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]
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 that Mkativerata'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]
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]
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]
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]
Oh, and on the subject of my recent block, I will be drafting an essay on the abuse of logical 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]
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]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia: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 ā¢ (What did I screw up now?)00:14, 6 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]
Dear A Quest For Knowledge: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.
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.
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]
John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories
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 can count 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 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 at Moon 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 of 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 19 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]
Draft for V
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truthāwhether 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 not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question.
This verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspaceāarticles, lists, sections of articles, and captionsāwithout exception, and in particular to material 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.
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 on rules 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. The Neutral 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 the reliable sources noticeboard. The concept of "verifiability, not truth" does not mean that anything published by a reliable source, no matter how mistaken, must be included in Wikipedia.
April Masini
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]
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 thisĀ :-( 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]
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) āPreceding undated comment added 22:38, 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 the April Masini article and add inline citation by filling out the citation template. You can fill it out manually yourself or use this tool. 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 our WP:Help desk. Good luck! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 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!Ā ;-) You've been a terrific help AQFK and I want to thank you again. Jennyspencer (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC) ā Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennyspencer (talk ā¢ 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]
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!Ā :( 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]
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 establish notability, 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]
Re: ANI
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]
Shooting of Trayvon Martin dispute and subsequent admin tool abuse
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.--JOJHutton02:25, 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.--JOJHutton02:40, 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]
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 click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia: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.
No, it's not on hold. There's a list 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 reaching WP: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 I expect 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]
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]
RS
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 on Wikipedia:Village_pump--Shrike (talk) 06:36, 12 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 as harassment. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:50, 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]
I mentioned the List 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]
My username
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]
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]
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]
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]
WP:ANI answer
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 of WP: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]
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 Ā tĆŖte-Ć -tĆŖte20:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[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 Ā tĆŖte-Ć -tĆŖte00:12, 22 May 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]
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.
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 obviousāI'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]
Would it be possible to simply have a standards-based debate without off-topic baloney taking over the discussion? I have a feeling this could have been resolved already if that process were allowed to play out. -- Avanu (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you go and retract the statement that I somehow have a conflict of interest. You've shown nothing to indicate it is a valid claim and it's out of line. I don't understand why some of you are so opposed to a standards-based discussion and insist on grasping at anything but the meat of the matter. Oh, and just FYI, I don't care if Wikinews is approved, but I do care that people get a fair shake when they make a good faith effort. -- Avanu (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would I have to be forthcoming about? You were the one inquiring if I had a conflict of interest, and yet you had nothing at all to back it up. -- Avanu (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. You have new messages at IRWolfie-'s talk page. You can remove this notice at any timeĀ by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
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.
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 into Six-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.
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]
Your email
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]
This notification is to inform you of a straw poll being conducted at the talk page of Shooting 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]
You made a claim about "edit warring" on User talk:TrevelyanL85A2, demanding that "sanctions" be imposed on me. Looking at the talk page history, however, there is no evidence of edit warring. There is one reversion of a restored edit of a banned user/wikihounder per WP:DENY.[10] Collect made a similarly unjustified outburst to you on WP:AE, repeatedly making false claims of battleground conduct, and was barred from commenting there in matters related to WP:ARBR&I.
If you deem that some kind of sanction should be imposed on me, the way for you to proceed to is to make a request for a formal amendment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, outlining the sanction you have in mind. Every assertion in the request, particularly if serious, should be accompanied by diffs. Note also several arbitrators have expressed the view that proxy-editing on behalf of site-banned editors has intensified following the close of the review. You might want to address that point, since you seem to be in disagreement with arbitrators. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do I, in case you hadn't noticed. But can I suggest that you buy an English dictionary ("persue"?) and stop making trolling edits on arbcom pages? It's never too late. Mathsci (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How would I know? A spelling flame? How lame. Oh, now you're accussing me of trolling? If you are trying to provide more evidence of having a battleground mentality, you're doing an excellent job. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is "accussing" some form of cussing or cursing? That English dictionary is waiting for you. I believe there are also on-line substitutes, although they are not always completely dependable. Mathsci (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Having previously been involved in a discussion about Ancestry.com on RSN, could you join a discussion here to offer your opinion? A user is saying that some of the material on that site is not from users, but paid employees, and WP:BLPPRIMARY is also an issue. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 09:30, 7 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]
What to do?
I take it that your comment on Ed's page was that he violated his topic ban? If so, what should be done next?
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]
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]
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]
RE:WP:Articles for deletion/Lakoda Rayne (2nd nomination)
Hi, sorry for the late reply. Its not that they aren't notable (if they weren't then they wouldn't be given mention on List_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 a Redirect for Discussion was a better alternative. Bleubeatle (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. You have new messages at Talk:Tom Cruise. Message added 02:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any timeĀ by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
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
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]
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 me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, sorry to bud inĀ :) 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]
Hello, this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll here, to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs)02:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia: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 useā
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 be us 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."
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?
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 are frothing 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]
"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]
Geopolitics wording on 9/11 article
I saw this edit during my topic ban and could not object then, but the edit summary is mistaken. The edit was supported by three other editors in this 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 was WP: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 dragging everyone through "yet another absurd discussion" (your own words), you decided to drag me into one of these absurd discussions? Again, I suggest the following:
Propose your change on the article talk page (not my talk page; I don't WP:OWN this article; your suggested change should be judged on its own merits).
Explain why your change improves the article
Obtain consensus for your suggested change.
This seems simple enough. Please don't post to my talk page again.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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]
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]
First, thanks for closing the Star Wars Episode VII AfD.[12] That said, I'm a bit confused about your closing rationale. You said that WP: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 violates WP: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]
Thinking
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 by WP: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.
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]
Hi, A Quest For Knowledge. I noticed you removed a tag that I put on the article List 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 at WP:ELYES and in fact some of them lead to promotional product pages (see WP:ELNO). If you disagree please let me know! --Noiratsi (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia: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]
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]
AQFK, "have you 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]
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. (āāBWilkinsāā) 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]
Strict application of WP:VERIFY and WP: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 a WP:POINT? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a misguided application of WP:VERIFY and WP: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 accept on 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]
it's essentially over
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]
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 at User 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 by WP: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]
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 on critical content rather than on dramatizing. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AQFK, you are aware that "AQFK" has four letters, presumably.Ā ;) 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 HarrisonTalk19:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noiratsi (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry 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.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.ā Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk ā¢ 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 was someone 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.
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]
Re: Our pale, blue dot.
I would be happy to lend a hand in the promotion of Carl 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]
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.Ā :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I started an RfC 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]
I noticed your Google CSE comment on another page, and like the idea. I had a similar idea at the end of last yearāit's surely better to determine actual usage by neutral-POV searches of reliable sources in English than to have long and bitter argumentsāand found that this can also be done with templates. Template:Google RS and Template:Google LC are based on Template: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 exampleāand 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.
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 this here and here. I'd particularly appreciate your input at the latter TfD discussion, since this template idea closely resembles your GCSEsāexcept 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]
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]
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 can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
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]
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 at WP: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 things could be, not how they are or will' be. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Systemic gutting of articles and N2e
Quest, if The ed17 should 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 in this 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's especially 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]
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 ā¢ C ā¢ AAPT) 21:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I think that two of the major arguments against 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 asked User: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]
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]
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 answer before nominating an article for deletion. Please see WP: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 to WP: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. See Wikipedia_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]
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]
RSN comment
Hi. Could you comment at this 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]
3RR
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]
If I ever see another edit like this one, you will be blocked until you agree to stop. Once challenged, material is not to be restored without an inline citation, no matter what you think of the editor's motives.āKww(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 when WP: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 did not 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 truly unsourceable category.āKww(talk) 15:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, you cannot block me because you're involved. 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 community consensus. 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 actual reason. 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 you know 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 is your responsibility to provide an in-line citation supporting the material if you choose to restore it. There are no shortcuts.āKww(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 on WP: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 mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research. Either clean up the writing on the spot, or tag 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's talk 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. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels 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.āKww(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 of WP: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 is solely 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.āKww(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]
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 your addition 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, so I 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.Ā :-) - Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I filed a WP:DRN on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012
Hi. Two editors are advocating for the exclusion of any mention in the Zeitgeist: 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 in the discussion so that we can achieve consensus? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK-Good Article Request for Comment
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 subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, GilderienChat|What I've done22:55, 28 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]
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]
Okay..I get it...but the truth is he's more on our 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]
Arb com
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)
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 at WP: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]
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]
Sorry to rain on your parade. (Re EW 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]
(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 é£ēµ” č¦å¦/čæ·ę14:43, 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?"
I had the same thought. But notice this, 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.
Result of clarification request concerning "Psuedoscience principles"
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 to here. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK[ā¢]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 here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in 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.
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:
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.
It should be an RfC so as to better reflect community consensus. MRs rarely attract outside opinions from uninvolved editors.
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.
"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]
Let me offer a comparable situation. Not long ago, you !voted at Wikipedia: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]
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]
Request comment on an article you have previously engaged with on the Talk page
Following the completion of a previous BRD on Talk:Lynx (spacecraft) (link to previous discussion here), where User:Skyring (aka "Pete") was unable to gain a consensus on changing the lede sentence descriptive noun in the Lynx (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."
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]
October 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ludwig von Mises Institute. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked 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 violating WP: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 to WP: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]
Hi there, A Quest For Knowledge, I saw your edits to MicroStrategy and the 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 on the 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 the InformationWeek 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 in InformationWeek: "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 Ā· 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]
Thank you very much AQFK for your helpful involvement in the recent disruption over at Lynx (spacecraft). I have just closed the third of three BRDs 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 that Talk 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]
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]
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]
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 violating WP:POINT, I think the only fair thing to do would be for me to officially warn everyone (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-administrator may 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 at WP: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?
@Bbb23: Thanks for the advice. Next time, I'll use the template. But I think some further clarification is required. @NE Ent: has reverted my log entry[34] claiming that it was invalid because I am not an admin. This directly contradicts the advice you just gave me. While it's been a while since I worked in a topic space which community-enacted general sanctions, I do know for a fact that in AE enforced discretionary sanctions, any editor is allowed to make these warnings/notifications. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest you use the template but a slightly modified version of the template. I don't have a problem with NE Ent's revert, but that's because your warning, as I stated above, deviated too much from the template. I do, however, have a problem with NE Ent's interpretation of the sanctions, which I've now opened up to discussion at WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, since I'm not an administrator, I don't inform anyone about discretionary sanctions that might apply to them, relying instead on an an administrator to do so. However, in this case, I think the reminder or notification was appropriate...I mean, we'd hate to see them get topic banned or sanctioned, so it's best to let them know if their edits are not compatible with the topic area.--MONGO12:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, that's not at issue there. The subject of the questionable warning voted for the sanctions. She knows they exist. The only reason to notify her is for an admin to warn her about a perceived violation. That's not something AQFK can do. MilesMoney (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, if you haven't already, please take note of the details of Template:Austrian economics enforcement. This is a general reminder, and not given in response to misconduct. I've decided to err on the side of caution to try to make sure that people involved in this topic area are aware of the discretionary sanctions. Consider this a "no-fault" notification. If you're already aware (which you probably are), feel free to remove this message. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the notice to the general sanctions page. As it says on the template I linked to "This notice does not necessarily mean your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions." Since you have edited Ludwig von Mises Institute in the past month, I thought it was appropriate to make you aware of this. The passage you quoted in your edit summary "Prior to any sanction being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to the community discussion and, when appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing", refers to the steps that must be taken before a sanction is issued, not the steps that must be taken before someone is notified that the topic area is under general sanctions. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first ever Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 across the United States and Canada - including Chicago! Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join!
Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors.
Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
In re: scope of a topic ban
See User_talk:BD2412 the topic ban discussed by the community was with respect to the article and The topic ban as discussed by the community related to the specific article, and nothing else. The editor has recently been editing a number of articles very closely related to that article, and involving BLPs. (expect a stalker to comment imminently) Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep -- he is closely following my every edit (he "thanked" me for this edit) LOL. I think I am turning psychic in my old age. Collect (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC) And again. I think at the fourth "thank" for this sort of edit he should be rewarded on a noticeboard? Collect (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC) I think he has naught to do today except follow my edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No explanation in edit summary
You didn't leave an explanation in the edit summary for this revert [37]. I'd like to know the reasoning, because I was sincerely trying to make the situation more comprehensible from my point of view as the ANI/EW filer. This is not intended to split discussion, merely to understand that one revert. --Lexein (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to get an Admin to reverse the consequences of the warning you mistakenly made as an "Administrator".
I'm following up on this because I just noticed that you actually did make a formal administrative warning. A consequence of this is that a notification was added to the sanctions page. Maybe you did it not knowing what you were doing, but I'm going to bring it to the attention of the admins so they can remove the warning from the case decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change properly. __ E L A Q U E A T E05:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the current wording about notifying people about sanctions, and the use of the log page for such warnings. There has been recent discussion, but notifying people that an article or area is under sanctions does not at this point require an admin. Wikipedia:General sanctions "Any editor may make another editor aware of the sanctions and then log the notification. " Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Collect is correct. Any editor may notify any other editor of the sanctions. Yes, the template is poorly worded, and no, I did not know it at the time, but either way, the notification is valid. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@NE Ent: You need to read it again. Nowhere does it state that an admin is required to issue a warning. Sanctions require an admin, but not notifications. The sad thing is that this all started because I tried keep a WP:BLP from becoming an WP:ATTACK page. And this is the thanks that I get. No good deed goes unpunished, I suppose. BTW, the editor who was adding the disparaging content has now been topic-banned for violating BLP (proving I was right all along). In any case, editing Wikipedia is a hobby and hobbies are supposed to be fun, and fixing this article is more trouble than it's worth. As I explain here[39], I've removed the article from my watchlist and have dropped out of the discussion. Even though I don't have to, in the interest of closure, I was going to self-revert, but I see that you beat me to it.[40] Since it is no longer possible for me to self-revert, I don't think any further action is required by me and I consider the matter closed. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Austrian Economics arbcom case
Just a couple of thoughts as someone who has observed this dispute for a while now:
User:Srich32977 and User:Binksternet should probably be included as parties to the case. I see you notified Srich but didn't actually list him in the filing.
The following should be included in the list of previous attempts at dispute resolution:
First, I have a formatted list in the MilesMoney banning - in the ANI here.
Second, there are two other editors who have been involved in the majority of these disputes, including bringing issues to noticeboards: User:Binksternet and User:The Four Deuces. I don't know if I can add them and don't have time to study the arbitration process in general til tomorrow.
I have no confidence in ARBCOM's ability to handle this dispute. First, they are not able to resolve content disputes. In the Tea Party case, they took 6 months to reach a decision, said they did not understand the case and narrowly voted against banning everyone listed in the case. I was added at the last minute without having been involved in the disputes and no evidence provided. In the end, several editors were topic-banned, although how they chose them who knows. I also have little confidence in the administrators who self-select to enforce ARBCOM decisions.
There are already procedures for blocking and banning editors. Fortunately editors who choose to violate content policies are also likely to violate behavioral polices, which is the only way to remove them from articles. But if you hand it to ARBCOM, you could get everyone blocked. TFD (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto to TFD. Dealing with the problematic editors who violate policy one issue at a time til the community sees the problem and deals with it is the best way to go, frustrating as it may be. I saw what others were saying and put in my two cents, so we'll see what happens. Of course if they narrowly focused on these constant BLP violations which admins refuse to deal with and don't listen to a bunch of phony accusations, then it would be worth it!!Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)02:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK[ā¢]00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Backdoor (computing), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SSL (check to confirmĀ |Ā fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQĀ ā¢ Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You say "apparently this user has screwed this up so many times that the community has decided that they cannot be trusted to do this again."
Actually this restriction is from Arbcom. Arbcom is invoked when the community cannot resolve the issue - I foolishly waived other possible community resolution, having a naive faith in Arbcom at the time.
If you care to look at the findings (which are rather long and boring) you will see nothing about "screwing up". (What you do see is pretty baseless too, but that's another matter.)
John V fixed it. If it was an accident, I find it rather amusing as a shoot-self-in-foot type of edit. It would be nice to know what happened, out of curiosity. All the best, RichĀ Farmbrough, 04:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Strangely he also screwed up here, deleting the instruction in the comment. I see he has a penchant for April fools jokes, perhaps that is what is going on. All the best, RichĀ Farmbrough, 04:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I'm so sorry. Damn touch screens. It must have been an accidental tap on my iPad. If you haven't already reverted my edit, please feel free to. It was entirely unintentional. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Xkcd.com-1354-how-the-heartbleed-bug-works.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The arbitration clarification request, either involving you, or in which you participated (Rich Farmbrough) has resulted in a clarification motion by the Arbitration Committee
SteeletrapĀ (talkĀ Ā·contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Steeletrap may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
SPECIFICOĀ (talkĀ Ā·contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased. This topic-ban does not extend to articles concerning Austrian economics but not related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute; however, should SPECIFICO edit problematically in the broader area, the topic-ban may be broadened if necessary through the discretionary sanctions. SPECIFICO may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
CarolmooredcĀ (talkĀ Ā·contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Carolmooredc may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
Editors who have not previously been involved in editing the articles at issue in this case are urged to review these articles to ensure that they are in compliance with the applicable policies and best practices, including neutrality and the policies governing biographical content.
I can read and understand Spanish and actually do all of my research for UFO AfDs in Spanish and in English, FYI. For Portuguese and Chinese UFO incidents, I usually ask for help. Please be more careful before you accuse me of not doing due diligence in these areas.
Hello A Quest For Knowledge, thank you for your feedback in the conspiracy theories RfC and previous discussion. I have recently found some new sources that discuss conspiracy theories within the historical context of 9/11 (Falk and 9/11 Encyclopedia). I know you were concerned about the historical context [41][42], so I was wondering if you could take a look and see if they meet your standards? I included a link to Google Books for both of them in the citations and they seem to be reliable and relevant. Also I reworded the second sentence of the proposal entirely, hopefully it's better now. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks! Smitty121981 (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. I was already aware of the 9/11 Encyclopedia so you haven't introduced anything new there (search the talkpage archives for past discussions). As for Richard A. Falk, his area of expertise is law, not history. In order to argue that 9/11 conspiracy theories should be included in the main 9/11 article, you need to prove that at least a significant minority of historians who advocate conspiracy theories and have had these conspiracy theories published by respected, peer-reviewed journals. To the best of my knowledge, there is not one such publication, let alone a significant minority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you consistently cite the WP:NPOV page, which starts by saying "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." I gave you two very reliable sources that do exactly this. Your increasingly stringent 'requirements' for inclusion do not appear to be supported by any wikipedia policy. Please correct me if I am wrong, by quoting the specific policy. Smitty121981 (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I searched the archive and, while someone did list it as a source, I did not see any comments addressing the content or the reliability (or anything else) of the 9/11 Encyclopedia... did you have a certain comment in mind to link me to? Smitty121981 (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't, and nor do you appear to understand what I have been saying. Let me repeat myself. Per WP:NPOV, generally speaking, there are three categories of POVs:
Mainstream viewpoints
Significant minority viewpoints
Insignificant minority viewpoints
Given that, let's examine the quote you cited from WP:NPOV more carefully: ""Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This means that mainstream and significant minority viewpoints should be covered in an article. Insignificant minority viewpoints such as a fringe viewpoint, do not get covered in an article about a mainstream topic. Period. If the fringe viewpoint is notable on its own, then it should be covered in an ancillary article. That ancillary article exists in the form of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
In order to prove that 9/11 conspiracy theories are a significant minority, you need to demonstrate where experts on this subject (i.e. historians) have published papers advocating these conspiracy theories. You have not pointed to a single such article, let along a significant minority. Please understand that reporting on a conspiracy theory is not the same thing as advocating the conspiracy theory.
I'll also add that, quite frankly, I find it a bit offensive for you to accuse me of "increasingly stringent 'requirements' " when this is exactly what I said when you first opened the RfC.[43]A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to explain more clearly and I apologize if I offended you. In the proposed text the conspiracy theories are discussed as a significant historical Effect (not explanation!) of 9/11, and the sources are very reliable and in agreement in this regard. Given the specific usage, I don't understand the stipulation that a reliable source must be found that "endorses" them, and I found no mention of this in the guidelines either. I have also never seen a guideline that limits sources and authors to only one specific genre.
WP:NPOV says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." My current proposed paragraph is certainly less prominent than the coverage in the 9/11 Encyclopedia but is equivalent in tone, and I would appreciate it if you would address the coverage in the 9/11 Encyclopedia directly. The book is published by an established publisher as a History reference.
Also I have alluded to this many times, but no one has acknowledged it, that the proposal must be considered in the context of and relative to the existing Effects chapter. Let's consider the first one, Health issues - the primary sources are medical journals/organizations and the secondary sources are news reports specifically about the health effects and not 9/11 in general. There is not one single history journal nor history author listed in the current article for health issues. Yet health issues are still significant historically as an Effect of 9/11, and that is how the current wikipedia article and the 9/11 Encyclopedia depicts them. I'd also appreciate it if you'd address this point specifically. I certainly don't like lung disease, but I'm not trying to prevent it from being mentioned as an effect of 9/11. Praise for lung disease would be completely inappropriate though. Think about the conspiracy theories as a horrible disease, and maybe you can see where I'm coming from? Smitty121981 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey A Quest For Knowledge, not trying to bother you but I saw you commented on the RfC. Did you have any thoughts about the points I brought up here? To summarize: A) They are significant as an effect, not explanation B) The proposal is proportionate to reliable sources C) The rest of the current Effects chapter does not seem to meet your criteria? Thanks. Smitty121981 (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a) They're already covered as an effect. I don't see a need to expand the coverage. b) I don't at all agree that it is proportionate to reliable sources. c) I'm sure there's lots of problems with the article. There was a time I tried to get the article to WP:GA and WP:FA status, but I have since given up. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, I see we differ somewhat on A and C but I understand your view better now and am satisfied with your response. I think with B, what you said is definitely true of older sources. What I have found is that conspiracy theories are rarely mentioned, if at all, in historical 9/11 sources published before 2008-9. It seems to me like newer sources are much more likely to include a description, particularly from 2011 onward. Thanks again for the responses. Smitty121981 (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know better than to make personal remarks on an article talk page. Please discuss content not contributors there. If you wish to address a remark to me, please copy it here and I will read address your concern. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk00:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notification: RfC on Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements
The RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content? was closed with the result that Westeros.org is reliable but that whether the disputed text was valuable enough to include should be addressed separately. The closing editor recommended that all participants in the RfC and related RSN discussion be informed that such a discussion was under way:
If any of you wish to make a statement on this matter, you are welcome to do so and your contribution would be greatly appreciated. If any of you would prefer to stay away from this dispute, I think we can all get that too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you have added material 3 times in the last 24 hours. You need to be careful to avoid WP:3RR. I suggest not editing it any and using the talk page instead. Dennis2Ā¢18:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on the article, not a topic I'm familiar with, nor would I want to be, as it is obviously a hotbed for disputes. I just warned you both early enough because I didn't want to see someone drive by and block you both. Topics like this need good discussion, so I would encourage you to engage and get a larger discussion with more opinions. Typically, that tends to get us closer to what policy expects in the article. Dennis2Ā¢20:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, QFK - loved your totem pole analogy. Hope its ok if I copy it for future reference. If you find any holes in it that you didn't anticipate, let me know. AtsmeāÆConsult23:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ANI still remains on watchlist since I posted there earlier, will have to remove that. So, I have to ask you about that line, because at the moment a small handful of editors are using that line of thought carte blancheto keep the tag on. When do "POV issues" in any contentious article ever go away? Who decides that? The editors that want this tag in place have made their editing concerns known on the talk page, but have never gained a consensus for their edits to the article proper. At some point, do you think that lack of consensus for suggested edits translates to lack of consensus for a pov tag? Tarc (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GG POV Discussion
RE: this, I'm not trying to shut down legitimate discussion. The AN/I is not the place for the discussion of whether POV issues exists, the article talk page is. It might be to discuss if editors are adding/removing the tag inappropriately (but I have my doubts.) ā Strongjam (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Email?
Did you mean to send me an email? You left a note on my talkpage asking me to check my email, but I haven't received anything from you (or from anyone, recently... sniff). Anyhow, just wanted to let you know, and ask you to re-send using the "Email this user" link on the left, since my email account has changed a few times and you may have an old address for me. Take care. MastCellĀ Talk16:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider yourself blocked for the next 7.3 hours (an arbitrary number) for edit warring over something completely, utterly silly.[45] I'm not going to actually push the block button, but I recommend you step away from the computer and get some sleep, tea, or whatever helps you relax and reset. If there's any more edit warring I might actually do it. Please don't make me. JehochmanTalk05:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already stepped away from the computer, but I hope that you directed some attention (I didn't check, I prefer to WP:AGF that you issued similar warnings) to those editor(s) who very obviously and very falsely accused me of violating WP:BLP for simply posting a link to a 'Page not found' page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note
Let's clarify a few things. I've been the strongest defender of BLP in the article and its offshoot - I came to the article after finding it was at ANI with a wall of BLP attacks and misrepresentations. I was the one who was out (and did) remove all the Huffington Post sources from the article and this BLP nightmare from the Daily Beast which Ran1 and Cwobeel defended. I am continually attacked and reverted for removing BLP violations by these two editors and I even took Cwobeel to ANI after the reinsertion of a major BLP violation. The claim that an op-ed piece calling McCulloch a manipulative, criminal and a racist is not acceptable from Huffington Post or Daily Beast and etc. I'd like some assistance from someone who knows BLP well because the article has a multitude of BLP issues still. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Political statements vs. scientific consensus
You've stumbled into a major part of the difficulty. There is indeed a substantial amount of political posturing that obfuscates the issue, which is then used to try to pretend that there is some substantial medical controversy.āKww(talk) 03:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked it up at the Mayo Clinic[46], National Cancer Institute[47], American Heart Association[48] and Encyclopedia Britannica[49] (which theoretically should produce an article roughly similar to ours) and none of these sources describes acupuncture as pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nor did I: I described Traditional Chinese Medicine as "pseudoscience", and said that the consensus on acupuncture itself was that it was "not shown to be consistently effective for anything and lacking in any theoretical foundation". I'll hold by that description. Even your quote is extremely wishy-washy, saying that "some studies suggest that acupuncture may help ease ...": certainly not a statement of a scientific consensus of effectiveness.āKww(talk) 05:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:
In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.
Hey! You left a 'you got mail' template on my talk page, but I did not get mail. Ā :'( Not sure if it was meant for me but didn't go through, or if you emailed someone else and just left the template on the wrong talk page. Cheers! Resolute02:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lydia Cornell BLPN discussion
I've tried to address your concerns. For your reference, my initial response was
The information is sourced. See the talk page. If we need to clarify the sources, let's do so.
Her birth date has been discussed in detail on the article talk page.
She and her publicists have tried to obscure and confuse her birth year, repeatedly publishing erroneous dates.
Wikipedia is not censored. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
To add: Everyone else agrees that all we needed was a secondary, reliable source that tied everything together. We've done this, but you disagree. I suggest:
Elaborating on what problems, if any you feel have not been addressed from your stated concerns.
Elaborating on what new problems you see with the current consensus by everyone else that the material is fine with the new references.
Responding to others comments, especially concerning the policies that apply.
As far as I understand it, you feel the new source isn't reliable, or maybe that the material is undue, or both. It would be helpful if you could clarify.
You seem to be stating that we need a source that predates work done on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia may have influenced subsequent sources, regardless of the new sources being reliable. I'm unaware of any consensus for such thinking. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not restore unsourced material to articles after it has been removed for being unsourced. WP:V is unconditional: if you wish to restore challenged material, you can do so only in conjunction with a source: any material whose verifiability has been challenged must be associated with a citation, not a tag.āKww(talk) 02:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should have a good faith reason to delete such material (such as the material being incorrect or not verifiable). If you don't has a good-faith reason to delete the content, then you're simply being disruptive to the project. Do you have a good faith reason to delete this content? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent analysis has shown it to be inaccurate, so I don't see any reason to question Cirt's good faith. Regardless, the only thing that matters it that it has been challenged: WP:V doesn't include anything that would enable editors to unilaterally and preemptively declare another's challenge to have been in bad faith.āKww(talk) 18:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For most of your edits, I wasn't the one that removed it initially: I only reverted your improper restoration of the material. I didn't need to evaluate whether the material was, in fact, untrue, only that it had been challenged and you had restored it without providing inline citations as mandated by WP:V.āKww(talk) 00:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Statement of fact vs opinion
You might want to read how the RfC was phrased and also the read the closer's statement at Griffin if you haven't already. Conspiracy theorist is a contentious label which requires RS with inline text attribution. Instead, it was included in Wiki voice in the first sentence of the lead - he is a conspiracy theorist - and was also used as his "occupation" in the infobox - both of which were removed. See "conspiracy%20theorist"%20in%20first%20sentenceAtsmeāÆConsult03:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I'm missing something, but did you perhaps accidentally warn the wrong editor at edit warringĀ ? I can't see how his actions can be described as edit-warring contentious material into an article, when both edits removed material. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested in meeting up and working together with other Wikipedians at these fantastic institutions, please RSVP at the event pages linked above. If you know someone else interested in learning about or editing Wikipedia, invite them! We will provide training and resources for new editors at both events. For questions about the events, please refer to the event pages or contact IĀ JethroBTĀ (talkĀ Ā·contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited StarTalk (National Geographic television show), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQĀ ā¢ Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I'm going to bed now (and should have gone 5 hours ago, really), but I agree with Akhilleus. Calling WUWT (the blog, not a living person) a denier blog, based on a good academic source, is not a BLP violation. And the opinion is not fringe, it's very much mainstream. I suspect you count sources (always bad), and consider sources which label the blog as "sceptic" as somehow opposed to those that mention denial. But that is a fallacy - despite the very different etymologies, there is very much overlap between "denier" and "climate sceptic". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Akhilleus: WP:3RR doesn't apply to removal BLP violations, and I have been discussing it on the talk page. And also you should know that the burden of proof lies with the one restoring the content, not the other way around. How about trying to meet that burden instead of edit-warring.
@Stephan Schulz: "Denier" is a WP:WTW and shouldn't be used unless widely used by WP:RS. It's not widely used, in fact, it's rarely used. And I don't object to having this in the article. My objection is that it doesn't belong in the lede. It's not widely used and minority/fringe POVs don't belong in the lede. But like I said, I'm fine with it being in the body. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary Sanctions in effect for all pages related to Climate Change WP:ARBCC
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Discretionary Sanctions in effect for all pages related to Pseudoscience, broadly construed
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
@Ubikwit: You cannot intimidate me. I'm doing the right thing. You're (whether intentionally or unintentionally) CHERRYPICKing isolated sources while ignoring the vast majority. Further, this has absolutely nothing to do with Pseudoscience or climate change. This is about WP:BLP. I would insist that we follow the rules regardless of the topic area. And if you think that somehow, I've violated them, then you are free to take this to WP:AE. I'd love to hear you explain how it's OK that you're edit-warring contentious WP:BLP information into an article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that his not being an administrator and slapping discretionary sanction banners on your page is akin to harassment.--MONGO20:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Anthony Watts (blogger). Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. FortunaImperatrix Mundi18:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern. I've tried discussing this on the talk page,[51] but the lack of response in deafening. Do you have any suggestions on how to get other editors to participate in the discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has been reported to WP:BLPN and WP:ANI, but to no avail. Personally, I follow WP:BRD, but BRD discuss only works when other editors are willing to follow it. Here, we have a situation where editors are attempting (whether thru misfeasance or malfeasance I cannot say) to ram changes into the article without attempting to address policy/guidelines. There is a problem here, but it lies elsewhere. Have you contacted the editors who are edit-warring contentious WP:BLP content into the article without regard to policy and without even attempting to address concerns on the article talkpage? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is silly to pretend that you object to edit-warring over content on principle, because everyone who has made some version of this edit is doing so and is perfectly aware of it, and we're all basically waiting for some form of meteor strike that will end the deadlock. I request that rather than using your edit summary on a second identical revert in the middle of an edit war to chastise me for making identical reverts in the middle of an edit war (and posting policy salads that convince no one), you find something more interesting to put there so that the whole waiting process is less tedious. I am thinking of haiku, myself. Best, JBL (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning this edit, you are placing your "note" in the middle of JzG's comment, implying his words above are actually yours. More problematic is that your purpose is expressly to disrupt the RfC and consensus building process. I have no problem with adding your comment to the discussion, and even chastising the RfC if you'd like, but if try to disrupt the RfC by restoring your opinions to the (ostensibly neutral) summary again, I'm going to take this to ANI. Please stop. You are welcome to participate in discussion in the same way as any other editor, but you cannot intentionally disrupt a good faith attempt to build consensus. Ā ā JessĀ· Īā„23:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC presents a false trichotomy. This is obvious to anyone who's following the dicussion. If you want to take this to ANI, for being right. go right ahead. I'd love to hear your explanation: "AQFK keeps on being right and insists on correctly following policy, AQFK must be stopped." Just be aware of WP:BOOMARANG if you file frivolous post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking you to ANI "for being right". Many editors in the discussion are undoubtedly right (and wrong), and you have all the same privilege to join their discussion and build consensus too. I'm taking you to ANI because you've made a repeated and concerted attempt to disrupt a good faith effort to collaborate and build consensus. I'm not sure why you're doing that, but if that's what you'd prefer... so be it... Ā ā JessĀ· Īā„04:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard.Ā Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps23:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any tips? I have some notes to file a complaint against her, but am in a real time crunch in real life, AL through the end of next week. If you have notes on her (I presume she's a she), I'd appreciate seeing them, for when I have time to put something together. I don't know if you're allowed to comment or file directly, under your temporary excommunication decree....
It's clear what her aim is. She must be stopped, before the Powers of Darkness achieve world domination! <joke>
[52] You're being treated the same way you and several other editors treat people who make edits to the 9/11 articles that you don't approve of. Cla68 (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot speak for AQFK but if I'm one of these editors you assume has done some great wrong by trying to keep CT quackery out of 9/11 related articles, then you should award us barnstars. I did want to say that AQFK seems to have had very little involvement in 9/11 articles for some time now as the CTers seem to be absent...perhaps we finally drove the idiots away? In response to one of the few comments AQFK made on 9/11 articles this year in this discussion, I did want to say that the hijackers apparently deliberately picked a Tuesday because its the slowest working day of a week for airline passengers, which meant they would have fewer people to have to subdue, as well as smaller flight crews. So mentioning Tuesday in that context might be worthwhile if its citable. Also, the period right after Labor day is also a low ticket sale time due to less travelers what with schools being back in session.--MONGO06:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AE
Hi, Quest. I believe you got the negations wrong in the sentence "Does anyone here seriously disagree that edit-warring WP:BLP violations and/or contentious negative WP:BLP content is acceptable conduct?" ā it says the opposite of what I think you meant. You probably want to change "acceptable" to "unacceptable". Or simplify to "Does anyone here seriously think that edit-warring WP:BLP violations and/or contentious negative WP:BLP content is acceptable conduct?" ā easier for the reader. Yours pedantically, Bishonen | talk02:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Do you do photo requests in the Chicago area? If so, would you be interested in taking photos in the Chicago Loop, Chicago Chinatown, Pilsen, and/or Arlington Heights?
WhisperToMe (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to get a photo of the building and/or entrance sign of the Chicago Futabakai Japanese School (2550 Arlington Heights Rd.ćArlington Heights, IL60004), the Japanese international school of the Chicago area. Even though there are other photo ideas, this is the one I want the most! After that, the offices of the Chicago Shimpo (2045 S. Arlington Heights Rd., Suite 108C Arlington Heights, IL 60005), and the Mitsuwa (100 E Algonquin Rd, Arlington Heights, IL 60005) - Also the Weekly J-Angle offices (415 E. Golf Rd., Suite 101 Arlingcton Heights, IL 60005) - This is all for the Japanese in Chicago article. Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-a-thon at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago!
Come join us on Saturday, March 5th between 12PM - 5PM for the Art+Feminism 2016 edit-a-thon at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago! We'll be focusing our efforts on women involved in the arts, and a list of articles for artists in Chicago and the U.S. Midwest has been compiled at the project page. The event is free, but only if you register at the project page ahead of time. I'll be there, and I hope to see you there too! I JethroBT (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
On that same note... I'm wondering if the RfC should be better rephrased as asking users to choose between alternatives. There the extant wording, your proposal in the section above and NorthbySouthBaronof's proposal (which I like the most). If you agree, I think the way forward would be to erase (or archive) your new thread, archive the RfC and start a new one. What do you think? MjolnirPantsTell me all about it.19:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can if you want. My only concern is that some people seem to be misunderstanding my proposal. I'm only proposing removing a single word in the opening sentence. Some editors seem to think I'm arguing that Pizzagate is correct, which is not what I'm saying at all. The article can and should include debunking. I just think that that single word in the first sentence should be removed. Is there a better way to convey this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll archive it, then. Would you please put your proposal in the RfC in a manner that highlights it? I ask so that others can easily see that it's a proposed alternative.
I can't speak for others, but I got that from your participation in the thread we archived. I disagree about removing the word, but my disagreement is a temporary thing (more about that here). In a few months, when interest has died down and the article doesn't get so many drive-by editors, I feel like it would be best to remove it.
That being said, as you can see from my participation in the thread, there's an alternate wording that eliminates 'debunked' which serves the same purpose. Hopefully, that one will get the most support and we can appease everyone who agrees that it's not true (the opinions of the rest don't bother me because they're against policy). MjolnirPantsTell me all about it.20:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you can omit my proposal. If you're willing to revisit the issue in a few months after the fuss has died down, that's fine with me. I can wait. There's no urgent need to change this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
December 2016
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Talk:List of fake news websites, did not appear constructive and has been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please do not go against established protocol - comments in Request for Comments discussions should be in Chronological OrderExemplo347 (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Talk:List of fake news websites shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editingāespecially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's workāwhether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each timeācounts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warringāeven if you don't violate the three-revert ruleāshould your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! I'm hosting a meetup at the at the Sulzer Regional Library on Saturday March 25th from 12 PM to 4:30 PM. You're welcome to come and work together with other editors on articles or other contributions, get to know other editors around Chicago, and ask any questions you might about using or contributing to Wikipedia. Food will be available, and we'll likely go out for dinner afterwards as a group. If you're interested in joining us, please RSVP at the event page here! Thanks, I JethroBTdrop me a line20:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your comment on the fringe page, replying here as this is conversational and not administrative. I agree with your overall comment (we don't know) and that thh 1.2m-4.7m numbers are likely overestimating. But I have some big issues with that week article. "very rare/not often" seems to be a flexible term. Gun control advocates regularly describe the ~30k gun deaths per year as an epidemic. At that number is somewhat inflated by suicide. The homicide number is much lower (~12k/yr). Meanwhile, the VPC (one of the more aggressive gun control advocacy groups out there, and therefore would be erring on the side of too low) admits to 67k defensive gun uses per year. [54] (p 7, 338,700 over a 5 year period). So there are almost 2x DGUs than gun deaths, and ~5x as many DGUs as homicides, yet gun deaths are an "epidemic", and dgu are "very rare" or "not often". And thats the bottom estimates provided by a pro gun control group. Going to another gun control advocate Hemmenway's estimate at 80k and "not often" is even more of a stretch, let alone anywhere approaching the high estimates. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. ā Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)11:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. I archived after @Geogene: replied because the section is from a single purpose account repeating a stale and debunked bit of fake news that's previously been aired in detail. I'm not going to archive it again, but it would be disappointing to see editors waste their time and effort validating this nonsense that we all know is never going to help improve the article. SPECIFICOtalk20:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I restored that archive, because I don't see why conspiracy theorists should be allowed to spread non-mainstream views on article talk pages as a participation trophy after they failed to get those same views into the article. Geogene (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Closing this discussion as per a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure; there have been no comments in a week. The consensus here, broadly, is that yes, the phrase "Polish death camp" should be described as an inaccurate term - a "misnomer" - in the lede, with further details in the body of the article. However, a number of the contributors saying "yes" to Staszek Lem's question have suggested that while it is appropriate to specify that the term is incorrect in the lede, an alternative term to "misnomer" could be used, for the sake of clarity ("misrepresentation" is suggested by quite a few). That's not a question that was posed by this RFC, and a simple follow up RFC giving a binary choice between "misnomer" and "misrepresentation" may be warranted; I leave that up to the article editors."
I've emphasized the relevant part.
If you want to reopen the discussion or something you have that right (but really, isn't there better things to waste people's time with on Wikipedia?).
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.
It really doesn't matter whether you believe it or not, but it did. And you know that invoking "community consensus overrides local consensus" is right up there with "I was just reverting vandalism" as a lame excuse for edit warring.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
I should add, that it seems you were topic banned previously on a different topic PRECISELY for not respecting/disrupting the RfC process. Please, don't repeat that kind of behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw an obvious problem and fixed it. Instead of thanking me, you make empty threats on my talk page. And no, I have never been topic-banned for not respecting/disrupting the RfC process. (At least if I was, I don't recall it.) In any case, Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Editors are expected to be welcoming and work together to improve articles in an atmosphere of mutual respect, not antagonism. But if you believe that I've violated some sanction, feel free to file a request for enforcement. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
I am posting this on your talkpage out of an abundance of caution solely because you recently edited Talk:Sarah Jeong and, as the message says, not suggesting any policy violation by you. (I realize that as an experienced editor you probably know all this). Abecedare (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No idea why you think this is appropriate, but it's absolutely not. See the article's talk page and actually read the sources used in the article. Grayfell (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm...because Wikipedia shouldn't be perpetuating racism? In any case, you didn't provide a reason why you reverted it. Can you please give a reason why you reverted it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)You're not new here. You know perfectly well that the burden is on you to get consensus for controversial changes, and it would be insulting to your intelligence and competence for me to pretend you don't realize why this is controversial. Grayfell (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on White privilege. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
I am telling you the reason why, because your edit was unsourced, if you have a source for your changes please use the talk page to gain consensus for the change. Tornado chaser (talk)
And you aren't opposing racism. It's possible some racists use the term, but I don't think you can show that most of those who use the term, including of course "white" people like me, are racists. But you do seem to be calling me a racist as I think that there is such a thing as white privilege. Doug Wellertalk18:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he probably should have use an edit summery, but now that you understand why I and other editors disagree with your edit, please use the talk page for further discussion of the article content. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
To those who follow my talk page, I would like to share some sad news. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris passed away last night from a stroke. You can read more about it here. He will be missed.[61]A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
(Zero issues with your edits. I am just hitting everyone on the Jenny McCarthy page that hasn't received a pseudoscience and fringe science discretionary sanctions alert in the last year) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
About a Research on the History of Conspiracy Theories
Dear (A?) Quest For Knowledge,
I take the liberty to contact you, I am a doctoral student in Political Science at the University of Paris 1 and my work focuses on the history of conspiracy theories, on which I have already published a few scientific articles and I am now preparing a book. I have been interviewing conspiracists and truthers, their critics and opponents for several years, working particularly on the French association ReOpen911 and the question of 9/11, as a now "historical" case of conspiracy...And obviously wikipedia has been a rather major theater of discussions/criticisms on the subject.
Looking at the related conspiracy pages' statistics, I realized that you have worked for long on these issues on wikipedia, hence my message and a small request: I would really appreciate if you can share bits of this "experience" with me in an interview.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.
The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [62] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Casey Anthony case until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
@Scientelensia: Please allow me put it directly. You can't go around accusing editor's of bias. Ever. Even if you think it's true, even if you think you know it's true, you just can't do it. Keep thoughts like that to yourself. If someone makes an edit you disagree with, try to address what you think is wrong with the edit, not what you think is wrong with the editor.
One of the key guidelines that Wikipedia has is assume good faith. Basically it means that you should assume that other editors aren't intentionally making bad or biased edits.
Editing Wikipedia on contentious topics is a time-consuming, difficult thing to do. I gave up on this years ago. But if you do want to edit articles where there are disputes, you have to follow the dispute resolution process. We have a variety of ways to address disputes. Discussing the article on the article talk page is one of the first steps. Other ways include using WP:RFCs or the many dispute resolutions noticeboards.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! This is User:Luiysia (IRL name is Kelly). My main interests are fashion, music, literature, and history. I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing and I found that there has been very little activity from the Chicago Wikipedia user group since 2020.
I'd like to host a casual meetup in Chicago to celebrate Wikidata Day on Saturday, October 26.
Proposed location is Engine Coffee in the Wicker Park/West Town area, at 11AM.
Thanks for the invitation. I live in suburbs and rarely go into the city anymore. There's also a Battlestar Galactica Convention that same day that I already bought tickets for. Good luck with your event. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! This is User:Luiysia again. At the last meetup, people expressed interest in having a Wikipedia meetup bi-monthly (that is, every other month). So, here's our December meetup!
The meetup will start at The Bourgeois Pig, in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, at 11 AM.
_by_Ron.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
