing will blow over. There's really no point in continuing to add to your statement, I'd suggest you go do something else more wiki-fun.NE Ent20:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've nothing to be sorry about AQFK. The chilling threats and ill-informed statements about third party filing in response to your request were entirely predictable. I'd ignore them if I were you. I'm only here as I was about to post this on MF's talk page in response to his comments about how persecuted he is, but he 'retired' before I could post it. I thought you might appreciate the sentiment anyway. Yours, a person of European extraction and over the age of consent, who has been known to drink beer and say fuck in the company of friends, but is still able to work collegiately and professionally with others when in the company of strangers.

For the record, Malleus has said he is going to be leaving a large number of times, mostly after filings against him (which always leads to "he's leaving so why both with this?" comments). I think it is really expecting a lot to think he is serious this time.ToaNidhiki0520:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Mobeus Robotica: Can you please log back into your regular account? It's hard to take your comments seriously if you won't sign with your regular account name. Thanks.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)20:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've worked together pretty well in the past, but I bit my tongue over the ArbCom request you filed. I really do appreciate that many people think he ought to go, but my purpose here is not to debate that issue. However, it is only fair to inform you that I posted something atUser talk:Malleus Fatuorum mentioning your name, and not in a flattering way. (A mild irony is that not long before, I was indirectly supporting you in a mild exchange with Giano, although that's disappeared.) In any event it is my habit to inform people when I mention them, other than in an innocuous way.--SPhilbrick(Talk)21:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. MF doesn't have to leave Wikipedia. He just needs to understand that he should conduct himself in a respectful and professional manner. This is an encyclopedia for heaven's sake. I work in an office and if I regularly attacked my co-workers, I'd get fired. And justifiably so. If he simply abided byWP:CIVIL, all of this would go away. I would try to talk to him, but I don't think he'd be receptive of my help at this point. Perhaps you can reason with him?A Quest For Knowledge (talk)21:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he would not be "receptive of" your help, because your English is at the level of your understanding.Kiefer.Wolfowitz00:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't helpful Kiefer.--SPhilbrick(Talk)02:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sad to see that your actions appear to have lost the encyclopedia an extremely productive, helpful, contributor (have you actually looked at his discussions such asthis mass of thoughtful constructive comments?) A very poor Christmas present to the whole project.PamD08:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+ 1, although nb: this is a drip effect.Sitush (talk)10:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven't hidden that I didn't like the filing, I think it is quite unfair to assign all the responsibility to AQFK, many have contributed, and many who have contributed negatively have defensible positions.--SPhilbrick(Talk)15:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Sphilbrick, this is an editor who failed to understand patient explanations by supportive editors for a long time. Was it really so difficult for him to understand Rschen's suggestion? By his own admission, it was. He needs much sharper negative reinforcement very soon after he makes blunders if he is to learn how to behave, sooner rather than later.Kiefer.Wolfowitz17:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're fools for not having requested an interaction ban between this one and Malleus. I'm sure Malleus wouldn't have given a fuck, but for this editor that would have been a serious loss, the inability to blackball and arbcom a content editor they can't hold a candle to. That way, the editor could have focused more oncritical content rather than on dramatizing.Drmies (talk)18:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AQFK, you are aware that "AQFK" has four letters, presumably. ;) I apologize for not winking before. Would you find one example of one of the critics of MF at the latest ArbCom request raising a concern about an edit of yours or Toa, please.Kiefer.Wolfowitz23:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's this, two minutes hate? Dropping by to attack someone for attacking others instead of writing content? If you're so devoted to content, go write some.Tom Harrison^Talk19:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well,compared to AQFK at least one metric suggests thatthose who havecommented in factdo. Fat fingered from a smartphone - apologies for any fmt errorsSitush (talk)00:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to wish all my talk page lurkers a happyEnd of the World!A Quest For Knowledge (talk)09:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The day aint over yet!...Baron von MONGO

Noiratsi (talk) is wishing you aMerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotesWikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user aMerry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks, and happy editing! :)A Quest For Knowledge (talk)15:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays!
	From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA!MONGO12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mongo. Happy holidays to you, too! I'm off to see the family where hopefully, there won't be a lot of drama, haha.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)18:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Precedingunsigned comment added byDrmies (talk •contribs)

Hi AQFK...hope all is well. The section Drmies was pointing to is now closed. I made a suggestion there and will do so again now is that my advice would be to avoid commenting about Malleus anywhere unless you are directly involved in the dispute. While I don't disagree that everyone has a right to complain about what they believe is dubious commentary by others, no good can come from you (or me) doing so in regards to Malleus. Some may think its a vendetta or something along those lines, so I doubt we'll be taken seriously, especially if we're not directly part of the dispute. Though Drmies was seeking an interaction ban between the two of you, that was shot down, however I really think avoidance of Malleus will benefit you. If you and he get tangled up together by chance, then thats a different story. Best wishes!--MONGO21:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Drmies's proposal was DOA. As several editors noted, I wasn't the one who re-opened the thread. That wassomeone else. I assume that this was an honest mistake on Drmies's part.

I only made one single comment in that entire discussion. Trying to get an interaction ban on the basis of one commment is bizarre, to say the least.

I don't know why Drmies seems to be out to get me. I seem to recall reporting him for misusing his admin tools to win a content dispute he was directly involved in. Maybe he's still mad at me for that? I don't know.

In any case, I will not shy away from my opinion that editors should treat each other in a respectful, professional manner.

If Drmies disagrees, he's free to start discussions atWP:NPA andWP:CIVIL and have WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL changed. But I won't hold my breath.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)22:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[15] Thanks.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX19:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is for all my talk page lurkers and for everyone else who takes Wikipedia too seriously. We're all in this together, and the less we find to fight about, the better we will all be for it.[16]A Quest For Knowledge (talk)00:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put in other words, I think that some of us get too caught up in the various disputes on Wikipedia and neglect big picture. I don't remember who, but someone once said that at the end of our lives, few will say, "I wish I spent more working." Similarly, I don't think anyone will look back on their life and say, "I wish I spent more time arguing on Wikipedia". It's food for thought for keeping things in perspective. YMMV.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to lend a hand in the promotion ofCarl Sagan to GA and FA. It is, however, important to note that school consumes quite a lot of my weekday, so any contributions I make to the article will most likely occur during the weekends. Also, I'm not a member of ArbCom, and while your request was for ArbCom members, I'd still like to help.Greengreengreenred01:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nerd in me feels forced to note that it's actually"...a more wretched hive..." B-) —Hex(❝?!❞)00:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Any time I can work in aStar Wars reference, I'm happy to do so. All true wisdom comes fromGeorge Lucus (andDouglas Adams) anyway.  :)A Quest For Knowledge (talk)00:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AtWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Comment_By_Uninvolved_A_Quest_for_Knowledge, a word, likely "more", is missing from your quote. --SPhilbrick(Talk)18:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I should have scanned above before posting. I often do, and for this reason, but didn't this time.--SPhilbrick(Talk)18:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. I missed a word from the quote. I wrote my response to Hex rather quickly, and missed that he was trying to correct me. That's what I get for posting before I go to sleep. :)A Quest For Knowledge (talk)18:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I'm listing this on the talk pages ofall editors active atTalk:List of common misconceptions for the last two weeks).

I started anRfC on the "glass is a liquid" issue that caused the edit war leading to protection status. Your comments would be appreciated, so that we can build a consensus and avoid further edit warring.siafu (talk)20:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've posted the links of the notable publications referencing ToonZone, as you requested. Just so you know. :) Best, --Khanassassin☪19:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For theReliable Sources Search Engine, which is incredibly useful both on Wikipedia and off.Evanh2008 (talk|contribs)09:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad you like it. I use it all the time.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)16:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed yourGoogle CSE comment on another page, and like the idea. I had a similar idea at the end of last year—it's surely better to determine actual usage by neutral-POV searches of reliable sources in English than to have long and bitter arguments—and found that this can also be done with templates.Template:Google RS andTemplate:Google LC are based onTemplate:Google. Several other search engines also support the site: protocol, so it would be possible to create similar templates for them too.
• Unfortunately Google limits you to searching 32 different reliable sources at the same time. So it's not easy to create a single template to cover all the reliable sources in major European countries, for example—and some of them don't have Government-run official sites in English that can be searched this way.
• WP:SET is a tutorial about researching stuff with Google.
• Best regards LittleBen (talk)15:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'm not familiar with these templates. I'll have to check them out when I have the time. BTW, aside from my general purposeReliable Sources Search Engine, there's also aReliable Sources for Video Games byUser:Gwern. There used to be another search engine, but I lost the link (and it wasn't being maintained). If you happen to know of any more, let me know and I'll add them to my user page.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)13:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel that properly researching and neutrally reporting BLP names and places names is critical to the survival of WP as a fair, neutral, and trusted resource. You can see the POV pushers attacking thishere and here. I'd particularly appreciate your input at the latter TfD discussion, since this template idea closely resembles your GCSEs—except that the templates based on{{Google RS}} are completely open source; anybody can clone and modify them.LittleBen (talk)22:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence.Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page,Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, seeWikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee,Callanecc (talk •contribs •logs)23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume you were trying to be funny and lighthearted and that it is not necessary to explain to you that it is not actually a "law of the internet" and certainly not a Wikipedia policy and so I will skip right to the part about there being a time and a place for levity and lightheartedness. The Arbcom noticeboard is neither right now. Really, I appreciate your intent but there is no chance that such an action will calm things down right now, quite the opposite, so please just let the thread continue.Beeblebrox (talk)00:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto, partly.Drmies (talk)01:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You canremove this notice at any time by removing the{{You've got mail}} or{{ygm}} template.

AutomaticStrikeout(T •C)00:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove my past comment. I do not consent to that archive in my name. You can keep the conversation if you like, I just do not want it signed by me. I'm no longer associated with that subject-matter and wish to not be linked to it anymore.True Skepticism (talk)01:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want your archive protected? —Arthur Rubin(talk)08:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Rubin: Yes, please.

@True Skepticism: I've removed your name and replaced it with your initials, TS. Hopefully, this is an acceptable compromise.

@Myself: I've interacted a lot with another editor with the initials, TS, so for my own sake, the "T" does not stand for Tony.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)23:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to strike your own comments but please do not remove other peoples as you did here.[17]Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email) (if I write on your page reply on mine)23:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you need to readWP:PA andWP:CIVIL.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)00:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that you may consider me to be one of the Malleus "gang" but I've only happened on the recent ANI thread because I, too, am involved in some drama there. Two thoughts: firstly, without having looked beyond what was said in the ANI thread,if you think that was a personal attack then keep well away from India-related articles! Secondly, if you think that people should always be treated with respect then you perhaps should take a look atWP:PACT which, oddly enough, is something that frequently has to be utilised - in spirit, if not always by reference - in relation to those articles. Basically, your idealism is great but the Real World just doesn't work like that. Utopian ideals are a way of describing how thingscould be, not how theyare orwill' be. -Sitush (talk)00:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quest, if The ed17should ever notify you that N2e is engaging in mass removals I was wondering if you might then kick a note over to me. I come from the deletion-of-unsourced-material-is-okay-in-theory side of the debate, while still having some reservations about editors who do it habitually. If habitually was what was meant by "systemic" by Ed inthis edit that's one thing; if he meant removal of huge chunks of text from a single article on a single occasion, that's another. And that'sespecially true if N2e{{cn}}-tagged the article and gave an adequate opportunity for response before deleting the stuff. I don't know if N2e's claim that he did is true or not, or what Ed exactly meant, and at this point don't care to spend any time looking to figure it out since all the heat has died down in relation to that particular incident, but if it comes up again I'd like an opportunity to join in the examination and discussion. Regards,TransporterMan (TALK)17:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope its just a break. Wikipedia is not better off without you.--MONGO18:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it turned out to be a short break, but I'm not sure how much I'm willing to contribute upon my return.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)22:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	I am sorry to see that the lack of civility on Wikipedia is driving you away. I'm not going to pester you to come back, because this is just a hobby after all.AutomaticStrikeout(T •C •AAPT)21:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I really do appreciate it. Especially for civility.  :)A Quest For Knowledge (talk)22:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you retiring. I hope it won't be for good, but for now, thanks for your many contributions! Cheers, --Khazar2 (talk)01:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the beer. I think I'll have it now. :)A Quest For Knowledge (talk)22:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleList of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8 (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.Codename Lisa (talk)09:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've thoroughly debunked your AfD.[18] In the future, I suggest that you perform due diligence *before* nominating it for deletion.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)00:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that two of the major argumentsagainst keeping this (as cited in both AfDs) are that (1) most of the listed items don't have WP articles, (2) somebody is using this to promote their own software. The reason for (1) is explained by a short sentence or paragraph that explains why Pokki is the major contender (sourced from the Pokki article), and argument (2) is demolished by explaining that Pokki is free. I'd think that if you askedUser:Ahunt's opinion (he's very active in looking after software articles, and he was one of the people who opposed keeping the list in the first AfD) he'd probably agree that a little useful info. about Pokki easily tips the balance from Delete to Keep. It's particularly useful to readers if it links Pokki (the major contender) with "Start Menu replacements for Win 8". Without this, it's "work out for yourself which, if any, is notable". I'd personally prefer to see a link to a comparison article, but a single sentence of explanation surely makes a huge difference and puts the other camp on your side...LittleBen (talk)22:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I accidentally removed your latest comment on ANI. I'm not quite sure how to restore it.--Kyohyi (talk)19:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll fix it. Thanks for letting me know.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)19:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

here. LittleBen (talk)08:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I wascleared of the bogus outing claim, and think that the problem (related to the GCSE issue above) is best solved by ArbCom creating guidelines]]. I'd like to run my proposed ArbCom case past you, but my sending of WP email has been disabled (I can surely still receive incoming email from WP, and reply off-Wiki).LittleBen (talk)22:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what theReliable Sources Search Engine has to do with this dispute, but you can e-mail me at A_Quest_For_Knowledge@yahoo.com. I don't check that account too often so please understand if there's a delay.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)23:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to improveHelp:Searching, but another user who has added an excess of disorganized geek detail (written in not-so-good English)seems to think that he owns the page. I told him that he can "own" the geek detail, but I want to fix the overview summary (intro.) at the top of the page. I'd appreciate 3rd opinions.LittleBen (talk)17:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It takes guts to try and get that article to through GAN again...but it is probably a hopeless cause. I do a fair amount of reading on Wikipedia and find a surprisingly large number of articles in my varied interests that don't have green circles or bronze stars atop them...I even check the refs in those articles and am usually impressed that the info is accurately supported by the ref provided. In other words, the 9/11 article doesn't have to have further decorations to be a excellent. As it stands now, this may be the best we can hope for near term...and thats not all bad.--MONGO04:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be suffering from a severe case ofWP:ICANTHEARYOU. I'm going to try a new strategy and just ignore them and hopefully they'll stop posting meritless complaints.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)11:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments atWT:FAC. Best regards,SandyGeorgia (Talk)13:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the sub-heading was neutral. It takes no position one way or another. Second, please don't change my posts. Start your own thread if you don't like mine. Third, you cite FAC instructions regarding subsections for short statements of support or opposition. My question expressed neither support or opposition, so you're citing instructions that don't even apply to my post. Fourth, I don't agree that articles should be nominated for deletion just to determine whether it meets notability. That's something the nominator should attempt to answerbefore nominating an article for deletion. Please seeWP:BEFORE. Fifth, I did close the discussion and referred everyone to the article talk page. Sixth, I have no idea why you are dredging up a discussion that has already been archived.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)14:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, QFN. Starting with your final question, I was working in archives because an update toWP:FAS, which I have maintained since my delegate days, noted a mistake had occurred in archives, which I was correcting (June promotions were listed in May archives[19]).

While updating archives I noted several other older errors or work that had not been completed that I corrected, and I noted non-neutral headings were beginning to take hold at FAC, which is something that was specifically discussed when the use of sub-headings was approved. SeeWikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive58#Accessibility_of_headings; sub-headings should not be worded in a way that might influence subsequent reviewers.

Next, I did not say that an article should be nominated for deletion; any article that meets notability is eligible for FAC, and the place to question notability is not FAC-- it's AFD. Finally, I see you have restored the heading which doesn't comply with FAC instructions. I won't revert since it is already in archives and can't influence subsequent reviewers, and will leave it to the delegates to assure these issues don't take hold going forward at FAC. Best regards,SandyGeorgia (Talk)12:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For my talk page lurkers....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqFaiVNuy1kA Quest For Knowledge (talk)15:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the continued discussion on Nathan Johnson's talkpage, I have posted to ANI requesting review on the unblock request. Please feel free to comment on the thread,here. Thank you.Newyorkbrad (talk)01:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you comment atthis RSN post? It seems I'm getting feedback from editors who've significantly cited the source in their edits to articles, and I'd like a less partial opinion.Dan56 (talk)14:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that to violate 3RR, you have to make 4 reversions (or more). Since I didn't revert even once, claiming that "this is possibly a 3RR violation"[20] is totally wrong. As for harassment: noricing policy violations is explicitly excluded from harassment. That Jimbo doesn't like his violations to be highlighted is obvious, but neglecting his wishes in such a case is not helpful at all.Fram (talk)11:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@AQFK:A Quest For Knowledge (talk)15:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@AQFK:A Quest For Knowledge (talk)15:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever see another edit likethis one, you will be blocked until you agree to stop. Once challenged, material isnot to be restored without an inline citation, no matter what you think of the editor's motives.—Kww(talk)15:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your post is wrong on so many levels, I'm not sure where to even begin. But I suggest that you begin by not issuing baseless threats. No admin worth their salt is going to block me for correctly following policy.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)15:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will block you for that behaviour without hesitation. It's not a baseless threat, simply a statement of fact. You would be neither the first nor the last editor I had blocked for intentionally refusing to use inline citations whenWP:V demanded them. You consciously restored material without inline citations, despite being aware that the material had been challenged. You were aware that the material had been removed twice, and you were aware that editors examining the blue links in question had stated that they didnot support the claim made. Your editing was a conscious and deliberate attempt to retain unsourced material after a challenge. Blueboar has made a good faith effort to repair the damage you have done and he still cannot find source for several of the entries, putting them closer and closer to the trulyunsourceable category.—Kww(talk)15:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, you cannot block me because you'reinvolved. Second, if you're going around blocking editors without a good reason, you need to have your admin bit taken way. We don't need cowboy admins overriding communityconsensus. Third,you're the one who's edits damaged the encyclopedia and I shouldn't have to clean up after your mess. Fourth, the fact that Blueboar and me have been able to find sources so easily[21] proves that your so-called "challenge" was completely and utterly meritless. Bottom line: don't challenge material for the sake of challenging. Have an actualreason.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)16:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to block you over this particular bit of misbehaviour because I'm involved in this particular dispute. The diff you have pointed to still includes four unsourced statements, including a "citation needed" tag which youknow doesn't qualify as meeting your burden. It's readily apparent that you restored material without having verified it. If you restore material that has been challenged, it isyour responsibility to provide anin-line citation supporting the material if you choose to restore it. There are no shortcuts.—Kww(talk)16:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the content is now sourced which means it's readily apparent that you deleted material without looking for cites. That's the problem here. Please read up onWP:PRESERVE:

Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies:Neutral point of view (which doesn't meanNo point of view),Verifiability andNo original research. Either clean up the writing on the spot, ortag it as necessary. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but preserve any reasonable content on the article'stalk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage. Theediting process tends to guide articles through ever-higherlevels of quality over time.Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts.

Yes, I'm aware there's an entry that has a fact tag. Hopefully, someone will be able to find a source. The other entries don't have a fact tag so I didn't look for any sources.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)16:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You made it your responsibility to find sources when you restored the material. As I said, if you continue to restore challenged material without fulfilling your obligation to source it when you do so, you will be blocked.—Kww(talk)16:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, if the material was challenged. But it wasn't. The fact is, you screwed up, and we had to clean up after your mess. And knock it off with the hollow block threats. You're not scaring me. And to be perfectly frank, if you're not going to discuss this in a reasonable fashion, there's no point in continuing this discussion.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)17:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am being reasonable. If someone was going around removing thousands of lists a day based on them being unsourced, that would be disruptive. That is not what happened here. This was a case of one editor removing one list from one article, and you failing to meet your obligation to source the material when you restored it. I removed the incorrectly restored material, and you restored it directly afterwards, in blatant and intentional defiance ofWP:BURDEN. After being reminded of your responsibility, your reaction was that you hoped that someone else would take care of it in the future. That's not how it works: if you restore material after it has been removed for being unsourced, it issolely your responsibility to add an inline citation. As for my promise of a block being hollow, it's not: I haven't seen that you have done the same thing since I warned you. If you have, please point it out: I'll happily block you to prevent further such disruption.—Kww(talk)18:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your post is so steeped in irony, I doubt you even see it. But consider yourself warned that if you do it again, you can be blocked. In any case, we seem to be going in circles and this discussion appears to have outlived its usefulness. You can have the last word.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)18:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate your commentshere after your recent participation inthis discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk)10:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made a comment addressing some points you made on my AN/I discussion at[22].Thanks!Factor-ies (talk)08:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made a comment addressing some points you made on my AN/I discussion at[23].Thanks!Factor-ies (talk)08:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A Quest For Knowledge, I just wanted to inform you that I edited one of your comments on the Obama Talk page. It seems tht youraddition of the 'Ping' script caused the page to display some sort of HTML error that directed people to a redirect discussion. I don't know how to fix it, soI removed it from your comment. I just wanted to let you know the reason why and that I was not refactoring your comment for any nefarious reasons. :-) - Thanks.Dave Dial (talk)16:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I filled aWP:DRN onRape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. I would ask that we put the past behind and come to some comprise language where there remains disputes. The link to the discussion ishere.Casprings (talk)03:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link to the discussion. It ishere.Casprings (talk)03:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Two editors are advocating for the exclusion of any mention in theZeitgeist: The Movie article that Peter Joseph, the creator of that film has stated publicly that words attributed to him in a story cited as a source in the article misquoted him, and that he has not distanced himself from the ideas expressed in that film, as that cited source indicates. I have responded to their arguments, but neither of them has responded directly to my counterarguments, but simply repeat the same statements of theirs over and over. Myself and one other editor disagree with them, so two editors are for the material's inclusion, and two are for its exclusion, with no sign of consensus in sight. Can you please offer your viewpoint inthe discussion so that we can achieve consensus? Thanks.Nightscream (talk)01:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpagehere, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, clickthis link. Regards,GilderienChat|What I've done22:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you like to elaborate on your !vote? :) --GilderienTalk to me|List of good deeds00:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that it's necessary to provide a rationale in this situation. This is not an AfD (for example) where you have to reference policy/guidelines as justification. Instead, this is a discussion about the policy/guideline itself. I'm an editor in good standing, and my !vote is as good as any other's. If NYB disagrees, he's free to open a discussion with me.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)03:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help me out...whats the issue now?--MONGO20:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, SA was blocked for numerous violations of socking. The block fell under community authority, which was lifted at AN. At the same time, SA was also under an AE-authorized topic ban for other issues. The AN discussion resulted in a lift of the block, but not the topic ban. The topic ban wasn't even discussed. After being unblocked, SA immediately went to violate the topic-ban.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)20:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't even discussed? I suggest you check again.IRWolfie- (talk)00:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay..I get it...but the truth is he's more onour side than not...meaning he is usually there to keep the wackos at bay. I guess the topic ban could have been discussed, but I figured that the website would let him run a bit and see if there are any problems. I'd rather have a half dozen editors like him than the IP hopping, civil POV pushing wackos he deals with.--MONGO02:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't have much sympathy for sock puppets. I don't sock. You don't sock. I don't know why the hell SA feels that he needs to sock, but whatever. TC has lifted the topic ban so the matter is settled.[24]A Quest For Knowledge (talk)12:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I...socking is an issue but for the record I do know of a few originally unannounced socks that helped me deal with various issues and even copyediting concerns who used those sock acocunts completely without malice...they did so to protect themselves from potential problems that might undermine their main accounts. The socking SA did shouldn't be condoned and I tend to agree with Canens that ROPE may be in play here...I'm trying to see the positive about the unblock and hope that it can remain that way as I have found SA to more benefit than harm overall.--MONGO20:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AQFK, I saw your comments on the PD talk page. Judging by the progress in voting, it's not likely that sanctions will be voted for Arthur. But it is nice to see someone speaking out for editors there.Malke 2010 (talk)21:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...that's good to hear, but I'm not sure where you're seeing this. The vote for the FoF is 4 to 0.[25]A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

Wait and see. And I don't think they'll go for the remedies. But keep supporting him by all means.Malke 2010 (talk)21:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about Arthur Rubin. It's about any editor who occasionally performs a revert. If this is allowed to proceed, this potentially effects thousands of editors. BTW, Timotheus Canens just voted in favor of this FoF.[26]A Quest For Knowledge (talk)04:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point. It will affect others. That's an unfortunate consequence. I'm not at all familiar with Arbcom beyond this case so this might sound silly, but is there any way to engage the wider community? I know ArbCom is supposed to be the last resort venue, but frankly, I think the original ANI could have solved this if some admins had taken control back then. I've seen them deal with far worse than what occurred that night back in February. Might it be possible to ask at AN for admins to comment?Malke 2010 (talk)17:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a few days and see if an Arb responds, but if FoF seems like it's going to pass, I'll start a discussion atWP:EDITWAR. If other editors share my concern, I can open an RfC and post a notice at the Village Pump and the Admin noticeboard.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)01:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an RfC at the appropriate policy talk page.[27]A Quest For Knowledge (talk)00:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a request for clarification which may interest you atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment,IRWolfie- (talk)13:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At some point you may cross the magical invisible line where folks starting muttering "forum-shopping" "tenditious editing" yada yada. I don't have a problem with the RFC but I suggest you edit[28] to just contain a link and keep Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring discussion focused on the general practice and whether any wording changes should be made.NE Ent03:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to go to sleep. Please feel free to do it for me, otherwise, I will tackle it in the morning.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)03:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've self-reverted. I'll take another look at this in the morning.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)03:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to rain on your parade. (ReEW RfC). Having said that, I'm very troubled by many aspects of the Tea Party Arbcom case. One of the troubling aspects is the notion that the evidence cited to support a finding or sanction "simply" has to be illustrative. While I can appreciate the logistical challenge of the alternative, it means that if someone were sanctioned, and provided an exhaustive refutation of every single point cited in the finding, it still wouldn't be enough, as the committee could simply say those specific points were a subset of the evidence used to reach the conclusion.--SPhilbrick(Talk)13:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's what the evidence phase is for. If I'm reading this correctly, they spent roughly 4-5 months (March 2013 to July 2013) collecting evidence. So they should already have this. Including these diffs in the FoF should be simple matter of copy and paste.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)14:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, are you sure these are simply representative diffs? I've raised this issue with ArbCom several times and unless I missed something, no Arb has made that argument.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)14:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

here is a relevant diff. This is the view of one arb, perhaps not a consensus view, but if this is not a general view, it should be discussed.--SPhilbrick(Talk)14:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes, but it would seem to goes even beyond the "illustrative" concept, as to be illustrative there would have be at least one diff that demonstrated a concrete instance of the type of misconduct being illustrated. No?

In retrospect, the Moderated discussion probably should not have happened, and the case settled as per the normal time frame and frame of reference. Some of the originally named parties had been sanctioned in relation to the same article in 2010.

There would also seem, however, to be a lack of will to enforce sourcing policies against editors asserting their political "beliefs" over and against reliable sources. Some arbitrators have expressed an opinion that seems to be close to stating that strict enforcement of WP:RS would come close to engaging in judging content[29], while another arbitrator has made an FoF against me that includes a content related assertion. --Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑}14:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could be argued that the statement made by AGK in response to Snowed in this section[30] argues against the notion that arbitrators have adopted the "illustrative" principle. That statement

The only relevant question to ask in connection with each finding is, "does it make an incorrect allegation?"

has since been quoted twice on the PD talk page.--Ubikwit ^連絡_{見学/迷惑}14:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said:

But that's what the evidence phase is for.

I had the same thought. But noticethis, specifically:

I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case.

The entire quote, in case someone feels my excerpt was out of context.

I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case. I found some helpful things there, but honestly I just set aside some amount over time over a few weeks and read all of the talk page of the articles. I can't comment if others did the same or not but I would suspect that they did. I found that the evidence provided was good but not all encompassing. This was an interesting case, one which I was not especially enamored about (either the initial community's response or our actions). I will understand why, when all is said and done, people will label this as the worst case of 2013. But most Arbitrators also weren't given a ton to work with. We had to come up with the proposed decision functionally from scratch, and those don't end up going that well. I'm comfortable with your assessment with this as a process failure, but I'm not sure if it could have gone that much better. As for where this discussion should go...WT:A/R or the proposed decision page. Take your pick.

--SPhilbrick(Talk)14:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something you might want to have a look at if you have time.[31]Tom Harrison^Talk01:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear A Quest For Knowledge.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence.Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage,Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, seeWikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee,Seddon^talk23:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in this recent clarification request. This message is to inform you that the clarification request has been closed and archived. If you would like to read the arbitrators' opinion section, the request has been archived tohere. For the Arbitration Committee,AGK[•]08:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The process underway is not an RfC, it is an RM; it is not supposed to be neutrally worded, it is supposed to make the case for the proposed move, which those opposed to the move can then rebut in the discussion.(Specifically, the RM filing instructions state: 'Place hereyour rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidencein support where appropriate). Cheers!bd2412T20:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the last discussion was so contentious that it required an ArbCom case to sort through and that several editors face topic-bans and admins face desysopping, one would hope that we follow best practices. Unfortunately, since the legitimacy of the discussion is now is serious disrepute, I fear that we're just guaranteeing that the matter be left unresolved and we'll just have a third discussion on how to handle the article title. Is that what you want? I don't think so, but that is the risk that we run if the MR continues down its current path.

So I guess what I'm saying is do we want to resolve the content dispute, or extend it?A Quest For Knowledge (talk)02:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some evidence for your proposition that "the legitimacy of the discussion is now is serious disrepute". Otherwise, you may come across as merelynot hearing the explanations supporting the legitimacy of the process. Cheers!bd2412T03:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking me since I believe what said was pretty clear. I gave three reasons. In order of severity:

1. The wording should be neutral so as to not unduly sway the !voting or the consensus building process. As a point of comparison, imagine voting in a presidential election and the voting booth contained a long list of all the great things Obama is doing for America and how terrible McCain is (or vice versa). Such a scenario would be completely unacceptable. That's basically what we have here.
2. It should be an RfC so as to better reflect community consensus. MRs rarely attract outside opinions from uninvolved editors.
3. This is bad timing considering that ArbCom is in the middling of finalizing their decision. I expect that ArbCom will topic-ban the most disruptive editors. It should be easier for consensus building process to proceed after ArbCom completes.

Did I answer your question? If not, I'm not sure what you're asking me.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)04:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Disrepute" suggests that people have a general sentiment against the reputation of the discussion. That is what I would like some proof of.bd2412T04:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response at the talk page regarding a roughly similar situation. I'm going to sleep now. Happy editing.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)04:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me offer a comparable situation. Not long ago, you !voted atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse R. Waugh to delete the article. However, you raised no complaint about the fact that the deletion nomination was entirely one-sided, containing only arguments for deletion of the article, and none for keeping it. In your view, should that wording have been neutral, to avoid swaying the consensus building process? Did that nomination place the legitimacy of that discussion in serious disrepute?bd2412T15:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was me who moved your discussion, to centralize it with other people who had basically said the same thing; to me it felt like more of a !vote on the process, and not on the topic, and a few people had proposed that it be moved. No harm was intended and I didn't mean to discount your !vote, and will leave the 'abstain' as is and sorry if what I did bothered you. That said, I think I generally agree with you, and I had wanted to put together a more neutral statement in collaboration with others (in the same way we had built the whole move request that way), and had asked for input on same; however, the cat was released from the bag and Josh was storming around revert-warring with me, so I had to give up. In any case, the vast majority of RMs do have a single-sided statement at the top, and while I think a neutral RFC would have been better, the RM as it is still isn't fundamentally flawed - the evidence was carefully collected and is a neutral as can be, and people are free to draw their own conclusions in spite of the move header.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)14:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. You have new messages atWikipedia:Help desk.
Message addedMlpearc(powwow)22:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC). You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The degree of wikilawyering which is going on here is making my head turn. Just letting you know, User: Skyring has thrown your warning back into your face and been whitewashed as well, where the reviewing admin really didn't get into the dispute. See alsohttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diff=578449117&oldid=578448623#User:Skyring_reported_by_User:Skyring_.28Result:_No_violation.29

The admin is correct. I forgot that if the edits are consecutive, they count as one. But Skyring/Pete is being disruptive. I think they're blockable on that alone. You can file a report at AN/I but you never know if the admins there will do anything.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)00:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following the completion of a previous BRD onTalk:Lynx (spacecraft) (link to previous discussion here), whereUser:Skyring (aka "Pete") was unable to gain a consensus on changing the lede sentence descriptive noun in theLynx (spacecraft) article from "spaceplane" to "concept" (originally changed by Skyring/Pete on 12 Oct), Skyring/Pete has again made a Bold edit and changed the descriptive noun in the lede sentence, this time from "spaceplane" to "program."

I have opened aWP:BRD discussion on this second change. Would appreciate it if you would consider weighing in. TheLink to the BRD discussion is here. Thanks for your consideration.N2e (talk)01:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(full disclosure: I'm placing this notice on each user's Talk page who has been active onTalk:Lynx (spacecraft) in the past six months)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleList of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8 (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.Codename Lisa (talk)00:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onLudwig von Mises Institute. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware,Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article'stalk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that representsconsensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporarypage protection. If you engage in an edit war, youmay beblocked from editing.You do not have a BLP exception. There are editors questioning the reliability of the source, but they have not been successful at impeaching it. That's why they left a notice, as opposed to removing the material.MilesMoney (talk)03:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but don't freaking threaten me with being blocked considering that you're the one violatingWP:BLP and going against the consensus of uninvolved editors. I've already raised the issue at ANI. I suggest that you self-revert or try to defend your actions there.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)04:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, AQFK. I hope you'll reconsider your thinking re the mass deletion of expert/economist blogs on the Murphy page. Right now the section is outright misleading because the blogs have been purged.User:Carolmooredc placed an erroneous "undue" tag because, with your having deleted the specific information about Murphy's prediction (double digit inflation -- as measured by CPI -- was supposed to happen in 2012), it is entirely unclear as to what the time frame of Murphy's prediction was. Please refer toWP:ABOUTSELF to understand why Murphy's own views/predictions can be substantiated by his own blog, and then restore that content. Afterwards, you will realize that all the factual content referenced in the other expert blogs (namely, that Murphy predicted inflation at much higher rates than occurred) is already contained in the article, and that the expert blogs are merely offering their opinions on those claims rather than stating facts about Murphy.Steeletrap (talk)06:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the article talk page.[32]A Quest For Knowledge (talk)07:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, A Quest For Knowledge, I saw your edits to MicroStrategy andthe Help Desk discussion and wanted to clarify the situation with that article for you. (I've left a similar message with Yintan and have also left a quick note on the article's Talk page.) The main thing I'd like to explain is that the article was written by me, while working on a contract basis on behalf of MicroStrategy. As I always do, I disclosed this COI onthe article's Talk page, along with anywhere else I discussed the article on Wikipedia at the time, and I never edited the page directly. Although prior to my work on the page, someone from MicroStrategy had made direct edits, I went to great pains to explain that this is not best practice and they stopped. So far as I know, no one from the company has edited the MicroStrategy article or any other pages related to the company since.

Regarding your edits to the article, I understand that you disagree with certain wording from my version and felt it was promotional. I think your view and subsequent edits are completely reasonable, however I'd like to make clear that the draft I wrote was reviewed by independent editors, who approved by this language and moved it live.

One thing that is concerning to me, is that you flagged "scalable" as not being supported by theInformationWeek source, however it was. I'll admit that wording choice was one that gave me pause (it was something that MicroStrategy had specifically asked for, to explain that its software can be used by a couple of people or by 1000s), so I understand its removal if you feel such wording is not appropriate, however I disagree about it not being in the source. Here's the wording inInformationWeek:"The new version is also more scalable--it works with multiterabyte data warehouses and provides new caching, personalization, and security features." It stands to reason that if the author describes a new version of the software as "more scalable", then the software is "scalable". I'm not necessarily asking for the wording to be added back; I just wanted to defend my work here. Best,WWB Too (Talk ·COI)22:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@WWB Too: The cited article says that it's "more scalable" than the previous version. That's a statement of comparison and doesn't necessarily mean that it is scalable. It could be that the scalability of the previous version was poor and the new version isn't as bad as the previous version. In any case, that article was from 2001. Even if it was scalable in 2001, that doesn't mean that it's still scalable today. IOW, the source is woefully out of date.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)13:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is, don't do it too many more times, or you could find yourself in trouble...AnonMoos (talk)01:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: Sorry about that. I was on my iPad. I must have tapped on undo by accident. I'd self-revert, but I see that you already reverted.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)01:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much AQFK for your helpful involvement in the recent disruption over atLynx (spacecraft). I have just closed the third of threeBRDs on that Talk page (the more complicated one, in which a number of primary sources had been deleted). On each one of those three BRDs, no consensus emerged to support the original edits. Your part in the wikidiscussion is very much appreciated.

Since the comments on the use of primary sources were spread all over thatTalk page, I have endeavored to summarize the consensus that emerged in a section on that Talk page:Talk:Lynx_(spacecraft)#Use_of_Primary_sources. If you might be willing to review that summary, and comment on whether it got the consensus right, I would very much appreciate it. I will of course quite look forward to fixing it if I got anything wrong. Cheers.N2e (talk)12:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: I'm not sure how much assistance I can provide since I stopped following the discussion a while ago. In fact, I don't even remember how I discovered the article in the first place. I'm not really good as summarizing a discussion unless I really participated in it. However, I did look over your summary from a policy perspective and from a policy perspective, you seemed to have summed everything quite nicely.A Quest For Knowledge (talk)15:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks very much. That particular disruptive editor had a nasty habit of running off good editors with tenditious wikilawyering and turning many discussion topics to the editor who was opposing him rather than merely about the content. So it's been a bit lonely to try to stay with it and keep dealing with improving the article, while remaining civil, in that environment. (Sort of like swimming in the Hudson River in 1968; one had to push the tur** out of the way to get anything done.) But I just don't like bullies, so I guess that gave me some additional energy in the matter.

Even if you didn't follow the last 20 or 50% of the Talk page discussion over there, if you would consider leaving a comment just on the wikipolicy side of your review, that would be helpful.

Again, very glad you went over to that discussion in the first place, and had a hand in reviewing what was going on, and responding helpfully on several occasions. Best to you,N2e (talk)15:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: Done.[33]A Quest For Knowledge (talk)13:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to post that silliness to my page. I made a sound, simple argument as to why there is no "BLP" violation, and am happy to take this to the noticeboard without reverting your change.Steeletrap (talk)22:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me whether or not you are an administrator?Steeletrap (talk)22:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Quest For Knowledge is not an administrator (as shown here), but any editor can inform another that certain articles are under certain restrictions such as discretionary sanctions, especially if they feel that an editor may not be aware of such restrictions.--MONGO23:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AQFK can say anything he likes, but when he lists it on the sanctions page, he makes it seem as if an admin had given an official warning.MilesMoney (talk)23:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO is correct. In the "Pseudoscience" area, it is mostly regular Editors who post notification about Discretionary Sanctions for that topic area. And,Steeletrap, your official notification is logged now atTalk:Austrian economics/General sanctions. Full disclosure: I dislike sanctions.Liz^Read!Talk!23:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are notifications based on erroneous justifications also permitted to be listed on the page? This seems quite clearly wrongheaded.Steeletrap (talk)23:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the risk of amateur notifications is that everyone will notify everyone else, until everyone is at risk of an immediate ban. It's an arms race.MilesMoney (talk)23:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I think AQFT is violating policy by making erroneous claims about BLP violations; so should I give him a notice for giving me one? The need for admins (or at least uninvolved users) to step in to do these things is clear.Steeletrap (talk)23:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of violatingWP:POINT, I think the only fair thing to do would be for me to officially warneveryone (including myself, naturally). This way, we're all back on level ground.MilesMoney (talk)01:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to jump in here about the notification issue only. Generally, administrators notify editors of sanctions. However, a non-administratormay do so provided they do not pass themselves off as an administrator. In this instance, AQFK did not pass himself off as an admin. However, the notification, in my view, was flawed. If you read,WP:AEGS carefully, it says "For convenience, the template {{subst:Austrian economics enforcement}} may be used by an administrator, or an individual message containing the same information." AQFK's message did not "contain[] the same information." It was highly personalized. If I were a non-admin and was going to issue such a notice - and it shouldn't be given lightly - I would keep everything in the templated message the same but change the very last sentence to "This notice has been logged atWP:AEGS."--Bbb23 (talk)01:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is very interesting to read,Bbb23. As I said, I'm more familiar with debates involving the Pseudoscience Discretionary Sanctions and there are times when every Editor with a sympathetic point of view to a subject has gotten templated, warning them that their behavior could prompt sanctions (blocks). The messages are very intimidating and I can see where it would cause an Editor to just cease participating in the article Talk Page discussion. My own concern about this was it was only people with Position A warning people with Position B. It seems like AC/DS would target disruptive behavior, not the ideas or belief systems that an individual holds so they would be apply to both those with Position A and Position B. Or is this an incorrect understanding?

Sorry to use your talk page to ask this question,AQFK, but this is where the conversation is happening right now.Liz^Read!Talk!11:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]