Revision as of 03:15, 25 January 2008

I'm fairly busy in the Real World at the moment. Expect delays here... or not. But it's my excuse anyway...

If you're here to talk about conflicts of interest, please read (all of!) this.

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there.

If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here & I'll go take a look. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email. If I've blocked you for 3RR this applies particularly strongly: your arguments for unblock, unless for some odd reason particularly sensitive, should be made in public, on your talk page. See-also WMC:3RR.

In the dim and distant past were... /The archives. As of about 2006/06, I don't archive, just remove. Thats cos I realised I never looked in the archives.

The Holding Pen

Atmospheric circulation pic

Thanks for the pic you added to this article. It's very interesting, and I am intrigued by some of the anomalies it shows. Denni☯ 01:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Denni. Thanks! All part of my very very slow atmospheric dynamics project... more to come... slowly... William M. Connolley 22:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC).

It's wonderful to see something more the standard oversimplified depictions of the hadley/ferrel/polar cells. Did you create it or find it somewhere? I'm hoping to find one for July 2007 to see if there's some correlation to the heat wave in Montana/Western North America. http://en.wikipedia.org/2007_Western_North_American_heat_wave Thanks, Dansample 18:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Its created from ECMWF data. I don't think we have July 2007 back yet... in fact we only have till 2001. You could use NCEP data (not nearly so good, I know) and draw plots online: William M. Connolley 20:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Trend estimation with Auto-Correlated Data

William: This article you started is a great topic! I am just wondering if you have detailed information to add to the section about auto-correlated data. I am facing this problem now, and am trying to get information from papers and textbooks. --Roland 21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, IMHO what to do with auto-correlated data is an ongoing research topic. Top tip: divide the ndof by something like (1+ac1) (or is it ac1^2...) if the autocorr isn't too extreme. There is some formula like (1+ac1^2+ac2^2+...) if its strongly auto-correlated... but... its a bit of a mess, I think. Err, thats why I never expanded that bit. The von Zstorch and Zwiers book covers it, somewhat. William M. Connolley 22:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to autoregressive moving average models JQ 23:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Linda Hall editor

User:204.56.7.1 has been blocked four times in the last month for 3RR (once by you). He is now performing wholsale reversions without comment (see at Radio ) This user as you probably know, has a long history of refusing to collaborate. He ignored my talk page request. Any suggestions? --Blainster 20:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that 204. is Reddi. Reddi is limited to 1R per week. Establishing the connection past doubt is difficult; but the edit patterns are very similar. You could post a WP:RFCU. Or you could just list 204. on the 3RR page together with the note of Reddis arbcomm parole and see if that does any good. Or maybe I'll just block it... shall I? Oh go on, yes I will... William M. Connolley 21:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My Reddimeter displays 8.5 on a scale from 0 to 10: Selection of topics. likes patents, likes templates. Only the tireless lamenting on article talk pages is missing. --Pjacobi 21:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Reddi apparently back

... with another sockpuppet KarlBunker 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there no stopping him? I've blocked that one; if he persists, will semi it William M. Connolley 19:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Templeton Foundation

The Templeton Foundation used to provide grants for ID conferences and courses. According to The New York Times, Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, later asked ID proponents to submit proposals for actual research. "They never came in," said Harper, and that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said. The Templeton Foundation has since rejected the Discovery Institute's entreaties for more funding, Harper states. "They're political - that for us is problematic," and that while Discovery has "always claimed to be focused on the science," "what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth."

I'd think that while individual members/beneficiaries of the Foundation's largess may embrace ID, the the Foundation itself is trying to distance itself from the ID movement, but keeping in mind that the Discovery Institute, the hub of the ID movement, actively tries to cultivate ambiguity around its own motives, actions and members with the aim of portraying ID as more substantial and more widely accepted than it actually is, as the Dover Trial ruling shows (it's worth reading). FeloniousMonk 21:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Thats interesting and useful William M. Connolley 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo of pulpit in Stephansdom in Vienna

I want to express my appreciation for the photo you uploaded; its shadow and contrast really bring out the relief and allow the user to see it well. I wish all the photos uploaded were as carefully composed. --StanZegel (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thats very kind to stop by so politely. I did take care over the photo - I have very fond memories of that pulpit from a cycle trip in 1986 William M. Connolley 20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to have you here

With all the disinformation around, it's nice to know that there are a few scientists here on WP who aren't willing to parrot whatever their corporate masters send in a memo. Be well and to the extent that it even matters, know that you have the respect of a lot of us! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. It *is* nice to know that occaisionally :-) William M. Connolley 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me second Ryan's statement - I find it very reassuring to have you around on the climatology articles. Raul654 19:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you don't feel like taking it back after I hack Inhofe... William M. Connolley 20:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. I've just been skimming the conversations you've been in with various people and am amazed at your patience and dedication. It's a shame you have to go through the same disputes time and again with users who don't have either the scientific training or rational mindset required to reason about these complex issues. Hopefully Misplaced Pages will evolve to a point where such distractional arguments require less of your time. 129.215.11.58 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To Bdj

Can you give an outsider who's been pretty much frustrated to the point of leaving the page a quick-and-dirty as to why the page on Global warming dedicates less than a dozen words to the highly publicised controversies surrounding the science? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think I can. Firstly, this page is primarily about the *science* over GW - not the politics or press. Hence, it tries to give a balance of the science, not the press coverage. If you're basing your expectations on the latter, you'll be disappointed.

Secondly, what do we have? there are a few scientists who disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming and A hotly contested political and public debate also has yet to be resolved, regarding whether anything should be done, and what could be cost-effectively done to reduce or reverse future warming, or to deal with the expected consequences and Contrasting with this view, other hypotheses have been proposed to explain all or most of the observed increase in global temperatures, including: the warming is within the range of natural variation; the warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period, namely the Little Ice Age; and the warming is primarily a result of variances in solar radiation. and There is a controversy over whether present trends are anthropogenic. For a discussion of the controversy, see global warming controversy. . And a whole section on solar variation. So I guess your "less than a dozen" is meant rhetorically.

Thirdly, what controversies are you expecting? Solar is in there; HSC isn't (and maybe should be touched on, though its not all that relevant).

Fourthly... its just about impossible to talk about this on t:GW while everyone is wasting time rehashing old arguments about "consensus" and sourcing William M. Connolley 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. That makes sense about the science, although it would be nice to see a better cross-section of the interpretations. Regarding your "fourth," it's why I just cut to you. Thanks for the straight answer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your query

Hi William, it's correct that we're not supposed to use wikis as sources (except in very limited circumstances, namely in the same way we'd use any self-published source), but I don't see how that would apply to the instrumental temperature record. We're allowed to use any primary, secondary, or tertiary source that's reliable. I don't know what kind of source the ITR is, but it seems to me something we ought to be using. SlimVirgin 18:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What we are talking about here is to not repeat references already contained in sub-articles. I.e. when referencing the instrumental temperature record in global warming, it should be sufficient to Wikilink there, not to repeat the references over and over again. --Stephan Schulz 18:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It would depend on the context. It's almost always better to repeat the references, unless the material is completely uncontentious, in which case you could simply link to the Misplaced Pages article and anyone who wants to know more can read that. But if the claims are "challenged or likely to be challenged," as the policy says, then it's better to supply citations even if they've been repeated elsewhere. SlimVirgin 18:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that is compatible with your original reply, sorry. How can we cite ITR in this way if tertiary sources are forbidden? WP:OR sez Tertiary sources are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source... All articles on Misplaced Pages should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources... Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). This, as written, would appear to imply that tertiary sources are forbidden. I would suggest that it needs to be re-written. William M. Connolley 18:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't see how this can work with WP:SUMMARY. For complex topics, it's easily possible to go multiple levels of recursion. Repeating all references will destroy the whole idea of using summaries. --Stephan Schulz 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though the wikilawyers would tell you thats only a guideline :-). It points you are History of the Yosemite area, which indeed is woefully unreferenced, by the absurd standards some are pushing. So I think WP:OR is miswritten, and needs revision William M. Connolley 19:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would need to see the specific example to understand what the issue is. But generally, tertiary sources are allowed if they're high quality; the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, would be allowed. The secondary/tertiary distinction can be a bit of a red herring that's best ignored: what matters is whether the source is a good one, and whether it's used correctly in the article. As for summary style, you summarize the contents of another article, but in summarizing, you presumably make a couple of claims, so these particular claims should be sourced. That doesn't mean you have to repeat every single source that's in the main article — just sources for the particular claims you're repeating. SlimVirgin 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thats what I would have thought. But I don't see how this is compatible with a literal reading of the OR policy, as quoted above. Its all very well to agree in friendly discussion with you that the policy is a red herring... but its not pleasant to have the policy quoted in unfriendly edit wars. If you want an example, then consider: For example, I could just write "John Adams was born in 1735," and leave it at that because that Misplaced Pages article SAYS he was born in 1735 SO IT MUST BE TRUE! Wrong. That is not how Misplaced Pages works, I'm afraid. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source. How does that sound to you? William M. Connolley 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fair point, the policy needs to be tweaked. At the moment, there's a discussion about whether V and NOR are to be merged into ATT, so I hope we can leave any tweaking until after that's decided. Cheers, SlimVirgin 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure its a good idea to leave it, otherwise we'll get edits like this being done on the basis of over-zealous interpretation of the current policy William M. Connolley 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing the article adequately cites it sources? ~ UBeR 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

When an article achieves FA status, the adequacy of sourcing is a major criteria. The article passed that hurdle a little while back and the quantity and quality of citations have improved even after that. Are there areas that could be improved? No doubt, but overall the article is adequately sourced and the current round of nitpicking is not helping to improve the article. Vsmith 01:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Current

Gulf Stream

A recent back-and-forth in AIT got me wondering: does Gulf Stream deserve a more detailed discussion of its physical causes than just mentioning that it's wind driven? Raymond Arritt 18:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That would depend on how far into the causes you want to get. It would be nice to point out that its just one part of the gyre, and that basic ocean dynamics just makes that part thin William M. Connolley 09:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A Century in Oil

Shell's own self history was published in 1997 and on checking it seems to cover most of the history well, facts wise anyway. Can I offer to post or hand you my copy, as per comment on RDS contraversies? --BozMo talk 22:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting idea. Would shell count as unbiased? I suppose anything that was in the official history could certainly be considered sourced. If you're around Cam, I'd be happy to be handed it, otherwise post is good. I'll email you William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the facts claimed in the book are likely to be reliable. The issues of interpretation and omission are another matter. It isn't really an autobiography and the author has some personal credibility but it was written with the intention and knowledge that the biggest market would be the company itself buying copies for customers and staff to mark the century, and he had free access to all company records which in my view pretty much amounts to the same bias. Anyway I will get you a copy sometime. Oh and Watts is Philip Watts by the way. --BozMo talk 15:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing

Hi William, Its been over a year since editing restrictions were imposed on my wikipedia contributions . Is there a date when these editing restrictions can be lifted so that I may resume a normal status as a wikipedia editors? --CltFn (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The restrictions were informal, so the unlifting can be too. I'm not sure exactly how to put this, but let us say that you may consider the restrictions to be lifted 24h from now, if no-one objects here. But that you will be wise to be strictly civil, and to use talk pages to discuss controversial edits. Be aware that the restrictions can be re-imposed without due process William M. Connolley (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--CltFn (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I would tentatively object... CltFn has repeatedly violated his probation despite being aware of it. His latest editing behaviour is also quite dubious: it appears he has taken to smearing democratic candidate Barack Obama with a mass of original research designed to show his "Islamic origins". At this point in time, I would recommend against lifting the conditions of probation, of course without prejudice to future requests based upon consistent good behaviour. ITAQALLAH 18:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There are not violation of editing restrictions, no revert war or incivility. The edits I inserted are sourced and simply new wikipedia content. There is no OR , as the material is sourced directly from reliable publications. --CltFn (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is unimpressive. To save myself some trouble: CltFn: you've just asserted that There are not violation of editing restrictions, in other words, you think that you've kept within 1/7R. Is that indeed correct? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not certain as to whether over the past year I have now and then done more than one revert per page per week. I have not done a close audit of my all my edits , but what I can say is that I have not gone into revert wars. I have used the talk page to discuss controversial edits and have remained civil.--CltFn (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I *am* certain that you've broken 1/7R over the past year, because I've blocked you for it. But I'm talking about the BO article. You originally asserted that you hadn't broken your restrictions; now you're backing off to uncertain. Please clarify your position William M. Connolley (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

On the BO article, yes I do have 2 reverts within 7 days.--CltFn (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Consider yourself lucky no-one reported it, or you would have been blocked for it. Come back in a months time, with no more violations, and reqest lifting again. You realise, of course, that you don't have to submit to my capricious whims - you can take your request to the appropriate ANI type page if you want to William M. Connolley (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you William--CltFn (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

This appears to be a POV fork to violate WP:FRINGE:

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

It's not linked on either Global warming, Climate change denial, or Scientific opinion on climate change, making it very suspect. It has, however, been linked to on everything from El Niño to Volcano. Take a look.

It appears to be the Alamo of the global warming trolls, since most articles on global warming look pretty good, but this one was nominated for AfD in the past and failed.

Instead, I had an idea: You know about this stuff. Why not toss in a criticism section? I'm sure that of the scientists mentioned, there have probably been more than a few ridiculing them. While we can't remove the fork, the least we can do is balance it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, it appears that the reason it's linked to some but not others is because Template:Global warming isn't everywhere, as it should be. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It could only be a POV fork if it was a POV fork of something :-). Its become a silly page, for reasons that are obvious from the talk. Once it made some sense. No-one can see a way out of the ritual dance there, and quite likely no-one wants to: its quite fun. I'll take it out of the template, though I'm sure the usual suspects will restore it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

William, I think it's good to keep it in the template, provided it stays within the "politics" section. Because though these scientists are obviously quacks, their existence is still a relevant cultural phenomenon. Here's a possible idea: Why not move the information in the above article to Climate change denial? That's what they are, after all. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I disagree with the term "former scientists." See the talkpage there. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the merge; the ideas are distinct. Bear in mind that not all on that list are quacks; Lindzen isn't, for example. Christy isn't. Quite why the idea of a "former scientist" raises such opposition is beyond me (actually, its not beyond me: the explanation is obvious: too many names would be cut from the list if we omitted obvious "formers"). I'm one, for example William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:CltFn

I thought I should inform you that I've indefinitely blocked this user. See the block rationale on the aforementioned user's talk page.--Jersey Devil (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm obliged to agree with you. Thanks for letting me know William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is now an ANI thread about this block. Since you are one of the admins who watched over this editor in the past, maybe you'd like to add something. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I had a look. I would have commented but the decision has already been made in the direction I would have commented on anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you should still comment on it. It seems that some people don't want to listen to the consensus and are going about unblocking the user.--Jersey Devil (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone is Scibaby's sockpuppet

I'm here on behalf of Binky The WonderSkull. You have apparently blocked Binky as being a sock puppet of Scibaby. Why is this? A check of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser told nothing about Scibaby's case. Binky claims no knowledge of who Scibaby is, nor has any idea why you believed them to be the same person and to have abused this priviledge (it's not against Misplaced Pages policy to have more than one user name as long as its not abused, so I'm assuming you believe there was abuse). Could it be because of a shared IP address? I do know that sometimes users share an address, possibly because they use the same computer at school, a dorm, coffee house, library or even home--more than one person from the same house may be an editor--or even because they are given the same IP by an Internet service such as AoL. Some users also use a service that substitutes an IP to make it more difficult for hackers and others to steal from or corrupt their computer (and, in the case of anyone editing from nations such as China, protect them from their own government's effort to stop freedom of the press). Or is it because they've edited similar articles? That could simply be a matter of similar interests--in the admittedly relatively few edits I've made here, I've ran into the same users over and over again. Whether one of these is the reason Binky was blocked or not, I don't know. But I do ask you to reconsider, and also to see if anyone else may have been blocked who is not a sock puppet. Thank you for your kind assistance. Reverend Loveshade (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry to but in) Binky TWS was blocked by Raul654, not WMC. Though I have to say, it is a puzzling block on its face. I see a sporadic edit history, but no common areas/edits of interest (using the wannabekate tool). S/he was blocked on Jan 10, but last edit was Dec 29. . .Also, it appears that Binky's account was created a few months before the Scib and OB accounts. I guess you had better ask Raul. . . R. Baley (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note at Raul's talk page (here). R. Baley (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not me guv, as RB noted. FWIW, I too can't see any obvious reason to suspect a problem William M. Connolley (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Shell

Wholesale deletion of article content is not jusified, no matter how many citations are needed. If such deletions were done, most of the WP article (other than featured) would have no content. Hmains (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)