Misplaced Pages

ANI

I've opened a thread at ANI regarding your action at Bad Medicine (song). See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge_and_Bad_Medicine_.28song.29 --hippo43 (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Going to bed now

I have no problems with uninvolved editors/admins who attempt to fairly examine the repeated disputes created by one single editor named USER:hippo43. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on CRU controversy

You know perfectly well that the third report hasn't been published, and reference 48 says it is scheduled in July. This was also explained on the talk page, and still, you persist on adding maintenance tags. I'm convinced now that you should be banned from the article. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

All I am asking for is that a citation be provided. If this is easy, then just add the cite. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The citation is already in the article, and per WP:LEAD, doesn't need to be there. What is the problem and why are you disrupting the article again? Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If the citation is already in the article, then just copy and paste into the lede. End of story. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The citation was provided to you on the talk page, indicated to you in the article, and it was explained to you several times where to find it and why it doesn't need to be in the lead. What part of this isn't making sense? Feel free to ask questions and I'll explain. I realize that some editors have trouble editing, so I am willing to extend my helping hand to you if you aren't getting it. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Um...the part that doesn't make sense is where you refuse to add to the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the problem. Several editors (including myself) have explained in the talk page thread why the statement in the lead does not need a citation per WP:LEADCITE, and they have explained where you can find the citation in the article. What part of this isn't making sense? Viriditas (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's the problem where editors indicate that a cite is already provided, but won't tell us what the cite is. Seriously, what is the problem here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the problem appears to be with your reading and perceptual abilities. The cite was provided in the very first post to the talk page thread, and it was indicated to you that the cite appears in ref 48. What part of this isn't making sense? If you have special needs as an editor, say so, and I will make an attempt to help you in another way. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Just provide a cite, and your problems will melt away. Do you have a cite for this material? I've asked several time but to no avail. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The cite was provided several times, and there aren't any problems except for your inability to read the citation. What's the real problem here? Are you intentionally disrupting the article and talk page, or do you not understand what you read? Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, maybe I missed an edit. Human beings are capable of mistakes. We are only human. Can you provide the link to the diff that I missed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If that link supports the claim, why not just add it to the lede? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "if"? You were given the answer to your question several times above and by many editors on the talk page. Is there a reason none of this is making sense to you? I would recommend that you file a report on the RS noticeboard, as it appears you either don't understand what editors are telling you over and over again, or you are deliberately wasting their time. Viriditas (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time. If you have a link that supports the statement, then just add it to the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

To recap, the link was provided in the first post of the thread by TS and DS responded that he added it to the article, in ref 48. Hope that helps you. Viriditas (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

To recap, if you have a link that supports the statement, then why won't you add the cite? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As you have been informed already, the link was added by TS to the talk page and DS added it to the article. If this still doesn't make sense to you, feel free to bring it up in another forum, such as the RS noticeboard. As this has already been addressed on the talk page by multiple editors, you are welcome to review their comments on the matter. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, it would take up much less of your time to add the wanted citation that you apparently have access to than to repeatedly harass an editor on his talkpage. When the topic of debate is this inconsequential this comes across as petty, at best.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Heyitspeter, a discussion involving questions asked and answers given is not "harassment" and this particular discussion is centralized on the article talk page, so there really isn't a need for it. The wanted citation was provided by TS and DS added it to the article. For some reason, AQFK refuses to acknowledge these facts. So, your concerns have been addressed, multiple times. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Instead of just removing the tag, why don't do this? At the talk page I've made a rationale for why it's wise for us to add ref. Nsaa (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

BP spills coffee

This is what happens when BP spills coffee. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Carelessness

This edit re-inserts the POV-pushing from MN. I appreciate that you're trying to stir up trouble here, but given that you've done this, would you be so kind as to remove the POV notice from the section taht MN put in revenge? It would appear to be pointless - unless you really are acknowledging that your edit is POV William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

MN might very well be POV-pushing but even a broken clock is right twice a day. The fact is that this is an article about a controversy. In such articles, it's appropriate to explain what the controversy is about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Errm, is that a PA? I would hope that wiki editors aspire to be something better than a broken clock. You missed the point though: the POV notice was pointless. I've removed it; if you really wanted it in there, please discuss on talk William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that was a PA but you're always free to file another frivolous RFE against me. I'm not the one who added the POV notice so I'm not sure why you need my permission to remove it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hide the Decline

Hide the Decline is a music video parody of "Draggin' the Line" by Tommy James. It was posted on YouTube on November 24, 2009 by user M4GW, an acronym of the website www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com. It was created in response to the Climategate scandal where scientists in the Climatic Research Unit were accused of conspiring to "hide the decline" in global warming temperatures. The music video became an instant YouTube sensation. (Original article is here.)

News articles

• CBS News
• FOX News
• New York Times

Opinion articles

• American Spectator
• FOX News
• National Review Online
• Nature
• New York Times
• NewsBusters
• The Guardian
• The Wall Street Journal
• The Telegraph
• Townhall.com

Reliability unknown

• Australian Conservative
• Oneindia.in
• Dakota Voice

Primary sources

Press releases

• Forbes

Minnesotans for Global Warming

Other

• James Delingpole
• Rush Limbaugh

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have created a userpage for this, it`ll be easier to work on then here on your talk page :) mark nutley (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, are these enough sources to survive an AfD? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

God knows, it`ll be down to neutral editors, an afd in the CC articles is always split along partisan lines sadly. Look at The Gore Effect afd for instance. Go take a look at what i have done, some of the sources above were not usable, others were repeats of the same thing so not all have been used. mark nutley (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Already got limbaugh in, am going to move it to mainspace soon, want to look it over first? mark nutley (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Do remember to put it past a respected editor for reference vetting. Because otherwise you are going to get a lot of flak for your usage of references. . --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You`ve lost me kim, what factual information is sourced to an adcovacy group? mark nutley (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Kim's referring to the press release published at Forbes. It's a primary source and shouldn't be used for factual information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly - it was even the very first reference in the article. So it kinda yelled at ya :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, there was a reason why I arranged the list above into 3 main groups, news articles, opinion articles and primary sources and in that particular order. News articles are preferred. Primary sources should be used sparingly and with caution. I think that some form of what the lede says is fine, but we need to change the sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Pete Quaife, a Bassist for the Kinks, Dies at 66

A toast to Pete Quaife for his work with the Kinks. Rock heroes never really die. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Smile

Confirm

Marknutley is asking for someone to confirm that is a reliable source for the opinions of Dr. William M. Connolley in the article Hide the Decline‎. I can't do that, because I don't think it is. Perhaps you could help him out. Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I haven't decided yet about that source. It's obviously reliable for the opinions of WMC, but I don't know if it's appropriate. There's WP:CIRCULAR and WP:COI issues that need to be worked out, not to mention the fact that a Misplaced Pages editor specifically created the blog post as a response to the article. I honestly don't know if that's a good source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have the diffs of WMC calling fellow editors "idiots" and "yahoos"?

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending chanages - What are we supposed to do?

This obviously a good faith effort to improve the article, but it's technically a BLP violation since there's no source and no way to verify it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it`s not a blp violation, but without a source it should be rejected automaticly mark nutley (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just revert it, which will clear it from the unreviewed pages log. You can leave an edit summary if you want. NW (Talk) 10:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

McCartney, in Interview, Compares Global Warming Skeptics to Holocaust Deniers

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have been foxed by this, better go to the source as it wos the Sun wot dunnit. Not generally a rs, why don't you let it be? . . dave souza, talk 18:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

He's mother nature's son. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I like how The Media eagerly rush Paul's thoughts on climate change into print, and then turn around and say: "Who cares what he thinks? He's just a musician!" Seems a bit schizophrenic. MastCell  21:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems pretty helter skelter to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nah, they're just fixing a hole in their coverage. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith

Imputations of bad faith are not appreciated. I suggest that you keep out of my business in future. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I did assume good faith, ChrisO. That's why I politely asked you a question, rather than accuse you of something. There's a big difference between a question and a statement. In any case, I'm still confused about your actions. You solicited Tony who's clearly an involved admin. I have some other things on my plate right now, but I'll take a closer look at your actions when I have more free time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Tony is not an admin and he has already replied about the propriety of my contacting him. Please find more useful things to do with your spare time. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)