User talk:A Quest For Knowledge/Archive 11

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For tireless pushing to get the "September 11 Attacks" article to GA status come hell or high reviewers. Well done. Shirtwaist ☎ 12:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Let me add my voice to those thanking you for all the work you did in making September 11 attacks a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Thank you, Quadell. This year is the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and I'm hoping to get our 9/11 article to FA status in time for the anniversary. So, I'll be pretty busy, but I'll definitely take a look at the GA nominees as soon as I can. Thanks again! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	A heart felt thanks for all your excellent work transforming the September 11 attacks into a Good Article. MONGO 03:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) I see that you posted something on the article talk page. I've been off line (mostly) the last few days. Time to catch up! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Your Assistance

I have reached a bit of a road block. Having worked on a page with other editors, it seems as if it has now been reduced to one sentence and one reference. How do I approach this with diplomacy without constant reverts? (which has been happening to others, not me as I am trying to avoid it) If you are wondering why I have approached you, it is solely based on past help you have provided. I am fearful of mentioning the article by name as I do not want this to be seen as canvassing. Thank you for any non bias assistance. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, without knowing the specifics, I can only answer in generalities.

First, try to understand the other editors' point of view. Why are other editors reverting this content? If their complaint is that the source isn't reliable, perhaps you can address their concern by finding a different source to cite. If their complaint is NPOV, perhaps the verbiage needs to be changed to something more agreeable to them. Keep in mind that different editors have different opinions so there may be multiple reasons why the content is being rejected. But if you can trying to understand their concerns, you'll have a better chance of addressing them.

If you are unable to work out the dispute with the other editors on the article talk page, you can follow the steps outlined in dispute resolution. We have a number of noticeboards where you can seek opinions from uninvolved third-parties. So, for example, if one of the objections is that the content is original research, you can post the issue at No Original Research noticeboard to get outside opinions. You can also try a request for comment.

If all else fails, keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. If you're on Wikipedia long enough, you will inevitably find yourself working with editors with whom you have significant disagreements. Sometimes it's easier to just walk away and find another article to work on.

I hope this helps and good luck. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for being so civil and kind in your advise. I have all but given up being heard through louder voices. The article for Marisol Deluna now seems to have a sole editor that has requested on the article's talk page for an opportunity to supply verifiable sources. Up from one sentence and reference to the start of a new article provided it does not get deleted. The page has begun to grow in good faith using encyclopedic inclusions that will likely be questioned regardless. You are correct. The longer I edit articles, the depth of opinions emerge. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems as if other editors had enough as well. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment_from_Tao2911 Perhaps we will find light at the end of the tunnel after all! You have been a lending ear and I thank you for your kindness. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest either you or Tom Harrison nominate the September 11 attacks article to FAC...the two of you have done the most recently to bring the article to GA level...I will do whatever I can to help move it through the FAC process...--MONGO 22:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

HI AQFK...I am working on accessdates and doing some tuchup to the article finally...workiing on MOS issues, which were brought up at the FAC page...perhaps you have a busy plate or are just taking a break, but hope to see you back soon to add your opinion at least.--MONGO 19:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read

As requested by BusterD I am passing this along for you to read so that you know that your efforts are appreciated.--MONGO 17:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Talking to Malleus and John is truly a waste of time..no doubt, Tom Harrison summed it up at the GAR...saying essentially that this is just another forum for the CTers and fringe info POV pushers to complain that their garbage isn't covered in the article. I'm figuring we're dealing with radicals, even by Progressive European standards.--MONGO 03:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have been given poor advice on this talk page, even if it was well-intentioned. You are clearly a thoughtful editor, and if you wish to discuss any issue with me at any time, you are very welcome. I have been editing for (too) many years, and so tend to contribute these days where I most believe I can help to make Wikipedia better. I have no agenda with respect to any topic, and consequently I am a big fan of The Neutral Point Of View. It is the best one, isn't it? :) Geometry guy 03:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Polite request

Hey, please don't template the regulars. If you have anything non-templated you wish to say, please feel free to say it to me. Cheers. --John (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I realize that some Wikipedians don't like to be templated, but I don't share this opinion. If anyone wants to template me, I'm fine with it. ArbCom required that editors be notified of the 9/11 discretionary sanctions before sanctions are enacted and I am just trying to follow their ruling. If there's a better way to handle this in the future, I'll consider alternatives. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"Sanctions are enacted"? Which sanctions do you think I am eligible for? On what basis? Templating established editors who have discussed a particular Arbcom case about that Arbcom case is helping the project how exactly? Go and edit an article, for goodness sake. If you have any specific problems with my behavior, please have the wit to come to my talk page and talk to me in plain English, and never, never, template me again. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've tried discussing things with you, John. The fact that you don't seem to realize that there's a problem with your conduct is part of the reason why I made the formal notification. If you were already aware of the sanctions, great. I checked the log before notification and didn't see your name. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No you haven't. You got upset when I called you out for your misstatement and you sent the message to me to score a point. I suggest restricting your involvement here to attempts to improve the article, it needs it. --John (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, John...you have the right to be BOLD of course, so why not just edit the thing?...but to be honest, this is exactly where we were on the WTC 7 article years ago....you want to add fringe material to the article...the article needs to reflect what the reliable sources tell us...and while these sources DO show that CT's are there, none indicate that the CT's are true...they are only significant in that people think some or all of them are true, so the best we could hope for would be a see also link or possibly a few sentences mentioning and dismissing them for what they are...conspiracy theories. You don't seem to get it...you and Malleus came screaming into the room "where was the world's largest air force on 9/11...why didn't they protect the country better"? How is that not a POV push? So, seeing that indeed this was an ommission, I added a paragraph on this matter, and even made it more neutral a few days later...so that is in the article as per your suggestion, albeit, it didn't defend your original question, because that question was based on inaccurate evidence...the world's largest air force DID respond and the worst that can be honestly said, per the reliable references, is that the FAA did a poor job communicating with NORAD...you and Malleus think AQFK and myself want to coverup something...but speaking for me at least, if I found out that my government was behind the attacks of 9/11, I'd be the first person running into the U.S. Congress demanding some answers. You want compromise...well, the article has a section on hate crimes, which in all honesty, were surprisingly few...but we don't have a section the celebrations that erupted all over the world in response to the attacks...why is that? Should hate crimes be included but the celebrations omitted? But the article is biased to the Americans POV?--MONGO 05:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

AQFK: If there's an issue involving arbitration enforcement of some sort, it's best to just inform an administrator who has a history working in the area. They can handle notifications (and generally without a template, which is preferred). NW (Talk) 06:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare: OK, thanks for the tip. I'll keep that in mind. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

RSN opinion: The Spirit Level

Thank you for your response to the question about the RSA debate. It was a judicious response. I'm not sure whether you've seen it since, but the mediation participants have posed some follow-up questions. Would you be willing to take a look and indicate whether you are able to respond further? Sunray (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take a look, but I probably won't be able to respond until Thursday at the earliest. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sunray (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

9/11 nonsense

It might be best to continue to work to make overall improvements in the article, adding books from the list you compiled and maintaining the effort to keep the CT's at bay. I have no doubt that a cadre of petty overbearing and biased editors worked to eliminate the article from the GA list...most FA candidates and FA reviews are far less petty and detailed as the GAR that article went through...but no worries...the article was a GA and the CT's were not in any form on the 10th anniversary, and that was my first goal. A couple of those that are promoting the fringe material have a limited remaining lifespan on this website anyway...the diffs I have offsite easily demonstrate they are here for all the wrong reasons...so they so much as blink the wrong way, I'll put a stop to it no matter what the repercusions are to me.--MONGO 17:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I doubt if featured articles get this much review. In any case, what I think I'm going to do is to work on a couple of the articles for the books on my list. I bought a copy of Perfect Soldiers last night. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Encyclopedia Britannica's article on 9/11 gives a nice overview of the topic. It does an excellent job in weighting content and really puts things in perspective. Do you realize that we have 7 paragraphs devoted to memorials and 1 to the invasion of Afghanistan? Also, I don't think we mention that the attacks were a tactical success but a strategic disaster for Al Qaeda. Nor do I think we mention what Al Qaeda's goal was (the withdrawal of the US from the Middle East). Then again, our article is long. Maybe it's in there somewhere but I missed it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No doubt our article can be improved...even most FA's could be. I'm still of the mind think that the article needs to have about 5 sections after the intro...and stick to what happened on that day, why it happened, who did it and how we know...yes, the responses such as the war on terror, the merging of various agencies into DHS and the memorials also need to be addressed....but only to set up the daughter articles. In time, the CT's surrounding the events will be relegated to the rubbish heap of history...I think we're following the course of that already on this website as it should be.--MONGO 01:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a weird, strange place. Raptor Red, David Suzuki: The Autobiography and Halo: Contact Harvest are all featured articles yet are only 2 or 3 pages long. It's amazing that editors expect more from a WP:GA (which only requires broad coverage) than an WP:FA (which requires comprehensive coverage). Too bad we can't submit the article directly to FA review since apparently the standards are lower there! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? The article history seems to suggest that it was nominated at FAC only a little more than a month ago, and got fairly short shrift there. Which it undoubtedly would again if it were nominated in anything like its present state. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of my last post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point of pretty much every post on this subject from neutral reviewers. Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? AFAICT, the comments of the FA reviewers have nothing in common with the GA reviewers. Can you please point to some items in the FA review that were also mentioned in the GA review? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the comments made by User:Cs32en. It would be rather unusual for an article judged not to meet the GA criteria to be passed at FAC, but if you're confident in your position then why not try it again? Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That editor is a fringe issues promoter like yourself...what makes you think his/her opinion on this (or yours for that matter) is of even the least significance?MONGO 11:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I am by no means a fringe issues promoter, but to give you yet one more example, the article on fire doesn't pretend that phlogiston theory never existed, even though nobody believes in that today. Malleus Fatuorum 13:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Could have fooled me. Looks like all you've been doing is squealing about the lack of fringe junk in the article.MONGO 14:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Then you need to look a little harder at what you've been told repeatedly. And while you're at it you might consider practising what you preach where civility is concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't care if you're incivil...I expect you to be. You guys act like the article is biased...nonsense...you should see what the article would look like if I wrote it the way it should be written...that would have fringe issue advocates really squealing.MONGO 15:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not me who's being "incivil", that would be you. Almost every post of yours contains some unflattering personal comment or other. Time it stopped. Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

IF what you say is correct about your usual talkpage banter, it would be the first I've seen of it. You decided to join this conversation and have alluded to further efforts to undermine the article...virtually challenging AQFK to renominate the article at FAC...your behavior is completely incompatible as far as trying to build a truly give and take article...as I mentioned, the article is by no means a conservative U.S. Overview...you just can't seem to understand that.MONGO 15:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There you go again, seeing what isn't there and making personal comments. I have alluded to no such thing, and in fact I've made it very clear that I wouldn't touch the 9/11 article with a very long barge pole, much less made any "further efforts to undermine the article". In fact I haven't made any efforts to undermine the article, so your "further" is completely inappropriate. Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Then WHY are you here discussing the article. I can see a veiled threat as in you challenge for AQFK to renominate the article at FAC....maybe I will nominate it after I declutter it of the junk we've had to add to appease the fringe.MONGO 16:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not discussing the article, as anyone with eyes to see could tell. I'm responding to the absurd suggestion above that FAC is easier than GAR. And as I said, you have a demonstrable history of seeing only what you want to see, not what's really there. Malleus Fatuorum 16:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the GAR the article went through was more detailed than most FAC's I've seen,,,,and the "standards" of expectation in the GAR looked a lot more like those found in an FAC....hence, my claim that there was excessive pettiness in the review....and the underlying tone of argument in the GAR was the issue revoving around a lack of fringe coverage...and sooooo what if that nonsense isn't dwelved into in that article? Is the article really missing something by not discussing that garbage? I think not.MONGO 17:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Then why not test your hypothesis by doing what you suggest (decluttering it of what you call junk) and re-nominating at FAC? But of course the idea that an article that doesn't meet the GA criteria might conceivably meet the much stricter FA criteria will be a hard sell. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't know sarcasm when you see it? Besides, you are missing the point....I DON'T CARE if the article is a GA or FA....those circuses have way too many high minded and self appointed dweebs that expect others to jump through a bunch of hoops just so the article gets a stupid icon...MONGO 18:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion makes for fascinating reading, as do some others that I have been following. If I see a way to help editors understand each other better, then perhaps I will comment further in due course. Geometry guy 23:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

GG: Really? This discussion makes my head hurt. Several times today, I was close to archiving it. In any case, since you're still following this, can you answer the following question: "How would you write this sentence?"[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

RIP Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs' 2005 Stanford Commencement Address A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology

You shall find your answer over at WP:OWN. --174.252.192.157 (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Enlightening, yes? --174.252.192.157 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is that the edits were reverted with an edit summary of "revert bunch of completely innappropriate changes". Since then, almost all of my changes have been restored back in the article. Unfortunately, it's been a painful, time-consuming process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted articles with freaky titles

If anyone's bored or needs a good laugh, check out Deleted articles with freaky titles. I'm laughing so hard! Some of my favorites:

• List of differences between apples and oranges[2]
• List of caves on Dagobah that are strong with the dark side of the force[3]
• Category: Towns with Zombie Problems[4]
• Category: Wikipedians who insist on having the word lobster in every article[5]
• Why do men buy terrible presents? [6]
• I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A STUPID WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE WHY IS EVERYONE IGNORING ME ALL I WANTED TO DO WAS HELP WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS SITE THIS IS WHY NOBODY CITES YOU[7]

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please restrict yourself to larger edits.

Edits such as this [8] will make it difficult for HB to find a reason to revert your change and recraft it to his liking. Take a look. How many changes has he ever not reverted and rewritten? Just sayin'. --174.252.209.25 (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology DRN thread

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Journal of Cosmology". Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that discussion. I haven't said anything yet because I can't quite figure out what's going on. I definitely think that there's an issue here, but what it is, I'm not sure. There might be issues with advocacy and ownership. Or maybe not. I'm not sure yet.

The only thing I can say with any certainty is that there's a problem with Headbomb's ability to communicate. I made a series of changes to the article all of which were clueful and were explained in the edit summaries. Another editor (IRWolfie) also made a change with a clear explanation in the edit summary. Headbomb reverted all of these changes with an wholly inadequate edit summary "revert bunch of completely inappropriate changes". Both of us started discussions on the talk page. Headbomb still hasn't responded to IRWolfie's thread. He did respond to mine. But between the two of us, he was asked 7(!) times why he reverted our changes before he gave anything but a vague, meaningless response. In fact, he tried to turn things around by asking me why I objected to his objections. How am I supposed to address his objection when I don't know what it is? On the bright side, most of the changes have since been added back into the article (which suggests that he didn't really examine what he reverted) by Headbomb, but it's been a difficult, painful process.

Until I can figure out what's going on, it might be helpful for editors of DRN to focus on Headbomb's ability to communicate. If someone asks Headbomb why he reverted something, he needs to explain why. Other editors shouldn't have to play guessing games.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI - I am hoping to finish working on that article soon. I've made (what I hope to be) my last comment in the discussion on the talk page.[9] I'm waiting for a response and then I'll post my thoughts at WP:DRN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I posted my observations at WP:DRN. My post was long (sorry!), so here's a quick summary:

• I was originally concerned about WP:OWN and WP:NPOV.
• But now that I think about it, the article is basically an WP:ATTACK and there are WP:BLPs being mentioned.

But I don't want to get any more involved in the dispute, so I am walking away. I hope everyone at DRN can make some sense of what's going on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

5 year plan

I expect it will be 5 years before the 9/11 article will be an FA....and, unless we see some new blood in the processes at FAC...they are going to demand an expansion of those idiotic conspiracy theories.MONGO 18:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about how FAC is run. But you need to tone it down. Please don't tell someone their work sucks. After I had spent all that time trying to fix all the issues from the 2008 FA and 2010 GA reviews, how do you think I felt when someone came to the article and said it was a toilet? I didn't like it very much and I doubt anyone else would like it either.

In any case, part of the reason why I want to focus on writing articles about books is that I don't anticipate it being as difficult. CT shouldn't even come up if the book doesn't even discuss it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hence my point, which oddly seems to escape you. THEY have been insulting your excellent work for a couple of months now, and I do not see where they have a leg to stand on...it was time it be said exactly as it is. Malleus has zero intention of making article improvements and the other dissenters at GAR were all harping about the lack of that CT junk. Good luck dealing with that cadre of loons..MONGO 20:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me tell you something I don't think I've told anyone yet:

• Way back in July when I was making all those massive changes to the article, the more I read it, the more flaws I found. I looked over the FA criteria and a single phrase I read struck me. That FAs are supposed to be our best work. I started thinking about what that meant. Our best work. That phrase rang in my head over and over. In my opinion, our 9/11 article does not represent our best work. Let me give you one example: We cite primary sources. This might be minor to some, but anybody who follows my editing habits will know that I almost never cite a primary source when a secondary is available. With a topic like 9/11 where there's an embarrassment of riches in terms of sources, there's really no excuse not to use a secondary source. But WP:V says they're acceptable, and the GA criteria doesn't require our best work. So I submitted the article. It passed and it deserved to be passed. It's still a good article even if we don't have the little star in the corner.
• I started thinking about what it would take to be our best work. I gradually came to the conclusion that I simply don't have enough subject matter expertise. The only way I could do the topic justice would be to educate myself first. To do that, I was going to have to read some books on the topic. Given my schedule, I realized that this could take me years to complete. Again, this was back in July.
• I never posted any of this online because I didn't want to dampen anyone's enthusiam in getting it to GA status. We were all getting along so well and making lots of improvements to the article. But secretly, I already came to the conclusion that it could take a long time. If you go through my contribution history, you'll see that from August 9, 2011 until September 9th, I basically dropped out of Wikipedia. My edits wents from several dozen a day to 9 edits in a month. The reason why is that I felt dejected and depressed that I was going to fail to make the goal of getting it to FA status in time for 9/11's tenth aniversary, and at the reality of all the work I'm planning to do.
• So, I've already resigned myself to the fact that this is going to take a long time to get it to FA status. And if I'm going to take the time to read all these books, I might as well write articles about them while I read them.
• What went wrong in the GAR, I can only guess at. But if articles are being routinely rejected over nitpicky things like citing a primary source in what is supposed to be a lightweight GA review, something is broken. But I'll let someone else worry about that.
• But please tone down the language. It just polarizes the situation and makes things worse. And if that doesn't motivate you, perhaps self-preservation will. You've probably made enough comments to get yourself banned if it continues. I know that you're not the only one, but you can't let the misconduct of others drag you down. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

  AQFK....topics like the article in question are almost impossible to get to FA...I see no reason why it shouldn't have remained at least a GA though...the GAR and FAR processes aren't generally designed anymore to help KEEP an article at that level...instead, they are being used more and more to tear an article down. Malleus and the others did little to nothing to edit the damn thing..their intent was malicious. Yes, Karanacs did do some editing there and deserves credit for that though....but the rest...I reached the conclusion early that no matter what you did to "fix" the issues, Malleus and John (an admin BTW) were determined to insist that stupid CT and fringe and even unrelated garbage be in the article. The others were going to be as petty as possible...and there they were afterwards, beaming at their "success" at each others talkpages...that the were able to tear the article down...what a bunch of garbage...and NOT what the website is supposed to be about. I was throughly disgusted at the childish and sickening behavior by these people...I have never witnessed (and I survived a brutal anti-American onslaught by User:Seabhcan)[10] more anti-American bullshit in my entire life. I had thoughts about going to England someday, seeing the area where my ancestors supposedly came from...Malleus has turned me off to that prospect...if he's representative of the kind of person I can expect to run into, I'd rather go to North Korea.--MONGO 00:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  And I'd rather you went to North Korea, so that's a deal. Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

RE your AE comment

Here - sometimes the "other side" also gets sanctioned, this is more likely to happen when the "other side" behaves poorly at AE; however, if you feel editors are violating ArbCom decisions and should be sanctioned, the correct approach is to report their actions to AE. IOW, file a report about them. In this case, the actions of others is being used as a defense - the famous "other people did it too!" defense which has failed so utterly in so many cases. It is nearly always useless as a defense, and rightfully so. It is related to the other stuff argument used (and dismissed) in Xfd discussions. Ludwigs2 is arguing that he should not be sanctioned, not because he didn't do what he's accused of, but because others are also guilty. He is not saying that yes he's guilty and should probably be sanctioned, but so should these other people, Diff, diff, diff. I'm not sure that would be well received at this point, anyway - it might bear the flavor of revenge filing - but certainly if anyone else filed, such as the other commenter whose argument was how nasty the "other side" is, that would not be construed in such a fashion. However, as I said before, its useless as a defense, or argument that one should not be sanctioned for actions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, an outside editor can post the diffs, but who in their right mind would want to get involved? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone is wrong on the Internet

Somtimes, it's helpful to keep things in perspective.[11] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:V

No, that was entirely unintentional. I didn't get any edit conflict message. Sorry. Can it be reinstated? Leaky Caldron 13:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've apologised on Nuu's talk page. Leaky Caldron 13:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"Secondary Sources" Warrant for Deletion

Just saw your new edit and removal of my chunk of contribution on AE911Truth, there are no secondary sources except for this link: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/11/prweb8921403.htm, not a very credible secondary source but all I could find. I will insert this into it along with the original contributions. I understand that Secondary Sources are much more desired, but there are clearly no secondary sources able to cover this material. Thus, primary sources serve as the only source for this material. All of my text can be confirmed, it will just require an adult attention span. Please scrutinize them and check them for accuracy. Sorry the Mainstream Media won't report on such material, no surprise. The contributions will be re-posted. I am happy for you to edit them, just tell me what is wrong and inaccurate...change the sources if you are lucky to find an article out there on it from a credible, reliable Secondary Source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TS 22:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Astrology

Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[12]]. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for not following the herd on the 'take the whole subject off WP' campaign. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Nine Eleven

The Rfc was closed by a biased person, GeometryGuy filibustered the GAR and has been a supporter/defender of Malleus for some time...both issues were rigged...make no mistake about it.--MONGO 04:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks noted. If MONGO truly is this obsessed and paranoid, I feel very sorry for him. Geometry guy 12:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Calling me "paranoid" isn't a personal attack? I simply made an observation and it isn't an observation that fails to have some merit to it.MONGO 15:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't call you paranoid. Your "observation" that an RfC and a GAR were both rigged suggests a disconnect with reality, but I do not know whether you truly believe what you say. Geometry guy 20:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Geometry Guy: Perhaps you can assuage some of these concerns by:

• Explaining why you cited an alleged MOS issue in the GAR when you should know full-well that MOS isn't part of the GA criteria.
• Explaining why you declined to answer follow up questions about the MOS issue.
• Explaining why you didn't allow time for us to address any of the claimed issues.

Do you think you can do these for me? If not, then instead of blaming Mongo, you should consider the possibility that it was your own poor judgement that contributed to the problem. Alternatively, we can cut to the chase and you can apologize and admit that you were wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't "blame" MONGO. Instead I find it rather ironic that whereas he uses words like "wacko" and "idiots" to describe anything or anyone linked with 9/11 conspiracy theories, he has come up with the spectacular conspiracy theory that the many editors who disagree with his extreme position on the article are all in league together. If he truly believes something like that, I am genuinely concerned for him.

Now to your questions. I don't know which particular MoS issue you are referring to, but when I review an article, I raise whatever issues occur to me. Whether an issue indicates a GACR failing can be a matter of opinion (the closing editor makes that call), and I did not claim in my review that all the issues I raised were GACR failings - indeed I took care to note that some might not be. Finally GA is a summative assessment, not a formative one. While improvements made during a review are welcome, review comments are often only indicative, and GAR is not a sickbed for nursing articles back to health.

I put an enormous amount of time and effort into reviewing the article, but the many thoughtful comments I made during the GAR seem to have been forgotten. In article talk discussions, editors still conflate and confuse distinct concepts such as notability and credibility, or fringe science and conspiracy theories, which I sought to clarify during the GAR. Meanwhile, I find myself on the receiving end of patronizing questions, insults and mudslinging. Well, thanks a lot. Geometry guy 20:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You did make some thoughtful comments at the beginning of the GAR, but as time went on, you appeared to be looking for reasons to fail the GAR. Maybe that wasn't your intent, but that certainly was the appearance you were giving.

Regarding the MOS issues, you objected to the sentence:

"The FBI was able to quickly identify the hijackers, including leader Mohamed Atta, when his luggage was discovered at Boston's Logan Airport. Due to a mix-up, the luggage failed to make it aboard American Airlines Flight 11 as planned." You claimed that the word "quickly" was editorializing. I don't think it is. The fact that FBI was able to quickly identify the hijackers because they found Atta's luggage is signficant. By contrast, it took the FBI decades to figure out who the Unibomber was. Can you explain your reasoning on this for me? I asked you twice how you think this sentence should be worded and you ignored it both times.

I'm not sure I understand your last point. Fringe is fringe is fringe. It doesn't matter whether it's science, history or any other academic discipline. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't: science deals with the best explanations that have not yet been falsified; history deals with the best explanations that are consistent with our collective memory of events. The two academic disciplines have completely different modus operandi.

The sentence you quote was editorialized, even though it was "true": you have yourself explained such editorialization in your comment. An encyclopedic sentence would stick to the facts along the lines of "Due to a mix-up at Boston, some of Atta's luggage was not boarded; the discovery of this luggage was an early key to the FBI investigation", or something like that. Do you see? Geometry guy 02:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Prior to your involvement in the article...a number of editors including myself tried to frame a short section in the article that described the CT's...and to put them in a debunking light since they have no truth behind them. Numerous archives testify that the section made no one happy...and finding refs was difficult at best. Ultimately, long before AQFK and Tom harrison commenced the effort to get the article to GA, it was overwhelmingly decided via a Rfc to eliminate the section...so much talkpage time was being dedicated to this small section that it was impossible to work collaboratively on the rest of the article. Improvements to the article only came after we were able to focus away from the CT's. It was a GA, not an FA and not even an A class article...in the end, from my perspective, the message you had in that GAR (which was more nit-picky than most FAC's I've seen) was the lack of CT discussion...even here now, harping about the word "quickly" seems to be pretty petty for a GA level article.MONGO 12:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop arguing that NPOV only applies to science, not history. NPOV applies to all articles.

No, I don't agree, but I would have been happy to modify the sentence to satisfy your concern, but you never gave me the opportunity to do so. I'd also be happy to open an RfC or a discussion on the Language reference desk on how to word this sentence, but can you see how petty and WP:LAME it was to even bring this up? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'm sorry you found the previous version of my reply snarky: it wasn't my intention. Let me try again.

• I'm grateful to MONGO for taking the time to fill in some back story on the article. My view is that an entire section, even a short one, would be undue weight for the article, which has a lot to cover. Whether others would agree I cannot say, but a single sentence, in the context of after-effects/cultural impact, would at least be easier to source and maintain than a section.
• Of course NPOV applies to all articles. I have never argued otherwise and never will.
• The article is not GA level, and its level is irrelevant anyway. The point of collaborative editing and reviewing is to improve the encyclopedia. Even nitpicks do that.
• I'm not "harping on" about the word "quickly". I mentioned the editorializing in passing, in a review 2 months ago, which covered many more significant issues. AQFK brought up the issue again, not me. I'm happy to drop it. Geometry guy 18:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

But the results of that GAR are ongoing and will continue until the GA status is restored. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I also hope that the article will reach GA status and keep it: that would be a fantastic achievement for a topic that generates so much contention. As for the GAR, I have the naive wish that it will continue to be read. The arguments, though heated at times, generated insightful comments, and I'm not just referring to my own :) Geometry guy 19:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it would be possible for you to indicate which issues you think fail the GA criteria (as opposed to issues you just happened to notice and mentioned in passing)? I can try to fix them. It appears that we might be on the verge of a compromise regarding how to cover CT in the article. Perhaps if we resolve these issues, the time might be right to nominiate it for GA status again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If we can sort out the CT issue, that would be great, and would perhaps make it easier to deal with the structural issues that were raised on the article talk page immediately after the GAR. These are not specifically GA issues, so I'd rather wait until they have been discussed again. However, I would then be more than happy to give the article a thorough reread with the GA criteria in mind. I just think we should take one step at a time, as the challenge we face is not an easy one. Geometry guy 19:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm fine with taking things one step at a time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it desperately frustrating, and I imagine you do too, that so many interpersonal issues have to be cleared before we can even start to make significant progress on improving the article. Deep breath, optimistic thoughts, there is no deadline. Geometry guy 00:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

9/11 Casualties section

You deleted a paragraph from the Casualties section that had been moved from the Memorials section. While I understand your reasoning, that action was problematic as two paragraphs were moved and so there is a bit of a disconnect with the remaining paragraph in that section. Also, I think the information is of some interest to people looking into the attacks and should be included to an extent. My thoughts are that those two paragraphs are a bit more detail than necessary for this article, but summarizing the information in a shorter paragraph would be preferable to completely removing it. I would like it if you would restore that paragraph and have discussion on what to do with the material or, if you have an idea about how to summarize it, implement that idea.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Which section are you saying has the disconnect, Casualties or Memorials? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The "final resting place" section that was in Memorials and that I subsequently moved to the Casualties section contained two paragraphs. You deleted only one of those paragraphs after they were moved to the Casualties section. That created a disconnect in the Casualties section and, as I said, I felt the information itself would be of some interest to keep regardless.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. I'll delete the second paragraph. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to say that I thought the information was something that would be of interest for people reading the article and that it should be condensed into a single shorter paragraph rather than removed completely.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to propose something on the article talk page, that's fine, but I honestly don't consider this content to be too important as, for example, the war in Afghanistan. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Notes to myself

Need to check these out later.[13][14][15][16][17] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification

You have been named an interested party at a request for clarification, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

2003 invasion of Iraq

Sorry about my digress and my somewhat aggressive attitude, as I said at Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#2003_invasion_of_Iraq your statement indicated such a strong belief to me that it triggered in me a mode of fighting truth deniers and blind ideologies. I see that this was unwarranted in your case, even though I'm still slightly irritated by your strong statement. Anyway, this is sort of an apology. Nageh (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate your post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)