User talk:A Quest For Knowledge/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• MedscapeToday[1]
• Los Angeles Times[2][3]
• New York Daily News[4]
• St Petersburg Times[5]
• Toronto Star[6]
• Chicago Sun-Times[7]
• MSNBC[8]
• Dozens more[9]

Resources:

• Previous discussion at WP:RSN[10]

Thoughts:

• This has to be one of the ugliest web sites I've seen in a while.
• A reliable source is one with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking.
• I do not see any sort of editorial policy although editorial oversight may exist.
• Reliability is not a binary 1/0 switch. Rather, reliability should be decided on a case-by-case basis. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If I may intrude on your "notes to yourself", I agree wholeheartedly with all of that, especially the last item.

I have to face this question ("how do I decide what is a reliable source?") all the time in my history writing. I do really rely on "people" -- I mean, the subset of people who have happened to comment on a relevant author or book. In a specific field, writers get a "reputation" for being reliable or not -- especially via book reviews and in other writers' footnotes. So I really meant this in my comment on the noticeboard: if one independent journalist said "I have found GRG reliable" that would mean far more to me than if twenty journalists cited it with "According to GRG ..." Anyway, enjoy your editing ... Andrew Dalby 18:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi A Quest For Knowledge. I saw you post at the helpdesk and decided that you can definitely be trusted with the rollback feature. Take a look at Wikipedia:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback to see when it should and shouldn't be used. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just another note to myself to check this out later. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that I was engaged in edit warring and that Cs32en's warning was legitmate? Posting false warning for personal reason is not vandalism? Valoem ^talk 18:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I didn't go through the article history. But if you make the same change more than once, yes, that's edit-warring. But unless you violate 3RR or you edit-war over several days (or whatever the admins think is excessive - I'm not sure), they're unlikely to block you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also add that even if Cs32en was technically correct, it was inappropriate for him to issue a warning. If they blocked every editor who went past 1RR, they're hardly be anyone left to edit Wikipedia. He should have just posted a friendly reminder to talk about your change on the article talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I only made one revert, looks at the page history. Therefore Cs32en warning is not correct. Warnings on talk pages greatly weaken the editor's ability to edit and make meaningful arguments. The first thing I check when engaged in a dispute is how civil the editor is. His warning was a bias attack and I can rewarn him can I not? Valoem ^talk 19:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Also it's not about being blocked, I am an admin hopeful such warnings weaken my cause. I intend to maintain a perfect record. If you could please look at the dispute presented please tell me how his warning is legitimate that would be appreciated. Valoem ^talk 19:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Valoem, your talk page appears to indicate that you need some additional incentive to read and try to understand WP:BRD. The warning is intended to avoid a situation which would necessitate a block, and the logic of your editing was likely to result to such a situation. Again, it's a warning, not a statement that a block would be warranted at the time the warning is being posted.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Valoem: If you only made one revert, no, that is not edit warring. What I would recommend is that you simply ask Cs32en to provide the diffs to prove it. If he can't, it will be obvious that the warning was invalid. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course he doesnt have the diffs to prove it, which is why I considered it a personal attack. But thanks for your input! If you don't mind I'd like to remove all posts from Cs32en, it seems to his trying to attack my user name for reasons unknown. Also if you look at his history, he has a history of personal attacks and edit warring which might have contributed to his false warning on my talk page. (He just cleared his talk page history and removed all accusations) Valoem ^talk 19:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Valoem...I would do all I could to ignore cs32en...he has a long history of POV pushing fringe material...--MONGO 02:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, do you plan to work on List of teen films in the next hour or so? I can step away if that's the case. In addition, I would recommend using books and periodicals to reference films. Databases like Allmovie have indiscriminate genre labels, and we should make sure that numerous sources are calling the film a teen film. Check out the talk page for some criteria. In addition, you can use "teen film"|"teen movie"|teenpic plus title as part of your search query. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm going to take a break. Should I remove the Allmovie references I added? Thanks for the heads up about the criteria, and thanks for the search tip. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say to replace them whenever you can. :) I have to go, anyway, so feel free to get back into it in the next few hours or whenever. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I removed the 2 Allmovie sources. To be honest, I wasn't really working on the article so much as I was testing my film source search engine to eliminate false positives. BTW, maybe we should add "teen comedy" into the search queries. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI - Right now, my search criteria is:

"MOVIE NAME" -"not another teen movie" "Teen movie"|"teen film"|"teenpic"|"teen comedy"

I looked for, but could not find sources for using both my search engines as well as Google News Search. I'm thinking that if all 3 can't find a source, they may be good candidates for removal. I'll update this list as I go along.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

While I understand your desire for zero edit warring etc did you actually look at my edits and consider their merit before reverting and asking me to discuss? I am an experienced editor with 9 GAs under my belt and 2 years+ editing. I don't make edits which are vandalous rather the opposite. I was trying to improve the article so I found being asked to WP:BRD a little patronising. However in the spirit of good editing I've done exactly that. I've left a detailed explanation here. Take a look and comment accordingly. I won't revert. I'd rather here what you've got to say regarding the reasons I made those edits. Sorry if this started off with me sounding arsey. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I've responded on the article talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Greetings,

We already had a false statement from David in DC that suggested that since I was "topic-banned," third-party editors could not quote me...even though I appear in myriad outside reliable sources. Such suggestions run counter to Wikipedia's core policies regarding NO Original Research and Reliable Sources.

Further...Carcharoth already explicitly stated that material off-Wiki is not under the jurisdiction of Wikipedia. You'll find no evidence whatsoever that I have done anything "on-wiki" in violation of my "topic ban." SincerelyRyoung122 17:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You're not allowed to canvass off-Wikipedia in any way that might influence the consensus building process. Your best bet is to apologize, promise never to do it again, and most importantly: never do it again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Help Desk was able to find me the exact script that will allow me to view a page's history, and then using the script, it provides a method of isolating a particular editor's history on that page. Don't forget to clear your browser cache (for either IE and Firefox browsers, use CTRL + F5). Hope you also find this tool rather helpful! Cheers, CalvinTy 12:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This page is on my watchlist and I see your name popping up all the time.

How many times has my name popped up on the 3RR board in the last year? In the last two years? Numbers of incidents, please. Then, compare my name to yours. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there's an easy way to determine that, but according to this,[11] you're the 16th most prolific editor to the edit war page over the last year. And I would guess that some of the editors above you (such as EdJohnston and 2/0) are acting in their admin capacity. Me, I don't even make the top 500. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could get a toolserver account and work on the problem? For example, Soxred93's toolserver account breaks down namespace contributions with a nice pie chart, but it would be interesting and informative to break down project contributions by noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

...and might borrow it in the future. Hope you don't mind :) NW (Talk) 02:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sure, no problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I just want to confirm before making adding the Ancestry.com links that CalvinTy found yesterday, that using the Census information as a Primary Source is a Reliable Source, is that correct? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 20:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I lost track of the discussion at that point. If you're referring to this link[13] that's about someone named Roy Forrest Buckles. I'm not sure he has any relation to Frank Buckles and I think that's user-generated content. The second link[14] is about 1890 Federal Census, which was destroyed by a fire at the Commerce Department in Washington, DC on 10 January 1921. I'm not sure how that's relevent. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I was meaning the Ancestry.com links provided in the following link, which you will have ot copy/paste because it went up against the spam filter and lost: http://z3.invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=1765&st=15&#entry2785030. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 21:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those look fine. Just to clarify, you're not really citing Ancestor.com so much as you're citing census records. Think of these Ancestor.com links as Convenience links, copies of sources on the Internet, offered in addition to formal citations to the original census records. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. One other question, in the source template, source I source both Ancestry.com and the United States Census Bureau, or just one of them? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 22:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure. Perhaps ask the editors at WP:CITE or on the WP:HELPDESK for how to handle convenience links in a cite. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, will ask CITE. Thanks for your help on this one. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 22:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Synthesis and stop threaten people, specially if you are not an admin. Oh and yes, stop wasting my time. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? Are you seriously suggesting that being an admin gives you the right to edit-war?[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] If that's what you're saying, then we can take it up at WP:LONGTERM. All I asked was that you discuss this content dispute on the article talk page.[29] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Inform you before even you open your mouth. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Tb, I think you need to take a break. You are in battle mode and nothing good can come from that. Step back, have some tea, and take a break. Come back tomorrow with fresh eyes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 05:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If someone threats you in blcoking you or banning you, and he has a major problem with you (I see no chatting from AQFK) Chelo's page) believe me, do not deserves nothing. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been threatened with blocks and bans before, it is generally a standard warning, one you would find on a warning template. Still, I think you need to step back and take a break. It is 1:48am, so catch some Z's and come back in the morning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 05:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

So revert me and still giving factual errors, if you didn't know, thos sources STATES COMPILATION ALBUM. Stop threating me OK? Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether this is a studio or a compilation album is in dispute. The way to settle content disputes is through discussion, not edit-warring. Will you please agree to stop edit-warring over this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Unless a new consensus state it IS a studio album. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but edit-warring is not the way to win content disputes. Please stop and discuss things on the talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know what you have against me. You said that I have a long-term edit war on this article, well it's true but I'm not the only. I see no evidence that you have warned other users, nor even tried to revert this IP who has added an upcoming album by MJ. So, be neutral for once in your life. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My problem with this dispute are the strong-arm tactics being used to win it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Hidden notes exist for a reason. And even one is there, users ignore them, delete them and add unsourced self-thoughts. Do you know why Wikipedia will never be reliable? Because users like you who choose to not do anything to follow the second pillar and left unsourced information to leak into articles even known there is inaccurate, wrong and/or fake. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Edit-warring is only contributing to the WP:BATTLEGROUND.
• Unless I missed something, I don't think either side of this debate has produced a single source which directly supports the categorization of this album one way or another. Oh sure, I've seen sources which include the word "studio" or "compilation" somewhere in the article, but words can have more than one meaning. I'm not sure if any of the authors indended their verbiage in terms of categorizing it as a studio or compilation album. The only source I've seen which explicitly uses the term "compilation" in terms of categorization is the one Chelo found. OK, it's a primary source, and some editors disagree on that basis. Fine, I can understand that, but it's the only one that explicitly deals with this in terms of categorization.
• In any case, let me give you some advice that I sometimes have remind myself of: By its very nature, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Occassionally, this means living with edits you disagree with. Think about it and ask yourself whether this issue is worth all the WikiDrama. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you commented on a thread I started at WP:NPOVN concerning the article Employee assistance programs. I assume that means you are somewhat knowledgeable about NPOV issues. I've made several edit requests (as the article is fully protected) on Talk:Employee assistance programs and was wondering if you could provide some feedback. Thanks for any help you can provide. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You are hereby invited to a discussion on the Windows Phone 7 discussion page. Illegal Operation (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for restoring the censored text at Windows Phone 7. You are the people that really help keep vandals like Illegal Operation (talk) away! Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.251.226 (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of April Fool's Day jokes 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, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Really?? Honestly, I sincerely doubt that an AfD will be successful. In the interests of reducing WikiDrama and saving the community's time, I suggest you withdraw the AfD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a friendly comment here, so as not to clog up Ending-start's talk page with side discussions. I usually make a distinction between discussions with a binary result, and those that are trying to reach a conclusion in murky waters. If it's a case where people are trying to get closure on something that requires some expertise and background in the area, and they are trying to even figure out what the alternatives are in the first place, I generally don't even blink when I see notifications going out. If it's an AFD, an RFA, or any other kind of discussion that generates an yes/no kind of answer, I tend to be skeptical of any notifications, because it's nearly impossible to select who you notify in such a case without having an opinion yourself and having a pretty good guess as to whether the person you are inviting is aligned with you or not.—Kww(talk) 18:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As requested, I pinged you an email --Errant ^(chat!) 20:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm reading it now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for your work on the September 11 attacks article! MONGO 23:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears that in the past, you have had some experiences with User:WLRoss (also known as "Wayne") on the 9/11 terrorist attack articles. I have started a Request for Comment on the conduct of WLRoss here and I would appreciate your participation in the discussion, if you can contribute anything regarding your experiencecs. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WLRoss is on my watchlist so I already saw your RfC. I've never participated in an RfC on an editor before, so I will probably just sit back and lurk for a while to see how it goes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi - I replied to you on Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories about your compromise suggestion in the Claims section - had missed your note. Cheers Tvoz/talk 22:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I responded on the article talk page. AQFK (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no such policy, so how about some discussion to justify your change? Or am I missing a policy statement? Tvoz/talk 04:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, we somewhere we have a policy or guideline to avoid using scare quotes. But I am at a loss to find it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't find it either, and I still would prefer having those false claims in quotes, for clarity, especially if we do not have policy against it. Tvoz/talk 22:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Manual of Style says that quotation marks should be used to show that you are using the correct words as quoted from the original source and that scare quotes are discouraged. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing what Americans can accomplish when the Playstation Network is down. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		i here by award "A Quest For Knowledge" this barn star for being a stand-up guy! Glad you did not take the edit personally and in fact move forward with the topic Moxy (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Moxy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Notice: In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision.

I know you are already well aware of the restrictions, having warned other users yourself the last time this issue heated up, but it seems a reminder is in order. Reverting a revert of your own edit [30] is venturing into WP:EDITWAR territory. There is enough debate around this issue without edit warring making it worse. I've already blocked Soxwon for his repeated reversions and I would very much like it to end there. I realize this is an emotional topic and the conspiracy theory aspect has come up again and again till everyone is sick of it, but edit warring isn't going to help, it never does. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking Soxwon, but I don't believe that I have crossed the boundary into edit-warring. Both edits were achieved through the consensus of talk page discussions that have taken place over weeks ([31][32]). It's a shame that editors are ignoring these talk page discussions, but I have no desire to be blocked (even if invalid). I will not revert any edits even if they go against consensus. I disagree with this warning, but I realize that you are are in a difficult position, and I thank you for stepping up to the plate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, your warning has had (so far) the exact opposite of what (should have been) intended. Apparently, Soxwon's edit-warring against consensus is allowed to stand lest an editor be blocked by you. Is that what you really intended? Do you think that only editors who disagree with consensus should be blocked? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup...I surely won't revert Soxwon even though it is the wrong version now...I wasn't planning on doing so anyway. Beeblebrox has a slightly more rigid interpretation of what an edit war is than I do...I'm scared now to even edit it, though the last editor that blocked me got desysopped partly due to the block. Overbearing admin presence is chilling but sometimes needed...Beeblebrox is doing what he/she thinks is best.--MONGO 03:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Just stumbled across your note at WP:WA. Pages don't wikilink to themselves—anything that would be a wikilink to the page you're reading will show up in bold instead. So in the NavBox in the top-right of CSI effect, "CSI effect" is bolded instead of wikilinked. Similarly, the "talk" in my sig will show up as a wikilink here, whereas when I sign on my own talk page, "talk" is in bold.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with someone else. I am not a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia and I don't think I've ever edited that page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, by WA I meant Wikiquette alerts. I was referring to this edit. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Thanks for the explanation. (Weird that I never encountered this before.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Quest, you're a regular, so I'll not template you. It doesn't matter how long the item has been in the article or who put it in. The source does not identify it as a common misconception, and there has been a section on the talk page about the items for a week or so. You've been reasonable in the past. For some reason that I can't understand, you've decided to become unreasonable. The item clearly fails criterion 2, and you clearly are refusing to discuss on the talk page and instead repeatedly adding the item. Read WP:BURDEN. The burden of sourcing is on the editor who adds or restores an item that has been challenge. Now, I'll assume that perhaps you have had a temporary lapse in judgment instead of edit warring. I'll assume that unless you continue to revert. At that point I'll start treating you like anyone who edit wars. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter how long the item has been in the article or who put it in." Actually, it does matter. If you want the article to change, the burden of proof lies with those who want the change. This item has been in the article for at least a year now, so clearly it had concensus to remain in the article. If you want to change concensus, then the burder of proof is on you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of common misconceptions. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Cresix (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Dude: This content has been in the article for at least a year (that's as far back as I've searched; it might be even longer). If you want to change consensus, the burden of proof is on you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said, length of the time in the article does not mitigate the fact that it violates criterion 2. Many items have been removed for that very reason. No one on Wikipedia gets preferential treatment just because it's one of your favorites. Let me suggest, for the third time, that you discuss this in the section about the item on the talk page that has been there more than a week. I'll respect any consensus there. I'll not respond here any more. Any further comments to me about this matter need to be on the article's talk page. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the greater the length of time, the greater the consenus. As for criterion 2, you need to read the whole statement which begins, "A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list does not exist". May I suggest that a week is not greater than an year?. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't get involved, thanks, or pretend to be unbiased William M. Connolley (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Both you[33][34][35][36] and Tauhidaerospace[37][38][39] have been edit-warring at Qur'an and science for several days. As a former admin, I'm sure that you are well aware that WP:3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. Please stop. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I do indeed know that, which is why your "warning" was (as you knew full well) so pointless. Please stop troublemaking William M. Connolley (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I was originally going to file a report at the edit-warring noticeboard, but thought I would be nice and issue a warning first. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is from my perspective is that you've accused everyone who reverted T of edit warring. You must know that's nonsense. The underlying problem is that people were too patient with T - he probably could have been blocked earlier if any of us had reported him. I wish I'd done that earlier now. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Any revert after WP:BRD is edit-warring, and a group edit war is still an edit war. But, FWIW, that doesn't mean that everyone has done some thing actionable. Had I filed a report, I would have only reported the 2 most prolific edit warriors.

If you look above,[40] I was cautioned by Beeblebrox about venturing into edit-warring territory for only 2 edits which span about a month apart, the first of which was only made after a month-long discussion on the article talk where consensus for the edit was achieved, and the second was to enforce the consensus after one editor went against it. Even now, everyone is afraid to revert back to the consensus edit for fear of being blocked for edit-warring.

But yes, it might have been easier to have him blocked in the beginning. His accusation that William M. Connolley made a "racial" comment was nonsense and if he's violating copyrights, that's a big problem, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been 2 days and I'm still getting a kick of my accidental use of the word "Undue", LOL.[41] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh, that's funny.--SPhilbrickT 20:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

AQFK, I'm trying to sort through the ANI material, and I found one or two other items you might wish to correct, if I'm right. (Sorry, in advance, I know how hard it is to pull all this together, but I want to make sure others don't get distracted by side issues.)

You say "I note that Ghostofnemu has been reported to ANI 3 times now" The first link is Ghostofnemo reporting someone else. The next two links are identical. --SPhilbrickT 20:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into that as soon as I can. Right now, I'm getting diffs of his participation in the discussion rather than a link to the archived discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the duplicate link and corrected myself that he's been reported to ANI twice (not 3 times). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--SPhilbrickT 21:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

~ AdvertAdam ^talk 00:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

best thing I have read today :)--Truth Mom (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I just re-read the source (http://www.canalys.com/pr/2011/r2011051.html) and it said NOTHING about Windows Phone market share. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to give you the same advice I gave IO - stop editing that page until consensus has been reached. Just because he has gone back and is making changes again doesn't give you the right to go back and start edit warring with him again, and you are getting dangerously close to violating 3rr yourself now. Please, stop editing there, and discuss it on the talk page. If you cannot reach an agreement, just leave, and know that the wiki will not explode due to that sentence. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to discuss it on the talk page. Unfortunately, your comments have embolded him to continue his misconduct. In any case, I have not even approached 1RR, let alone 3RR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You have not specifically been using the undo button, but you have been edit warring in the spirit of the policy (replacing his edits with something else in the same section). As I said, just because he is doing something wrong doesn't mean you should, and my comments have definitely not "embolded" him to continue. But I'm not here to argue with you - I'm trying to prevent drama, not continue it. Have a nice day. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That might have been your goal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged

Some text in between:

The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is common, and thus encouraged.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for offering your assistance. The best way to help right now would be to watch Wikipedia:Peer review/Rod Blagojevich corruption charges/archive1 and Talk:Rod Blagojevich corruption charges/GA2 and get involved when the discussions get going.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'll keep a watch on those, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey I wanted to touch base again and complement the your efforts on the 9/11 article. I think GA nomination in next few weeks may be doable. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I think part of the reason why the WP:GA nomination failed is because the reviewer was following his own interpretation of what makes a good article. I was expecting the reviewer to follow the Good article criteria which I think the article meets (or at least comes very close to meeting). Most of the issues from the failed GA review have already been fixed. The only major outstanding issue (as far as I know) is the article length and I don't even think is part of the good article criteria. But since we'll have to address it during the WP:FA review, I'll fix it now. My goal is to fix the length issue by end of day Sunday and then I'll renominate the article for GA status. If I'm misunderestimating what needs to be done to reach GA quality, please let me know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)\

FYI, the ANI thread in which you participated concerning User:Marine 69-71 has reopened. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

When I woke up this morning, I saw that it had been closed, so that's when I posted my message at Jimbo's talk page. A lot has happened since then, and it appears that Marine 69-71 has agreed to not use his admin tools for a year, and his conduct will be monitored by another editor during this time. I think that's pretty much all that can be done at this point. I wish you good luck, and I'm sorry that this has been such an unpleasent experience for you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your good wishes. It really hasn't been unpleasant, just something of a time sponge. I am heartened by Marine's better tone but my personal view is that he needs to give up his tools. Unfortunately, as you know, Wikipedia gives administrators life terms, which in my view is as bad for them as it is for everyone else. I agree with your post on that point in Jimbo's page. Hopefully this situation will be an object lesson, a kind of straw that broke the camel's back, demonstrating the necessity to make administrators accountable. There are just too many problems with administrators, and insufficient mechanisms for removal. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a stub for Caylee's law at Wiki if you are interested. The Timeline article is great - still would like to see it in the main article but maybe that will change. Am going back to medieval articles. Good working with you. Mugginsx (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll check it out. It was good working with you, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. --John (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This year is the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and I'm trying to get the article to WP:GA and then WP:FA quality. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I moved some of your comments from the support section to the discussion section at Death of Caylee Anthony. I felt that the side discussion was growing to necessitate moving to the discussion section. If you feel it should return, please feel free to move it back. Angryapathy (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

ScottyBerg (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Responded. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I know you are fair, so will you please take a closer look at this editor and her history in this and other articles. I have asked an administrator to intervene. Though I have not had any major problems with this editor, she is disrupting everyone else. Please look below at what I have found of her work and what I have told the administrator. Thanks.

User talk:Carolmooredc is disrupting the article Death of Caylee Anthony. This editor has been previously blocked for three months by Administrator SarekOfVulcan for WP:HARASS on another article and I guess she behaved for awhile but is back at it again, this time on this article. She started off first suggesting than "threatening" to go ahead anyway and re-structering the article without first asking for consensus. She is removing perfectly good referencing with hers saying they are "better" when, in fact they are newspaper references against actual police taped interviews. She was quite for awhile and now, completely out of the blue, she is posting a 3RR warning - when NO EDITOR has been challenging her (most bizarre). None of these edits involve me and you will see that other editors are just as baffled as myself. Mugginsx (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, I didn't examine the revision history to see if any actual edit-warring was going on. I was only clarifying that one need not violate WP:3RR to be edit-warring. This was just a general comment that applies anywhere in Wikipedia and was not directed at any individual. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for two days to allow the issues to be addressed that were not previously addressed in the other GAN that failed miserably not even 2 weeks ago. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. Once you have corrected the items I have listed for correction please add {{done}} next to the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Once this is complete, I will move on to the main review with my own opinions and not being concerned with the other GA review.  JoeGazz  ♂  20:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've responded on the GA review. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've responded on the GA review in regards to your comments.  JoeGazz  ♂  01:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Carol is bringing up the re-structuring (not re-naming) of the article again. Could we have a vote on this? I do not know how to set it up. Otherwise, will you please comment at Talk page last section. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Notes to myself:

• Colin Hay: Gathering Mercury, CD review
• Colin Hay is still at work
• A BIG DAY FOR COLIN HAY
• The Playlist: What’s in the ear buds this week
• Man at Work: A Colin Hay Q&A
• Colin Hay a working man from way back

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Whould it not be proper etiquette if you started the discussion? At least as deference to the editor. I think the source was cited with specificity to be quickly verified. I would expect a bit of basic diligent attempt of at least reading the source. It is only a half page reading. Stapler80 (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. You're in a better position than me to explain why you think that this changed is needed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So you say that in fear of mistating my position it is better that you avoid the extra effort of creating a forum for the debate? Fear is unfounded. An editor can state his position at anytime. It would have suffice to state your own position for the delete first. Stapler80 (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Silverseren^C 03:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your time, and help with nominating September 11 attacks for GA status. You've done an amazing job working on that article and I wish you well with the Featured article status you wish to get. Please feel free to pass this barnstar on to those who helped you as well :) Happy editing!  JoeGazz  ♂  14:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. And thank you for your hard work as well. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I see the RFC opened again there. If someone started an article about her, say like in a sandbox, would that be a way to go to show the editors that oppose what an article could look like? I've never done an article before, I mean from scratch, but I'd be willing to help out with it. I could help with sourcing it, research, and other things though. I don't consider myself a very good editor when it comes to actually adding major things to an article plus I have problems with being bold. About being bold, I think my inner self fears looking like an idiot. :) What do you think about doing it this way? If we can get something decent together than maybe we can get it into main space. I know we would need help doing that because of the redirects, plus I think it was salted so it wouldn't be made again, but if we get something I think I know of a few administrator that are calm and bold enough to look at what got together in the article to decide if it should be in main space. I would really appreciate your thoughts on this, please. Also, thanks again for supplying those difs for me. I really appreciate it. There is so much out there from over the years that I had troubles, but I could have been too tired which my health does to me. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to also bring to your attentions the books that have been written about all of this. I would think that this should change some of the complaints going on about a new article for Casey Anthony. Thoughts on this? I'm going to at least post this on the Death of Caylee Anthony article. I really do not like this title at all, but ..., anyways. Another thing, do you know what administrator deleted and salted the Casey Anthony and Casey Anthony trial. If you wouldn't mind, would you ping me at my talk page when/if you answer me so I don't miss it? I sure would appreciate it if you would, even a talk back notice would work. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that might not be a bad idea. Perhaps some editors are afraid that the article will turn into a gossipy, tabloid piece, which of course, I don't think any of us want. As long as we write a respectful, professional article cognizant of WP:BLP, I think we should be fine.

I think what might be helpful - if you have the time to invest - is to spend an hour or so watching one of those documentaries I posted the other day. The problem with news articles is that they only give you a slice of the whole picture without providing any context of which points are important and which points aren't.

Thanks for the links to the books. I'll have to look at them later. I'd be cautious, however, over whether the publishers are reputable or not.

I'm not really familiar with the term 'salting' but I believe that I was the one who moved the article.[42] I did so because some editors started deleting content from the article on the grounds that the content wasn't part of the trial. Since we only have one article for all this content, I didn't want the name of the article to limit the scope to only the trial. I hope that makes sense. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There have been so many links that I'm not sure which documentaries you are talking about. Would you mind posting them on my talk page so that I remember to take a look? Listening to things are a little difficult at times because I have to use headsets with my computer, long story, though sometimes it's blocked from me seeing them too due to the security hubby set up for me. I tend to get in trouble going to sites I shouldn't. :) But if it's the links you gave me when I requested info about the duct tape, let me know because I'll have to look at it again. As for the books, I didn't look at the link since I posted it and now I'm not sure of all of the ones that was listed because at this time of day my meds get in my way. Ann Rule though I do know her writing and I have to admit I love her books.

I didn't want the article to be limited like it is either. There is going to be a lot more about this coming out. Just the research I've done, which hasn't been extensive either and I've posted some of it to the talk page there, there's things already going on. Most of it's minor but still this case caught the attention of so many. I live in FL and amazingly didn't know anything about it until about 6 weeks or more ago. The only time I watched any of it was during my last stay in the hospital last month (I've been hospitalized four time since late Feb). I only watched it though for maybe an hour total. So most of what I know about this case is what I've read at the article and from my mother who was hooked on the case and watched every day for some period of time and read the paper about it, etc. So pop the links on my talk page, or email it to me, it doesn't matter. The main reason I've seen for not wanting to have the article is that it will become a BLP magnet for trolls and that she didn't do anything notable other than this case. Well let me know if there is anything else you can think of. If you want me to let you know of anything I find or think of let me know that too. Sorry so long, I am on prednisone, a steroid, so I tend to go on and on while on that stuff esp. since I've been on it this round for over 6 weeks. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)