The Title Needs To Be Changed as discussed here Talk:Correlation implies causation/Page title. I see far too much scientific illiteracy/ignorance on so many public policy issues related to claims by one faction that A causes B, so let's pass a law. Sure enough, a Wikipedia article leads off with a false title. Very important, so I'm repeating what I wrote there here, just in case it gets deleted over there, I'll want to be able to refer to this text again. Here it is -- Knowsetfree 05:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
As others have remarked, the current title is just plain wrong. How about:
We currently have an extremely poor choice of title. Correlation is a commutative relationship. Just like the equal sign ( = ) in math. A correlates with B, and B correlates with A. However, causal relationships (in the context here) are unidirectional. Matches can cause fires, but fires don't cause matches. True, there is a correlation between matches and fires. However, further investigation and analysis is needed before one can declare that one element causes another. Interactions between other variables in the observed "world" further cast the suggestion of causation. IMHO the most relevant and important use of an article on the subject of correlation and causation would be to overcome one of the human mind's major flaws, the tendency to bestow a causal relationship far too quickly with too little evidence, to draw implications from statistically insignificant data. See Bayesian Theorem. This human frailty explains, at least in part, a broad range of bizarre societal behavior including discrimination, fads, speculative bubbles (recommended reading Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds), and the Salem witch trials. Let's give those who seek knowledge a leg up here by improving this page, and not saddle them with the ball and chain of ignorance. --Knowsetfree 04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like another instance of vandalism by this anon to the Oaktree Capital Management page. Please stop. If you have something to say, use a Talk page.
Another day. Another vandal. But this one is just getting better and betterer. I left a comment on the vandal's empty talk page:
But look at the vandal's comment on the edit history. As if user Milleri was a real wiki contributor. All of the anon's and Milleri have contributed for one purpose. These mysterious unknown people have done nothing for Wikipedia other than trying to delete from the public's view the true facts about Weil, Gotshal's history of misconduct. And for all I know there may be other findings of misconduct out there. Why exclude the misconduct facts about this one law firm? Seriously people, wikipedia displays both pro and con information on various topics. That is what makes wiki different from PR media and so valuable. Please, this back and forth is getting old. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 02:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, how the vandalism continues. Now it is from anonymous user 72.86.41.192 and I would start a discussion with him/her but the anon does not have a single comment on his/her Talk page. Imagine that. Hey anon, please register with Wikipedia, learn about its policies, and become a valuable contributing member. But don't vandalize a web page just because you don't want information about an article subject which is less than flattering. Wikipedia is not a PR device, the truth should be told, that is why so many wiki users value the information here. And just because I'm being very polite with you, don't imagine that your behavior is viewed as anything other than obnoxious.
Hi there Milleri. Welcome to wikipedia. Please take some time reading about Wiki policies. Come to my talk page if you want to explain your editing.
Once again, Milleri, I am here making a great effort to help you learn what Wiki is about. Wiki is not about maintaining web pages that mimick the firms own page. If there is negative information about a firm, you can't delete it just because you don't like it. If you have information about other large firms where misconduct was found against them by a judge, then by all means post it. If you continue to stubbornly delete without talking first, you could ultimately lose your privileges to edit on Wiki.
New user Milleri appears to be engaging in vandalism with his first edit. Sir, what makes you think that providing true information about a company is "inappropriate"? Perhaps you meant to say that the actions of the firm were in fact inappropriate, in which case the Federal Judge who found the misconduct agreed, may she rest in peace. I fully encourage you to participate in Wiki, but please take the time to read about policies. First and foremost, Wikipedia is not an advertising or PR vehicle. And hopefully, you are not just a registered version of the anonymous user who has been vandalizing this page about the firm.
After a few instances of anonymous editing which removed the misconduct section from the article on the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges it seems the anon's parting gift was to leave the assertion
While I asked on the talk page and in the article {reference needed and requested }. It has been quite a while, so the "not since" comment was removed. My thoughts are first, there was no reference to back up the asserted fact. If the anon was some official employee of, or a PR rep for Weil, Gotshal & Manges then arguably such anon might have a basis for making the assertion, but he or she would need to identify her credentials to make such a factual assertion. But then again, Wiki is not supposed to be a PR or advertising mechanism for companies. Thus the comment had at best questionable relevance in addition to its doubtable origin. I just felt it was better to remove the nonsequitor. By the way, it was the edits from the prior anon that got me searching about the law firm when I found multiple lawsuits against them for malpractise, and wouldn't you know it, the basis for the suits was conflict of interest, perhaps not coincidentaly the same misconduct which caused a federal official to seek (and achieve) the disgorgement of fees. Fascinating.
Please see discussion on the Weil Gotshal page. Do you have a substantive response to the objection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.223.156.64 ( talk) 12:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Weil Gotshal is a highly reputable, ethical law firm that conducts thousands of high profile matters in a highly professional manner for satisfied clients. It seems to me that devoting nearly half of this article to misconduct and malpractice reflects a lack of balance. First, articles about other law firms do not commonly include such sections, even though all firms of this size deal with issues of misconduct and malpractice from time to time. Second, there is no mention of the scores of highly publicized, successful matters in which the firm was instrumental. Please note that I am a member of Weil Gotshal who merely wants the article on this fine firm to be accurate and balanced.
And my line by line my response:
-- Knowsetfree ( talk) 21:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I actually stumbled on your talk page as I notice you had been knowledgeable enough to create an article on Linda Thomsen of the SEC (which I had linked in hedge funds). On this Weil article, I think that POV misgivings concerning this article may have some basis, and have so commented on the article talk page. It depends on whether the emphasis given to misconduct and malpractice is consistent with the RS sources available on this firm. I simply am not familiar enough with the firm to say so, one way or the other.-- Samiharris ( talk) 21:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Samiharris. I have not seen an interpretation of the WP:WEIGHT concept ever used in the context which you propose here.
Deletion of Category by user Eastlaw. At least it was not done by an Anon. Hoping to get some talk with Eastlaw. Here is what I posted on Eastlaw's talk page:
Why your category deletion for Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
Hi Eastlaw. Just wondering why you deleted the category for that law firm. I see you are involved in law, or looking for a license. Wouldn't you, as a potential employee of a law firm, appreciate the wikipedia would have a category so that you could discover in advance if you employer had a history of misconduct? And shouldn't the general public have access to this information? I'm not sure what your reason was for deletion. Do you doubt the truth? Please elaborate. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, first I have to thank fellow Wiki Editor for noticing the vandalism by anon 204.227.243.16 to the article. Good first heads up on the the User talk:204.227.243.16 page. I concurred and invited 204.227.243.16 to respond:
I know that Wiki policy is that we must assume good faith. But why would an anonymous editor delete the only factual information about Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman that existed in the article? It smells like a PR firm, or someone's mother trying to make it look squeeky clean. Look, the purpose of Wiki is truth and information, not advertising and PR.
Most recent edit is vandalism by User:Aetheling talked about a video game, and added decaying animal flesh. Also reverted the deletion by User:Ultramarine because Political corruption has more to do with politics, and politicians, the writting of laws. If police corruption, enforcers of the the law, is considered separate from policital corruption then clearly judicial, prosecutorial, and corruption in the law services industry are a valid separate topic. -- Knowsetfree 03:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Aetheling. Your conclusion is premised on a false reformulation of my point. You are probably aware that words can have more than one meaning. If you are such a prolific Wiki contributor, then you surely must know that Wiki has a mechanism to deal with multiple meanings for the same term. I'll let you demonstrate your Wiki knowledge by naming or describing that mechanism in your next response here. Remember, this is Wikipedia - like an encyclopedia and not Wiktionary like a dictionary. The former has a single article for a terms meaning, the latter lists all definitions of a word. Please try to be civil, it is Wiki policy. The article in question referred to corruption related to social / government interaction, by all means, create an article for your biological term that you desire, and other Wiki Editors may let it stand if they feel it is warranted. Deleting others content while simultaneously causing the dilution and/or obfuscation of an important term, particularly in this day and age, seemed to me like vandalism. What would you call it? And to answer your last question, I didn't comment on your talk page because I selfishly hoped to have a great mind grace his moniker on my talk page. Thanks for responding.
Hi Aetheling, well now I see your perspective. There was a disambiguation layer already there which I was not aware of. So, I'm not sure what the best organization would be. Where does one draw the line between political corruption and other forms of corruption in a society. Arguably they could all be a form of political corruption. When is simple crime corruption, such as if a cop accepted bribes. No matter, I'll revert. As to our discussion, your tone was no more harsh than mine, no need for you to apologize, but accepted and hope you accept mine. I really liked your web page, and glad to see someone doing something about corruption, which really ticks me off these days. My compliment was genuine after I started reading your professional background. As to corruption, People in power sticking it to, leaching off of everybody else. Yuck. You keep up the good work. -- Knowsetfree 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Revolving Door Syndrome is not always considered legally wrong. For example: goverment attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are charged with regulating attorney conduct, though they may be employed previously or subsequently by the same type of law firm for which they were supposed to regulate.
While this may not be legally wrong, it may still be considered a conflict of interest. Are you sure that this is not seen as such by watchdog groups? Lyta79 05:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
If that's your justification for putting that, then why don't you write it in the text? Do you have any article that directly says he had the Quran to "learn about the enemy?" Anyway, its not like pirates were the most pious people in the Muslim world. Gdo01 05:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
All the pirate stuff is about Jefferson, not Ellison. Great, Jefferson didn't like pirates, the pirates were Muslims, so what? Do we have to dredge up an example of Christians that Jefferson disliked in any mention of Jefferson owning a Bible? If not, why are Muslims different? Reference to the current political climate doesn't fly.
I notice that you once again tried to put the information in Ellison's page, and it was once again removed. At some point you will have to accept that consensus is against you on this. If you find an actual quote from Jefferson saying that he owned his Koran only because of these pirates, that can be looked at. Without that, your attempted addition is merely guilt by association. Mullibok 13:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The information about the Barbary pirates belongs on the Jefferson page because it has no reference to his Quran which he purchased right after finishing his legal schooling and while taking the bar. He bought the Quran because it was referenced in a book he was studying about natural law, since he became disillusioned by British Common Law after the Stamp Act crisis. The barbary pirates where not an issue for any american until after the Revolutionary War because before that, the American colonies flew under the British flag and the British paid tribute to the pirates to avoid their ships being taken. So Jefferson had his copy of the Quran from 1765 and the first pirate barbary pirate attack on US ships wasn't until 1784 nearly 20 years later. I put a sentence in the Keith Ellison page about when Jefferson purchased the book because people reading blogs wish to continually assert that Jefferson only bought the book to understand his enemy, which ignores the facts. These people think that they have discovered some brilliant truth that has been overlooked because of some national media conspiracy and all they are doing is repeating bad research made by scared people blindly striking out in fear because they think every Muslim that ever lived is actually the boogie man. The sentence is not neccessary if people do not want to continually insert falsehoods about Jefferson's Quran on the Ellison page, but if this keeps happening then I'll put it back in because its irratating to have to explain American history to people who don't care about what actually happened and only want to assert their own views onto the past.-- Wowaconia 03:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is the work that was cited, I assumed most people don't have access to a University Library with a subscription to an archive service on historic journals so I put a link to an abstract on the work in the article. Here is all the bibliography info...
If your not familiar with Kevin J. Hayes, he works out of the The Library of William Byrd of Westover. Madison, Wisconsin; as can be seen at the bottom of this web-page where he is cited by the Thomas Jefferson museum/library at Monticello: http://www.monticello.org/library/tjlibraries/about.html
You can buy this title from a schoolary press here http://www.blackwell-compass.com/subject/literature/article_view?article_id=lico_pubs_13852886
The book says he bought his Qur'an in 1765 (which is almost two decades before the first attack by the pirates on American shipping). I'm not saying that muslims are the boogie man I'm saying the blogs that told you that Jefferson got his Quran when he was fighting the Barbary Pirates are lying to support their bias against Muslims.
Unfortunately, the reference provided by Wowaconia appears to violate the wiki NPOV and against self published materials. The book in question is published by Blackwell publishing and they are a company whose focus is enabling special interest groups self publish their own materials.
Their site states: "Blackwell Publishing is the world's leading society publisher"
[1]. Clicking on Society Publishing reveals (with bold emphasis added by me): Blackwell has many years' experience of partnering with societies, and currently has contracts with over 600 societies. We understand how societies work and have a track record of helping them fulfill their missions. We are able to provide tailored services and support that are flexible and meet the highest standards. With approximately 70% of the journals on our list owned or published on behalf of societies, we have made a commitment to meet the unique needs of societies and their journals.
Termed the “honorary not-for-profit publisher*,” Blackwell supports the advancement of knowledge and learning. By aligning with the goals and values of societies, we believe that we are making an important contribution to society.
We need to have other wikipedia editors chime in on this, but it appears to me that Blackwell Publishing does not qualify as a trusted source for Wikipedia under the NPOV policy. I'm not convinced how the first revelation of the date Jefferson purchased the Quran, if known at all, would be revealed in a book authored in 2004. What evidence of the date of purchase of the Quran? It seems more likely the book would know the date that the original printing of the english language translation of the Quran. But the Wiki entry makes a claim as to the date of Jefferson's acquisition. If there was a receipt or other information in the book, then let's look at the factual reference.
To summarize: There are at least two purported facts in Ellison's Wiki page that are not yet supported: 1) When did Jefferson acquire the Quran (De we even know yet if by gift or purchase) and 2) Was Jefferson's contemporaneous image of Islam as Ellison claimed. As to the second point, the only supported fact on Wiki so far that the official representative of the government supporting the Barbary pirates, during negotiations in England, claimed the Quran provided legal justification for their pirate activities. Such claims are mirrored today by some. Also, the existence of pirates throughout history has included those supported by governments to harrass enemies during times of war, and to raise revenues. Spain, England, France, and the Islamic governments in North Africa all authorized pirates at one time or another. However, since Jefferson held the positions that he held, including U.S. President, during the time of the barbary pirates attacks on U.S. interests, Ellison's original claim is highly suspect and needs to be questioned in the appropriate historical context. Knowsetfree 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If you go to this link
http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/early_american_literature/v039/39.2hayes.pdf
We've got another anonymous user who never having made any contribution before to Wiki, takes the sole action of deleting the Misconduct section referring to the company. People, Wiki is not an advertising or PR service, it is an informational encyclopedia. If you made the deletions, or would like to delete, please start a discussion.
Another anonymous user with numerous vandalism instances reported by other editors on his user talk page made an edit to the Misconduct section of the Weil, Gotshal & Manges article. We have to assume good faith, so I left a request for follow up and reference on the users talk page here User_talk:64.132.60.202. Time will tell. Here is what I posted:
Well, the Onion seems to be self peeling. I did a little googling to try to find support for the anon editors claim that the firm has "not since been cited for misconduct". Boom, right away we see an article were even the firm's own client claimed conflict of interest problems by the law firm. OK, I'm sure that technically a client complaining is different then a judge ruling. But it seems pretty amazing and relevant, especially since both negative issues related to conflict of interest. Vandals take note: the attempts to sanitize this firms page as if Wiki is a PR service only draws more attention. Interesting stuff, even presidential contender Rudi - Rudolph W. Giuliani worked on the case at one point, but not for the firm that was sued for malpractise.
I am moving your RfC to the talk page and off the main article page as per the wikipedia guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Instructions (emphasis added) "Create a section for the RfC on the bottom of the article talk page with a brief, neutral statement of the issue"
That looks appropriate to move the RfC. And thanks for the wiki reference. Now, let's get some other editors chiming in on this discussion.
Upon review of your arguement I see that there is no need for a RfC as you have made an error in your citation:
Please look at the urls more closely Blackwell-Compass is not the same as Blackwell society.
The republisher of the work is found at http://www.blackwell-compass.com/subject/literature/article_view?article_id=lico_pubs_13852886 Blackwell-Compass’ homepage states (emphasis added) “Unique in both range and approach, Literature Compass is an online-only journal publishing peer-reviewed survey articles from across the discipline.”
The page you were refrencing is http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/press/societies.asp "Blackwell has many years' experience of partnering with societies, and currently has contracts with over 600 societies. We understand how societies work and have a track record of helping them fulfill their missions."
Thanks for reading my post regarding Blackwell. However, you still have not provided any citation for the facts that you declare. You merely posted a link to an article abstract, but the abstract does not prove what you claim the document proved. This is insufficient for a Wiki reference. Also, you are still going to have a problem with blackwell-compass. View the webpage which holds the abstract, who holds the copyright? Who is the publisher of the journal? You are going to have troubles trying to hold blackwell out as reliable source. There are many online-only "publications" which claim everything from "Astrology is the only true science", to Holocaust denial. This source is not going to be considered reliable under wiki guidelines, IMHO. If your "facts" are so clear, why wouldn't an reliable biography of Thomas Jefferson has printed them long ago? See if you can find a real source. Then quote the source, you haven't even completed this step with the "source" you already provided, and that is troubling.
The work was intially published on paper by The University of North Carolina Press in 2004, Kevin J. Hayes is a recognized authority on Jeffersonian history. The link to the abstract is a courtesy to interested readers without access to the full work, but the citation is to the book itself not the abstract. Blackwell is not the publishing source that I'm citing, the University of North Carolina Press is. On your 05:32, 26 January 2007 edit, entitled (→Quran Oath Controversy of the 110th United States Congress - reference showing Jefferson's quran ownership was to understand the enemy). You attempt to back up your assertion by citing http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html but there is no mention of the Qur'an in that entire article.-- Wowaconia 19:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Wowaconia, thank you for the responce. You still have not provided any reference to back up your assertions for text which appears online in a Wiki article. I see you are referring to a book. What page of that book, what line, etc. supports the factual assertions which appears online in the Wiki article. It is easy for someone to have read a book and believe facts came from that book, but to be mistaken. I'm not sure what the wiki policy is if a book is not available online, as far as having someone verify it. But you should be able to give page and line numbers for a number of explicit facts in the current version of the article which you are defending from edits such as:
Your counter argument to me is irrelevant even if correct, that I offered no specific proof that Jefferson was thinking that he acquired the Quran in order to understand the why the foreign ambassador of the North African countries asserted legal authority to attack shipping under the American Flag and extort payments because we were "infidels" and they were authorized to do so under the Quran. I don't have a "mind print out" of Jefferson's thoughts at the time. Nor do you, and I doubt the book you have does either. Your argument fails for a few reasons. First, the question is the current text, and whether the current text should stay. You are given a chance to substatiate, and instead you choose to argue for the sake of arguing. I believe Wiki editors have been extremely gracious to give you so much time to reference your "facts", but time is running out. Another reason why your argument fails, is because the contemporaneous facts are against your version, and support the historical reality. Facts that are not in dispute include: the existence of the Barbary Pirates at the time, that the first international war fighting of our nation due was under President Jefferson's command against the pirates claiming legal authority under the Quran to extort payments from U.S. flagged vessels, as that "what's his name" in England as negotiator on behalf of the nations harboring the pirates claimed legal authority to extort payments from infidels a/k/a merchant shipping under U.S. flag. Historical facts support that Jefferson needed to understand the enemy and their asserted authority to wage financial and pirate war against our flagged vessels. There is not factual basis for Ellison to claim that Jefferson embraced islam, only fact that Jefferson went to war against a number of pirates who attacked U.S. citizens while seeking money extortion and claimed that the Quran authorized them to do so.
If not solely on the basis of being a non-believer, What is your basis to argue against President Jefferson having ordered our nation to fight the Barbary Pirates who claimed authority under the Quran to attack our flagged shipping and hold citizens as hostage unless ransom was paid. -- Knowsetfree 21:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Haven't heard an answer from Wowaconia so I invited him to respond with a note on his talk page, a copy follows:
Hi Wowaconia. You were involved in numerous deletions of content, and insertions of numerous facts concerning the Keith Ellison (politician) article. Please back up your claims, or the edits will need to be reverted. You spent a tremendous amount of time, and typed a lot of words onto my talk page, but what we really need is for you to provide sourcing. You have been given many weeks! And your reference on your talk page to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Reliable_sources is on point in this context. Please practise what you preach, and provide references.
Hi User:William_M._Connolley, sorry to see you summarily delete my contribution to Scientific consensus, particularly without any Talk, though you did leave a line of comment. However, your one line comment begs more questions then it answers. Do you say the edit seems POV or is POV? What is the POV? The most glaring problem with your comment is your statement that the Scientific Method is not well defined. Have you ever studied science in school? The Scientific Method itself is a formal part of the curriculum in secondary education in every state I have seen, and I believe many colleges as well for introductory courses. Are you not aware of the major emphasis in education on the history of scientific advances in the face of great societal opposition, for example Galileo Galilei? Are you not aware of the significant suffering and opposition for scientists that dared to ask questions and suggest answers that conflicted with the status quo? IMHO you need to come to grips with this glaring fundamental error in your historical perspective and topical awareness regarding the scientific method, learn about it, it is your friend. Especially when you purport to be of sufficient expertise to comment on the scientific consensus article. After you have done that, please explain what the POV is in the edit you deleted. Also let us know if you meant a word other than "seems", which itself is a weasel word by the way. -- Knowsetfree 03:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi William, thanks for replying. I hope and believe that this Talk will benefit all. Not to get argumentative... Do you have anything to support your contention that I expect people to put talk behind every revert? Didn't think so. Perhaps you were merely attempted to mimic the tone of my first responce to your deletion. I'll ignore this point because it will distract attention from genuine issues.
Scientific Method Do you claim particular expertise with respect to science? Are you genuinely unaware that the scientific method is a defined process that is explicitly taught? Are you genuinely unaware of the shocking historical of persecution (oh, and execution) of scientists by society including religions and governments, for their having dared to ask questions or posed theories that conflicted with the status quo? By no means am I suggesting, or have I suggested, that every scientist is smart, unbiased, rational, without personal or financial self interest, sane, or truely motivated by the pursuit of knowledge. Historical Record Filled With Persecution of Scientists It just seems so shocking that the world of wiki would want to remove the historical record when it comes to the contributions and sacrifices made by a number of scientists, in lite of the amazing world we live in today and technologies. Um, like computers, telecommunications, and the internet. So, maybe we are getting somewhere on the historical record and the historical and current importance of the scientific method. Maybe you can generate a good entry? If not sci med or sci cons, which article should include a reference to the persuction of people pursuing the sci med? Please display POV problem and clarify "seems" Would you still please illuminate what you considered POV in the edit you deleted, and "de-weasel" your word choise of seems. Your comment: "artificial conflict between sci meth and sci cons" Do you hold that sci meth and sci cons are the exact same concept? If you genuinely do, why didn't you perform a deletion of one article, and combine non duplicative content? I have never heard a politician recite or invoke the scientific method (sci meth) in order to assert control, impose taxes, threaten regulatory or enforcement actions. In contrast, claims of scientific consensus are common by politicians in all of the same contexts. Similarly, lawyers will claim sci cons whenever it "suits" their purpose. As both terms are man made, and reflect human efforts at pursuing knowledge or persuasion, wouldn't any difference between their semantics be as you say "artificial" by definition? I suggest that sci meth is aligned with the pursuit of knowledge, and that scientific consensus is an arbitrary claim, by potentially biased party, as to the current state of knowledge as developed by the scientific method. Sci Cons is a tool of rhetoric whereas sci meth deals with the production of theories, fact, observation, and analysis. Sci meth brings knowledge and insight over potentially a long period of time, sci meth welcomes differing opinions and continual questioning. -- Knowsetfree 16:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bill, thanks for the apology but you need to come clean. Obviously, the weight of so fact which conflicts with your world view is stifling your Talk. So, Let me break it down to make it easy for you:
-- Knowsetfree 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, Mr. Connolley. I'm sorry about the multiple addresses to your first name. By the way, if you go to Amazon.com and type Scientific method for a book search, you will see numerous books dedicated to the topic of teaching the subject matter (a gross search result of some 40,000 books). Similarly, searches of educational materials at the secondary and college level reveal a similar results. As far as the public and Wikipedia, the distinction in the use of political / commercial invocations of the term " Scientific consensus" as opposed to an application of the Scientific method should be addressed by the Wiki articles. On an ever growing number of subjects, parties with a political and / or financial interest (aren't they often the same?) routinely invoke a claim of Scientific consensus in order to influence the flow of money, either taxation, or funding studies, or indirectly through regulation or litigation. Thus, let's establish:
-- Knowsetfree 05:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Knowsetfree, I replied here Best regards, Pete.Hurd 18:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I have raised some concern about the controversy section of the Hewlett-Packard article, and having noted that you have shown interest in previous talk page discussions on this topic would invite you to input at [ [1]]. thanks Keylay31 hablame 23:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Knowsetfree 21:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I've tagged this for deletion as asvertising, at the moment it doesn't assert notability. Just letting you know.
pablo :: ... talk ... 21:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pablo, on one hand, it could be argued that the mention of any firm is advertising. But if that were the case then Wiki shouldn't have any listings about companies. You are right to pose the question. From my perspective it might have been preferrable to just start a discussion instead of the flag for speedy deletion. These guys have influence over the flow of billions of dollars every year, and their profile should be raised in the public eye, not shadowed. Knowsetfree 02:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Now that is really, really odd. All evidence of the article has been obliterated. There is no edit log of the article being deleted, the article's talk page to which I contributed and referenced the discussion here, and "my contributions" shows no evidence of the article having been created. However, there is evidence of the entries to the talk page here. Let me check some things. I've got to figure out 1) what happened here, how things disappeared so dramatically. I've seen new articles get deleted before, but not without a trace; 2) how to start a discussion with some senior editors. I believe the issues are really important here, and the repression of information is telling.
Knowsetfree 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, these guys get no benefit by advertising on Wikipedia and I'm sure that they would prefer to have as low a profile to the general public, media, and regulators, as possible. Firms like this often have Private Equity funds as clients, which are essentially hedge funds which keep an even lower profile; and whose investment horizon is sometimes longer term than traditional hedge funds. Some hedge funds tend to have short term trading strategies. Obviously, "reliable source" is subject to the eye of the beholder. I have read that a subjects own press can be used "against them" but it is not supposed to be used to self advertise. Well, I am not affiliated with them. So I guess there is some line drawn between self advertisement and the public's right to know. Unfortunately, a lot of the information about the large and powerful money powers in this country is not free, but you have to pay top dollar to get it. By the way, selling financial information on the stock market, who is doing what deals, etc. is how New York City's billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg made his fortune. I'll see what else I can find out about Greenhill & Co., LLC. Knowsetfree 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ helpme}}
{{helpme}}
It has always been obvious that the article was deleted as alleged advertising after being flagged for speedy deletion. I entered a {notSoFast} flag (don't remember exact name) and attempted to initiate discussion here, on the article's talk page, and on the flagging users page. There was never any discussion as to the merits of the article, as far as I know, only a comment by the initial flagger something along the lines that it was 'out of his hands'. Please read the prior entry to my talk page for the full detail. It was a short new article, not much more than a stub, so I don't see how it was genuinely advertising. Also, it seems to me that After Midnight's advice does not conform with wiki polciy. I don't think that NPOV policy means that you must include "critical" information. If I am not aware of something critical about a firm, does not negate the relevance of the firm to wiki users. My {helpme} request was, and continues to be, related solely to the points of whether the financial documents filed by a public company listed on the NYSE is a wiki reliable source, and whether a firm which handled over a $100 billion of M & A business was significant enough to warrant a wiki article. But thanks to "After Midnight" for the information on the sandbox, if I get the time I might try to reconstruct the original article. Unfortunately, as mentioned before, the article and all edit history disappeared without a trace, which seems odd to me. Knowsetfree 01:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Matt. I've started the process and informed the admin who flagged the page for speedy deletion. I also pointed out new facts that show the company's significance. Knowsetfree 01:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Lawyers & Law Firms Found Guilty of Legal Misconduct ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. LeSnail ( talk) 19:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Entities or Persons committing SEC Violations, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 19:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Category:Private Equity & Hedge Funds with financial ties to politicians, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 19:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
New user Lamro made a lot of entries into the Weil Gotshal article, which I have been watching after first seeing anons vandalize the page by deleting unflattering entries related to facts that were never disputed. To be fair, I'm giving this new user the opportunity to substantiate his basis for the numerous entries before I delete them. Just in case user User :Lamro disappears from Wiki like Milleri did, I've copied my entry to Lamro's Talk page here:
Hello Lamro, welcome to Wikipedia. You have made substantial edits to the Weil Gotshal article, but you have not followed the Wiki policy of providing a factual reference to substantiate your edits to the page. Remember, we have no way of knowing that you have any basis to know any facts about the firm;,that is why wiki has a policy requiring a reliable source to back up an edit. I'm giving you the opportunity to substantiate your edits regarding your entries such as (list of Community Service),(list of Recognitions and Rankings) (list of Practice Areas) ,(list of Key People) , (list of Notable Deals and Cases) before I delete them. Thanks, and if you have a question or comment please feel free to comment on (My Talk page) where I have been tracking Weil Gotshal article vandalism and I'll have an entry for this topic: "Provide a reference for Weil Gotshal edits or they will be deleted" Knowsetfree (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, Lamro, I'll give you a few days. Knowsetfree ( talk) 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, to those who wish the extensive unreferenced conduct on the [Weil Gotshal] page to remain. Put up or shut up. Either provide reliable references to the awards, practise areas, and etc or they will be deleted. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 00:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Knowsetfree, how are you doing? Thank you for adding the name of Dr. Sowell to the list, however the name will be removed unless you provide a reliable verifiable source (as is required by policy) that will proof his notability and service in the Corps. The reason that we are requiring sources is because a lot of people in the past have added names of non-notables and a few of us had to go through a lot of trouble of verifing the additions. We, who manage the list, will appreciate your cooperation. Thank you and take care. Tony the Marine ( talk) 18:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
, and http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1990/09/10/86090/index.htm Let me know if that info is OK? Knowsetfree ( talk) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note that EASTLAW has made arbirary and ridiculous if not malicious editions and DELETIONS to other articles in addiition to yours. Eastlaw IGNORES the well-establsihed standards that we use for our entires from MARQUIS, a pre-eminent publsiher of biographical information who has DECADES of publsihing bios-- JudicialWatch ( talk) 06:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on William H. Simon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
csaribay (
talk) 22:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
After having warned long in advance and requesting some back up information or discussion, I have deleted the following incredibly false statement which was attributed as a quote to a judge. The impression to Wiki readers would have been that one judge ruled counter to the prevailing opinion, in a manner that would have characterized the atcual ruling as to the impropriety and unethical behavior of Weil, Gotshal & Manges as having been disputed by the courts. Such suggestion that reasonable minds could have disagreed is not supported by any facts in the referenced article. First, the quoted text was not a quote by the hired lawyer John Martin, the text was [Weil Gotshal]'s own argument in which they argued they were not unethical. Second, John Martin was not acting as a judge. He was acting as an individual hired (Yes, for money) to deliver an opinion. Here is the deleted quote:
Former Southern District of New York Judge John Martin stated that Weil Gotshal's "lawyers conducted themselves in a fully appropriate and professional manner." [2]
By the way, the opinion of John Martin was either unpersuasive, or addtional facts before the actual sitting Judge were so strong (or a combination of the two) that the sitting Judge made his remarks on Weil Gothsal's misconduct. This type of false presentation and characterization of facts upon Wiki, if done before a court, would be not just unethical but also criminal. Arguably, courts have been extremely reluctant to refer such conduct for criminal investigation, notwithstanding statutory duties requiring same. My point is just that here we have yet another abuse of the truth, in this case on Wikipedia, in order to pump up or deflect negative press on a BigLaw firm.
FYI, Wiki readers who are interested in the subject of Legal Corruption may find the new article on well known Columbia professor William H. Simon and referenced materials therein. Prof Simon is working against legal experts who write bogus legal opinions for hire merely to serve the interests of clients seeking to escape criminal and or civil repercussions by presenting the "we acted on the advice of counsel" defense. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 00:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again, we have an anon - this time 72.86.41.177 - who deletes the Controversies section from this firms page. It is both ironic and telling that this anonymous user cites the wiki policy WP:SOAP - it almost indicates that this content editor knows what she is doing and that the edit is appropriate. But we find that this user didn't bother to register, or log in, or both. The SOAP policy is a two edged sword, and articles are not meant to be advertising. Prior attempts to eliminate the controversies section, including by an admitted member of the firm, were eventually overruled by senior wiki editors. High profile people and organizations invariable have a controversies section. Please stop censoring wiki, people have a right to knowledge. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 02:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to
Paul Bergrin. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that
biographical information about living persons must not be
libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper
sources. Thank you.
Pontificalibus (
talk) 20:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pontificalibus, your name sure is fitting. The article was completely referenced. Did you read what I wrote? Were the cites removed by a vandal? There are plenty of sources for the story about the attorney who crossed the line and engaged in serious crime along side his clients. Unfortunately I don't have time now to redo the research. Too bad, wiki readers deserve to know about this phenomenon. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 20:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Bergrin.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY (TALK) 20:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
What is it about Weil Gotshal that the subject would inspire so many anonymous vandals? 2 October 2009 Knowsetfree (talk | contribs) (10,127 bytes) (Undid revision 313707065 by 173.71.209.76 (talk) Recurring anonymous vandals - issues settled in favor of disclosure) -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 20:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's take a look at the contributions of this anon user [ [2]]. It is interesting how this anonymous editor is so interested in such a narrow subject range and purpose: to eliminate attorney misconduct from wikipedia. That is to say, not to reduce the instances of attorney misconduct, but merely to censor any mention of it. It is sad how this anon violates many more wiki policies than they incorrectly cite when he/she undertakes his/her censoring operations. User 173.71.209.76, you can't bounce back and forth with reverts. You must talk first. This is "Wiki 101" here. Also, your associates have tried to silence the misconduct of these law firms in the past, in particular the conduct of Weil, Gotshal & Manges when a federal judge fined them millions of dollars for lying to the Court as they failed to disclose their relationship with Bear Stearns at the same time they provided Leslie Fay with advice that would impact Bear Stearns. This topic has already been resolved in fair of the valid disclosure of true facts. Speaking of disclosure, isn't it unethical for a member of the bar to make any form of advertisement without disclosing a clear notice to the effect "attorney advertisement"?
Well, once again, I will go through the steps. Maybe, we'll ultimately end up with and administrator locking the page, or at least just the misconduct section for weil gotshal.
* 04:49, 21 October 2009 (hist | diff) Weil, Gotshal & Manges (undo changes violating wikipedia policy; an encyclopedia is not a personal soapbox.) (top) (Tag: section blanking) * 11:16, 18 October 2009 (hist | diff) McCarran-Ferguson Act (clean up) (top) * 03:16, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) Edward F. Cox (replace incorrect amlaw ranking with correct ranking) * 11:36, 18 September 2009 (hist | diff) Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (→Notable alumni) * 03:08, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Weil, Gotshal & Manges (→Recognition) * 03:06, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Weil, Gotshal & Manges (→Recognition) (Tag: references removed) * 02:38, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy * 02:21, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Attorney misconduct (→External Links & Articles: not a wiki page -- as anyone who knows what an encyclopedia is would know.) (top) * 01:49, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman (→Misconduct: WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:WEIGHT, WP SOAP also out of date and not encyclopedia worthy.) (top) (Tag: section blanking) * 01:35, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Weil, Gotshal & Manges (→Controversies: WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:WEIGHT) (Tag: section blanking) * 01:35, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Weil, Gotshal & Manges (→Malpractice: delete because no cite. supposed link doesn't work. also WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:WEIGHT)
Hi Knowsetfree. Thank you for joining wikipedia and trying to improve it. I notice you have made allegations of vandalism. Sometimes it is confusing to users of wikipedia so let me try to help you. There are some wikipedia rules that would be useful for you learn.
"Vandalism" is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism. Good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia are not vandalism, even if they are misguided or ill-considered. Content disputes are not vandalism.
Some material — sometimes even factually correct material — does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism. Check to make sure that the addition was in line with Wikipedia standards, before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism.
Knowsetfree, you really try to avoid the word 'vandal'. In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Knowsetfree, you should also know that you should try to comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal comments.
Knowsetfree, do not feel bad. Certain users of wikipedia get confused as to what is vandalism and what is encyclopedic, and what the wikipedia standards are, and you can be a valuable contributing member to wikipedia after you learn these rules.
Antisoapbox ( talk) 16:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no question that Global Warming is for some an emotional subject. But it just doesn't make sense that the Debate and skepticism section there would be censured. Isn't that were reports of skepticism belong. If a petition signed by over 9,000 PhD's isn't newsworthy, than nothing is newsworthy. The actual scientists names appear on the website. User User:Atmoz deleted my entry of cited references to the petition. My understanding of the Global Warming issue is that according to Al Gore and many vocal AGW proponents, there is substantial "unanimity" because "over 2,500 of the worlds top scientists are in agreement". But what about 9,000 PhD's who are not in agreement. I would think that it was newsworthy. Hopefully Atmoz will do the right thing and discuss this issue on the articles talk page, as I requested of him. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Global Warming Petition Project
As of December 15, 2009 a total of more than 31,400 persons with relevant scientific credentials of at least a bachelors degree have signed a petition in opposition to the theory of man made global warming stating:[134]
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
The signors to this petition include over 9,020 PhD recipients.[135]
-- Knowsetfree ( talk) 06:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, to Knowsetfree, Response to your query to my User:jlancaster (talk) page: Yes, I am the same Justin Lancaster. And yes, I did sign the statement in question in 1994. That retraction was coerced by a SLAPP suit. Although I was confident I would win at trial, my family and resources could not withstand the pressure from two national law firms funded behind-the-scenes by sources larger than Singer. Unfortunately, Massachusetts had not yet passed its version of the SLAPP legislation. Had I this piece of history to repeat, then I would not have signed that retraction, as I had never made any false statements. In 2006, I fully rescinded the 1994 statement and published the evidence that supported my original opinions of S. Fred Singer. [3] User:jlancaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.132.70 ( talk) 08:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
No good deed goes unpunished. It is really too bad that some people are so in love with an ideology that they would stake their names on promulgating a falsehood. And I don't mean people disagreeing on theories, or religion, or art. I mean simple things like facts. So I would have thought someone would quickly back away from a falsehood they promote, when their own web citation proves the falsehood. Could this really be an honest mistake? This exchange with William M. Connolley about his deletions to the Global Warming Petition Project and his comments on the article's talk page hopefully ends quickly after William re-reads his own cited reference:
Interesting to note that the project site seems to have changed. Until recently [9] it said "This is the website that completely knocks the wind out of the enviro's sails. See over 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever". All that trash now seems to have quietly disappeared William M. Connolley 21:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi William. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia, but please try to remain civil. While you may genuinely feel that other blogs and websites are "trash", you should not "trash talk" anyone on wikipedia, and you should also not misrepresent the facts. Unfortunately, you clearly misrepresent the facts in your comment above. (and perhaps you authored the false hoods which I just removed from the article, describe here 10)
- You are clearly trying to apply the words of one of thousands of websites which comments about the Global Warming Petition Project, and then falsely attribute those comments to the actual petition site itself. That would be like filming a NY Yankees fan who screamed "Red Socks Suck" and then claiming that the New York Yankees has officially declared that the Boston Red Socks "Suck". Obviously, such falsehoods have no business on wikipedia whose aspirations are high. Your falsehood is clearly demonstrated by your own citation which you unsuccessfully use to prove your point. Look at your archived web site. It is clearly introducing the website:
- This is the website[11] that ...
- Clearly, the sentence "This is the website" can only be read in context, which shows that the word "website" is highlighted as a link. Clicking on the link brings you to the actual website. The actual website is very clear, very concise, and very polite. Presumably, if you are able to navigate wikipedia as an editor you have at least the bare minimum of knowledge to understand a webpage, links, and how articles and commentary often references other sites. How are we supposed to continue with the assumption that you are editing in good faith when you miss the simple truth and write falsehoods with the obvious intent to denigrate the petition? Please recheck your sources and by all means talk about it here, in a civil manner. I would like to think that your posting was simple human error. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunealy user
William M. Connolley merely reverts edits and ignores all talk pointing out his clear falsehood. And his justification for his edits consists merely of the phrase "You're wrong". I have no doubt that the falsehood itself will ultimately be removed from wikipedia. And while I don't want to condescend, I got to wonder aloud if we could possibly bring his level of discourse up to that which wiki editors ought to use with each other? --
Knowsetfree (
talk) 22:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I ran accross this question you left in an edit summary: [4]. To answer it, look at Wikipedia:Common names. Basically, articles are named after the most common or most recognizable name of the subject, thus the article is located at Bill Clinton, not at William Jefferson Clinton (though the second redirects to the first). Thus, the Carly Fiorina article should be left at Carly Fiorina since that is the name she is most commonly called. -- Jayron 32 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Please comment on the content, not the contributor. Your comment here obliquely accuses your fellow volunteers of acting in bad faith, which is unacceptable. You may be blocked if you continue in this vein. If you have a personal issue with an editor, please raise it at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts or pursue other methods of dispute resolution. - 2/0 ( cont.) 20:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
"A negative consequence of the name "Oregon Petition" is that it obfuscates and misleads as to the purpose of the petition, the actual name of petition, and it's alleged sponsorship. Furthermore, the nickname Oregon Petition parrots the talking points of numerous POV websites and persons whose obvious bias is in favor of AGW ideology and which often blatantly employ the logical fallacy of ad hominem attacks against 6 persons, and the employer of one of them, from among the 31,000 actual signatories of the petition. Ascribing to the nickname preferred by these detractors is fundamentally POV."
The abovelinked page lays out the benefits to registering an account. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 22:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Ronhjones (Talk) 00:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Of the numerous wiki articles to which I've contributed, there may be no topic more politically sensitive than those having to do with Global Warming. To be sure, people have opinions. But many also have careers. Having just run into this article I was both impressed and relieved. It is impressive that Wikipedia gets notice in large publications, but the article was covering a topic with which I had some personal experience. It seemed like William had lots to say about the subject, and when I deleted clearly false material (false by its own cited reference) William refused to WP:Talk and responded solely "You're Wrong". I was relieved when I learned more about User:William_M._Connolley's objectives and conduct:
All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it -- more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred -- over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley's global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement. [4]
Can't say that I'm surprised, other than the fact that he has edited over five thousand articles. Geez, who pays him? He's got to have a day job, if wikipedia is not it... But there is more...
On William'
his talk page I just learned that his administrator privileges were revoked. Also interesting is that
User:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris chose to publicly impugn the wikipedia arbitration committee for their decision against William:
- [5] Hardly surprising that arbcom wants to keep their mess as far from view as possible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk)
Like William, User User:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris has had some interesting things to say about my editing with respect to articles related to global warming. The American Spectator article directed me to a Canadian publication called the Financial Post by Lawrence Solomon with an article entitled "Wikipedia’s climate doctor" [6] - none other than our User:William_M._Connolley. I had just read part of a book by Solomon called "The Deniers" and didn't that he had stuff online for free so every cloud has its silver lining. Perhaps the biggest problem is that Wikipedia gets the black eye on this. From the American Standard:
- But with the leaked emails known as Climategate more people are beginning to see that deception, ::not science, has been their principal weapon. And we see also that Wikipedia has lent itself to ::that deception.
- [From an academic] "I will not accept any references from Wikipedia in any paper I review ::from here on out until this is resolved."
- "I see that a banner ad is appearing on most Wikipedia pages asking for 'donations'…. I think ::I'll contribute to more worthwhile charities."
Hopefully Wikipedia survives with as many editors in contributing in WP:good faith and getting the financial donations that they need. But in my opinion, the general public should not put all of the blame just on Wikipedia. The Global Warming industry has tremendous influence on all main stream media as well and Wikipedia might be one the first places where the issues get treated fairly. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the personal attack here [10] per WP:NPA. Comment on content not on editors. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 08:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed,
Hockey stick controversy, is on
article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a
templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.
To the above boilerplate I'll add this:
Kim Dabelstein Petersen above refers to this personal attack. In addition to this you have also made personal attacks here (your user talk page is not to be used for personal attacks).
Please stop making personal attacks. It's okay for you to use talk pages to raise issues with the articles, but it is not permissible to use them in a way that worsens the atmosphere and attacks others--whether Wikipedians or not. Further attacks may lead to a request for enforcement in the Climate change probation or, in egregious cases, a request for direct sanction -- TS 08:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
In the context of wikipedia, What happens when an editor is notified of falsehoods he entered and he is politely invited to remove or provide sources that could prove his position, the editor instead engages in uncivil behavior? -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 22:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI, in this edit you repeatedly refer to User:KimDabelsteinPetersen as "she". Kim is in fact male. You should be careful about the use of gender pronouns to refer to editors unless you know who they are. Cheers, Oren0 ( talk) 20:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The article Lynn M. LoPucki has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
MrOllie (
talk) 17:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that in France, it is a crime to deny or defame the Holocaust. Well, perhaps they could extradite the phony individual who is trying to remake the image of an admitted pimp into that of a Holocaust victim. Louis J. Posner is a dirty bankruptcy lawyer, and on top of that he ran a prostitution ring out of his "Hot Lap Dance Club".
"I was present at the club on a nightly basis and was aware that a number of the dancers were regularly engaged in prostitution in the private rooms," Posner told Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Michael Obus. ... He admitted to "personally engaging" in sexual conduct exchange for allowing dancers to work at the club.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/03/23/2010-03-23_hot_lap_dance_club_owner_lou_posner_pleads_guilty_to_running_prostitution_ring_o.html#ixzz14uSzTm3O Everyone who cares about the importance of preserving the historical record of the significance of the heinous crimes of the Holocaust must not allow such a sleazy crook to try to enshroud himself in the public's mind as being innocent when he is nothing more than a predator. www.kindertransport.org should be made aware of this scheme to attempt tarnish their good name. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 19:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope you didn't interpret my edits in the History section as censorship. Wikipedia tries to avoid overbalanced focus on recent events, so I attempted to put (very important) recent developments into the context of the firm. It has over 100 years of history, so pushing 2012 events before all else seemed to lack balance. For comparisons, the corporate collapses of Lehman Brothers and Enron are referenced in the lead, but then full details come in the appropriate chronological section later on. Let's work together to ensure the Dewey developments are well covered, with these articles acting as examples. Harro5 02:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Dewey & LeBoeuf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Davis ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Proposed edits: Remove "Initially" from Dominique Strauss-Kahn Case section which seems to imply that criticism is over. Also, to eliminate the evaluation by Bloomberg of Vance as "praise". The sole citation for this was an article which is far from praise. Bloomberg said that Vance's actions where "probably correct", which is tepid praise at best. Further, Bloomberg criticized Vance's use of the perp walk, which is a political act one would expect from a Nifong, not a good prosecutor. Point being, the cited reference is overblown in order to try to make Vance look good. The whole article seems to be Puffery and either needs to be heavily edited to limit only verifiable claims from trusted sources including accurate descriptions of controversial aspects of this politician/prosecutor's career, or have the article eliminated entirely. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 23:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Knowsetfree. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Knowsetfree. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
The Title Needs To Be Changed as discussed here Talk:Correlation implies causation/Page title. I see far too much scientific illiteracy/ignorance on so many public policy issues related to claims by one faction that A causes B, so let's pass a law. Sure enough, a Wikipedia article leads off with a false title. Very important, so I'm repeating what I wrote there here, just in case it gets deleted over there, I'll want to be able to refer to this text again. Here it is -- Knowsetfree 05:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
As others have remarked, the current title is just plain wrong. How about:
We currently have an extremely poor choice of title. Correlation is a commutative relationship. Just like the equal sign ( = ) in math. A correlates with B, and B correlates with A. However, causal relationships (in the context here) are unidirectional. Matches can cause fires, but fires don't cause matches. True, there is a correlation between matches and fires. However, further investigation and analysis is needed before one can declare that one element causes another. Interactions between other variables in the observed "world" further cast the suggestion of causation. IMHO the most relevant and important use of an article on the subject of correlation and causation would be to overcome one of the human mind's major flaws, the tendency to bestow a causal relationship far too quickly with too little evidence, to draw implications from statistically insignificant data. See Bayesian Theorem. This human frailty explains, at least in part, a broad range of bizarre societal behavior including discrimination, fads, speculative bubbles (recommended reading Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds), and the Salem witch trials. Let's give those who seek knowledge a leg up here by improving this page, and not saddle them with the ball and chain of ignorance. --Knowsetfree 04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like another instance of vandalism by this anon to the Oaktree Capital Management page. Please stop. If you have something to say, use a Talk page.
Another day. Another vandal. But this one is just getting better and betterer. I left a comment on the vandal's empty talk page:
But look at the vandal's comment on the edit history. As if user Milleri was a real wiki contributor. All of the anon's and Milleri have contributed for one purpose. These mysterious unknown people have done nothing for Wikipedia other than trying to delete from the public's view the true facts about Weil, Gotshal's history of misconduct. And for all I know there may be other findings of misconduct out there. Why exclude the misconduct facts about this one law firm? Seriously people, wikipedia displays both pro and con information on various topics. That is what makes wiki different from PR media and so valuable. Please, this back and forth is getting old. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 02:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, how the vandalism continues. Now it is from anonymous user 72.86.41.192 and I would start a discussion with him/her but the anon does not have a single comment on his/her Talk page. Imagine that. Hey anon, please register with Wikipedia, learn about its policies, and become a valuable contributing member. But don't vandalize a web page just because you don't want information about an article subject which is less than flattering. Wikipedia is not a PR device, the truth should be told, that is why so many wiki users value the information here. And just because I'm being very polite with you, don't imagine that your behavior is viewed as anything other than obnoxious.
Hi there Milleri. Welcome to wikipedia. Please take some time reading about Wiki policies. Come to my talk page if you want to explain your editing.
Once again, Milleri, I am here making a great effort to help you learn what Wiki is about. Wiki is not about maintaining web pages that mimick the firms own page. If there is negative information about a firm, you can't delete it just because you don't like it. If you have information about other large firms where misconduct was found against them by a judge, then by all means post it. If you continue to stubbornly delete without talking first, you could ultimately lose your privileges to edit on Wiki.
New user Milleri appears to be engaging in vandalism with his first edit. Sir, what makes you think that providing true information about a company is "inappropriate"? Perhaps you meant to say that the actions of the firm were in fact inappropriate, in which case the Federal Judge who found the misconduct agreed, may she rest in peace. I fully encourage you to participate in Wiki, but please take the time to read about policies. First and foremost, Wikipedia is not an advertising or PR vehicle. And hopefully, you are not just a registered version of the anonymous user who has been vandalizing this page about the firm.
After a few instances of anonymous editing which removed the misconduct section from the article on the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges it seems the anon's parting gift was to leave the assertion
While I asked on the talk page and in the article {reference needed and requested }. It has been quite a while, so the "not since" comment was removed. My thoughts are first, there was no reference to back up the asserted fact. If the anon was some official employee of, or a PR rep for Weil, Gotshal & Manges then arguably such anon might have a basis for making the assertion, but he or she would need to identify her credentials to make such a factual assertion. But then again, Wiki is not supposed to be a PR or advertising mechanism for companies. Thus the comment had at best questionable relevance in addition to its doubtable origin. I just felt it was better to remove the nonsequitor. By the way, it was the edits from the prior anon that got me searching about the law firm when I found multiple lawsuits against them for malpractise, and wouldn't you know it, the basis for the suits was conflict of interest, perhaps not coincidentaly the same misconduct which caused a federal official to seek (and achieve) the disgorgement of fees. Fascinating.
Please see discussion on the Weil Gotshal page. Do you have a substantive response to the objection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.223.156.64 ( talk) 12:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Weil Gotshal is a highly reputable, ethical law firm that conducts thousands of high profile matters in a highly professional manner for satisfied clients. It seems to me that devoting nearly half of this article to misconduct and malpractice reflects a lack of balance. First, articles about other law firms do not commonly include such sections, even though all firms of this size deal with issues of misconduct and malpractice from time to time. Second, there is no mention of the scores of highly publicized, successful matters in which the firm was instrumental. Please note that I am a member of Weil Gotshal who merely wants the article on this fine firm to be accurate and balanced.
And my line by line my response:
-- Knowsetfree ( talk) 21:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I actually stumbled on your talk page as I notice you had been knowledgeable enough to create an article on Linda Thomsen of the SEC (which I had linked in hedge funds). On this Weil article, I think that POV misgivings concerning this article may have some basis, and have so commented on the article talk page. It depends on whether the emphasis given to misconduct and malpractice is consistent with the RS sources available on this firm. I simply am not familiar enough with the firm to say so, one way or the other.-- Samiharris ( talk) 21:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Samiharris. I have not seen an interpretation of the WP:WEIGHT concept ever used in the context which you propose here.
Deletion of Category by user Eastlaw. At least it was not done by an Anon. Hoping to get some talk with Eastlaw. Here is what I posted on Eastlaw's talk page:
Why your category deletion for Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
Hi Eastlaw. Just wondering why you deleted the category for that law firm. I see you are involved in law, or looking for a license. Wouldn't you, as a potential employee of a law firm, appreciate the wikipedia would have a category so that you could discover in advance if you employer had a history of misconduct? And shouldn't the general public have access to this information? I'm not sure what your reason was for deletion. Do you doubt the truth? Please elaborate. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, first I have to thank fellow Wiki Editor for noticing the vandalism by anon 204.227.243.16 to the article. Good first heads up on the the User talk:204.227.243.16 page. I concurred and invited 204.227.243.16 to respond:
I know that Wiki policy is that we must assume good faith. But why would an anonymous editor delete the only factual information about Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman that existed in the article? It smells like a PR firm, or someone's mother trying to make it look squeeky clean. Look, the purpose of Wiki is truth and information, not advertising and PR.
Most recent edit is vandalism by User:Aetheling talked about a video game, and added decaying animal flesh. Also reverted the deletion by User:Ultramarine because Political corruption has more to do with politics, and politicians, the writting of laws. If police corruption, enforcers of the the law, is considered separate from policital corruption then clearly judicial, prosecutorial, and corruption in the law services industry are a valid separate topic. -- Knowsetfree 03:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Aetheling. Your conclusion is premised on a false reformulation of my point. You are probably aware that words can have more than one meaning. If you are such a prolific Wiki contributor, then you surely must know that Wiki has a mechanism to deal with multiple meanings for the same term. I'll let you demonstrate your Wiki knowledge by naming or describing that mechanism in your next response here. Remember, this is Wikipedia - like an encyclopedia and not Wiktionary like a dictionary. The former has a single article for a terms meaning, the latter lists all definitions of a word. Please try to be civil, it is Wiki policy. The article in question referred to corruption related to social / government interaction, by all means, create an article for your biological term that you desire, and other Wiki Editors may let it stand if they feel it is warranted. Deleting others content while simultaneously causing the dilution and/or obfuscation of an important term, particularly in this day and age, seemed to me like vandalism. What would you call it? And to answer your last question, I didn't comment on your talk page because I selfishly hoped to have a great mind grace his moniker on my talk page. Thanks for responding.
Hi Aetheling, well now I see your perspective. There was a disambiguation layer already there which I was not aware of. So, I'm not sure what the best organization would be. Where does one draw the line between political corruption and other forms of corruption in a society. Arguably they could all be a form of political corruption. When is simple crime corruption, such as if a cop accepted bribes. No matter, I'll revert. As to our discussion, your tone was no more harsh than mine, no need for you to apologize, but accepted and hope you accept mine. I really liked your web page, and glad to see someone doing something about corruption, which really ticks me off these days. My compliment was genuine after I started reading your professional background. As to corruption, People in power sticking it to, leaching off of everybody else. Yuck. You keep up the good work. -- Knowsetfree 04:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Revolving Door Syndrome is not always considered legally wrong. For example: goverment attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are charged with regulating attorney conduct, though they may be employed previously or subsequently by the same type of law firm for which they were supposed to regulate.
While this may not be legally wrong, it may still be considered a conflict of interest. Are you sure that this is not seen as such by watchdog groups? Lyta79 05:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
If that's your justification for putting that, then why don't you write it in the text? Do you have any article that directly says he had the Quran to "learn about the enemy?" Anyway, its not like pirates were the most pious people in the Muslim world. Gdo01 05:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
All the pirate stuff is about Jefferson, not Ellison. Great, Jefferson didn't like pirates, the pirates were Muslims, so what? Do we have to dredge up an example of Christians that Jefferson disliked in any mention of Jefferson owning a Bible? If not, why are Muslims different? Reference to the current political climate doesn't fly.
I notice that you once again tried to put the information in Ellison's page, and it was once again removed. At some point you will have to accept that consensus is against you on this. If you find an actual quote from Jefferson saying that he owned his Koran only because of these pirates, that can be looked at. Without that, your attempted addition is merely guilt by association. Mullibok 13:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The information about the Barbary pirates belongs on the Jefferson page because it has no reference to his Quran which he purchased right after finishing his legal schooling and while taking the bar. He bought the Quran because it was referenced in a book he was studying about natural law, since he became disillusioned by British Common Law after the Stamp Act crisis. The barbary pirates where not an issue for any american until after the Revolutionary War because before that, the American colonies flew under the British flag and the British paid tribute to the pirates to avoid their ships being taken. So Jefferson had his copy of the Quran from 1765 and the first pirate barbary pirate attack on US ships wasn't until 1784 nearly 20 years later. I put a sentence in the Keith Ellison page about when Jefferson purchased the book because people reading blogs wish to continually assert that Jefferson only bought the book to understand his enemy, which ignores the facts. These people think that they have discovered some brilliant truth that has been overlooked because of some national media conspiracy and all they are doing is repeating bad research made by scared people blindly striking out in fear because they think every Muslim that ever lived is actually the boogie man. The sentence is not neccessary if people do not want to continually insert falsehoods about Jefferson's Quran on the Ellison page, but if this keeps happening then I'll put it back in because its irratating to have to explain American history to people who don't care about what actually happened and only want to assert their own views onto the past.-- Wowaconia 03:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is the work that was cited, I assumed most people don't have access to a University Library with a subscription to an archive service on historic journals so I put a link to an abstract on the work in the article. Here is all the bibliography info...
If your not familiar with Kevin J. Hayes, he works out of the The Library of William Byrd of Westover. Madison, Wisconsin; as can be seen at the bottom of this web-page where he is cited by the Thomas Jefferson museum/library at Monticello: http://www.monticello.org/library/tjlibraries/about.html
You can buy this title from a schoolary press here http://www.blackwell-compass.com/subject/literature/article_view?article_id=lico_pubs_13852886
The book says he bought his Qur'an in 1765 (which is almost two decades before the first attack by the pirates on American shipping). I'm not saying that muslims are the boogie man I'm saying the blogs that told you that Jefferson got his Quran when he was fighting the Barbary Pirates are lying to support their bias against Muslims.
Unfortunately, the reference provided by Wowaconia appears to violate the wiki NPOV and against self published materials. The book in question is published by Blackwell publishing and they are a company whose focus is enabling special interest groups self publish their own materials.
Their site states: "Blackwell Publishing is the world's leading society publisher"
[1]. Clicking on Society Publishing reveals (with bold emphasis added by me): Blackwell has many years' experience of partnering with societies, and currently has contracts with over 600 societies. We understand how societies work and have a track record of helping them fulfill their missions. We are able to provide tailored services and support that are flexible and meet the highest standards. With approximately 70% of the journals on our list owned or published on behalf of societies, we have made a commitment to meet the unique needs of societies and their journals.
Termed the “honorary not-for-profit publisher*,” Blackwell supports the advancement of knowledge and learning. By aligning with the goals and values of societies, we believe that we are making an important contribution to society.
We need to have other wikipedia editors chime in on this, but it appears to me that Blackwell Publishing does not qualify as a trusted source for Wikipedia under the NPOV policy. I'm not convinced how the first revelation of the date Jefferson purchased the Quran, if known at all, would be revealed in a book authored in 2004. What evidence of the date of purchase of the Quran? It seems more likely the book would know the date that the original printing of the english language translation of the Quran. But the Wiki entry makes a claim as to the date of Jefferson's acquisition. If there was a receipt or other information in the book, then let's look at the factual reference.
To summarize: There are at least two purported facts in Ellison's Wiki page that are not yet supported: 1) When did Jefferson acquire the Quran (De we even know yet if by gift or purchase) and 2) Was Jefferson's contemporaneous image of Islam as Ellison claimed. As to the second point, the only supported fact on Wiki so far that the official representative of the government supporting the Barbary pirates, during negotiations in England, claimed the Quran provided legal justification for their pirate activities. Such claims are mirrored today by some. Also, the existence of pirates throughout history has included those supported by governments to harrass enemies during times of war, and to raise revenues. Spain, England, France, and the Islamic governments in North Africa all authorized pirates at one time or another. However, since Jefferson held the positions that he held, including U.S. President, during the time of the barbary pirates attacks on U.S. interests, Ellison's original claim is highly suspect and needs to be questioned in the appropriate historical context. Knowsetfree 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If you go to this link
http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/early_american_literature/v039/39.2hayes.pdf
We've got another anonymous user who never having made any contribution before to Wiki, takes the sole action of deleting the Misconduct section referring to the company. People, Wiki is not an advertising or PR service, it is an informational encyclopedia. If you made the deletions, or would like to delete, please start a discussion.
Another anonymous user with numerous vandalism instances reported by other editors on his user talk page made an edit to the Misconduct section of the Weil, Gotshal & Manges article. We have to assume good faith, so I left a request for follow up and reference on the users talk page here User_talk:64.132.60.202. Time will tell. Here is what I posted:
Well, the Onion seems to be self peeling. I did a little googling to try to find support for the anon editors claim that the firm has "not since been cited for misconduct". Boom, right away we see an article were even the firm's own client claimed conflict of interest problems by the law firm. OK, I'm sure that technically a client complaining is different then a judge ruling. But it seems pretty amazing and relevant, especially since both negative issues related to conflict of interest. Vandals take note: the attempts to sanitize this firms page as if Wiki is a PR service only draws more attention. Interesting stuff, even presidential contender Rudi - Rudolph W. Giuliani worked on the case at one point, but not for the firm that was sued for malpractise.
I am moving your RfC to the talk page and off the main article page as per the wikipedia guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Instructions (emphasis added) "Create a section for the RfC on the bottom of the article talk page with a brief, neutral statement of the issue"
That looks appropriate to move the RfC. And thanks for the wiki reference. Now, let's get some other editors chiming in on this discussion.
Upon review of your arguement I see that there is no need for a RfC as you have made an error in your citation:
Please look at the urls more closely Blackwell-Compass is not the same as Blackwell society.
The republisher of the work is found at http://www.blackwell-compass.com/subject/literature/article_view?article_id=lico_pubs_13852886 Blackwell-Compass’ homepage states (emphasis added) “Unique in both range and approach, Literature Compass is an online-only journal publishing peer-reviewed survey articles from across the discipline.”
The page you were refrencing is http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/press/societies.asp "Blackwell has many years' experience of partnering with societies, and currently has contracts with over 600 societies. We understand how societies work and have a track record of helping them fulfill their missions."
Thanks for reading my post regarding Blackwell. However, you still have not provided any citation for the facts that you declare. You merely posted a link to an article abstract, but the abstract does not prove what you claim the document proved. This is insufficient for a Wiki reference. Also, you are still going to have a problem with blackwell-compass. View the webpage which holds the abstract, who holds the copyright? Who is the publisher of the journal? You are going to have troubles trying to hold blackwell out as reliable source. There are many online-only "publications" which claim everything from "Astrology is the only true science", to Holocaust denial. This source is not going to be considered reliable under wiki guidelines, IMHO. If your "facts" are so clear, why wouldn't an reliable biography of Thomas Jefferson has printed them long ago? See if you can find a real source. Then quote the source, you haven't even completed this step with the "source" you already provided, and that is troubling.
The work was intially published on paper by The University of North Carolina Press in 2004, Kevin J. Hayes is a recognized authority on Jeffersonian history. The link to the abstract is a courtesy to interested readers without access to the full work, but the citation is to the book itself not the abstract. Blackwell is not the publishing source that I'm citing, the University of North Carolina Press is. On your 05:32, 26 January 2007 edit, entitled (→Quran Oath Controversy of the 110th United States Congress - reference showing Jefferson's quran ownership was to understand the enemy). You attempt to back up your assertion by citing http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html but there is no mention of the Qur'an in that entire article.-- Wowaconia 19:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Wowaconia, thank you for the responce. You still have not provided any reference to back up your assertions for text which appears online in a Wiki article. I see you are referring to a book. What page of that book, what line, etc. supports the factual assertions which appears online in the Wiki article. It is easy for someone to have read a book and believe facts came from that book, but to be mistaken. I'm not sure what the wiki policy is if a book is not available online, as far as having someone verify it. But you should be able to give page and line numbers for a number of explicit facts in the current version of the article which you are defending from edits such as:
Your counter argument to me is irrelevant even if correct, that I offered no specific proof that Jefferson was thinking that he acquired the Quran in order to understand the why the foreign ambassador of the North African countries asserted legal authority to attack shipping under the American Flag and extort payments because we were "infidels" and they were authorized to do so under the Quran. I don't have a "mind print out" of Jefferson's thoughts at the time. Nor do you, and I doubt the book you have does either. Your argument fails for a few reasons. First, the question is the current text, and whether the current text should stay. You are given a chance to substatiate, and instead you choose to argue for the sake of arguing. I believe Wiki editors have been extremely gracious to give you so much time to reference your "facts", but time is running out. Another reason why your argument fails, is because the contemporaneous facts are against your version, and support the historical reality. Facts that are not in dispute include: the existence of the Barbary Pirates at the time, that the first international war fighting of our nation due was under President Jefferson's command against the pirates claiming legal authority under the Quran to extort payments from U.S. flagged vessels, as that "what's his name" in England as negotiator on behalf of the nations harboring the pirates claimed legal authority to extort payments from infidels a/k/a merchant shipping under U.S. flag. Historical facts support that Jefferson needed to understand the enemy and their asserted authority to wage financial and pirate war against our flagged vessels. There is not factual basis for Ellison to claim that Jefferson embraced islam, only fact that Jefferson went to war against a number of pirates who attacked U.S. citizens while seeking money extortion and claimed that the Quran authorized them to do so.
If not solely on the basis of being a non-believer, What is your basis to argue against President Jefferson having ordered our nation to fight the Barbary Pirates who claimed authority under the Quran to attack our flagged shipping and hold citizens as hostage unless ransom was paid. -- Knowsetfree 21:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Haven't heard an answer from Wowaconia so I invited him to respond with a note on his talk page, a copy follows:
Hi Wowaconia. You were involved in numerous deletions of content, and insertions of numerous facts concerning the Keith Ellison (politician) article. Please back up your claims, or the edits will need to be reverted. You spent a tremendous amount of time, and typed a lot of words onto my talk page, but what we really need is for you to provide sourcing. You have been given many weeks! And your reference on your talk page to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Reliable_sources is on point in this context. Please practise what you preach, and provide references.
Hi User:William_M._Connolley, sorry to see you summarily delete my contribution to Scientific consensus, particularly without any Talk, though you did leave a line of comment. However, your one line comment begs more questions then it answers. Do you say the edit seems POV or is POV? What is the POV? The most glaring problem with your comment is your statement that the Scientific Method is not well defined. Have you ever studied science in school? The Scientific Method itself is a formal part of the curriculum in secondary education in every state I have seen, and I believe many colleges as well for introductory courses. Are you not aware of the major emphasis in education on the history of scientific advances in the face of great societal opposition, for example Galileo Galilei? Are you not aware of the significant suffering and opposition for scientists that dared to ask questions and suggest answers that conflicted with the status quo? IMHO you need to come to grips with this glaring fundamental error in your historical perspective and topical awareness regarding the scientific method, learn about it, it is your friend. Especially when you purport to be of sufficient expertise to comment on the scientific consensus article. After you have done that, please explain what the POV is in the edit you deleted. Also let us know if you meant a word other than "seems", which itself is a weasel word by the way. -- Knowsetfree 03:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi William, thanks for replying. I hope and believe that this Talk will benefit all. Not to get argumentative... Do you have anything to support your contention that I expect people to put talk behind every revert? Didn't think so. Perhaps you were merely attempted to mimic the tone of my first responce to your deletion. I'll ignore this point because it will distract attention from genuine issues.
Scientific Method Do you claim particular expertise with respect to science? Are you genuinely unaware that the scientific method is a defined process that is explicitly taught? Are you genuinely unaware of the shocking historical of persecution (oh, and execution) of scientists by society including religions and governments, for their having dared to ask questions or posed theories that conflicted with the status quo? By no means am I suggesting, or have I suggested, that every scientist is smart, unbiased, rational, without personal or financial self interest, sane, or truely motivated by the pursuit of knowledge. Historical Record Filled With Persecution of Scientists It just seems so shocking that the world of wiki would want to remove the historical record when it comes to the contributions and sacrifices made by a number of scientists, in lite of the amazing world we live in today and technologies. Um, like computers, telecommunications, and the internet. So, maybe we are getting somewhere on the historical record and the historical and current importance of the scientific method. Maybe you can generate a good entry? If not sci med or sci cons, which article should include a reference to the persuction of people pursuing the sci med? Please display POV problem and clarify "seems" Would you still please illuminate what you considered POV in the edit you deleted, and "de-weasel" your word choise of seems. Your comment: "artificial conflict between sci meth and sci cons" Do you hold that sci meth and sci cons are the exact same concept? If you genuinely do, why didn't you perform a deletion of one article, and combine non duplicative content? I have never heard a politician recite or invoke the scientific method (sci meth) in order to assert control, impose taxes, threaten regulatory or enforcement actions. In contrast, claims of scientific consensus are common by politicians in all of the same contexts. Similarly, lawyers will claim sci cons whenever it "suits" their purpose. As both terms are man made, and reflect human efforts at pursuing knowledge or persuasion, wouldn't any difference between their semantics be as you say "artificial" by definition? I suggest that sci meth is aligned with the pursuit of knowledge, and that scientific consensus is an arbitrary claim, by potentially biased party, as to the current state of knowledge as developed by the scientific method. Sci Cons is a tool of rhetoric whereas sci meth deals with the production of theories, fact, observation, and analysis. Sci meth brings knowledge and insight over potentially a long period of time, sci meth welcomes differing opinions and continual questioning. -- Knowsetfree 16:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bill, thanks for the apology but you need to come clean. Obviously, the weight of so fact which conflicts with your world view is stifling your Talk. So, Let me break it down to make it easy for you:
-- Knowsetfree 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, Mr. Connolley. I'm sorry about the multiple addresses to your first name. By the way, if you go to Amazon.com and type Scientific method for a book search, you will see numerous books dedicated to the topic of teaching the subject matter (a gross search result of some 40,000 books). Similarly, searches of educational materials at the secondary and college level reveal a similar results. As far as the public and Wikipedia, the distinction in the use of political / commercial invocations of the term " Scientific consensus" as opposed to an application of the Scientific method should be addressed by the Wiki articles. On an ever growing number of subjects, parties with a political and / or financial interest (aren't they often the same?) routinely invoke a claim of Scientific consensus in order to influence the flow of money, either taxation, or funding studies, or indirectly through regulation or litigation. Thus, let's establish:
-- Knowsetfree 05:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Knowsetfree, I replied here Best regards, Pete.Hurd 18:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I have raised some concern about the controversy section of the Hewlett-Packard article, and having noted that you have shown interest in previous talk page discussions on this topic would invite you to input at [ [1]]. thanks Keylay31 hablame 23:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
-- Knowsetfree 21:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I've tagged this for deletion as asvertising, at the moment it doesn't assert notability. Just letting you know.
pablo :: ... talk ... 21:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pablo, on one hand, it could be argued that the mention of any firm is advertising. But if that were the case then Wiki shouldn't have any listings about companies. You are right to pose the question. From my perspective it might have been preferrable to just start a discussion instead of the flag for speedy deletion. These guys have influence over the flow of billions of dollars every year, and their profile should be raised in the public eye, not shadowed. Knowsetfree 02:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Now that is really, really odd. All evidence of the article has been obliterated. There is no edit log of the article being deleted, the article's talk page to which I contributed and referenced the discussion here, and "my contributions" shows no evidence of the article having been created. However, there is evidence of the entries to the talk page here. Let me check some things. I've got to figure out 1) what happened here, how things disappeared so dramatically. I've seen new articles get deleted before, but not without a trace; 2) how to start a discussion with some senior editors. I believe the issues are really important here, and the repression of information is telling.
Knowsetfree 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, these guys get no benefit by advertising on Wikipedia and I'm sure that they would prefer to have as low a profile to the general public, media, and regulators, as possible. Firms like this often have Private Equity funds as clients, which are essentially hedge funds which keep an even lower profile; and whose investment horizon is sometimes longer term than traditional hedge funds. Some hedge funds tend to have short term trading strategies. Obviously, "reliable source" is subject to the eye of the beholder. I have read that a subjects own press can be used "against them" but it is not supposed to be used to self advertise. Well, I am not affiliated with them. So I guess there is some line drawn between self advertisement and the public's right to know. Unfortunately, a lot of the information about the large and powerful money powers in this country is not free, but you have to pay top dollar to get it. By the way, selling financial information on the stock market, who is doing what deals, etc. is how New York City's billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg made his fortune. I'll see what else I can find out about Greenhill & Co., LLC. Knowsetfree 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ helpme}}
{{helpme}}
It has always been obvious that the article was deleted as alleged advertising after being flagged for speedy deletion. I entered a {notSoFast} flag (don't remember exact name) and attempted to initiate discussion here, on the article's talk page, and on the flagging users page. There was never any discussion as to the merits of the article, as far as I know, only a comment by the initial flagger something along the lines that it was 'out of his hands'. Please read the prior entry to my talk page for the full detail. It was a short new article, not much more than a stub, so I don't see how it was genuinely advertising. Also, it seems to me that After Midnight's advice does not conform with wiki polciy. I don't think that NPOV policy means that you must include "critical" information. If I am not aware of something critical about a firm, does not negate the relevance of the firm to wiki users. My {helpme} request was, and continues to be, related solely to the points of whether the financial documents filed by a public company listed on the NYSE is a wiki reliable source, and whether a firm which handled over a $100 billion of M & A business was significant enough to warrant a wiki article. But thanks to "After Midnight" for the information on the sandbox, if I get the time I might try to reconstruct the original article. Unfortunately, as mentioned before, the article and all edit history disappeared without a trace, which seems odd to me. Knowsetfree 01:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Matt. I've started the process and informed the admin who flagged the page for speedy deletion. I also pointed out new facts that show the company's significance. Knowsetfree 01:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Lawyers & Law Firms Found Guilty of Legal Misconduct ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. LeSnail ( talk) 19:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Entities or Persons committing SEC Violations, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 19:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Category:Private Equity & Hedge Funds with financial ties to politicians, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 19:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
New user Lamro made a lot of entries into the Weil Gotshal article, which I have been watching after first seeing anons vandalize the page by deleting unflattering entries related to facts that were never disputed. To be fair, I'm giving this new user the opportunity to substantiate his basis for the numerous entries before I delete them. Just in case user User :Lamro disappears from Wiki like Milleri did, I've copied my entry to Lamro's Talk page here:
Hello Lamro, welcome to Wikipedia. You have made substantial edits to the Weil Gotshal article, but you have not followed the Wiki policy of providing a factual reference to substantiate your edits to the page. Remember, we have no way of knowing that you have any basis to know any facts about the firm;,that is why wiki has a policy requiring a reliable source to back up an edit. I'm giving you the opportunity to substantiate your edits regarding your entries such as (list of Community Service),(list of Recognitions and Rankings) (list of Practice Areas) ,(list of Key People) , (list of Notable Deals and Cases) before I delete them. Thanks, and if you have a question or comment please feel free to comment on (My Talk page) where I have been tracking Weil Gotshal article vandalism and I'll have an entry for this topic: "Provide a reference for Weil Gotshal edits or they will be deleted" Knowsetfree (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, Lamro, I'll give you a few days. Knowsetfree ( talk) 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, to those who wish the extensive unreferenced conduct on the [Weil Gotshal] page to remain. Put up or shut up. Either provide reliable references to the awards, practise areas, and etc or they will be deleted. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 00:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Knowsetfree, how are you doing? Thank you for adding the name of Dr. Sowell to the list, however the name will be removed unless you provide a reliable verifiable source (as is required by policy) that will proof his notability and service in the Corps. The reason that we are requiring sources is because a lot of people in the past have added names of non-notables and a few of us had to go through a lot of trouble of verifing the additions. We, who manage the list, will appreciate your cooperation. Thank you and take care. Tony the Marine ( talk) 18:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
, and http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1990/09/10/86090/index.htm Let me know if that info is OK? Knowsetfree ( talk) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note that EASTLAW has made arbirary and ridiculous if not malicious editions and DELETIONS to other articles in addiition to yours. Eastlaw IGNORES the well-establsihed standards that we use for our entires from MARQUIS, a pre-eminent publsiher of biographical information who has DECADES of publsihing bios-- JudicialWatch ( talk) 06:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on William H. Simon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
csaribay (
talk) 22:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
After having warned long in advance and requesting some back up information or discussion, I have deleted the following incredibly false statement which was attributed as a quote to a judge. The impression to Wiki readers would have been that one judge ruled counter to the prevailing opinion, in a manner that would have characterized the atcual ruling as to the impropriety and unethical behavior of Weil, Gotshal & Manges as having been disputed by the courts. Such suggestion that reasonable minds could have disagreed is not supported by any facts in the referenced article. First, the quoted text was not a quote by the hired lawyer John Martin, the text was [Weil Gotshal]'s own argument in which they argued they were not unethical. Second, John Martin was not acting as a judge. He was acting as an individual hired (Yes, for money) to deliver an opinion. Here is the deleted quote:
Former Southern District of New York Judge John Martin stated that Weil Gotshal's "lawyers conducted themselves in a fully appropriate and professional manner." [2]
By the way, the opinion of John Martin was either unpersuasive, or addtional facts before the actual sitting Judge were so strong (or a combination of the two) that the sitting Judge made his remarks on Weil Gothsal's misconduct. This type of false presentation and characterization of facts upon Wiki, if done before a court, would be not just unethical but also criminal. Arguably, courts have been extremely reluctant to refer such conduct for criminal investigation, notwithstanding statutory duties requiring same. My point is just that here we have yet another abuse of the truth, in this case on Wikipedia, in order to pump up or deflect negative press on a BigLaw firm.
FYI, Wiki readers who are interested in the subject of Legal Corruption may find the new article on well known Columbia professor William H. Simon and referenced materials therein. Prof Simon is working against legal experts who write bogus legal opinions for hire merely to serve the interests of clients seeking to escape criminal and or civil repercussions by presenting the "we acted on the advice of counsel" defense. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 00:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again, we have an anon - this time 72.86.41.177 - who deletes the Controversies section from this firms page. It is both ironic and telling that this anonymous user cites the wiki policy WP:SOAP - it almost indicates that this content editor knows what she is doing and that the edit is appropriate. But we find that this user didn't bother to register, or log in, or both. The SOAP policy is a two edged sword, and articles are not meant to be advertising. Prior attempts to eliminate the controversies section, including by an admitted member of the firm, were eventually overruled by senior wiki editors. High profile people and organizations invariable have a controversies section. Please stop censoring wiki, people have a right to knowledge. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 02:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to
Paul Bergrin. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that
biographical information about living persons must not be
libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper
sources. Thank you.
Pontificalibus (
talk) 20:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pontificalibus, your name sure is fitting. The article was completely referenced. Did you read what I wrote? Were the cites removed by a vandal? There are plenty of sources for the story about the attorney who crossed the line and engaged in serious crime along side his clients. Unfortunately I don't have time now to redo the research. Too bad, wiki readers deserve to know about this phenomenon. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 20:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Bergrin.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY (TALK) 20:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
What is it about Weil Gotshal that the subject would inspire so many anonymous vandals? 2 October 2009 Knowsetfree (talk | contribs) (10,127 bytes) (Undid revision 313707065 by 173.71.209.76 (talk) Recurring anonymous vandals - issues settled in favor of disclosure) -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 20:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's take a look at the contributions of this anon user [ [2]]. It is interesting how this anonymous editor is so interested in such a narrow subject range and purpose: to eliminate attorney misconduct from wikipedia. That is to say, not to reduce the instances of attorney misconduct, but merely to censor any mention of it. It is sad how this anon violates many more wiki policies than they incorrectly cite when he/she undertakes his/her censoring operations. User 173.71.209.76, you can't bounce back and forth with reverts. You must talk first. This is "Wiki 101" here. Also, your associates have tried to silence the misconduct of these law firms in the past, in particular the conduct of Weil, Gotshal & Manges when a federal judge fined them millions of dollars for lying to the Court as they failed to disclose their relationship with Bear Stearns at the same time they provided Leslie Fay with advice that would impact Bear Stearns. This topic has already been resolved in fair of the valid disclosure of true facts. Speaking of disclosure, isn't it unethical for a member of the bar to make any form of advertisement without disclosing a clear notice to the effect "attorney advertisement"?
Well, once again, I will go through the steps. Maybe, we'll ultimately end up with and administrator locking the page, or at least just the misconduct section for weil gotshal.
* 04:49, 21 October 2009 (hist | diff) Weil, Gotshal & Manges (undo changes violating wikipedia policy; an encyclopedia is not a personal soapbox.) (top) (Tag: section blanking) * 11:16, 18 October 2009 (hist | diff) McCarran-Ferguson Act (clean up) (top) * 03:16, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) Edward F. Cox (replace incorrect amlaw ranking with correct ranking) * 11:36, 18 September 2009 (hist | diff) Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (→Notable alumni) * 03:08, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Weil, Gotshal & Manges (→Recognition) * 03:06, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Weil, Gotshal & Manges (→Recognition) (Tag: references removed) * 02:38, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Talk:Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy * 02:21, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Attorney misconduct (→External Links & Articles: not a wiki page -- as anyone who knows what an encyclopedia is would know.) (top) * 01:49, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman (→Misconduct: WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:WEIGHT, WP SOAP also out of date and not encyclopedia worthy.) (top) (Tag: section blanking) * 01:35, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Weil, Gotshal & Manges (→Controversies: WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:WEIGHT) (Tag: section blanking) * 01:35, 14 September 2009 (hist | diff) Weil, Gotshal & Manges (→Malpractice: delete because no cite. supposed link doesn't work. also WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:WEIGHT)
Hi Knowsetfree. Thank you for joining wikipedia and trying to improve it. I notice you have made allegations of vandalism. Sometimes it is confusing to users of wikipedia so let me try to help you. There are some wikipedia rules that would be useful for you learn.
"Vandalism" is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism. Good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia are not vandalism, even if they are misguided or ill-considered. Content disputes are not vandalism.
Some material — sometimes even factually correct material — does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism. Check to make sure that the addition was in line with Wikipedia standards, before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism.
Knowsetfree, you really try to avoid the word 'vandal'. In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Knowsetfree, you should also know that you should try to comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal comments.
Knowsetfree, do not feel bad. Certain users of wikipedia get confused as to what is vandalism and what is encyclopedic, and what the wikipedia standards are, and you can be a valuable contributing member to wikipedia after you learn these rules.
Antisoapbox ( talk) 16:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no question that Global Warming is for some an emotional subject. But it just doesn't make sense that the Debate and skepticism section there would be censured. Isn't that were reports of skepticism belong. If a petition signed by over 9,000 PhD's isn't newsworthy, than nothing is newsworthy. The actual scientists names appear on the website. User User:Atmoz deleted my entry of cited references to the petition. My understanding of the Global Warming issue is that according to Al Gore and many vocal AGW proponents, there is substantial "unanimity" because "over 2,500 of the worlds top scientists are in agreement". But what about 9,000 PhD's who are not in agreement. I would think that it was newsworthy. Hopefully Atmoz will do the right thing and discuss this issue on the articles talk page, as I requested of him. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Global Warming Petition Project
As of December 15, 2009 a total of more than 31,400 persons with relevant scientific credentials of at least a bachelors degree have signed a petition in opposition to the theory of man made global warming stating:[134]
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
The signors to this petition include over 9,020 PhD recipients.[135]
-- Knowsetfree ( talk) 06:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, to Knowsetfree, Response to your query to my User:jlancaster (talk) page: Yes, I am the same Justin Lancaster. And yes, I did sign the statement in question in 1994. That retraction was coerced by a SLAPP suit. Although I was confident I would win at trial, my family and resources could not withstand the pressure from two national law firms funded behind-the-scenes by sources larger than Singer. Unfortunately, Massachusetts had not yet passed its version of the SLAPP legislation. Had I this piece of history to repeat, then I would not have signed that retraction, as I had never made any false statements. In 2006, I fully rescinded the 1994 statement and published the evidence that supported my original opinions of S. Fred Singer. [3] User:jlancaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.132.70 ( talk) 08:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
No good deed goes unpunished. It is really too bad that some people are so in love with an ideology that they would stake their names on promulgating a falsehood. And I don't mean people disagreeing on theories, or religion, or art. I mean simple things like facts. So I would have thought someone would quickly back away from a falsehood they promote, when their own web citation proves the falsehood. Could this really be an honest mistake? This exchange with William M. Connolley about his deletions to the Global Warming Petition Project and his comments on the article's talk page hopefully ends quickly after William re-reads his own cited reference:
Interesting to note that the project site seems to have changed. Until recently [9] it said "This is the website that completely knocks the wind out of the enviro's sails. See over 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever". All that trash now seems to have quietly disappeared William M. Connolley 21:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi William. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia, but please try to remain civil. While you may genuinely feel that other blogs and websites are "trash", you should not "trash talk" anyone on wikipedia, and you should also not misrepresent the facts. Unfortunately, you clearly misrepresent the facts in your comment above. (and perhaps you authored the false hoods which I just removed from the article, describe here 10)
- You are clearly trying to apply the words of one of thousands of websites which comments about the Global Warming Petition Project, and then falsely attribute those comments to the actual petition site itself. That would be like filming a NY Yankees fan who screamed "Red Socks Suck" and then claiming that the New York Yankees has officially declared that the Boston Red Socks "Suck". Obviously, such falsehoods have no business on wikipedia whose aspirations are high. Your falsehood is clearly demonstrated by your own citation which you unsuccessfully use to prove your point. Look at your archived web site. It is clearly introducing the website:
- This is the website[11] that ...
- Clearly, the sentence "This is the website" can only be read in context, which shows that the word "website" is highlighted as a link. Clicking on the link brings you to the actual website. The actual website is very clear, very concise, and very polite. Presumably, if you are able to navigate wikipedia as an editor you have at least the bare minimum of knowledge to understand a webpage, links, and how articles and commentary often references other sites. How are we supposed to continue with the assumption that you are editing in good faith when you miss the simple truth and write falsehoods with the obvious intent to denigrate the petition? Please recheck your sources and by all means talk about it here, in a civil manner. I would like to think that your posting was simple human error. -- Knowsetfree (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunealy user
William M. Connolley merely reverts edits and ignores all talk pointing out his clear falsehood. And his justification for his edits consists merely of the phrase "You're wrong". I have no doubt that the falsehood itself will ultimately be removed from wikipedia. And while I don't want to condescend, I got to wonder aloud if we could possibly bring his level of discourse up to that which wiki editors ought to use with each other? --
Knowsetfree (
talk) 22:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I ran accross this question you left in an edit summary: [4]. To answer it, look at Wikipedia:Common names. Basically, articles are named after the most common or most recognizable name of the subject, thus the article is located at Bill Clinton, not at William Jefferson Clinton (though the second redirects to the first). Thus, the Carly Fiorina article should be left at Carly Fiorina since that is the name she is most commonly called. -- Jayron 32 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Please comment on the content, not the contributor. Your comment here obliquely accuses your fellow volunteers of acting in bad faith, which is unacceptable. You may be blocked if you continue in this vein. If you have a personal issue with an editor, please raise it at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts or pursue other methods of dispute resolution. - 2/0 ( cont.) 20:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
"A negative consequence of the name "Oregon Petition" is that it obfuscates and misleads as to the purpose of the petition, the actual name of petition, and it's alleged sponsorship. Furthermore, the nickname Oregon Petition parrots the talking points of numerous POV websites and persons whose obvious bias is in favor of AGW ideology and which often blatantly employ the logical fallacy of ad hominem attacks against 6 persons, and the employer of one of them, from among the 31,000 actual signatories of the petition. Ascribing to the nickname preferred by these detractors is fundamentally POV."
The abovelinked page lays out the benefits to registering an account. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 22:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Ronhjones (Talk) 00:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Of the numerous wiki articles to which I've contributed, there may be no topic more politically sensitive than those having to do with Global Warming. To be sure, people have opinions. But many also have careers. Having just run into this article I was both impressed and relieved. It is impressive that Wikipedia gets notice in large publications, but the article was covering a topic with which I had some personal experience. It seemed like William had lots to say about the subject, and when I deleted clearly false material (false by its own cited reference) William refused to WP:Talk and responded solely "You're Wrong". I was relieved when I learned more about User:William_M._Connolley's objectives and conduct:
All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it -- more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred -- over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley's global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement. [4]
Can't say that I'm surprised, other than the fact that he has edited over five thousand articles. Geez, who pays him? He's got to have a day job, if wikipedia is not it... But there is more...
On William'
his talk page I just learned that his administrator privileges were revoked. Also interesting is that
User:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris chose to publicly impugn the wikipedia arbitration committee for their decision against William:
- [5] Hardly surprising that arbcom wants to keep their mess as far from view as possible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk)
Like William, User User:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris has had some interesting things to say about my editing with respect to articles related to global warming. The American Spectator article directed me to a Canadian publication called the Financial Post by Lawrence Solomon with an article entitled "Wikipedia’s climate doctor" [6] - none other than our User:William_M._Connolley. I had just read part of a book by Solomon called "The Deniers" and didn't that he had stuff online for free so every cloud has its silver lining. Perhaps the biggest problem is that Wikipedia gets the black eye on this. From the American Standard:
- But with the leaked emails known as Climategate more people are beginning to see that deception, ::not science, has been their principal weapon. And we see also that Wikipedia has lent itself to ::that deception.
- [From an academic] "I will not accept any references from Wikipedia in any paper I review ::from here on out until this is resolved."
- "I see that a banner ad is appearing on most Wikipedia pages asking for 'donations'…. I think ::I'll contribute to more worthwhile charities."
Hopefully Wikipedia survives with as many editors in contributing in WP:good faith and getting the financial donations that they need. But in my opinion, the general public should not put all of the blame just on Wikipedia. The Global Warming industry has tremendous influence on all main stream media as well and Wikipedia might be one the first places where the issues get treated fairly. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the personal attack here [10] per WP:NPA. Comment on content not on editors. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 08:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed,
Hockey stick controversy, is on
article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a
templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.
To the above boilerplate I'll add this:
Kim Dabelstein Petersen above refers to this personal attack. In addition to this you have also made personal attacks here (your user talk page is not to be used for personal attacks).
Please stop making personal attacks. It's okay for you to use talk pages to raise issues with the articles, but it is not permissible to use them in a way that worsens the atmosphere and attacks others--whether Wikipedians or not. Further attacks may lead to a request for enforcement in the Climate change probation or, in egregious cases, a request for direct sanction -- TS 08:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
In the context of wikipedia, What happens when an editor is notified of falsehoods he entered and he is politely invited to remove or provide sources that could prove his position, the editor instead engages in uncivil behavior? -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 22:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI, in this edit you repeatedly refer to User:KimDabelsteinPetersen as "she". Kim is in fact male. You should be careful about the use of gender pronouns to refer to editors unless you know who they are. Cheers, Oren0 ( talk) 20:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The article Lynn M. LoPucki has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
MrOllie (
talk) 17:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that in France, it is a crime to deny or defame the Holocaust. Well, perhaps they could extradite the phony individual who is trying to remake the image of an admitted pimp into that of a Holocaust victim. Louis J. Posner is a dirty bankruptcy lawyer, and on top of that he ran a prostitution ring out of his "Hot Lap Dance Club".
"I was present at the club on a nightly basis and was aware that a number of the dancers were regularly engaged in prostitution in the private rooms," Posner told Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Michael Obus. ... He admitted to "personally engaging" in sexual conduct exchange for allowing dancers to work at the club.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/03/23/2010-03-23_hot_lap_dance_club_owner_lou_posner_pleads_guilty_to_running_prostitution_ring_o.html#ixzz14uSzTm3O Everyone who cares about the importance of preserving the historical record of the significance of the heinous crimes of the Holocaust must not allow such a sleazy crook to try to enshroud himself in the public's mind as being innocent when he is nothing more than a predator. www.kindertransport.org should be made aware of this scheme to attempt tarnish their good name. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 19:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope you didn't interpret my edits in the History section as censorship. Wikipedia tries to avoid overbalanced focus on recent events, so I attempted to put (very important) recent developments into the context of the firm. It has over 100 years of history, so pushing 2012 events before all else seemed to lack balance. For comparisons, the corporate collapses of Lehman Brothers and Enron are referenced in the lead, but then full details come in the appropriate chronological section later on. Let's work together to ensure the Dewey developments are well covered, with these articles acting as examples. Harro5 02:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Dewey & LeBoeuf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Davis ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Proposed edits: Remove "Initially" from Dominique Strauss-Kahn Case section which seems to imply that criticism is over. Also, to eliminate the evaluation by Bloomberg of Vance as "praise". The sole citation for this was an article which is far from praise. Bloomberg said that Vance's actions where "probably correct", which is tepid praise at best. Further, Bloomberg criticized Vance's use of the perp walk, which is a political act one would expect from a Nifong, not a good prosecutor. Point being, the cited reference is overblown in order to try to make Vance look good. The whole article seems to be Puffery and either needs to be heavily edited to limit only verifiable claims from trusted sources including accurate descriptions of controversial aspects of this politician/prosecutor's career, or have the article eliminated entirely. -- Knowsetfree ( talk) 23:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Knowsetfree. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Knowsetfree. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)