Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:05, 2 March 2006

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. See-also WMC:3RR.

In the dim and distant past were... /The archives

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).

RRS John Biscoe

I've justed created a stub for this article and found you'd already done the same for her successor, the James Clark Ross. Great!  Do you have (access to) a Commons/Wikipedia-compliant photo of the Biscoe that could be used? Apologies in advance if my search failed to turn one up.
Best wishes, David Kernow 15:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't; I'll ask around a bit William M. Connolley 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If no joy, or too much hassle, I'm hopeful one or other of the Antarctica websites with photos might give permission or adopt a Commons/Wikipedia-friendly licence. David Kernow 22:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please reply at Talk:3RR

My edits were carefully considered, and I intend to restore them, but as it has sat for seven weeks like that, a little discussion first will do no harm. Please join the discussion here. I will ask SlimVirgin, who made the original edit, to do so also. StrangerInParadise 15:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply there. William M. Connolley 17:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

Licorne - thank you!

Welcome to the Licorne show - see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Licorne for details of the show. Thanks for blocking him! You may want to block User:66.194.104.5 too - Licorne used that IP to go on editing the David Hilbert article after you'd blocked him. --Alvestrand 22:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked; semi'd; see DH talk page. William M. Connolley 22:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC).

I didn't see a need for a checkuser unless Licorne explicitly denies being those IPs. The circumstantial evidence of them being the same is so high that it doesn't even seem worth the trouble if nobody contests it. --Fastfission 01:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way -- I'm not exactly sure where this goes now, after the RFC. The user is obviously not interested in making any changes and so it seems just a limited amount of time until he is banned from working on those types of articles for good. Is an entire RFA needed in this instance, where things seem so very clean cut, or is there a way to expedite the inevitable? Let me know what you think about this. --Fastfission 01:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If Licorne has ignored the RFC, and the behaviour continues, and cannot be checked by admin action (which will be easier in future), then you have to go through RFA; balancing the pain of RFA against the pain of disruption. Though to be honest RFA in this case should not be too painful, just a bit protracted. William M. Connolley 09:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

Well, in the end, I filed the preliminary RFA, as you have seen. Fortunately I don't think this will drag out too long, as it is pretty clear that Licorne is constitutionally unable to appear as an editor working in good faith. Thanks for your patience with him and this! I am hoping you at least find it somewhat amusing. --Fastfission 19:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: Licorne's editing as User:67.78.143.226 to avoid your block..... the POV is unmistakable. It's one that he used for a sock puppet vote on the Poincaré page too. --Alvestrand 20:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I *had* just noticed. The POV is deeply suspicious: can you find any diffs to demonstrate its Licorne more clearly? William M. Connolley 20:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Typical POV: - Licorne in his own name: - also note lack of input on any other subject. --Alvestrand 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Its not 100% convincing, but I think its good enough. In fact I've already blocked that IP. William M. Connolley 21:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC).

I haven't seen anyone else claim that Hilbert's remarks are an *obvious* claim on GR. But I keep some notes on the situation at User:Alvestrand/POV-history - that's the notes where I was able to recognize the IP when I saw a Licorne-like POV. Too detailed and incomplete to be much use in the generic discussions, I think. --Alvestrand 21:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjayme blocked

Thanks for taking care of that. I have a feeling that user will be back in some form or another. I was just looking for the Misplaced Pages page on imposters, but haven't been able to find it. Is there a template for that? OhNoitsJamie 18:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. Let me know if you find out... William M. Connolley 18:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Found it {{impersonator|of}} William M. Connolley 19:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

footnotes

Say, sorry to entreat you so blatantly, but can you support and assist me in the measure to convert the global warming page to use footnotes? Of course, the kinks could be worked out and specific issues could be discussed, but I think footnotes would be cleaner in the long run, especially since the page cites Nature in the middle of the text, as well as several pdf's, and it looks a tad ugly in terms of jarring the prose. Footnotes would resolve that somewhat. Do give me your opinion. Thanks! Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm definitely not going to *help* since I don't like them - at least for URL links. I was avoiding weighing in on t:GW too quickly - I'd rather let others give some opinion first William M. Connolley 19:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

Allegation by Haham hanuka

Given your previous allegations at my address, which still go unanswered, I am not very happy that you brought this up in the Misplaced Pages space, in the middle of my request. Now that it is there, I want my name of course cleared as soon as possible. I am very unhappy with your attitude towards me that includes weird things an admin should not say to a hard working user. My questions on this affair have been deleted from your talk page, so I expect the same will happen to this posting. WHY are you doing this to me? Why do I deserve this? gidonb 19:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

HH made the accusation. There is a revert war going on there, to which you are contributing. I made it clear that I express no opinion. This is nothing to wind yourself up about. William M. Connolley 23:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

Mark Bourrie and 3RR question

Thank you for blocking user:Mark Bourrie. Unfortunately he's back at it again, and seems to be using a generic IP user:142.78.64.58.

I've also posted a 3RR question on the Administrator's BB that I think you can answer. --Cyberboomer 23:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman

Don't be intimidated by his threats on his user page to report you for "misconduct". He's obviously chatting complete crap and nobody will back him up. Deskana (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In case you didn't see...

I hope you do not take any drastic action, but I just thought you'd like to see this remark made against you. I have tried to remind Amib to remain civil, let's hope it takes. See you around. --LV 00:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you My Lord (sorry, I just wanted to say that :-). Yes, I saw it, lets hope there are no repeats; not pleasant but. BTW, I blocked for 3RR but you almost seem to have implied that some of the changes were justified. That doesn't excuse breaking 3RR, but I would unblock if you thought it appropriate. William M. Connolley 09:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC).

Sorry for the delayed response. I think there was just some confusion over what the edits really were. They were so ambiguous, they may have been justified, they may not have been. I probably would have requested he be unblocked, but either way, if I am not mistaken, his block has ended, so let's just hope everyone there acts responsibly from here on out (me included... was perhaps a bit harsh). Thanks. --LV 21:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman block

The block was only for 48 hours, so please make sure that it is lifted at the correct time this time. There was an autoblocker problem before. His block should be lifted at 00:18, February 25, 2006 (by my math). Thanks.Gator (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If I'm up then :-). Autoblockers can generally be avoided by not trying to evade the block anonymously, of course :-) William M. Connolley 17:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand. If you're up, if you could keep a special eye on his block so he doesn't get over blocked again, that'd be great. Thanks for all your hard work. Thanks!Gator (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You're being awfully nice to him, esp after his comments on your talk page. Still, I've checked the block log and there is no sign of the autoblocker having kicked in, so he should be OK. I'll probably still be on line then (sigh...), since I think I'm an hour off GMT. William M. Connolley 21:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC).

Do unto others. When iI was young here I made some mistakes and so I have some idea of what he's going through. I wa sable to move on adn become a good editor (I think). I'm just trying my best to end hostilities with him and bring him back into the fold. We'll see if my efforts prove fruitful. Thanks for your energies and for removing the semi-protect. Keep up the good work.Gator (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Checkeruser and Other Info

Mr. Connolley, That IP address could be anyone, since this is a school, yet, Sifu should really not to make an effort to inform others, in an active way, so they can see where I live. I do not use my address anymore, which was when I was new here, and was not aware of the policies. This is a public computer in a school by the way, would this make a difference? Is it not justified that now that I have signed all my previous comments, that I should ask user Siafu to delete the IP address on the Parthia discussion page? Also, the user Codex Sinaiticus may have other usernames, which would not be fair to others, so how can I ``requests for checkuser.``? Do you recommend I should do so? At any rate, I look forward to your response. Thanks again.Zmmz 02:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It could be, and yet its recently been used to make edits eerily similar to yours. checkuser has a backlog, and is only really used for serious vandalism; being able to find it is a necessary hurdle to stop over-use. William M. Connolley 12:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

Rob and NPOV

If you have a moment, would you explain to him that NPOV means that we reflect what scholars in the article's field have to say and that it is not required for a very small minority position even to be mentioned, much less given equal time. He keeps insisting that his standard of evidence must prevail. I will not engage him on this myself, since he does not listen to me.

BTW, please read the exchange on the Robsteadman talk page between he and I. Am I being unreasonable or out of step with wikipedia by trying to moderate discussion in this manner? --CTSWyneken 12:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, since I've blocked Rob twice, I doubt he'll do much to listen to me. I've had issues with people quoting NPOV policy at me in the global warming wars; it went to arbcomm in the end, one way or another. My view of NPOV is that articles mention all *significant* views, but that they should be mentioned in rough proportion to their "popularity". In a scientific article, "popularity" means as-seen-in-the-scientific-journals. And in practice, since skeptic views are such a minority in GW, they actually ge over-weighted in the article. OTOH (the classic case) in an article about the shape of the earth, mentioning the flat-earthers is not necessary. Now, obviously there is a lot of biblical scholarship, and I guess thats one measure of "popularity". But perhaps an article on Jesus also ought to take into account Jesus-as-seen-by-religious-folk? I'm not sure; I haven't read the article.

As to moderating discussion... depending on circumstances you may be better on the article talk page. Having just looked at his talk page, I think you've done your best there. Rob is becoming convinced that there is a cabal against him. You may have to go through WP:RFC to try to sort this out. William M. Connolley 12:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

TSE/BL

Hi there. I'm here because Misplaced Pages isn't an internet forum. My father is an academic (economics) and he never had high opinion of other academics who sit on policy committee or write popular book. He considered them as sellout. I checked your profile and it appear that you are mathematician dealing with climate modelling. Is this same in meteorology? The ones who concentrate on producing research papers are the one you don't hear in "public debate" over global warming?

Um, not quite sure about the thrust of your question. If you mean, what do those climate researchers who don't speak out publicly think, this answer in general is they agree with the IPCC consensus, where it touches their work. I cannot speak for economics, but in climate the scientists involved with IPCC are of the highest quality. You might want to check out my blog if you want my opinions. William M. Connolley 13:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Action on Climate Change

William, could you add this to your watchlist, and be on the look out for James's extreme weather graph. I've already removed it twice today. Dragons flight 17:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, he seems to be having a phase of pushing that again. Still its out now. Thats not a great article, though... William M. Connolley 18:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Little Ice Age

Hi William. Have you ever seen reference to the Little Ice Age beginning something like 4k years ago? I haven't, but I'm not up on the topic. Please see Prometheus (tree) for background as to why I ask the question. Thanks. Jeeb 18:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. jump to the 7th paragraph if you don't want to read the whole thing...Jeeb 18:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

OK: will answer there William M. Connolley 19:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Republic (dialogue)

Hi William, if he's blocked, there's no need for protection, so I've removed it. Thank you for checking with me. :-) Cheers, SlimVirgin 11:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Lou franklin and 3RR

As soon as the block you gave Lou Franklin for 3RR expired he continued his edit war on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality . The impression I get from WP:3RR is that it does not entitle Wikipedians to continually revert three times a day, which is what he's doing. I've already warned him against gaming 3RR in this way on his talk page, and I wonder if you might consider blocking him again to stop his disruption, or at least reinforcing what I told him - I'm not an admin and he apparently considers me part of the gay cabal for helping to revert his POV edits, so a warning from you might carry more weight. --Malthusian (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't block him for that... well I could, but I think it would be dodgy and likely someone would undo it. If he goes on for several days, using just 3RR a day against a clear consensus, then thats disruption and he can be blocked for it. In some things, like this, we sort of feel our way towards the right actions. If you can find a more trigger-happy admin, you could try them. But for the moment, he has been reverted. I'll leave a note on his talk page William M. Connolley 21:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm completely happy with that. You're probably right that this doesn't yet constitute an "excessive case" as it says on WP:3RR. So long as he knows. Well, he should know already, but as long as he can't plead ignorance. --Malthusian (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, after entering it I saw above. I entered it on the 3RR page, so we'll see if another admin picks it up. Thanks, Cleduc 23:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Account Unjustly Blocked

I have discovered that my account "Happyjoe" is blocked from editing due to some sort of misunderstanding over the Big Spring, TX article. I am not sure who to contact within Misplaced Pages Tech Support or management to fix this mistake. Please remove this block so that I may complete necessary editing on other articles. Thank you for your timely assistance in resolving this problem... Happyjoe 69.145.215.206 03:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to check the Happyjoe user page, where you'll see who blocked you, and why. You should contact them. William M. Connolley 21:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You have been deceived, Sir !

By banning me and this poor Rose-Mary as a WP editor, you have been deceived, Sir, by a bunch of guys, who, like a pack of wolves, are biting and vandalizing in alternance any redaction concerning a decipherment, that they hate, of the Phaistos Disk... signed 80.90.57.154, whatever the IP he uses.

nb: moved to 80's talk page William M. Connolley 16:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find it ! (User 80.90.57.154,16:45, 28 February 2006)

Its on Talk:80.90.57.154 your talk page William M. Connolley 16:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be User talk:80.90.57.154? I'm moving it. Lukas 20:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Arghhh! Thanks. William M. Connolley 20:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No a very fair attitude, Mr Connolley. I would have expected the deletion of the information, but without the deletion of the way to discuss between us. Never mind ! I thank you for having listened to my arguments, and will not disturg you, if nothing new happens. (User 80.90.57.154 , 10:27, 1 March 2006)

Editing now as 80.90.38.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). -- Lukas 11:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Only for your information, Sir, allow me to bring you the proof of the collusion between at least two of my adversaries. Here is the exchange they made:

==IAR==

I would agree this is a case for sprotection, if only to impress on 80.90 that prolongued logged-out debates are not good wikiquette; his Rose-mary account may be old enough to allow him to still edit the article, encouraging him to choose and stick with one identity. In any case I am far too involved in this to decide on sprotection, but you are welcome to do it :) dab (ᛏ) 20:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, the problem is, I don't posses the means to semi-protect and even if I did, I'd be too involved. Anyway, if the IP reverts again, it'll be a 3RRvio; if Rose-mary reverts two more times, it'll be a 3RRvio, so keep hoping ;-) The problem is, that he seems to have other accounts; what we do need is a WP:RCU - I think I'll make one (unless one's already been made). --Latinus 20:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW I'm sure if you requested semi-protection, explained the circumstances and reminded uninvolved sysops of IAR and that what we're supposed to be doing here is writing an encyclopaedia, it may work - who knows? They're more likely to grant it if you request it than I or Septentrionalis. --Latinus 20:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

that would be a good way. oops, not anymore, I'd have to request a user check on you now :p seriously, we don't really need it. 3RR is good enough, and 80.90 does show prepared to compromise, it's just very tedious to cut through all the ranting to get there. dab (ᛏ) 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Signed : (User 80.90.57.154 ,17:33, 28 February 2006)

Yes, they are talking together in wiki namespace. If they were colluding, they would be doing it in private by email. I strongly suggest you try to talk about this (concisely) on the articles talk page William M. Connolley 20:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC).

WMC, why do you presume to speak for others?

hello William, you redirect a topic of critisizm of the Kyoto protocol, to a topic of support for the Kyoto protocol, oppose means oppose. --CorvetteZ51 17:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page there, the KP page is not pro-kyoto William M. Connolley 20:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Trinity College, Dublin and WP:3RR

Hello, I see you blocked Metaphysicist for breaching the 3RR, no worries, total agreement there. However, to treat both sides the same, should you not also have blocked Demiurge for the same reason, as he reverted the same article four times in 24 hours (+ a few minutes)? Regards, MartinRe 17:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Answered on 3RR page; see also my answers on my RFadmin :-) William M. Connolley 20:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, saw the reply there, thanks. :) If I ever get to that stage, I'll probably answer the question differently: (*cough* *clears throat*) "If it clear that the user is working against the intent of the rule (i.e. by using reverts as an editing technique) and only following the letter of the law, I would regards that as a breach of 3RR. Every policy that 'allows' X mistakes is open to abuse by users deliberately only making X-1 mistakes, and the best way to stop such abuses is to be liberal in interpretation when the system is obviously being gamed." That's my take on 3RR, but I can understand yours too, as it's clearly defined. Regards, MartinRe 21:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats OK. I know other people think that way, and I wouldn't complain if others block on it - if you skate close to the edge, you shouldn't be surprised if you get into trouble. Some of this is from my own history: but the rules were different in those days. I'm a WP:1RR person nowadays ;-) William M. Connolley 22:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a sound policy - like the internet rfc793: "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others." MartinRe 09:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My block

If you had read my description and checked the diffs reverts 2-4 were reversions of vandalistic blanking. I did not violate the 3rr. (reply on my talk) Seraphim 18:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Answered on your page William M. Connolley 22:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Rose-mary socks

Hi William, I suppose you've noticed Rose-mary/Faucouneau's new activities, within your latest 24-hour block of Rose-mary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the 1-week block of her other IPs, this time as 80.90.37.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Time for a prolonged block of the named account for a month or so, and license to revert anything from 80.90.*.* on sight during that time? Lukas 20:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked for a week William M. Connolley 22:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. But shouldn't Rose-mary herself have her block prolonged too? The IP blocks don't really achieve anything, because he/she evidently gets a fresh IP assigned every day anyway. If we do all agree that 80.90.*.* and Rose-mary are socks of each other, then Rose-mary now deserves the proper punishment for block-evading, and blocking Rose-mary would at least "legally" (if not technically) imply outlawing of all the 80.90.*.* activities too, wouldn't it? Lukas 08:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There is not an awful lot of point in blocking the "true" address if that drives her to anons. Blocked the latest: see PD talk William M. Connolley 16:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Neto

That's fine. I blocked LC right before I went to bed, and only then realized that Neto probably shouldn't have been editing the template at all. Thank you for taking care of my loose ends :).--Sean Black 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

James S.

With reference to your edit, James S. seems to accept the attribution. I left your edit stand; the record is accurate. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

RFAr evidence

In his defense, James was correct in calling Vsmith an SUV-driver, even if all his other accusations were wrong ;) Guettarda 18:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I'd missed that exchange... William M. Connolley 19:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: 3RR

Ok I'll stop, but what would you call this?

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:
• 10th revert:
• 11th revert:

I'd call that quite a few reverts, but it doesn't look like a breach of WP:3RR at first sight. In any even, I'm not going to block based on the article, since I have an interest. I have blocked you for your edits to the 3RR page, though. William M. Connolley 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC).

3rr

I just went to the 3rr page and saw "If you find yourself in a revert war, it is a very good idea to ensure that the "other side" is aware of the 3RR rule, especially if they are new. Please leave a warning about WP:3RR on their talk page." that in the top of the page. I could have sworn it wasn't there earlier, so I checked and much to my amusement you were the person that added it. Why did you add that when you don't believe warnings are necessary? On my 3rr ALR warned me at 5:05 diff. I then went to bed and stopped editing the article because I realized he was going to file a 3rr if I kept going and I didn't want to have to deal with it(my last edit that morning 5:00 am 5 minutes before he sent me the warning). Then when I stopped he still filed it 8 minutes later diff. You might want to change the wording to say that it's ok to place a warning and then immediatly file a 3rr and as long as the warning was there before you filed the 3rr it's ok, and it doesn't matter if they stop once they have been warned. (I'll watch for a reply here) Seraphim 00:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that in general its good practice, which is why I added it yesterday. It has nothing to do with your case (see my note near the end of the 3RR page). But warnings are not *necessary*. William M. Connolley 09:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr Connolley

Hello, we would like to invite you as an admin to have a look at the dispute going on here: Talk:Persian_people, there is some Talk:Persian_people#Compromise.3F taking place, however we fear that once the attackers return, since we don't have any admins viewing the issue, the dispute will not be resolved.

So we appreciate it if you could have a look.

This is part of the incidents, reported here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Aucaman_and_User:Heja_helweda_and_User:Diyako

Regards, --Kash 02:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but it will be half a day at least. William M. Connolley 09:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)