User talk:A Quest For Knowledge

Notes to myself about Jennie Finch article

Extended content

According to Richard Deitsch, softball eliminated from the Olympic games by a single vote. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/richard_deitsch/10/26/the.rant/ "It's a slap in our faces, boom it's gone," Finch said. "You don't know who to blame, you don't know what to blame but it's on our watch and its failure, it's a loss. "We take it personally because it is our lives and the future of our sport. We do take the blame, each and every one of us. What more could we have done?" http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/25/2314517.htm?site=olympics/2008/athletes Dropped from the roster along with baseball by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 2005, softball may be stepping up to the plate for the final time in Beijing. "We're going to do everything we can to prove that we belong in the Olympics and we plan to use Beijing as a platform to do this," said U.S. pitcher Jennie Finch. "In the U.S. millions of girls have the option of getting a scholarship and playing in college. "But in other countries the Olympics is the only place to pursue their dream. We want to continue that dream for the young girls in Croatia or China - that's what it's all about." While softball's Olympic future is confused, on the field the outcome is less in doubt. The U.S. are poised to continue their domination on the diamond by capturing a fourth consecutive gold medal. Since softball was introduced at the 1996 Atlanta Summer Games, only the U.S. has stood on top of the podium, posting an Olympic record of 24-4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/2480105/Beijing-Softball-Off-pitch-battle-more-important-than-fight-for-medals.html "It's a slap in our faces, boom it's gone," Finch said. "You don't know who to blame, you don't know what to blame but it's on our watch and its failure, it's a loss. "We take it personally because it is our lives and the future of our sport. We do take the blame, each and everyone of us - what more could we have done?" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/2480242/Beijing-Softball-Jennie-Finch-fights-to-save-her-sport.html Picking up where they left off in the Athens Games, the U.S. team started its bid for a fourth straight gold medal with an 11-0 rout of Venezuela on Tuesday that set an Olympic record for runs scored in a game. Jennie Finch pitched four no-hit innings and Caitlin Lowe hit an inside-the-park homer as the U.S. won its 15th straight Olympic game and dispatched the Venezuelans in five innings due to the run-difference rule. Andrea Duran drove in three runs, and Natasha Watley contributed a two-run homer. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/olympics/2008109556_olysoftball13.html They were so overwhelming at Athens in 2004 – winning nine consecutive games by a combined score of 51-1 – that their reward from the International Olympic Committee was getting the entire sport booted out of the lineup for the 2012 Games in London. Now, they’re back for one last overwhelming whirl around the dance floor as a send-off before taking up the game of politics to get softball reinstated onto the Olympic roster. “That is definitely in the back of our minds. It’s the ultimate goal, getting softball put back into the lineup for 2016,” said starting pitcher Jennie Finch, who threw four no-hit innings as the Americans opened the tournament with an 11-0 win over Venezuela. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/5938064.html Already voted out of the 2012 London Games along with baseball, women's softball is trying to get itself reinstated for 2016, with a critical International Olympic Committee vote coming in February. At a time when her own athletic future is unclear -- she says she wants to have more kids, for one thing -- she remains a crusader for softball's reinstatement. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/12/AR2008081200956_2.html The face of an entire sport, the pretty one on all the magazine covers, was a mess. Jennie Finch stood on the medal stand, silver around her neck — yes, a silver for softball. She was shocked, down, wiping away tears. Before today, the U.S. had won all three Olympic golds in softball. The U.S. owned softball, winning 22 straight games in the Olympics. Now, on top of losing, softball may be gone for good: the International Olympic Committee purged it from the 2012 Olympic program three years ago. What was rushing though her mind? "So many things," Finch says, leaning against a fence outside the Fengtai Softball Stadium, teammates and their families consoling each other behind her. Some of her comrades had already talked about no regrets, giving their all, 110%, a cadre of painful clichés. But about two hours after the game, the most famous softball player in history was ready to share the true pain. "You know, I feel like we let USA softball down," she says. "Many women have worn this uniform, and accepted nothing but gold. So many thoughts. What more could I have done? And then, can this be the last time that softball players stand on the podium at the Olympic games? The unknown [future] of our sport, all those young girls watching us, and all the many people who've supported me. I haven't seen my son in a month and a half, I can't wait to see his little face when I get home . . . so many things." "It deserves to be an Olympic sport," she said. "I don't know if these games are going to matter, but it will help to spread the word [and] prove to the IOC we belong here." After the game, Finch, 27, makes one more pitch. "Over 140 countries play this game," she says. "You know, you don't have to be six-four [Finch is 6-ft. 1 in.] You don't have to be 200 pounds. We have all different shapes and sizes. The sport tests so many athletic abilities, from hand-eye coordination, to speed, to agility, to quickness. We're finally at the pinnacle, we've finally been established. Please don't take this away." Even before the game, Finch's mind was muddled. "We've fought it, we've fought it, we've fought it for so long," she says of softball's inevitable Olympic extinction. "But on the drive up, knowing this could be it, you can't fight it anymore." She never got a chance to fight for the gold. Candrea started lefty Cat Osterman to match up against Japan, which had seven southpaws in the starting lineup. Was Finch disappointed? "I would be lying if I said no," says Finch, before quickly adding that she supports Candrea. She won't go Solo on us. "As a pitcher, I think we all want the ball in our hands." She didn't throw, but the loss still stings. Plus, Finch is feeling guilty about U.S. softball's demise. Really? Finch, who has spent more time promoting her sport than anyone on the planet? She blames herself for some of this mess? "I do," she says. "I hold that responsibility. Being an Olympic softball player, what more can I do? Lisa Fernandez, Dot Richardson, the many greats, they've done so much, and now it's our turn. And what did we do with the torch? So yeah, you do feel let down. Those many girls, they don't look to the International Olympic Committee. They look to us." And they won't find her at the Olympics anymore. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1834867,00.html#ixzz0wXH3bR7P Losing for the first time since 2000, the U.S. softball team was denied a chance for a fourth straight gold medal Thursday, beaten 3-1 by Japan in the sport's last appearance in the Olympics for at least eight years -- and maybe for good. Andrea Duran, Jennie Finch and Caitlin Lowe receive their silver medals after a 3-1 loss to Japan during the women's gold-medal softball game. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121932673343060299.html?mod=rss_Beijing_Olympics BEIJING, China -- The U.S. women’s softball team struggled to find a silver lining to the silver medal earned Thursday night in Beijing, especially since this was the last year of Olympic softball. One theory as to why the sport was voted out of the 2012 Olympics — that team U.S.A. has been too dominant, almost never losing. Ironic now, as Japan ended up celebrating the 2008 gold. “How are you feeling this morning?” Access Hollywood’s Shaun Robinson asked the team on Friday. “I know it was a devastating loss for you ladies.” “Wearing this uniform, you’re used to winning,” star pitcher Jennie Finch responded. “That’s why — that’s why we did it. But you know in the end, yes, we have a silver medal and a lot of people would dream about that.” http://www.accesshollywood.com/u-s-womens-softball-finds-unity-in-loss-to-japan_article_10971 In 2008 in the lead up to the Olympics, the U.S. embarked on the Bound 4 Beijing Tour -- 46 stops over several months aimed at bringing the teammates closer together and fine-tuning their play. They zig-zagged across the country and Jennie took Ace on the road with her for most of it. She was, as ever, supported by her family throughout the tour. Her parents and Casey’s, as well as aunts and cousins and in-laws came along for different stretches to help out with Ace. It was a bittersweet time for teammates who had played together so long, knowing that a decision was pending with the International Olympic Committee about whether or not the sport they loved would continue as part of the Olympics. This could be their last Olympics together. Jennie and her teammates took every opportunity to lobby the public and powers-that-be for support. The trip to Beijing was a mix of familiar and new, and Ace and Casey stayed up late every night to watch from home. The faces that were so familiar to Ace – BooBoo (Crystal Bustos) and others – were on TV! But the long road ultimately ended up with a heartbreaking loss, first in the Olympics to Japan in the final game, and then with the vote to eliminate softball from future Olympics. http://www.jenniefinch.com/static_pages/bio/3

Note to myself about quotation template - looks useful

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

Some text in between:

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

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

Rod Blagojevich corruption charges

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

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

For you

For your ongoing contributions to the 9/11 article The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

ANI

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

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

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

casey anthony article

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

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

September 11 attacks

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

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

Moving of comments in RfC

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

Hello, A Quest For Knowledge. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

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

Death of Caylee Anthony

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

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

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

Your Good Article Nomination

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

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

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

vote on re-structuring Death of Caylee Anthony

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

Gathering Mercury

Notes to myself:

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

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

9/11 conspiracy NIST investigation scope

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

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

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

ANI

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Question about Casey Anthony article

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not really familiar with the term 'salting' but I believe that I was the one who moved the article.[1] I did so because some editors started deleting content from the article on the grounds that the content wasn't part of the trial. Since we only have one article for all this content, I didn't want the name of the article to limit the scope to only the trial. I hope that makes sense. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)