If we didn't honor DST it would be currently 12:23 where I am.
I have a Masters in Anthropology from NMSU as well as a degree in accounting from DACC with one of my most influential professors regarding my approach to science being the late Fred Plogg whose views were very much like James Burke's
I developed and chaired interactive 90-minute informational/instructional presentation on behalf of NMSU's museum based on my Master's thesis "Guidelines for museum computerization and its utilization":
- Mountain Plains Museums Annual Meeting (10/05/1995) and
- Museum Association of Arizona Annual Meeting (05/19/1996).
On a more personal level I have little tolerance for edits that use quotes that engage in any of the stuff outlined in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. The ones that annoy me the most are:
- Ad hominem quotes (like the dreaded "no reputable scholar" or "all respected scholars agree..." quotes)
- Even with fringe theories there should be better quotes addressing problems with the theory rather than attacking any person who supports the fringe theory under such a broad umbrella as Ad hominem. Given the wide range of defamation such quotes may violate Wikipedia:Libel so it is best to simply avoid them.
- Argument from "authority"
- This is a real problem as people will assume simply because someone is with an accredited institution he is an expert (even if it is unclear what his degree is in)
- Ignoring "Occam's razor"
- Observational selection
- Inconsistency (the source points out there problems with the material but then uses it ignoring the very problems pointed out)
- Non sequitur (position requires ignoring other implications that are common knowledge)
- Excluded middle
- Weasel words
Quotes that engage in this kind of nonsense have no place in Wikipedia as they are basically engaging in actions that are forbidden to editors as outlined under Neutral point of view, Reliable sources which if there is a conflict is superseded by Verifiability, WP:PRIMARY, and Citing sources. If we as editors are forbidden from engaging in the things outlined on those pages then logically we shouldn't be able to use quotes that 'break the rules' either. The same is true when Inaccuracy between reliable sources occur. Otherwise it becomes a game of 'pick that authority' and violates Neutral point of view up one side and down the other.
Per WP:CRYBLP and the community+two administrator ruling in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard, WP:BLP is NOT a personal magical censorship hammer especially in the talk pages. Administrator Scott Mac stated "In order to assess the reliability of a source, one needs to discuss the credibility of the person making the claims." Administrator Jclemens went further: "I concur with Scott Mac: there is no BLP issue to justify the edits made in the name of BLP. Making edits and calling them "BLP" when no BLP issue actually applies is disruptive editing, as I've articulated in WP:CRYBLP."
I am also annoyed when editors confuse explication (clarifying the meaning of something) with explanation (how or why). Don't just claim a source is reliable, high quality or the opposite but be able to show to your fellow editors how you came to that conclusion.
Another thing that annoys me is posting templates or comments on individual editor's talk pages rather than the relevant talk page. As Administrator User:Elen of the Roads says "It (not to discuss the issue here and instead badger people on their talk pages) can be a tactic for dispersing the argument all over the 'pedia, and preventing it gathering momentum in any location."
How To Guides that I found useful
||The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar|
|For professionalism and extraordinary contributions to article protection and in resolving disputes over the Weston Price article (Oct 2010). --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 17:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)|
|The Modest Barnstar|
|Thanks for your recent contributions! -22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)|
|The Original Barnstar|
|This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.|
Note Template notices by non administrators will be deleted--if you can't be bothered to write your words then I can't be bother to read something any chimp could have sent me.